When would we think to honor regarding filthy hands?

Rashi: This refers to Mayim Acharonim (he would wash first).

Rav Elyashiv: We do not honor, for it is hard for everyone to wait with filthy hands. We say that among the last five, we do honor (the Mezamen washes fifth from the end), so he can prepare to be Motzi people in Birkas ha'Mazon.

Ra'ah: The Gemara teaches not to serve a Gadol if his own hands are filthy.

Why is coming from Eretz Yisrael a reason to be haughty?

Rashi: He often ascended to Eretz Yisrael, and said [in Bavel] teachings in the name of R. Yochanan.

What is an opening proper for a Mezuzah?

Rashi: It is entering any doorway. This excludes roads and breaches.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Rashi said entering to exclude leaving then, we do not honor. Also the Rambam (Hilchos Berachos 7:12) rules like this.

Why did Ravin infer from R. Yochanan? A Beraisa explicitly teaches that we do not honor on the road!

Rav Elyashiv: If the reason not to honor on the road is due to loss, if he honored, he did a Mitzvah. If it is because the place is not proper for honor, it is like a privy - his honor was nothing. If one sees that Ploni is insulted that he was not honored, it helps to honor him only according to the first Perush. The Ra'ah holds that it is not a place of honor at all. Even so, if one is insulted, the other should appease him. This answers Tosfos' question. (NOTE: IN Shabbos 51b, Rav Huna bar R. Chiya's donkey went in front of Levi's, and he sought to appease him. Tosfos (46b DH Ein) answered that if they began traveling together, one must honor even on the road - PF). And this is why Ravin told Abaye to enter first. Honor is in deed, not via words! (NOTE: Ravin thought that honor does not apply at the doorway of Beis ha'Keneses, for it is exempt from Mezuzah. - PF) Since R. Yochanan came to exclude a privy or bathhouse, honor is not possible there. However, the Halachah follows Abaye and the Sugya in Shabbos (51b); honor applies on the road. If he is insulted, one must honor him. Beis ha'Keneses and Beis Midrash are exempt from Mezuzah because they are not places of residence; our custom is to put a Mezuzah.

Chashukei Chemed: We learn from this that one may not go in front of his Rebbi on the road. Perhaps a car is a Reshus ha'Yachid by itself, so there is no Isur; it seems that there is no difference. One who transgressed should not apologize explicitly, lest he show that his Rebbi was insulted. Rather, he finds a subtle way to show his apology, like Rav Huna bar R. Chiya did.

Why does it say 'preceded and taught to his son'?

Rashi: He taught to him laws of a meal, for normally the Chasan is Botze'a.

Why must he wait for people to answer Amen?

Rashi: Amen is part of the Berachah. The Berachah must finish before he cuts (39b).

Rav Elyashiv: Amen completes the Berachah. It is as if the Mevarech answers Amen. The Oneh must intend to be Motzi him, and the Mevarech must intend to be Yotzei. This should be publicized! All this is if the Mevarech is Motzi them. If not, their Amen does not pertain to him at all.

Eretz Tzvi (22): The Yerushalmi holds that one is Yotzei even if the one who answers Amen did not intend to be Motzi him! Lev Beis Din stipulates [that it is as if he had intent].

Why does it suffice to wait for most of the people to answer Amen?

Rav Elyashiv: Really, we wait for those who answer properly. We assume that the majority answer properly. If most answer too quickly, we wait for those who answer properly.

What is Chatufah?

Rashi: The Alef is punctuated with a Chataf Patach. (NOTE: It seems that ti the correct text of Rashi, and so Sefer ha'Batim and Orchos Chayim cite in Rashi's name. - PF) It should have a Kamatz!

Etz Yosef citing the Aruch: He says it before the Berachah finished.

What is Ketufah?

Rashi: The Nun is not articulated well.

Etz Yosef citing the Aruch: He cuts the word into two.

What is an orphaned Amen?

Rashi, Tosfos: He does not know what Berachah was said, he just heard others answering (and answered also). In [the great Beis ha'Keneses in] Alexandria, they used to wave flags when it was time to answer Amen (Sukah 51b). They answered, even though they did not hear! There, they knew which Berachah they answer to, just they did not hear it.

