Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף י״ט. We will start 14 lines from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא here quotes from the משנה where it says כשהוא מנחם, which refers to the כהן גדול, and the משנה says that when the כהן גדול is מנחם an אבל, he comforts an אבל, so then the דרך כל העם עוברין זה אחר זה. All the people would pass, the אבל would stand, and all the people who would be מנחם the אבל after the funeral would pass the אבל. And by the כהן גדול, the ממונה would be ממצעו בינו ובין העם, that means the ממונה would stand on his right side, and all the people would be on his left side, and the כהן גדול would be in the middle. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, כשעובר בשורה לנחם את אחרים, when the כהן גדול passes in line to comfort others, סגן ומשוח שעבר בימינו. The סגן, which means the assistant כהן גדול, and משוח שעבר means a כהן גדול that passed, that means that whenever the כהן גדול was טמא, and there had to be an עבודה done by the כהן גדול, and since the כהן גדול couldn't do it, they would appoint another person as a temporary כהן גדול. And when the first כהן גדול became טהור, he would resume his position, but the other one that at one point was as a כהן גדול was considered a משוח שעבר. So when the כהן גדול would be מנחם others, so the סגן and this משוח שעבר would be בימינו, on his right side, וראש בית אב ואבלים וכל העם משמאלו, and the head of the בית אב, because we know that the כהנים were divided in different משמרות, and each משמר was divided in different בתי אב, in different like groups, families, and each family had the head of the family, and he was called the ראש בית אב. So the ראש בית אב and the אבלים and all the people would stand on his left side. וכשהוא עומד בשורה ומתנחם מאחרים, but when he, the כהן גדול, would stand in line and he would be comforted by others, when he was an אבל, סגן מימינו, the סגן would stand on his right side, וראש בית אב וכל העם משמאלו, and the ראש בית אב and all the people would stand on his left side. אבל משוח שעבר לא אתא גביה, but the משוח שעבר would not come to him. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? חלשה דעתיה, the כהן גדול could feel bad. סבר, he would think, קא חדי בי, that he is happy with me. Since the משוח שעבר was also in the position of a כהן גדול, so the כהן גדול might think that the משוח שעבר is happy that I am an אבל, because he is jealous of me, because he also is to a certain degree a כהן גדול. So therefore the דין was that the משוח שעבר should not be there when they comfort the כהן גדול.

אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, שמע מינה מהא מתניתא תלת, from this ברייתא we see three things. שמע מינה, one thing we see, היינו סגן היינו ממונה, that when we say there is a סגן to the כהן גדול and there is a ממונה, that is the same person. Because in our משנה it said that the ממונה was ממצעו, the ממונה was on his right side, and in this ברייתא it says that the סגן was on his right side. So that shows us that the סגן and ממונה is the same thing, just sometimes we call him סגן, and sometimes we call him ממונה. ושמע מינה, we also see from the ברייתא, אבלים עומדים וכל העם עוברין, that אבלים stand and all the people pass, because that's what it says in the ברייתא that he would pass by. And שמע מינה, we also see from the ברייתא, אבלים לשמאל המנחמין הם עומדים, that אבלים have to stand on the left side of those that comfort them. The only thing as one could ask here is that when the גמרא wants to prove that the ממונה and the סגן are the same thing, because in the משנה it says that the ממונה is on the right side, and here it says that the סגן is on the right side, but really in the ברייתא it says two things: the סגן and the משוח שעבר on his right side. So how do we know that the ממונה and the סגן are the same thing? Maybe the ממונה and the משוח שעבר are the same thing? And תוספות says that that is for sure that the משוח שעבר cannot be called ממונה. ממונה means like an appointed one to take care of the different things in the בית המקדש. Now, definitely the משוח שעבר would not be considered a ממונה. And then תוספות brings from רבי יעקב בן רבי צדוק that the ראיה is not from that, the ראיה is from the second part of the משנה. In the משנה it continues that when he is מתנחם מאחרים, when he is comforted by others, what goes on? And it's משמע from the משנה that that when it says that the ממונה was on his right side, the ממונה ממצעו, refers also to the time when the כהן גדול received comfort from others. Now in the ברייתא it says that when the כהן גדול was comforted by others, the משוח שעבר wasn't there at all. So therefore we cannot say that the ממונה is the משוח שעבר, and therefore we must say that the ממונה is the סגן. And the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, בראשונה, in the beginning, היו אבלים עומדים, the אבלים used to stand, וכל העם עוברין, and all the people used to pass.

והיו שתי משפחות בירושלים מתגרות זו בזו, but there were two families in ירושלים that were arguing with each other. זאת אומרת, one said, אני עוברת תחילה, I want to go by first. וזו אומרת, and this one would say, אני עוברת תחלה, I want to go by first. So since there was an argument which people should go first, התקינו, so they were מתקן, שיהיו העם עומדים ואבלים עוברים, that the people should stand and the אבלים should pass, as we do it. So then there is no מחלוקת who goes first. Right? Then the גמרא says: חזר והלך וספר סימן. There are a few הלכות that the גמרא is going to say now, and to remember which the הלכות are, so the גמרא picks the first words of these הלכות. So one הלכה would be concerning חזר, one concerning הלך, and one concerning ספר. And that will be the סימן to remember the הלכות. And the גמרא says: אמר רבה בר בר חנה, רבה בר בר חנה said: החזיר רבי יוסי את הדבר ליושנו בציפורי, and in ציפורי, רבי יוסי made the thing go back to the way it was: שיהיו אבלים עומדים וכל העם עוברים, that the אבלים should stand and all the people should pass, because that was the original דין. But later, because of the מחלוקת between the families, they changed it, so in ציפורי, he changed it back, that the אבלים should stand and the people should pass.

ואמר רבה בר בר חנה, also did רבה בר בר חנה say: התקין רבי יוסי בציפורי, רבי יוסי was מתקן in ציפורי, שלא תהא אשה מהלכת בשוק ובנה אחריה, a woman should not go in the street and her son should go behind her, but her son should go in front of her. And the reason for that תקנה was משום מעשה שהיה, because of a מעשה that happened. And as רש״י explains, the מעשה was that once a woman went and her child was behind her, so she didn't see, and somebody kidnapped her child. And when she went to look for her child, someone said to her, "Come in this house and I will show you where your child is." So she went into the house, and then when she went into the house, they tried to force her to do an עבירה. So that's why he made a תקנה that she should never walk with the child behind her, but the child should always be in front of her, so she'll be able to see if anybody will חס ושלום want to kidnap her child. Then the גמרא continues: ואמר רבה בר בר חנה, also did רבה בר בר חנה say: התקין רבי יוסי בציפורי, רבי יוסי made a תקנה in ציפורי, שיהיו נשים מספרות בבית הכסא, that the women should talk to each other in the בית הכסא, in the bathroom, משום יחוד, because of יחוד. And this refers to the bathrooms the way they used to have it in those days, that it was in the field outside of the city, and that's where everyone had to go. And we're afraid that maybe while a woman is in the bathroom, a man might just walk in, and then it would be a שאלה of יחוד, because you're not allowed to have a man and a woman separately, privately, in a room. So therefore, the תקנה was that when there are two women in the bathroom, they should talk to each other, so if any man will want to enter, he will hear them talking and he will know not to enter.

