Why is teaching an improper Talmid like throwing a rock at Markulis?

Iyun Yakov: Even though he intends to stone (disgrace or destroy) it, he is liable (Sanhedrin 64a). So one who teaches an improper Talmid, even though he intends to return him to be good, is like one who throws a rock at Markulis. Perishah (YD 246:18) - he intends for a Mitzvah, to disgrace idolatry, and sins. Also one who teaches an improper Talmid, this is Mitzvah ha'Ba b'Aveirah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Maharal (Chulin 133a): He makes a Mizbe'ach; others will pass and think that [Markulis] is important, and the Mizbe'ach was made to honor it. Likewise, one who teaches an improper Talmid is a stumbling block for others.

What was the argument about who may enter the Beis Midrash?

Iyun Yakov: I explained this above (See Biurei Agadah for Berachos 27:2:i:3).

Pesach Einayim: R. Gamliel permitted only if we know that his inside is like his outside, i.e. he does not give a false impression. R. Elazar ben Azaryah permitted anyone, unless we know that he is an imposter.

Megadim Chadashim: The Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:1) says that we teach only a proper Talmid with good deeds, or a Tam. The Kesef Mishneh says that Tam is one whom we do not know his deeds. R. Gamliel and R. Elazar argued about a Tam; Chachamim concluded like R. Elazar. In Avos d'R. Nasan (2:9), Beis Shamai say that we teach only a Chacham, Anav, Ben Avos and Ashir (Girsas Ya'avetz - ha'Same'ach b'Chelko); Beis Hillel say, we teach anyone - many sinners were brought close to Torah, and became Tzadikim, Chasidim and Kesherim. R. Gamliel is like Beis Shamai, but R. Elazar is not like either opinion! The Rashbatz (Magen Avos on Avos 1:1) says that R. Elazar holds like Beis Hillel. Pesach Einayim on Avos there challenged this - R. Elazar permits teaching a Stam Talmid, but not if we know that he sins! He proves that Rashbatz had Nusach 2 of Avos d'R. Nasan, in which Beis Hillel say only 'we teach to anyone'; this does not include known sinners. Also R. Yonah (Avos 1:1) implies that his text did not mention sinners. Also according to our text, we can say that Beis Hillel permit teaching a little to a sinner. One may continue if the Talmid begins to fix his ways, but not if he persists in his rebellion. This is like the Rambam said, that if he goes in a bad path, we return him to the good path, and then bring him to the Beis Midrash. Ta'anis 7a implies that a Rebbi should go to a proper Talmid to teach him; an improper Talmid should come to the Rebbi. And so explains Rashi. However, the Maharsha there explains that one may teach an improper Talmid only after he repented. Salmas Chayim (2:71) says that there discusses a Talmid that we do not know whether or not he is proper.

Note: Avos d'R. Nasan is R. Nasan's version of Pirkei Avos. Even according to our text, R. Elazar ben Azaryah can disagree, and say that Beis Hillel do not permit teaching sinners! (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: There are contradictory sources. In Avos d'R. Nasan, Beis Hillel permit teaching even sinners. In Makos (10a), we say that if a Talmid killed b'Shogeg, his Rebbi is exiled - he should not have taught to an improper Talmid! We say that one who teaches an improper Talmid falls to Gehinom; it is like throwing a rock at Markulis (Chulin 133a; Ein Yakov here brings the latter teaching). Yachel Yisrael (1:2) says that the Rambam calls one with proper Midos (in the middle, between the extremes) a proper Talmid. I say that the Rambam calls 'Tam' one who is not cunning to scheme. If we see that his deeds are proper, we assume that his inside is similar, like R. Elazar. R. Gamliel was stringent to require that we know that also his inside is proper.

Megadim Chadashim: In Makos (10a), it says 'from here we learn that one may not teach an improper Talmid.' Rashi (Pesachim 48a) says that 'from here' is not a proof; it is a support. I resolved many questions of Acharonim via this. In Makos, Iyun Yakov said that if the Rebbi teaches many, and one is improper, we do not make many lose due to one sinner. If the majority of Talmidim are proper, we are not concerned if an improper Talmid is among them. This is why R. Elazar ben Azaryah let everyone enter, for the majority were proper. We can say that he and R. Gamliel argue about this. However, this is unlike Rishonim that I cited above. Pesach Einayim (Avos 1:3) says oppositely; the concern for an improper Talmid is when he is among others

What is the significance of a white cistern full of ashes?

Rashi: This shows that the added Talmidim were improper.

Rav Elyashiv: Every Halachah was explained that day! [R. Gamliel understood that] even though the added Talmidim were not proper, they caused added debate and sharpness - 'I learned from my Talmidim more than from all of [my Rebbeyim and colleagues]' (see Rashi Makos 10a DH Lo). The true Chachamim decided the Halachah.

Note: Even if the added Talmidim were improper, they brought a great clarity of Torah. R. Gamliel should have regretted that he withheld this! (PF)

Maharsha: This is like a Talmid whose inside is unlike his outside. Externally, the Kli is white and complete, but inside is only ashes - something lowly and improper. In Yoma (72b) we say that a Talmid whose inside is unlike his outside is one who engages in Torah, but lacks Yir'as Shamayim. We do not distinguish 'Talmid' there from 'Talmid Chacham' here.

Megadim Chadashim: Shitah Mekubetzes says, it is because Chachamim used to wear white clothing. Rashi (Kidushin 72a) says so about Chachmei Bavel.

Did Hash-m show to R. Gamliel something false?

Pesach Einayim: Really, the dream showed like R. Elazar, that only one who is known to be full of ashes (an imposter) may not enter. To settle R. Gamliel's mind, Hash-m showed to him something that he would misinterpret to support his policy.)

What is included via 'whenever it says 'Bo ba'Yom'?'

Megadim Chadashim: Rav Nisim Ga'on (Shabbos 153b), R. Chananel (ibid.), the Aruch (Machak) and Me'iri (Shabbos 13b) say that 'Bo ba'Yom' (on the day that R. Elazar was appointed), they decreed '18 matters' in the attic of Chananyah ben Chizkiyah when Chachamim came to visit him. They counted, and found that Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel (Shabbos 13b). The Magihah in the Me'iri asked, Chananyah ben Chizkiyah died before the Churban; R. Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed after the Churban! Tosfos (Pesachim 19b) says that the 18 matters were before R. Akiva!

Note: It is difficult to say that they came to visit Chananyah, and found that he had died, and learned in his attic. Further, the Gemara says that they added 400 or 700 benches, i.e. to the Beis Midrash in which they regularly learned! Further, Beis Hillel held that the Halachah follows them, for they were the majority (Yevamos 14a; Beis Shamai held that the Halachah follows themselves, for they were sharper). After all Talmidim were allowed to enter, how did Beis Shamai outnumber Beis Hillel? And why do we say that [only] 18 matters were decreed that day? All of Maseches Eduyos was taught and accepted that day! R. Chananel and the Aruch said only that the Heter [for one carrying his wallet in Reshus ha'Rabim when Shabbos enters] to carry less than four Amos at a time (Shabbos 153b) was Bo ba'Yom. One of the 18 matters was that one should ask a Nochri to carry it home for him (Shabbos 17b). Some Meforshim equate these, and say that R. Chananel and the Aruch refer to that one of the 18 matters. Perhaps this is because even a greater Beis Din cannot nullify the 18 matters (Avodah Zarah 36a). I say that the Heter was given later, but it was not Bitul. Also in the 18 matters, they permitted carrying less than four Amos at a time, just they did not publicize this. Bo ba'Yom, they publicized this Heter. However, Rav Nisim Ga'on and Me'iri explicitly hold that the 18 matters were Bo ba'Yom. It is a Mitzvah to resolve this! (PF)

What is the significance that even R. Gamliel attended?

