Why would Sonei Yisrael falter in judgment If not for these three verses?

Rashi: The verses say that Hash-m can fix our Yetzer and remove the Yetzer ha'Ra from us. We have an excuse - He caused us to sin, via creating the Yetzer ha'Ra.

Maharsha: The simple meaning of "va'Asher Hare'osi" is that I brought evil on them in Galus. We do not explain so, for "mi'Pi Elyon Lo Setzei ha'Ra'os veha'Tov" (Eichah 3:38). Surely, one cannot exempt himself because Hash-m created the Yetzer ha'Ra - man has choice! 'I created the Yetzer Ra, and I created the Torah to be spices [to fix it].' If not, there is no reward and punishment! Our Gemara means that we have some claim, and we do not falter in judgment. After punishment for sins, we should be vindicated in judgment. We say that Eliyahu was Meti'ach words to Hash-m, for his claim does not really exempt. We should overcome our Yetzer ha'Ra!

What do we learn from "cha'Chomer b'Yad ha'Yotzer Ken Atem b'Yadi"?

Etz Yosef: Even now that choice was given, Hash-m could remove the Yetzer ha'Ra from us.

There are many verses "va'Yispalel El Hash-m" - why do we read this 'Al Hashem' regarding Moshe? Also, this verse is regarding the complainers - how was Moshe Meti'ach words to Hash-m?

Maharsha: The text should say "va'Espalel El Hash-m" (Devarim 9:26). We expound "El" like Al, for it is extra. The previous verse said "va'Esnapal Lifnei Hash-m"; it would have sufficed to write va'Espalel. Moshe was Meti'ach words to Hash-m - he said "mi'Beli Yecholes Hash-m" (ibid. 28).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: "El Hash-m" is extra. Granted, when it says va'Yitz'ak, it needs to say El Hash-m. However, surely va'Yispalel is El Hash-m! Therefore, we read El like Al; Moshe was Meti'ach words to Hash-m, and said that the sin (complaining) did not deserve the punishment (Esh Hash-m consumed people).

Rif: This is difficult. We do not expound so about "va'Espalel El Hash-m"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: Here we expound so, for if he prayed for mercy, why did he complain afterwards "ha'Anochi Harisi Es Kol ha'Am ha'Zeh"? Rather, Moshe complained "Lamah Hare'osa l'Avdecha... Lasum Es Masa Kol ha'Am ha'Zeh Alai."

Iyun Yakov: Whether the text says "va'Yispalel Moshe El Hash-m" or "va'Espalel El Hash-m", why do we judge Moshe unfavorably? The verse does not mention saying anything harsh! He said only that the Egyptians will say that Hash-m lacks ability! We should rather say so about Moshe's complaint "Lamah Hare'osa"! It seems that the text should cite this verse; so is the text in Yalkut, based on Sanhedrin 44a. Hash-m agreed - He said "gather 70 men" (to help you to lead Yisrael). It seems that this was the Rif's text.

Anaf Yosef citing Arvei Nachal: Why should Egypt say that Hash-m killed Yisrael due to His inability to bring them to Eretz Kena'an, and not because they sinned against Him? If one promised a gift to his friend, and then he became his hater, he can retract. (Note: He cites this from Choshen Mishpat. I found only that if one rented a house to his friend, and became his hater, he can evict him only if he initially said that he rents only because he is his friend (Rema CM 312:9). - PF) If he already acquired it, he cannot retract. Moshe said that since Eretz Yisrael is Muchzak and they acquired it, He cannot retract; the nations will not say that it is due to Yisrael's sin. These were Moshe's harsh words against Hash-m.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: When Esh Hash-m burned people, they screamed to Moshe to pray. In his humility, he thought that he is like one of them. He did not think that he can bear them, and understand the Da'as of each of them in order to lead them. Only Hash-m, who created them, can lead them. The words that they screamed to Moshe, he was Meti'ach them to Hash-m. i.e. he cast off the yoke and 'threw' it to Hash-m. This is why here Rashi explained Meti'ach to be throwing; he did not explain above regarding Chanah and Eliyahu. Above, it could mean [speaking] sharply. Here, Moshe did not speak; he merely cast Yisrael's words to Hash-m. It was laudable to do so [amidst his humility]!

Why do we expound "v'Di Zahav"?

Maharsha: The verse hints to rebuke of Yisrael. It should have said 'Zahav' to hint to the golden calf! "V'Di" is extra, to hint that the gold that Hash-m gave to us, it caused it.

Megadim Chadashim:?. This is like d'Vei R. Yanai taught (9a) "Daber Na b'Aznei ha'Am" - "Na" is a request that Yisrael take gold and silver vessels from Egypt. Poverty is proper for Yisrael (Yalkut Shimoni Yeshayah 466)!

What is 'Nohem'?

Rashi: It rejoices, goes crazy and damages.

What is 'Zani Bishi'?

Rashi: It is a type of evil sin. The Targum of "l'Minehu" (Bereishis 1:12) is li'Znohi.

What is the significance of the verses "k'Mar'isam va'Yisba'u...", "v'Ram Levavecha...", "v'Achal v'Sava," and "va'Yishman..."?

Maharsha: They correspond to the three Meshalim. "Va'Yisba'u Sav'u va'Yaram Libam..." and "Pen Tochal v'Savata...; v'Ram Levavecha..." correspond to 'a lion is not Nohem amidst straw, rather, amidst meat.' "V'Achal v'Sava v'Dashen... u'Fanah El Elohim..." corresponds to one who bathed his son... and put him in front of harlots. " Va'Yishman Yeshurun va'Yiv'at" corresponds to the cow that ate vetch and kicked its owner.

What was Hash-m's admission?

Maharsha #1: This does not exempt them from punishment for the Egel - "uv'Yom Pakdi u'Fakadti" (Shemos 32:34), for they had choice. Hash-m agreed that they should not totally falter in judgment. Initially He said "v'Yichar Api Vahem va'Achalem"; He retracted from this. "Hirbeisi" applies also to "v'Zahav".

Maharsha #2: "V'Chesef Hirbeisi Lahem v'Zahav Asu la'Ba'al" does not refer to the Egel, rather, to Be'alim that they served in the days of Hoshe'a. I gave to them silver, and they added to make gold for Ba'al. All the more so, Hash-m agreed that when He gave to them gold, this helped cause the Egel!

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: "V'Chesef Hirbeisi..." shows that He admitted only according to Tana d'Vei R. Yanai, who holds that Moshe's criticism was "v'Di Zahav" (the gold caused them to sin). According to R. Elazar, who reads 'Al Hashem', we do not bring a proof. Perhaps no proof is needed, for Hash-m told him to gather elders [to help him lead the nation]!

Why do we expound "Lech Red"?

Maharsha: It is not because one of these words would have sufficed. It says also "Lech Red v'Alisa" (Shemos 19:24) - what will we expound there?! Rather, here we expound it because Hash-m did not tell him what to do after descending.

Etz Yosef: It says "va'Ydaber Hash-m" - harsh speech. We do not find anything harsh, therefore we expound "Lech Red" to mean 'descend from your greatness.'

Was Moshe so confounded when Hash-m told him to descend from his greatness that he had no strength and could not speak?! Also, if Moshe's grandeur was only due to Yisrael, now that they sinned, why did Hash-m suggest making a nation from him?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Perhaps Moshe became weak because there is room to say that if he prays, it is not for Yisrael, rather, for himself, so he will return to his grandeur. He wanted to pray for Yisrael! When Hash-m said "Heref Mimeni", he understood that it depends on him. He also understood that Hash-m meant, I gave to you Torah and Mitzvos in order to teach to them. Since they sinned, why do you need grandeur over sinners? I want you to be Gadol over a great nation! Moshe understood that Hash-m said "Hanichah Li" for Moshe's honor - therefore, he was invigorated to pray, and saved them.