אמר רב מנשיא בר עביא, רב מנשיא בר עביא said: שאיליתי את רב יאשיה רבה בבית עלמין דהוצל, I asked רב יאשיה רבה in the cemetery of הוצל, ואמר לי, and he told me: אין שורה פחותה מעשרה בני אדם, that a שורה, a line that we said before concerning the אבלים when you are מנחם the אבל, has to be at least of ten people, ואין אבלים מן המנין, and the אבלים themselves are not part of this count. In other words, you must have ten without, excluding the אבלים. בין שאבלים עומדים וכל העם עוברים, this doesn't make a difference whether the case is that the אבלים stand and all the people pass, בין שאבלים עוברים וכל העם עומדים, or the אבלים pass and all the people stand, whichever case, whichever the מנהג is, but when you make this שורה, you must have at least ten people. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה: וכשהוא מתנחם, when the כהן גדול is comforted, so then everyone says to him, אנו כפרתך, and he would say to them, תתברכו מן השמים. That's what the משנה said.

איבעיא להו, there was a question asked: כי מנחם הוא לאחריני, when he comforts others, היכי אמר להו, what does he say to them? Because the משנה didn't say what he says. The משנה just said what he does, how he goes. But the משנה didn't say what the כהן גדול says when he is מנחם others. And the גמרא says: תא שמע, come here, I will answer you. We learned in a ברייתא: והוא אומר, and the כהן גדול says, תתנחמו, you should be comforted. Now היכי דמי, what does this mean? Concerning which case does the ברייתא mean that the כהן גדול says that? אילימא, if you will say, כי מנחמי לאחריני לדידיה, that when others comfort him, אמר להו איהו, so he says to them, תתנחמו, you should be comforted, נחושי קא מרמי להו? He's giving them a ניחוש? In other words, he's telling them a bad סימן, as if he's saying to them, "You should also be comforted, that you should also become אבלים and you should also need to be comforted"? That can't be. We can't assume that the כהן גדול answers them when they are מנחם him that they should be comforted. אלא, therefore we must say, that what does the ברייתא mean that the כהן גדול says תתנחמו? כי מנחם לאחריני, אמר להו תתנחמו, that when he is מנחם others, that's when he says to them, תתנחמו. שמע מינה, so that proves that question we asked before, what does the כהן גדול say to others, so here we see he says to them תתנחמו. Then the משנה continued: מלך לא דן וכו׳, a king cannot judge and cannot be judged. אמר רב יוסף, so רב יוסף says, לא שנו, this was not learned, אלא מלכי ישראל, only the מלכים from ישראל, אבל מלכי בית דוד, but the kings of the house of דוד דן ודנין אותן, could judge and they could be judged, דכתיב, as the פסוק says, בית דוד, house of דוד, כה אמר השם, this is what השם said, דינו לבקר משפט, you should judge משפט in the morning. So we see that השם asked the בית of דוד to judge, that? So we see that a מלך of בית דוד could judge. Now,

ואי לא דיינינן ליה, if we cannot judge him, אינהו היכי דייני? How could he judge others? והכתיב, doesn't it say, התקוששו וקושו. ואמר ריש לקיש, and ריש לקיש said that what does this פסוק mean? קשוט עצמך ואחר כך קשוט אחרים. First you make yourself beautiful, then you make others beautiful. In other words, you can't do something to others if it cannot ever be done to you. First you have it done to you, then you do it to others. So therefore, if we say that he can judge, obviously he could be judged also. So we see בפירוש that a מלך of בית דוד could judge and could be judged. So therefore, when it says in the משנה that a מלך cannot judge and not be judged, that refers to a מלך of מלכי ישראל. But the גמרא asks, אלא מלכי ישראל מאי טעמא לא? What is the reason why a king of מלכי ישראל cannot be judged and cannot judge? The גמרא says, משום מעשה שהיה, because of a story that happened. דעבדא דינאי מלכא, because a slave of the king ינאי, קטל נפשא, killed a person. אמר להו שמעון בן שטח לחכמים, so שמעון בן שטח said to the חכמים, תנו עיניכם בו, put your eyes to him, ונדונו, and judge him. שלחו ליה, so they sent a message to the king, עבדך קטל נפשא, that your slave killed a person. שדריה להו, so he sent the slave to them to stand trial. שלחו ליה, so they sent a message to him, to the king, תא אנת נמי להכא, you also come here. והועד בבעליו אמרה תורה, the תורה says you should warn his owner. And this refers to the case of a שור, an ox that gored and killed a person, so the ox has to, so to speak, stand trial. The פסוק says, והועד בבעליו, you have to warn to the owner. And that means יבוא בעל השור, let the owner of the ox come, ויעמוד על שורו, he should stand by his ox. So the same applies to a slave, since a slave is like property of the owner, similar to an ox who is property of his owner, so just like when an ox has to stand trial it has to be in front of the owner, so too when a slave stands trial it has to be in front of his owner. So therefore they said to ינאי המלך that he should come and stand there while his slave is standing trial. אתא, he came, ויתיב, and he sat down. אמר ליה שמעון בן שטח, so שמעון בן שטח said to him, ינאי המלך, ינאי the king, עמוד על רגליך, stand on your feet, ויעידו בך, and they should testify in you. Because the דין is that a בעל דין, when somebody comes to בית דין, so the דיינים, the judges sit, but the בעלי דינים they have to stand. And that's why he said to him, since you are a בעל דין and they are going to testify for you, so you have to stand. But he told him, you should know, ולא לפנינו אתה עומד, you are not standing in front of us, אלא לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם אתה עומד, but you'll be standing in front of the One that said and created the world, which means you're not standing in our honor, you will be standing in honor of השם. שנאמר, as the פסוק says, ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב וגומר, that the two people that have the argument should stand in front of השם, the פסוק continues. So that's what he said to him, you'll be standing in front of השם. אמר ליה, so he said to him, to שמעון בן שטח, לא כשתאמר אתה, not because you will say, I won't stand just because you say so, אלא כמה שיאמרו חבריך, but as your friends will say. In other words, when all the people, the members of the סנהדרין will say that I should stand, that's when I'll stand. נפנה לימינו, so שמעון בן שטח turned to his right to see what the other members of the בית דין will say, those that were on his right side. כבשו פניהם בקרקע, they put their face into the ground, it means they looked down and they didn't say anything. נפנה לשמאלו, so he turned to his left to see what the people of the סנהדרין that were on his left side will say, asking them, don't they agree that ינאי has to stand up? וכבשו פניהם בקרקע, they also put their face in the ground, means they didn't say anything. They were afraid to say anything to the king.

