What is the significance of a cup of Mokra?

Rashi: It is white glass (a precious crystal).

Iyun Yakov: One who wants to deplete his wealth should use Kelim of white glass (Bava Metzi'a 29b). i.e. he wants to be sad, lest he be overly jovial.

Tosfos: This is the source of the custom to break a glass at a Nisu'in.

Rav Elyashiv: If people are not so jovial, and the glass is not worth so much that it would sadden the person, the reason does not apply. Why is this not Bal Tashchis? The Rema (560:2) says that the custom to break it is to remember the Churban. A simple glass suffices for this. The Mishnah Berurah (560:9) says that this is why we break a plate at Tana'im. Afterwards we say 'Mazal Tov' - after our obligation to remember the Churban, we return to the Simchah of Chasan and Kalah.

Megadim Chadashim: Ben Yehoyada asks why he was not concerned for Bal Tashchis, and answered that the Kli was cracked and destined to break; it only appeared to be worth 400 Zuz. (Note: We find that Rav Huna tore silk in front of his son Rabah, to see if Rabah would get angry. He tore it at the seams, so it did not depreciate, but appeared to tear it destructively. - PF) This is unlike he wrote in Torah Lishmah (8), that if he intends for a Mitzvah, Bal Tashchis does not apply!

Daf Al ha'Daf (30b): Imrei Emes (Likutim) says that he threw a kind of glass that does not break when thrown on the ground. Ma'ase Avraham (EH 5) says that it is improper to break an old, chipped cup, for this does not sadden anyone.

Maharsha: It is very esteemed, and it is made from earth. Breaking it is its death. So man was formed from earth, and he is destined to die and return to be earth.

Etz Yosef: Just like [broken] glass can be fixed to be a Kli again, if man fixes his ways, he can become man again in Techiyas ha'Mesim.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: Just like broken glass can be fixed, man who was broken via sin, Teshuvah can fix him. Also, if glass became Tamei, only breakage is Metaher; a Mikveh does not help (Ramban Hilchos Kelim 1:13). So man, if he sinned, his only Taharah is via breaking his Ru'ach - "Lev Nishbar v'Nidcheh Elokim Lo Sivzeh" (Tehilim 51:19).

Rav Elyashiv: Even though it was not theirs, and they did not lose money, they were saddened, for they saw that their conduct was so severe in the eyes of Mar brei d'Ravina that due to them, he lost something worth 400 Zuz.

Why did he say twice 'woe to us that we will die'?

Ha'Kosev: Rav Hamnuna wanted to sing something with revealed and hidden meaning. The revealed was to sadden them (they were too jovial) without need to break something precious. One should rejoice at a Chupah, since we were created to reproduce, but one should remember the day of death - it is the end of man. He explained the hidden part via saying 'where are our Torah and Mitzvos to protect us?' Not everyone cries over death. Tzadikim request it and rejoice over it, since they acquired as much perfection as they could.

Maharsha: There are two sides of constantly remembering his death. (a) One should always arouse his Yetzer Tov to fight his Yetzer ha'Ra. If he defeated it, fine. If not.... he should mention to it the day of death (above, 5a). (b) Repent one day before your death (Shabbos 153a). Remember every day that tomorrow you [might] die, and all your days are in Teshuvah. He said twice 'woe to us that we will die' to nullify the Yetzer ha'Ra's thoughts, and to repent today for the future, lest he die tomorrow.

Iyun Yakov: This refers to death in this world and permanent death in the world to come. It says 'Lan' (Note: we, even though this is understood from the conjugation - PF), for in the years of Tohu (the first 2,000 years of the world), "v'Hinei Tov Me'od" (Bereishis 1:31) referred to death; it was good, for there was no Torah in the world. However, after Matan Torah, we can engage in Torah and be free from death; due to sin, "k'Adam Temusun" (Tehilim 82:7), woe to us that Torah and Mitzvos do not protect us!

Anaf Yosef: It says in Rus Rabah 2:7 'everyone will die; everyone is to death. Happy is one who leaves [the world] with good repute.' Rashba ha'Levi explains, even if he will live a long life like Mesushalach, in the end he will die. Worse than this, death can come at any time; man does not know beforehand when he will die. Therefore he must repent today, lest he die tomorrow.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pesach Einayim: How do we dance in front of the Kalah? Beis Shamai say, [one describes her] like she is; Beis Hillel say, he says 'she is beautiful and has grace' (Kesuvos 16b-17a). We find that one who does like Beis Shamai is Chayav Misah (above, 11a). We find that Sheker causes death (there was a city of Emes; once, someone lied, and his two sons died - Sanhedrin 97a). [If the Kalah is not beautiful], if we do like Beis Shamai we will die, and if we do like Beis Hillel we will die!

Why did they ask 'what should we respond?'

Etz Yosef citing Pri Megadim (introduction, citing Yad Yosef): At the Mishteh, they wanted to protect themselves from pride. Death is the scariest matter. What can we answer to instill more fear? He answered, death with Torah and good deeds is not so scary - his flesh will dwell serenely. However, where are our Torah and Mitzvos?

What did they want Torah and Mitzvos to protect them from?

Rashi: From judgment in Gehinom.

Maharsha: Above (5a), when arousing his Yetzer Tov, the counsel was to learn Torah; only if it did not help, he mentions the day of death. Why did Torah not protect against the Yetzer ha'Ra, and against concern for death tomorrow?

Anaf Yosef citing R. S. Katzenelenbogen: They asked, why did you gave the third counsel against the Yetzer ha'Ra? (First one should learn Torah, and if needed, recite Keri'as Shma!) He said, where are Torah and Mitzvos, the first two counsels? In our sins, they do not work; we need to mention the day of death.

Iyun Yakov: From death.

How does "Az Yemalei Sechok Pinu..." teach that one may not fill his mouth with laughter in this world?

Maharsha: The previous verse says "b'Shuv Hash-m Es Shivas Tziyon."

Why do we need "Higdil Hash-m La'asos Im Eleh"? We should learn from "b'Shuv Hash-m Es Shivas Tziyon...; Az Yemalei Sechok Pinu"!

Maharsha: The Seifa of "b'Shuv Hash-m" is "Hayinu k'Cholemim", i.e. when they ascended from Bavel, which was Galus of 70 years, like I wrote in Ta'anis 23a. That was not a full Ge'ulah. They were still under Melech Pras, and afterwards under Melech Yavan, and afterwards under Melech Romi. Therefore, we bring from "Az Yomeru va'Goyim Higdil...", which discusses the future Ge'ulah, which will be complete. "Higdil Hash-m La'asos Im Eleh" - He did more for them than in previous Ge'ulos, like we said above (13a) "Al Tizkeru Rishonos", "Hineni Oseh Chadashah..."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We see from Choni ha'Ma'agel that one can sleep for 70 years. If not for "Higdil Hash-m...", I would permit to fill one's mouth with laughter in Bayis Sheni! Really, it is forbidden until all Goyim will recognize that Hash-m is King over all nations, and He chose His nation Yisrael. We learn "Az Yemalei" from "Az Yomeru va'Goyim."

Etz Yosef citing R. Yonah: It is forbidden in this world, even while the Mikdash stands, for laughter makes man forget Mitzvos. However, when He will do for us miracles and save us, we will rejoice to reveal the wonders and mighty acts, and the nations will say "Higdil Hash-m..."; they will see our Simchah and be ashamed. This Simchah is a great Mitzvah, to publicize the miracle. Etz Yosef -however, the Tur says that the Isur is in our Galus, and so the Beis Yosef brought from the Ramban in Toras ha'Adam.

