The one who washes first - why does he say Birkas ha'Mazon for everyone?

Ha'Boneh: Every matter of Kedushah needs preparation. The Zohar says so in many places. When there are three for Birkas ha'Mazon, it is called Zimun, for one must settle his mind to bless Hash-m. Eating and drinking cause lightheadedness; Chanah said "Yayin v'Shechar Lo Shasisi va'Eshpoch Nafshi Lifnei Hash-m." The custom was that the one who will bless, he washes first, so he knows that he must direct his heart.

Why was Rav nervous?

Rashi: He thought that he had eaten with soiled hands, or that he took too long to eat.

Etz Yosef: Some say that the one who will bless, he is the fifth from the last to wash. In the time for the other four to wash, there is not a Hefsek between washing and Berachah. In this episode, there were only Rebbi, R. Chiya and Rav, so Rav washed first. He was nervous, for he had less time than normal (the time for two others to wash) to prepare for Birkas ha'Mazon. He feared lest he err in Birkas ha'Mazon. R. Chiya calmed him. You need not bless immediately after we wash. Rebbi is telling you to prepare Birkas ha'Mazon; this is not a Hefsek.

Why did Rebbi tell Rav to bless, and not R. Chiya, who was greater than Rav?

Rosh: This shows that the guest blesses, even if the host is greater than him. Daf Al ha'Daf - Magen Giborim (201) brought that Tosfos (47a) learns from here that a Gadol may let a Katan bless. If so, the Rosh has no proof from here.

Mishnah Berurah (201:4, from Ma'amar Mordechai and Pri Megadim): If there are more than one guest, the host may give to whom he wants, even to the smallest of them.

Megadim Chadashim: R. Chiya was regularly at Rebbi's table. Rav ascended from Bavel, and R. Chiya brought him to Rebbi. Rav was considered a guest more. There is no source to say that the host may give to a smaller guest when they are equally considered guests! (NOTE: Chulin 54a implies that Rav learned from Rebbi for many years. If this episode was when Rav first ascended, the Gemara should have said so, especially since it pertains to honoring a guest! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada #1: Since Rebbi decided that day that Rav will lead the Zimun, he decreed that he sit above R. Chiya; one does not refuse a Gadol, and especially the Nasi.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada #2: We must say that Rav was eating before R. Chiya came. Rebbi decided that Rav will lead the Zimun. After R. Chiya came, Rebbi did not retract. This does not impinge on R. Chiya's honor, for all there understood the reason. This is why the Gemara mentioned Rav before R. Chiya, to teach that he was there first, to explain why Rebbi chose him over R. Chiya.

Why do need a source to bless on fragrances? We said above (35a) that one may not benefit from this world without blessing. Doing so is Me'ilah. Scents are included!

Iyun Yakov: A Berachah is made via bodily motion and contorting the lips. One might have thought that it is only for something from which the body benefits.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: Surely this is only an Asmachta. All Berachos of Hana'ah are mid'Rabanan, except for Birkas ha'Mazon, and some say also Birkas me'Ein Shalosh. Benefit without blessing was compared to Me'ilah. We hold that Me'ilah does not apply to sounds, sights and smells. Therefore, one might have thought that they did not enact a Berachah for smells.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though one who blew a Shofar of an Olah was Mo'el (Rosh Hashanah 28a), that is because he did an action to make the sound. Similarly, Me'ilah does not apply to one who smells without an action.

