Back
Berakhot
Daf 34aכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – בְּסוֹף כָּל בְּרָכָה וּבְרָכָה, וְהַמֶּלֶךְ – תְּחִלַּת כָּל בְּרָכָה וּבְרָכָה וְסוֹף כָּל בְּרָכָה וּבְרָכָה.
It is appropriate, though, for a High Priest to bow at the end of each and every blessing; and for a king to bow at the beginning of each and every blessing and at the end of each and every blessing.
RASHI
כהן גדול בסוף כל ברכה כל מה שהוא גדול ביותר צריך להכניע ולהשפיל עצמו:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר נַחְמָנִי, לְדִידִי מִפַּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֶדְיוֹט – כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – תְּחִלַּת כָּל בְּרָכָה וּבְרָכָה, הַמֶּלֶךְ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁכָּרַע, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ זוֹקֵף, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כְּכַלּוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה לְהִתְפַּלֵּל וגו׳ קָם מִלִּפְנֵי מִזְבַּח ה׳ מִכְּרֹעַ עַל בִּרְכָּיו״.
Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani said: It was explained to me directly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself differently: An ordinary person, conducts himself as we said; a High Priest bows at the beginning of each and every blessing; the king, once he has bowed at the beginning of the first blessing, does not rise until he concludes the entire prayer, as it is stated: “And it was that when Solomon finished praying all of his prayer to the Lord, he rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling upon his knees with his hands spread forth toward the heavens” (I Kings 8:54).
RASHI
אינו זוקף עד שיגמור:
קם מלפני מזבח ה' מכרוע רישיה דקרא ויהי ככלות שלמה להתפלל והדר קם מכרוע:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קִידָּה – עַל אַפַּיִם, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״וַתִּקֹּד בַּת שֶׁבַע אַפַּיִם אֶרֶץ״, כְּרִיעָה – עַל בִּרְכַּיִם, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״מִכְּרֹעַ עַל בִּרְכָּיו״, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה – זוֹ פִּשּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״הֲבוֹא נָבוֹא אֲנִי וְאִמְּךָ וְאַחֶיךָ לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת לְךָ אָרְצָה״.
Having mentioned Solomon bowing, the Gemara distinguishes between various types of bowing. The Sages taught in a baraita : The term kidda means bowing upon one’s face, with his face toward the ground, as it is stated: “Then Bathsheba bowed [ vatikod ] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means bowing upon one’s knees, as regarding Solomon it is stated: He finished praying and “he rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [ mikkeroa ] upon his knees.” Finally, hishtaḥava’a ,
RASHI
ארצה לשון משתטח משמע:
TOSAFOT
קידה על אפים ומייתי קרא אע"ג דאשכחן נמי בענין אחר יש לומר דקים ליה מקבלה דקידה על אפים ומייתי קרא דמסייעו:
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: חָזִינָא לְהוּ אַבַּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּמַצְלוּ אַצְלוּיֵי.
On the topic of bowing, Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: I saw Abaye and Rava, who would lean their heads
RASHI
דמצלו אצלויי כשנופלין על פניהם אין פושטין ידיהם ורגליהם אלא מטין על צדיהן:
TOSAFOT
חזינא לאביי ורבא דמצלו אצלויי פירוש שהיו מטין על צדיהן:
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: הַכּוֹרֵעַ בְּהוֹדָאָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּבָּח; וְתַּנְיָא אִידָךְ: הֲרֵי זֶה מְגוּנֶּה!
The Gemara asks: One baraita taught: One who bows in the blessing of thanksgiving, it is praiseworthy. And it was taught in another baraita : One who bows in the blessing of thanksgiving, it is reprehensible. These baraitot are contradictory.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – בַּתְּחִלָּה, הָא – לְבַסּוֹף.
The Gemara reconciles these two baraitot : This is not difficult; this baraita , which praises one who bows in the blessing of thanksgiving, refers to one who bows at the beginning of the blessing. This baraita , which condemns one who bows in the blessing of thanksgiving, refers to one who bows at the end of the blessing.