Rav Elyashiv: The Isur is not only after the Churban. This is why it says 'in this world', and not 'nowadays' or 'after the Churban.' It is as long as Amalek is in the world, for then the Kisei is not complete. When nations will say "Higdil Hash-m...", His name and Kisei will be complete.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): We need "Higdil Hash-m..."; "b'Shuv Hash-m Es Shivas Tziyon" was not enough, for the Zohar (Acharei Mos) forbids to fill one's mouth with laughter over secular matters, but it says about Divrei Torah "Ivdu Es Hash-m b'Simchah"! "B'Shuv Hash-m Es Shivas Tziyon" forbids in this world even for Divrei Torah; "Higdil Hash-m..." teaches that there is laughter over Kidush Hash-m. The same applies to those who engage in Torah - they are Mekadesh Hash-m via Talmud Torah. My other answer (above) is primary.

Iyun Yakov: Even though one may rejoice in a Mitzvah, it says "v'Gilu bi'R'adah." The Simchah may not be complete until the complete Ge'ulah in the future. One should learn from his Maker - from the day of the Churban, there is no laughter in front of Him (Avodah Zarah 3b).

The Gemara implies that Reish Lakish filled his mouth with laughter before he heard from R. Yochanan. Why did he not learn from the verses?

Iyun Yakov: The verses need not teach an Isur. Perhaps they teach only that in the future, everyone will rejoice, unlike nowadays, that [only] "Tov Lev Mishteh Tamid" (Mishlei 15:15); it is optional.

Surely Reish Lakish fulfilled all matters of Chasidus that he heard from R. Yochanan. What is the Chidush that he fulfilled this?

Megadim Chadashim citing Ben Yehoyada: Reish Lakish's nature was to make jokes, like Bar Kapara. It was very difficult for him to fulfill this; even so, he did. Sefer Karnayim says that he was a Gilgul of Yishmael ben Avraham, who was "Metzachek" (Bereishis 21:9). This is why R. Yochanan said to him 'a thief knows thievery' (Bava Metzi'a 84a)!

Why is it forbidden to pray amidst such situations?

Iyun Yakov: These will cause him to have bad thoughts during his Tefilah. If he enters amidst the Simchah of a Mitzvah, verses or Halachah Pesukah, we are not concerned, and even if he will think Halachah or Mitzvah during his Tefilah.

Note: We forbid amidst Halachah that is not Pesukah, lest he think about it during his Tefilah! (PF)

Etz Yosef citing R. Yonah: Sadness is illness of the body. When one is ill, he cannot serve Hash-m properly. Laziness is a great Bitul of Avodas Hash-m. Laughter accustoms a person to sin. [One should not enter Tefilah amidst] idle talk, even if it is not frivolity.

The Rambam (Hilchos Tefilah 4:18) adds that one may not pray amidst a quarrel or anger. The Tur and Shulchan Aruch added anger. What is their source?

Megadim Chadashim: The Vilna Gaon said that so was the Tur's text in the Gemara; he cites Eruvin 65a. There, it says that R. Chanina would not pray on a day when he got angry - "b'Tzar Al Yoreh." The Radvaz (2:910) cites our Gemara to include quarrel and anger, but perhaps he merely cites the Rambam. However, R. Chanina would not pray the entire day when he got angry. The Rambam and Tur forbid only while angry! It seems that they learn from another teaching there 'if his mind is not settled, he may not pray.' (Note: If R. Chanina was exempt from Tefilah because he constantly learned, like we say about R. Shimon and his colleagues (Shabbos 11a), perhaps he was stringent not to pray the entire day when he became angry. However, if he was obligated, he cannot refrain amidst Midas Chasidus! - PF)

What kind of talk may not precede Tefilah?

Rashi: It is frivolity.

What is Kalos Rosh?

Rashi: It is the opposite of Koved Rosh, amidst pride.

How do we fulfill entering Tefilah amidst Simchah?

Rashi: We enter amidst Divrei Torah of consolation, e.g. Ge'ulas Mitzrayim, or [at Minchah] Tehilah l'David, which is praise and consolations - "Retzon Yere'av Ya'aseh", "Shomer Hash-m Es Kol Ohavav." The same applies to the verses arranged in Ma'ariv, e.g. "Ki Lo Yitosh Hash-m Es Amo" (Shmuel I, 12:22). (Note: This is one of the 18 verses that Ashkenazim added before Shemoneh Esre of Ma'ariv; in Eretz Yisrael, the custom is not to say them. - PF)

Etz Yosef: In Shacharis, we enter amidst Simchah of the Mitzvah of being Somech Ge'ulah to Tefilah. Once, Rav Beruna did so, and he smiled the entire day (9b).

Some early Nevi'im did not end with praise and consolation, e.g. Eichah ends "Ki Im Ma'os Me'astanu" (5:22)!

Tosfos: The Yerushalmi asked this. It did not ask from Koheles ("Ki Es Kol Ma'aseh ha'Elokim Yavi v'Mishpat" - 12:14) and Trei Asar "v'Hikeisi Es ha'Aretz Cherem" (Mal'achi 3:24), for they do not discuss punishments of Yisrael; they are considered consolations. (Note: Tosfos needed to answer for Koheles, even though it is in Kesuvim, and not in Nevi'im, for the Yerushalmi asked from Eichah, which is in Kesuvim! - PF)

Maharsha: 'Early Nevi'im' does not mean Yehoshua, Shoftim, Shmuel and Melachim. They did not end with praise and consolation! Yehoshua ends with Elazar's burial. Shoftim ends "Ish ha'Yashar b'Einav Ya'aseh." The Yerushalmi asked from Eichah (towards the end of the era of Nevi'im)! Rather, we do not discuss Nevi'im who recorded occurrences, rather, those who prophesized punishments of Nochrim. 'Early' does not exclude the later Nevi'im (Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi). Tosfos asked from Mal'achi, and Chagai and Zecharyah ended with praise and consolation, like the other Nevi'im of Trei Asar! Rather, 'early' means before these generations. Why did Tosfos omit that the Yerushalmi asked also from "v'Yatz'u v'Ra'u b'Figrei v'Hayu Dera'on l'Chol Basar" (Yeshayah 66:24), and gave Tosfos' answer (it discusses Nochrim)? The Yerushalmi answered that Eichah concludes "Hashivenu Hash-m Elecha" in place of "Ki Im Ma'os Me'astanu." Yefe Mar'eh says that this is why we repeat this verse when we read Eichah. All texts of the Yerushalmi say that similarly, at the end of Yeshayah we repeat the penultimate verse "v'Hayah Midei Chodesh...", at the end of Trei Asar we repeat "Hine Anochi Shole'ach Lachem...", and at the end of Koheles we repeat "Sof Davar ha'Kol Nishma..." The Yerushalmi gave a better answer - these Seforim end with punishments of Nochrim, which is consolation for Yisrael!

Why does it mention Devar Halachah?

R. Yonah: Surely, we require Halachah Pesukah only before Tefilah, lest he think about it during Tefilah. It seems that regarding leaving a friend, the text does not say so, rather, 'only amidst Simchah.'

Maharatz Chayos: Do not bring a proof for this from Rav Kahana, who left amidst Agadah. Also Agadah is called Halachah - 'he forgot a Halachah. There is a small Ever in man...' (Sanhedrin 104b). Rashi (Bereishis 33:4) cites Sifri Beha'alosecha 69 'Halachah, it is known that Esav hates Yakov...'

