What is delay of judgment?

Rashi: After the verdict is already clarified, they delay giving it.

What is crooked judgment?

Rashi: They intentionally give an improper verdict.

What is Kilkul Din?

Rashi: They do not investigate enough, and automatically the verdict is wrong.

Rav Elyashiv: These should have been taught in decreasing order of severity - intentionally crooked judgment, not investigating enough, and delaying the final verdict! Igros Moshe said that here we do not discuss the Aveirah itself, rather, "b'Mishpatai Ma'asu" - belittling Torah. Delay is the worst - they already judged properly, yet they despise and delay the verdict. After this is crooked judgment - they are Stam Resha'im, and do not esteem Hash-m's Mishpat. They change it as they desire, not because they despise it, rather, for the sake of theft and evil. The last is those who belittle it and do not investigate to find the Emes.

Maharsha: The judges ruled correctly, but it was not carried out properly due to the scribes and officers. Judges must warn them!

Why do these punishments come for these Aveiros?

Maharal: Judgment is intellectual. Also Bitul Torah pertains to something intellectual. Such a person leans to total absence. The four punishments are in a verse - "Asher la'Maves la'Maves va'Asher la'Cherev la'Cherev va'Asher la'Ra'av la'Ra'av va'Asher la'Shevi la'Shevi" (Yirmeyah 15:2); 'Bizah' is Shevi (captivity). They include all punishments. People eat, but are not satiated, and they eat their bread by weight - also these are lack and curse! When he sins with intellect and departs from it, [physicality remains, and] physicality is never satiated. They eat bread via weight, a measure, unlike Torah, which is without measure.

Maharsha: These are the [fourth set of] seven curses in the Tochachah in Vayikra - "Sheva Al Chatoseichem." "V'Heveisi Aleichem Cherev... v'Ne'esaftem El Areichem" (due to plundering), "v'Nitatem b'Yad Oyev" (captivity), "v'Shilachti Dever b'Sochechem; b'Shivri Lachem Pas Lechem" (famine), "v'Achaltem v'Lo Sisba'u", "v'Afu... v'Heshivu Lachmechem ba'Mishkal."

What is the significance of eating their bread by weight?

Rashi (Vayikra 26:26): The grain rots, and the bread breaks in the oven. They weigh the crumbs to divide the bread [according to how much dough each put in].

Maharal: They eat bread via weight, a measure, unlike Torah, which is without measure.

What do we learn from "Ya'an uv'Ya'an b'Mishpatai Ma'asu"?

Rashi: This includes delay of judgment, crooked judgment and Kilkul Din.

Maharsha: Ya'an uv'Ya'an is written at the end of the Tochachah! It refers to the last seven curses, and not to the four mentioned here, in the middle of the Tochachah! It seems that we rely on "v'Im Es Mishpatai Tig'al Nafshechem... Lehafrechem Es Brisi" written at the beginning. It teaches that despising Mishpat is annulling the Bris (Torah), and it says here Nokem Bris. (NOTE: If so, it should have brought that verse, and not "b'Mishpatai Ma'asu"! - PF)

What is the difference between Shevu'as Shav and Shevu'as Sheker?

Rashi: Shevu'as Shav changes what is known, e.g. he swears that a man is a woman. Shevu'as Sheker, its falsity is not known. It makes people believe Sheker.

What is Chilul Hash-m?

Rashi: A great person that people learn from him, and he is not careful about his deeds. Small people belittle Torah due to him. They say, he understands that there is no importance to Torah and Mitzvos. Hash-m is profaned, and His words are made Chulin.

Why do vicious animals increase due to Shevu'as Shav, Shevu'as Sheker, Chilul Hash-m and Chilul Shabbos?

Maharal: Chilul is nullifying [Hash-m's] honor. This is like nullifying existence, for existence is according to the magnitude of His honor. Vicious animals destroy existence, to the point that people and Behemos are eradicated and roads are desolate.

Why do we read "b'Eleh" like b'Alah? Perhaps it simply means, these punishments!

Maharsha: The other times, it says differently - "v'Im Ad Eleh...", "v'Im Telechu Imi Keri", "v'Im b'Zos." Here it changed to write "v'Im b'Eleh", so we expound like Alah, an expression of a Shevu'ah. Even though it said "Sheva k'Chatoseichem", it listed only four punishments! Rather, "v'Im b'Eleh" refers to the punishment for Alah and Shevu'ah; see Rashi on Chumash. (NOTE: Rashi explained "v'Hishlachti Vachem Es Chayas ha'Sadeh" to include also Shen Behemah and "Chamas Zochalei Afar" (Devarim 32:24), and counted these three in addition to "v'Shikelah Eschem..." Redak rejected this, and said that "Sheva" is not precise. Maharsha implies that "v'Im b'Eleh", written after the four, refers to three punishments for Alah and Shevu'ah, to complete seven. Does he read "v'Im" with an Aleph (if) like v'Im with an Ayin (with, i.e. together with the punishments for Alah)? - PF)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Above, we expounded "v'Im b'Eleh... v'Heveisi Aleichem Cherev..." to discuss Bitul Torah! Regarding "v'Hishlachti Vachem Es Chayas ha'Sadeh...", it says "v'Im Telechu Imi Keri." With difficulty, we can say that since here it says "v'Im b'Eleh", and not v'Im Lo Sishme'u Li, it refers to the previous punishments ("v'Hishlachti... Chayas ha'Sadeh...") They were b'Eleh, i.e. for Alah and Shevu'ah.

Why is the punishment for murder (a) Churban Beis ha'Mikdash and (b) the departing of the Shechinah from Yisrael?

Maharal: Hash-m resembles man. Just like He is separate from the entire world, man is separate from all lower beings, Bereishis Rabah 14 hints to this. It says that man was created from the place of the Mizbe'ach. Therefore, the Mikdash is destroyed due to murder, for also man is a place for the Shechinah to dwell, just like the Mikdash. Death of Tzadikim is equated to burning of the Mikdash (Rosh Hashanah 18).