Ha'Kosev: This teaches that one should not persist in an argument. He should honor Emes. Even though everyone saw that R. Yehoshua permitted what R. Gamliel forbade, he humbled himself and went to appease R. Yehoshua.

What is the Heter 'one who separates, he comes from the majority'?

Daf Al ha'Daf: We assume that he is from the majority of nations, whose converts may marry into Yisrael. Minchas Chinuch (561:8) asked, we follow the majority when a man went to a woman's house [and they had Bi'ah], but if she went to his house, the Safek is Kavu'a. It is like an even Safek, and we are stringent! He answers that his nation is relevant only after conversion; at conversion, he separated from the majority. He asked, since he converted in front of Beis Din, he separated from the mixture in front of us; this is like Kavu'a! Noda bi'Yhudah (2 EH 42) says that we follow the majority only for what pertains to Yisrael, but not for Goyim. Minchas Chinuch (2) asked, if so, every Goy should be obligated in Milah, lest he is from Bnei Keturah!

What is the question from "v'Shavti Es Shevus Ami Yisrael"? Perhaps Amon already returned, but Yisrael did not return yet!

Megadim Chadashim citing Hosafos to Rishon l'Tziyon (Yadayim 4:4): Tanchuma (Metzora 4) says, Hash-m did not want to exile Yisrael before other nations, lest they be disgraced. Therefore, He caused Sancheriv to exile nations, lest they call Yisrael 'exiles'. (Note: Therefore, Hash-m would not return Amon before Yisrael. - PF)

Does the same apply to converts from Egypt?

Me'iri: I say that the same applies to converts from Egypt, like I explained in Yevamos (76b).

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Yere'im (7: 309(303)): R. Akiva says that also Egypt was scattered, but the Halachah follows R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua, who argue with him (Tosefta Yadayim Perek 2) and say that they returned to their land after 40 years (Yechezkel 29:13). The Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah Perek 14) rules like R. Akiva.

What is a Pachmi?

Rashi #1: He makes wicks.

Rashi #2: He is a smith.

What is the significance of R. Gamliel's inference that R. Yehoshua is a Pachmi, and his reply 'woe to the generation led by you - you do not know the pain of Chachamim'?

Tashbatz 1:142 #1: R. Yehoshua was Av Beis Din, so he could not work in public (Kidushin 70a). Therefore, R. Gamliel did not know his job until he entered his house. R. Yehoshua said, the Nasi should investigate to know how Chachamim support themselves! When R. Yehoshua told him about two great Chachamim who lack food and clothing, R. Gamliel appointed them leaders, so the Tzibur will support them (Horayos 10a)! The Tzibur is obligated to support Chachamim of the generation according to their honor and the honor of their Torah, unlike the Rambam said (Avos 4:5).

Tashbatz 1:142 #2: R. Yehoshua was not truly a smith, just he was not wealth, like is proper for the Av Beis Din. His house was black. R. Gamliel asked why he does not beautify his house, like is proper for a leader. R. Yehoshua said that he should have investigated to know whether he is rich or poor. However, the Yerushalmi explicitly says that he was a Pachmi.

Megadim Chadashim: Tosfos (Kidushin 27a) says that R. Yehoshua was poor, like it connotes here. Alternatively, he had 200 Zuz, but he was able to receive Ma'aser Rishon because he was not rich. Tosfos Chachmei Angliyah (27b) says that he was rich. He engaged in work lest his wealth be depleted. Ya'avetz (Tefilas Yesharim 14b) says that he was wealthy, for he redeemed R. Yishmael ben Elisha for a large sum of money. Megadim Chadashim - perhaps the money was not his! Horayos 10a proves that he was not wealthy (Rashi explained, R. Gamliel said 'you know so much, and you need to go on a boat for food?!')

Note: If he was rich, would he engage in work lest his wealth be depleted? Is this not like one who has bread, and asks 'what will I eat tomorrow' - he has little Emunah (Sotah 48b)! (PF)

What is the significance of 'one who wears the garment should wear the garment. One who does not wear the garment, should he tell the one wearing the garment 'remove your garment, and I will wear the garment'?!'

Rashi: The one who normally wears the Nasi's robe, i.e. he is normally the Nasi, should be Nasi.

Maharsha: Mada is an esteemed garment that kings wear - "va'Yalbesh Sha'ul Es David Madav" (Shmuel I, 17:38). R. Gamliel was from the Nesi'im and the kings of Yehudah, unlike R. Elazar, who was a Kohen. Kingship is proper only for Bnei Yehudah - "Lo Yasur Shevet mi'Yehudah" refers to the Roshei Galuyos in Bavel; "U'Mchokek mi'Bein Raglav" refers to the (Nesi'im, the) descendants of Hillel. R. Yehoshua came to teach that according to letter of the law, Nesi'us should return to R. Gamliel. A Kohen should not be Nasi - the Chashmona'im (Kohanim) were punished for taking kingship, which belongs to David's seed (Ramban Bereishis 49:10)!

What is the significance of 'a Mazeh ben Mazeh should sprinkle - will one who is not a Mazeh nor a Ben Mazeh tell the Mazeh that his ashes are oven ashes?!'

Rashi: Mazeh ben Mazeh is a Kohen ben Kohen - he sprinkles Mei Chatas. Oven ashes are Stam ashes (they are not Mekadesh water to become Mei Chatas).

Rashash, Rav Elyashiv: Even though a Zar may sprinkle (Yoma 43b), Kohanim normally sprinkled and were Mekadesh Mei Chatas. Megadim Chadashim - so says Rashi (Bechoros 29a DH Af Al Pi).

Maharsha: R. Yehoshua said so to appease R. Elazar. Kehunah was given to Bnei Aharon. It is forbidden to others, even to kings. Melech Uziyah became a Metzora for doing an Avodah of Kohanim! Just like another may not impinge on Kehunah, which is yours, you may not impinge on Nesi'us, which is proper for R. Gamliel. He said 'will he tell... that his water is cave water, and his ashes' - we must believe a Kohen about them, i.e. what is proper for sprinkling. So we should not be meticulous about R. Gamliel, regarding what pertains to his Nesi'us.

Why did R. Akiva say that they will go early to R. Gamliel's door?

Maharsha: This is like people go early to the door of kings and important people. This will show that we want to reinstate him. If we will go, everyone will go with us!

If one was appointed to a position of honor in place of one who was deposed, when may we depose him?

