Here it says that refusal is good in small amounts. One who is asked to be Shali'ach Tzibur, it is improper not to decline at all!

Maharsha: Indeed, the Yerushalmi (5:3) says that a large or small amount or these matters is bad, and an intermediate amount is good, just like the three responses to a request to be Shali'ach Tzibur! Megadim Chadashim - Mar'eh ha'Panim there explains that also the Bavli means so; 'a small amount' is not precise.

What is the significance of Se'or, salt and refusal?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Se'or and salt strengthen - but too much damages and weakens. Also refusal, too much causes a loss. It shows that he assessed his level, and refuses (because it is below his level). This is the ultimate haughtiness!

In Gitin 70a it lists eight matters that are bad in large amounts but good in small amounts. Why are they omitted here?

Megadim Chadashim citing Mar'eh ha'Panim (Yerushalmi 5:3): Really, the matters here, a large or small amount is bad, and an intermediate amount is good. There, a small amount is good. Rif (on Ein Yakov Gitin 70a) - the matters here, a miniscule amount is good. The matters there, a small amount is good. Megadim Chadashim: - the Yerushalmi refutes this. (NOTE: He can say that the Bavli disagrees! To say that the Bavli agrees with the Yerushalmi, we must say that 'a small amount' is not precise! - PF)

Is it l'Chatchilah to pray at length or quickly?

Me'iri: Neither is wrong, for Moshe did so! In any case, it is proper to be in the middle, lest people murmur about him.

Chashukei Chemed: Sometimes the Shali'ach Tzibur elaborates in his silent Tefilah after some of the Tzibur finished, and they bang to inform him that he should finish. Who says that he prays too long? Perhaps they prayed too fast! There are several reasons why one may not bang, including disturbing his intent, and that of others still praying. A Beis ha'Keneses may fix the duration of the Shali'ach Tzibur's silent Shemoneh Esre; one who cannot fulfill it should not be Shali'ach Tzibur.

Maharsha: It depends on the case. For Chet ha'Egel, which was a great sin of the Rabim, surely one must elaborate until he is answered. Anyone who prays at length, his prayer will have an effect; we learn from Moshe (32b)! Miryam was an individual who sinned; it was not so severe, so it was proper to be concise. He said "Kel Na Refa Na Lah" - he was concise even about Hash-m's name! He said many names of Hash-m when praying about the Egel and Meraglim. I correct the text after this to say d'Amar R. Yakov... - we support that one may pray concisely from Moshe's Tefilah for Miryam, in which he did not even mention her name!

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: For needs of the Nefesh, one should elaborate as much as he can. At Chet ha'Egel, it was decreed that Nefashos will die! For needs of the body (healing Miryam), he was brief.

Rav Elyashiv: Elaboration refers to intent, and not to adding supplications, similar to being concise. Surely he did not minimize supplications, rather, intent. (NOTE: I do not understand this. We cite the five words that he said for Miryam; this implies that he did not say more. What is the source that he minimized intent?! - PF)

Why is there no need to mention the name of the one for whom he prays?

Me'iri, Maharsha: Hash-m knows what is in the heart.

Megadim Chadashim and Daf Al ha'Daf, citing Pri Chadash (OC 119:1), Piskei Ri'az: The Gemara implies that one may mention his name. The Zohar says that one should do so. Degel Machaneh Efrayim (Beha'alosecha) brings a source to mention the name of the Choleh and his mother itself` "Refa Na" - its Gematriya (332) equals that of Miryam and Yochanan. Our Gemara learned from here that one need not mention the name! Pri Chadash and Ri'az can say that Moshe mentioned their names via a hint, to fulfill all opinions. However, Rashi (ha'Pardes 287) and Yalkut Reuveni (Vayera) say that one should not mention the name. Minhag Yisrael Torah (OC 119) says that the source to mention the name and his mother's name is Shabbos 66b 'Kol Minyanei bi'Shma d'Eima'; Rashi explains, in Lechishos (words whispered to cure) we say Ploni ben Plonis.' The Zohar similarly explains "v'Hoshi'ah l'Ven Amasecha" (Tehilim 86:16).