How does "v'Lo Sachanifu...; v'Lo Setamei Es ha'Aretz... Asher Ani Shochen b'Sochah" teach that the punishment for murder is Churban Beis ha'Mikdash and the departing of the Shechinah from Yisrael?

Rashi: Via Churban Beis ha'Mikdash, His dwelling is not amidst us.

Maharsha: The verse discusses [only] the Churban! We rely on the Seifa "Ani Hash-m Shochen b'Soch Bnei Yisrael." (NOTE: Maharsha asked because the Gemara cited only the Reisha, which says that the Shechinah will depart from Eretz Yisrael, i.e. Churban Beis ha'Mikdash. It is not a source that the Shechinah will depart from Yisrael. - PF)

Why is exile the punishment for Giluy Arayos, idolatry and working the land in Shemitah?

Maharal: The attribute of Eretz ha'Kedoshah is that it is called Kedoshah. Hash-m is Elokei ha'Aretz. Arayos is the opposite of Kedushah - it is the opposite of the land. Therefore, the land expels Yisrael for Arayos. The same applies to idolatry, for Hash-m alone is Elokei ha'Aretz. Also Shemitah shows Kedushas ha'Aretz - "v'Shavsah ha'Aretz Shabbos la'Shem." If people do not cease in Shemitah, it is as if there is no Kedushas ha'Aretz, therefore they are exiled from it. Eretz ha'Kedoshah is in the middle; everything in the middle is distanced from the extremes. Arayos is leaving equilibrium to cling to Ervah. It is called Tum'ah, for every Tum'ah leaves the middle to an extreme.

What is the source that other nations will dispossess Yisrael?

Maharsha: It says "v'Lo Saki... Ka'asher Ka'ah Es ha'Goy Asher Lifneichem." When the land expelled the Goy before you, you dwelled in place of them. So when it will expel you, others will dwell in place of you. Even though it says "v'Shamemu Aleha Oyveichem ha'Yoshevim Bah", and Rashi explained that Yisrael are comforted that the Goyim are not pleased here, Yisrael would prefer that they not be in Eretz Yisrael at all.

We should say that also for idolatry, the Beis ha'Mikdash will be destroyed - "va'Hashimosi Es Mikdesheichem"!

Maharsha: Here, it already listed seven punishments; exile is harshest, and everything [including Churban Beis ha'Mikdash] is included in it. 'Chodesh Asher Nehefach Lahem mi'Yagon l'Simchah..."

Why do we attribute the afflictions and harsh decrees to obscene talk? The verse mentions also flattery and me'Ra (evil)!

Maharsha: He understands that the Seifa "Lo Shav... v'Od Yado Netuyah" refers to the last matter mentioned (Nivlus Peh).

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Even though youths die and orphans scream due to both obscene talk and flattery, afflictions and harsh decrees are due only to obscene talk. It says "Al Ken Al Bachurav Lo Yismach Hash-m" - they die; "v'Es Almenosav Lo Yerachem" - orphans and widows scream. This is due to "Chanef u'Mera v'Chol Peh Dover Nevalah." "V'Od Yado Netuyah" teaches that a decree of 70 good years can be changed for evil - this is due to Nivul Peh, which is written next to it.

Iyun Yakov: It says "Shomer Piv u'Leshono Shomer mi'Tzaros Nafsho."

What do we learn from "Al Bachurav Lo Yismach"?

Rashi: There are many afflictions and decrees,

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He means that even though they died, Hash-m was not appeased. This was not a Kaparah, and [more] afflictions come upon Yisrael.

How does "u'Makos Chadrei Vaten" teach that he will receive Hadrokan?

Etz Yosef citing the Aruch: In Hadrokan, the stomach swells [and his intestines are ill, duntil he dies].

How do we learn from "v'Od Yado Netuyah"?

Rashi: "V'Od" is like va'Ed (forever) - all man's years (70). The hand of Din can nullify his merits due to this sin.

Maharal: Nivul Peh is sinning with the matter that is man's form (Medaber). "Va'Yhi ha'Adam l'Nefesh Chayah" - the Targum of is l'Ru'ach Memalela. Even if he sins with speech, and reviles and blasphemes, the sin (denial) is not special to the mouth. Nivul Peh is special to the mouth. Therefore, many afflictions come due to this, for everything is drawn from the form. New decrees come, due to the strength of the form, which is strong. Youths die, widows and orphans scream and are not answered, due to the cruelty of sin with Nivul Peh. It is with his form - Kol ha'Adam, therefore it can overturn a decree for all his years. "V'Od Yado Netuyah" implies that His hand is still stretched to strike greatly. The Tana taught this last, for the mouth finishes, like it says below (Amud B). Rav Chisda (our text - Chanan) says that Gehinom is made deeper for him, for the mouth completes man's form. It is his existence in deed. Gehinom is the destruction and loss of man. It causes that he is not considered to exist.

Why does it say 'all know why a bride enters the Chupah'?

Rashi: There was no need to say it. Even so, he is punished for saying why.

Etz Yosef citing Maharsha Kesuvos 8: All know that she enters for the sake of marriage, and he is Menavel (fouls) his mouth to say that it is for Zenus. This is like "Nevalah Asah b'Yisrael."

If one hears it and is silent, why is he punished?

Maharal #1: One who hears it should be aroused against the Zarus (foreign matter). If he is not aroused, he sins like the speaker. He is called Ze'um Hash-m, and not Ze'um ha'Adam, for he can excuse himself in front of people. He can say that he did not hear. Hash-m knows his thoughts!

Maharal #2: Ze'um Hash-m includes one who hears it and is silent. Always, one who hears is like one who says.