Me'iri (27): It is only if there is a reason [why he is not proper for the position], or if they agree to reinstate the first. In the latter case, we do not totally depose him, rather, we leave him to be like a partner in the position.

Tosfos (Yoma 13a): If one was appointed over the Tzibur, and ceased due to Ones, when the Ones passes, he returns to his position. We honor also his replacement, like we find regarding R. Elazar ben Azaryah.

Mishnah Berurah (153:115), Sha'ar ha'Tziyun (99): After the first returns, the replacement has no share in the position, due to enmity. R. Elazar ben Azaryah did not keep any share in Nesi'us. However, we do not disgrace him; we give to him some appointment of honor over the Tzibur. If he was demoted due to an Aveirah, even b'Shogeg, he does not return to his position, like we say about a Shogeg murderer who returned from his Ir Miklat. Eliyahu Rabah was unsure - perhaps this is only for a murderer.

Megadim Chadashim: R. Elazar ben Azaryah did not remain Nasi, just he was allowed to expound once a month. The Yerushalmi says that he became Av Beis Din. Mar'eh ha'Panim says that the Bavli agrees; the Av Beis Din used to expound one week out of four. The Yerushalmi in Pesachim (6:1) counts R. Elazar among three who left their crowns in this world, and inherited the world to come. Tosfos (Sanhedrin 11b) says that he remained a partner with R. Gamliel in Nesi'us; surely this is imprecise; R. Gamliel was merely humble to consider his opinion for Ibur Shanah. However, the Ran there says that R. Gamliel could not do anything without R. Elazar. Maharsha (Yevamos 16a) says that R. Yehoshua remained Av Beis Din, and R. Elazar ben Azaryah remained Nasi.

Note: We can learn Tosfos simply, that R. Elazar remained a partner in Nesi'us. There is no reason why R. Yehoshua should be demoted from being Av Beis Din! (PF)

Here they said 'we ascend in Kedushah, and we do not descend.' They deposed R. Gamliel!

Iyun Yakov: That was because he mistreated R. Yehoshua. If he did not do improperly, we do not demote him. Even though R. Elazar ben Azaryah was lowered, and in the end he expounded only once a month, this is not called descending. Even for Hash-m, 'if Yisrael would receive Hash-m's countenance once a month, this would suffice' (Sanhedrin 42a)!

Why did they enact that R. Gamliel will expound three weeks, and R. Elazar on the fourth?

Maharsha: Really, they should have alternated one week each, just then there would be envy. To evade envy, it would suffice that R. Gamliel will expound two weeks, and R. Elazar on the third! I do not know why they enacted three weeks and one week.

Etz Yosef, Mesores ha'Shas: The text should say 'R. Gamliel will expound two weeks, and R. Elazar one', like the Rambam says in Perush ha'Mishnayos, introduction to Yevamos.

Megadim Chadashim: The Rambam did not say so, rather, the one who copied his Perush said so. (Note: The text in Ein Yakov says 'two weeks', and also in Igeres Rav Sherira Gaon (83), Yad Ramah (Sanhedrin 11b) and Dikdukei Soferim . - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Since the reason to depose R. Gamliel ceased, it was proper to return him totally. In order that R. Elazar not descend in Kodesh, it sufficed that he expound once a month. If he would expound more than this, there would be envy!

Why does the Gemara say that R. Shimon asked whether Ma'ariv is Chovah or Reshus?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Even if it is Reshus, one should omit it only due to a Mitzvah Overes (its time will pass). This is rare. However, R. Shimon learned constantly; he did not cease in order to earn money. For him, every moment is a Mitzvah Overes of Talmud Torah! If Ma'ariv is Reshus, he is exempt.

Megadim Chadashim: Initially he was called 'a Talmid', for this was in his youth. The Ya'avetz (Tefilas Yesharim 24a) says that it had to be when he was a Talmid. R. Shimon and his colleagues do not interrupt even for Tefilas Chovah (Shabbos 11a)!

Whom does R. Yochanan call a transgressor?

Rashi: One who delays [Musaf] so much (after seven hours).

Is it proper to serve for the sake of reward?

Tosfos: (Rosh Hashanah 4a DH Bishvil): 'Do not be like servants who serve in order to receive payment' applies to the nations, who regret their [good] deeds [if they do not receive the reward that they hoped for].

Maharsha: The text of Tosfos must say [one who serves] 'like' the nations. You cannot say that Avos 1:3 applies only to Goyim. Tzadok and Baisus erred due to it (to think that there is no reward for Mitzvos)!

Pesach Einayim: One should not do obligatory Mitzvos for the sake of reward. R. Zeira did not need to stand for Rabanan smaller than himself. Such a Mitzvah one may do for the sake of reward.

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi said that he will stand for the Talmidim. The Chiyuv is only to stand for one greater than himself. Even so, it is praiseworthy to honor those who learn Torah, and strengthen them via this.

Rav Elyashiv: If one was not obligated to do a Mitzvah, he may bring himself to be obligated in order to receive reward. Megadim Chadashim citing Maharsha (Sotah 14a) - therefore, it was proper that Moshe wanted to enter Eretz Yisrael to receive reward for its Mitzvos. Ben Yehoyada gives this answer, and also that one may do Mitzvos in order to become wise. This is not called seeking reward in this world or in the world to come. This is a need of engaging in Torah!

Note: According to this, we can say that he stood for Rabanan greater than himself, unlike Rav Elyashiv inferred from Rashi that he stood for Talmidim lower than himself. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Bnei Yisaschar (Sivan 5:14): The Zohar expounds "Mipnei Seivah Takum v'Hadarta Pnei Zaken v'Yareisa me'Elokecha" - the reward of this Mitzvah is Yir'as Shamayim, therefore one may do it for the reward). Also Charedim (Aseh 6:5-6) and the Chida (Devash l'Fi Kuf 49) say that the reward is Yir'as Shamayim. Such a Mitzvah, one must seek its reward! Hagahos R. Katzenelenbogen says that one who loves Rabanan, he will have sons who are Rabanan. One should seek such reward!

Megadim Chadashim citing Yalkut ha'Gershoni (Reish Parashas Pinchas): If the Yetzer ha'Ra does not rule over a person, he may serve in order to receive reward - we are not concerned lest he regret his Mitzvos. Ahavas Yehonason (Haftoras Shabbos Chanukah) cites from the Zohar that one who died and returned to life miraculously, the Yetzer ha'Ra does not rule over him. R. Zeira died on Purim, and returned to life (Megilah 7b). Megadim Chadashim - I did not find this in the Zohar.

Note: Can one return to life without a miracle?! Perhaps he excludes one who seemed to die, and it turns out that he did not die. All of Bnei Yisrael (except for Moshe) died at Matan Torah, and they were revived, and the Yetzer ha'Ra ruled over many of them (Chet ha'Egel, Mislonenim, Slav, Bnos Midyan...)?! (PF)

Did R. Zeira ask about any particular Halachah?

Rashi: He asked who said that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah.

What is the question 'because it is unique, or because it is new'?

Rashi: Is this the only law that you heard in the name of R. Yochanan, and therefore it is dear to you? Or, is it new to you - you thought that someone else said so?