Megadim Chadashim, Daf Al ha'Daf citing Magid Ta'alumah: If we rely on Hash-m knowing what is in the heart, there is no need to say words of prayer! We find that Amalek dressed like Kena'anim so that Yisrael will not know how to pray. They needed to say "ha'Am ha'Zeh"! (NOTE: Even if one need not mention the name of the one whom he prays about, perhaps they strove so that we will mention the wrong name, and this ruins the Tefilah! - PF) Degel Machaneh Efrayim says that if one does not mention the name, lest this arouse prosecution, he should hint to it. Magen Avraham (119) says that in front of the Choleh one should not mention his name, like Moshe did not; not in front of the Choleh, it is permitted. Kovetz Kerem Shlomo (1:7 p.39) says that since Miryam was in Niduy, Moshe could not stand in her four Amos; this is not considered in front of him. Azor Eliyahu (127) says that one should not mention a Choleh's name, for his Mazal is bad and the Satan can prosecute; otherwise, it is better to mention the name. The Vilna Gaon (Even Sheleimah 9:14) says that when one does not mention the name, it is accepted better, for they do not investigate it. Panim Yafos (Bereishis 25:21) says that Yitzchak prayed opposite his wife so that he would not need to mention her name. He thought that perhaps her name will need to be changed. Toras Moshe (ibid.) says that it was lest he need to mention the name of her family, who were Resha'im; this could arouse prosecution against his Tefilah. Revid ha'Zahav says that also for a curse, one need not mention the name if it is known for whom he intends. Tosfos (7a) said that Bil'am intended to say 'Kalem'! Kol Eliyahu (Balak 97) says that this is why he looked at the nation, lest he need to say also 'Yisrael'; he could not say two words in a Rega. We find that R. Yitzchak bar Elyashiv prayed for people connected to R. Mani and mentioned their names (Ta'anis 23b).

NOTE: Presumably, Toras Moshe holds that one must mention her family's name to specify which Rivkah. If so, how does it suffice for us to pray for e.g. Sarah bas Rachel (or David)? If even one out of 100 Jews has one of these common names, one out of 10,000 is Sarah bas Rachel (or David) - surely there are many people with these two names! (PF)

Megadim Chadashim citing Ben Yehoyada: When praying for a Choleh, it is better not to mention the name, but when praying that one become wealth, it is better to mention the name, so it will be a conduit for good influence. Perhaps this is why Rashi said 'one need not mention the name of the Choleh.' Megadim Chadashim - in many places in the Zohar, they asked someone his name before blessing him. (NOTE: In all the sources that he brought, the Berachah was based on the name. If not for this, perhaps they would not need the name! - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps the name caused the illness. This is why people change the name of a Choleh, like it says in YD 335.

Why may he not bow in other places?

Tosfos: He should not come to uproot Chachamim's enactment. Everyone should not be stringent like he desires, and [it is as if] there is no enactment of Chachamim. [Also,] we are concerned for haughtiness.

Me'iri: One who prays alone and increases supplications, it is praiseworthy even if he bows. On Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kipur, everyone makes himself like a king, and bows at the beginning and does not straighten up until the end, for these are days of Din. Everyone must lower himself and have more intent.

Rav Elyashiv: The Gemara answered 'this refers to Hoda'ah in Hallel.' This shows that the Isur to bow is not limited to Shemoneh Esre. So say the Ra'avad and Shulchan Aruch (OC 113:3). Above (31a), Tosfos permitted bowing during supplications after Shemoneh Esre! We must say that bowing during Hoda'ah is different. In Aleinu, when one says 'va'Anachnu Kor'im' he may (NOTE: and therefore must - PF) bow, lest he say Sheker. However, in Nishmas, when he says 'v'Chol Komah Lefanecha Tishtachaveh', he discusses all creations, so he may not bow. Some say not to bow during Kaddish. I permit, for it is supplications, and not Hoda'ah. The Bi'ur Halachah (113:3, citing Magen Giborim) strained to justify the custom to bow during Barechu; he supported it from "va'Yomer David... Barechu... va'Yikdu va'Yishtachavu" (Divrei ha'Yamim I, 29:20). This is astounding. That was before Chachamim decreed! Chachamim decreed lest people uproot their decree to bow only in four places in Shemoneh Esre. Shemoneh Esre was not enacted in David's days! Perhaps he means that since we find a verse, Chachamim do not have power to forbid what the verse permits. (So the Taz (OC 588:5) explained why they did not decree to forbid Bris Milah on Shabbos.) This refers to Barechu of Tefilah, e.g. before Birkas Keri'as Shma. One should not bow in Barechu of Kri'as ha'Torah.

Why do a Kohen Gadol and king bow more than others?

Rashi: The greater the person, the more he must humble and lower himself.

If "va'Tikod... Apayim" teaches that Kidah is putting one's face on the ground, we should say the same about Hishtachava'ah - it says "Apayim Eretz Yishtachavu Lach" (Yeshayah 49:23) and "va'Yishtachu l'Apav Artzah" (Bereishis 48:12)!

Tosfos, Etz Yosef: He does not learn from the verse. He had a tradition from his Rebbi. We merely show that so it says in a verse.

Why do we learn that Hishtachava'ah is prostrating on the hands and feet from "Lehishtachavos Lecha Artzah"? There are many such verses before this, e.g. "va'Yaratz Likrasam... va'Yishtachu Artzah" (Bereishis 18:2)!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Radal: The other verses are not a proof. Perhaps in those cases, they happened to bow to the ground. However, Yosef said only "Mishtachavim Li", and his father expressed this "Lehishtachavos Lecha Artzah." This proves that Stam Hishtachava'ah is to the ground! The Aderes said, do not say that this is only in Leshon Bnei Adam. If so, there was no needed for Yakov to add "Artzah"! Rather, it teaches that every Hishtachava'ah in the Torah is to the ground.

