Transcript

I think we left off here on lamed amud bais.

ולענין שאילתא דשאלתון קדמי נר כביה לכבות נר מנה לן,

which was about pikuach nefesh on Shabbos, ner kaya, so he answers him ner kaya,

נפש נשמתו של אדם קרויה נר מוטב תכבה נר של בשר ודם מפני נרה של הקדוש ברוך הוא.

Rashi elicits a very important point from this gemara: לאו מהכא יליף חילול שבת דפיקוח נפש, not dipikuach nefesh,

דפיקוח נפש נפקא לן וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, אלא להטעימן הדבר באגדה המושכת את הלב לפי שהיו באים לשמוע דרשות נשים ועמי הארץ וצריכין הדרשנים למשוך את לבם.

That divrei Torah are supposed to be presented in a way that will be effective for people to understand and appreciate them, and the chacham who's presenting the divrei Torah should have recourse to divrei aggadah to do that, not simply to present the halacha as it is, but to try to again present it in a way that's mosheich es halev.

אמר רב יהודה בריה דשמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב בקשו חכמים לגנוז ספר קהלת מפני שדבריו סותרין זה את זה, ומפני מה לא גנזוהו מפני שתחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה.

So Rashi explains, it's not that, ich veis, you know, a person gets up and he gives a drasha for an hour, and the first two minutes are good, the last two minutes are good, and the intervening fifty-six minutes are gibberish. So, oh, a gevaldig drasha! No, it wasn't a gevaldig drasha, it was four minutes that were okay and fifty-six minutes that were gibberish. So what that תחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה. So no, the tchilaso divrei Torah and the sofo divrei Torah are davar halomeid me'inyano that with the correct study and interpretation, so then the whole thing is divrei Torah. You know, so often what a person thinks about a particular text is a reflection of what assumptions he has going in to that study. If a person goes in assuming that the author, that everything is written very simplistically, very superficially, so then that's going to dictate what he thinks he sees in the text. And if the person knows that the author was very deep and very profound, so then that's going to trigger what he sees in the text. You read a shvere Rambam and it's, and we don't understand how it squares with a gemara. So if you approach it with the assumption, no, so the Rambam he should have learned dafi yomi, he should have chasered more and he would have remembered more gemaras, okay, so that's going to point you in one direction to what you think you should do with that. If a person has an appreciation for who the Rambam was, so then obviously that's going to dictate a different approach to the, and ultimately is going to let a person, it's the only thing that makes possible or facilitates really understanding the depth of anything is to recognize going in the depth and the wisdom of the mechaber. Lots of proofs that people have about different things, everything from literally דבר השם פשוטו כמשמעו verbatim in Tanakh on down is sometimes just a function of their own assumptions that they make originally. If you assume that there's very little to a text, so then you see this, you see that, and obviously the whole thing is nonsense because if a person has the wrong assumptions about how to read a text. So then obviously you can't appreciate it if you're correcting again, give a mashal, if you're correcting grammar, so you have to know whether or not something was intended to be written as prose or as poetry. There are different rules for grammar if you're writing prose or if you're writing poetry. So if you think it was written as prose and it was really written as poetry, so you'll give him a zero on grammar. But it wasn't written as prose, it was written as poetry. A person has to understand what it is that he's learning, what it is that he's what it is that he's studying. That's why I don't remember whether it could be we spoke about it, I don't remember. People people have a taina, people say if you if people like to read about about the Avos, about the Shiftei Kah as though they were as little as as we are in stature. And they say and if you don't say like that, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, it says Vayekanu bo echav, Vayisnu oso, so it's quite clear that there was sibling rivalry. So, right, so we all know that growing up that we we fought with our siblings, so the Shiftei Kah were no were no different and it's it's peshuto shel mikra. And if you say different, so you're you're being a revisionist, you're going against peshuto shel mikra. So what's the answer? משל למה הדבר דומה. משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say you're sitting and you're learning a Yerushalmi. So you don't understand the Yerushalmi, you have a kasha. So you go over to a first grader, just last year mastered the Aleph-Bais and now he's begun Chumash and you bring over the Yerushalmi and you ask him, you know, psok lei pesuka no, zogt mir what's pshat in the Yerushalmi? So the young kind says I don't know. Then you're aliyah leregel, you go to Bnei Brak, you're נכנס אל הקודש פנימה, you ask Rav Chaim Kanievsky what's pshat in the Yerushalmi? He says, "Yeah, takeh shver a Yerushalmi, I don't know." So they both said I don't know. So are you being revisionist if you think that the I don't know means two different things? You're not being a revisionist, you're being a you're not being a total fool, you're being a you're being normal. What the words mean depends upon who's saying them. So when the five-year-old says I don't know, he means he means I don't know what a Yerushalmi is, I don't know I don't know what you're talking about. And Rav Chaim Kanievsky