אמר להם שמעון בן שטח, so שמעון בן שטח said to them, בעלי מחשבות אתם, you are people of thoughts, means you are completely involved in your מחשבות, in your thoughts, and you don't want to say anything. So if that's so, יבוא בעל מחשבות ויפרע מכם, let the Owner, the Master of all thoughts come and punish you. And that refers to השם. מיד, right away, בא גבריאל, so the מלאך גבריאל came, וחבטן בקרקע, he threw them to the ground, ומתו, and they died. באותה שעה אמרו, so at that time they said, מלך, a king, לא דן ולא דנין אותו, a king should not be, should not judge and not be judged, לא מעיד, he can't testify, ולא מעידין אותו, they shouldn't testify for him, because of what happened in this case. And this only happened concerning מלכי ישראל, but מלכי בית דוד, there the דין remains as it was originally, that a king is allowed to judge and a king is allowed to be judged. But תוספות asks a קשיא, how can we say that a king from מלכי בית דוד is allowed to judge Didn't the גמרא learn out before from a פסוק that you cannot appoint a king in סנהדרין because the פסוק says לא תענה על רב, and we דרשן לא תענה על רב? The פסוק says לא תענה על רב, you should not answer to an argument, etc. But the גמרא דרשן that means you can't answer back על רב, and if the רב says something you can't say different. And therefore you don't put a king in סנהדרין because nobody could differ in the opinion. So לכאורה, for this reason even a king of מלכי בית דוד cannot judge. And תוספות answers that here we're talking about דיני ממונות, because by דיני ממונות we don't care if the others cannot go against. Because the דין by דיני ממונות is that we start from the גדול. By דיני נפשות, when we count and we accept the opinions of the סנהדרין, we have to start from the קטן, from down up. Because if we'll start from the גדול, the one that's smaller than him will never be able to say against him. But by דיני ממונות we do start from the גדול. Either the one that's lower than him will not be able to say against him, we don't care. So the same here that by דיני ממונות we don't care if you don't say against the king. So therefore by דיני ממונות you could appoint a king in the סנהדרין. But then תוספות asks a קושיא: We find that אפילו by דיני נפשות, דוד judged. Because the case when they were judging נבל for revolting against דוד, and still דוד was part of the ones that judged. So we see that we had a מלך from מלכי בית דוד, that was דוד himself, who participated in judging somebody דיני נפשות. תוספות answers, since that judgment, that trial, was concerning the כבוד of דוד, they were judging the person who revolted against דוד, so then they are not embarrassed to speak in front of דוד, because whatever they say will be all for the honor of דוד. And therefore, there it didn't matter that דוד participated in דיני נפשות. But other מלכי בית דוד, when it comes to דיני נפשות, definitely they cannot be part of the סנהדרין, a normal case of דיני נפשות, because of the פסוק לא תענה על רב, לא תענה על רב. But by דיני ממונות, that's what the גמרא says, that you're allowed to appoint a king of מלכי בית דוד into the סנהדרין. Then תוספות asks another קושיא: When they said to ינאי the king, "Stand up," and the reason was because, since he was a בעל דין, he has to stand in front of the דיינים, so תוספות asks a קושיא: The דין is that when a תלמיד חכם comes to בית דין as a בעל דין, he also doesn't have to stand. And the reason is because there is a מצוה of כבוד התורה. Now, even though there is a מצוה that the בעל דין has to stand, but the מצוה of כבוד התורה is greater. And since a תלמיד חכם doesn't have to stand, certainly the king shouldn't have to stand. Because we know that a king is greater than a תלמיד חכם. Because the דין is הרב שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול, that if a רבי is מוחל on his כבוד his כבוד is מחול, and you don't have to give him the כבוד. A king that is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול; you still have to give him כבוד. So we see that the כבוד of a king is greater. So if the כבוד of a תלמיד חכם is so great that it pushes away the מצוה of having to stand in front of the דיינים, certainly the כבוד of a king will be great enough to push away that מצוה. So why did they tell ינאי to stand? And תוספות answers that the פשט is that the כבוד of תורה is greater. It is not the כבוד of the תלמיד חכם versus the כבוד of the king, it is the כבוד of תורה. And therefore, even though a תלמיד חכם doesn't have to stand, but ינאי does have to stand, because the כבוד for the king is not that concept of כבוד of תורה, while the כבוד of a תלמיד חכם is the concept of כבוד of תורה. איי, how come a תלמיד חכם that is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מחול, while a king who is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is not מחול? Because, so תוספות says, because the reason we have to have כבוד for the king is not because of his כבוד, it's because it's a מצוה of השם to have כבוד for the king, as the פסוק says שום תשים עליך מלך, put a מלך upon you, and we דרשן that you have to have the fear of the king upon you. So it's a דין in the תורה. Now the king has no right to say that you do not have to keep the דין of the תורה. And since the תורה says you should have כבוד for him, he cannot be מוחל on that כבוד. While by a תלמיד חכם, since the תלמיד חכם learned תורה, the גמרא says the תורה becomes his, as the גמרא says in עבודה זרה that לכתחילה when he learns תורה, it's still called תורת השם, it's still called on the name of השם, but afterwards it's called תורתו, his תורה. Now

since it's his תורה, he is a בעל הבית over that תורה, therefore he is able to be מוחל. But other than that, not for him being מוחל, we have to have the כבוד because of the תורה. And therefore, כבוד for a תלמיד חכם is strong enough that he shouldn't have to stand in front of the דיינים, but the כבוד for a king is not that big that he shouldn't have to stand. But then תוספות asks another קושיא: Why did they make ינאי stand? And the reason was, as we said before, because he was a בעל דין, so therefore he had to stand. Isn't the דין that if both בעלי דין want to sit you're able to make them both sit? The only דין is that if one sits and one stands that is אסור. But both should sit, that is מותר. So therefore, why did they make the ינאי stand? They could have told him to sit down and told the other one also to sit down. So תוספות says that by דיני נפשות it's different, that by דיני נפשות both must stand. Another תירוץ תוספות gives: Here it was not just being judged as a בעל דין, but it was a case of קבלת עדות, that they had to accept testimony When you accept testimony, then you must stand, because accepting testimony has the same דין as שעת גמר דין, as the time of the verdict. And the דין is that when they give the verdict, then everyone agrees that the דיינים sit and the בעלי דין must stand. And accepting testimony has the same דין as the giving of the verdict, and therefore they both had to stand. And by the way, תוספות says therefore we have to be very careful that when we have a דין תורה that the בעלי דין should not sit when they receive the testimony, and not when they make the גמר דין. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה, לא חולץ ולא חולצין וכולי, that a