What is the significance of erring in Avos?

Rashi: It is the beginning of Tefilah. This hints that Hash-m does not desire it.

Maharsha: It begins and ends with Baruch, it has many names of Hash-m (Elokeinu vEilokei Avoseinu, Elokei Avraham...) and it is next to (right after) Ge'ulah.

Is it enough to concentrate in one of the Berachos? One should estimate whether or he can have intent in his Tefilah. If not, he should not pray (30b)!

Tosfos: Also there, it means if he can have intent in one of the Berachos.

What is the law of one who did not have intent in Avos?

Rav Elyashiv: He should pray again. However, the Rema (101:1) says not to nowadays, for it is likely that also in his repetition, he will not intend. The Bi'ur Halachah (ibid.) says that if in the middle of Tefilah he realizes that he did not intend in Avos, he should wait to hear it from the Shali'ach Tzibur. If not, the rest of his Berachos are l'Vatalah, for he was not Yotzei! I question this. Also the Shali'ach Tzibur is almost sure not to have intent, so it does not help to hear it from him. (NOTE: Why did he say 'almost sure'? We said only that he is likely not to intend! Also, perhaps a Shali'ach Tzibur is different! - PF) Also, if one prays alone, how may he continue and bless l'Vatalah?! Why may one pray from the beginning, if it will probably be l'Vatalah?! Rather, we must say that even though one who lacked intent did not fulfill his obligation, his Tefilah was not l'Vatalah. Perhaps the obligation to pray again (before the Rema said that our custom is not to do so) is like Tashlumin, which is like a Nedavah. If so, it does not apply on Shabbos, when one may not pray Nedavah! No one said that one prays again only on weekdays! It seems that the obligation to pray again was stronger than Tashlumin.

Chashukei Chemed: The Halachah does not follow R. Gamliel (who says that a Shali'ach Tzibur exempts even one who knows how to pray - Rosh Hashanah 34b), and even he said so only about people in the fields, due to Ones (they cannot come to the Beis ha'Keneses). Even so, if one prayed but forgot Ya'aleh v'Yavo, he is Yotzei via hearing the Shali'ach Tzibur. Eretz Tzvi (22) says that the same applies to one who did not have intent in Avos. Further, if one Shali'ach Tzibur in the world prayed with proper intent, he is Motzi everyone [who lacked intent].

Did Nevi'im prophesize only about Ba'alei Teshuvah?!

Rashi: This refers to good [rewards] and consolations.

Why does it say "Ayin Lo Ra'asah"?

Rashi: This was not revealed to any Navi.

Why should Ba'alei Teshuvah be in a higher place than Tzadikim who never sinned?

Maharsha: We do not discuss a Ba'al Teshuvah who actually sinned. He is not merely close to sin! Rather, his intent was close to sinning. He overpowered his Yetzer ha'Ra, and did not sin. He repented from his intent to sin. R. Avahu holds that this is a higher level than a Tzadik that the Yetzer ha'Ra did not tempt him and he was not close to sin. R. Yochanan holds that the latter is at a higher level.

Iyun Yakov: This is like the opinion that via Teshuvah alone (Rav Elyashiv - amidst love), Mezid sins become merits. Teshuvah does everything; there is no need for Gilgul to fix what he made crooked.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Be'er Avraham asked, here R. Avahu says that a Ba'al Teshuvah is greater than a total Tzadik. In Bereishis Rabah (2), R. Avahu says that Hash-m prefers the deeds of Tzadikim over those of Resha'im. Yefe To'ar explains, 'Resha'im' are Ba'alei Teshuvah! He answers that here discusses Teshuvah amidst love; the Midrash discusses Teshuvah amidst fear. There it brings "veha'Aretz Haysah Sohu va'Vohu" (Bereishis 1:2); the Zohar explains that it refers to those who serve amidst fear.

Etz Yosef: [A total Tzadik cannot stand in a place of temptation, like a Ba'al Teshuvah can.] A Ba'al Teshuvah need not guard from sin so much. He already killed desires and the Yetzer's power. If not, he would not be able to repent and separate from sin! Therefore, he can stand anywhere. However, a Tzadik needs guarding - 'do not trust in yourself until you die' (Avos 2:4). See Chovos ha'Levavos.

Rav Elyashiv: After he stumbled in desires of this world, his tests are greater than a Tzadik's. Since he overcomes greater tests, he is at a higher level.