What suggests that the verse discusses delaying the times of the prayers?

Rashi: "Mi'Mo'ed" - because they passed (missed) the times of the prayers and Chagim, they will be Nogim and eradicated.

Tosfos: It cannot discuss the festivals themselves. Delay does not apply to them - there is no compensation for them! Rather, it discusses Tefilah.

Maharsha: Rav Yosef discusses the Mo'adim themselves, like Rashi said. However, they expounded it about Tefilas Musaf, which is also during the Mo'ed in place of Korban Musaf. One who delays it after its time, i.e. seven hours, will be broken. We bring from Rav Yosef only that "Nugi" refers to breakage.

Note: R. Yehudah permits Musaf only until seven hours. In some texts, this is not in our Mishnah, but it is in the Gemara (26b). (PF)

Here, we say that "Nugi" refers to breakage. Below, regarding one who delays Shacharis after four hours, we expound "Nugi" to be an expression of pain!

Maharsha: Delaying Shacharis is not so severe, for one can fix missing Shacharis - he can pray Nedavah. However, one cannot pray Musaf Nedavah - "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal Liskon" (Koheles 1:15).

Tzlach: I was unsure whether there is Tashlumin (compensation) for Musaf. It seems that there is not, and this is why missing Musaf is breakage, and missing Shabbos is only pain. However, Tosfos implies that there is Tashlumin for Musaf.

Rav Elyashiv: R. Yehudah holds that Tefilas Musaf cannot be after seven hours, just like Korban Musaf. It is not clear what is his source. Tzlach brought a source for Tashlumin for Musaf - it says "uv'Yom ha'Shabbos", the entire day. However, R. Yonah said at the start of our Perek that there is no compensation for Musaf, for it is not [a request for] mercy, rather, praise.

Iyun Yakov: One who slept late and missed Shacharis, this is laziness. Musaf is in the middle of the day. One who missed it was Poshe'a, which is worse.

Rav Elyashiv: For other Tefilos, one who prays Tashlumin, he lost only reward of Tefilah in its time. Even if there is Tashlumin for Musaf, he lost the essence of the Tefilah - the Korban. After Minchah, he prays another Minchah, and mentions afterwards the verses of Musaf. The Tefilah itself is not Musaf. This is "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal Liskon"!

Are these Tefilos obligatory?

Perush ha'Mishnayos: Yes. Me'iri - R. Nechunyah teaches that one must recognize that he needs Hash-m's help, and his thoughts should constantly be on Avodas Hash-m.

Yabi'a Omer (4 DH Ad) OC 21:4): The Rambam infers from 'what does he say?' It does not say 'R. Nechunyah used to say...' Daf Al ha'Daf - this is unlike Tosfos (21b DH Ad), who says that there is no Chiyuv to say Modim d'Rabanan. Ma'adanei Yom Tov (3:18:70) - even though it says in Sotah (39b) 'the Am, what do they say?...', it is a mere custom; Chachamim did not obligate it.

What is the significance of 'no Takalah should come through me... I thank Hash-m for my portion'?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: One who comes to purify himself, [Shamayim] helps him (Yoma 38b). Hash-m helps one to choose good. Everyone has his portion in Torah; it is a gift from Hash-m, so he should not glorify himself about it. He must thank for it. He gets it after exertion. Hash-m does not help to do evil; He merely opens the opportunity. 'No Takalah should come through me' - it would be totally due to me.

Why did he say both 'no Takalah come through me' and 'I should not stumble in Halachah'?

Chashukei Chemed citing Ben Yehoyada: Stumbling is when he gives the wrong ruling. Takalah is when the ruling was correct, but there was deception, e.g. the witnesses erred. There were several such cases. Once, the Beis Yosef forbade an Agunah, and the Rema permitted her and signed his name on this. The Magid told the Beis Yosef that he was correct, for the witnesses testified via estimation, but the day that the Rema signed to permit her, her husband died elsewhere.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Derech Sichah p.487: The Rambam says twice 'Lo Echashel.' The first time is lest someone sin via my mistake. The latter is even if no sin will result, e.g. the person will ask others who rule differently, or the ruling will not arise in practice, still I should not err and others will rejoice over me.

Why did he say both 'I should not stumble in Halachah...' and 'I should not say 'Tahor' about what is Tamei...'

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chidushei ha'Rim: A case occurred in which the Ohr ha'Chayim was about to permit an Agunah, but he found it hard to say the word 'Muteres', and in the end her [allegedly dead] husband came. Once, R. Sham'alki had difficulty saying 'Kosher', and a different defect was found that made the animal Tereifah

What was his Tefilah about his peers rejoicing?

Rashi: I should not err, and my peers will rejoice over my error.

Maharsha: My peers should rejoice over me, that I did not err! One of the 48 Kinyanim of Torah is that he makes people rejoice. Similarly, I should rejoice over them, that they did not err.

Megadim Chadashim: Avos 6:1 says that one who learns Torah Lishmah makes people rejoice. This is not among the 48 Midos via which Torah is acquired (ibid. 5-6); it does include there Simchah. A better source is Eruvin 53a. David was Gali Masechta - "Yere'echa Yir'uni v'Yismechu" (people delight, for he obtains the correct Halachah).

Anaf Yosef citing Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (OC 208): We find that Rava corrected Rav Ilish, and said 'I know that you never ruled incorrectly; Hash-m sent me to save you!' (Rashbam, Bava Basra 133b) Rava rejoiced that he saved him. R. Nechunyah prayed that he not need others to save him, and they will rejoice. Rav Elyashiv - even in such a case, there is some sin in others' Simchah.

Who are 'those who sit in corners'?

Rashi #1: They are grocers.

Rav Elyashiv: He does not come to degrade grocers who earn a living. Rather, one who learns Torah can guard himself from wasting time, even moments. A grocer does not use time when he does not engage [in business]; some of his time is wasted,

Rashi #2: They are ignoramuses who engage in conversation.

What is the significance of 'I toil and they toil'?

Maharsha: It says in Sanhedrin (99b) "Ki Adam l'Amal Yulad" - was man created to toil with his mouth or in work? (We answer, with his mouth.) Was he created to toil in Torah or in Sichah? We say there "Nefesh Amel Amlah Lo Ki Achaf Alav Pihu" - he toils here, and Torah toils for him elsewhere. So it says, I toil and receive reward - Torah toils for him in this world, and I run to life in the world to come - the future reward.

Note: People say in the name of the Chafetz Chaim that others are not rewarded for their toil if it did not succeed, e.g. he tried to build or fix something, and failed. One who toiled in Torah gets reward for his toil, even if he did not understand! (PF)

Why does it say 'I run to life in the world to come, and they run...'? It already said 'I toil and receive reward, and they toil...'!

R. Yonah: 'I run to life in the world to come' means that I realize that I approach death, so I prepare for myself provisions for the world to come. They do not sense their death at all, until the time of death, and do not prepare for themselves provisions for their journey.

What are 'the ways of life'?

Anaf Yosef: The path on which we will tread in the corridor of Beis Hash-m, in order to inherit Eretz ha'Chayim (in the world to come).

