The Maharsha on page six discusses the historical and geographical names of cities. He explains that Chammat is Tiberias, and Rakket is Kinneret. These three cities are mentioned together in the Book of Joshua, in the portion of the tribe of Naftali. The Gemara in Perek Meruba confirms that the Sea of Tiberias is in Naftali's portion. The names changed over time, hence the clarification. The term "Kinneret" is said to derive from the Hebrew word for harp, "kinnor," suggesting a sweetness like the sound of a harp, or referring to a tree with sweet fruits.
The Maharsha then delves into the three types of eulogies (hesped) mentioned in the Gemara, relating them to burial in the Land of Israel. The first type is for a Torah scholar who, even after death, did not merit to be buried in the Land of Israel. Such a person is eulogized as a great individual whose reputation (shem tov) extended to the Land of Israel, even if his body did not. This is what is meant by "he has a name in Rakket" (Tiberias), signifying that his good name reached the Land of Israel, echoing the verse "A good name is better than fine oil."
The second type of eulogy is for someone who did not merit to die in the Land of Israel, but whose coffin was brought there for burial after death. For such a person, the eulogy laments that they did not merit to live in the Land of Israel during their lifetime. The Gemara refers to such individuals as "casualties of the valley," implying that their death outside the Land of Israel was a tragedy, as if they were killed by an arrow. This resonates with the statement at the end of Masechet Ketubot, "Anyone who lives outside the Land of Israel is considered as if he has no God." This sentiment is further illustrated by a story of a man who married a woman outside the Land of Israel and died there, prompting the rabbis to exclaim, "Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed him."
The third type of eulogy is for a righteous person (tzaddik) like Rabbi Zeira, who merited both to move to the Land of Israel during his lifetime and to die there. Even in this case, a eulogy is still necessary because the community (Klal Yisrael) suffers a loss. While the righteous person's soul is not lost and continues to exist (hasharat hanefesh), the community loses a precious vessel (keli chashuv) that performed important good deeds. The tzaddik is likened to a valuable tool or a car that benefits many, and its loss is felt by those who relied on it.
The text then discusses the city of Rakket, stating that "even its empty ones are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate." The question arises: how does the name Rakket imply being "full of mitzvot like a pomegranate" when it seemingly suggests "empty ones" (reikanim)? The Maharsha explains that Rakket is named after the verse in Shir HaShirim, "Your temples (rakkatech) are like a slice of pomegranate," thereby connecting the word Rakket to the imagery of a pomegranate, which is full of seeds, symbolizing mitzvot.
Tiberias is called the "navel" (tibura) of the Land of Israel because of its central location. However, it is not the navel of the world. The Gemara in Perek Zeh Borer states that the Chamber of Hewn Stone (Lishkat HaGazit), where the Sanhedrin sat, was considered the navel of the world. Tosafot in Perek Elu Metziot clarifies that Jerusalem was only a day's journey from the border of the Land of Israel, but much further from the center of the world. Thus, Tiberias is the center of the Land of Israel, but not the world.
The phrase "its appearance is good" (tova re'iyata) regarding Tiberias is interpreted by Tosafot as referring to its beautiful gardens and orchards. The Maharsha offers an additional interpretation: "its appearance is good" refers to the sages (chachamim) who resided there, as the Sanhedrin moved to Tiberias during the time of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The sages are considered the "eyes of the community" (einei ha'edah), so a city filled with sages has "good eyes."
The discussion shifts to the tribes of Zevulun and Naftali. Zevulun was not pleased with their portion of the land. The simple meaning of the verse "Zevulun, a people that risked their lives" (Zevulun am cheref nafsho) is that they bravely went to war for the Jewish people. Naftali, however, "rested on the heights of the field." The question is why Zevulun's bravery is praised, while Naftali's peaceful existence is also praised. The Gemara explains that during the war of Barak ben Avinoam, the tribes gathered in Naftali's territory. When the tribe of Zevulun saw Naftali's portion, which was fertile with fields and vineyards, they were envious of their own lot, which consisted of seas, mountains, and hills, unsuitable for agriculture. Thus, "Zevulun, a people that risked their lives" refers to their despair over their bad fortune (roa mazal) compared to Naftali's portion.
The phrase "hidden treasures of the sand" (sfunei temunei chol) refers to the chilazon, a sea creature used for making blue dye (Techeiles). Rashi in Chumash explains that this treasure was found in the portions of both Yissachar and Zevulun, as indicated by the plural form "they will suckle from the abundance of the seas." However, the Gemara only mentions Zevulun complaining about their portion. The Maharsha explains that Yissachar, being Torah scholars, were not bothered by their real estate, as their focus was on Torah study. Zevulun, as businessmen, were concerned with material possessions, hence their complaint.
When Zevulun asked, "Master of the Universe, who will guarantee that no one takes the chilazon from me without payment?" Rashi interprets this as a concern that others might steal it. However, Tosafot finds this difficult, suggesting that the concern was not outright theft, but rather that people might trade in counterfeit chilazon, known as kala ilan, thereby undermining Zevulun's livelihood. This is similar to the prohibition against usury (neshech), where one who attaches kala ilan to his garment and claims it is Techeiles is considered to be deceiving. God's response, "The heavens between us will be witnesses," means that just as theft is forbidden, so too will those who try to counterfeit the chilazon not succeed in their trade.