Megadim Chadashim: Divrei Yo'el (Chayei Sarah p.499) says that Devar Halachah is a matter that applies in practice; this includes Agadah. Shlah (introduction, 2b) writes, one should leave his friend amidst simple, pleasant Divrei Torah - Divrei Musar that enter the heart. He learns from the Yerushalmi, which says so. (Note: i.e. this is the Perush of what it says here 'Devar Halachah.' - PF)

Why do we need Mari brei d'Rav Huna's teaching? The Beraisa already taught to leave his friend amidst a Halachah, and a support for this from Nevi'im!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The Beraisa discussed one who spoke with his friend about a matter. He should strive not to leave amidst [secular] talk, rather, amidst Divrei Torah. Nevi'im prophesized about punishments and consolations; they concluded only amidst consolations. Mari brei d'Rav Huna teaches about one who was not talking with his friend. Even so, he should strive to leave amidst a Halachah

Why does it say 'Zocherehu'?

Maharsha: Amidst saying a Halachah, also his friend will remember a Halachah that he heard, like the teaching about the date trees reminded Rav Simi about R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina's teaching.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Roads are dangerous. One who travels needs to pray, and the merit of others. If he leaves amidst Divrei Torah, when his friend remembers them, it is as if he is with him discussing Torah. We learn from a Kal v'Chomer from the dead - when people say a teaching in the name of a dead Chacham, his lips move in the grave (Shekalim 7b). Ideally, it should be a Chidush, so his friend will remember it.

Iyun Yakov: One who forgets a matter of his learning, he is Chayav Misah. Since he puts to his heart not to forget the Divrei Torah that he heard from him, he remembers him, to say it in his name.

What is Bei Tzenisa?

Rashi: It is a place of date trees.

Iyun Yakov: Rav Kahana did not want to leave him until he came to this place, and via this came to speak about Divrei Torah; afterwards he departed, and remembered R. Yosi bar Chanina's teaching about this. (Note: Did they not speak Torah until they got there?! If two Chachamim go on the road and do not speak Divrei Torah, they deserve to be burned (Ta'anis 10b)! - PF) Perhaps this was relevant to the escort. Do not say that nowadays, the world is more settled, and there is not so much need for escort. What Adam did not decree will be settled, it is still not settled, and escort is needed! (Note: EVEN places that Adam decreed will be settled, surely there was need for an escort before they were settled! - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: This is the place of Tzinei Har ha'Barzel (Sukah 29b is Machshir such Lulavim). Perhaps Lulavim of Bei Tzenisa are very hard, and one might have thought that they are too old and Pasul for the Mitzvah. Kerem Shlomo (13:1, p.61) asked, age does not disqualify a Lulav. If it is not dry, even if it is very old, it is Kosher! A Chacham answered, since they are hard, one might have thought that this is not Hadar.

How far is one obligated to escort?

Rav Elyashiv: The Rambam (Hilchos Evel 14:3) brings the Shi'ur for a Talmid to his Rebbi and vice-versa. The Shulchan Aruch did not bring this! The SMA (Sof CM, citing Darchei Moshe) says that nowadays people pardon their honor, but in any case one must escort four Amos. Ahavas Chesed (3:2) says that the Shi'ur of escort is primarily to show the way and save him from pits. Nowadays that roads are fixed and marked, it is not needed. However, one should accompany at least four Amos, to save from mishaps and Isurim on the road. Therefore, one should accompany at least four Amos. Why did the Shulchan Aruch omit this?!

How could the date trees be from Adam ha'Rishon? This was in Chutz la'Aretz. All agree that the flood destroyed all the trees in Chutz la'Aretz!

Rashi: He means that Adam decreed that the place be settled with date trees.

How does one direct his heart towards Heaven?

Etz Yosef citing R. Yonah: He intends for the meaning of the words.

Iyun Yakov: He also removes all distracting thoughts. Also the Tur and Ramban say so.

What is the support from "Tachin Libam Takshiv Aznecha"?

Rashi: If You will prepare their hearts, then Your ears will hearken [to their prayers].

Etz Yosef citing R. Yonah: This is a Siman, but not a proof, for the primary intent in this verse is not for saying the words, rather, purity of the heart from sins and worldly pleasures. This requires help from Hash-m - 'v'Sochen Libos Hash-m" (Mishlei 21:2), "v'Hachen Levavam Elecha" (Divrei ha'Yamim I, 29:18). For this he requests help!

Maharsha: In Yevamos (105b), we learn that one's heart should be [directed] above from - "Nisa Levavenu El Kapayim" (Eichah 3:41).

Why is R. Akiva's conduct brought with directing one's heart towards Heaven?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Initially we said that one directs his heart towards Heaven - we are not concerned if the Tefilah is long or short, as long as he has intent. The Reisha of "Tachin Libam Takshiv Aznecha" is "Ta'avas Anavim Shamata Hash-m." If You saw humble people shortening their Tefilah, like R. Akiva, who did not pray at length b'Tzibur lest he burden them [to wait for him], for he was humble - You hear as if he prayed all his needs at length.

Etz Yosef: He did not shorten the text of Tefilah, rather, he did not elaborate in his supplications. Also, he did not say [the words of Tefilah] slowly, lest he burden the Tzibur.

Iyun Yakov: Tefilah of the Tzibur is heard even if they do not have so much intent. An individual who prays must have intent so that his Tefilah will be heard. This is why R. Akiva elaborated so much when praying alone. "Tachin Libam Takshiv Aznecha" applies to individuals, even though it says Libam.

Rav Elyashiv: R. Akiva could have pardoned his honor and told them not to wait for him, but they would not have agreed, due to Derech Eretz and Kevod ha'Torah.

How did R. Akiva move so much through many bowings? If one wants to bow at the end of each Berachah, we tell him not to (34a)!

Tosfos citing R. Yosef: He bowed in supplications after Shemoneh Esre.

Tosfos: This is wrong. Here we discuss Shemoneh Esre!

Tosfos citing Ri: One may not bow at the end of each Berachah, but he may in the middle. R. Akiva straightened up at the end of each Berachah. This is the custom on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur. People pray 'Zachrenu', 'uv'Chen Ten Pachdecha' and 'v'Simloch' bowing, and when they reach verses or the end of the Berachah, they straighten up. One may bow at the end of a Berachah only where Chachamim enacted this.

Me'iri: We cannot say that he moved via bowing in Shemoneh Esre. One may not move from his place! Rather, he bowed in supplications after Shemoneh Esre (like Tosfos brought from R. Yosef.)

Etz Yosef citing R. Yonah: Hishtachava'ah is spreading the hands and feet. He uproots his feet and distances from where he was standing. Keri'ah is bowing the head.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though walking is considered an interruption in Tefilah, going from one corner to another is not, since he engages in bowing and spreading the hands and feet for the sake of intent, and he must uproot his feet. We find that one may not uproot his feet in order to face the Mikdash! It seems that since amidst Ones, it suffices to direct his heart towards Kodesh ha'Kodoshim we are stringent; we are lenient for the sake of Kavanah, which is the essence of Tefilah.

What was the Havah Amina 'perhaps one may pray the entire day'?