Why did they add and 'we will merit via them the world to come'?

Anaf Yosef: Afterwards, we will go from Eretz ha'Chayim to the interior of Heichal Hash-m. The first two matters (being careful about Kevod Chaverim and withholding Banim from Higayon) will bring You to the corridor; the latter two (seating Banim by Chachamim and knowing in front of Whom you pray) will bring you inside Heichal Hash-m - eternal clinging to Him.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: Obviously, 'the ways of life' are the path to the world to come! However, some merit the world to come only after death, and others merit 'you will see your world in your lifetime' (17a). The primary world to come is understanding Hash-m and clinging to Him. One who does a Mitzvah in this world with great love and desire, he clings to the Shechinah in this world. This is a higher level than the world to come, in which there is only reward, but no fulfillment of Mitzvos. Real life is the world to come; for commoners, this world is merely Orchos (the way to) Chayim. Talmidei R. Eliezer asked how to taste true life while on the path.

Why did R. Eliezer say 'be careful about the honor of your colleague'?

Maharsha: So he said in Avos (2:10) 'your colleague's honor should be as dear to you as your honor.'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He was scalded via his colleagues - they excommunicated him! He hinted that they did improperly.

Rav Elyashiv: Rif holds that this was R. Eliezer ha'Gadol, before he died. This is difficult. R. Akiva and R. Yehoshua [and others] came to visit him before he died; he asked them why they did not come until now (Sanhedrin 68a). This shows that they had ceased learning from him, for it is hard to be careful [not to transgress Hilchos Niduy]. Here they came to learn Orchos Chayim! Perhaps here was before the Niduy. Ramban (Bava Metzi'a 59b) says that they had put him in Cherem, and not mere Niduy, therefore [it says in Sanhedrin that] they did not want to learn from him.

Megadim Chadashim: The Gemara discusses Chachamim coming to learn from R. Eliezer here, and in Sanhedrin 68a (he died that day) and 101a; Maharsha says that both of them were the same episode. Radal (introduction to Pirkei d'R. Eliezer) says that the episode here was the day that he died. It seems that all three episode are the same, just the Gemara broke it up into three parts.

Anaf Yosef: The Ramban (introduction to Perek Chelek) says that one who gets honor from his colleague's disgrace, he has lowly Midos; he is not proper to inherit in Hash-m's portion.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: 'Your colleague' refers to Hash-m, like Rashi (Shabbos 31a) explained the Nochri who requested to learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel told him 'do not do to Chavercha what is hateful to you.' Rashi said, Chavercha is "Re'acha v'Re'a Avicha Al Ta'azov" (Mishlei 27:10), i.e. Hash-m. Also here, do not intend in Torah and Mitzvos for your honor, to get reward in this world or the world to come. Rather, intend to increase Hash-m's honor, to be a pleasant spirit in front of His Kisei ha'Kavod, that His will was done. This is not only for fulfilling Mitzvos - it is even for refraining from Lavim. This is true clinging - a strong tie that will remain in the world to come.

Megadim Chadashim citing Radal (introduction to Pirkei d'R. Eliezer): He saw [through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh] that R. Akiva's Talmidim will die due to not honoring each other, therefore he warned about this.

Megadim Chadashim citing the introduction to Nefesh ha'Chayim, from the author's son: Be careful about the honor of your colleagues, not to get haughty due to the honor that they show to you. The RaSh of Nikolsburg similarly explained 'your colleague's honor should be dear to you like your own' - honor that he gives to you, considered it as if you honored yourself. One does not feel haughty from honoring himself!

What is Higayon?

Rashi #1: It is Mikra. They should not spend too much time on it, for it draws people.

Maharsha: One might have thought that they should be idle. Therefore, he adds, seat them between the knees of Chachamim. Even if they are too young for Mishnah and Talmud, they will absorb good Midos from Chachamim - "Chanoch l'Na'ar..." (Mishlei 22:6). Rif (on the Ein Yakov) - even if they do not know now, Torah will come from them in the end of days.

Ha'Kosev: It is speech without understanding. They repeat many times the verse read to them.

Rashi #2: It is children's talk.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Torah will come from children of Amei ha'Aretz - "Yizal Mayim mi'Dalyav" (Bamidbar 24:7).

Note: Nedarim 81a expounds so about Bnei Aniyim from this verse. (PF)

Me'iri: It is explaining a verse simply when this leads to a matter of denial.

Iyun Yakov: It is doing actions via Kodesh names. 'Higayon' is like 'Hogeh (he pronounces) Hash-m's name with its letters.'

Anaf Yosef: It is logic - the beginning of philosophy. Before a youth knows to despise evil and choose good, he should learn only Hash-m's laws. Afterwards, seat them between the knees of Chachamim, to learn Chochmas Elokus.

Ha'Kosev: Do not say that Higayon is philosophy. Philosophy is a glorified Chochmah also for Talmud Torah. Chachamim said to withhold your children from Chochmas Yevanis. However, here it does not discuss this, for it did not say 'Chochmah'.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: Even those who have errant mindsets, they learn from Mikra for the sake of the language, like they learn other languages. If you will oversee your son only regarding Mikra, perhaps you will choose such a teacher, for also they know to teach it, and your son will be drawn after his errant mindsets! Rather, train your son according to the ways of Torah. Take a teacher who is a Chacham, and immediately train [your son] also in Mishnah and Gemara.

Note: This is unlike Avos 5:21 - a five year-old learns Mikra, a 10 year-old learns Mishnah, a 15 year-old learns Gemara...! (PF)

Why did he say 'know in front of Whom you stand (Girsas Ein Yakov - pray)'?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One Kel created all of us. You need His mercy and Chesed, just like your colleague. Do not conduct with authority over him!

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: This is like Chovos ha'Levavos says, if one contemplates his lowliness compared to someone greater than himself, and the greater person's lowliness compared to early Ge'onim, and their lowliness compared to Amora'im, and Amora'im compared to Tana'im, and Tana'im compared to Nevi'im, and Nevi'im compared to angels, like Yehoshua, who fell on his face [in front of an angel], and the angels are like nothing compared to Hash-m. When one stands to pray, he understands that he stands in front of Hash-m, i.e. how far he is from Him.

Tzlach: Intend like the simple meaning of the words. Do not intend for Midos or Sefiros. In this way, there is no stumbling block, and you will be rewarded for refraining, and merit the world to come. Those who pray based on secrets, they risk punishment!

Why did R. Yochanan ben Zakai start to cry only after he saw his Talmidim?

Ha'Kosev: This was to teach them to fear sin and be zealous to fulfill Devar Hash-m.

Lev Eliyahu (1 p.129, citing R. Simchah Zisal): Surely he knew that he fulfilled the entire Torah and all fine points of Mitzvos! He was concerned lest he did not train his Talmidim enough.

Why did they call him 'the lamp of Yisrael'?

Maharsha: This is in Mitzvos - "Ki Ner Mitzvah v'Sorah Or" (Mishlei 6:23).

Iyun Yakov: He was the head, the Nasi; also Eli ha'Kohen and David ha'Melech were called Ner Yisrael.