king doesn't give חליצה to his brother's wife, and his wife doesn't receive חליצה from his brother. And then it also says that he is not מייבם his brother's wife, and his wife cannot get יבום from his brother. But רבי יהודה said if the king wants to give חליצה or to give יבום, זכור לטוב, he is remembered for the good, in other words, it is very good, it is a הידור if he does that. So they said to him, the משנה says, אין שומעין לו, we don't listen to him. In other words, even if the king wants to do it, we do not accept it. And now the גמרא asks a קשיא on the opinion of רבי יהודה. רבי יהודה said that if he wants, it is good. איני? Is it not so? והאמר רב אשי, didn't רב אשי say, אפילו למאן דאמר, even according to the one that says נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול, that a נשיא who is מוחל on his כבוד, his כבוד is מוחל and you don't have to give him the כבוד, מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול, if a king gives up on his כבוד, so his כבוד is not מוחל, you still must give him the proper כבוד. שנאמר, as the פסוק says, שום תשים עליך מלך. The פסוק says you should put a king upon you. Now what does that mean? שתהא אימתו עליך, that his fear should be upon you. You should always be afraid of him, you should always give him the כבוד no matter what. So according to that, how can רבי יהודה say that if the king doesn't mind and he wants to give חליצה, he is allowed to give חליצה? But the גמרא answers, מצוה שאני, a מצוה is different. סתם אזוי if he wants to give up on his כבוד, you still have to give him the כבוד. But if it is concerning doing a מצוה, then he has a right to give up on his כבוד. And since here we're talking about giving חליצה, which is a מצוה, so therefore, if he wants, he's allowed to give חליצה. But תוספות asks a קשיא. In the גמרא in כתובות we find that there's a story that the king stopped when he was supposed to pass, and let a כלה go through. And the גמרא explains how is the king allowed to do that? And the גמרא says, because פרשת דרכים הוה, it was in a fork in the road, and it wasn't really going against his כבוד. לכאורה, the גמרא could have answered like the גמרא says here, מצוה שאני. It's a מצוה of הכנסת כלה, and therefore, he did a מצוה. And when it comes to a מצוה, the king is allowed to give up on his כבוד. And תוספות answers, there there is not a real מצוה. The only idea of the מצוה is because of the כבוד of the חתן וכלה. The whole מצוה is the כבוד of a חתן וכלה. And since the כבוד of a מלך is greater than the כבוד of חתן, therefore there is no מצוה. Here we're talking about the מצוה of חליצה or יבום. That in itself is a מצוה, so we're able to say that a king is allowed to give up on his כבוד for the sake of the מצוה of חליצה or יבום. But in the case of גמרא כתובות, there the whole מצוה is the כבוד of the חתן וכלה. And since כבוד of a king is greater than the כבוד of חתן וכלה, so we can't say that because of a מצוה he was allowed to do it, because there is no מצוה, since his כבוד is greater than their כבוד. So therefore the only תירוץ the גמרא could give there was that since it was in a fork in the road, it wasn't so obvious, and therefore it didn't go against the כבוד of the king. Then the גמרא continues. It said in the משנה, ואין נושאין וכולי. The משנה said that you're not allowed to marry the widow of the king. But רבי יהודה said that a king is allowed to marry the widow of another king, as we find by דוד who married the widow of שאול, because the פסוק says, ואתנה לך את בית אדוניך ואת נשי אדוניך בחיקך. נתן הנביא, when he was speaking to דוד, so he said to him that we gave you the house of your master, the house of שאול, and the wives of your master in your lap, which means the wives of שאול. So we see there that דוד married the widow of שאול. The גמרא says, תניא we learned, אמרו לו לרבי יהודה, they said to רבי יהודה, that what does that פסוק mean? נשים הראויות לו מבית המלך. The פסוק doesn't mean that we gave you the wives of the king, meaning the widow of שאול, but it means the wives of the household of the king, but those women that were fit for you, which means those women that you're allowed to marry, not the wife, the widow of the king, because that you're not allowed to marry, because we hold that even a king is not allowed to marry the widow of another king, but what he meant was the women from the household of the king that is fit, meaning those that you are allowed to marry. ומאי נינהו? And who are they? מירב ומיכל. The two daughters of שאול, מירב and מיכל, they were given to דוד, and those are the women that the פסוק refers to. Then the גמרא continues, שאלו תלמידיו את רבי יוסי, the תלמידים of רבי יוסי asked רבי יוסי, היך נשא דוד שתי אחיות בחייהן? How did דוד marry two sisters while they were both alive? מיכל and מירב were both sisters, they were both daughters of שאול. As the פסוק says, that you should not take a sister of your wife, בחייה, while your wife is alive, but if the wife dies, then you are allowed to marry her sister. But here it seems like דוד married both sisters while they were both alive. אמר להן, so רבי יוסי said to his תלמידים, מיכל אחר מיתת מירב נשאה, that he married מיכל after מירב died. So he did not marry two sisters together. רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר, רבי יהושע בן קרחה says, קידושי טעות היו לו במירב, that when he gave קידושין to מירב, they were קידושין by mistake, and therefore the קידושין were not valid. So therefore, really מירב was not married to him. Therefore, he was allowed to marry מיכל, which was her sister, because she is not a sister of his wife, because מירב was not really his wife. שנאמר, as it says in פסוק, that דוד said, תנה את אשתי, give me my wife, את מיכל, מיכל, אשר ארשתי לי, that I was מקדש to me, במאה ערלות פלשתים, with a hundred foreskins, ערלות of פלשתים. Because we find in תנ״ך that in the story of גלית, when גלית, the giant, came to fight with the יידן, so שאול said that anybody who is going to kill גלית, I will give him a lot of riches, plus I will give him my daughter as a wife. And the older daughter of שאול was מירב, and the second daughter was מיכל. After דוד killed גלית, so שאול said to him that he will not give him מירב as a wife, and instead he gave מירב to עדריאל as a wife, but he will give him מיכל as a wife on condition that he's going to bring him a hundred ערלות of פלשתים, that he will kill a hundred פלשתים and bring their foreskins to him. And that's what he did. And still, later on, שאול gave מיכל as a wife to פלטי בן ליש. This is the story. So here in the פסוק it says that דוד said, give me my wife מיכל that I was מקדש with a hundred ערלות of פלשתים. And this is the פסוק that the גמרא brings to show that מירב's קידושין were קידושי טעות, were קידושין by mistake, and therefore were not valid. And the גמרא asks, מאי תלמודא? How do you learn it out from this פסוק? How does this פסוק show that the קידושין of מירב were קידושי טעות? אמר רב פפא, so רב פפא said, since דוד said, give me my wife מיכל, so we דרשן מיכל אשתי, that מיכל is my wife, ולא מירב אשתי, מירב is not my wife. Why? Because the קידושין to מירב were קידושי טעות. And then the גמרא asks, מאי קידושי טעות? Why were they קידושי טעות? What was the story there of the קידושין that we consider it קידושי טעות? And the גמרא says, דכתיב, because the פסוק says that שאול said, והיה האיש אשר יכנו, that the man that will hit him, that will kill גלית, יעשרנו המלך עושר גדול וגומר, the king will give him a lot of riches, and also will give his daughter to him as a wife. אזל קטליה, so דוד went and killed גלית, and then, when he expected to get מירב as a wife, אמר ליה, so שאול said to him, מלוה אית לך גבאי, you only have a debt by me. He said to him, what's the קידושין that you gave to מירב? The קידושין was that I promised to give you a lot of riches, so that money that I promised to give you, which means that I owe you, that was the money with which you were מקדש מירב. But the דין is המקדש במלוה אינה מקודשת, that if you're מקדש a woman with a debt, she's not מקודשת. If you give her money or something which has the value of money, then she's מקודשת. But if you just tell her, the money you owe me, with that money I should be מקדש you that now you don't owe me the money anymore, then she's not מקודשת. Because as the גמרא says in קידושין, when you do that, you're not really giving her anything. Even if originally you gave her money as a loan, and now you come and say, with that money that I gave you originally you should be מקודשת, she's still not מקודשת. Because when you give her the money as a loan, the rule is מלוה להוצאה ניתנה. When you take money as a loan, you take it to use, so that money is not around anymore. So now, when you tell her, keep the money and don't pay me, and that should be the קידושין, you are at this point not giving her anything. And therefore the דין is that if you're מקדש with a debt, she's not מקודשת. And this is what שאול told דוד: the only way you were מקדש her, מירב, was with the money that I owe you, this is not a קידושין, so that קידושין is not valid. אזל יהבה לעדריאל, so שאול went and gave מירב as a wife to עדריאל, דכתיב, as it says, ויהי בעת תת את מירב בת שאול לדוד וגומר, that when came the time when מירב, the daughter of שאול, should have been given to דוד, she was given to