Iyun Yakov: All the more so he is punished if he rejoices hearing mockery about Simchas Mitzvah. (NOTE: What is his source that this is specifically one who hears about why a Kalah enters the Chupah? Perhaps it is because the same words are used 'Kol ha'Menavel Es Piv.' - PF) It says about such people "l'Simchah Mah Zeh Osah." His Simchah is reversed to grief.

What is 'Mamrik himself to sin'?

Rashi: He turns his heart from other affairs to engage in Aveiros.

Maharal: When the Yetzer ha'Ra incites a person, the sin is external to him. If he turns himself to sin, he himself is lacking. Therefore, wounds come upon him, and he is judged with Hadrokan.

Iyun Yakov: Wounds come upon him, for one who transgresses covertly, he is punished publicly.

What is the source that "Shuchah Amukah Pi Zaros" applies to obscene talk? The simple meaning applies to idolatry!

Maharsha: The plural "Zaros" implies that it discusses also a foreign woman, who was mentioned there. (NOTE: She is not mentioned explicitly! Ibn Ezra and R. Yonah explain "Pi Zaros" to be mouth of foreign women, but Rashi explained the mouth of idolaters. - PF)

How do we learn from "Ze'um Hash-m Yipol Sham"?

Rashi: Hash-m's anger dwells by "Pi Zaros." One who sits there and hears it, Hash-m is angry at him.

Maharsha: The simple meaning of "Yipol Sham" is that he will fall to Gehinom. However, Yipol can also mean to dwell, like "Al Pnei Kol Echav Nafal." Here, it means both of these.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Yipol Sham" means that he dwell there (among people who say obscenities).

If one is Mamrik himself to sin, why is he judged to receive Hadrokan?

Maharsha: Stam Aveirah everywhere is Zenus. It is proper that he get Hadrokan, in which the stomach is afflicted, like we said above (31b), she sinned regarding something inside her stomach, therefore she is stricken through something inside her stomach.

Rav Elyashiv and Daf Al ha'Daf, citing R. Heshil: Yakov told Yosef "Re'os Panecha Lo Filalti v'Hinei Her'ah Osi Elokim Gam Es Zarecha" - I thought that you stumbled in Aveirah (Zenus) in Egypt, like their deeds, and received Hadrokan. (NOTE: Yakov knew via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that Eshes Potifar will confront him (Rashi Bereishis 37:33). Pri Tzadik (ibid. 48:19) - when Yosef was about to sin with her, and he saw Yakov's image, also Yakov saw him. - PF) The cure for Hadrokan is a sterility potion (below, 110a). I see that your face is good, but it is not via the cure, for you have children! Rather, you did not sin!

What is thick [Hadrokan]?

Rashi: His skin becomes hard and thick. In thin Hadrokan, his skin is thin and weak.

What is inflated [Hadrokan]?

Rashi: His skin is puffed up over his flesh, and there is water in between.

There is a fourth kind of Hadrokan, due to excrement that began to leave the body, and returned (Berachos 62b)!

Maharsha: Perhaps it does not have a special Siman, like the three kinds mentioned here.

Why was Shmuel ha'Katan concerned lest people think that it is due to sin? There are Simanim when it is due to sin!

Rashi: Not everyone knows the Simanim. Also, sometimes they change.

Iyun Yakov: Hadrokan due to excrement that returned to the body (Berachos 62b) does not have a special Siman.

Rav Elyashiv: He was exceedingly humble, and was concerned lest people suspect him.

Why do we say that surely, Rava avoided the causes of Hadrokan? Perhaps also he starved himself?!

Rashi: Rava said that Abaye starves himself. This implies that Rava disapproves.

Maharsha: This is difficult. (NOTE: Perhaps Rava merely teaches that there is no reason to suspect Abaye of transgression! - PF)

Maharsha: Rava said that more people die from delaying bowel movements than from [Hadrokan] due to hunger. This implies that he censures both of these.

How was Rava forced Bal Korcho?

Rav Elyashiv: Talmidim asked to him questions. Due to Kevod ha'Beriyos, he had to delay bowel movements and answer them. One who delays his bowels or urinating transgresses Bal Teshaktzu (Makos 16, OC 3:17). Terumas ha'Deshen (16) proved from Rava here and many Chachamim [who became sterile due to delaying urinating during Rav Huna's Shi'ur - Yevamos 62b] that it is only mid'Rabanan. Therefore, they were lenient due to Kevod ha'Beriyos. However, Sha'arei Teshuvah (3:17) citing Tevu'os Shor, and Beis Efrayim (EH 2) and Machazik Berachah say that it is mid'Oraisa. Amidst their great investigation, they did not feel the need to relieve themselves. We find that amidst learning, Rava did not feel that his finger is dripping blood (below, 88b).

Daf Al ha'Daf: Magen Avraham (92:2) learns from Terumas ha'Deshen that when Kevod ha'Beriyos applies, one does not transgress Bal Teshaktzu. However, Sefas Emes explains that Hadrokan comes from constipation and not taking action to loosen the bowels. Rava refrained from this due to Talmidim. There is no proof to permit Bal Teshaktzu.

Is poverty a sign of haughtiness?! (Are there not many haughty Ashirim?!)

Rashi: In Kidushin (49b) it explains that this refers to poverty in Torah.

Maharal: It is proper that a haughty person be poor in Torah. Torah is compared to water, which goes from a high place to a low place.

Rav Elyashiv: If he had Torah, he would not be haughty, for Torah and pride are opposites. A haughty person cannot be great in Torah.

Why is croup proper for [not giving] Ma'aser?

Rashi: He dies via the throat, for eating Tevel via the throat.

Maharal: It is for Tevel; [it is as if] Ma'aser is 'mixed in', for it was not separated. This is called Atimah, like something mixed in something sealed, and it does not leave it. Therefore, it is proper that speech is Atum in him, and does not leave him. Askrah is like Yisaker (speech is Atum in him, and does not leave him).

Why can he not mean Tamei food?