Maharsha: Surely the obligation is only three times a day, whether Tefilos were enacted corresponding to Temidim, or whether the Avos enacted them. R. Yonah explains, one may not pray more than this without a Chidush. (Note: With a Chidush 'if only a person would pray the entire day' (21a)! - PF) We learn from Daniel, who requested great mercy for the Galus, and even so, he prayed only three times a day.

Why does it say "Neged Yerushelem"? Daniel was in Bavel. In Chutz la'Aretz one should face towards Eretz Yisrael (30a; he need not face Yerushalayim)!

Maharsha: Bavel is close to Eretz Yisrael, so he was able to face Yerushalayim, like one who is in Eretz Yisrael.

The one who asked 'perhaps he started to pray three times a day only after he was exiled', did he not know the verse "Di Hava Aved Min Kadmas Denah"?

Maharsha: The simple meaning of the verse is 'before the decree' [that anyone who requests from anyone other than the king will be thrown to the lions' den]. However, this is obvious. They made the decree because Daniel used to pray to Hash-m! Therefore, it teaches that he used to pray even before the Churban, when they offered Korbanos in the Mikdash.

Why would I think that one may pray all three Tefilos at once? Whether the Avos enacted them, or they correspond to Temidim, they have different times!

Maharsha: Indeed, that is true; we bring "Erev va'Voker v'Tzaharayim", for it is an explicit source.

What is the meaning of 'request his needs and then pray'?

Rashi: E.g. he says Berachos like Atah Chonen... until Shome'a Tefilah, and after the first three Berachos, which are of praise.

Me'iri: One may not request his needs in the first three or last three Berachos. Ge'onim permit for needs of the Rabim, e.g. Zachrenu l'Chayim, u'Chsov l'Chayim...

Rav Elyashiv (32a): Ashkenazi custom is that in Chazaras ha'Shatz, the Tzibur says u'Chsov l'Chayim... and b'Sefer Chayim... but not Zachrenu l'Chayim... and Mi Chamocha..., for they are in the first three Berachos, which are only praise, but not request. Zachrenu and Mi Chamocha are praise, but if the entire Tzibur says them together, it seems like request. U'Chsov l'Chayim and b'Sefer Chayim are at the end of Tefilah; one may request then. Really, all of these are needs of the Rabim, and permitted even in the first three Berachos; we request in Piyutim in the first three Berachos. Rather, we increase in request. First we request Chayim in Zachrenu l'Chayim and Mi Chamocha, and later Chayim Tovim in u'Chsov l'Chayim and b'Sefer Chayim. After the Tzibur already requested Chayim Tovim in their silent Tefilah, they should not decrease and request only Chayim during Chazaras ha'Shatz.

Note: Mishnah Berurah (582:16) says that the reason we do not say Chayim Tovim in Zachrenu and Mi Chamocha is in order to increase and later request Chayim Tovim. (PF)

If "Rinah" is Tefilah, how do we learn that praise must precede request?

Rashi: "Rinah" is Tefilah of praise; "Tefilah" is Bakashah, requesting his needs.

Maharsha: Normally, 'Tefilah' in Tanach and the Gemara is praise; 'Techinah' is request. The verse begins "u'Fanisa El Tefilas Avdecha v'El Techinaso" - praise, and then request. We must say that also in the Seifa, "Rinah" is praise, and afterwards "Tefilah" is request. In Avodah Zarah 7b, Tana'im argue about this; the one who says that praise must precede request, he learns from "Eshpoch Lefanav Sichi Tzarasi Lefanav Agid" (Tehilim 142:3).

What is the connection of requesting needs in Shome'a Tefilah and adding after Shemoneh Esreh?

Rav Elyashiv: Even though one may request his needs in Shome'a Tefilah, he should not elaborate more than his needs. After Shemoneh Esreh, he may elaborate more. Me'iri - it is good to do so.

How does one fulfill 'he must articulate the words with his lips... he may not raise his voice'?

Me'iri, Etz Yosef citing Shulchan Aruch 102:1: He may not pray only in his heart. He says the words with his lips and makes the words audible to his ears, but not to others. Me'iri - some say that only Keri'as Shma must be audible to his ears, but not Tefilah.

Megadim Chadashim citing Bechor Shor: People all around him may not hear, but someone next to him may hear. It says (Yoma 73a) that we do not ask from the Urim v'Tumim in a loud voice. Rashi says that this is like Chanah's Tefilah; only he (the Kohen Gadol) hears, but others do not. Birkei Yosef (101) says that perhaps the comparison to Chanah is not absolute. There was no need for any person to hear her! Amudei Esh (3:15) says that he (the one who asks from the Urim v'Tumim) hears himself, but the Kohen Gadol does not.

We infer that one should not raise his voice in Tefilah. We find "va'Yitz'ak Moshe El Hash-m Al Devar ha'Tzefarde'im", "va'Yitz'aku Bnei Yisrael El Hash-m" (Shemos 8:8, 14:10) and many other such verses!

Chashukei Chemed citing Beis Elokim (Sha'ar Tefilah 6): The daily Tefilos should not be aloud, since he can have intent quietly. Tefilos said amidst affliction, one cannot say them quietly due to his pain, therefore one may raise his voice to show his pain, and that only Hash-m can save him.

Chashukei Chemed citing R. C. Kanievsky: Yalkut Shimoni (Va'eschanan 811) says that Za'akah is one of 13 expressions of Tefilah. It is not necessarily screaming. "Va'Yiz'ak El Hash-m Kol ha'Laylah" - could Shmuel scream the entire night?!

Is there no other source that one who prays must have intent, and that one may not raise his voice?

Maharsha: There are other sources. We merely say that we can learn them also from Chanah.

How can we learn from Chanah? Above (30b), we said that we cannot learn from her, for she was very bitter!

Rav Elyashiv: Only Koved Rosh we cannot learn from her, for she was very bitter. Regarding her actions about the form of Tefilah, we learn from her.

Why is it forbidden for one who is drunk to pray?

Etz Yosef: He cannot have intent.

What is the Chidush that one who sees someone do something improper must rebuke him?

Tosfos: This is even the Torah does not forbid it. If the Torah forbids it, we already know from "Hoche'ach Tochi'ach Es Amisecha" (Vayikra 19:17)!

Anaf Yosef: Ohr Chachamim asked, praying when drunk is like idolatry - this is like a Torah Isur. I (Anaf Yosef) ask, why did he rebuke her for inebriety, which is merely improper, and not for praying while drunk, which is like idolatry? Surely he rebuked her for the latter - "Hoche'ach Tochi'ach Es Amisecha"! The verse here teaches that he rebuked her even for inebriety.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Maharsham (6:48) discusses why the Rambam omitted this. Men are Arevim even for women; it is not clear why Dagul me'Revavah (OC 271) was unsure about this. There is a different reason to exempt from Arvus. R. Yochanan holds that Arvus applies only to what is written [in a document]; R. Chanina holds that it applies only to something limited. (Note: He cites Kesuvos 102. I did not find this there, but in Gitin 50b, R. Yochanan holds that we do not collect for Peros from Meshubadim because they are not written; R. Chanina says, because they are not limited. - PF) R. Elazar said that Eli needed to rebuke her, for he holds like his Rebbi, R. Yochanan. Tzlach (48a) says that the Rambam rules like R. Chanina; there is no Arvus on mid'Rabanan laws, for they are not limited. Eli rebuked her amidst Midas Chasidus. R. S. Shvadron says, Tochachah does not depend on Arvus. The Rosh holds that Arvus does not apply to women - are they exempt from Tochachah?! The Rambam (Hilchos De'os 6:7) already wrote one must rebuke his colleague [even] for something improper, even if it is not an Aveirah!