Rav Elyashiv: The Rema (124:8) says that this applies to any Berachah. The Mechaber says that it is only if he wanted to be Yotzei the Berachah, even though now that he did not hear it, he cannot be Yotzei. This requires investigation. Since there is a curse for Amen Yesomah, one should not rely on the Mechaber to answer if he does not know which Berachah it is. Seemingly, this was said only for Berachos, but one may answer Amen Yesomah in Kaddish; he intends, may it be fulfilled! However, based on Sevara, all Amens are the same. Perhaps we can distinguish the last Amens of Kaddish (to Yehei Shelama Raba... and Oseh Shalom...), for they are not the primary part of Kaddish. One may answer from another room if there is not smelly filth in between. One should not answer on the phone, for presumably, there is filth in between. If one is in the same place and hears via a loudspeaker, surely he answers. This is no worse than the Beis ha'Keneses in Alexandria, where one knew via flags to which Berachah he answers!

Mishnah Berurah (124:34): Also one who answers more than Toch Kedei Dibur (the time to say three or four words) after the Berachah is Amen Yesomah. As long as most of the Tzibur is answering, this is considered the Berachah, and one may answer.

What is 'throwing a Berachah from his mouth'?

Rashi: He rushes it; it is like a burden [that he wants to be exempt from].

Ben Azai taught that one prolongs saying Amen, his life will be lengthened. Is this unlike Rav Chisda, who said that one who prolongs it too much, he errs?

Tosfos: No. All agree that he should not prolong it too much, for then it is not pronounced properly.

Etz Yosef: The proper amount is the time to say Kel Melech Ne'eman (Shulchan Aruch 124:8).

Maharsha: No. He errs, for also life that is prolonged too much is not good - "v'Higi'u Shanim Asher Tomar Ein Li Vahem Chefetz" (Koheles 12:1).

Here it says that Kusim tithe properly. We say that one who buys Peros from Kusim, it is Vadai Tevel (Tosfos Gitin 25a)!

Rav Elyashiv: They tithe for themselves, but not what they give or sell to others; they are suspected about Lifnei Iver. We find that if a Kusi slaughtered, if he ate from it, it is permitted. If not, it is forbidden (Chulin 4b).

Here it says that Kusim keep Mitzvos explicit in the Torah. In Chulin (4a), it was a question whether this is for all Mitzvos, or only those that they are established to keep. The argument was not resolved. Here it says that they keep [all such Mitzvos]!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sho'el u'Meshiv (1:19) left this difficult, why Rishonim did not say settle the matter from here. (NOTE: Perhaps we cannot resolve from here, for Chachamim and R. Shimon ben Gamliel argue about this! - PF)

What is the significance that Kusim guard Mitzvos [in which they are Muchzakim] more meticulously than Yisrael?

Ha'Boneh: They obligate punishment to Yisrael, for Torah was given to Yisrael, and they are not so careful. This is like Chazal explained, 'converts are harsh for Yisrael like Sapachas' (Tzara'as - Kidushin 70b). (NOTE: There, Tosfos brought from R. Avraham the convert, that it is because they are more meticulous in Mitzvos than Yisrael. - PF)

Why do two Beraisos ask 'who is an Am ha'Aretz', and the answers are totally different? No one in Beraisa #2 holds like Chachamim of Beraisa #1! Also, R. Meir's opinion is unlike Acherim. Acherim is R. Meir!

Rashi: Beraisa #1 asks who is an Am ha'Aretz regarding Zimun. Beraisa #2 asks who is an Am ha'Aretz that Chachamim discussed everywhere.

Do the opinions in Beraisa #2 argue with each other?

Tosfos (Sotah 22a): No. The concept of Am ha'Aretz applies to various matters, e.g. we do not accept testimony from him, he is suspected about Taharos, Ma'aseros, Shevi'is, he does not join to a Zimun...

Ha'Boneh: One who is meticulous about one of these six matters, even though they are actions (and not knowledge), they show some understanding; he is not an Am ha'Aretz.

Why does not reciting Shema make someone an Am ha'Aretz?

Iyun Yakov: "Adam Le'amel Yulad" (Iyov 5:7) - either to toil in Torah, or in Melachah, to work the land (Sanhedrin 99). This is why a free man is only one who engages in Torah. For this he is called Adam. One who does not learn and does not recite Keri'as Shma to fulfill "v'Hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah" (Yehoshua 1:8; Menachos 99b), he is called Am ha'Aretz, for he is proper only to work the Adamah.

Etz Yosef citing Semichus Chachamim's father: One who recites Keri'as Shma morning and evening fulfills "v'Hagisa Bo Yomam va'Laylah"; we do not reveal this to an Am ha'Aretz (Menachos 99b). This is easy to fulfill. Surely he does not do so, for he does not know, for it was forbidden to tell him!

What is Shimush Chachamim?

Rashi: Chachamim gathered and gave reasons for the Mishnayos. This is like the Gemara that the Amora'im arranged.

What is the significance of the six matters mentioned here?