Note: Also Etz Yosef brings so in the name of Mayan ha'Berachos, and adds that we cite "Heref Mimeni" from Devarim, for there Hash-m offered to make a greater nation from Moshe. We did not bring "Hanichah Li" in Shemos, which does not say that the new nation will be greater. (PF)

Iyun Yakov: Moshe merited his grandeur due to the wealth that Yisrael took from Egypt - "va'Yiten Hash-m Es Chen ha'Am b'Einei Mitzrayim Gam ha'Ish Moshe Gadol Me'od" (Shemos 11:3). The wealth was partially due to Moshe! Moshe himself did not take (rather, he took Yosef's bones - Sotah 13a). Therefore, the Torah was given through him. Now that Yisrael sinned via the wealth, it is not a merit for Moshe. He caused their fall, so he became weak and could not talk - the prosecutor cannot become the advocate.

Iyun Yakov, according to the Midrash: Hash-m was angry at Moshe, for he accepted the Erev Rav, and they caused Yisrael to sin [with the Egel] - "Ki Shiches Amecha." I gave to you grandeur to bring merit to Yisrael, not to cause them to sin!

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: The Akeidah says that one merits great reward only combined with the Avodah of his seed until the end of generations, i.e. he bequeathed to them Chachmah and Musar. It says "Asher Yetzaveh Es Banav... v'Shamru Derech Hash-m... Lema'an Havi Hash-m Al Avraham Es Asher Diber Alav" (Bereishis 18:19). Similarly, Chachamim merit because they bequeath their Torah to their generation. If the generation does not receive it, the Chachamim are diminished. Therefore, when Yisrael made the Egel, Moshe's grandeur decreased. (Note: Hash-m suggested to make a nation from him - if they will receive his Torah, this will restore his grandeur! - PF)

What is the meaning of 'it depends on me'?

Rashi: Moshe understood that if he will pray, Hash-m could pardon Yisrael.

Maharsha #1: We say below "v'Atah Hanichah Li" - it was as if Moshe was 'holding' Hash-m! Rashi in Chumash says that Moshe had not yet prayed; Hash-m hinted that his Tefilah can help. He holds that the Amora'im argue. The one who says that Moshe understood 'it depends on me', expounds "Hanichah Li" as if Moshe was 'holding' Hash-m, and similarly "Heref Mimeni v'Ashmidem."

Maharsha: If so, the Gemara should have said that they argue! Also, why does he expound "Heref Mimeni v'Ashmidem" in Devarim, and not "v'Atah Hanichah Li" in Shemos?

Maharsha #2: We expound in two ways due to the different expressions - "Hanichah Li" in Shemos and "Heref Mimeni" in Devarim. Initially, Moshe's strength was weak. He did not know to pray until Hash-m said "Heref Mimeni", to teach that it depends on him. After he began to pray, it is as if he held Hash-m and did not let go until Hash-m pardoned them.

Iyun Yakov: Initially, Moshe did not know why Hash-m said "Lech Red." Now he understood - he should descend from his grandeur, so also he will be afflicted and pray for Yisrael. One who prays for his colleague, he is answered first.

What is the significance of 'like one holds his colleague via his garment'?

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: Even though this is a mere Mashal, Chachamim were meticulous to distance physicality from Hash-m. They did not say 'like one holds his colleague.' Garments show what a person feels, e.g. Simchah, pain and mourning, or war. Hash-m never changes, only He changes the Midos that He uses, based on the recipients. When people do His will, their deeds are a pleasant smell; He wears white garments of Ratzon and Chesed. When people anger Him, He wears red garments that show Midas ha'Din and anger. The greatest anger was at the time of the Egel. Moshe grabbed the garments of vengeance (Midas ha'Din) and said 'I will not let go until You pardon them.'

Rav Elyashiv: We find "Bigdei Nakam" (Yeshayah 59:17). Moshe grabbed Midas ha'Rachamim, and said 'I will not let go until You pardon them.'

What is the significance of a chair of three legs?

Rashi: It is a nation founded by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yakov.

Maharsha: We expound so from "Zechor l'Avraham l'Yitzchak ul'Yisrael." Also 'also, I will be embarrassed in front of my Avos' is learned from that verse.

Why did Moshe say 'all the more so a chair of one leg [cannot endure Your anger]'? The three legs of the Avos pertain also to Moshe's children!

Maharsha: A chair of one leg is not precise. Rather, Moshe said that a chair of three legs can stand, but it cannot endure Your anger. If so, an additional leg will not help it against Your anger!

Iyun Yakov: Since the Avos will have complaints against Moshe, they will not want their merits to protect Moshe and his children. Etz Yosef citing Tzlach - this is why Moshe said here that he would be ashamed of the Avos.

Why would they say that he sought his own greatness?

Ya'avetz: He was pleased with Hash-m's proposal to make a new nation from him, therefore he did not pray for them.

What is Huchlah?

Etz Yosef: He became Choleh (ill).

What is Hechelehu?

Rashi: He insisted.

Maharsha: I do not know a source to explain so.

Maharsha based on Shemos Rabah 43:1: He made himself Chulin, i.e. he was lightheaded in front of Hash-m. This is like we explained above, that he was Meti'ach words to Hash-m for the sake of Yisrael; he did not pray with the proper humility. The Midrash makes other Drashos; all are because it says "va'Ychal", and not va'Yispalel.

Etz Yosef, based on Mekubalim: He sweetened harsh Din via mercy, and weakened it. Shem Havayah is mercy, and also Eloka without the Mem at the end, just like Kel is mercy ("Chesed Kel") - "va'Ychal Moshe Es Pnei Hash-m Elokav."

What was His vow?

Rashi: He said that He will destroy Yisrael.

Rashba: This is a Mashal. The merit and love of Moshe exempted Yisrael from punishment and dispelled the anger. This is like Hataras Nedarim. One of the Pesachim (reasons to consider a vow a mistake) is 'Libecha Alecha?' - do you still hold like at the time of the vow? Or, did anger cause you to vow, and now it passed? Another Pesach is 'had 10 people appeased you, would you have vowed?' So Moshe asked Hash-m to pardon His anger and be appeased. Do not say that Hash-m needed Moshe's Heter, just like one who vowed cannot permit his own vow. Rather, Moshe prayed until Hash-m permitted His own vow, i.e. retracted from His intent to destroy them.

Maharsha from Shemos Rabah 43:4: I swore "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yacharam." Moshe said, did not You not give to me Hafarah - he may not profane [his word, but others may profane and permit it]! This is like it says in Chagigah (10a) 'I swore in My anger, and I retract.' This is not like Tosfos in Bava Basra 74a understood, that He permits Himself. Rather, I have a Pesach of regret, like we say here. He does not permit Himself; others permit Him.

What is the source that Moshe was willing to die for Yisrael?

Rashi: "Va'Ychal" is an expression of Chalal (a dead body).

What is the meaning of 'it is Chulin for You to destroy Yisrael'?

Maharsha: This is like we say in Avodah Zarah (4a) "Chalilah Lecha" - it is Chulin (profane) for You "Lehamis Tzadik Im Rasha." Also here, there were many Tzadikim who did not make the Egel. You should pardon the entire congregation in the merit of the Tzadikim!

What was the question about 'fire of the bones'?