Tziyunim l'Torah (7): Tzlach holds that the Berachah on smells is not a Berachah of Hana'ah, rather, of praise. Chashukei Chemed - if so, it is a Mitzvah to bless, but not a Chiyuv. Therefore, in a case where one may not bless (his body is not clean, or there is excrement nearby), one may smell without blessing. However, the Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 1:2) implies that if he did not bless, he was Mo'el. Also, Pesachim 26a implies that Me'ilah applies to smells; it exempted one who smelled Ketores after the cloud ascended, for its Mitzvah was done! Perhaps Tzlach holds like Radvaz (3:1046) that there is Me'ilah while the cloud ascends, for he benefits from Hekdesh itself, and not merely the smell. The verse teaches to bless even when he does not benefit from the matter itself, e.g. after the cloud ascended, or one who smells fragrances from afar. Megadim Chadashim - Radvaz (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:6) said also that there is no Me'ilah for hearing Klei Shir. There is Me'ilah for benefit from Hekdesh itself, e.g. he smells Hekdesh, or plays a Klei Shir of Hekdesh.

Megadim Chadashim: Lekach Tov (11 p.54b) and several Rishonim explicitly say that the Berachah is of Hana'ah. R. Bechayei (Shulchan Shel Arba 1) says that the Isur to benefit from this world without blessing includes smell, sight and hearing. He holds that also Berachos for sights and sounds are of Hana'ah! This is a Chidush.

Do scents benefit only the Neshamah? Animals smell, even though they have no Neshamah!

Maharsha #1: Smell is closer to spirituality than the other four senses. It says Neshamah, for smell comes via Neshimah (breathing, i.e. inhaling).

Maharsha #2: Animals smell, but perhaps they do not enjoy smells.

Some people, their body benefits from smells, like from eating!

Megadim Chadashim citing Shevus Yakov (3:20): It is a Chidush that even one whose body does not benefit from them, he blesses. The Chida says that smell comes via senses (the body); the Gemara means that it has no substance, and it is spiritual.

Here it says that we bless on smells, even though the body does not benefit from them. Tosfos (53b) asked why we do not bless on light whenever we benefit from it, and answered that the body does not benefit from it!

Megadim Chadashim citing Lekach Tov (11 p.54a): Tosfos means that we do not bless on light for only one limb benefits from it. The entire Neshamah benefits from smell; it is as if the body benefits. I say that Tosfos means that light is not a Hana'ah that enters the body.

What is the aroma of Levonan?

Rashi: It is of its leaves and flowers.

Maharsha: On the verse, Rashi explained that Levanon is the Beis ha'Mikdash, which is Melaben (whitens) Yisrael's sins. Targum Yonasan says, the scent of Ketores.

Maharsha: This refers to spiritual attributes of Chochmah, like it says about Mashi'ach "va'Haricho b'Yir'as Hash-m" (Yeshayah 11:3).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): In the future, Hash-m will be a shade and canopy for Tzadikim and these youths. Many will take shelter in this, and enjoy the good scent.

What is the source that "Yonekosav" are young men [who never tasted sin]?

Maharsha: This is like Yanik v'Chacham. Also Targum Yonasan is like this.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): This is like Yerushalmi (Kil'ayim 1:7) expounds "Banecha ki'Shsilei Zeisim Saviv l'Shulchanecha" (Tehilim 128:3) - just like olives cannot be grafted, there is no Pesoles (impurity) in your sons. If Yonekosav (youths) are tender saplings, they will go in a good path, and they will be "cha'Zayis Hodo" without Pesoles (they did not taste sin). Then, "v'Re'ach Lo ka'Levanon."

Rav Elyashiv: The text must say 'who never tasted sin.' If not, why is this future reward only for them?! Rather, youths have a big Yetzer ha'Ra. If they overpowered and never sinned, they get this great reward. (NOTE: Also an elder who never sinned, he overpowered his big Yetzer ha'Ra in his youth! Is this reward for one who never sinned in his youth, even if afterwards he sinned? - PF)

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: "Ben Shanah Sha'ul b'Malko" - like a [nursing] baby that never tasted sin.

Megadim Chadashim: In Pesachim (87a), Mar Zutri expounded "Asher Baneinu ki'Nti'im..." to discuss male youths of Yisrael who never sinned. Rashi says, they are like saplings - no mishap occurred to them. "Ha'Duda'im Nasnu Rei'ach" refers to male youths of Yisrael who never sinned (Eruvin 21b). Maharsha explains that we expound so, for it says about sin "Nerdi Nasan Reicho."