Rav Elyashiv: They wanted to show to him that a Tzadik like him need not worry before death.

Why did they call him 'the right pillar'?

Rashi: Shlomo erected two pillars in the Ulam - Yachin on the right and Bo'az on the left (Melachim I, 7:21). The right is always more esteemed.

Maharsha: He was the pillar of his generation. He saved many Tzadikim in Aspanyanus' Churban (Gitin 56a).

Note: Perhaps he refers to requesting that Aspanyanus not strike Chachamim in Yavneh. (PF)

Iyun Yakov: The Torah was given via the right hand. It is as if they said 'the pillar of Torah.'

Why did they call him 'the strong hammer'?

Maharsha: This refers to Torah - "uch'Patish Yefotzetz Sela" (Yirmeyahu 23:29).

Iyun Yakov: He enacted fixed Takanos, and fixed them with nails, and made a Mishmeres (guarding) for a Mishmeres to strengthen Yisrael. This is why Chizkiyah came to accompany him. He was called Chizkiyah because Chizek (he strengthened) Yisrael to serve Hash-m (Sanhedrin 94a).

Why would R. Yochanan ben Zakai cry if he had to come in front of a mortal king?

Rashi: He would cry due to fear.

How could he say 'I could bribe [a mortal king] with money'? This is forbidden even to a Nochri, who is commanded about Dinim. Bribery transgresses "v'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" (Vayikra 19:14)!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Birkas Aharon (236): He said that he could do so, even though it is forbidden [and he would not do so]. Tosfos (Shabbos 127b DH Kivan) says that Terumah is called proper for a Zar, even though an Isur rests on it.

Why is Hash-m called 'the King of kings of kings'?

Megadim Chadashim citing R. Bechayei (Avos 3:1): Hash-m is King over the angels above, who are called kings - "Malchei Tzevakos Yidodun Yidodun" (Tehilim 68:13; when Yisrael heard Hash-m at Matan Torah, they retreated, and angels nudged them back - Shabbos 88b). These kings (angels) are appointed over kings below.

Megadim Chadashim citing Chasam Sofer (Stern Edition, Bamidbar p.4): Yisrael are "Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh" (Shemos 19:6). In our sins, we are handed over to Nochri kings - they are kings of kings, and Hash-m is King over them.

Megadim Chadashim citing Kedushas Levi (2, Likutim p.325): A Tzadik is called king of kings, for he rules over Hash-m to nullify His decrees. Hash-m is called the King of kings of kings, Yisrael are "Mamleches Kohanim v'Goy Kadosh" (Shemos 19:6). In our sins, we are handed over to Nochri kings - they are kings of kings, and Hash-m is King over them.

Megadim Chadashim citing Magen Elokim: The Galgalim rule over the lower world, and angels rule over the Galgalim, so Hash-m is King over kings of kings.

Why did he say 'if He gets angry at me, it is permanent'?

Etz Yosef citing Vilna Gaon (Mishlei 11:5): Three judgments pass over a person after death - Kaf ha'Kela, Gehinom and death. 'His anger' is the fire of Gehinom. 'If He imprisons me' is Kaf ha'Kela. This includes Gilgul. They confine him there, and he cannot leave. 'If He kills me' is death. This explains "Ki Hitzalti Nafshi mi'Maves" - death; "Es Eini Min Dim'ah" is Gehinom, like it says "Overei b'Emek ha'Bacha Mayan Yeshisuhu" (Tehilim 84:7) - his eyes cast down tears like a spring. "Es Ragli mi'Dechi" is Gilgul Nefashos in inanimate, vegetative, living and speaking (human).

What is the significance of 'I cannot appease Him with words nor bribe Him with money'?

Maharsha, Etz Yosef citing Vilna Gaon (Mishlei 11:5): In this world, one can appease Hash-m with words (Tefilah) and bribe Him with money - "u'Tzdakah Tatzil mi'Maves" (Mishlei 10:2). These do not apply to the judgment in the world to come.

What was R. Yochanan ben Zakai's concern lest he go to Gehinom?

Ha'Kosev: This great Tzadik had Divine visions just before death - surely he did not fear going to Gehinom, even for a moment, only lest his path to Gan Eden be close to Gehinom. He cried to teach his Talmidim to fear sin and be zealous to fulfill Devar Hash-m. Also initially, it says that he began to cry when he saw his Talmidim.

Maharsha #1: Even if I will not have eternal death, like total Resha'im, I fear lest they take me to Gehinom to be punished for 12 months, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (17a). He did not trust in his virtue, like we expound about David "Lulei He'emanti..."

Maharsha #2: He wanted to teach his Talmidim humility [not to be sure that they have no Aveiros]. Therefore, he told them to remove the Kelim, due to Tum'ah. He also mentioned that Chizkiyah is coming, lest they think that he sinned.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): There are Resha'im in Gehinom who leave only when a Tzadik passes through. "Overei b'Emek ha'Bacha... Yateh Moreh" - he passes through Gehinom, and Neshamos are wrapped on him so he will raise them from there. He was unsure if he will pass through, or go straight to Gan Eden.

Etz Yosef citing Alshich (Tehilim 16:10): There are two paths to Gan Eden - the right and the left. The left one goes through Gehinom; some Tzadikim go on it, and raise one who was almost ready to leave. Some Tzadikim, like R. Yochanan ben Zakai, fear to go on that path, lest Midas ha'Din be aroused against them and their ledgers be examined. Megadim Chadashim citing Megaleh Amukos Va'eschanan 126 - Moshe requested to enter Eretz Yisrael, for Sha'ar ha'Shamayim is there, so he would not need to go via Gehinom. (Note: Moshe feared Gehinom, until Hash-m told him "v'Shamah Lo Sa'avor" (Devarim 34:4) - Bamidbar Rabah 23:5. - PF) Megadim Chadashim - even though R. Yochanan ben Zakai was in Eretz Yisrael, he did not consider himself worthy to go straight to Gan Eden. Regel Yesharah (Perek Gan Eden) - this attribute of Eretz Yisrael is only when Yisrael rule over it.

Rav Elyashiv: The two paths are a separate matter from concern for permanent death. The latter is for Resha'im who totally perish. However, even if he is not a Rasha, he must fear refinement of 12 months in Gehinom.

Note: Lev Eliyahu explained that his only doubt was lest he need to spend a few moments in Gehinom. Even so, he cried over the possibility of moments of punishment, and missing those moments in Gan Eden.

Why did he say 'fear of Heaven should be upon you'?

Etz Yosef: You should fear Shamayim, and not punishment. The latter is fear for himself, lest he be punished via [lack or loss] of children, wealth or afflictions. You should fear His exaltedness, even if you would not be punished!

How could he request that they fear Shamayim? Everything is bi'Ydei Shamayim, except for Yir'as Shamayim (33b)!

Maharsha: They should do [their efforts to fear Shamayim], and Shamayim will help them. On the path that one wants to go, they lead him; one who comes to purify himself, [Shamayim] helps him (Yoma 38b).

Iyun Yakov: Fear of punishment is bi'Ydei Adam. Fear of His exaltedness comes from understanding His actions. One reaches this only if Hash-m gives to him Chochmah; R. Yochanan ben Zakai prayed for this.