Megadim Chadashim citing Radvaz (2:832): Here discusses a Ba'al Teshuvah who was a total Tzadik, and an Aveirah arose and his Yetzer ha'Ra overpowered. He immediately repented and returned to his virtue, and doubled his virtue and Avodah because he tasted sin. Megadim Chadashim - surely this is from Sefer ha'Yashar, who says so almost verbatim.

Megadim Chadashim citing the Vilna Gaon (Imrei No'am): Shamayim caused him to stumble b'Shogeg, so he will fulfill the Mitzvah of Teshuvah.

Megadim Chadashim citing Perush ha'Tefilos of R. Yehudah bar Yakir: The Ba'al Teshuvah is like a slave in front of the king; the total Tzadik is like a noble in front of the king. The slave may enter where the noble may not, but the Tzadik's honor and reward is greater than - he was not a slave! No Tzadik would want to be a Ba'al Teshuvah. Megadim Chadashim: - if so, why does the Gemara say that they argue? R. Avahu agrees that the Tzadik has more reward, just the Ba'al Teshuvah can go where the Tzadik cannot!

Megadim Chadashim citing Kli Yakar (Bamidbar 19:21): A Ba'al Teshuvah must be in the same situation in which he sinned before, isolated with the same woman... A Tzadik may not be isolated, for he may not bring himself to a test. Also R. Chaim Vital, the Ba'al Shem Tov, Ben Yehoyada and others wrote like this. Sefer Chasidim (167), Tzlach, Chavas Da'as and others say, Heaven forbid that a Ba'al Teshuvah may be secluded, and certainly not with the same woman! We say that his Teshuvah is complete if it occurred that he was isolated with her! Leket Yosher says that once, someone did so and sinned again!

Why does the Rambam rule like R. Avahu, that a Ba'al Teshuvah is better? We follow R. Yochanan when he argues with him!

Megadim Chadashim citing Ma'ase Roke'ach: This argument does not affect Halachah, so the general rule does not apply. Maharik (Shoresh 165:4) says that the rules about how we rule are only for matters that apply nowadays. The Chida (Ya'ir Ozen Hei, 13) rejected this, for the Rambam and SMaG ruled about all matters of Kodshim and Taharos based on the rules!

Megadim Chadashim: I brought above (23b) from R. Chananel and Rav Sadya Gaon that whenever it says 'u'Pliga (this argues with) d'Ploni', the Halachah follows Ploni.

Megadim Chadashim: Ri Perla questions this rule of Ma'ase Roke'ach that the Halachah follows R. Yochanan against R. Avahu. Tosfos (Rosh Hashanah 34b) says that we follow R. Avahu, for he was after R. Yochanan!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Mo'adim b'Halachah (68) brings from Tzafnas Pane'ach that a Ba'al Teshuvah is greater. If one was Mekadesh a girl 'on condition that I am a Tzadik', she is Safek Mekudeshes - perhaps he repented in his heart (Kidushin 49a). If a total Tzadik is greater, even if he repented, she is not Mekudeshes!

Daf Al ha'Daf: Yabi'a Omer (3 EH 8) says that the Gemara and Poskim discussed one who said 'Tzadik'; surely one who repented is a Tzadik, even if he is less than a total Tzadik. However, some Poskim say that he said 'Tzadik Gamur.' If there were a difference, Rishonim would have said so!

How do we learn from "Shalom Shalom la'Rachok vela'Karov" that the Rachok (Ba'al Teshuvah) is better? The verse needed to put one of them first. Perhaps both of them are equal!

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: We learn from the Seifa "Amar Hash-m u'Refasiv." He heals via Teshuvah. If so, why does "vela'Karov" interrupt between Rachok and u'Refasiv? It should have written Rachok last, to be next to u'Refasiv! Rather, u'Refasiv refers to Karov. Hash-m helps him - 'if He did not help him, he could not defeat the Yetzer ha'Ra' (Sukah 52b); 'do not trust in yourself until you die' (Avos 2:4). The Ba'al Teshuvah does not need this help, like Chovos ha'Levavos says. One who is greater, his Yetzer ha'Ra is greater; he needs more help. Therefore, the Ba'al Teshuvah gets more reward.

NOTE: Perhaps we cannot say that they are equal, for if so, the verse should have put Rachok next to u'Refasiv. Rather, it put Rachok first because this is a higher level than Karov! (PF)

For whom is the promise 'one who marries his daughter to a Chacham...'? If he is a Ba'al Teshuvah, all the consolations were promised to him, even without this! If he never sinned, his world to come is even better - "Ayin Lo Ra'asah"!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He is not a Ba'al Teshuvah, and not a Tzadik who never sinned. (NOTE: i.e. He has a minority of sins, and did not repent from them. He will receive the consolations only if he marries his daughter to a Chacham, or does business...)

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): This is difficult, for we say that the Nevi'im prophesized only about the days of Mashi'ach. This implies that they never saw the world to come of Ba'alei Teshuvah!