Rashi: One is not killed for eating Tamei things. Do not say that there is no death for Leshon ha'Ra - "Melashnei va'Seser Re'ehu Oso Atzmis."

Is Hadrokan a Siman of a particular sin?

Maharal: Sin is attributed to the physical body. Therefore, it is proper that his body explode, for the sin came from it. Stam Aveirah everywhere is Zenus. Since it is an Aveirah of the body, the Siman is Hadrokan, a bodily affliction.

Why is Yerakon a sign of Sin'as Chinam?

Maharal: It will be seen on his face, for it is proper that Sin'as Chinam be seen on the face. Since he hates him for no reason, his face turns yellow.

Maharsha: Even though Yerakon comes also due to urine that began to leave the body, and returned (Berachos 62b), perhaps Simanim distinguish them, just like Simanim distinguish different kinds of Hadrokan.

Rav Elyashiv: In addition to nature, that hatred makes the face yellow, there is a Segulah, and it is a sign of the Aveirah of Sin'as Chinam.

Why does Askarah come for Leshon ha'Ra?

Maharal: Since he sins with his tongue, it is proper that there be closed [and he will choke].

How do we learn from "Ki Yisacher Pi Dovrei Shaker"? Leshon ha'Ra applies to Emes and Sheker!

Maharsha: This verse discusses false Leshon ha'Ra, like we say in Yevamos (76b), that Doeg said 'before asking if David is proper for kingship, ask if he may marry into Yisrael, for he descends from Rus!' David requested for himself "veha'Melech Yismach bEi'lokim" - Hash-m should clarify that David is proper for kingship. "Yis'halel Kol ha'Nishba Bo" - one who swore in the king 'Chai Adoni ha'Melech' will be praised in him, that he swore properly. It was their way to swear in the king's life, like is explicit in many verses. The clarification will come if Do'eg dies via croup, the death of Ba'alei Leshon ha'Ra - "...Ki Yisacher..."

Rav Elyashiv: Even though the primary Leshon ha'Ra is even when he speaks Emes (we learn that croup comes for Leshon ha'Ra). Our Gemara teaches the depth of judgment - even children who are blameless and do not understand at all [are stricken]. If one was born on Shabbos, he will die on Shabbos, to atone for Chilul Shabbos via his birth (156a). Even though you are born Bal Korchacha (against your will), it makes an impression! Midah Tovah is greater [than the Midah of punishment]!

How does the Beraisa answer the question about R. Elazar's opinion?

Rashi: It comes due to eating Tevel (punishable by Misah bi'Ydei Shamayim, i.e. not separating Ma'aser - Sanhedrin 83a). i.e. croup comes also for Leshon ha'Ra. In any case, the entire Beraisa is brought.

Is death proper for Bitul Torah?

Rashi: Yes! Before "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem" [it discusses Mezuzah], and before this, it discusses Talmud Torah.

Maharsha: If so, R. Shimon refutes the Amora who said above (32a) that we do not expound to what came before the matter before!

Maharal: Talmud Torah brings a person from potential to deed. Therefore it is called light - "Ki Ner Mitzvah v'Sorah Ohr." Light brings vision from potential to deed. It is more proper that a person exist in deed when he brings another to deed. Therefore, a Ba'al Torah is called Ohr. The punishment for Bitul Torah is croup, which seals the mouth and speech cannot exude.

Maharsha: "Ki Hu Chayecha v'Orech Yamecha" teaches that if one will not learn, his life will be diminished.

Iyun Yakov: "Etz Chayim Marpei Lashon." Via engaging in Torah, one is saved from Leshon ha'Ra. One said due to Leshon ha'Ra, and one said due to Bitul Torah - they do not argue!

What is the question 'why do Nochrim get croup?' Also if it is due to Leshon ha'Ra or Tevel, Nochrim are not commanded about them!

Maharsha: Even if they are not commanded about them, they are able to fulfill them. A Nochri may not learn Torah; if he does, he is Chayav Misah (Sanhedrin 59a). (NOTE: Why should Nochrim be punished for Mitzvos from which they are exempt? - PF) We ask from [very young] children, for they cannot learn at all.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Mat'amei Yakov (Vayeshev): Bereishis Rabah (Vayeshev) says that really, Nochrim should not get ill (for this world is theirs - Rashi). They get ill, for if only Yisrael would get sick, they would taunt Yisrael for this. If so, we can answer similarly, this is why they get croup!

Why did we ask 'why do women get croup?'

Maharsha: Also she is forbidden to learn. One who teaches his daughter Torah, teaches her Tiflus (folly, or promiscuity - Sotah 20a).

Is it improper for her to learn Mitzvos that only men are commanded? She helps to raise boys! Is there no Mitzvah for her to learn Musar and matters that arouse Yir'as Shamayim, e.g. Tehilim, Koheles, Mishlei, Iyov...? - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Even though a woman blesses Birkas ha'Torah, it is only for what she needs to know in practice. The Aveirah of Bitul Torah does not apply to her. For her, the entire Torah is Hechsher (something necessary) to enable fulfilling. If she would know the entire Torah that applies to her, she would not bless Birkas ha'Torah. It is like teaching to her Tiflus - she would not be rewarded for this! In the days of Chizkiyah, every girl was fluent in the law of Tum'ah and Taharah. She knew to be careful not to be Metamei food and to testify like one witness if it became Tamei. It is not clear why after the Berachah, she says "Yevarechecha Hash-m..." This is not part of the Torah that she is commanded!

Why are Tzadikim punished for sins of their generation?

Maharal: The one who is primary in the generation is punished for the generation's sin. The Ikar is considered like the entire Dor. When there are no Tzadikim, children learning from their Rebbi are punished. They are primary, for there is no sin in their mouths, so the Torah of their mouths is greatest. The Ikar is punished even if they did not sin, for all of Yisrael are guarantors for each other. When the Ikar is punished, this is a Kaparah for the Dor.