means, "Yeah, it's takeh against the Yerushalmi here and it's against the Bavli there, lefi peshuto, and it's takeh shver a Yerushalmi." So what the words mean, ein hachi nami, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, but what the words mean depend upon the depend upon who's saying them. I'll tell a story that that the Rav once said in shiur that, you know, I don't understand pshat in this Gemara. So someone started translating the words for him. So he said, "No, the translation I'm okay with." The I don't know depends upon who who says the I don't know. So ein hachi nami, the pesukim takeh say there was sinah and kinah. ein hachi nami, the pesukim takeh say that Vayisnu oso, that the brothers hated Yosef, and whatever the pshat in the parsha is, the pshat is that they hated him. And the pesukim say that they were jealous, and whatever the pshat in the pesukim is, they were jealous. You can't say a pshat that they didn't hate him. Says they hated him. You can't say a pshat that they didn't that they weren't jealous of him. The question is does does sinah and kinah by the Shiftei Kah and Yosef HaTzaddik whose names were charutim al hachoshen, who's the Shiftei Kah eidus leyisrael, does that mean the same thing as the sinah and kinah that we know from our very petty small-minded existence? To assume that is is as reasonable as assuming that Rav Chaim Kanievsky's I don't know about the Yerushalmi is the same as the the five-year-old's I don't know on the Yerushalmi. So everything depends upon what the the understanding is of who's saying something and and what's and what's being said. You go and and people's assumptions, well if you come to the whatever you're learning, it can be a pasuk Chumash, it can be it can be a Rambam, it can be a blat Gemara, it can be a kasha. of the Ravad and the Rambam, but but if you come with the wrong assumptions so then there's no chance that that that one is going to understand what's really intended and and what it really means. And that's true for all the for whatever we read about the Avos. The Torah expected that we understood, the Torah expected that we understood that the Shivtei Koh were not, they weren't, they were people, they were people, they had veins and they had arteries and they had cells and they were people, but they weren't kleine menschen like like we are. I I think it was, I'm forgetting his name, one of the rabbonim who published a lot of kisvei yad from rishonim. So he once went to one of these, what are they call the people who are, what's the word for handwriting experts, what's the word for graphologist. Graphologist, shkoiyach, thank you. He went he once went to a a graphologist, I think I think a non-Jewish one, so that the the person couldn't be biased by looking at the content of what he was reading, so that he could only look at the the handwriting. And he brought him kisvei yad of rishonim and brought him a contemporary kisvei yad, a contemporary ksav yad, and said, you know, what do you think about this? What can you tell me about the about the authors of the apparently there apparently is such a chochmah of graphology. So he looked at the the kisvei yad and the ones of the rishonim, so he said, these were incredibly profound and spiritual people. You don't you don't see this. So that's the that's the rishonim. We're not talking about, we didn't even get back to, and it wasn't it wasn't even the Rambam's ksav yad either. It wasn't necessarily those whom Reb Chaim Volozhin and others tell us are are the gedolei harishonim. So we I don't know if we have any kisvei yad from the Shivtei Koh to, you know, to bring to the graphologists, but the Torah assumes that we understand that, the Torah assumes that that we recognize that. And and it's only with with the correct assumptions, only when we approach things with the correct assumptions that that we can ever arrive or hope to arrive be'ezras Hashem at at correct pshat. You know, when you play pin the tail on the donkey, if they they turn you around and they start you in the wrong direction, meichei taisi that you're ever going to get there? You gotta be headed in the right direction, you gotta know what what what you're looking for. I I once gave this mashal but the I don't know, and and when I was speaking to to some people, so one of the one of the people afterwards told me that he heard the the following, the following story from Rav Hershprung's son. Rav Hershprung was the rav in Montreal, he had learned in Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin and and literally literally knew kol hatorah kulah by heart. And they say the way he used to give, when he would give bechinos for smicha, so he'd be sitting there like this with no seforim, no kol sefer in front of him and he would say Mechaber Amar and then he'd ask whoever the the omeid l'mivchan was, nu, so what does the Shach say, what does the Taz say? So if if they got it right, good, went on to the next question. If not, so then he would say the Shach and the Taz again, no seforim, he would say the Shach and the Taz and and show them the mistake and then and then and then go weiter. So the person told me he heard from Rav Hershprung's son the the following story, that a young avreich once came over to him and and asked him pshat in a Tosfos or something. And Rav Hershprung said I don't know. And the guy walked away visibly pleased, בדיוק הכרת פניו ענתה בו, visibly pleased. So Rav Hershprung says to his son, he thinks that my I don't know and his I don't know are the same. So that's that's exactly what we're what we're talking about. What do you do when you see a stira? Depends in whose works you see it.