Megadim Chadashim: Tosfos holds that "Hoche'ach Tochi'ach" applies only to Torah Isurim. We learn from Eli that one must rebuke for something improper, even if it is not mid'Oraisa. It is better to say that Tosfos holds that the verse of Eli reveals that "Hoche'ach Tochi'ach" applies even to an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It says 'one who sees someone improper in his colleague must rebuke him'; it does not say 'one who suspects.' What did Eli see? Really, she was not drunk! "V'Eli Shomer Es Piha" (Shmuel I, 1:12) - he read her lips and knew that she spoke harshly against Hash-m. Chanah called Hash-m "Tzevakos" - 'is it difficult for You to give to me one son? You did not create anything in a woman for naught... - give to me a child, so I can use my breasts!' (31b) Eli knew that she fears Shamayim; he assumed that she spoke improperly due to inebriety. Indeed, it is improper for a barren woman to say so. She knew via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh that she is not barren; Hash-m closed her womb, for He desires Tefilos of Tzadikim. She said, if I will give birth in my old age, when I have no milk, my breasts were for naught! In the Mashal of the Oni, they planned to give to him after the Seudah ends - he asked if it is hard to give to him a little now.

Megadim Chadashim: Mahari Algazi (Teshuvah 2) questioned the Rosh (3:1), who learns that women are not in Arvus (mutual responsibility for other Yisrael) from R. Chaninah ben Tradyon's wife; she was punished for not protesting against her husband (Avodah Zarah 18a). We find (Shavu'os 39a) that one is punished for not protesting from "v'Chashlu Ish b'Achiv" (Vayikra 26:37). He asked also from Beitzah 30a (women who eat until the last moment before Yom Kipur) and Shabbos 54b (R. Elazar ben Azaryah's neighbor's cow used to go out with a strap between its horns. Since he did not protest against her, it was attributed to him). These prove that one must protest also against women! He answered that this is only mid'Rabanan (Hoche'ach Tochi'ach applies only to those who have Arvus), just like we learn from Eli that one must rebuke even for anything improper, even if there is no Torah Isur. Megadim Chadashim - the Gemara says that one is punished for another's sins only if there is Arvus. It does not say that without Arvus, there is no Mitzvah to protest! Our Gemara did not learn from Eli that one must rebuke women, even though there is n Arvus, for this is obvious! I later saw that Chikrei Lev (OC 48 p.83) explains so.

How can we learn from "Hi Medaberes Al Libah" that one who prays must have intent, and also like we expound below 'matters on her heart'?

Maharsha (31b): Elsewhere, speech "Al Lev" refers to the listener's heart - "va'Ydaber Al Libah", "Dabru Al Lev Yerushalayim." Regarding the speaker himself, it says b'Libo or El Libo.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If it came to teach only that one must have intent, it should have said b'Libah or El Libah. If it came to teach only 'matters on her heart', it should have said 'va'Tedaber'. Medaberes implies that every time [she had intent].

Why did she say "Lo Adoni"?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: One who suspects a Kosher person, his body is stricken (Shabbos 97a). Meforshim explain, that matter is found in his body. This is like 'anyone who disqualifies [others], he disqualifies with his own blemish' (Kidushin 70a). Therefore, she said 'you are not clean in this matter that you suspect me of it.'

Megadim Chadashim citing Ben Yehoyada, citing Sha'ar ha'Gilgulim: Chanah was a Gilgul of Chever ha'Keni; Eli was a Gilgul of his wife Ya'el. "Lo Adoni" - in the previous Gilgul, you were not my Adon. I was your Adon (husband)!

Why did she say 'you do not have Shechinah and Ru'ach ha'Kodesh'? Does one who has them know everything? Are they needed in order to judge favorably?

Rav Elyashiv: No. However, if you had Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, sin would not come via you. Shamayim would have helped you not to suspect someone Kosher.

Why did Eli think that she was drunk?

Rashi (Shmuel I, 1:13): People did not normally pray silently.

Maharsha: This is difficult. Our Sugya forbids doing so. Did people used to do improperly?! Why did he think that she was drunk - she did properly!

Tzlach: The custom was to pray quietly b'Tzibur, and aloud in private. Surely also many others prayed in the Azarah. She was still praying after all of them finished and left. Eli did not realize that she began b'Tzibur; he thought that she is quiet due to inebriety.

Radak (Shmuel I, 1:14): Others who pray, they say their requests audibly. Even though sometimes one prays quietly, he screams some of his words. She prayed at length, and was not heard at all.

Maharsha: It is because she prayed at length. He said "Ad Masai Tishtakarin." The Midrash says, because she prayed at length, Shmuel's years were shortened. She said "va'Yesehev Sham Ad Olam..." (and Shmuel lived only an Olam (50 years) after she brought him to the Mishkan). She answered him, my Ru'ach is bitter, like we said above (30b), and I need much mercy.

Iyun Yakov: She elaborated greatly in her Tefilah. He did not think that she prayed so long, rather, she was talking. This was after the time to eat and drink, when people are drunk. Eli said, until when will you increase words amidst inebriety? This aggravates the inebriety!

Malbim (Shmuel I, 1:13): Sometimes people would pray to Hash-m, and sometimes to angels or other advocates. (a) When one prays to Hash-m, he need not elaborate, for he does not justify his request based on his merits; he requests Chesed and a free gift. When one prays via advocates, he recounts his merits to clarify that he deserves his request. (b) When one prays to Hash-m, he should not be audible, this shows lack of Emunah. Hash-m knows all thoughts! When one prays via advocates, he may raise his voice, for angels do not know people's thoughts. In the days of Eli people used to ask via advocates, for they were not worthy of miracles and special Hashgachah; they used to elaborate in prayer. Eli assumed that she was doing so, for she elaborated. Therefore, he was "Shomer Es Piha" (wanted to hear what she said). However, she was not audible. Therefore, he thought that she was drunk.

Chashukei Chemed citing Shlah (Rosh Hashanah Amud ha'Din 53b): This episode was on Rosh Hashanah, like we say that Hash-m was Poked her [with pregnancy] on Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Hashanah 10b), when it is permitted to pray aloud, and people normally did so. He thought that she prays Tefilas Rosh Hashanah; really, she was requesting her needs, that she have children, therefore she was quiet. Kaf ha'Chayim (101:12) says that Shemoneh Esre should be quiet, but other matters may be aloud. "Va'Yikre'u El ha'Elokim b'Chazakah" (Yonah 3:8) teaches that Tefilah must be loud, i.e. other than Shemoneh Esre. I question this, for we learn from Chanah that Tefilah should be quiet, and she was not praying Shemoneh Esre! Perhaps since Shemoneh Esre was not yet enacted, every important request had the law of the primary Tefilah. Since her private Tefilah was quiet, all the more so a Tefilah of the Rabim should be silent. (Note: Kaf ha'Chayim learned from Ninveh, even though Shemoneh Esre does not apply to Nochrim. That was a crucial Tefilah of the Rabim, and it was loud! - PF) Mishnah Berurah (101:7) says that one should not be too loud in Pesukei d'Zimra; one may say it slightly loudly.