Megadim Chadashim: Nachalas Yakov (on Kalah 3:1) says that it is fear. Achilu is like Chil u'R'adah (Note: Perhaps he alludes to Re'adah Achazasam Sham Chil ka'Yoledah" (Tehilim 48:7). - PF) Ra'avan ha'Yarchi (Ba'al Sefer ha'Manhig) says that fear causes fever or chills.

When did Hash-m swear to the Avos?

Rashi: It says at the Akeidah "Bi Nishbati" (Bereishis 22:16).

Maharsha: Rashi on Chumash added that He swore to Yitzchak "va'Hakimosi... Asher Nishbati", and to Yakov "Ani Kel Shakai Pre..."

How are heaven and earth Batel?

Megadim Chadashim: This world is for 6,000 years; then it will be destroyed for 1,000 years (Sanhedrin 97a). Sifri (on Devarim 32:1) says that Moshe made heaven and earth witnesses against Yisrael, for they exist forever. However, we can say that it means until the world will be destroyed.

What was difficult about "Asher Amarti"? The verse discusses what Hash-m said!

Maharsha: We do not find that Hash-m promised the land to the Avos in this expression 'Asher Amarti Eten.' The first answer says that Hash-m said the end of the verse - now He told them 'this land that I already told to the Avos...'; He agreed to Moshe not to eradicate them. The latter answer says that Moshe said the entire verse. He was arguing with Hash-m - this land that You said to give to them, and also I promised to them in Your name - now, what will I tell them?

What do we learn from 'I told Bnei Yisrael what You told me to tell them in Your name'?

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach, Rav Elyashiv: This is like the Rambam (introduction to Perush ha'Mishnayos, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 10:4). When Hash-m promises good to a Navi, it must be fulfilled; sin cannot nullify it. Yakov feared lest sin nullify what Hash-m promised to him himself. What a Navi prophesizes to others for good cannot be retracted. So Moshe claimed, since I told them, You cannot retract!

What is the significance of "Yecholes Hash-m"?

Rashba: Initially, the Egyptians thought that Yisrael are under Mazal, like all nations. They succeed when their Mazal is above; when others' Mazal is higher, they can defeat Yisrael. When Hash-m took them out of Egypt, they admitted "Hash-m ha'Tzadik", "Hatiru El Hash-m", "Hash-m Nilcham Lahem b'Mitzrayim" (Shemos 9:27-28, 14:25). If Hash-m would destroy Yisrael, nations would say that their success was not from Yecholes Hash-m (His ability), rather, from Mazal. 'Mi'Bilti Yachol Hashem' would mean that they agree that their success is from Hash-m, and He is the supreme Cause, but He cannot defeat the kings of Eretz Yisrael. Surely they would not say so!

Why will they say that His strength became weak, like a female?

Rashba: An active party is considered male, and the recipient female. E.g. the Shemesh (sun) radiates light, and the Levanah (moon) receives. They will claim that Hash-m is not the supreme Cause, rather, He receives His power from others, like other powers.

Maharsha: Hash-m is unique among upper beings, and man is unique among lower beings. He rules over all the lower beings - "u'Rdu bi'Dgas ha'Yam" (Bereishis 1:28). Primarily, males rule. A female has a ruler over her - "v'Hu Yimshol Bach." Moshe said, even though Egypt saw that You rule over upper beings like a male - "Hash-m Ish Milchamah", if You kill Yisrael, they will say that Your rule is like a female, who has a ruler over her. Therefore, You cannot overcome the 31 kings, for an upper being rules over You.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: Even though the nations recognize Hash-m's ability, they will say that Yisrael weakened Him via their evil deeds - "Tzur Yeladecha Teshi" (Devarim 32:18). Even though He was able to take Yisrael from Egypt, even though 'these serve idolatry and these serve idolatry', He cannot enable Yisrael, who sin, to defeat the 31 kings.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: They will say that Hash-m does not want to show His strength again, for He became weak like a female who gave birth once, therefore He killed Yisrael. Hash-m said, if so, it would have sufficed to show My strength once, in Egypt. Why did I show it again, at Yam Suf? Rather, I always want to show My strength, just Yisrael are not worthy! Moshe answered, they will say that there are 31 Sarim over the 31 kings, and You did not want to lower their honor when Yisrael are not worthy. In Egypt and at the sea, there was only one Sar!

Rav Elyashiv: The Ramban on "Chalak Lahem" (Devarim 29:25) says that each nation receives power from its Sar (angel over it); Hash-m Himself is over Yisrael. Surely people would not say that Hash-m cannot defeat 31 kings - He killed many at Makas Bechoros!

Iyun Yakov: Even if He retained His initial strength, they could say that He could not stand against the 31 kings! Rather, If He kills His children, they will say that He became like a female that does not have as much mercy on her children if they sin against her "k'Rachem Av Al Banim" (Tehilim 103:13). (Note: It says 'His strength became weak, like a female'! Does he explain 'His strength to tolerate sin'? - PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Several other Meforshim also say that mothers have less mercy. "Yedei Nashim Rachmaniyos Bishlu Yaldeihen." (Note: Perhaps the verse teaches that even women, who normally have great mercy on their children, became cruel due to starvation! "Ha'Sishkach Ishah Ulah" (Amud B) implies that women have more mercy! Sefer ha'Ikarim (4:38) explains "k'Rachem Av Al Banim" - it is mercy to punish Tzadikim in this world, so they will merit eternal reward in the world to come. So a father chastises and hits his son to benefit him in his end. Nachalas Yakov (Shemos 32:32) says similarly. A mother's mercy is to make her child happy now; she does not always consider if this will be best for him in the end. - PF)

How does "Salachti ki'Dvarecha" show that Hash-m agreed with Moshe?

Maharsha: "Ki'Dvarecha" is extra. It teaches, like your claims [that they will say, due to His lack of ability...] So Rashi (Bamidbar 14:20) explained. The Mizrachi says, if "Salachti" referred to the previous request "Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hash-m" (ibid. 17), it would not say "ki'Dvarecha"! Rather, "ki'Dvarecha" teaches like what Moshe said before "mi'Bilti Yecholes Hash-m" (ibid. 16).

How does Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael learn from "ki'Dvarecha"?

Maharsha: This is extra, to teach Moshe's attribute, that in the future, the nations will say so. It mentions the nations, for Hash-m agrees to Moshe not to destroy Yisrael due to what they would say.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It should have said bi'Dvarecha. Rather, ki'Dvarecha teaches that in the future, nations will say...

How was Moshe Mechaye Hash-m?

Rashi: This was in the eyes of the nations (lest they doubt His power).

Rashba: Hash-m is called Chai - "Chai Hash-m", "Elokim Chayim." All others depend on His existence; He does not depend on anything. Therefore, He is called "Chai ha'Olam" (Daniel 12:7). If He killed Yisrael, nations would deny that He is the supreme Cause and the life of the world.