The phrase "Ekron will be uprooted" (Ekron te'aker) refers to Caesarea. The verse in Tzefanya speaks of Ekron being uprooted. Caesarea was called Ekron in the biblical period because it was destined to be uprooted in the future, similar to the prayer "may the wicked kingdom be swiftly uprooted" (u-malchus harish'ah meheirah te'aker), which uses the same Hebrew root. Ekron was one of the five Philistine cities mentioned in the Books of Joshua and Samuel, and it later became a capital for Edom. The Gemara in Perek Eilu Tereifos mentions the five Philistine princes, listing six, and clarifies that the Avim, though listed, were from Teiman, descendants of Eliphaz son of Esav, who came to live among the Philistines. Thus, it is possible that the people of Teiman settled in Ekron.
Caesarea is described as "sitting among the sands" (shehi yosheves bein hacholos). This is likened to the Tarmodai people mentioned in Masechet Bava Metzia, whose eyes were squinted because they lived among the sands, where the blowing wind would carry sand into their eyes. Caesarea, being surrounded by sand on all sides, was situated on a sandbar or island within the sea. Before the Roman and Edomite kingdoms, during the Greek period, Caesarea was close to the Land of Israel and was a "nail stuck in for evil" (yated tekuah leraah) for Israel. When the Hasmonean kingdom defeated the Greeks, they also conquered Caesarea. At that time, it was called "Migdal Shed" (Tower of Demons) in the version of the Aruch, indicating its destruction and habitation by demons, though our Gemara calls it "Migdal Shur."
The verse "I will remove their blood from their mouth" (Vaasiroti damav mipiv) refers to Beit Bamya, where idolaters would throw the blood of their sacrifices, as explained by Rashi. "And their abominations from between their teeth" (v'shikutzav mibein shinav) refers to Beit Galya, their slaughterhouses. It is forbidden to refer to idolatry (avoda zara) with a positive name; instead, derogatory names are used. Thus, Beit Galya is called "Guba" (a pit) or "Beit Charya" (a place of filth), signifying a low and inferior place. The removal of blood and abominations from their mouths means they will no longer be praised, as it is a halachic principle not to speak of idolatry in a laudatory manner. This is why some communities changed names like "Saint Mary" to Satmar, to avoid giving honor to idolatrous figures.
The verse "and he shall be like a chief in Yehudah" (vehaya kealuf biYehudah) means that the princes of Yehudah will rule in the places where the princes of Edom once ruled. The term "aluf" can also mean "one who teaches" (lashon limmud), as in "I will teach you wisdom." Caesarea is called "the daughter of Edom" (bat Edom) because it was a place where kings were raised or nominated. This is why it is called Caesarea, after the Roman emperors (Caesar). However, Edomite kings were not hereditary; they always chose new rulers, and Caesarea was a source for these new kings.
The Gemara states, "If a person tells you: both were destroyed, believe him not. If a person tells you: both were settled, believe him not." But if he says, "Caesarea was destroyed and Jerusalem was settled," or "Jerusalem was destroyed and Caesarea was settled," "believe him." The Maharsha notes a precise distinction: the phrase "believe him not" (al ta'amen) is repeated twice for the first cases, while "believe him" (ta'amen) is stated only once for the latter. This precision in language is crucial for understanding the Gemara's nuance. If "believe him" were repeated, it might imply that these are eternal, fixed options: either Jerusalem is always up and Rome down, or vice versa. However, by stating it once, the Gemara conveys that both options are possible and can fluctuate over time. Sometimes Caesarea was settled and Jerusalem destroyed, and sometimes the reverse. This demonstrates that one nation will overpower the other, but the outcome is not permanently fixed.
Regarding Yitzchak's defense of Esav, Yitzchak argues that Esav should be shown mercy (yuchan) as a free gift, even if he doesn't deserve it. God responds that Esav is completely wicked (rasha gamur) and does not merit such mercy. Yitzchak then argues that Esav "did not learn righteousness" (bal lamad tzedek), implying that his bad deeds were unintentional (shogeg) because he lacked proper instruction. He cites the principle that "an error in study is considered intentional sin" (shigegat talmud olah zadon), but argues that Esav never learned, so he cannot be blamed for intentional sin. God counters that Esav "acted wickedly in the land of uprightness" (be'eretz nechochot ye'avel), meaning he intentionally destroyed the Temple (Beit Hamikdash) and the Jewish people, making him a deliberate (mezid) and complete wicked person.
The term "Germamya" is identified as a region of Edom. The Gemara in Perek Kama deYoma mentions "Gomer," who was a descendant of Yefet (Greece). The Maharsha clarifies that the "Germamya of Edom" is distinct from the Germamya associated with Gomer, which was of Yefet's lineage. The Yaavetz, citing the Gra, identifies this Germamya with Ashkenaz (Germany), a point made centuries before the Holocaust.