Why does the verse switch from plural ("Yelechu Yonekosav") to singular ("va'Yhi cha'Zayis Hodo")?

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: In Sanhedrin (104b), some say that all [the Jews that the Mishnah said have no share in the world to come] will be fixed and merit the world to come. The Akeidah explains that all generations that messed up, will be fixed via their descendants in the last generation (Yonekosav), which will be all Tzadikim - "v'Amech Kulam Tzadikim... Netzer Mata'ai Ma'asei Yadai Lehispa'er" (Yeshayah 60:21). "Kol ha'Neshamah Tehalel Kah" - the Neshamah of all generations¸ each ancestor will be cha'Zayis Hodo and receive a good scent from his descendants.

Why did Hash-m make everyone happy with his profession?

Rashi: This is lest a profession be lacking from the world. Even a tanner is happy with his trade! (NOTE: They used to use excrement to tan. Other people could not bear tanners' smell. - PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Magen Avos (Avos 1:10): We learn from "v'Ito" - it did not say b'Itam. (We similarly expound "v'Atah Nosen Lahem Es Achlam b'Ito" - Hash-m gives to each individual in his his time Kesuvos 67b). This was Chesed Hash-m, so people will find their needs available.

Maharsha: This is like it says (Kidushin 82b) 'the world needs perfumers and tanners.' When Hash-m decreed what profession every person will have, He made it pleasing to him, so he will remain in it from the beginning to the end.

Megadim Chadashim: Maharsha explains that "v'Ito" refers to when it is decreed what profession every person will have. Where do we find that this is decreed? It says only matters such as strong or weak, rich or poor... (Nidah 16b)! Below (63a), we say that one should choose a clean and easy trade! One should not change from his fathers' trade (Erchin 16b)! Chovos ha'Levavos (Sha'ar ha'Bitachon 3) says that Hash-m gave to each person a fondness and leaning towards a particular trade, and his nature suits it. He should choose the trade that he desires.

What will a pig do with a palm shoot, and how is this relevant here?

Rashi: It will roll it in the waste-heap, for this is its trade.

How is a torch like two people?

Rashi: This is for one who goes outside at night. One should not go out alone at night.

Maharsha: Here it says that moonlight is like three [so Mazikim will not even appear], and it seems all the more so daylight. "Me'Chetz Ya'uf Yomam mi'Ketev Yashud Tzaharayim" (Tehilim 91:5-6) implies that they can damage during the day! That is at a time of anger, when the destroyer is authorized, like it says in Bava Kama 60b. (NOTE: This answers Megadim Chadashim's question from Seforno and Ohr ha'Chayim (Bamidbar 22:22), who say that [initially] the angel did not appear to Bil'am [nor damage him], for Mazikin do not appear to [or damage] three people. R. Chaim Paltiel (ibid.) says that this is why Bil'am took two people with him. This was during the day - even an individual is not harmed! Since Hash-m was angry, it was like night. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: "Tashes Choshech vi'Yhi Laylah Bi Sirmosh Kol Chayso Ya'ar" (Tehilim 104:20) shows that night is a time of Mazikin; they are authorized at this time. The verse teaches that additionally, it must be dark; when it is light, they do not damage.

Daf Al ha'Daf: R. N. Widenfeld asked, above (3b, we asked that one should not enter even a new ruin (there is danger of collapse) even without concern for suspicion, due to Mazikin! We answered that it needs to forbid two to enter; then, there is no concern for Mazikin. We asked, if two enter, there is no suspicion! We should have answered, he has a torch; there is no concern for Mazikin, but there is suspicion!

What can appear to a lone person and damage him?

Rashi: A Mazik (Shed).

Megadim Chadashim: Seforno says that [initially] the angel did not appear to Bil'am, for Mazikin do not appear to three. It was an angel of mercy (Rashi, from Midrash Rabah)! Since it came to damage him, it had the law of a Mazik.