לכתחילה דברי תורה דכתיב מה יתרון לאדם בכל עמלו שיעמול תחת השמש. ואמרו דברי רבי ינאי תחת השמש הוא דאין לו קודם שמש יש לו. רש"י קודם השמש אם יעמול בתורה שקדמה לשמש יש יתרון.

I think the Sforno has a very beautiful comment on the pasuk in Aseret Hadibrot of ששת ימים תעבוד ועשית כל מלאכתך. So he he zeros in on the lashon ta'avod. So we just translate it as you know, you work for six days and you'll complete, and you complete all your work. And he says, but Sheishet yamim ta'avod really is lashon avdut. So he says, really what the translation of Sheishet yamim ta'avod means is that from Sunday through Friday you're an eved. You're an eved. He says what does it mean? He says what's the metzius of an eved? The metzius of an eved is מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו. He works, he works, he works, but nothing belongs to him. He he can be if he's an eved kna'ani he can be nokev margolios l'rabbo. Doesn't matter how much profit he's generating, nothing goes into his into his his bank account. He he has nothing to show for everything he's doing. So that's what Sheishet yamim ta'avod means, that during the Sheishet yemai hama'aseh when we're also preoccupied with the mundane, so be'emes that's a bechina of ta'avod. It's nothing a person doesn't doesn't accrue anything, he doesn't amass anything, he doesn't take anything away with him le'achar me'ah v'esrim. But on Yom Hashvii, so then it's ois avdut. Then Yom Hashvii when it's לא ניתנו שבתות אלא לעסוק בהם בתורה, so then the person is not an eved. There's no then he's he's a ben chorin.

סוף דברי תורה דכתיב סוף דבר הכל נשמע את האלקים ירא ואת מצותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם. מאי כי זה כל האדם? אמר רבי אלעזר כל העולם כולו נברא אלא בשביל זה. רבי אבא בר כהנ אמר שקול זה כנגד כל העולם כולו. שמעון בן עזאי אומר ואמרי לה שמעון בן זומא אומר לא נברא כל העולם כולו אלא לצוות לזה.