Megadim Chadashim: Midrash Shmuel 1:8 says that the episode was on Atzeres. Agadas Bereishis (29:2) says that it was on Pesach. The Chasam Sofer (Drashos 2 p.356, and on OC Sof 581) says that she prayed on Rosh Hashanah, like the Bavli, unlike the Midrashim. What is the source that she prayed on Rosh Hashanah? It says "va'Yeda Elkanah Es Chanah Ishto va'Yikzereha Hash-m" (Shmuel I, 1:19) after they returned to Ramah, the day after she prayed! Rashi (Yevamos 64b) says that Hash-m accepted her Tefilah on Rosh Hashanah and decreed pregnancy on her. How can we say that she prayed on Rosh Hashanah? "Va'Yizbach Elkanah v'Nasan li'Fninah" (ibid. 4) - there is no Chagigah on Rosh Hashanah, and we do not offer Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom Tov! Kli Yakar on Shmuel proved from this that it was not on Yom Tov.

Note: "Va'Yizbach" does not necessarily mean Korbanos - "Va'Yizbach Yakov" (Bereishis 31:54) in Chutz la'Aretz, after Lavan caught him; "va'Yizbach Balak Bakar va'Tzon va'Yshalach l'Vil'am" (Bamidbar 22:40); "va'Yizbach Es Kol Kohanei ha'Bamos" (Melachim II, 23:20). And even if here it refers to Korbanos, it says afterwards "v'Chen Ya'aseh Shanah b'Shanah" (Shmuel I, 1:7) - it is not particularly the day that she prayed. And even if he gave to her Shelamim that day, perhaps he offered it yesterday! (PF)

Why is praying while drunk like serving idols?

Rashba: It is known that inebriety brings to denial of Emes and admission to Sheker. One who is drunk cannot distinguish Baruch Mordechai from Arur Haman! He sees false illusions. Perhaps amidst confusion of his Da'as, he will say false illusions - this is idolatry!

Maharsha: This is like it says in Sanhedrin (70b) "Al la'Melachim Sheso Yayin" - why should you be with kings who drink, get drunk and renounce Hash-m?

Rav Elyashiv #1: He casts off the yoke of Malchus Shamayim, so it is as if he prays to wood and stone, which do not feel anything. His Tefilah is not considered [at all].

Rav Elyashiv #2: One would not speak so in front of a mortal king! It is as if he denies Hash-m - this is like idolatry.

How do we learn that one who incorrectly suspected someone must appease him? Perhaps this is only if he suspected him about a severe matter - praying while drunk is like idolatry!

Iyun Yakov: This is not difficult according to what I explained above, that he did not suspect that she prayed while drunk; he rebuked her only for increased words amidst inebriety, which aggravates the inebriety.

Before Chanah, it says "v'Alah ha'Ish... v'Lizbo'ach la'Shem Tzevakos" (Shmuel I, 1:3)!

Maharsha: The verse says so, but we do not find that a person called Hash-m so until Chanah.

Etz Yosef citing Semichus Zekenim0: Others called Hash-m Tzevakos, but without a reason. Chanah called Him so, for it was relevant to her Tefilah.

What is the meaning of 'if You will see'?

If You will see my anguish and grant my request.

How could she threaten to be secluded? The Torah forbids seclusion!

Rav Elyashiv: There are situations in which the Torah permits seclusion, e.g. with her father or brother (not on a fixed basis), yet via Kinuy, he can make her drink. Seclusion is permitted with many men (Rashi said 'I will seclude myself with others'), when her husband is in the city, or there is an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim. (Note: Daf Al ha'Daf citing Me'ir Einei Chachamim (3 p.158) says that she intended to be with many men, just Elkanah will think that there is only one man. Similarly, he will not know that there is an opening to Reshus ha'Rabim - PF). However, this forbids her to her husband between seclusion [after Kinuy] and drinking. How can she uproot her obligation to her husband? It seems that since he warns her and forbids her, this is not called rebellion against her husband. Alternatively, it is because he can pardon his Kinuy. (Note: I do not understand this. He cannot pardon after seclusion. She already forbade herself to him! - PF) However, it seems that it is forbidden, for R. Akiva said 'if so, all barren women will seclude themselves!' If there is no Isur, may they do so, and bear children! It seems that there is no Isur, but it is improper to cause erasing Hash-m's name. If it is improper, how did Chanah threaten to do so? It seems that she did not really threaten to do so; she merely said that she could "force" Hash-m to give to her seed, and an immodest woman would do so, so she should not lose for not doing so. Alternatively, R. Akiva is concerned lest all barren women do so - some will transgress the Isur of seclusion. (Note: Pnei Yehoshua assumed that the seclusion is forbidden, and answered like this, that she merely said that she should not lose due to her modesty.)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Maharil Diskin (Nasa DH bi'Vrachos): Ohr ha'Chayim (Bamidbar 5:28) says that "v'Niksah v'Nizre'ah Zara" is only if she did not have any Aveirah, e.g. kissing or hugging. Did she not transgress seclusion? Seclusion is permitted when her husband is in the city (Kidushin 81a). She said '[I will seclude myself] in front of my husband, Elkanah', i.e. it will in a permitted way.

Note: She said 'I will seclude myself.... in front of Elkanah [in order that] he will warn me [against seclusion]'! This is the permitted way to arouse him to Kinuy. She would not act lewdly to arouse Kinuy, due to the Aveirah and Chilul Hash-m. Also, Elkanah might simply divorce her "Ki Matza Vah Ervas Davar", even if he had no suspicion of Zenus, especially since he had another wife and already fulfilled Peru u'Rvu! Surely it is better to seclude herself in front of him, and not rely on witnesses to tell him, due to her reputation and Chilul Hash-m. Also, perhaps Elkanah, knowing her modesty, would suspect that the witnesses erred. He knew her pain, and would not risk falsely suspecting her! (PF)

R. Akiva refutes R. Yishmael, for if so, barren women will seclude themselves with other men, and conceive. Also according to R. Akiva, women who give birth in pain will become Sotos in order to give birth easily!

Maharsha: Tosfos (Sotah 26a) asked this. We can say that a woman would not bring suspicion on herself just to avoid pain, but a barren woman would do anything she can in order to conceive.

Pnei Yehoshua: They would not do so, due to the Torah Isur of seclusion.

Rav Elyashiv citing Tzlach: If a man is married 10 years without children, he must divorce his wife. Shortly before this, she will seclude herself, for she has nothing to lose - in any case he will divorce her! If she merely give birth in pain, she would not seclude herself, lest her husband divorce her.

Daf Al ha'Daf: She would not do so, due to the shame (she is suspected, the Kohen uncovers her head and tears her clothes), aside from the Isur to erase Hash-m's name.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Kerem Shlomo (13:7 p.39, citing the Hafla'ah's father): A woman with children would not do so, lest people say that she sinned, and her merit of bringing her children to learn is delaying her death. A barren woman lacks this merit, so if she lives, surely she did not sin!

Note: Presumably, this merit applies to women who have sons at least five years old (the age at which boys begin to learn - Avos 5:21). If she has only daughters, or her sons are less than five, she could seclude herself in order to bear sons, or without pain... and people would not suspect her! (PF)

Chachamim (Sotah 24a) says that a barren woman does not drink. If so, Chanah's idea would not work!

Megadim Chadashim citing Divrei Sha'ul: This proves like the Rambam, that if her husband has another wife or children, she drinks. Megadim Chadashim - if so, what was R. Akiva's objection? Does he refer to all barren women that their husbands have another wife or children?

What is the significance of repeating "Amasecha" three times?

Rashi: We expound this as an expression of Misah.