Iyun Yakov: A sinner is called a damager. A damager pays only Idis (high quality land), but not Idi Idis (the highest of high quality land). Tzadikim are only Idis, for "Ein Tzadik ba'Aretz Asher Ya'aseh Tov v'Lo Yecheta." Children learning from their Rebbi, their breath has no sin - they are Idi Idis. When there is no Idis, damages are collected from Idi Idis.

Etz Yosef citing Sha'arei Orah: "Lo Yumsu Avos Al Banim u'Vanim Lo Yumsu Al Avos" - all the more so, a stranger should not die for another's sin! After investigation, this is a great Chesed. If the destroyer is authorized, he does not distinguish between good and evil. If he will be authorized to strike Resha'im, he will strike also Tzadikim. Therefore, Shofet Chesed strikes only Tzadikim - perhaps Resha'im will repent, and merit via the Tzadikim. Etz Yosef - if they do not repent, the Tzadik receives the Rasha's portion in Gan Eden. The Halachah is, if two borrowed money via one document, and they are Arev Kablanim for each other; the lender may collect from whichever one he wants. We are like borrowers from Hash-m. The Torah is the loan document, and we are guarantors for each other. Therefore, He collects from the Tzadik, for the above reason. The guarantor collects what he paid from the borrower. If the Rasha repented due to the Tzadik's death, he paid via bringing merit to the Tzadik. If not, the Tzadik takes the Rasha's portion in Gan Eden, i.e. the reward of his Mitzvos. (NOTE: Even empty Yisraelim are full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate [is full of seeds (Berachos 57a). - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: There is no reason for this, just we find that when the Dor is liable, Tzadikim are taken due to them.

What is the Havah Amina to learn from children that it is not due to Bitul Torah? After "v'Limadtem Osam Es Bneichem Ledaber Bam", it says "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem vi'Ymei Vneichem"!

Rav Elyashiv: Those verses teach that the merit of Talmud Torah can bring long life, much more than 60. It does not imply that there is death for Bitul Torah. In the conclusion, even though children are not commanded, since they cause Bitul Torah, they are punished.

How do we learn from "Im Lo Sed'i... Tze'i Lach b'Ikvei ha'Tzon..."?

Rashi: If you do not know to guard the Mitzvos, request mercy in the merit of the Avos, who were the legs of the flock and their strength, and graze your kids (children) in their merit, and they will not be taken as security for the leaders of the generation.

Maharsha: This is difficult.

Maharsha: The previous verse says "Shalamah Ehyeh k'Oteyah", i.e. like a mourner in Galus. Ru'ach ha'Kodesh answers them, if you do not know why, I will inform you how to fix yourself. Go b'Ikvei ha'Tzon - in the steps of Dor ha'Midbar, about whom it says "Nachisa cha'Tzon Amecha." They learned Torah in the Midbar. Graze your kids (children learning from their Rebbi) - this is like 'the kids became adult goats' (Berachos 63b). Those kids are securities for the shepherds i.e. in place of the shepherds, i.e. Tzadikim and leaders. If there are not [such people] in the generation, the kids (children learning from their Rebbi) are punished in place of them, for the Dor.

Iyun Yakov: We collect from the guarantor (children learning from their Rebbi) only after trying to collect from the borrower (Tzadikim, but he cannot pay).

Etz Yosef: They accepted Arvus at Matan Torah (Tanchuma Vayigash). Therefore, when Yisrael neglect Torah, Hash-m takes payment from the Arev - "va'Sishkach Toras Elokecha Eshlach Banecha Gam Ani" - Hash-m says, I am pained over their loss. Every day, they said Baruch Hash-m ha'Mevurach l'Olam va'Ed!

Why was he called Yehudah ben Gerim?

Rashi: Both his father and mother were converts.

Tosfos: The text says R. Yehudah ben Gerim, like we find in Mo'ed Katan (9a). He was a great Chacham.

Anaf Yosef: How could R. Shimon be sentenced to die via a great Chacham? And how could he die via R. Shimon putting his eyes on him? Surely he was not the great Chacham mentioned in Mo'ed Katan; the text should not say 'Rebbi.' That Chacham learned from R. Shimon ben Yochai after he left the cave. (NOTE: Some explain that before he left the cave, he was called only 'R. Shimon.' - PF). R. Shimon killed Yehudah shortly after leaving the cave!

Rav Elyashiv: He was among the Chachamim, just his parents were converts. (NOTE: Below (34a), Rav Elyashiv implies that Tosfos holds that the text does not say Rebbi, and supports this, for Takalah (a decree of death on R. Shimon) would not come via a Chacham. This requires investigation. - PF)

Did R. Yehudah truly praise the kingdom for this? In Avodah Zarah 2b, it says that in the future, the Nochrim will claim so, but Hash-m will reject this, like R. Shimon (they intended for their own benefit)!

Maharsha: Amidst fear of the kingdom, R. Yehudah said only that they established markets, bridges and bathhouses. He did not say [like they will claim] that they did so for the sake of Yisrael. He can agree that they did so for themselves.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though one should not praise idolaters due to "Lo Sechanem" (do not give to them Chen, i.e. grace), if they did good, one must praise them due to Hakaras ha'Tov. However, the Rambam (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:4) forbids praising their beauty or deeds, lest one cling to them and learn from their ways! Perhaps it is permitted only to praise the kingdom, to which this concern does not apply. R. Shimon holds that since they did all this for their needs, one should not praise them; it is forbidden due to "Lo Sechanem." Here it was bad for Yisrael, i.e. harlots and taxes.

To whom did Yehudah repeat their words?

Rashi: It was to his Talmidim, or to his parents. He did not intend to inform the kingdom, but in any case the kingdom heard.

How was R. Yehudah elevated?

Rashi: He became the first to speak everywhere.

What is the significance of a carob tree?

Maharal: This sustains a person minimally, with pain, like it says 'R. Chanina, a Kav of carobs suffices for him from Shabbos night to Shabbos night' (Berachos 17b).