I think that the Rishonim explained that ordinarily Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma are referred to without their first name, reflecting the fact that they were niftar young. So as almost as if, right, that until a certain age you you're known as your father's son. And it's only when a person becomes older that that he's sort of thought of in his own in in his own right. So because that they were they were niftar young, so generally we we find them identified without their their own names just by the father's name, Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma. So all three pshatim all three pshatim here are understand are interpreting the phrase כי זה כל האדם that this is all of humanity, right?

את האלקים ירא ואת מצותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם,

this is all of humanity. What does it mean that this is all of humanity? That this person who's yerei Hashem, this is all of humanity. What does it mean? That כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה. Or that שקול זה כנגד כל העולם. Or that לא נברא כל העולם כולו אלא לצוות לזה to provide companionship, right? Tzavta is lashon companionship. That's the the in Sifrei Chassidus, be'emes you find it already in the Rishonim, but it's in Sifrei Chassidus you find the Me'or Einayim has, Chiddushei Harim have, that mitzvah is not only lashon commandment, but mitzvah's lashon tzavta, that it's a way a person connects to to Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Tzeves means to be to to be together. So that's how it comes to mean companionship and but be'emes as you find the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah already have such an understanding of it in Masechet Berachot. What are the different pshatim about? So itochen is as follows: The Rambam actually in the hakdama to Peirush Hamishnayos—it’s actually we’re holding post-mincha also—mentions this gemara in the following context. He says that the kadmonim say that everything that’s created has to have a purpose because otherwise one is just attributing arbitrariness to the creator. Everything that’s created has a purpose. So what’s the purpose of everything that’s created? So he says that tachas hayarei'ach, meaning not commenting on the heavenly bodies or the malachim, but tachas hayarei'ach, under the moon, everything that’s created is for man. Everything that’s created for man. And then, so the Rambam says, okay, fine. So then what are we here for? What’s man here for? So man is here to know Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That’s his tachlis. So everything is here for man, and man is here to know Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Then says the Rambam, you’ll ask a kasha: so what are the people here who have no shaychus to that? What are they here for? People who have no shaychus to yidias Hashem, that rachmana litzlan Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not on their radar screen. So what are they here for? So he quotes this gemara. He says that they’re here for... they’re here a, before he quotes the gemara, as a support system—that chayei, that Rabbi Akiva shouldn’t have to do everything himself, he shouldn’t have to be zorei'a and choreish and kotzeir and be an ironworker and everything himself—and b, they’re here letzvos lozeh, to provide companionship. When you hear... this is in the hakdama to Peirush Hamishnayos. When you see the pshat, so you realize that the Rambam is highlighting for us that there’s a major difference between two of the pshatim that the gemara has and the third. The two pshatim of כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה and letzvos lozeh are taka explaining why everyone is here. Everyone is here for this person. The one who says that שקול העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה is saying, no, we don’t know, we’re not claiming to know why anyone is here. The only thing Shlomo Hamelech is telling us, כי זה כל האדם, is that the person who is a genuine yarei Shamayim is שקול כנגד כל העולם, but he’s not claiming to say that we understand or that we can define what Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s tachlis was in creating anyone. No, we can just say that within the beriah, שקול זה כנגד כל העולם. And the other two pshatim are saying, no, that within the beriah we can... again, we’re not giving a reason for the beriah, but within the beriah we can say that everyone else is here bishvil zeh, for this person, presumably to provide the support system, or letzvos lozeh, to provide companionship. He’s saying that Yachid ve'doros. He says explicitly Yachid ve'doros. Like the Rambam also says hisrachki that I’m supposed to stay far away from bad neighbors, but like if they’re from the yarei Shamayim, those who are in, after they provide companionship. Eino chinami, that’s probably that’s why that’s not the only reason he gives. Eino chinami. So he gives two answers.

ומה דבבו ססון זה לזה כתיב טוב כעס משחוק וכתיב לשחוק אמרתי מהולל.