Maharsha: Before, we said that the nations will say that He lacks ability, and is weak like a female. Moshe gave to Him strength - "Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hash-m." Rashi on Chumash explained that this is an expression of a Shevu'ah, like we find "Chai Ani Ne'um Hash-m" below (verse 28) and many places in Nevi'im. The Drashah rejects this, for if so, the verse is out of order (it should have said 'v'Ulam Chai Ani (I swear) Salachti ki'Dvarecha'; the Torah wrote Salachti ki'Dvarecha before v'Ulam Chai Ani!). Also, elsewhere it says "Chai Ani Ne'um Hash-m", and what follows is the Shevu'ah; here 'Ne'um Hashem' is omitted - it refers to the previous verse.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): This is like "bEi'lokim Na'aseh Chayil" (Tehilim 60:14) - it is as if we increase His strength. Moshe said that "Erech Apayim" should be only for Tzadikim. Hash-m said, it is even for Resha'im - you will see the need for this! When Yisrael sinned, Moshe said "Yigdal Na Ko'ach Hash-m Ka'asher Dibarta Leimor (Hash-m Erech Apayim)" - You said that it is even for Resha'im (Sanhedrin 111a). Hash-m said, even so, I will not extend My anger until the world to come, to judge them in Gehinom. Rather, they will die during 40 years in the Midbar. Salachti ki'Dvarecha (due to concern for Chilul Hash-m), and Hechiyisani bi'Dvarecha (it is as if you increased My strength).

What is the significance of praising Hash-m before requesting?

Rashba: Indeed, R. Eliezer holds that we request and then praise; we do not learn from Moshe, for he was at a higher level (Avodah Zarah 7b). R. Yehoshua learns from Moshe. There are three aspects of request. (a) Does one request wages, or Chesed? (b) Does he doubt the ability of the one he requests from, or not? (c) If the one he requests from will not give to him, will he request from others? R. Yehoshua holds that before requesting, one praises Hash-m about these three, lest he err about them. Hash-m does not owe anyone - one requests from Him only Chesed. There is no doubt about His ability. If He will not give, no one else can give! Moshe began with these three matters. "Hachilosa Lehar'os... Es Gadlecha" - You bestow Chesed, without any obligation. He added "Es Avdecha" - just like a slave has no claim against his master. "Es Yadecha ha'Chazakah" - nothing stops You. "Asher Mi Kel ba'Shamayim uva'Aretz Asher Ya'aseh k'Ma'asecha vechi'Gvurasecha" - if He will not do, no one else can do, not physical creations below nor spiritual beings above. So are our first three Berachos - Gomel Chasadim Tovim, Gevuros Hash-m, and Kedushas Hash-m - even the spiritual beings admit that their power is only from His influence, and they act only with His will. R. Eliezer holds that after one requests, and realizes that he cannot obtain his needs without Hash-m, he is humbled and proper to praise Hash-m. Moshe is different; he always recognized this. R. Eliezer discusses an individual; he agrees that in Tefilos fixed for the Rabim, first we praise.

How do we know that only in the merit of his prayer, Moshe was allowed to look at Eretz Yisrael? Perhaps it was also due to his good deeds!

Tosfos: Indeed, we prove that Tefilah with good deeds is greater than good deeds without Tefilah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Obviously, two merits are greater than one! If Tefilah alone is greater than deeds alone, we cannot learn from Moshe. Because it was a great request, he needed also Tefilah! Also, why did it omit the primary proof - "va'Eschanan El Hash-m... Aleh Rosh ha'Pisgah", and bring a proof from "Al Tosef Daber Elai", which implies that He did not hear his Tefilah? I answer that surely we do not discuss Tefilah without good deeds. If his deeds are improper, what value is there to words with a bad heart?! Rather, if one had e.g. 10 good deeds, and they did not suffice for his request, should he do (e.g. five) more good deeds? Perhaps then, his deeds will suffice for his request - or, should he pray? We learn from Moshe - he did not seek additional good deeds, rather, he prayed Tefilos like the Gematriya of va'Eschanan (515), and requested a free gift.

Megadim Chadashim: Perhaps Moshe's Tefilah was greater, for he did not have the Mitzvah of Tzedakah! There were no Aniyim in the Midbar. Ya'aros Devash (1:2) says that in the Midbar, there was no Chesed - they did not lack anything! (Note: Surely Chesed applies - one can help another pitch his tent, cook, clean, arrange Shiduchim, give counsel, console mourners or sad people...! - PF)

Maharsha: Hash-m said "Al Tosef Daber Alai Od ba'Davar ha'Zeh", regarding "Eberah Na." However, regarding "v'Er'eh Es ha'Aretz" I accede - "Aleh Rosh ha'Pisgah." So says Yalkut Shimoni Va'eschanan 823. The Tefilah determined that he will be allowed to see it, and not his good deeds.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Al Tosef Daber Alai Od ba'Davar ha'Zeh" implies that his Tefilah helped ba'Davar ha'Zeh (Aleh Rosh ha'Pisgah, to see the land).

Iyun Yakov: "Al Tosef Daber Elai" implies that had he prayed more, he would have entered the land. R. Elazar teaches like he holds elsewhere, that learning is greater than deeds. If deeds were greater, all the more so deeds would be greater than Tefilah, for learning is greater than Tefilah!

Pesach Einayim: R. Akiva and R. Tarfon argued about whether learning is greater, or deeds. The Amora R. Elazar was not mentioned there! The Tana'im concluded that learning is greater - surely all Amora'im hold like this! And if learning is greater than Tefilah, why was Moshe answered only through Tefilah - no one was greater than Moshe in learning! (Note: Amora'im argue about whether Torah or Tefilah is greater. Presumably, R. Elazar holds like his Rebbi R. Yochanan, that Tefilah is greater than Torah (Megilah 27a)! - PF) Rather, here we discuss Tefilah to overturn a decree.

Megadim Chadashim: Above (12b, 27b), Iyun Yakov explained that R. Elazar ben Azaryah holds that learning is greater than deeds. However, here we discuss the Amora R. Elazar!

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Moshe wanted to enter the land to see it, and so that others should not rule over it afterwards. Really, the latter would not be good for Yisrael, for then when they sinned, they would be eradicated. Hash-m heard his Tefilah to see the land. Had he prayed more, also his second request would have been granted.

Anaf Yosef: Yalkut Shimoni learns from Moshe that for all generations, we pray at a time of affliction. If also his deeds were needed, we could not learn to generations - no one will have deeds like Moshe!

What is the advantage of something that involves the body?

Maharsha: We find that Chesed is greater than Tzedakah, for Chesed is with the body, and Tzedakah is with one's money (Sukah 49b).

Above (6b), we said that the reward of a fast is Tzedakah. This implies that Tzedakah is greater!

Maharsha: It does not mean that Tzedakah is greater, only that via Tzedakah, it is a complete fast.

Iyun Yakov: Tzedakah is greater in this world, for he is good to Shamayim and to people; he eats the Peros in this world. Here we say that a fast has a greater reward in the world to come.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Afflicting his body is greater. However, it is not a proof that he serves Hash-m well and is chosen in His eyes. Some people, their money is dear to them, and they afflict themselves for money. (Note: i.e. he fasts to save money. - PF) Perhaps he is one of them. If he gives Tzedakah after the fast, the fast is complete and is accepted; he shows that money is not important to him.

Rav Elyashiv: Our Gemara means that Tzedakah with a fast is greater than Tzedakah without a fast, just like 'Tefilah is greater than good deeds' means that Tefilah with good deeds is greater than good deeds alone. It cannot mean that a fast without Tzedakah is greater than Tzedakah, for it says "ha'Lo Zeh Tzom Evcharehu...; Paros la'Ra'ev Lachmecha v'Aniyim Merudim Tavi Vayis" (Yeshayah 58:6-7). The Tefilah and fast are important only after Tzedakah!

We were discussing Tefilah. Why did we interrupt to teach that fasting is greater than giving Tzedakah?

Iyun Yakov: If you will ask, how can we learn from Moshe that Tefilah is greater than good deeds? Moshe prayed amidst fasting and afflictions. Perhaps good deeds are greater than Tefilah without fasting! It says about Moshe "Tzidkas Hash-m Asah u'Mishpatav Im Yisrael" (Devarim 33:21) - it mentions his Tzedakah, but not his fasts, which are greater than Tzedakah! We must say that for Moshe, Ish ha'Elokim, who was like an angel, fasts were insignificant.