Maharsha: Perhaps this increased the miracle. Normally, a carob tree gives fruit only after 70 years, and here it bore fruits immediately.

How could they eat carobs in the first three years? The fruits are forbidden due to Orlah!

Rav Elyashiv #1, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Merafsin Igra p.233, citing Rav Shteineman: "U'Ntatem" obligates only what you planted. Even though Orlah applies to what grew by itself, that is when it is among planted trees. In a Midbar, where nothing is planted, it is exempt.

Rav Elyashiv #2, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Merafsin Igra and R. Shlomo ben Shimon: Some say that the verse excludes what was created miraculously, even if it grew amidst planted trees. Surely in the cave they were exempt from Kidush of Shabbos and other Mitzvos, due to Ones. One could say that also Orlah, they were permitted due to Ones. However, since Shamayim miraculously prepared food for them, surely it was not Isur! Further, regarding eating, it is disgraceful to eat Isur - even Tzadikim's animals do not stumble in this! (NOTE: A Tzadik could eat Heter when it is forbidden, e.g. before Havdalah. Peros Orlah remain forbidden even after the three years, so they are intrinsically forbidden. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Merafsin Igra: Carobs are not considered human food. Orlah does not apply such things (Orlah Perek 1). They are called Charuvim, for they are harsh to the body like Charavos (swords) (Vayikra Rabah 35). (NOTE: Rav Elyashiv inferred from the Acharonim who asked this, that even though carobs are exempt from Ma'aser, Orlah applies to them. PF)

Why did they wear clothes when praying?

Maharsha: This was not lest the heart see the Ervah. Being covered in sand suffices to avoid this! Rather, it was due to "Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael" (10a).

Rav Elyashiv: Above (11a), we say that R. Shimon was exempt from Tefilah. Tefilah is mid'Rabanan, but they were obligated in Keri'as Shma mid'Oraisa. The Gemara's words imply that they dressed to pray, but it seems that really, it was for Shma. This shows that Shma is more stringent than other Divrei Kedushah, for which it sufficed to be in the sand. This is because Keri'as Shma is Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim. Even though "Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael" applies to Tefilah, but not to Keri'as Shma, and they were not obligated to dress, they were stringent according to their level. Or, since they did not pray, for them "Hikon Likras Elokecha Yisrael" applied to Keri'as Shma.

Maharal: They removed their clothes (except when praying), for if they would wear out, they had no way to get new clothes.

Why does it say 'the king died and the decree was cancelled'?

Rav Elyashiv: This is a Klal, that when the Kaisar dies, all his decrees are canceled. (NOTE: One opinion holds that Esther invited Haman to the party, to get herself and Haman killed (Megilah 15b); they would cancel a decree if one of the authors died (Rashi ibid.). - PF)

What was the criticism 'how can they abandon eternal life, and engage in temporary life?!'

Rashi: Nochrim can work the land! One who does Hash-m's will, He will supply his needs!

Rav Elyashiv: This was not merely R. Shimon's opinion (Berachos 35b) 'if one will seed at the time of seeding... what will be with Torah?!' Rather, they were at such a level that they could not bear to see people working and not learning.

What is the source that Resha'im are punished in Gehinom for 12 months?

Rashi (citing Seder Olam 3): It says "v'Isham Lo Sichbeh", "v'Hayah Midei Chodesh b'Chadsho u'Midei Shabbos b'Shabato Yavo Kol Basar" - this includes those who are judged. Just like Shabbosos are according to their number, also the months. The verse discusses Resha'im judged in Gehinom - the next verse says "v'Yatz'u v'Ra'u b'Figrei ha'Anashim ha'Posh'im Bi."

Rav Elyashiv: A day in a month is considered a month, but a day in a week is not considered a week. We learn from Shabbos to months, that they are 12 full months, and not 11 months and a day. (NOTE: What is the source for 12 months, even if one of them is only a day? Why did he not explain that the verse discusses every month and every Shabbos - there are four Shabbosos in a month, and also 'every month' is in the collection of months, i.e. the 12 months in a year?! - PF)

Maharsha: It says so in Eduyos (2:10).

Etz Yosef citing Nishmas Chayim and Emek ha'Melech: This is after they received their punishment outside Gehinom. Then they are brought into Gehinom, and are cleansed there for 12 months to remove all stains of the Neshamah, so they will be prepared for Gan Eden. A parable for this is an expert doctor. First he puts harsh and painful salves on the wound, which consume live flesh. Afterwards, he puts good creams and bandages that cool and cause the flesh to grow back, like initially. The pain of Gehinom is not one part in 60 of the pain that a sinner receives before entering it.

Why did they need a Bas Kol to tell them to leave the cave? They themselves concluded that 12 months suffices!

Rav Elyashiv: So they reasoned, but they did not have a proof.

Why did R. Elazar strike, and R. Shimon heal?

Maharal: Old people have more mercy than youths, who have Midas ha'Din.

Divrei Eliyahu: R. Elazar was young when he entered the cave - he quickly forgot needs of the world. R. Shimon was old when he entered the cave - he knew needs of the world, and did not forget them so soon.

Rav Elyashiv #1: R. Shimon reached a level to be able to advocate for people who work; before [the additional 12 months], he could not.

Rav Elyashiv #2: R. Elazar reached a higher level than R. Shimon, for he willingly entered the cave; R. Shimon was forced. However, it is difficult to say such a Chidush. (NOTE: When they first left the cave, both of them burned people. Both of them had to return to the cave! - PF)

Why did R. Shimon say 'it suffices that we are in the world'?

Rashi: It suffices that we [properly] engage in Torah.

Maharsha: R. Shimon said (Sukah 45b) I saw Bnei Aliyah, and they were few - if there are two, they are me and my son, We conclude there that Bnei Aliyah are those who may ascend without need to ask permission.

What are Zachor and Shamor?