"Shalom la'Rachok vela'Karov" implies that a Ba'al Teshuvah and a total Tzadik both receive the Nevi'im's promises. How can R. Avahu say that "Ayin Lo Ra'asah" is only for total Tzadikim?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): The promises of Shalom are for distancing damage - this is the same for Tzadikim and Ba'alei Teshuvah. The reward for Tzadikim who never sinned is greater than that of Ba'alei Teshuvah.

Why are all these teachings about 'Nevi'im prophesized only...' brought here? The only one relevant to our Sugya is the one about Ba'alei Teshuvah!

Rav Elyashiv citing Tzlach: All are brought because there is no argument about them. Therefore, the others are brought before the teaching about Ba'alei Teshuvah. Rav Elyashiv - this is astounding. R. Avahu argues with the second teaching!

Here it says that that one cannot compare the reward of one who does business for a Chacham to the reward of a Chacham. In Pesachim (53a, brought in Tur and Rema YD 246) we say that if one finances and enables others to learn, it is as if he learned!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing the Rav of Sakalah: Our Gemara disagrees. The Tur and Rema rule like the Gemara in Pesachim. Kol Torah (57 p.68) challenged this. Both of these teachings are in the name of R. Yochanan!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Meshiv Davar (3:14): Enabling people to learn is great, but it does not make the supporter equal to a Chacham. The spiritual reward of Torah is unlike reward of Mitzvos. A Mashal for this - the king give signs of honor to certain people - anyone can receive this. One person is made Sar Tzava due to his talent in war. Others cannot receive this! One who supports a Chacham will sit in the Yeshivah above, but he is not the same as a Chacham - "Ayin Lo Ra'asah."

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Igros Moshe (YD 4:37): Here discuss one who gives some support to a Chacham. Pesachim, the Tur and Rema discuss a Yisachar-Zevulun contract. Then, the supporter is rewarded exactly like the Chacham.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Bereishis Rabah (63) says "b'Tzel ha'Chochmah b'Tzel ha'Kesef" (Koheles 7:12) - in the future, Hash-m will make a Chupah for those who toil in Torah, and those who benefit Chachamim. Yefe To'ar - this implies that their reward is the same. I heard that there are three levels of benefiting Chachamim. (a) The Chacham gains, and the supporter does not lose. The Chacham's reward is qualitatively greater - "Ayin Lo Ra'asah." (b) The Chacham gains, and the supporter loses. Then, they are equal. (c) He supported the Chacham from his youth, before he was a Ben Torah. He caused everything that he learned, like Azaryah and Shimon. Then, the supporter is greater than the Chacham. This is why Zevulun's Berachah precedes Yisachar's. (NOTE: Why would Zevulun support Yisachar before Yisachar was a Ben Torah?! Perhaps Shevet Zevulun recognized that Bnei Yisachar become great Chachamim, so they supported them from the beginning. - PF) Yefe To'ar - I disagree. Others do not cling to Shechinah like a Chacham. Especially according to the Rambam, that the world to come is intellectual, one who is not a Chacham cannot understand like a Chacham. "B'Tzel ha'Chochmah..." does not mean that they are equal; rather, they are at a level close to them. Hash-m will give to them understanding so they can cling to Him. "You will cling to Him" refers to one who marries his daughter to a Chacham... (Kesuvos 111b). Azaryah is mentioned before Shimon, and Zevulun's Berachah precedes Yisachar's, to show their awesome merit. Do not infer that the supporter is greater!

What is wine that has been guarded in its grapes from the six days of creation?

Rashba: This is a secret. The simple meaning is, wine gladdens the heart and makes forgotten worries about occurrences - "v'Yayin Yismach Levav Enosh" (Tehilim 104:15), "Yishteh v'Yishkach Risho" (Mishlei 31:7). Therefore, wine hints to Simchah without any mixture of worry. The wine is hidden for Chachamim, for wine symbolizes also Torah - "Lechu Shivru ve'Echelo u'Lechu Shivru b'Lo Chesef uv'Lo Mechir Yayin v'Chalav" (Yeshayah 55:1), "Lechu Lachamu v'Lachami u'Shesu b'Yayin Masachti" (Mishlei 9:5). Therefore, we say that the wine is hidden for those who engage in Torah, which is compared to wine - Midah k'Neged Midah. It says that the wine has been guarded in its grapes since the six days of creation, to hint to pleasure prepared from the time of creation. Also, good in this world from the six days of creation and onwards is not complete. Sadness is mixed in - mishaps, illnesses and death. That wine of Simchah will not have any sadness. It is guarded from mishaps that occur from the six days of creation and onwards.

Maharsha: Wine hints to Sod (secret); its Gematriya is the same as that of Yayin (Sanhedrin 38a). 'Guarded in its grapes from the six days of creation' hints to something spiritual, Yesh me'Ayin, similar to those grapes, which were created from nothing. This is unlike grapes planted afterwards, which are Yesh mi'Yesh. No eye saw before creation, when there was nothing other than Hash-m.