עדריאל. אמר ליה, and then שאול said to דוד, אי בעית דאתן לך מיכל, if you want I should give you מיכל as a wife, this other daughter, זיל אייתי לי מאה ערלות פלשתים, go bring me a hundred foreskins of פלשתים, kill a hundred פלשתים, and if you bring me their foreskins, then I will give you מיכל as a wife. אזל, he went, דוד went. אייתי ליה, he brought it to him, and he expected to get מיכל as a wife. And דוד, so to speak, was מקדש מיכל with this מאה ערלות, with the hundred foreskins. And nevertheless, later on, שאול took מיכל and gave her as a wife to פלטי בן ליש, even though she was מקודשת to דוד. And why did he do it? Because שאול held that the קידושין to דוד were not valid קידושין. Because אמר ליה, שאול said to דוד, מלוה ופרוטה אית לך גבאי, you have by me a debt and a פרוטה, because you were מקדש her with two things. First of all, the money that I owe you, since I promised that whoever is going to kill גלית, I will make him rich, so that money I owe you, so that money is used for קידושין. Because here, she was still young, and the קידושין that is given to a קטנה is given to the father. So the money that I owe you, you use that for קידושין. Plus, you brought the hundred ערלות of the פלשתים, which had some value, and you use that also as part of the קידושין. So it's as if you were מקדש her with a מלוה, with the loan, and a פרוטה. Now שאול סבר, שאול held, מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אמלוה, that if somebody is מקדש a woman giving her the מלוה and also giving her a פרוטה, he really has in mind the מלוה. And therefore, it has a דין of מקדש במלוה, and as we said before, a מקדש במלוה, she is not מקודשת. So therefore שאול held that the קידושין are not קידושין. ודוד סבר, but דוד held, מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אפרוטה, that when someone is מקדש with a מלוה and a פרוטה, his mind is on the פרוטה. And if you're מקדש with a פרוטה, she is מקודשת. So even though there was also a מלוה involved, but since he had in mind the קידושין should mainly come from the פרוטה, she is מקודשת. איבעית אימא, if you want, could be the מחלוקת between שאול and דוד was a little bit different. דכולי עלמא, everyone held מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אפרוטה, that when you're מקדש with a מלוה and a פרוטה, you have in mind the פרוטה. But still, שאול סבר, שאול held לא חזו ולא מידי, that the hundred ערלות had no value, they were not worth anything. And therefore, there was no פרוטה here. There was only a מלוה, and that's why he said the קידושין are not קידושין. ודוד סבר, but דוד held חזו לכלבים ושונרא, they could be used for dogs and cats to be eaten, so at least they have a value of a פרוטה. And therefore, he held the קידושין are קידושין. Then the גמרא asks, ורבי יוסי האי תנה את אשתי את מיכל מאי דריש ביה? רבי יוסי who said that really מרב and מיכל were both married to דוד, and the only reason he was allowed to take two sisters was because he married מיכל after מרב died, what does he do with this פסוק תנה את אשתי את מיכל? Because before we said that from this פסוק we see that only מיכל was his wife, not מרב, because the פסוק says my wife מיכל, obviously only מיכל was the wife, not מרב. But according to רבי יוסי, מרב was also his wife. The גמרא says רבי יוסי לטעמיה, רבי יוסי goes according to his own opinion. דתניא, because we learn in a ברייתא, רבי יוסי היה דורש מקראות מעורבים, רבי יוסי דרש'נד the mixed-up פסוקים, there are confused פסוקים here and he דרש'נד them. כתיב, one פסוק says ויקח המלך, the מלך, the מלך took את שני בני רצפה בת איה, the two children of רצפה the daughter of איה אשר ילדה לשאול, that gave birth to שאול. Who were they? את ארמני ואת מפיבשת, and also ואת חמשת בני מיכל, the five children of מיכל אשר ילדה לעדריאל המחולתי, that she gave birth to עדריאל. And the question that is asked on this פסוק is, וכי לעדריאל ניתנה? Was then מיכל given to עדריאל? והלא לפלטי בן ליש ניתנה, we know that שאול gave מיכל to פלטי בן ליש. To עדריאל, he gave the other sister, מרב, but מיכל was given to פלטי בן ליש. And here, the פסוק says that מיכל gave birth to עדריאל. And how do we know that she was given to פלטי בן ליש? דכתיב, because the פסוק says ושאול נתן את מיכל בתו, that שאול gave מיכל his daughter, אשת דוד, the wife of דוד, לפלטי בן ליש וגומר, to פלטי בן ליש. So what does the פסוק mean that מיכל gave birth to these children to עדריאל? אלא, what does the פסוק mean? מקיש, it comes to compare קידושי מרב לעדריאל לקידושי מיכל לפלטי, the קידושין that מרב got from עדריאל to the קידושין that מיכל got from פלטי. מה קידושי מיכל לפלטי בעבירה, just like the קידושין that מיכל got from פלטי was with an עבירה, because really she was married to דוד, and as the פסוק says בפירוש that she was married to דוד, as he said תנה את אשתי את מיכל, אף קידושי מרב לעדריאל בעבירה. So too when עדריאל gave מרב קידושין, it was also with an עבירה, because really she was married to דוד. And as it seems that he דרש'נד the פסוק תנה את אשתי את מיכל not as we said before that this comes to tell us That just מיכל was his wife, not מירב, but just opposite. The פסוק wants to stress בפירוש that מיכל was his wife, to show that that is definitely true, and then later we should be able to compare the קידושין that עדריאל gave to מירב to the קידושין that פלטי gave to מיכל. That just like פלטי's קידושין to מיכל was with an עבירה, because the פסוק stresses clearly את אשתי את מיכל, give me my wife מיכל cuz she was his wife, and as רש"י says because the הלכה is that when you're מקדש with a מלוה ופרוטה דעתיה אמלוה, and therefore the קידושין were 100% קידושין, so therefore later when פלטי gave her קידושין, the קידושין were with an עבירה, so too the קידושין that עדריאל gave to מירב was also בעבירה because she was married to דוד. Then the גמרא says, ורבי יהושע בן קרחה, now we have a קשיא, רבי יהושע בן קרחה, נמי הא כתיב, doesn't it say, את חמשת בני מיכל בת שאול, and as we said before, this פסוק comes to show that the קידושין of עדריאל to מירב were as bad as the קידושין of פלטי to מיכל. We can't learn the פשט in the פסוק simply, because we cannot say that מיכל gave birth to these children to עדריאל, as we said before, because she was not married to עדריאל. So the פשט in the פסוק is that the פסוק comes to tell us that the קידושין of עדריאל to מירב was as bad as the קידושין from פלטי to מיכל. Why? Because just like מיכל was married to דוד, so was מירב married to דוד. So what will רבי יהושע בן קרחה do with this? רבי יהושע בן קרחה had said before that she was never married to דוד, that the קידושין of מירב were קידושי טעות, but here we see that the פסוק is trying to tell us that the קידושין that עדריאל gave to מירב was wrong, because מירב was married to דוד, not like רבי יהושע בן קרחה said that the קידושין of מירב to דוד were בטעות. אמר לך רבי יהושע, רבי יהושע will answer you, the פשט is like this: וכי מיכל ילדה? Did really מיכל give birth to these children? והלא מירב ילדה, מירב gave birth to these children. So these children that say that they were born to עדריאל, they were טאקע born to עדריאל, but not through מיכל, but they were born through his wife מירב. But why does the פסוק say that מיכל gave birth to them? Because מירב ילדה, מירב gave birth, ומיכל גידלה, but מיכל raised them. לפיכך נקראו על שמה, therefore they are called on her name, that מיכל gave birth to them, ללמדך, to teach you, שכל המגדל יתום בתוך ביתו, anybody who raises an orphan in his house, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו, the תורה compares it as if this person gave birth to that child, and therefore the פסוק says that מיכל gave birth to these children, even though the truth is that she did not give birth to them. Then the גמרא continues, there's a סימן concerning those next few מימרות that the גמרא will bring: חנינא קרא. רב חנינא said a דרוש concerning a פסוק that has the word קרא. יוחנן, רבי יוחנן said concerning the פסוק ואשתו. אלעזר said concerning ועולה. ושמואל had a לימוד בנוגע the פסוק בלימודי. And this is the סימן to remember the next מימרות. The גמרא says: רב חנינא אומר, רב חנינא says, מהכא, we learn it out from this פסוק. This לימוד that we said before that we learn out that anybody who raises a child, a יתום in his house, it is as if he gave birth to the child, we learn out from another פסוק. It says a פסוק in רות: ותקראנה לו השכנות שם לאמר, that when רות gave birth to a child from בועז, so the neighbors gave a name and said, יולד בן לנעמי, a child was born to נעמי. וכי נעמי ילדה? Did נעמי give birth? והלא רות ילדה, רות gave birth! אלא רות ילדה ונעמי גידלה, רות gave birth and נעמי raised the child. לפיכך נקרא על שמה, therefore the child is called on her name. רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא, רבי יוחנן says we learn it out from a different פסוק, from this פסוק. It says: ואשתו היהודית ילדה את ירד אבי גדור וגומר, that his wife the יהודית, and this was בתיה the daughter of פרעה, and she was married to כלב, and she gave birth, it says, to ירד, אבי גדור, etc., and all these are names for משה. And the פסוק says: אלה בני בתיה בת פרעה, these are the children of בתיה the daughter of פרעה, אשר לקח מרד, that מרד took for a wife. Who is מרד? מרד זה כלב. מרד, that is כלב בן יפונה. ולמה נקרא שמו מרד? Why is he called מרד? שמרד בעצת מרגלים, because he revolted against the advice of the מרגלים. Because כלב was one of the two that