Iyun Yakov: Beraisa #2 gives six opinions, corresponding to the six matters taught about an Am ha'Aretz (Pesachim 49b). Since he does not want to testify about Hash-m's unity, we do not give testimony in front of him. Since he does not wear Tefilin and Tzitzis, it is as if he testifies falsely, therefore we do not accept testimony from him. We do not reveal secrets to him, for "Sod Hash-m li'Re'av" (Tehilim 25:14). (NOTE: The other three are, we do not make him an overseer over orphans, or over Tzedakah, and one may not accompany him on the road. - PF)

Etz Yosef citing Semichus Chachamim: One may not accompany an Am ha'Aretz on the road. If he is not concerned for his own life (Torah is called life), all the more so for others' lives (Pesach 49b)! If he did not learn in his youth, what could he do? He could fulfill "v'Hagisa" via Keri'as Shma! Since he does not, this shows that he is not concerned for his life. R. Yehoshua says, he does not wear Tefilin; a Midrash says, one who wears Tefilin, it is as if he fulfilled "v'Hagisa" - "Lema'an Tihyeh Toras Hash-m b'Ficha." Ben Azai says he does not have Tzitzis on his garment - Tzitzis is equal to the entire Torah, which includes Talmud Torah. R. Nasan said, he does not have a Mezuzah, about which it says "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem"; women are obligated, for also they need life! R. Nasan bar Yosef said, he does not teach Torah to his sons - "uva'Davar ha'Zeh Ta'arichu Yamim." Acherim say, if he could be Meshamesh Chachamim, and he is not, this shows that he is not concerned for his life.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Ben Yehoyada citing Re'em: Three of the matters pertain to Torah, and three to Mitzvos. The three that pertain to Torah depend on each other. Keri'as Shma is written Torah, Shimush Chachamim is oral Torah, and teaching one's sons also pertains to his Torah. The Torah put together his learning and his sons' - we read "v'Limadtem Osam Es Bneichem" like Atem (you will teach yourselves). Also the three Mitzvos depend on each other based on Sod (Kabalah). One must wear every day Tzitzis and Tefilin, and while wearing them, put his hand on the Mezuzah and read the first Parashah of Shema.

Rava said that Rami bar Chama died only because he was not Mezamen on Rav Menasiya. What other reason would we have thought?

Megadim Chadashim citing Mahari Levi: Rami bar Chama and his brother married sisters (44a). Sefer Chasidim says that this is not a good Zivug. Rava teaches that this is not why he died.

NOTE: Perhaps one should not marry his brother's daughter, lest he die without children, and Yibum will be uprooted (Yibum and Chalitzah does not apply, for she 'falls' to her father. Tosfos (Yevamos 99a) brings that the Mitzvah to marry one's niece (he is naturally fond of her) was said specifically about his sister's daughter. It is not such a Mitzvah to marry his brother's daughter, lest this uproot Yibum. The same concern applies to marrying the sister of his brother's wife, and there is no reason to marry her! - PF)

Megadim Chadashim: Rav Chisda asked his daughter if she would like to marry Rami bar Chama or Rava; she said 'both of them.' Rava told Rami to marry her first (Bava Basra 12b); after he died, Rava married her (Yevamos 34b). Rava did not want people to think that he died due to her Nevu'ah. It was not because he told Rami bar Chama to marry her first - he could have divorced her! It was only because he was not Mezamen on Rav Menasiya. Also Benyahu says so.

Rav Huna said that the Halachah follows Acherim. We are not meticulous, and we make a Zimun even with an Am ha'Aretz!

Tosfos: This is like we say in Chagigah (22a), nowadays we accept testimony from an Am ha'Aretz, like R. Yosi (who says that everyone is believed about his wine and oil the entire year), lest (if we would not trust Amei ha'Aretz), everyone will build a Bamah for himself.

Mishnah Berurah (199:2, citing Magen Avraham): If he does not fulfill a known Torah Mitzvah, e.g. Keri'as Shma, we are not Mezamen on him. Bi'ur Halachah - we do not include him, but if three such people eat together, they are Mezamen. Megadim Chadashim - the Me'iri writes that we do not find that after the Gemara, people are not Mezamen on an Am ha'Aretz. And even if one will do like the Gemara, Amei ha'Aretz are Mezamen by themselves.

What is the meaning of 'Rami was not meticulous'?

Rashi: Rami had not investigated about Rav Menasiyah.

For what do nine Jews and a slave join?

Etz Yosef: It is for Tefilah with 10, and a Zimun with Hash-m's name.

What is the Mitzvah d'Rabim?

Rashi: To be Motzi the Tzibur in Kedushah.