Note: Midrash Tana'im (Devarim 1:14) says that Moshe was pained for Torah - "va'Yhi Sham Arba'im Yom... Lechem Lo Achal"! Sifri (Devarim 14) cites only the Reisha "va'Yhi Sham Arba'im Yom"; perhaps it is obvious that he was pained because "Lechem Lo Achal." (PF)

How do we learn that prayer is greater than Korbanos from "Lamah Li Rov Zivcheichem... uv'Farsechem Kapeichem..."?

Rashi: Even after it said that our Korbanos are not desired, one might have thought that Tefilah will be accepted.

Maharsha: The Seifa says "Gam Ki Sarbu Sefilah Eineni Shome'a" - I will not hear it, but I do not despise it. "Lamah Li Rov Zivcheichem" implies that He despises their Korbanos. (Note: Even if improper Korbanos are worse than improper Tefilah, this does not prove that proper prayer is greater than proper Korbanos! - PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Also Yalkut Shimoni (Yeshayah 387), Tanchuma (Vayera 1) and SMaG (Aseh 19) say that the proof is from the Seifa.

How do we learn from "uv'Farsechem Kapeichem... Yedeichem Damim Male'u" that a Kohen who murdered may not give Birkas Kohanim?

Maharsha: This refers to a day on which you increase Tefilah, i.e. Yom Kipur, which has Tefilas Ne'ilah, and there is Birkas Kohanim in all Tefilos of the day. I will not hear, for your hands are full of blood - they killed Zecharyah on Yom Kipur (Gitin 57b).

Iyun Yakov: They killed Zecharyah b'Mezid. If so, we disqualify only a Kohen who murdered b'Mezid. However, the Tur (OC 128) disqualifies even if he killed b'Shogeg.

A Kohen who murdered may do Avodah. We learn from "me'Im Mizbechi" that even if he will be executed for it, if he began Avodah, he finishes it! Why is Birkas Kohanim more stringent?

Rav Elyashiv: Birkas Kohanim must be via the hands; the prosecutor cannot become the advocate. Avodah is putting Kodshim on the Mizbe'ach; the hands are merely a means to do so. This is why a Kohen who served idolatry and repented may Duchan (OC 128:37).

Do other Aveiros disqualify from Birkas Kohanim?

Megadim Chadashim: The Yerushalmi (Gitin 5:9) says, people should not say, Ploni transgresses Arayos - does he bless me?! The Tur and Beis Yosef bring that R. Gershom infers that if he did not repent, he may not Duchan. The Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 15:6) says that even if he is not meticulous in Mitzvos, or people murmur about him, or his business is unjust, he blesses. We do not tell a Rasha to do another evil, i.e. refrain from a Mitzvah! Kesef Mishneh - he explains the Yerushalmi to discuss one who is suspected, but if he surely killed, he may not bless.

How does "Shim'ah Sefilasi Hash-m v'Shav'asi Ha'azinah El Dim'asi Al Techerash" teach that gates of prayer were locked, but the gates of tears were not locked?

Rashi: One must pray that his prayer be heard; he need not pray that tears be seen, only that they be accepted.

Etz Yosef citing Derech Moshe: Tefilos with tears, Hash-m Himself opens the opening for it; an angel does not. An Ofan called Yerachmi'el goes to greet it; he is appointed over 300 Chayos above. He takes the Tefilah and ties it to a very high place, and Hash-m fulfills the request for good .

Since the gates of tears are never locked, why are there gates?

Megadim Chadashim: R. Bunim of Parshista, Yad Yosef citing Ohr k'Salmah and Sa'aras Eliyahu: If one cries over improper matters, they are locked. Nifla'os Chadashos and Ya'aros Devash (2:6) explain, if he cries only over his afflictions, without accepting to repent, the gates are locked.

Megadim Chadashim citing Me'orer Yeshenim citing Sha'arei Gan Eden: The gates are not locked, but they are closed, and they open only after one cries with arousal.

When the gates of prayer are locked, is there a way to open them?

Chashukei Chemed citing Chayei Olam (1:28) #1: They are not locked for Tzadikim.

Chashukei Chemed citing Chayei Olam (1:28) #2: 'They are locked' means that he is not guaranteed to be answered. In any case the Tefilah helps, like we say 'anyone who prays at length, his prayer does not return empty.' Sometimes it helps immediately, sometimes after three days, and sometimes after 30 years (Midrash Shmuel 4).

Chashukei Chemed citing Ohr Torah (printed at the end of Ma'alos ha'Torah): The voice of Torah can pierce cleaves all Reki'im that can block Tefilah. This is why they used to pray where they learn (8a).

Chashukei Chemed: Perhaps Tefilah b'Tzibur is heard even nowadays. The Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 8:1) implies like this.

Question: What did Rava infer from "Sakosa ve'Anan Lach me'Avor Tefilah"?

Rashba citing Rav Hai Gaon: The verse made it a bad Siman [for Tefilah].

Maharsha: There are prosecuting angels that interrupt between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven. The verse before "Sakosa ve'Anan" is "Sakosa va'Af"; Af is one of the angels of destruction (Nedarim 32a) that interrupts between You and us. "Va'Tirdefenu Haragnu" - it is as if You do not supervise over us. Also in a cloud, which is usually of angels of mercy, like we find at Keri'as Yam Suf and Matan Torah, You covered, to reverse Midas ha'Rachamim to Midas ha'Din, to stop Tefilah from passing.

Iyun Yakov: He did not refrain from declaring a fast on a rainy day - surely it is a time of Ratzon! He refrained only on a cloudy day without rain - "Nesi'im v'Ru'ach v'Geshem Ayin" (Mishlei 25:14).

One must accept a fast the previous day. How would Rava know in advance if it will be cloudy?

Rav Elyashiv: We must say that they accepted to fast on a day when one may fast. We find that when the kingdom decreed that one may not fast, an acceptance to fast 'when it will be possible' arouses mercy. Daniel's Tefilah was accepted once he decided to fast.

Note: Is it forbidden to fast on a cloudy day?! It is merely better on a day that is not cloudy! Perhaps he means a day proper to fast. (PF)

What iron wall separates between Yisrael and Hash-m?

Maharsha: It is Hash-m's word to Yechezkel. "Beinecha" refers to Yechezkel. It is in place of Beini u'Vein ha'Ir. Regarding Tefilah, which is mercy, it says that it is not heard from the day of the Churban. Regarding Hash-m's praise, in Kedushah and Barchu, we say that even an iron wall does not separate between Yisrael and Hash-m.

Iyun Yakov: This is only after the Churban, when gates of Tefilah were locked. Before the Churban, even an iron wall did not separate between Yisrael and Hash-m!

Chashukei Chemed citing Ben Yehoyada: Korbanos used to atone. Nowadays Tefilah is in place of Korbanos, but the Yetzer ha'Ra (which is called El Zar) causes a person to have foreign (Zar) thoughts in the heart (Lev). The word Barzel (iron) is Zar (backwards) inside Lev (backwards).

Since the iron wall blocks Tefilah, why does it say "Beinecha u'Vein ha'Ir"?

Anaf Yosef citing Semichus Zekenim: One who is in Chutz la'Aretz should pray facing Yerushalayim, like it says above. (Note: Above (30a), it says that in Chutz la'Aretz, one faces Eretz Yisrael; in Eretz Yisrael, he faces Yerushalayim. - PF) Even if you do so, there will be an interruption between [you and] the city.