That’s one stira. sischok is so bad, it’s even worse than kaas, or no, it’s praiseworthy?

כתיב ושבחתי אני את השמחה וכתיב ולשמחה מה זו עשה.

Lo kashya: tov kaas

mis'chok—טוב כעס שכועס הקדוש ברוך הוא על הצדיקים בעולם הזה משחוק שמשחק הקדוש ברוך הוא על הרשעים בעולם הזה.

The middas hadin that tzaddikim endure ba'olam hazeh is that they should come to the olam ha'emes free of chet. The sischok that resha'im enjoy ba'olam hazeh is aderaba, that they won’t have zechuyos in the olam ha'emes.

ושבחתי אני את השמחה זו שמחה של מצוה ולשמחה מה זה עושה זו שמחה שאינה של מצוה ללמדך שאין השכינה שורה לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך שיחה בטילה ולא מתוך שמחה ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר שמחה של מצוה שנאמר ועתה קחו לי מנגן והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו יד ה'.

So it's very interesting that you see in the list that Chazal give here of sort of states of mind or states of being which are antithetical to hashra'as hashchina, so one of the things Chazal mention is atzlus. So we thought of sort of think of atzlus in I don't know a physical or neutral context and you see here in Chazal that atzlus is a spiritual shortcoming that when we see atzlus in ourselves that it's a spiritual a spiritual deficiency. In the you find in the sefarim consistently descriptions that chomer is kaveid, that chomer weighs a person down and in that vein so then atzlus is among other things is associated with a certain chomriyos, a certain excess in chomriyos which understandably is taka antithetical to to the madreiga a person would need for hashra'as hashchina.

אמר רב יהודה וכן לדבר הלכה אמר רבא וכן לחלום טוב.

Also that it should be

מתוך שמחה של מצוה. איני והאמר רב גידל אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שיושב לפני רבו ואין שפתותיו מנטפות מר תכוינה שנאמר שפתותיו שושנים נטפות מור עובר אל תקרי מור עובר אלא מר עובר אל תקרי שושנים אלא ששונים לא קשיא הא ברבה והא בתלמיד.

That the talmid taka should be the talmid chacham should be tzittering in front of his rebbe but the rebbe should open with a simcha shel mitzvah.

ואיבעית אימא הא והא ברבה ולא קשיא הא מקמי דליפתח והא לבתר דפתח כי הא דרבה מקמי דפתח לרבנן אמר מילתא דבדיחותא ובדחי רבנן ולסוף יתיב באימתא ופתח בשמעתא.

I think people quote the the story from Rav Schwab who was rav here in the Breuers kehillah that he once went in to the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish greeted him and he was very very friendly countenance and then Rav Schwab asked him a shailah whether or not there's a problem of bishul akum by sardines because in order for that to be bishul akum it has to be עולה על שלחן מלכים. It has to be עולה על שלחן מלכים. It's a question what exactly עולה על שלחן מלכים means, different story. So what people quote is that that he used to describe that when he asked the shailah so all of a sudden the Chazon Ish's whole appearance changed, all of a sudden he became so serious and so like like it was a different person, a totally different very focused and yasiv be'eimsa. And then the Chazon Ish told him Queen Elizabeth eats sardines for breakfast. Well that's how the the story goes. So the Chazon Ish held that עולה על שולחן מלכים means that that royalty eats it, and the alternative not everyone agrees with that. Some hold that עולה על שולחן מלכים means it would be at a royal banquet. But the Chazon Ish held that עולה על שולחן מלכים means that that royalty royalty eats it.

ואף ספר משלי ביקשו לגנוז שהיו דבריו סותרים זה את זה ומפני מה לא גנזוהו אמרי ספר קהלת דיינין ואשכחינן טעמא הכא נמי דיינין והכא נמי דיינין. ומאי דבריו סותרים זה את זה כתיב אל תען כסיל כאולתו וכתיב ענה כסיל כאולתו לא קשיא הא בדברי תורה הא במילי דעלמא. כי הא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה אשתך אשתי ובניך בני.