Tosfos: This is difficult for Bahag, who says that if someone died on the last day of Yom Tov (Sheni), his relatives conduct Aveilus. Yom Tov Sheni mid'Rabanan does not override Torah Aveilus - "v'Acharisah k'Yom Mar" (Amos 8:10). We find here that Tefilah mid'Rabanan overrides "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu"! Also in Kesuvos (4a), it says that [if the Chasan's father or Kalah's mother died shortly before the Nisu'in], he conducts the seven days of Mishteh and afterwards the seven days of Aveilus. If the seven days of Mishteh override Torah Aveilus, all the more so Yom Tov Sheni!

Rav Elyashiv: Our Sugya is difficult for Bahag. However, the Sugya in Gitin 38b holds that any need, even a individual's Mitzvah, overrides "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu." If so, Bahag is not difficult. The Chinuch (Mitzvah 347) says that "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" is lest we free Kena'ani slaves, and need to work with a Eved Ivri, which will stop him from ding Mitzvos; the verse concludes "uv'Acheichem Bnei Yisrael Ish b'Achiv Lo Sirdeh." Therefore, it is permitted for the sake of a Mitzvah. Also this resolves Bahag.

Why does a Mitzvah d'Rabim override "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu"?

Rosh: One could say that this refers to a Torah Mitzvah, e.g. to read Parashas Zachor. However, the Gemara implies that in any case [one may free a slave to complete a Minyan].

Daf Al ha'Daf: If it was Parashas Zachor, we must say that this was on Shabbos. Sho'el u'Meshiv (1, 1:60) discusses whether one may free on Shabbos. Birkas Yakov says that perhaps he freed him on Erev Shabbos, for there were not 10 in the city. When a severe Mitzvah overrides a light Mitzvah, it need not be b'Idna (at the time the light Mitzvah is nullified - Tosfos Pesachim 59a). However, 'he came to the Beis ha'Keneses and did not find 10, and freed his slave' implies that he freed when he came to the Beis ha'Keneses to pray. Magen Avraham (446:2) says that Rishonim argue about whether a severe Mitzvah overrides even not b'Idna. Megadim Chadashim - since the Mitzvah overrides "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" mid'Oraisa, all the more so it overrides the Isur mid'Rabanan to free a slave on Shabbos. Teshuvas Chasam Sofer (OC 208) thought to say that he freed him via authorizing him to read Parashas Zachor in the Torah. The Isur (freeing) is at the time of the Mitzvah! He retracted, for he would need a Get Shichrur. (NOTE: In the Havah Amina, he read Parashas Zachor for the first Aliyah, for there was no Minyan before he read! - PF)

Ha'Boneh: Tefilah mid'Rabanan overrides "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu", for a Mitzvah that one does for himself cannot be compared to one who brings merit to the Rabim. The latter becomes a partner with Hash-m in Ma'ase Bereishis. Hash-m did not create the world for His need, Heaven forbid, rather, to bestow good on His creations. Ha'Mezakeh Es ha'Rabim does similarly - "b'Daito Yatzdik Tzadik Avdi la'Rabim" (Yeshayah 53:11). The Chacham said, we were not born for ourselves.

Rav Elyashiv: The Ran (Gitin 38b, citing the Ramban) says that "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" is like the Isur "v'Lo Sechanem" (Devarim 7:2), not to give a free gift to Nochrim. Even though an Eved Kena'ani is like a Yisrael regarding Lo Sechanem, one may not free him. Just like one may give a gift to a Nochri if the Yisrael has a need or benefit from it, also freedom. Therefore it is permitted for a Mitzvah. Here we permit only for a Mitzvah d'Rabim! The Sugyos argue about this.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kesav Sofer: The Rashba rejected the Ramban; Lo Sechanem applies only to Nochrim. The Ramban holds that for this, an Eved is like a Nochri. Here, R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that an Eved joins to 10. The Rosh (in Gitin) said that even though it says "v'Nikdashti b'Soch Bnei Yisrael", and the Shechinah rests only among 10, since a slave is obligated in Mitzvos, Shechinah rests on him. If so, we cannot say that he is like a Nochri! Therefore, the Isur to free cannot be due to Lo Sechanem. We asked that it is Mitzvah ha'Ba b'Aveirah, and needed to answer that a Mitzvah d'Rabim is different. We did not ask so in Gitin, for it did not bring R. Yehoshua ben Levi's teaching. It sufficed to say that a Mitzvah is different, for Lo Sechanem does not apply when needed for a Mitzvah. The Ramban holds that the Halachah does not follow R. Yehoshua ben Levi.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Tirosh v'YItzhar (33): A Mitzvah overrides "l'Olam Bahem Ta'avodu" when the freedom does the Mitzvah, e.g. there were nine Jews, and he freed a slave to complete the Minyan. Here, R. Yehoshua ben Levi taught that nine and a slave join, so we had to say that there were two slaves, and he freed one of them. The freedom did not do the Mitzvah; we needed to join the remaining slave to the nine to make the Minyan (NOTE: Even though there was no time delay, we say that the freedom did not do the Mitzvah; it merely enabled it. - PF) Therefore, we could not say 'a Mitzvah is different' (like in Gitin), rather, 'li'Dvar (for the sake of a) Mitzvah is different.'