What is 'praying at length'?

Megadim Chadashim: Tanchuma (Vayera 1) says that he makes many supplications. Even if he is not worthy to be answered, Hash-m does Chesed with him. Sefer Chasidim (130) says that he is answered due to the strength of his supplications and tears.

Megadim Chadashim, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chayei Olam (the Steipler, 2:28): Also one who prays a short Tefilah many times each day is called 'Ma'arich bi'Tfilah.' R. Yosef Chayim Sofer explains (below 55b) 'how should one pray at length? He should request much mercy', i.e. he prays and prays again. Also Chefetz Hash-m says so. We find that Shlomo sang 24 praises and was not answered (Shabbos 30a), and Moshe prayed [515] Tefilos, like the Gematriya of va'Eschanan.

Megadim Chadashim: The Maharsha (below, 61a) asked from the Gemara there 'one's words in front of Hash-m should also be few!' R. Yonah (31a) says that b'Tzibur, R. Akiva did not increase supplications, and did not say the words at length. This implies that 'praying at length' refers to both of these.

Why do we need both "va'Espalel El Hash-m" and "va'Yishma Hash-m Elai Gam ba'Pa'am ha'Hi" to teach that anyone who prays at length, his prayer will have an effect?

Maharsha: The latter verse says that Moshe stood on the mountain for 40 days, but it does not specify that he prayed the entire time. From the first verse we learn that he prayed the entire time. Also below (34a), we say that he prayed for 40 days.

What was the question from 'anyone who prays at length and is Me'ayen in it...'? Before discussed only one who prays at length; it did not say that he is Me'ayen in it!

Maharsha: The Makshan thought that being Me'ayen is an attribute, and even so, he will come to heartache. The Tartzan answered that being Me'ayen is worse, like Tosfos explains.

What is being Me'ayen in Tefilah?

Rashi: He expects to be answered because he elaborated.

Tosfos: He expects to be answered because he had intent in his Tefilah.

Me'iri: He makes his Tefilah contingent on being answered, that if he is not answered, he will slacken from Tefilah.

What is Tocheles?

Rashi: It is an expression of Chiluy (supplication).

Maharsha: It seems that Rashi explained so, for the verse does not explicitly say that it discusses Tefilah. However, also below, we say that "Kaveh El Hash-m" discusses Tefilah, even though it is not explicit! Rashi can answer that there is different, for that entire Mizmor (27) discusses Tefilah - "Achas Sha'alti me'Es Hash-m Osah Avakesh" (Tehilim 27:4).

Maharsha: He hopes [that his Tefilah will be answered].

Why is engaging in Torah a remedy for one who prayed at length and was Me'ayen in it?

Maharsha: Bitul Torah blocks acceptance of Tefilah - "Mesir Azno mi'Shemo'a Torah Gam Tefilaso To'evah" (Mishlei 28:9).

Iyun Yakov #1: "Pekudei Hash-m Yesharim Mesamchei Lev" (Tehilim 19:9) - this cures heartache.

Iyun Yakov #2: Perhaps he was punished for elaborating in Tefilah, which is Chayei Sha'ah (primarily requests for matters of this temporary world), and did not engage in Torah (eternal life)! Therefore, he should fix his mistake!

Chashukei Chemed citing Ohr Torah: Sometimes Tefilah does not help because it cannot ascend; the Satan blocks it. The voice of Torah cleaves all Reki'im. This is why they used to pray where they learn (8a).

Here it says that that Iyun Tefilah is bad. Also below (55a), it says that it is one of three things that arouse mention of one's sins. In Shabbos (127a), we say that one eats the Peros of Iyun Tefilah in this world, and the principal is intact for the world to come! In Bava Basra (164b) it says that Iyun Tefilah is one of three things that people transgress every day, i.e. they are not Me'ayen!

Tosfos: There are two kinds of Iyun Tefilah. Here, he expects to be answered. There (Shabbos and Bava Basra), he has intent in Tefilah.

If one prays and is not answered, why should he pray again?

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps he was not answered because it was a time of anger, and now is a time of Ratzon - "Chavi Chim'at Rega Ad Ya'avor Za'am", "b'Es Ratzon Anisicha" (Yeshayah 26:20, 49:8).

Chashukei Chemed citing the Vilna Gaon: 'Pray again' means to listen carefully to Chazaras ha'Shatz. R. Yonah (Igeres ha'Teshuvah) says that via doing so, it is as if he prayed again.

What is the source that "Rak Chazak ve'Ematz Me'od Lishmor La'asos..." refers to Torah and good deeds?

Maharsha: Lishmor is Mishnah (learning), like it says in Kidushin 37a; La'asos is good deeds.

Maharsha: "Chazak ve'Ematz" is said also about Tefilah; we can expound that it requires invigoration and Kavanah. Regarding Derech Eretz, Yo'av told Avishai 'invigorate yourself, and also I will be strengthened. If one of us is losing, the other will save him.'

What is Derech Eretz?

Rashi: It is his livelihood - his craft, his business (if he is a merchant), his war (if he is a warrior)...

"Chazak v'Nischazek b'Ad Amenu..." discusses war. How can we learn to other matters of Derech Eretz?

Rav Elyashiv: The verse ends "va'Shem ha'Tov b'Einav Ya'aseh." We do not rely on a miracle. Do what you can to strengthen yourself, and then Hash-m will help. The same applies to all worldly pursuits.

The difference between "Azavani" and "Shechechani" is obvious! Also, why does it mention Olos and Bechoros in the Midbar, and not in the Mikdash?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We asked because it would have sufficed to say "Azavani" or "Shechechani"; we would know that also the other applies. Also, they could have been put together - Azavani v'Shechechani Hash-m. Therefore, we expound that Hash-m abandoned Yisrael and exiled them among haters, and we were forgotten there; Hash-m did not redeem us. "Va'Shem" hints to Hash-m and His Beis Din; Midas ha'Din is still stretched on us. Yisrael asks, at least He should remember our good deeds, and benefit us in Galus! A man who divorced his wife and remarried, even though he does not remember her to remarry her, he remembers her good deeds to benefit her! Hash-m says that He remembers our Korbanos and Olos Nedavah in the Midbar, i.e. what they offered at Matan Torah, before they sinned. "Na'arei Bnei Yisrael" (Shemos 24:5), i.e. the Bechoros (Rashi there, from Bamidbar Rabah 4:8), offered them.

Iyun Yakov: You abandoned us and removed Your Shechinah from us; You forgot us and did not supervise over us; You put us in the hand of evil Mazalos. It mentions the Olos and Bechoros in the Midbar - since they are first, they are dearest.

What is the significance of remembering the deeds of his first wife?

Iyun Yakov: The first deed is always dear and remembered. Had Yisrael guarded the first Shabbos, no nation would have ruled over them (Shabbos 118b). One who divorces his first wife, the Mizbe'ach sheds tears over him (Sanhedrin 22a); the same applies to one whose first wife died. (Note: I did not find this, rather, if one's first wife died, it is as if the Mikdash was destroyed in his days (ibid.) - PF) Similarly, I (Yisrael) received Your Torah first, and I am Your first nation, You should not totally forget me! One opinion (Chagigah 6a) holds that Yisrael did not offer the Tamid in the Midbar, for they were ostracized from Hash-m; their Korbanos were not accepted - "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" (Mishlei 21:27).

Etz Yosef citing Semichus Zekenim: Yisrael hint that Hash-m removed His Shechinah to above - "Rumah Al ha'Shamayim" (Tehilim 57:6). It is as if he took the angels for a second wife.