Since Mazikin appear to two people but do not damage, why are we concerned for this?

Rav Elyashiv: It is scary to see them.

Why is it better to throw oneself into a lit furnace than to make someone blush b'Rabim?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos #1: The fire of this world is only one part in 60 of the fire of Gehinom; one who shames another b'Rabim descends to Gehinom.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos #2: One who kills himself blocks himself from doing more good deeds, but he keeps what he did until now. One who makes another blush loses all his merits; his victim inherits his entire portion in the world to come.

If it is better than to kill oneself than to shame someone b'Rabim, why does one who sees no wearing Sha'atnez remove it, even in the market (19b)?

Chashukei Chemed citing Rav Elyashiv (on Bava Metzi'a 59) says that there, it is bodily shame. To expose that someone transgressed, e.g. Yehudah, is spiritual shame. Only for this, it is better to kill oneself. Likewise, one may not shout b'Rabim 'Ploni stole my garment - return it to me!'

If one must be killed rather than to make someone blush b'Rabim, why was this not taught in Pesachim (25a) with Aveiros for which 'Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor'?

Tosfos (Sotah 10b): The Gemara listed only Aveiros explicit in the Torah.

Sha'arei Teshuvah (3:139): This is Avak (an offshoot of) murder, which was listed.

Daf Al ha'Daf (Sotah 10b citing Merafsin Igri Vayeshev p.257): If humiliation is like murder, why is there no Heter to be Mechalel Shabbos to save someone from humiliation? Minchas Shlomo (1:7) says that we override Shabbos only for danger to man's body, but not for other matters, even if they can cause bodily damage. If an Ashir's mansion caught fire, and suddenly he will descend from great wealth to dire poverty, he may not extinguish it, even if amidst grief he may get sick and die. Alternatively, one must forfeit his own life before humiliating another, but he may not kill someone else who is about to humiliate someone; he is not considered a Rodef. The Gemara said 'one should cast himself...', and not 'people should cast him...'

Rav Elyashiv: This law is not relevant to us, for it applies only to an eternal humiliation, like the case of Yehudah. We cannot judge what is such a great humiliation that requires Mesiras Nefesh. (NOTE: Why do we not say that amidst Safek, one should be passive and not humiliate? Presumably, we follow the majority; in most cases, there is need (or Heter) for Mesiras Nefesh. - PF)

Me'iri: Really, one need not forfeit his life for this. The Gemara exaggerates to show the severity of the Isur.

Daf Al ha'Daf (Sotah 10b citing Sifrei Chasidus): The Gemara did not say that one must throw oneself into a fire, rather, it should be pleasant for him. i.e. one must love Yisraelim so much that he would prefer to be thrown into a fire than to humiliate another in public.

Daf Al ha'Daf (Sotah 10b citing Meshech Chochmah Sof Zos ha'Berachah): The Rambam holds that a Yisrael may be Moser Nefesh to avoid transgressing only for the three Aveiros, but a Ben Noach may do so for other Aveiros, e.g. to avoid humiliating someone.

Is this only if he makes him blush b'Rabim?

Megadim Chadashim citing Pri Megadim (OC 156:2): The Lav is even in private (also Chafetz Chaim says so in his introduction). The Rambam says 'b'Rabim' regarding matters for which he has no share in the world to come. The Pri Megadim (Matan Secharan Shel Mitzvos 5) and many others say that b'Rabim is when there are three others. Minchas Sotah (Sotah 10b) says that it is even in front of one other, for only the Shali'ach with whom she sent the Simanim] was with Tamar and Yehudah. He retracted, for many were there waiting to hear the outcome. Mar Ukva and his wife entered a hot oven (lest they reveal that they used to supply an Oni's needs), for this is better than making him blush b'Rabim (Kesuvos 67b). The Ritva there says that this was not b'Rabim, but it is still a very harsh matter.