Chazon Ish (at the end of Orach Chayim): What comes via Tefilah is not called bi'Ydei Shamayim.

What was his answer 'when one sins, he is concerned that no one see him'?

Rashi: If one would fear Heaven in this way, he would refrain from many sins! One knows that everything is revealed to Hash-m, yet he sins in front of Him!

Iyun Yakov: One does not want others to see him sin due to shame, even if the onlooker will not punish him.

Above, he said 'if I would come in front of a mortal king...', implying that one should fear Hash-m more than a mortal king, and all the more so more than a commoner. Here he says that it would be great to fear Hash-m like one fears people!

Iyun Yakov: Above he discussed one who is ill and about to die. One who sins does not think about the day of death - if one's Yetzer ha'Ra overpowers, he should think about the day of death (5a)!

Why did he say to remove the Kelim?

Rashi: He did not want the Kelim to become Tamei.

Ha'Kosev: He hinted to them that while alive, we need physical senses as Kelim to attain perfection of the Nefesh. After death, he has no use for them, except for a chair, which represents sitting among Tzadikim with crowns on their heads. He said to bring a chair for Nefesh Chizkiyah - it is not Mekabel Tum'ah, for it is purely spiritual.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though they had ashes of Parah Adumah to be Metaher from Tum'as Mes, earthenware cannot be purified.

Megadim Chadashim: Divrei Sha'ul (Yosef Da'as YD 373:4) proves from here that graves of Tzadikim have Tum'ah. Even though he said so amidst humility, what one says at the time of death is like via Nevu'ah. After death there is no Tum'ah, but at the time of death there is Tum'ah. Megadim Chadashim - we find that Rebbi had Nevu'ah at the time of his death (Kidushin 72a), and also Shmuel ha'Katan (Sanhedrin 11a).

Surely some of his Talmidim were Kohanim. Why did he not tell them to leave?

Megadim Chadashim: They were permitted to become Tamei to engage in his burial. This supports those who say that Kohanim may become Tamei for Tzadikim. (Note: The day that Rebbi died, Kedushah was Batel (Kesuvos 103b). R. Chaim Kohen explained that only that day, Kedushas Kehunah was Batel; they were allowed to become Tamei, like it says in the Yerushalmi. He said, had I been present when R. Tam died, I would have become Tamei for him! Tosfos (ibid.) holds that only Tum'ah mid'Rabanan was permitted. The leniency is for the Gedol ha'Dor, but not for Stam Tzadikim! - PF) R. Yochanan ben Zakai was a Kohen, and he had Terumah in his house, which must be guarded in Taharah. The Bach (YD 374) says that R. Chaim Kohen agrees that a Nasi is Metamei, just his generation may be Metamei for him, for his honor. Sho'el u'Meshiv says that Tzadikim have no Tum'ah in their death; R. Yochanan ben Zakai did not trust in himself, or did not want to flaunt his Tzidkus in front of his Talmidim. Magen Elokim says that he told them to guard his shrouds from Tum'ah; normally, there is no adamancy about this, for in any case the Mes will be Metamei them.

Why did he say to prepare a chair for Chizkiyah?

Rashi: Chizkiyah was coming to escort him.

Ha'Kosev: R. Yochanan ben Zakai taught Torah his entire life. Also Chizkiyah, even though he was king, he taught Torah and Mitzvos to all of Yisrael, from Dan to Be'er Sheva. (Note: It says in Rosh Hashanah that R. Yochanan ben Zakai engaged in business for 40 years, learned for 40 years, and taught for 40 years! - PF)

Iyun Yakov citing Tzlach: Hillel was from the seed of David. From when he became Nasi, it did not cease from his seed. However, when [the elder] R. Shimon ben Gamliel was killed among the 10 that the kingdom killed, his son R. Gamliel (who later was Nasi in Yavneh) was a minor; R. Yochanan ben Zakai received Nesi'us. Chizkiyah, from Malchus Beis David, came to accompany him, to show that David had no complaint against him. The chair was the throne of Nesi'us. Rav Elyashiv - the chair showed that Nesi'us will return to Yehudah.

Megadim Chadashim citing Shitah Mekubetzes: There are seven classes in Gan Eden. Chizkiyah was in the third. He came to accompany R. Yochanan ben Zakai, for also he will be in the third, like a Bas Kol announced (Chagigah 14b). Otzar Midrashim (1 p.212) says that David, Shlomo and all kings of Beis David are in the third.

Megadim Chadashim: Sha'ar ha'Gilgulim says that R. Yochanan ben Zakai was a Gilgul of Chizkiyah. Rav Sadya Gaon says that he descended from Chizkiyah. She'elas Ya'avetz (1:89, b'Sof) says that R. Yochanan ben Zakai was not truly Nasi, for Nesi'im are from David; we do not find that he was from Yehudah. Due to his Chochmah, he was called Nasi. Also other Acharonim say that he was not from David. Rashi (Shabbos 34a) says that he was a Kohen, like he said 'what my hands did and my eyes saw, I forgot, and all the more so what I learned!' (Tosefta Parah 4:7, Sifri Chukas 123). (Note - It says there that he pretended to forget, to strengthen the Talmidim. He said so about the garments in which a Kohen Gadol does Parah Adumah. Rashi implies that he was Kohen Gadol. One could explain 'I forgot matters that I did and saw, and all the more so what I learned, e.g. I learned about Parah Adumah!' Ya'aros Devash (2:16) says that R. Yishmael was Kohen Gadol at the time of the Churban. - PF) Also Perush ha'Mishnayos (introduction, ha'Perek ha'Shelishi) says that he was a Kohen. Tosfos (Menachos 21b) infers that he was not a Kohen, for he said 'Kohanim expound this verse for their own benefit.' He explains 'what my hands did' to mean what was done according to my rulings. Seder ha'Doros asked, Parah 3:5 lists the Kohanim Gedolim who burned Parah Adumah; R. Yochanan ben Zakai is not among them! I (Megadim Chadashim) answer that Rashi said only that he was a Kohen, but not Kohen Gadol. Also, the Mishnah listed the Kohen Gadol who supervised, but not that he burned it. (Note: L'Chatchilah, the Segan does Parah Adumah (Rashi Bamidbar 19:3, from Sifri ibid.) The Mishnah attributed the first Parah to Moshe! - PF) Tashbatz (3:37) says that R. Yochanan ben Zakai was Kohen Gadol at the time of the Churban. Perhaps he holds like Tosfos Yeshanim (Yoma 2a) that the custom was that only the Kohen Gadol does Parah Adumah. Perhaps even if he was a Kohen, he descended from Chizkiyah from his mother.

Megadim Chadashim citing Shiyurei Taharah 8:52: If Tzadikim come to greet a Choleh, surely he will die; no Tefilah will help him.

Why should the Berachos correspond to mentions of Hash-m's name in "Havu la'Shem Bnei Elim"?

Rashi: This alludes to the first three blessings, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (32a).

Maharsha: The middle Berachos that we say on weekdays are requests. Shem Havayah (of mercy) hints to them.