The Gemara states that there are 365 dukes (marzabnei) in Rome, corresponding to the 365 days of the solar year, as Esav's lineage follows the solar calendar. Each duke rules for a day, and they diminish each other through conflict. This internal strife is a hint (remez) to their future downfall, as they will destroy each other instead of the world. This is likened to the diminishing of the "Peri Chag" on Sukkot, symbolizing their attrition.
The Gemara's teaching, "If a person tells you: I toiled and I found, believe him," is beautifully expounded by the Maharsha using the verse "I believed, therefore I spoke; I was greatly afflicted." This means, "I believed that I found because I spoke, because I was greatly afflicted and toiled." However, if someone says, "I spoke in my haste," meaning they learned quickly, "all men are liars," and "do not believe him." This emphasizes the value of diligent effort in Torah study.
The mention of Rome's 365 kings and princes serves to illustrate their greatness and importance. The Gemara's purpose in detailing this is to teach that if those who transgress God's will receive such glory, then those who perform His will, the Jewish people, will receive infinitely more in the future. Jerusalem in the future will be 400 parsah in size, encompassing the entire Land of Israel, addressing concerns about its capacity.
Regarding the markets (shevakim), the Gemara in Yoma states, "You will walk before God in the lands of the living," referring to the marketplaces. This signifies a world of separation and importance.
The Mishnah discusses the reading of the Megillah in a leap year. If the Megillah was read in the first Adar, and then the year was intercalated (Adar Bet was added), it must be read again in the second Adar. The Mishnah states that the only difference between the first and second Adar is the reading of the Megillah and giving gifts to the poor (matanot la'evyonim). This implies that if these were performed in the first Adar, they are not valid. The Gemara clarifies that when it comes to the order of the special Torah readings (seder parshiyot), both Adars are equal; if these were read in the first Adar, they do not need to be repeated in the second. This suggests that the four special portions (Zachor, Parah, HaChodesh) can be read in the first Adar, provided it was done before the intercalation was declared.
The Gemara questions the authorship of our Mishnah, stating it is neither Tanna Kamma, nor Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Yose, nor Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. A Braita states that all mitzvot observed in the second Adar are also observed in the first, except for the Megillah reading. This contradicts our Mishnah, which also excludes matanot la'evyonim from the first Adar. Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Yose holds that even the Megillah reading can be done in the first Adar, which also contradicts our Mishnah. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the name of Rabbi Yose, states that the Megillah must be read in the second Adar, implying that all mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed in the first. However, everyone agrees that eulogies and fasts are forbidden in both Adars.
The Gemara then asks if Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion is identical to that of Tanna Kamma. Rav Papa clarifies that the practical difference (nafka minah) between them lies in the seder parshiyot. Tanna Kamma holds that preferably, the parshiyot should be read in the second Adar, but if they were read in the first, it is acceptable. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that even the seder parshiyot must be read in the second Adar, and if read in the first, they must be repeated in the second. The Gemara then re-examines the Mishnah's authorship, concluding that it can indeed be attributed to Tanna Kamma, by interpreting the Mishnah's mention of Megillah reading as implicitly including matanot la'evyonim, as they are intrinsically linked. Alternatively, the Mishnah can be attributed to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel by suggesting that the Mishnah's text is incomplete (chasuri mechasra) and should be read as specifically referring to the 14th of Adar, not the entire month, thereby sidestepping the issue of seder parshiyot.
The Maharsha further clarifies the Gemara's discussion. He explains that if the Mishnah were to be interpreted as Tanna Kamma, the problem with matanot la'evyonim would be resolved by saying that Megillah and matanot la'evyonim are intertwined. However, the issue of seder parshiyot would still remain, as Tanna Kamma allows them to be read in the first Adar after the fact, while the Mishnah implies they are not read then. The Maharsha also considers the possibility that the Gemara could have identified the nafka minah between Tanna Kamma and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel as matanot la'evyonim, but once it is established that matanot la'evyonim are tied to Megillah reading, the remaining nafka minah becomes seder parshiyot.
Tosafot addresses the question of how an entire congregation could mistakenly read the four parshiyot in the first Adar without realizing it was a leap year. He explains that they would have read them before the year was officially intercalated. Thus, if they read the four parshiyot in the first Adar before knowing it would be a leap year, they do not need to repeat them in the second Adar. Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Yose's opinion, that even the Megillah can be read in the first Adar, is a significant innovation. Tosafot derives from the Mishnah's language ("only the Megillah reading and matanot la'evyonim") that other aspects, such as feasting and joy (mishte v'simcha), are equal in both Adars. This leads to a custom (minhag) to celebrate with feasting and joy on the 14th and 15th of the first Adar. However, Tosafot rejects this custom, arguing that the Gemara explicitly states that eulogies and fasts are forbidden in both Adars, but does not state that feasting and joy are permitted. The absence of a eulogy does not automatically imply the presence of joy. Many days in Megillat Ta'anit forbid eulogies but do not mandate feasting. Therefore, the halacha is not to be stringent in making feasts and joy in the first Adar.