Maharsha: They corresponds to the Ase (to be Mekadesh Shabbos) and the Lav (not to do Melachah), respectively, like the Ramban says. This is why the custom is to light two Neros Shabbos (even though according to letter of the law, one suffices). Just like via Neros, one merits virtuous children (23b), the same applies to myrtle, for Tzadikim are called Hadasim.

Here it says that R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir was R. Shimon's son-in-law. The Zohar says that he was R. Shimon' father-in-law, and R. Elazar's grandfather!

Daf Al ha'Daf: The text here should say 'Shama R. Pinchas b'Chasnei (he heard about his son-in-law). However, Kerem Shlomo (8:8 p.8) brings that Seder ha'Doros brought proofs both ways (that he was his son-in-law, or his father-in-law). The Zohar says, R. Elazar addressed 'my father, and R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir...' - one may not call his grandfather by his name!

How could R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir be with R. Shimon in the bathhouse? A father-in-law and son-in-law may not bathe together, lest it lead to thoughts!

Rav Elyashiv citing Cheshek Shlomo, R. E.M. Horowitz and Melei ha'Ro'im: Only R. Shimon bathed, so it was permitted.

Rav Elyashiv #1: If it is needed, it is permitted.

Rav Elyashiv #2: If he wears pants, it is permitted.

Why was R. Shimon's skin creased?

Rashi: It was due to being in the sand.

Why did he say 'since a miracle was done for me, I will fix something'?

Iyun Yakov #1, Rav Elyashiv: A miracle diminishes from one's merits (32a). Therefore, he should fix a matter to have merit of the Rabim.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though R. Shimon constantly fixed spiritual matters, he needed to fix also something Bein Adam l'Chavero.

Iyun Yakov #2: Perhaps Hash-m did a miracle for him, to enable him to bring merit to the Rabim!

What is the significance of being complete in his body, his money and his Torah?

Maharal: They pertain to man's body, money and intellect, like "b'Chol Levavcha uv'Chol Nafshecha uv'Chol Me'odecha."

Iyun Yakov #1: In all of these, he was complete with Hash-m. Also his Torah - there was no grievance in his heart.

Maharsha: Shelemus implies in his body, his money and his Neshamah - you cannot exclude one of them! Rashi on Chumash says that his body was healed from his limp. His money was restored after the gift to Esav, and he did not forget his Torah in Beis Lavan. All three of these were miracles!

Etz Yosef: Even though he already healed from when "va'Yizrach Lo ha'Shemesh", his cure began then. He was totally healed only when he came to his land, in the border of Shechem. Hash-m replaced his loss due to the gift from elsewhere, when he reached his land (Nezer ha'Kodesh). He did not forget his Torah amidst pain of traveling and fear of Esav. There was some Bitul Torah due to them; now, amidst respite, he returned to Shelemus in Torah.

Iyun Yakov #2: Torah protects and saves, and [its reward] is equal to all [Mitzvos]. He eats the Peros in this world, and the principal is intact for the world to come. Therefore, he was complete in his body and money!

What is the source to expound that Yakov fixed something?

Rashi: We learn from "va'Yiken Es Chelkas ha'Sadeh."

Maharsha: This is difficult. Tikun refers to fixing only in Sefer Koheles, and the letter Tov of the root never falls!

Maharsha: First it said "va'Yavo Yakov Shalem Ir Shechem", and afterwards "va'Yichan Es Pnei ha'Ir", which implies that he did not enter yet! Bereishis Rabah (11:7) expounds that he entered close to sunset, and fixed Techumim during the day.

Iyun Yakov: This shows that he guarded Shabbos before it was given. There are three crowns - of Torah, kingship and Kehunah. The crown of a good name is greater than all of them. Yakov was complete in Torah, wealth (Shulchan Melachim), and a Midrash considers him to be a Kohen. Via Shemiras Shabbos, one merits Keser Shem Tov - "la'Sarisim Asher Yishmeru Es Shabsosai...; Shem Olam Eten Lo."

What is the significance of establishing coinage, markets or bathhouses?

Maharal: Coinage is not natural. It is based on etiquette of the country. A Chacham can enact all such matters. Also markets fix the country. It is not totally based on etiquette like coinage. The form on a coin makes it more important only because people agreed that this form will be a valid coin. It is natural to sell food and essentials in the market; to fix a particular market day, or to sell particular things there, is based on agreement. Shmuel holds that he enacted such matters. R. Yochanan holds that he enacted matters such as bathhouses, which are totally natural.

If it was a burden for Kohanim to go around it, this implies that it was in Reshus ha'Rabim. Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is permitted!

Rav Elyashiv: This supports Minchas Chinuch and Tzlach, who say that the Torah was Mechadesh that the Safek Tum'ah is Tahor. However, Kohanim are forbidden to become Tamei. This is even in a place of Safek Tum'ah. We find that the Torah forbids a Kohen to enter a room with a Goses, even though there is no Tum'as Mes there; the Torah is more stringent about Kohanim. We cannot answer based on Tosfos in Kesuvos 15a, that wherever Tum'ah is common, one must be stringent even in Reshus ha'Rabim and when there is a Rov (saying that it is Tahor), for Rashi implies that there was only one Tum'ah.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Gaon of Tshavin and Dovev Meisharim (Sof 2, Hashmatah to 1:127) said that Minchas Chinuch and Tzlach were unsure. For Kohanim, it is Safek Isur - this is forbidden even in Reshus ha'Rabim! However, perhaps first we rule that Safek Tum'ah is Tahor, and then there is no Safek Isur! Our Gemara supports the first way.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kerem Shlomo citing Panim Yafos (Sof Korach): The Rambam holds that mid'Oraisa we are lenient about a Safek. Chachamim decreed to be stringent, with certain exceptions, e.g. Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim. Why is there a Torah law of Terumah Teluyah (Safek Tamei)? The Torah was more stringent about Mitzvos of Kohanim. Therefore, for Kohanim, Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is forbidden mid'Oraisa.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Sha'arei Yitzchak (Kesuvos 26): The Torah was Metaher Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim when the Tum'ah is clarified and a Safek happened to occur. He will not become Tamei another time, since the Tum'ah is known. Here, the field is always in Safek! Chachamim did not want to be Metaher, even though the Torah is Metaher (Tosfos Kesuvos 28b). Similarly, here they did not want to be Metaher Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim, just like Beis ha'Peras.

