תפילה מחנה

in Neharde’a, where there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual who was not praying in a prayer quorum. Shmuel’s conduct was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Yet this opinion was not universally accepted. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, sat before Rabbi Yannai, and he sat and he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and read your verses outside, as that halakha is not accepted by the Sages in the study hall, and it belongs outside, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rabbi Yannai, who prayed and then prayed again. Presumably, his first prayer was the morning prayer and his second prayer was the additional prayer. Apparently, he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rather, he holds that even when not part of a prayer quorum, an individual must recite the additional prayer. Later on, when this story was related in the study hall, Rabbi Yirmeya said to his teacher, Rabbi Zeira: What proof is there that the second prayer was the additional prayer? Perhaps initially he did not focus his mind on his prayer and ultimately he focused his mind, i.e., he repeated the morning prayer in order to do so with proper concentration. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Look at who the great man is who is testifying about him. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly observed carefully before relating what he witnessed. Regarding prayers of the Sages, the Gemara further relates that, although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would only pray between the columns where they studied, as prayer is beloved in the eyes of God, specifically in a place of Torah. It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the morning prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the morning prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the additional prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the additional prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the afternoon prayer? Omitting mention of the New Moon does not require one to repeat the Amida prayer. Consequently, that was not the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed a second time. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Wasn’t it stated about that baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this baraita specifically with regard to prayer in a communal framework? However, an individual who fails to mention the New Moon is required to pray again? That is why Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed twice. Stemming from the discussion about individuals who recite two prayers consecutively, the Gemara asks: How long should one wait between the first prayer and the second prayer? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda agreed about this in principle, but they formulated their opinions differently (Rashi). One said that an individual must wait long enough so that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], enabling him to recite the second prayer as a plea. One of them said: Long enough so that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel], enabling him to beseech God in his second prayer. The Gemara points out that both Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda based their positions on the prayers of Moses. The one who said: So that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], as it is written: “And I pleaded [va’etḥanan] before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And the one who said: So that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel] as it is written: “And Moses besought [vayeḥal] the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). The Gemara resumes the above discussion with regard to omission of the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer. Rav Anan said that Rav said: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because the court only sanctifies the new month by day, and the prayer of the New Moon, which parallels the court’s sanctification of the new month, belongs in the daytime prayer. Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Since Rav states a reason for his statement, what difference is there to me if the month is short, and what difference is there to me if it is full? Rather, there is no difference. Rav based his opinion on the parallel drawn between the sanctification of the month and the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer; the sanctification of the month is not relevant at night. May we return unto thee : The morning Tefillah ! MISHNA: One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission. There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that prayer should be undertaken in an atmosphere of gravity. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: They are derived from the verses describing the prayer of Hannah, mother of Samuel, as the verse states: “And she felt bitterness of soul, and she prayed to the Lord and she wept and wept” (I Samuel 1:10). The Gemara rejects this proof: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Hannah is different, as her heart was extremely embittered, her prayer was embittered as well. This does not prove that everyone must pray in that frame of mind. Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, it can be proved from here, as David said: “But as for me, by Your abundant loving-kindness I will enter Your house, at Your Holy Temple I will bow in reverence for You” (Psalms 5:8). Entering into prayer like entering the Holy Temple must be performed reverentially. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps David is different, as he would excessively afflict himself in prayer in order to atone for his transgression with Bathsheba. Consequently, his cannot serve as a paradigm for proper conduct in prayer. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, it can be derived from here, from this verse that David said, not about his own worship, but about worship of God in general: “Give, unto the Lord, the honor of His name, bow to the Lord in the beauty of holiness [behadrat kodesh]” (Psalms 29:2). Do not read: In the beauty of [behadrat] holiness. Rather read: In trembling of [beḥerdat] holiness; one must enter into prayer from an atmosphere of gravity engendered by sanctity. The Gemara rejects this too: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I would say to you that it should be read as it is written: Specifically, “in the beauty,” and it means that one should pray in beautiful clothing, as in the case of Rav Yehuda who would adorn himself and then pray. Rav Yehuda believed that one who comes before the King must wear his most beautiful clothing. The Gemara has yet to find a source for the halakha that one must approach prayer from an atmosphere of gravity. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said it can be derived from here, from this verse: “Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Having cited this verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of rejoice with trembling? Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rabba said: One may not experience unbridled joy; even where there is rejoicing, there should be trembling. On that note, the Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before his teacher Rabba, and Rabba saw that he was excessively joyful. He said to Abaye: It is written: Rejoice with trembling, one’s joy should not be unrestrained. Abaye said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries now and as long as they are upon me they ensure that the fear of God is upon me. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira. He saw that Rabbi Yirmeya was excessively joyful. He said to him: It is written: “In all sorrow there is profit” (Proverbs 14:23); sorrow is appropriate, not excessive joy. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous.