did not go along with the עצה of the מרגלים. So he revolted against them, therefore he is called מרד. So the פסוק says that these are the children that בתיה gave birth. The question is, וכי בתיה ילדה? Did בתיה give birth? והלא יוכבד ילדה, יוכבד gave birth, because as we said before, that all the names in the פסוק here as the children of בתיה, they are all names of משה. Now we know משה was the son of יוכבד. So why does the תורה say that בתיה gave birth to him, to משה? אלא, therefore you must say the פשט is, יוכבד ילדה, יוכבד gave birth, ובתיה גילדה, גידלה, and בתיה raised him, and therefore, לפיכך נקרא על שמה, therefore it is called on her name. ר' אלעזר אמר, ר' אלעזר said מהכא, we know this from another another פסוק. From this פסוק, the פסוק in תהילים where it says גאלת בזרוע עמך, you redeemed with your arm your nation, בני יעקב ויוסף סלה, the children of יעקב and יוסף, סלה. וכי יוסף ילד? This refers to all the יידן, did יוסף give birth to all the יידן? והלא יעקב ילד, יעקב gave birth to all the יידן. אלא, what does that mean? יעקב ילד ויוסף כילכל. יעקב gave birth, but יוסף supported them. In the time of hunger, יוסף supported them. לפיכך נקראו על שמו, therefore they are called on his name.

אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן, רב שמואל בר נחמני said in the name of רבי יוחנן: כל המלמד בן חבירו תורה, anybody who teaches the child of his friend תורה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו, the תורה considers it as if he gave birth to that child. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, ואלה תולדות אהרן ומשה, these are the children of אהרן and משה, וכתיב, and right after that it says, ואלה שמות בני אהרן, these are the names of the children of אהרן. And the names of the children of משה are not mentioned, only the names of the children of אהרן. And nevertheless, before that the תורה said that the תורה is going to mention the names of the children of משה too. But the תורה only mentions the names of the children of אהרן. לומר לך, to tell you, אהרן ילד, that אהרן gave birth to his children, ומשה לימד, but משה taught them. לפיכך נקראו על שמו, therefore they're called on his name. So therefore, when the תורה says these are the the names of the children of אהרן and משה, it only says the names of the children of אהרן. They are also called the children of משה because משה taught them תורה. Then the גמרא says, there's a פסוק in ישעיה: לכן כה אמר ה' אל בית יעקב אשר פדה את אברהם. ה' said to the house of יעקב who redeemed אברהם. And the

question is, וכי היכא מצינו, where do we find, ביעקב שפדה לאברהם, that יעקב redeemed אברהם? אמר רב יהודה, so רב יהודה said, שפדהו מצער גידול בנים. He redeemed him, he saved him, from the suffering of raising children. Because really אברהם should have had all the children, and he should have had the bother of raising the children. As רש''י brings the פסוק, ה' said to אברהם: וארבה את זרעך, I will multiply your children. But he didn't have, and יעקב had the many children instead. So יעקב saved him from the bother, from the צער of raising the children. והיינו דכתיב, this is what the פסוק says: לא עתה יבוש יעקב וגו', now you should not be ashamed יעקב, and the פסוק continues, ולא עתה פניו יחוורו. That means, לא עתה יבוש יעקב מאביו, now יעקב should not be embarrassed of his father, ולא עתה פניו יחוורו, now your face will not be pale, מאבי אביו, from his grandfather, which is from אברהם, because he saved אברהם from the trouble of raising the children. This is the way רש''י learns the פשט in these words that he saved אברהם from the צער גידול בנים. But תוספות says that לכאורה this פשט is not understood, because how can we say that raising children is called צער? That is really called שמחה! As we find in the גמרא ברכות concerning עובד אדום that it says in the פסוק ה' blessed him with children in reward that he had the ארון in his house. So having a lot of children is called a blessing, not a צער. And also, אברהם also had a lot of children, not from שרה, but from קטורה. So therefore תוספות learns that it doesn't mean the צער of having a lot of children, but the צער of what happened with יוסף and his brothers, and then that later they went down to מצרים, which לכאורה should have happened to אברהם, but instead of that, happened to יעקב, and that's what the גמרא means that יעקב saved אברהם from the צער of גידול בנים. Then the

גמרא continues, we mentioned before that מיכל was given by שאול to פלטי בן ליש. The גמרא says, כתיב פלטי, כתיב פלטיאל. Sometimes the פסוק calls him פלטי, and sometimes the פסוק calls him פלטיאל. אמר רבי יוחנן, so רבי יוחנן said, פלטי שמו, really his name was פלטי, ולמה נקרא שמו פלטיאל? Why was he also called פלטיאל? שפלטו אל מן העבירה. The word פלטיאל is made up of two words: פלטי, אל. That means that ה' saved him from the עבירה. Because the word פלט comes also from the meaning of saving. So פלטיאל means he was saved by ה' from the עבירה. Because really, as we said before, she was married to דוד, so he was not allowed to live with her. And ה' saved him that he actually never had relations with her, he never lived with her, and he did not do the עבירה. מאי עביד? So what did he do? נעץ חרב בינו לבינה, he put a sword in between them. They slept on one bed, but he put a sword in between the two. אמר, he said, כל העוסק בדבר זה, anybody who is going to get involved in this, in trying to have relations, ידקר בחרב זה, will be stabbed with this sword. Then the גמרא asks, וכתיב, doesn't the פסוק say, וילך אתה אישה, that her husband went with her, and it refers to פלטי as her husband? The גמרא says, שנעשה לה כאיש. What that means is he became to her like a husband. That means, as רש''י explains, that he loved her and he took care of her like a husband, but not more than that. Then the גמרא says, וכתיב, doesn't it say, הלוך ובכה, he was going and crying? The גמרא says, על המצוה דאזיל מיניה, that when she left him, he was crying because the מצוה that left him. Like this, he had a מצוה of overcoming his יצר הרע, but when this left him, that's why he was crying. Then it says they went עד בחורים. What does that mean? שנעשו שניהם כבחורים, they both became like youths, שלא טעמו טעם ביאה, because they didn't taste the taste of relations. Because they did not have relations, so they were like בחורים, like young people who never were married. אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, תוקפו של יוסף, the greatness of יוסף, in other words, the greatness of יוסף overcoming his יצר הרע concerning the wife of פוטיפר when she wanted him to have relations with her, and he did not want to and he overcame his יצר הרע, so his greatness, ענוותנותו של בועז, concerning בועז, if you compare that to בועז, ענוות, and as רש״י explains, that תוקף is something very strong, ענוות is something quiet that no one knows. What he's saying is that if we compare what יוסף did to what בועז did, it was nothing, because what בועז did was much greater than what יוסף did. And then תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש, and the greatness of בועז is ענוות of פלטי בן ליש. In other words, if you compare what בועז did to what פלטי בן ליש did, then what בועז did was nothing compared to what פלטי בן ליש did. And the גמרא explains: תוקפו של יוסף ענוותנותו של בועז, the greatness of יוסף was ענוות by בועז. Why? דכתיב, because by בועז it says, ויהי בחצי הלילה, was in the middle of the night, ויחרד האיש, and the man got scared, וילפת. This refers to the time when רות came to him at night and lay down next to him, and when he woke up and he saw a woman next to him, he got scared. And what happened? וילפת. מאי וילפת? What does וילפת mean? אמר רב, רב said, שנעשה בשרו כראשי לפתות, that his flesh became hard like turnip heads, and nevertheless he overcame his יצר הרע and he didn't do anything. And this is much more than what יוסף did, because יוסף was not with in one bed with her. Plus, by יוסף, she was married. In this case, רות was an unmarried woman. Plus, she was laying there next to him. And nevertheless, he overcame his יצר הרע. And then we say, תוקפו של בועז ענוותנותו של פלטי בן ליש, the greatness of בועז is nothing compared to what פלטי בן ליש did. כי דאמרן, as we said before, that by פלטי בן ליש it wasn't a one-time thing, it was for a long, long time that they slept in one bed, and nevertheless, he never did an עבירה. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, מאי דכתיב, what is meant in the פסוק where it says, רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על כולנה, that many daughters did a lot of greatness, but you excelled them all. What does that mean? רבות בנות עשו חיל, this part of the פסוק, זה יוסף ובועז, that refers to the greatness of יוסף and בועז, the way they overcame their יצר הרע. ואת עלית על כולנה, זה פלטי בן ליש. When it says that you were even above them, you excelled them all, like you did even a greater thing, that refers to פלטי בן ליש, that he overcame his יצר הרע even in a greater way. אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן, and רב שמואל בר נחמני said in the name of רבי יונתן, מאי דכתיב, what is the meaning of the פסוק, שקר החן והבל היופי, that grace is false and beauty is in vain? And the פסוק continues, אשה יראת ה׳ היא תתהלל, a woman who fears ה׳, she will be praised. So he says, שקר החן, זה יוסף, that false is the grace, that refers to יוסף; והבל היופי, זה בועז, and the beauty is in vain, that refers to בועז, that what they did wasn't that great; יראת ה׳ היא תתהלל, the one that fears ה׳, she should be praised, זה פלטי בן ליש, that refers to פלטי בן ליש, what he did was even greater. דבר אחר, another פשט: שקר החן, זה דורו של משה, that false is the grace, that is the generation of משה, because in the time of משה they טאקע learned תורה, but not really that much; והבל היופי, the beauty is in vain, זה דורו של יהושע, that is the generation of יהושע, they also studied תורה, but not really that much; יראת ה׳ היא תתהלל, the one that fears ה׳, that will be praised, זה דורו של חזקיה, that is the generation of חזקיה, because in the time of חזקיה they learned a lot of תורה, as it says that they used to have the candles burning in the בית המדרש בתי מדרשות in the time of חזקיה till they checked from דן to באר שבע and they didn't find one עם הארץ, that's how much תורה they studied. דבר אחר, another פשט: שקר החן, זה דורו של משה ויהושע, that first part of the פסוק, that false is the grace, that refers to the generation of משה and יהושע; והבל היופי, that beauty is in vain, זה דורו של חזקיה, even refers to the generation of חזקיה, that is also not that great; יראת ה׳ היא תתהלל, when the פסוק says the one that fears ה׳ will be praised, זה דורו של רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי, that refers to the generation of רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי. Why? Because אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי, they said on רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי, שהיו ששה תלמידים מתכסים בטלית אחת, that six תלמידים had to cover themselves with one garment. That's how poor they were, that six people together had to use one garment, ועוסקין בתורה, nevertheless they learned תורה. So that is the greatest thing, and therefore when the פסוק says יראת ה׳ היא תתהלל, that refers to the generation of רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי.