Megadim Chadashim: Torah Lishmah (43) says that he needed to complete a Minyan for the Torah Mitzvah of Birkas Kohanim. R. Eliezer himself was a Kohen, like I explained in the Yerushalmi (Sotah, Perek 3). Even though it is only mid'Rabanan to require 10 for Birkas Kohanim, the Mitzvah itself is mid'Oraisa, just mid'Rabanan we do not do it without 10. Megadim Chadashim - if R. Eliezer were not a Kohen, he would not be able to transgress freeing a slave in order to enable another to do a Mitzvah. However, several Acharonim say that he was not a Kohen. A Midrash says that he descended from Moshe. This implies that he was a Levi; Torah Lishmah holds that he descended from Moshe on his mother's side. Rishonim said that he freed him for Kedushah or Barchu - this shows that he was not a Kohen. (NOTE: I see no proof. Perhaps this was at Minchah or Ma'ariv, when we do not do Birkas Kohanim! According to Charedim, also those who receive the Berachah are part of the Mitzvah (Bi'ur Halachah Reish 128). If so, there is no difference between a Kohen and a Yisrael for this! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: One may do a small Isur to save others from a big Isur (Tosfos Shabbos 4a), or similarly to enable a Mitzvah d'Rabim. And so rules the Shulchan Aruch (306:14 - if Nochrim abducted a girl on Shabbos to make her abandon Judaism, her father must pursue to retrieve her, even outside the Techum of 12 Mil).

Why do the first 10 get reward k'Neged all of them?

Maharsha: The Shechinah is among 10 who pray. They brought the Shechinah - the rest have no share in this, just they pray with those who brought the Shechinah.

Megadim Chadashim: R. Yonah explains, the Gemara asked, it cannot be that the first 10 get the reward of the rest, and those who came later get no reward. It answered that the reward of those who came later is added to the reward of the first 10.

Ma'adanei Yom Tov (1:7:10) says that the Rosh and R. Yonah hold that there is no difference among the first 10; I say that each of the first 10 additionally gets reward k'Neged others of the first 10 who came after him. Megadim Chadashim - R. Yonah could agree to this; he explained the Gemara, which did not discuss differences among the first 10, only their advantage over those who came later. We similarly find that ha'Golel receives reward k'Neged all who read in the Torah (Megilah 32a). Shiltei ha'Giborim there, citing Ri'az, explains that he rolls it before Kri'as ha'Torah; he enabled them to read. However, the other Rishonim say that he rolls after Kri'as ha'Torah.

Rav Elyashiv: When Hash-m comes to the Beis ha'Keneses and does not find 10, He is angry (6b). If one was among the first 10, it seems that he should not leave in order to don Tefilin and enter when wearing Tefilin, if he will lose being among the first 10. This requires investigation.

R. Yonah (Igeres ha'Teshuvah 10): One must come early to the Beis ha'Keneses, for one who comes early to Beis ha'Keneses and stays late, he lives a long life (8a)¸and the first 10 get the reward of all of them. Daf Al ha'Daf - what is the source that this is an obligation? Megilah 27b-28a brings many matters of Chasidus that bring long life. They are not obligatory! (NOTE: Perhaps R. Yonah learned from 6b; when Hash-m does not find 10 in the Beis ha'Keneses, He is angry. Surely one must strive to avert Hash-m's anger! Perhaps he brought the rewards for coming early for a mere support. (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Asarah Ma'amaros (4:2:14): 'He receives the reward of all of them' is true - he is the conduit for their reward. It goes to him, and he apportions to them. He also receives reward corresponding to all who come later.

Megadim Chadashim citing Imrei Binah (Chelek ha'Derushim Shabbos Shuvah 1, p.9a): The 10th completes the Mitzvah; he receives corresponding to all whom come after him. Megadim Chadashim - I did not find anyone who says so. Our Gemara says that all 10 get the reward corresponding to all who come after! Pekudas Elazar (90:14) says that the 10th is the best, and gets reward k'Neged all of them. Perhaps they understood the Zohar to say so; I understand the Zohar like our Gemara.