The verse continues: “And Eli answered and said: May you go in peace” (I Samuel 1:17). Rabbi Elazar said: From here the halakha is derived that one who suspects another of something that he has not done, he must appease him. Moreover, the one who suspected him must bless him, as Eli continued and offered Hannah a blessing, as it is stated: “And may the God of Israel grant your request that you have asked of Him” (I Samuel 1:17). Incidental to this discussion of Hannah’s prayer, the Gemara explores related topics. In her prayer, Hannah said: “And she swore an oath and said, Lord of Hosts [Tzeva’ot] if You will indeed look upon the affliction of Your maidservant and remember me, and not forget Your maidservant and will give Your maidservant a male child, I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall be no razor come upon his head” (I Samuel 1:11). Rabbi Elazar said: From the day that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created His world, there was no person who called the Holy One, Blessed be He, Lord of Hosts until Hannah came and called Him Lord of Hosts. This is the first time in the Bible that God is referred to by this name. Rabbi Elazar explains that Hannah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, are You not the Lord of the Hosts, and of all of the hosts and hosts of creations that You created in Your world, is it difficult in Your eyes to grant me one son? The Gemara suggests a parable: To what is this similar? It is similar to a flesh and blood king who made a feast for his servants. A poor person came and stood at the door. He said to them: Give me one slice of bread! And they paid him no attention. He pushed and entered before the king. He said to him: My lord, the King, from this entire feast that you have prepared, is it so difficult in your eyes to give me a single slice of bread? As for the double language in the verse, “if you will look upon [im ra’o tireh],” Rabbi Elazar said: Hannah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, if You will look upon [ra’o] me now, fine, and if not, in any case You will see [tireh]. What was Hannah threatening? She said: I will go and seclude myself with another man before Elkana, my husband. Since I secluded myself, they will force me to drink the sota water to determine whether or not I have committed adultery. I will be found innocent, and since You will not make Your Torah false [pelaster], I will bear children. With regards to a woman who is falsely suspected of adultery and drank the sota water, the Torah says: “And if the woman was not defiled, but was pure, then she shall be acquitted and she shall conceive” (Numbers 5:28). However, Rabbi Elazar’s opinion works out well according to the one who said that the verse means: If she were barren, she will be remembered by God and granted children. But according to the one who said that the verse means that childbearing will be easier and more successful, i.e., if she had previously given birth with pain, she now gives birth with ease, or if she had previously given birth to daughters, she now gives birth to sons, or if she had previously given birth to black children, considered to be unattractive, she now gives birth to fair children, or if she had previously given birth to short, weak children, she gives birth to tall, strong children, what can be said? As it was taught in a baraita that the tanna’im disputed the interpretation of the verse in Numbers: “Then she shall be acquitted and she shall conceive” teaches that if she was barren, she will be remembered by God and granted children; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, all barren women will go and seclude themselves with men who are not their husbands, and any woman who did not commit the sin of adultery will be remembered by God and granted children. Rather, the verse teaches that this is merely a promise for greater ease in childbirth; if she has previously given birth with pain, she now gives birth with ease, if she has previously given birth to short children, she gives birth to tall children, if she has previously given birth to black children, she now gives birth to fair children, if she has previously given birth to one child, she now gives birth to two children. According to Rabbi Akiva’s explanation, what is derived from the double language uttered by Hannah: Im ra’o tireh? The Torah spoke in the language of men, meaning that this double language is not extraordinary and nothing may be derived from it. It is common biblical vernacular. In the oath/prayer uttered by Hannah, she refers to herself as “Your servant” [amatekha] three times: “The affliction of Your maidservant…and not forget Your maidservant and will give Your maidservant” (I Samuel 1:11). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Why are these three maidservants [amatot] cited in the verse? They are cited to teach that Hannah said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You have created three crucibles potentially leading to death in a woman, where she is particularly vulnerable. Alternatively, some say: Master of the Universe, You have created three accelerants of death in a woman. They are mitzvot that, as a rule, pertain to women: Observing the halakhot of a menstruating woman, separating ḥalla from dough, and lighting Shabbat candles. Have I ever violated one of them? Hannah attests to her status as God’s maidservant [ama]. The reference to these three mitzvot is drawn from the etymological similarity between amatekha, your maidservant, and mita, death. Later in her prayer, Hannah says: “And You will grant Your servant an offspring of men.” The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “an offspring of men”? Rav said: Hannah prayed for a man among men, a son who would be outstanding and exceptional. And Shmuel said: This expression means an offspring who will anoint two men to royalty. And who were they? Saul and David. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hannah prayed that she would bear an offspring who would be the equivalent of two of the world’s greatest men. And who were they? Moses and Aaron. As it is stated: “Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call His name” (Psalms 99:6). In this verse, Hannah’s son, Samuel, is equated to Moses and Aaron. And the Rabbis say: “An offspring of men”: Hannah prayed for an offspring who would be inconspicuous among men, that he would not stand out in any way. The Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said in explanation: Hannah prayed that her son would not be conspicuous among men; neither too tall nor too short; neither too small nor too fat; neither too white nor too red; neither too smart nor too stupid. When Hannah came to the Temple with her son Samuel, she told Eli: “My lord, as your soul lives, my lord, I am the woman who stood here with you to pray to the Lord” (I Samuel 1:26). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: From here the halakha that it is forbidden to sit within four cubits of one who is praying is derived. As the verse says: “Who stood here with you,” indicating that Eli stood alongside Hannah because she was praying. Additionally, Hannah’s emphasis in speaking to Eli, “for this youth I prayed” (I Samuel 1:27), indicates that she came to protect him from danger. As Rabbi Elazar said: Samuel was one who taught halakha in the presence of his teacher. Hannah wanted to pray that he not be punished by death at the hand of Heaven for his transgression, as it is stated: “And they slaughtered the cow and they brought the youth to Eli” (I Samuel 1:25). This verse is puzzling. Because they slaughtered the cow, therefore, they brought the youth to Eli? What does one have to do with the next? Rather, this is what happened: Eli said to those who brought the offering: Call a priest; he will come and slaughter the offering. Samuel saw them looking for a priest to slaughter the animal. He said to them: Why do you need to look for a priest to slaughter it? Slaughter of an offering performed by a non-priest is valid. They brought him before Eli to clarify his statement. Eli said to him: How do you know this? Samuel said to him: Is it written in the Torah: And the priest shall slaughter indicating that the offering may only be slaughtered by a priest? It is written: “And the priests shall offer,” only from the stage of receiving the blood in the bowls and onward is it a mitzva incumbent upon priests alone. From here the halakha that slaughter by a non-priest is acceptable is derived. Eli said to Samuel: You have spoken well and your statement is correct, but nevertheless, you are one who issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of your teacher, and anyone who issues a halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher, even if the particular halakha is correct, is liable for death at the hand of Heaven for showing contempt for his teacher. Hannah came and shouted before him: “I am the woman who stood here with you to pray to the Lord;” do not punish the child who was born of my prayers. He said to her: Let me punish him, and I will pray for mercy, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will grant you a son who will be greater than this one. She said to him: “For this youth I prayed” and I want no other. The Gemara continues to deal with Hannah’s prayer. It is said: “And Hannah spoke on her heart.” Several interpretations are offered to explain her use of the phrase “on her heart” instead of the common phrase to her heart (Maharsha). Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Hannah spoke to God concerning matters of her heart. She said before Him: Master of the Universe, of all the organs You created in a woman, You have not created one in vain. Every organ fulfills its purpose; eyes to see, ears to hear, a nose to smell, a mouth to speak, hands with which to perform labor, feet with which to walk, breasts with which to nurse. If so, these breasts that You placed upon my heart, to what purpose did You place them? Was it not in order to nurse with them? Grant me a son and I will nurse with them. Tangentially, the Gemara also cites an additional statement that Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Anyone who sits in observance of a fast on Shabbat, his merit is great and they tear up and repeal his sentence of seventy years; because everyone is enjoying himself and a feast is prepared, it is more difficult to fast on Shabbat than on any other day. Nevertheless, they then hold him accountable for failing to fulfill the halakha of delight of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is his remedy to atone and avoid punishment? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He must sit in observance of another fast on a weekday to atone for the fast on Shabbat. After explaining the uncommon expression, on her heart, the Gemara cites an additional statement in the matter of Hannah. And Rabbi Elazar said: Hannah spoke impertinently toward God on High. As it is stated: “And she prayed onto the Lord,” as opposed to the common phrase: To the Lord. This teaches that she spoke impertinently toward on High. And on a similar note, Rabbi Elazar said that Elijah spoke impertinently toward God on High as well in his prayer at Mount Carmel, as it is stated: “Answer me, Lord, answer me, that this people will know that You are the Lord, God, and You have turned their hearts backward” (I Kings 18:37), claiming that God caused Israel to sin. On this topic, Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, ultimately conceded to Elijah that he was correct?