And so he accused the Rebbe's wife of having been noafes and that the children were mamzeirim.

אמר ליה רצונך שתשתה כוס של יין שתה ופקע. ההוא דאתא לקמיה אידי דרבי חייא או דרבי אמר ליה אמך אשתי ואתה בני אמר ליה רצונך שתשתה כוס של יין שתה ופקע.

He didn't, it was

אל תען כסיל כאולתו. אמר רבי חייא אהניא ליה צלותיה לרבי דלא לשוייה בני ממזרי. דרבי כי הוה מצלי אמר יהי רצון מלפניך השם אלקינו שתצילנו היום מעזי פנים ומעזות פנים. בדברי תורה מאי היא כי הא דיתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידה אשה שתלד בכל יום שנאמר הרה ויולדת יחדיו. ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אמר אין כל חדש תחת השמש אמר ליה בוא ואראך דוגמתן בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה תרנגולת.

So here it's quite clear I think Rashi says it explicitly that and it's a that the reason the Gemara is classifying this question as a ksil asking ke'ivalto is not because of the content of the question. It's because of how he asked the question as the question would have been a fair question if he would have asked Rabban Gamliel respectfully because he didn't understand because he wanted to know, so it wouldn't have been an example of ksil ke'ivalto. So a gutt kasha. Rabban Gamliel seems to be saying something which goes against the posuk of אין כל חדש תחת השמש. So so the iveles the iveles is is because he he says it scoffingly. He says it mockingly. That he was he was saying it with bittul for what Rabban Gamliel said, not with so it's not only the content of the question, it's the it's the attitude of of the question as well. The shailah is what Rabban Gamliel answered him. Again in the next two cases also.

ותו יתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידים אילנות שמוציאין פירות בכל יום שנאמר ונשא ענף ועשה פרי מה ענף בכל יום אף פרי בכל יום. ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד ואמר והכתיב אין כל חדש תחת השמש אמר ליה בוא ואראך דוגמתן בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה צלף. ותו יתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידה ארץ ישראל שתוציא גלוסקאות וכלי מילת שנאמר יהי פסת בר בארץ ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד ואמר אין כל חדש תחת השמש אמר ליה בוא ואראך דוגמתן בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה כמיהין ופטריות ואכלי מילת נברא בר קורא.

The shailah is in each case Rabban Gamliel isn't doesn't seem to be showing him takeh that this happens. It seems to be showing him some kind of again not even precise parallel that so what was Rabban Gamliel answering that אין כל חדש תחת השמש means that there's a paradigm for whatever will happen but lav davka that in terms of the the phenomena that that I don't know I don't know exactly what what Rabban Gamliel is is answering him.

תנו רבנן לעולם יהא אדם ענוותן כהלל ואל יהא קפדן כשמאי מעשה בשני בני אדם שהמרו זה את זה.

that betting is only an issue of asmachta if you make a bet, and you say I bet you 100 dollars, ich veis whatever, such and such. So it's only, you only have to come on to asmachta lo kanya in terms of whether or not the bet is binding is if you deposit the money and says בזה המקום קונה לשניהם and if we anger Hillel, so then the money is mine, and if we don't anger Hillel, the money is yours. But if you don't take out money, just say I'll make you 100 dollar bet that you can't anger Hillel. And the guy says it's a bet. So stam azoy is just devarim be'alma, that doesn't even get you involved with the question of asmachta. It's when it's maos al hadaf. That's what Tosfos in there in Bava Metzia discusses, they discuss this Gemara again from that vantage point. So

אמרו כל מי שילך ויקניט את הלל יטול ארבע מאות זוז. אמר אחד מהם אני אקניטנו. אותו היום ערב שבת היה,

meaning it was a challenge for a bet, as is clear from the hemshech of the Gemara. אותו היום ערב שבת היה והלל חפף את ראשו for kavod Shabbos, it's a mitzvah.