Maharsha: It is an expression of Amah; these are the three Mitzvos special for women.

What are 'Badkei Misah'?

Rashi: They are three things that test women. If she transgressed any of them, she is prone to die at a time of danger.

What is the connection of Badkei Misah and her request for a child?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): She asked for pregnancy, and to be saved from the danger of birth.

Iyun Yakov: Had I transgressed any of them, it would be good that I not give birth and be endangered. However, I did not transgress them, so there is no danger for me. Therefore, I pray for children!

Why do we expound "Zera Anashim"? Perhaps she wanted two boys!

Maharsha: If it is to exclude females, she should have said "Zecharim." If she requested two, we do not find that she had another child, and Eli said "v'Eilokei Yisrael Yiten Es Shelasech." However, an opinion in the Midrash says that she had seven children.

Megadim Chadashim: Shmuel I, 2:21 says that she bore "Sheloshah Banim u'Shtei Vanos"! Midrashim expound "Akarah Yaldah Shiv'ah" is various ways; none say that she bore seven children. Maharsha's words require investigation.

What is 'Gavra b'Guvrin'?

Tosfos: It is one who is important to be counted among men.

Megadim Chadashim citing Ben Yehoyada, citing Sha'ar ha'Gilgulim: Chanah was a Gilgul of Chever ha'Keni (Ya'el's husband), who was a Gilgul of Rachav ha'Zonah). Since she was a Gilgul of a male, it is as if Shmuel was born to two males - Zera Anashim, Gavra b'Guvrin. "Ani ha'Ishah ha'Nitzeves Imchah ba'Zeh" - in this Gilgul I am female, but before I was not.

What do we learn from "Moshe v'Aharon b'Chohanav u'Shmuel b'Kor'ei Shemo"?

Maharsha: "B'Chohanav" is singular; it applies only to Aharon. The verse says that Moshe, and Aharon among His Kohanim, and Shmuel, among those who call to Him, when they called to Hash-m, He answered. Shmuel is like Moshe or Aharon.

Maharsha based on Yalkut: "B'Chohanav" applies to Moshe and Aharon; Moshe was a Kohen in the seven days of the Milu'im. Each of them was one of His Kohanim. "Kore'im El Hash-m" refers to Yisrael in the days of Shmuel, like it says "v'Espalel Ba'adchem...; va'Yikavtzu... va'Yishpechu Lifnei Hash-m va'Yatzumu" (Shmuel I, 7:5) like Targum Yonasan 'they poured their hearts in Teshuvah.' Shmuel called in His name to pray for them, and they call to Hash-m and He answers them. Shmuel is equated to Moshe and Aharon. Just like they were answered via their Kehunah, he was answered via his Tefilah.

Megadim Chadashim citing Ahavas Yehonason (on Haftorah for the first day of Rosh Hashanah) says that Chanah was a Gilgul of Tziporah (Moshe separated from her), and Elkanah was a Gilgul of Aharon, therefore they merited a son equated to Moshe and Aharon. Megadim Chadashim - I did not find a source for this.

How is one 'swallowed' among men?

Rashi: This is like Rav Dimi explains - he should not be tall or short (he will not stand out).

Why did she not want her son to be tall?

Daf Al ha'Daf: Korach and his Edah were Ba'alei Komah (Bamidbar Rabah 18:3). Chanah did not want her son to stumble like this; Beis Yisrael (Gur) similarly said that this is why she did not want him to be a Chacham.

Why did she not want her son to be Chacham?

Rashi: If he will be too wise, this will astound people, and Ayin ha'Ra will rule over him.

Iyun Yakov: The middle endures, like the Rambam says in Hilchos De'os Perek 2. Chesed l'Avraham (Ein Yakov Nahar 11) says that man chooses how he will be created - tall or short, weak or strong..., and after Techiyas ha'Mesim he is opposite. She prayed that her son always be intermediate.

Rav Elyashiv citing Ya'avetz: She requested only that he not be Chacham in his youth, lest he stand out and people will talk about his Chochmah. Surely she wanted that he will be a Chacham when he matures. Her Tefilah was not accepted - he was a Chacham at the age of two!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pe'er Yisrael (1 p.410): Korach was clever - why did he do that folly (contest Moshe)? He saw a great chain - Shmuel, who is equated to Moshe and Aharon, will descend from him (Rashi Bamidbar 16:7, from Bamidbar Rabah 18:8). His astuteness caused his ruin. Chanah was from Korach's family (Note: Verses prove that Elkanah was from Korach; I do not know a source that she was from his family - PF) and knew this, and did not want her son to stumble via Chochmah.

Why should they call a Kohen to slaughter?

Iyun Yakov: He means a Kohen expert in Shechitah. He knows to train his hands [to slaughter properly] and not faint. Other Kohanim were available, e.g. Eli and his sons!

Note: The Kohen Gadol must slaughter the Korbanos of Yom Kipur! Midrash Shmuel (1:9) says that he was appointed Kohen Gadol that day. Perhaps he was not yet used to doing Shechitah. (PF)

Etz Yosef: The Kohanim were stringent to do Shechitah themselves, if this would not delay the Mitzvah. i.e. if Kohanim and Yisraelim are available, a Kohen has precedence. Eli assumed that an expert Kohen was present. Shmuel saw that there was a delay, so he said that there is no need to wait for a Kohen.

How do we learn from "Ani ha'Ishah ha'Nitzeves Imchah ba'Zeh" that one may not sit within four Amos of someone praying?

Rashi: This implies that also Eli was standing, like her.

Daf Al ha'Daf: He thought that she was drunk - if so, her Tefilah is To'evah. One may sit near it! I answer like the Sefas Emes. Why did Avraham say "Livchem", for angels have only one heart (Yetzer Tov)? He did not know that they are angels! Sefas Emes answered that Shamayim guards a Tzadik, that he says only what is proper. Similarly, Hash-m guarded Eli from sitting within four Amos of a proper Tefilah. (Note: Hash-m did not guard him from suspecting Kesherim, for which his body is stricken (Shabbos 97a)! - PF)

Tosfos: The extra Hei at the end of Imchah hints that he did not sit in her four Amos, rather, in the fifth Amah.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): "Ha'Nitzeves Imchah" implies that both of them were standing! Since it says "v'Eli ha'Kohen Yoshev" (Shmuel I, 1:9), we explain that she said ha'Nitzeves Imchah because he was not within her four Amos. However, since he was already sitting, he could remain sitting even after she began praying! Perhaps she was stringent not to pray within his four Amos. (Note: The Mishnah Berurah (102:12, citing the Taz) forbids one to pray within four Amos of someone sitting. - PF)

Is it always forbidden to sit within four Amos of someone praying?

Tosfos: It is forbidden in front, [in back - some delete this] and to the sides. The Ge'onim say, the Isur is if he is idle. If he engages in Keri'as Shma and its Berachos and similar matters, he may sit.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Bris Yakov (Rishonim k'Mal'achim 1) says that the Tur forbids because it looks like the other accepts Ol Malchus Shamayim, and he does not. This is why Rashi (in Sefer ha'Pardes) says that he is like an Apikoros!

Me'iri: The custom is to permit in back. Some forbid even in back, lest the person request all his needs and he will be ashamed, for the other hears him.

Note: If the concern is hearing him, there is no difference if he sits or stands! (PF)

Did Eli not know that a Zar may slaughter Kodshim?

Rashash: He knew that it is merely a custom for Kohanim to slaughter. He just tested Shmuel.