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: Rav Sadya Gaon, in his Perush on Shir ha'Shirim, said that Chachamim gave a Mashal, of a king who sent a gem to his son. He feared lest people steal it. He was clever to cover it with silver and gold, to hide the beauty of the gem. He told only his son, via a scroll. So Hash-m hid the interior of the Torah due to Resha'im, lest they take its secrets and inner power for evil. The reward of the world to come is knowing secrets of Torah hidden from our eyes in this world, for this reason.

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Pardes Yosef (Vayetzei p.580): This is why the custom is to cover wine, lest Nochrim see it. "Ayin Lo Ra'asah" is wine guarded...

Rav Elyashiv: Wine is the metaphor for pleasure of this world. The wine of Bereishis was created Yesh me'Ayin - man cannot fathom this. So man cannot fathom reward in the world to come!

Megadim Chadashim: Targum Yonasan (Bereishis 27:25) implies that it is literally wine that has been in the grapes from Bereishis; Yakov gave [such wine] to Yitzchak before he blessed him.

What are Gan, Eden and the river?

Rashba: Also these are secrets. Adam was in Gan Eden - its trees, springs and all its matters are illustrations for us for very fine matters - one sees them and contemplates a spiritual matter. So Hash-m gave for us forms of the Beis ha'Mikdash and its Kelim, e.g. the Menorah and Shulchan. However, they were more revealed in Gan Eden, since he was more Mekudash and Hash-m's hands formed him. Eden is the source of the spring - "v'Nahar Yotzei me'Eden Lehashkos Es ha'Gan." Adam did not know about it; he was only in the Gan. Therefore, we say that no person saw it.

Maharsha: Eden is a spiritual place. Even Adam before he sinned, about whom it says "Ani Amarti Elokim Atem" (Tehilim 82:7), did not merit to see it. It is the world to come -Tzadikim sit with crowns on their heads and enjoy the Shechinah's radiance (17a). In Ta'anis (10a) it says that Gan is one part in 60 of Eden.

Why should one pray in a house with windows?

Rashi: They cause him to have intent. He looks to Shamayim, and his heart is humbled.

Etz Yosef: The Beis Yosef (OC 95) asked, one must put his eyes down when praying! He answered, Rashi does not mean that he looks to Shamayim the entire time. Rather, if he will look towards Shamayim, his heart will be humbled.

R. Yonah #1: Seeing the light settles his mind, and enables him to have intent.

R. Yonah #2: It means that it should have windows open to the east, like it says "Neged Yerushalayim." Through looking [towards Yerushalayim], he intends more for the place, and his Tefilah is accepted.

Rashba: Something in front of man's eyes, he intends for it more. Daniel opened windows facing Yerushalayim in the attic in which he prayed, so his intent will cling to the One who put His Shechinah there. Similarly, if one prays, and windows are open to see Shamayim, he contemplates Hash-m's grandeur - "ha'Shamayim Mesaperim Kevod Kel" (Tehilim 19:2), and he has more intent in his praises - "Ki Er'eh Shamecha Ma'ase Eztbe'osecha Yare'ach v'Chochavim Asher Konanta" (Tehilim 8:4).

Maharsha: If there are no windows, the place is sealed. It is as if there is no place for his Tefilah to ascend. This is why Rava would not decree a fast on a cloudy day (32b) - "Sakosa ve'Anan Lach me'Avor Tefilah." One might have thought that if so, it is best to pray in a totally open place without any obstructions, e.g. a valley - therefore right after this, it teaches that one should not do so; it is brazen.

Iyun Yakov: It says in Yevamos (105b) that one who prays must look down, and his heart should face up - "Nisa Levavenu El Kapayim El Kel ba'Shamayim" (Eichah 3:41).

Why is praying in a valley brazen?

Rashi: When he is in a covered place, fear of the King is upon him, and his heart is broken.

Iyun Yakov: Even though he did improperly, he need not pray again, for impudence works, even towards Shamayim (Sanhedrin 105a).

Yitzchak prayed in a field! Is this unlike a valley?

Tosfos #1: That refers to Har ha'Moriyah, like it says in Pesachim (88a) 'Yitzchak called it a field.'

Tosfos #2: Here discusses a valley where people and travelers pass.

Why is one who publicizes his sins brazen?

Tosfos: If his sin is covered, he is ashamed. If he publicizes his sins, it seems that he is not ashamed. Anyone who [sins] and is ashamed, he is immediately pardoned (12b).

Me'iri: Here we discuss Viduy, and sins Bein Adam la'Makom. Sins Bein Adam l'Chavero, he must publicize them and appease his colleague via bringing friends until he is appeased. Maharsha - Yoma 86b says that here refers to sins Bein Adam la'Makom. It is brazen to reveal that he sinned against Hash-m. Etz Yosef - another opinion there says that one should openly confess sins done in public, but not covert sins.