How does 'when a man takes a second wife...' answer the question?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Asifas Zekenim: If one has a wife with attributes and shortcomings, and sometimes he is pleased and sometimes he is angry, and he divorced her, he could forget her. If he did not want to be alone, and remarried, and his new wife has only shortcomings, this is salvation for his first wife; he will regret divorcing her. Sometimes Yisrael were pleasing to Hash-m in Eretz Yisrael, and sometimes we angered Him; He sent us away. We are abandoned and forgotten because He did not take a second wife (nation). If He would, He would see the difference between His new wife and us, and He would return us!

What is the source to expound 'I created 12 constellations. There are 30 generals for each...'?

Maharsha: The next verse says "Hen Al Kapayim Chakosich." How could I forget you?! Al Kapayim, i.e. the Heavens and all their legions, which are above the clouds, "Kapayim Chakosich" - you are the reason for their Chukim - "Im Lo Brisi... Chukos Shamayim va'Aretz Lo Samti" (Yirmeyah 33:25). I made all of them for you! Regarding every division, there are 30 commanders - one for each day of the month. There are seven levels of authority, corresponding to the seven Kochvei Leket (the sun, moon and five closest planets).

Anaf Yosef: Initially, people derided this Agadah, for early astronomers counted only slightly more than 1000 stars. Now, with telescopes, they see that Chazal knew the awesome multitude of stars a long time ago!

Note: Radak (Tehilim 147:4) says that all astronomers agree that there are 1098 stars, i.e. big stars that illuminate on the land. Small stars that do not illuminate, man cannot see them, and all the more so he cannot count them. (PF)

How does "ha'Sishkach Ishah Ulah me'Rachem Ben Bitnah" teach about Olos and Bechoros offered in the Midbar?

Rashi: "Ulah" is like Korban Olah.

Maharsha: Rashi did not explain "Ishah"; it seems that he explains simply (a woman). I say that Ishah Ulah is like "Olah Ishe Re'ach Nicho'ach" (Vayikra 1:9). "Me'Rachem Ben Bitnah" hints to Peter Rechem (Bechor). That you offered to Me in the Midbar - I remember the early deeds.

Rashba: Some explain that the simple meaning is to read Ulah like Olah, and Ben Bitnah to be Peter Rechem (the firstborn). Some of these people believe in Chachamim; others say that they erred. Really, the simple meaning of the verse is that Yisrael was the first intent in creation of the lower world, for they accept Torah and Mitzvos. Through them, they know Hash-m, and the Avodah that He desires. So it says "Bni Bechori Yisrael" (Shemos 4:22), "Kodesh Yisrael la'Shem Reishis Tevu'aso" (Yirmeyah 2:3). Intent for Yisrael preceded everything; it is compared to a woman with Ulah - the fruit of her womb. Hash-m's love for Yisrael is greater than a mother's love for her son - He will never forget them, in spite of any sin - "Lo Yarpecha v'Lo Yashchisecha v'Lo Yishkach Es Bris Avosecha" (Devarim 4:31). So it says here, "Gam Eleh Sishkachnah v'Anochi Lo Eshkachech." The verse compares this to a mother, who would never switch her child or be unsure if it is her child; a father could be unsure. So Hash-m will never remove His love and mercy for Yisrael, or switch them for another nation. The continuity of Yisrael is via Mitzvos, and Teshuvah, if they veered from Mitzvos. Teshuvah is completed with Korbanos, like the Torah says. Amidst mercy on Yisrael, Hash-m fixed Olas Tamid to atone for the nation morning and afternoon, even for improper thoughts (Vayikra Rabah 7:3). Hash-m also fixed Korban Bechor, which recalls the wonders and Chesed that He did for us when He struck all Bechoros Mitzrayim. Chachamim mentioned Olah and Bechor merely to show how the verse hints to them; it is not the simple meaning. Also "Gam Eleh" and "v'Anochi Lo Eshkachech" hints that the Egel, the greatest sin, was atoned for. Its punishment was proper to make Yisrael forgotten - "Heref Mimeni v'Ashmidem."

What Olos Eilim did they offer in the Midbar?

Anaf Yosef citing Tzlach: Each of the seven days of the Milu'im, they offered a ram for an Olah. Since Moshe offered them (he served as a Kohen), they are remembered more than all Korbanos.

Megadim Chadashim: Yalkut ha'Makiri and Menoras ha'Ma'or say 'that you offered 40 years in the Midbar' - it was not only during the Milu'im! (Note: Also each day of the Milu'im, they offered also a Shelamim ram and a Chatas bull (Shemos 29:35-36, and Rashi there)! Rashi says that the bull was to sanctify the Mizbe'ach, but I see no reason to mention the Olah ram but not the Shelamim ram! - PF)

Etz Yosef citing the Vilna Gaon: It should say 'Ishim', and not Eilim. Rav Elyashiv - there is no reason why rams are better than other Korbanos; "Ishah" in the verse hints to Ishim.

What Pitrei Rechamim did they offer in the Midbar?

Rav Elyashiv: The Vilna Gaon deletes also Pitrei Rechamim from the text.

Megadim Chadashim: Even though Bechoros are not more important than other Korbanos, the Gemara mentions them, for the verse hints to them.

Megadim Chadashim: Reish Lakish taught this, and he holds that Bechoros did not become Kadosh in the Midbar (Bechoros 4b)! Devar Avraham (3:7:4) says that he refers to the Bechoros that left Egypt; he agree that they were Kadosh and were offered. I say that 'that you offered in the Midbar' implies all 40 years, and Yalkut ha'Makiri explicitly says so. Devar Avraham also suggested that Reish Lakish did not teach the final words (that you offered to Me in the Midbar). This is difficult. If so, who said them?! Yalkut Shimoni (Yeshayah 470) attributes this teaching to R. Elazar. He holds like R. Yochanan, that Bechoros became Kadosh in the Midbar.

Why should we think that Hash-m will not forget the Egel?

Maharsha: Just like He will not forget Yisrael, for [Yakov's] form is under Kisei ha'Kavod, also the form of an ox is there.

How does "Gam Eleh Sishkachnah" refer to the Egel?

Rashi: They said "Eleh Elohecha Yisrael."

Hash-m remembers the other two matters (Olos and Matan Torah). "Gam Eleh Sishkachnah" implies that another matter will be forgotten!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): There were two sins in the Egel - giving gold to make it, and they did not protest against those who said "Eleh Elohecha Yisrael." They sinned with rings, and atoned with rings (donated them for the Mishkan) - "Hevi'u Chach va'Nezem" (Shemos 35:22; Shemos Rabah 48:6).

Here it says that Hash-m will forget the Egel. "Uv'Yom Pakdi u'Fakadti" (Shemos 32:34) teaches that every punishment includes some punishment for the Egel (Sanhedrin 102a)!

Maharsha: That refers to when Yisrael are in Galus. Hash-m will forget it in the future. "V'Anochi Lo Eshkachech" refers to accepting the Luchos on Har Sinai. "Anochi Anochi Hu Menachemchem" (Yeshayah 51:12) refers to the second Luchos, after Hash-m pardoned the Egel. He consoles Yisrael, that in the future He will forget the Egel. This is why it says Tov in the latter Luchos (Bava Kama 55a)!

Why does forgetting the Egel arouse concern that Hash-m will forget Ma'amad Har Sinai?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): At Matan Torah, they saw the ox on the Merkavah, and later made the form of a calf. Perhaps Ma'amad Har Sinai must be forgotten, lest it arouse reminder of the Egel!