Why did he ask if anyone knows if this place was once Tahor?

Rashi: If it was not a proper cemetery, one may move [the Tum'ah].

What is the significance that R. Yochanan ben Zakai cut lupines of Terumah there?

Rashi: He was a Kohen, and he planted lupines of Terumah and uprooted them after they grew, i.e. the place is Tahor.

Rav Elyashiv: Why does it mention specifically lupines? Surely the seed remains intact. If the seed disintegrates, what grows is not Terumah! However, mid'Rabanan one may not seed Terumah. This was the 17th of the 18 decrees! And how could he cast it over the entire place of the Safek - he is overtly Metamei it! In the first version (of Rav Elyashiv's Ha'aros), he answered that when the seed remains intact, one may seed Terumah. Terumah of lupines is mid'Rabanan; one need not guard their Taharah. Still, may one overtly nullify an Isur (NOTE: i.e. being Metamei Terumah of lupines - PF), even an Isur mid'Rabanan?!

What is the meaning of 'also he did so'?

Rashi citing Pesikta and the Yerushalmi: He also cut [and cast down] lupines of Terumah. Miraculously, the Tum'ah came to the surface, so he could demarcate where the graves were.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though this was a Segulah (not based on nature), 'Lo ba'Shamayim Hi' does not apply, for the Mesim rose and people could see where the Tum'ah was. We need not be concerned lest there are other Mesim that did not rise.

Chachmas Mano'ach: Rashi means that the Mes moved, causing the dirt above it to soften, showing where is Tamei. This was a miracle, lest R. Shimon be Metamei the Terumah. Hash-m does not let Tzadikim stumble!

Tosfos: Also R. Shimon made a Tikun, like Yakov. It says in Nidah (61a) that he spread a wet sheet; where the ground was wet, it was Tamei (they were dug); where it was dry, it was Tahor.

Maharal: Also he cut lupines that needed to be guarded in Taharah, to show that the place is Tahor, and that he relies on this.

Why did he say 'you were with us and counted'?

Rashi: You were together with us, and agreed to be part of the count.

Rav Elyashiv: Even if he did not agree, he must accept the majority opinion! However, then it would be reasonable to question R. Shimon's ruling, unlike his opinion. However, since he agreed to be Metaher in this way, R. Shimon was angry at him.

Why will people say 'harlots adorn one another, all the more so Chachamim!'?

Rashi: One harlot fixes another's hair, to beautify her.

Iyun Yakov #1: Even though women envy each other, one adorns her friend, so her friend will adorn her, and she will appear beautiful.

Iyun Yakov #2: Even though harlots hate each other (Pesachim 113b), since other women scorn them, they adorn each other. Similarly, Amei ha'Aretz greatly hate Chachamim. It is proper that Chachamim praise each other in front of Amei ha'Aretz! Therefore, Chachamim should take Musar, not to have envy or hatred among them, to speak bad about each other. Only Kin'as Soferim Tarbeh Chochmah (envy among Chachamim increases Chochmah - one strives to acquire the attributes of his colleague), to invigorate themselves in learning.

Anaf Yosef citing Nachalas Yakov, Rav Elyashiv #1: Even though each harlot wants that all the Mezanim will come to her, so she will fulfill her lust and receive more money, they adorn each other. They think that more Zenus in the world increase lust for Zenus in the world. All the more so, Chachamim should adorn each other to increase desire for Torah and Yir'as Shamayim! If powers of Tum'ah cooperate to increase Tum'ah in the world, all the more so powers of Kedushah should cooperate to increase Kedushah in the world!

Chasam Sofer: A harlot is displeased with the beauty of another harlot (due to competition). Even so, she adorns her, so the latter will adorn her. When both are adorned, they hate each other. If Chachamim initially agree with each other, and afterwards they argue, people will say that initially Ploni flattered Almoni, so Almoni will honor him, and when Ploni sees that his own words are heeded, he rebels against him! If harlots, who lack craftiness, adorn one another, all the more so Chachamim, who are shrewd! Chilul Hash-m will result. Therefore, he put his eyes on him, and killed him.

Rav Elyashiv: People will say that harlots do not love each other, just they adorn each other because one cannot adorn herself as nicely as someone else can, and also Chachamim did not initially agree amidst love, rather, each sought his own benefit.

Ben Yehoyada: In spite of mutual hatred, harlots adorn one another to prevent a cheapening of the profession. Likewise, you should not belittle Chachamim, for this belittles yourself!

Why does it say 'he turned him into a pile of bones'?

Maharal: He died suddenly, as if he was burned and became a pile of bones. Above, it says only 'he died.' It was not sudden, as if he was burned.

Etz Yosef: It was as if he died a long time ago, and his flesh rotted - "Rak b'Einecha Sabit v'Shilumas Resha'im Tir'eh."

Rav Elyashiv: Even though Yehudah did not inform the kingdom, just word spread, regarding murder, even a distant cause requires Kaparah, even if he is not guilty. R. Shimon punished him to atone for him! If someone is punished due to Ploni, Ploni does not enter Hash-m's Mechitzah (149b). This implies that this is his only punishment! (NOTE: In the end, R. Shimon was not killed. Just the contrary, 'you are fortunate to see me like this [for I grew so greatly in Torah]!' If Sanhedrin sentenced Ploni to death, and before he was killed, the witnesses were Huzmu, do the judges need Kaparah for mistakenly sentencing him?! - PF)