Why was it proper for her to let Yehudah kill her? Via this, he will be liable for killing her and the fetus (for a Bnei Noach, also killing a fetus is murder)!

Rav Elyashiv: The Ramban (Bereishis 38:24) explained that Yehudah was a ruler. He was obligated to kill her for disgracing the kingship via her Zenus. Even though she was not Mezanah, Yehudah and others did not know this, so the kingship was disgraced. It was proper that he kill her - "Kol Cherem Asher Yacharam Min ha'Adam..." Therefore, it was proper to kill also her fetus. We do not wait for a pregnant woman to give birth [before executing her - Erchin 7a].

How do we learn from "Hi Mutzeis v'Hi Shalchah"?

Rashi: She did not say 'these items are of Yehudah; I am pregnant from him.' She opened for him to admit; if he will not, she will be burned, and not shame him.

What is the connection of going perfumed in the market and suspicion of homosexuality?

Rashi: Men perfume themselves so other men will desire them.

Why is hair considered like a garment, or not?

Rashi: They argue about whether or not it gets sweaty. (If it does, the perfume is to counter sweat, so it is permitted.)

Etz Yosef: The text of the Rif and Rosh does not have the version that considers it like a garment; Ma'adanei Yom Tov says that this is primary. (NOTE: Also Bi'ur Halachah (164:2) holds like this. He says that the bottom of a hat has much sweat from hair. - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: One may put scented oil only on sweaty places; one may not put it on his hand.

Megadim Chadashim: The Rambam is stringent. We find that they used to put oil on Rabanan's hair at a Chupah (Kesuvos 6b); Rashi there says that it was scented! We must say that this was only at the Chupah; they would remove it before going outside like this. (NOTE: Or, the Rambam argues with Rashi! - PF)

What suspicion is there if he goes out alone at night?

Rashi: He goes for Zenus.

Are these suspicions only for a Chacham?

Iyun Yakov: Some say that all the more so, they apply to commoners. They are suspected more. This is wrong.

Iyun Yakov: Only for a Chacham, there is suspicion and disgrace. One who is greater, his Yetzer is greater! We say on this Amud 'if the waiter is a Chacham, [he does not rub oil on his head, for it is disgraceful for a Chacham to go perfumed in the market].' A commoner is permitted! Surely, anyone may conduct like a Chacham [and refrain from what is disgraceful for a Chacham].

Rav Elyashiv: Yes. Amidst envy, people suspect a Chacham.

Why is going out alone at night merely disgraceful due to suspicion? It is dangerous, like it says in Chulin (91a)!

Maharsha: Here we discuss in the city; Mazikin are not common there, so it is not dangerous.

Rav Elyashiv #1: There are two reasons why a Chacham may not go out alone at night. We find that the angel could harm Yakov only at night.

Rav Elyashiv #2: Even when there is no concern for danger, e.g. he goes for a Mitzvah, a Chacham may not go, due to suspicion. (NOTE: Or, he has a torch, or there is moonlight, like above! - PF) Rav made himself a guarantor that Talmidim who go alone at night to come to learn will not be harmed (Pesachim 8a)! We must say that they were not yet Chachamim, and people did not envy them, so we are not concerned for suspicion. We need the reason of danger when suspicion does not apply, e.g. he has a fixed time to learn.

What is the fixed time?

Rashi: He learns from his Rebbi.

Here we are concerned only for a patch on a patch. In Shabbos (114a) we forbid even a stain on a garment!

Rav Elyashiv #1: Shoes are not so visible. Clothes are visible - they honor the wearer, so one must be more careful about them.

Rav Elyashiv #2: A tailor can sew a patch nicely, so it is not so disgraceful. One cannot sew a patch so nicely on shoes, so a Chacham is commanded to be concerned for the honor of his Torah, and minimize his expenses so he can [buy new shoes and launder clothing] when needed, and not dress disgracefully.

Why are we not concerned for a patch in winter?

Rashi: Mud covers it.

Why do Chachamim nowadays talk with their wives in public?