Why would he say 'this one will die'? It suffices that the calamity occur in its time (9b)!

Daf Al ha'Daf and Chashukei Chemed, citing Divrei Meir (Ekev), Or ha'Me'ir citing Da'as Zekenim, and Chadashim Gam Yeshanim: When he saw that it was decreed that a Yisrael die, he would suggested an exchange - this Yisrael will live, and this Nochri will die in place of him. "V'Eten Adam Tachtecha" -- we read "Adam" as "Edom" (62b; they will receive punishments in place of Yisrael). The Zohar says that Hash-m brought 13 others in front of the angel of death to redeem R. Yosi. "V'Hesir Hash-m Mimecha Kol Choli... u'Nesanam b'Chol Sone'echa" (Devarim 7:15).

NOTE: It is difficult to explain our Gemara like this. If so, it records only what he said about those who had a decree of death on them! If sometimes his Tefilah that a Nochri redeem a Yisrael was accepted, and sometimes not, what was their question 'how do you know?' (PF)

Why did they ask 'how do you know [who will live]?'

Iyun Yakov: R. Chanina was the greatest of his generation. Presumably, he prayed with intent, and did not err in his Tefilah, which is a bad sign for those who sent him. If so, how can you know? He said, even though I do not err, I have a Siman, based on whether or not my prayer flows smoothly.

What is Meturaf?

Rashi #1: The Choleh is messed up.

Rashi #2: The Tefilah is torn up and not accepted.

Me'iri citing the Rambam: He will die. This is an expression of forgetting - it is lost from memory.

Maharsha citing the Aruch: It is an expression of Tereifah. The Choleh was already Tereifah, and will surely die. This is like the opinion (Chulin 57b) that a Tereifah cannot live [a year].

Why did we ask for the source that 'if my prayer flows smoothly, it is accepted...'? Perhaps he saw that so occurs!

Rav Elyashiv: His words implied that he had a tradition for this.

How do we learn from "Borei Niv Sefasayim Shalom..."?

Rashi: When Niv Sefasayim (his words) are Bari (healthy), he is guaranteed Shalom.

Maharsha: When there is Shalom for Niv Sefasayim - the words flow smoothly without mistakes, there is Shalom for the Choleh. Shalom la'Rachok vela'Karov u'Refasiv."

Why did R. Gamliel send two Chachamim to R. Chanina?

Iyun Yakov: Perhaps this was so they could hold his hands in prayer, like Tosfos says about R. Chiya and his sons.

NOTE: Tosfos (Bava Metzi'a 86a) said that Rebbi told three of them to lead the prayer, just like Aharon and Chur were with Moshe. He did not say that his sons held R. Chiya's hands. Presumably, only Moshe's hands needed to be up, so Yisrael would see them and direct their hearts to Hash-m (Rosh Hashanah 3:8). He needed help to hold his hands up, for they were heavy due to slackening (Hash-m judged him meticulously. The Targum [attributed to] Yonasan on Shemos 17:12 says, he delayed the war for a day. Rashi (ibid.) - he appointed Yehoshua, and did not go himself with the soldiers.) (PF)

Rav Elyashiv: It was so there would be two to pray with him, just like Aharon and Chur were with Moshe.

Why did R. Chanina go to the upper story and pray before they came?

Maharsha: Perhaps he already knew that R. Gamliel's son was ill, and when he saw two Chachamim coming to him, he sensed that it was to ask him to request mercy.

Why did they ask him 'are you a Navi'?

Maharsha: It says about Avraham "Ki Navi Hu v'Yispalel Ba'adcha ve'Chyeh" (Bereishis 20:7) - he knows that you will live via his Tefilah. Are you like Avraham?

Etz Yosef citing Mayan ha'Berachos: They should have asked 'are you a Navi?' about how he knew to pray before they came! His answer (if my prayer flows smoothly...) does not apply here! There is Navi, and Ro'eh. Sometimes Navi is a higher level. He knows all matters far away, for they reveal to him. Ro'eh is a lower level, like Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Even after Nevu'ah ceased, all Chachamim in the days of the Tana'im and Amora'im had this, and also Chachamim and Tzadikim nowadays. They look at people's faces and foreheads, and know their character and what is in their hearts. However, they do not know from afar, only what they see. They were not surprised that he knew to pray from when he saw them coming - a Chacham or Tzadik can know this. However, how did he know that the fever abated? This is like Nevu'ah!

They asked only 'are you a Navi?' Why did he answer 'I am neither a Navi nor a Ben Navi'?

Iyun Yakov: He answered like the verse (Amos 7:14).

Why did R. Yochanan ben Zakai say 'pray for him, and he will live'?