Concerning what you learned earlier in the גמרא that when they sent to tell ינאי המלך that his slave killed somebody, and he sent his slave to the חכמים to be judged, to stand trial, and then they said to him, you should also come, because יבא בעל השור ויעמוד על שורו, since you are his master, you have to stand here while he is standing trial. So the מהרש״א asks a קשיא: why didn't he save himself from doing it by freeing his slave? If he would have freed his slave, then the slave would have stood trial by himself and he wouldn't have to come. So the מהרש״א says, because maybe he liked his slave very much and he didn't want him to get killed, so therefore לכתחילה he sent him not freeing him, hoping that since he is the slave of the king, out of fear of the king they wouldn't kill him. But later on, when they called him to come, he came, and he still didn't free him because he did not want to free him, he wanted to save him. And the מהרש״א says, as we טאקע see from יוסיפון, that this slave was הורדוס, and the king wanted to save him. And therefore he did everything that they shouldn't judge him in order to save him, but he didn't want to free him. Also, when שמעון בן שטח said to ינאי, "Stand up and you should know that you will not stand in front of us, but you are standing לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם," so the מהרש״א says: why did he use the לשון that you are standing in front of the One that said and created the world? Why didn't he say you are standing in front of השם? Because really it's based on the פסוק, אלקים נצב בעדת קל. So he should have said, "You are standing in front of אלקים," or another similar לשון. Why did he say you are standing in front of the One that said and created the world? So the מהרש״א says they picked this לשון because we know that העולם קיים על הדין. It says in פרקי אבות that the world exists on דין, on judgment. And that's what he said, that השם, who said and created the world and He wants the world to exist, and how does the world exist is through a proper דין, and that's what he said to him, "We want to have a proper דין, and therefore stand up and we will make a proper דין, and then the world will have its existence that the way השם wants it. And that's why they used the לשון that you should stand לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם." Concerning what the גמרא said, that כל המלמד בן חבירו תורה, if you teach your friend's son תורה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו, the תורה considered it as if you gave birth to that child. So the

ליובאוויטשער רבי שליט״א in his ספר לקוטי שיחות כרך כ״ג, the 23rd volume in פרשת במדבר, he explains it as follows. It is not just that the תורה considered it as if you gave birth to him as a דבר חיצוני, as a superficial thing, but since the תורה says it, obviously it has to be true. Now, the truth behind it is as follows. We know that the punishment for not learning תורה is as the פסוק says: דבר השם בזה, that you embarrass the words of השם, הכרת תכרת, you get cut off, which means that your life is taken away from you, because the life of a ייד is תורה, as we say, כי הם חיינו, this is our life. And therefore, the גמרא says in ברכות that if a ייד stays away from תורה, it's like a fish that is פריש מן הים, it goes away from the water. Just like a fish cannot live without water, a ייד cannot live without תורה. So really, תורה gives the life. So when you teach somebody תורה, what you do is you make sure that he will not die, but he will continue living. We also know the famous תורה of the בעל שם טוב, that it is not as people think, that השם created the world once and then the world continues to exist by itself. But he says that בכל רגע ורגע, every second, השם has to constantly renew the life that He gives into the world. As the פסוק says: לעולם השם דברך נצב בשמים, forever Your words, השם, stand in שמים. And it means that the words that השם said, יהי רקיע, in order for the שמים to be created, constantly the דבר השם, the words of השם of the עשרה מאמרות have to be there to create the world, to continue creating. If השם would, for one second, stop continuing the עשרה מאמרות that He said to create the world, the world would stop existing. So it's not only that the world exists now because השם had once created it, but השם, every second, creates the world over and over again. And therefore, it's understood if a person does something to help somebody live and not die, so not only is he causing him not to die, but actually he is causing him to be recreated all over again. Because if he would have died, he wouldn't have been created again. Now that he doesn't die and he continues living, so it's not only a שלילה, a negative thing, that he doesn't die, but since השם creates the world every second, so what he does is he makes it that he should be recreated again. While if a person dies, then he stops being recreated. But if a person continues living, then he is recreated again. So it comes out, since תורה gives the life to the person, so it comes out what you do is you make that this person should be recreated again. So therefore, when you teach somebody תורה and you extend his life, it is not only that you are doing an ענין שלילה, meaning you are making it so that he should not die, but what you do is you make it so that he should be created again. So you are the cause for his rebirth, so to speak. And that's the פשט: כל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו, every time you learn with him So you cause, and more and more, that he should be recreated again. So it's as if you gave birth to him, just like a father who gives birth to a child, he brings his existence into the world, so too, when you teach him תורה, you bring his existence into the world. Not only do you cause that his existence shouldn't stop to continue, but since every second a person and everything else in the world is recreated, what you really do is you cause that he should be recreated again, so it's as if you gave birth to this child. It is

also interesting to note that when the גמרא says that כל המגדל יתום בתוך ביתו, anybody who raises an orphan in his house, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו, the תורה considers it as if he gave birth to the child, so the מהרש״א says that this is לאו דווקא an orphan, because in the מעשים, in the ראיות that the גמרא brings here, they were not orphans, they were not יתומים. That's one פשט מהרש״א says. Another פשט the מהרש״א says that maybe they actually were יתומים, and he says in the case of רות and בועז, where it says that they said that a child was born to נעמי, even though the child was born to רות, but since נעמי raised the child, it's considered as if נעמי gave birth to the child, in that case, really the child was a יתום, because as it says in מדרש that בועז died right away. So when the child was born, he had no father, so therefore the child was a יתום. So this is a case of a יתום being raised by somebody else. Also in the case of בתיה בת פרעה raising משה, it also similar to a יתום, even though משה רבינו wasn't a יתום, because his father and mother, עמרם and יוכבד, were alive then, but since they were afraid to tell her who the parents were, so he is considered like a יתום. And also in the other ראיה, which is concerning יוסף, so as the מהרש״א says that יוסף supported the יידן then, not only while יעקב was alive, but he also supported them after יעקב passed away, so he supported them when they were יתומים already. So here we see how all the ראיות that the גמרא brings to this ענין, that if you raise a child in your house, it's as if you gave birth to that child, they are all concerning יתומים. So according to this פשט, could be it's only concerning a יתום, but according to the first פשט, even if it's not a יתום, if you raise a child in your house, it is considered as if you gave birth to that child.