Rav Elyashiv: The Isur was only in their days, when there was a special cloak of Rabanan (Bava Basra 57b). Others were careful to wear it; one who is not a Chacham, and wears it, does not enter Hash-m's Mechitzah (ibid. 98a)! Nowadays, garments do not reveal who is a Chacham. One who knows that Ploni is a Chacham, presumably he recognizes Ploni's female relatives, and there is no suspicion. Even then, it was forbidden only to talk with her, but not to go with her.

NOTE: This is a great Chidush. I recognize many Rabanan, but not their relatives! Rav Elyashiv said that people suspect a Chacham more, due to envy. Perhaps this is smaller nowadays, that commoners have less esteem for Chachamim than they used to (but if the Chacham is connected to a political party, some supporters of different parties are eager to find fault with him)!

NOTE: Perhaps there was more concern in earlier times, when proper women rarely went outside - "Ishtecha k'Gefen Poriyah b'Yarkesei Veisecha" (Tehilim 18:3). Dinah, and also Leah, was called Yatzanis, for one time that she went out (Rashi Bereishis 34:1, from Midrash Yelamdenu). The Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 13:11) says that a modest woman goes out once or twice a month. "Pa'am ba'Chutz Pa'am ba'Rechovos" applied to a Zonah (Mishlei 7:10-12, Radak). One who is in back of a woman runs to pass her (EH 21:1). Nowadays, there are more than women in the street than men; if he passes her, he will be in back of another woman (Minchas Shlomo 1:91, Chut Shani EH p.50; some say that this law applies also nowadays). Therefore, if a Chacham talks with his wife, people will assume that it is his relative. (PF)

Is it Asur to be the last to enter the Beis Midrash?

Rashi: One who does so is lazy.

Maharsha: The text should not say Poshe'a (transgresses), rather, Pose'a (it looks like he steps on others' heads), like it says about R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi (Yevamos 105b). (NOTE: If so, this is not only for the last. It applies to anyone who comes after Chachamim are seated! - PF)

Why is taking a big step lowly only for Chachamim? It is damaging and dangerous for everyone! Also, since the sight is restored on Shabbos night, the danger departs, also for Chachamim it is not disgraceful!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: For everyone there is danger. For a Chacham, there is also disgrace.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: It is disgraceful for a Chacham to enter danger and seek a cure. "He'Chacham Einav b'Rosho" (Koheles 2:14) - he does not bring himself to something that needs a cure! Also, Kidush should be l'Shem Shamayim, to be Mekadesh Shabbos, and not for another purpose!

Etz Yosef citing Ateres Rosh: Big steps are not a problem for others. They can fix the damage at Kidush. Also a Chacham can fix it, but he should not do so (take a big step, and fix it later), due to disgrace.

NOTE: The Gemara says 'he should not take a big step, for taking a big step detracts...' This implies that this is the reason why a Chacham should not do so! This is difficult also for the Rif's first answer (there is danger for all, and for a Chacham, also disgrace). (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Losing one part in 500 of his sight is not damage. However, a Chacham must avoid this, lest it detract from his Avodas Shamayim.

Chashukei Chemed citing Ben Yehoyada #1: If a Chacham's sight wanes, people might suspect that he judged and took a bribe - "ha'Shochad Ye'aver Pikchim" (Shemos 23:8). Chida brings that once, people suspected R. Chayim Kefusi, and miraculously his sight returned.

Chashukei Chemed citing Ben Yehoyada #2: A Chacham needs sight to rule about Shechitah, Tereifos, Dam Nidah, Esrog... It is disgraceful if he must tell people that he cannot see well.

If one loses one part in 500 of his sight via a big step, after 500 big steps, he will be blind! We see that this is not so!

Tosfos (Ta'anis 10b) #1: Each [big] step removes one part in 500 of his remaining sight. (NOTE: Every 500 steps removes about 63% of the sight he had beforehand. One could still ask, marathon runners should be virtually blind. We do not find this! - PF) This is like the 10th of Bei Rebbi (Kesuvos 68a; each receives a 10th of what remains.) However, why does the first step remove more than the second?