What is 'an Isar seen opposite his heart'?

Rashi: There are two folds - one above and one below, and the width of an Isar (a coin) in between.

Rashba citing Rav Hai Gaon: He bends his head like a reed, until he can see an Isar on the ground opposite his heart. He need not divide his height into two. A Siman for this is "ha'Lachof k'Agmon Rosho" (Yeshayah 58:5).

Note: Perhaps 'dividing his height into two' is to bow his torso until it is horizontal. (PF)

Me'iri: If an Isar was on the ground at his feet, which is opposite his heart when he bows, he can see it without bowing his head towards his heart. According to this, 'Yir'eh' means 'he sees.' According to Rashi, it can mean [the width of an Isar] is seen.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. Yakov Chayim Sofer: According to Rashi, it says Yera'eh with a Tzeirei under the Yud; according to the Rashba [and Me'iri], it has a Chirik.

What is the relevance of being in pain?

Rashi: It is seen that he wants to bow, just he is pained.

Me'iri: If moving the head is painful, it suffices to move the head until it appears that he strives to bow.

Why must one bow so low?

Me'iri: It is to show his lowliness. Some of the vertebrae must protrude; some say that it suffices so that an Isar is seen opposite his heart.

Why does Birkas ha'Tzedukim correspond to "Kel ha'Kavod Hir'im" or "Echad" in Keri'as Shema?

Maharsha: It does not correspond to Shem Havayah, which does not change. The Minim change Kel Echad to El Acher. It says Hir'im, like it says below (59a), Hash-m made thunder to straighten crookedness of the heart - "veha'Elokim Asah she'Yir'u mi'Lefanav."

R. Tanchum holds that there are 19 vertebrae in the spine. The Mishnah (Ohalos 1:8) counts only 18!

Megadim Chadashim: The Minchas Chinuch (263:10) and Sidrei Taharos (Ohalos 25b) say that perhaps the Mishnah counts only bones that count for Tum'as Ohel; the extra small vertebra does not count - perhaps it does not have flesh or sinews. I say that perhaps it is the Luz bone, which exists forever, and Techiyas ha'Mesim is from it. Nachal Eshkol on Sefer ha'Eshkol (Tefilah 9:13) says that it has no Tum'ah, for death does not apply to it. However, Chasam Sofer (YD 337) says that there is no concern for Tum'as Ohel in a cemetery from 500 years ago, for all the bones decayed except for the Luz, and the Luz bone does not have the volume (Rova Kav) for Tum'as Ohel. This implies that that it could join with other bones! Some say that it is the bone on which the knot of head Tefilin rests, or under the brain, or the top bone of the spine.

Why did he ask 'does anyone know how to enact a blessing against heretics'?

Iyun Yakov: In his days there were many heretics in Yisrael, like the Rambam writes (Hilchos Tefilah, Perek 2). Not everyone knows how to enact the Berachah, for there are many intents (see Tur OC 118).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Nefesh ha'Chayim (2, Sof Perek 13) elaborates about the awesome Kavanos in Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah's text of Shemoneh Esre. The deep Kavanos that the Ari Zal revealed are like a drop in the ocean compared to their intents. Chayim She'al (2:11) supports this from here. This is why R. Gamliel was unsure if there is anyone proper to enact it so that each letter is proper according to secrets that depend on Yichud and pairs of Midos. Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (6:84, 86, 89) says that this is why Anshei Keneses ha'Gedolah enacted Shemoneh Esre in Leshon ha'Kodesh, and not in Arame'ic, which most people spoke. The great secrets cannot be copied to another language. When we pray like they enacted, our Tefilah ascends properly, even if we do not know to intend [for the secrets]. This does not apply to one who prays in another language.

Why was he called Shmuel ha'Katan?

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Yerushalmi (Sotah 9:13) says that it is because he lowered himself. Some say that he was slightly below Shmuel ha'Navi. Megilah (11a) expounds "David Hu ha'Katan" - just like in his youth he lowered himself in front of his superiors in Torah, so in his kingship he lowered himself in front of his superiors in Chachmah.

How could Shmuel ha'Katan forget something that he says three times every day?

Rashba: This implies that he did not say Birkas ha'Tzedukim regularly.

Rav Elyashiv: Torah was his profession, so he was exempt from Tefilah. Above we brought the Tefilah of R. Nechunyah ben Hakanah - one who learns constantly needs to say only a short Tefilah when entering and leaving the Beis Midrash.

What is the meaning of 'v'Lo Ho'aluhu'?

Iyun Yakov (29a): It is to remove him, to raise him from the Teivah where the Shali'ach Tzibur prays. It was in a low place, like we said above (10b) "mi'Ma'amakim Kerasicha Hash-m" - one may not pray from a high place, for there is no elevation in front of Hash-m.

How could Yochanan Kohen Gadol serve for 80 years, and become a Tzeduki? If the majority of one's years passed and he did not sin, he will not sin afterwards (Yoma 38b)!

Megadim Chadashim citing Tosfos Yeshanim there: Surely one who seeks to sin, he may sin. If he does not seek this, he will have great help to purify himself.

Megadim Chadashim citing Yismach Moshe (Re'eh 106a) #1: Hash-m will guard him from Shogeg sin, but He does not remove his free choice to sin Mezid.

Megadim Chadashim: After that teaching in Yoma, it says that if opportunity for sin came twice, and he did not sin, he will not sin afterwards. Surely that is even b'Mezid. Presumably, also the previous teaching is even b'Mezid!

Megadim Chadashim citing Yismach Moshe #2: If one regrets his Mitzvos, he totally uproots them, so Hash-m does not guard him from choosing evil. Yochanan regretted his Mitzvos.

Megadim Chadashim citing Tif'eres Yisrael (Parah 3:5, Bo'az 400): Every rule can have exceptions.

Megadim Chadashim citing Bnei Yisaschar (Kislev 4:25): He did not truly become a Tzeduki. He remained a Tzadik, just he erred. It is not clear whether this is Yochanan mentioned in Al ha'Nisim.

Megadim Chadashim: The Gemara implies that he truly became a Rasha! Tashbatz (3:135) says that he was Matisyahu's father.

According to Rava, had Shmuel ha'Katan not started Birkas ha'Tzedukim, would we have replaced him?

Me'iri: Yes.

Rav Elyashiv: The Tzedukim at that time were in the Beis Midrash and l'Shem Shamayim. They thought that the Perushim err. Therefore it was a great Simchah when Chachamim proved like they themselves held, and they made the day a Yom Tov. Therefore, there was room to suspect that even Shmuel ha'Katan, who enacted the Berachah, retracted and held like the Tzedukim.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Beis Efrayim (YD 2) asked whether Chezkas Kashrus of a Yisrael is because his Nefesh desires to be good, or if it is based on the majority, like Pnei Yehoshua (Gitin 17a) says. He concluded like Pnei Yehoshua. Daf Al ha'Daf - it seems that Abaye held that if we know that he was Kosher, we are not concerned lest he retracted, even if he erred in Birkas ha'Tzedukim. However, if we merely rely on the majority, this error arouses concern lest he is from the minority.