הלך ועבר על פתח ביתו. אמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל?

Rashi and Maharsha explain that already here he was trying to insult him and to provoke him as though the Nasi Yisrael should be referred to by his first name. nis'atef veyatza likrato. But Hillel didn't think twice about it. I heard a story once in Tiferes Yerushalayim. Reb Moshe used to sit during Seder and he would learn in the Beis Medrash. So once not that far away from where Reb Moshe was sitting and learning, one of the avreichim or talmidim learning in the Beis Medrash calls to his friend and says to him, Moshe. So Reb Moshe heard they were calling him, so he looks up and he answers and says, yeah can I help you? And obviously the talmid, ufnei hatalmid chafu, that he had given the impression that he was calling him. It didn't occur to Reb Moshe that they weren't. So then he went over to apologize and Reb Moshe says, what are you apologizing? This is my name. He said, that's my name, so what are you apologizing? Here too Hillel doesn't think twice. This guy thinks he's provoking him by calling him Hillel, so Hillel is not provoked. He says, that's my name, so what else should he call me?

אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש? אמר לו שאלה יש לי לשאול. אמר לו שאל בני שאל. מפני מה ראשיהן של בבליים סגלגלות?

Rashi has two leshonos. The first one is that why are they sort of elongated? Why are their heads elongated? Why aren't they more round like most people's are?

אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שאין להם חיות פקחות.

The midwives are not good.

הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש אמר לו שאלה יש לי לשאול אמר לו שאל בני שאל מפני מה עיניהן של תרמודיין תרוטות?

Weak is Rashi's first peshat, like einei Leah rakot.

אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרים בין החולות,

the sand blows into their eyes.

הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש אמר לו שאלה יש לי לשאול אמר לו שאל בני שאל מפני מה רגליהם של אפריקנים רחבות?

Why are they ich veis wide, especially wide?

אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרים בין בצעי המים.

So the Maharsha says meila that Hillel doesn't get angry, but why is he condescending to talk about shtus? So he says that Hillel understood that these questions were really metaphors about different nations. middos ra'os and that the question was a metaphor and that Hillel's answers were also intended as metaphors.

אמר לו שאלות הרבה יש לי לשאול מתירא אני שמא תכעוס נתעטף וישב לפניו אמר לו כל שאלות שיש לך לשאול שאל אמר לו אתה הוא הלל שקורין אותך נשיא ישראל אמר לו הן אמר לו אם אתה הוא לא ירבו כמותך בישראל אמר לו בני מפני מה אמר לו מפני שאיבדתי על ידך ד' מאות זוז אמר לו הוי זהיר ברוחך כדאי הוא הלל שתאבד על ידו ד' מאות זוז וד' מאות זוז והלל לא יקפיד.

So Hillel apparently even though he didn't spell out for him why he lost dalet me'os zuz so Hillel was a pikei'ach obviously so he figured it out and said that it shouldn't not to be itachen that what the Gemara has in mind with this לעולם יהא אדם ענוותן כהלל and Hillel's statement of v'Hillel lo yakpid is not simply to highlight a middah tovah but rather to highlight what perhaps is the way the Igeres HaRamban presents it a middah tovah which is really a catalyst for everything right? That

הזהר שיהיו כל דבריך בנחת ובזה תנצל מן הכעס שהיא מדה רעה להחטיא בני אדם

and then if a person is nitzal min haka'as so then he'll have anavah he'll be a shfal ruach and עקב ענוה יראת ה' right? That's the mahalach that the Igeres HaRamban sketches. So the lo yakpid again it's not only it would be enough if it were but it's not simply an illustration of a middah chashuvah but at least within that scheme of the Igeres HaRamban the middah chashuvah as it were which serves as a catalyst okay maybe we'll end and next time we'll begin with tanu rabanan.