Tosfos (Ta'anis 10b) #2: Only the first step removes one part in 500 of his remaining sight. After this, big steps do not harm.

Sefas Emes (Ta'anis 10b), Megadim Chadashim: Regularly taking big steps removes one part in 500 of his sight. I would have said that this is only while taking big steps, but the Gemara in Berachos implies unlike this.

How does one restore his sight in Kidush on Shabbos night?

Rashi: He drinks the wine.

Tosfos (Pesachim 100b): He puts from the wine in his eye.

R. Yonah: He does not put it in the eye. Even on the eye is forbidden! Meyuchas l'Ran (Shabbos 113b) - this harms the body, and transgresses Bal Tashchis! Maharsha - this is wrong. In the eye is forbidden (due to Refu'ah on Shabbos), but on the eye is permitted (Shabbos 108b, Tur OC 269). The custom is to do so only at Havdalah. It is not clear why this, or drinking the wine, should cure the eyes.

Megadim Chadashim: Sidur Roke'ach (Kidush p.484) says that after drinking the wine, we wash the cup and wash the face with the water to restore sight. Pirkei d'R. Eliezer (20) says to do so with the cup of Havdalah [but does not say that this restores sight]. Pri Megadim (301:1) says that also Havdalah can restore sight. It seems that some texts of the Gemara said so.

R. Yonah: He looks at the cup of Kidush.

Darchei Moshe (OC 271:8, from Maharil): He looks at the [two] Neros at the start of Kidush. Twice the Gematriya of Ner is 500; this restores the one part in 500 of sight lost via a big step. (Mishnah Berurah 271:48 brings so from Eliyahu Rabah.) This is during va'Ychulu; during Kidush itself, he looks at the cup.

Megadim Chadashim: Magid Ta'alumah and Yefe l'Lev (OC 271:12) say that looking at the cup restores sight.

Maharsha: The Gemara means that his sight is restored via the Kedushah of Shabbos when it enters. Then surely he will not take a big step - it is forbidden (Shabbos 113b)!

NOTE: The Gemara says 'Lehadrei', which implies that he does something to restore his sight! (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing the Ari Zal (Sha'ar ha'Mitzvos, Reish Parashas Ekev): It is via having Kavanah in Kidush. It helps only for big steps taken that week.

Megadim Chadashim: The Ra'ah, Ritva and Meyuchas l'Ran (Shabbos 113b) say that there is no Tikun for big steps taken on Shabbos, for it is forbidden due to "me'Asos Derachecha." The Ari Zal holds that it cannot be fixed, for the Tikun is only for the previous week (starting on Motza'ei Shabbos).

How does walking upright push aside the feet of the Shechinah?

Maharsha: Man is the Merkavah; the Shechinah is above his head. When he straightens his head up, he pushes aside the legs of the Shechinah on his head. The opposite applies to [those who conduct] lowly - "Eshkon v'Es Daka" (Yeshayah 57:15), to bring the Shechinah down to the land -"Melo Chol ha'Aretz Kevodo" (ibid. 6:3).

Rav Elyashiv: Walking upright without a reason is due to pride. If he does so for health, this is not a problem.

No one may walk upright, for this pushes aside Raglei ha'Shechinah! Why is this disgraceful only for a Chacham?

Etz Yosef: Others may do so for less than four Amos; this is not Docheh Raglei ha'Shechinah. Even less than four Amos is disgraceful for a Chacham. See Taz (OC 2:4). (NOTE: The Tur and Shulchan Aruch forbid even less than four Amos, for everyone. The Taz says that the Tur's text of the Gemara did not say 'four Amos.' (He rejects those who say that the Tur added his own stringency. He would not do so, for the Gemara gave a Shi'ur!) This requires investigation (the question remains difficult).