How could Shmuel be punished for ruling in front of his Rebbi? He did not learn from him yet!

Tosfos: Eli was Gedol ha'Dor and Shmuel came to learn from him [so he is considered his Rebbi].

Why was Shmuel liable for ruling in front of his Rebbi? One may tell his Rebbi that he erred, like it says in Sanhedrin 6b!

Iyun Yakov: Since Eli was more stringent than is required, there was no need to correct him.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: A Talmid may argue with his Rebbi if he has a proof (Rema YD 242:3). If Shmuel was truly Chayav Misah, Eli could not pardon him! Rather, Eli was adamant about his own honor; this he could pardon.

Rav Elyashiv: Seemingly, Shmuel needed to correct him, lest the Kohen transgress wearing Bigdei Kehunah, which contain Kil'ayim, during Shechitah. He may wear them only for Avodah that requires Kehunah (Ramban Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 8:12)! Malbim (Artzos Chayim OC 18) says that l'Chatchilah, a Kohen should do Shechitah, for he can do Kabalah calmly and receive all the blood. If the Kohen who does Zerikah receives the blood, amidst his zeal to do Zerikah, we are concerned lest he not receive all the blood. Since the Shochet will do Kabalah, he properly needs Bigdei Kehunah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Merafsin Igri (p.308) says, one may correct his Rebbi only to prevent a clear transgression. The Ra'avad disagrees, so this is not considered a clear transgression. (Note: According to the Rambam, there is no argument about this! How can he explain why Shmuel was liable? - PF) Alternatively, since the Kohen will do Kabalah immediately after Shechitah, he may wear Bigdei Kehunah for the sake of Kabalah.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Zohar says that a Kohen should not do Shechitah, for it is Midas ha'Din, and this is Pogem in his Midah (Chesed)! Ohr ha'Chamah on the Zohar questions this. He says that the Zohar itself means that it is permitted for a Zar to do Shechitah. The Admor from Gur said that Shmuel held like the Zohar, therefore he needed to correct Eli, to prevent an Isur!

Shmuel was two years old, like we expound "va'Yeshev Sham Ad Olam" - Shmuel lived 52 years in all, and he was an Olam (50 years) in front of the Mishkan. How could he be punished for ruling in front of his Rebbi?

Maharsha: We may not punish a minor bi'Ydei Adam. Eli wanted to punish him bi'Ydei Shamayim. The verse calls him a Na'ar, for his deeds were like those of a Na'ar, and not a minor. So we say about Moshe "v'Hinei Na'ar Bocheh" (Shemos 2:5 Sotah 12a).

Megadim Chadashim: Birkas Aharon asks, we find that Shamayim does not punish until 20! Pane'ach Raza (va'Yeshev) says that Shamayim punishes according to one's Chochmah. Shmuel had great Chochmah. Etz Yosef citing Tzlach - Eli asked Shmuel his source, to see if he has enough Chochmah to be worthy to be punished!

Iyun Yakov: Do not be astounded that he was such a Chacham at the age of two. He was able to talk the day that he was born, like Moshe, like it says in Devarim Rabah.

Why did Chanah say "Ani ha'Ishah ha'Nitzeves Imchah ba'Zeh"?

Iyun Yakov: She saw that Eli wanted to punish Shmuel. She wanted that he will pardon him, but there is an opinion that a Chacham cannot pardon his honor. She reminded him that earlier, she elaborated in Tefilah, and this forbade Eli to pass in front of her. She should have been concerned for his honor! When he heard that she is bitter, he pardoned her. This shows that he holds that a Chacham can pardon his honor!

What do we learn from "El ha'Na'ar ha'Zeh Hispalalti"?

Rashi: I prayed for this son, and not for another. This shows that he sinned against Eli, and Eli wanted to punish him and pray that she receive another son.

Maharsha: This son is dear to me, for he came from my Tefilah. Another son via your Tefilah would not be so dear to me (Rav Elyashiv - even if he would be more esteemed).

Why does fasting on Shabbos tear up decrees against him?

Rashi: It is difficult - everyone gets pleasure, and he fasts.

What is the significance of a decree of 70 years?

Rashi: Even if it was decree from his youth.

May one fast on Shabbos?

Tosfos citing R. Chananel: We discuss a fast due to a dream.

Me'iri: Even so, he must fast another day to atone for Bitul Oneg Shabbos. Some say that the need to fast another day is only for a fast not due to a dream.

Iyun Yakov: If Chachamim said that he should fast due to the dream, why must he fast another fast too atone for this? Since Hash-m caused him to have a dream on Shabbos and nullify Oneg Shabbos, presumably, he did not honor Shabbos enough. 'The matter that this Tzadik was pained to fulfill, will his seed stumble in it?!' (Bava Kama 50a) Anyone who neglects Torah amidst wealth, in the end he will neglect Torah amidst poverty (Avos 4:9). Therefore, now he needed to totally neglect Oneg Shabbos, and fast an extra fast; in the future he will be careful about Oneg Shabbos.

Rav Elyashiv: Oneg Shabbos is a Mitzvah from Divrei Kabalah, and some say mid'Oraisa! However, if he has a dream, it would pain him to eat, so in any case he cannot fulfill Oneg Shabbos. Even so, he must fast afterwards to atone for Bitul Oneg Shabbos.

What is the meaning of 'Hitichah words'?

Rashi (32a): This is an expression of throwing, like "ki'Mtachavei Keshes" (Bereishis 21:16).

Rashba: She spoke sharply.

Maharsha: She had a winning argument, i.e. her threat to become a Sotah, or by saying that Hash-m did not create anything for naught.

Etz Yosef citing Tzlach: Perhaps "Al Hash-m" implies that she said that children do not depend on merit, rather, on Mazal. Surely Hash-m can override Mazal, but great merit is needed for this, like Hash-m told Avraham 'leave your astrology.' She said, if You will not answer me, people will say that since You lack ability, You handed the matter over to Mazal.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Beis ha'Levi: She was sure that she will have children - if needed, she will become a Sotah. She prayed Al Hash-m (amidst concern for His name) - give to me without the need to become a Sotah, lest they need to erase Shem Hash-m!

Why was Chanah not punished for being Meti'ach words to Hash-m?

According to Maharsha, she did not do improperly (she had a winning argument). (PF)

Iyun Yakov: She was bitter - Hash-m does not punish for what one does amidst pain. So Hash-m told Iyov's friends "Iyov Lo v'Da'as Yedaber" (Iyov 34:35; Bava Basra 16a). This is why we do not read "Al Hash-m" like El Hash-m, even though sometimes Ayin is read like Aleph. "V'Hi Maras Nefesh" proves that she spoke [harshly] to Hash-m due to her pain.

When did Hash-m agree to Eliyahu's words?

Rashi: It was later, in the Nevu'ah of another Navi (Michah).

Iyun Yakov: This is why Eliyahu was not punished, for Hash-m agreed.

What is the meaning of "va'Asher Hare'osi"?

Rashi: I created their evil inclination.

Etz Yosef #1: Via this, He gave to them opportunity to veer from him.

Etz Yosef #2: Via giving to them much good, He caused them to sin - "va'Yishman Yeshurun va'Yiv'at" (Devarim 32:15).

Since Hash-m agreed to Eliyahu's and Moshe's words (32a), why does it say that they were Meti'ach words at Him? They were correct!

Rashba: Even though their words were correct, it is improper for a slave to say so in front of Hash-m, as if he complains to Him.