Iyun Yakov: He saw Hashgachah, that when his son became ill, R. Chanina ben Dosa, who used to pray for the sick, came.

Why did he put his head between his knees?

Megadim Chadashim: We find that Eliyahu did so (Melachim I, 18:42); Ralbag there says that Tefilah is heard better that way. Also R. Eliezer ben Dordiya did so (Avodah Zarah 17a). Ben Yehoyada explains based on Sod.

What is the comparison to a slave in front of the king and a noble in front of the king?

Rashi: A slave is part of the household; he enters and leaves without permission. A noble does not come in front of the king so often.

Ha'Kosev citing Ohr Hash-m: R. Yochanan ben Zakai was greater in Chochmah, but R. Chanina's Avodah was at a higher level, therefore his Tefilah helped more.

Ha'Kosev: Do not think that Hash-m hears Tefilah like a mortal king who did not intend to benefit a person, and due to his supplication, he changes his mind. Hash-m does not change His thoughts like a human! "Va'Yinachem Hash-m Al ha'Ra'ah" (Shemos 32:14) - Dibrah Torah ki'Lshon Bnei Adam (this is a mere anthropomorphism). When a person prays, he changes himself in thought, speech and deed. It is as if he became a new person. Hash-m's mercy decreed to oversee him. He says 'return us to Your Torah', 'pardon us', and realizes that no one other than Hash-m can grant his request. This causes him to change his deeds. However, why does it help to pray for someone else? The 'recipient' did not change! R. Chanina prayed that a person recover, so he will know that Elokim hears Tefilah. R. Chanina was not concerned for food for his house or to eat the Peros of his merits in this world for himself, only for needs of others. "Abirei Lev ha'Rechokim mi'Tzedakah" - the entire world is fed in their merit, and they are not fed even in their own merits. A Bas Kol [announces that the entire world is fed in R. Chanina's merit, and he subsists on one Kav of carobs for an entire week]! A Mashal for R. Yochanan ben Zakai's answer - great kings who love honor, two kinds of people bow to them. (a) Young servants who serve him at all times and run in front of him - these are true servants. (b) Nobles, the son of nobles. They come to his palace and give counsel. It is not honorable for them to request small matters. Rather, they engage in great matters of the kingdom. Similarly for Tzadikim who serve the King of the world. Aside from the great future reward stored for them, to have crowns... and each has a dwelling according to his honor, they eat Peros of their Mitzvah in this world. A great noble like R. Yochanan ben Zakai does not lower himself to pray for the ill, lest this distract him from investigating secrets of Torah. R. Chanina ben Dosa wanted to bring merit to the Rabim. His Avodah was to pray for Cholim. Hash-m often hears the voice of such a servant. If there is a reason why He does not, R. Chanina would sense that his Tefilah is not fluent on his tongue!

NOTE: People who are very far from the level of R. Chanina, why does their Tefilah on behalf of others help? (PF)

Maharsha: I explained in Yevamos 64a that sometimes another's Tefilah for Ploni is accepted more than Ploni's Tefilah for himself. We said above (5b) that a prisoner cannot release himself from jail. This is why Yitzchak prayed for Rivkah, and "va'Ye'etar Lo" (Hash-m answered him), and not her (she was barren). Perhaps this is the primary reason why R. Yochanan ben Zakai and R. Gamliel sent to R. Chanina to pray for their sons. Amidst humility, R. Yochanan ben Zakai said 'I could put my head between my knees all day, and I would not be answered!' His wife did not know the primary reason (another's Tefilah is accepted more), therefore she asked. He answered according to her thinking with a Mashal. R. Chanina is like a slave who is regularly in the king's house. R. Yochanan ben Zakai is like a noble - when he needs to come in front of the king to request, he needs the servants to bring him in front of the king. So R. Yochanan ben Zakai, who engaged in needs of the Tzibur, and many needed him for Talmud Torah, for he was the Av Beis Din, he did not have time to pray constantly for people.

Etz Yosef: This is like Chazal said "u'Svivav NiS'ARaH Me'od" - Hash-m is exacting with His Tzadikim like a Sa'ARaH (hair; Yevamos 121b). He is more exacting with greater Tzadikim, and less likely to fulfill their requests. R. Chanina is like a slave - Hash-m is not so meticulous with him. R. Yochanan ben Zakai spoke in a way that can be understood either way (perhaps R. Chanina is greater than himself), to avoid praising himself. He explained the truth to his wife, who had asked.

Rav Elyashiv: Even though the noble can request greater matters from the king than the slave, the slave can perceive what is the time of Ratzon in front of the king. Then, the king fulfills requests immediately.

NOTE: This is a beautiful Perush, but how does it apply to R. Chanina? It seems that he prayed whenever he was asked, or when he knew about a Choleh. We do not find that he waited for a time of Ratzon! (PF)