Iyun Yakov: Hash-m will forget the Egel, for they intended l'Shem Shamayim (to teach sinners that repentance is always possible - Avodah Zarah 5a). Perhaps He will forget also Ma'amad Har Sinai, for their hearts were not with Hash-m - "v'Libam Lo Nachon Imo" (Tehilim 78:37; Vayikra Rabah 18:3). Hash-m answers that He joins a good intent to action, but not a bad intent.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: The Luchos were broken at the time of the Egel. Even though Hash-m pardoned the Egel, one might have thought that Ma'aseh Sinai ceased via their breakage.

Rav Elyashiv: Ma'aseh Sinai is saying "Na'aseh v'Nishma" (Shemos 24:7).

How do we learn from "Ashrei Yoshevei Veisecha"?

Rashi: Only after [delaying in Beis ha'Keneses], "Yehalelucha".

Tosfos: This is why they enacted to say "Ashrei Yoshevei Veisecha" before Tehilah l'David. This is unlike those who say many [verses that begin with] Ashrei.

Maharsha: Yoshevei is an expression of delaying, like "va'Teshevu v'Kadesh Yamim Rabim" (Devarim 1:46). "Od" is an addition; they delay in Your house more than the time for Tefilah, beforehand.

Why must one delay Sha'ah after praying?

Me'iri: He should not be like one who casts off the yoke and leaves. This is why they enacted to say a Mizmor (Shir Shel Yom) or Aleinu after Tefilah.

How does "Ach Tzadikim Yodu li'Shmecha Yeshvu Yesharim Es Panecha" teach that one must delay after praying?

Maharsha: After they thank and pray to Your name, Yeshvu Yesharim (the straight delay) just seeing Panecha, without Tefilah.

Since one must delay before and after Tefilah, why are they called Chasidim? They did not do more than is required!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): One must delay some time. They delayed a full hour.

Etz Yosef: We should not establish ourselves to be at their level, to spend nine hours a day in Tefilah and trust that our Torah will be guarded. Rather, we delay a little before and after.

How was the livelihood of early Chasidim blessed?

Maharsha: They worked a short time, just for bread and water, and it was blessed. "Va'Avadtem Es Hash-m Elokeichem u'Verach Es Lachmecha v'Es Meimecha" (Shemos 23:25) - the verse begins in the plural, for all Yisrael pray in place of Avodas Korbanos. The Seifa is in the singular, for only a minority spend almost the entire day in Tefilah, and Hash-m blesses their work.

Iyun Yakov: We infer that one should not make Torah and Midas Chasidus an axe to eat from it (be supported from others). This is not the way of Chasidim! Rather, he works only for his needed income, and it is blessed.

Etz Yosef: They worked a little, and it is as if they did the entire job. Any Torah without work, in the end it will be Batel.

Why did the Gemara ask only about guarding (remembering) their Torah, but not when they had time to learn?

Iyun Yakov: An ignoramus cannot be a Chasid (Avos 2:5). Surely they learned before they reached the level of Chasidim. We asked only how they remembered Torah, for they could not constantly review their learning. From here we learn that one should not conduct with too much Midas Chasidus until he filled himself with learning. Afterwards, his Torah will be guarded in him.

Why is this episode brought here?

Iyun Yakov: Just like before, it discusses how early Chasidim relied on a miracle that their Torah will be guarded and their livelihood will be blessed, here the Chasid relied on a miracle.

Why did the Chasid not answer him?

Iyun Yakov: He relied on a miracle, for he saw that the noble waited until he finished and did not want to harm him immediately. He knew that the noble merely wanted to be appeased. (Note: When the noble greeted him, how could he know that the noble will wait until he finishes, and not harm him immediately? - PF) Normally, one prays a short Tefilah on the road; Chasidim knew that they intend l'Shem Shamayim, and 'Shomer Mitzvah Lo Yeda Davar Ra' (Shabbos 63a). In any case, he appeased him in the way of nature, lest his merits be reduced (if he is saved miraculously).

Anaf Yosef: He saw that the noble was humble - the noble greeted him first! Therefore, he trusted that he will not rush to kill him before hearing his claim; he relied on the excuse that he gave later.

Rav Elyashiv: Since the noble greeted him first, this shows that he was not angry. (Note: Perhaps he will get angry when the Chasid does not answer! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv citing the Ra'avad, Magen Avraham 104:1: He did not interrupt even in a dangerous situation, for he was sure that Hash-m will help him.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Taz 66:1: Why did the Chasid said 'wait until I appease you'? He should have immediately started to appease him! Rather, he showed that it is not the etiquette of authority to immediately kill without asking why the person did so. I will have a chance to appease you, so I did not transgress "v'Nishmartem".

"Rak Hishamer Lecha u'Shemor Nafshecha" refers to forgetting Torah - it continues "Pen Tishkach Es ha'Devarim"! And so it says in Avos 3:8! It does not discuss guarding from danger!

Maharsha: In Shevu'os (36a) we say that it warns against cursing oneself. (Note: i.e. it also discusses guarding from danger. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: People say that one must be careful about Piku'ach Nefesh, for it says "v'Nishmartem Me'od l'Nafshoseichem." The verse forbids idolatry! However, we learn from Shevu'os that it also includes guarding your life.

Why did he say 'had I killed you, no one would have a claim against me'?

Anaf Yosef: According to letter of the law, one must interrupt and not endanger himself. It is as if the Chasid killed himself!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Binah l'Itim: If one was Moser Nefesh when there was no obligation, Tosfos holds that he is called Kadosh; the Rambam holds him liable for his own death. All agree that in public, if a Nochri wants to make a Jew transgress, he may not transgress. The noble thought that in private, one may not endanger himself. One verse forbids optional Mesiras Nefesh, and the other forbids endangering oneself even for a Mitzvah. Even if you thought that I wanted to make you transgress, you should have transgressed. Had I killed you, no one would have a claim against me - there was no Jew around! The Chasid saw that the noble is foolish, a Chacham in his own eyes. I need not delve to clarify the Halachah - I can dispel you with a poor Mashal, and you will not see the flaw! In the Mashal, the king did not command not to endanger oneself for his honor. Also, one who is talking with the king, and does not answer someone else who greets him, he is not in any danger!

Why did he say 'if you were standing in front of the king...'? The same applies to anyone!

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: This was to appease the noble. He esteemed him - you level is slightly less than the king's, and even so, you would be Chayav Misah if you answered your friend. I am so much lower than Hash-m - all the more so I would be Chayav Misah for interrupting!

Why did it need to say 'the Chasid departed to his house in Shalom'?

Pele Yo'etz (Shemirah): Meforshim say that he departed to Beis Olamo (he died) for transgressing "v'Nishmartem Me'od l'Nafshoseichem." Perhaps the noble would not speak with him, and cut off his head! Megadim Chadashim - I did not find these Meforshim. "L'Shalom" implies that he went safely to his house!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada #1: They asked Rav whether Talmidim may come to learn via a path with Safek danger; he said, 'they may go; I accept any harm [proper to befall them] on myself!' He was unsure if they may return. Do not think that this episode was when the Chasid was going to learn, and the Mitzvah protected him. No - even though he was going home, a miracle saved him.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada #2: When he departed from the noble, the noble gave to him Shalom. Not only did he not kill him - Hash-m gave to him love and grace in the noble's eyes.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada #3: Even though the Chasid had mortal fear, which often harms people, he departed in Shalom, without any harm.

Note: If he was in mortal fear, he should have interrupted to answer him! Perhaps this is like Tosfos, who permits optional Mesiras Nefesh. (PF)