RASHI
בתחלה כורע:
רָבָא כְּרַע בְּהוֹדָאָה תְּחִלָּה וְסוֹף. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: אַמַּאי קָא עָבֵיד מָר הָכִי? – אָמַר לְהוּ: חֲזִינָא לְרַב נַחְמָן דִּכְרַע, וַחֲזִינָא לֵיהּ לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת דְּקָא עֲבַד הָכִי.
Rava bowed in the blessing of thanksgiving,
RASHI
חזינא לרב נחמן דכרע תחלה וסוף:
וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹרֵעַ בְּהוֹדָאָה הֲרֵי זֶה מְגוּנֶּה!
But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who bows in thanksgiving, it is reprehensible?
הַהִיא – בְּהוֹדָאָה שֶׁבְּהַלֵּל.
Rava explained: That baraita refers to one who bows in the thanksgiving that is in hallel , when one recites: Give thanks to the Lord. Then, bowing is inappropriate.
RASHI
בהודאה דהלל הודו לה' כי טוב:
וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹרֵעַ בְּהוֹדָאָה וּבְהוֹדָאָה שֶׁל הַלֵּל הֲרֵי זֶה מְגוּנֶּה!
The Sages continue to question Rava’s conduct: But wasn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita : One who bows in thanksgiving or in thanksgiving of hallel , it is reprehensible? The term thanksgiving unqualified does not refer to thanksgiving of hallel ; it obviously refers to the blessing of thanksgiving recited in the Amida prayer. One who bows in either, it is reprehensible.
כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא – בְּהוֹדָאָה דְּבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן.
The Gemara rejects this challenge as well: When that baraita was taught, it was in reference to the blessing of thanksgiving, the second blessing recited in Grace after Meals: We thank You.
מתני׳ הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל וְטָעָה – סִימָן רַע לוֹ, וְאִם שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר הוּא – סִימָן רַע לְשׁוֹלְחָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא, שֶׁהָיָה מִתְפַּלֵּל עַל הַחוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר: ״זֶה חַי וְזֶה מֵת״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ? אָמַר לָהֶם: אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְּפִלָּתִי בְּפִי – יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְקוּבָּל, וְאִם לָאו – יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְטוֹרָף.
Concluding its discussion of the halakhot of prayer, the mishna discusses less practical aspects of prayer. One who prays and realizes that he erred in his prayer, it is a bad omen for him; it indicates to him that his prayer was not accepted. And if he who erred is the communal prayer leader, it is a bad omen for those who sent him, because a person’s agent has legal status equivalent to his own. On a similar note, they said about Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa
RASHI
מתני' אם שגורה אם סדורה תפלתי בפי במרוצה ואיני נכשל ותחנתי נובעת מלבי אל פי כל מה שאני חפץ להאריך בתחנונים:
שהוא מטורף החולה לשון אחר [לשון] טורפין לו תפלתו בפניו כלומר התפלה שהתפללו עליו מטורפת וטרודה ממנו ואינה מקובלת:
גמ׳ אַהַיָּיא?
We learned in the mishna that if one errs in his prayer it is a bad omen. The Gemara asks: In which blessing is an error a bad omen?
RASHI
גמ' אהייא בהיכא ובאיזו מן הברכות הוי טעות בסימן רע:
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא מִשּׁוּם חַד דְּבֵי רַבִּי: בְּאָבוֹת.
Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rav Safra said in the name of one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: An error is a bad omen in the first blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of Patriarchs .”
RASHI
באבות שהוא תחלת התפלה רמז הוא שאין חפץ בה:
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנִי לָהּ אַבָּרַיְיתָא: הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּכַוֵּין אֶת לִבּוֹ בְּכוּלָּן, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְכַוֵּין בְּכוּלָּן – יְכַוֵּין אֶת לִבּוֹ בְּאַחַת;
Some teach that this statement was made on a baraita referring to another topic. It was taught in a baraita : One who prays must focus his heart
TOSAFOT
יכוין לבו באחת מהן והא דאמרי' בסוף פרק ת"ה (ברכות ל ב) לעולם ימוד אדם דעתו אם יכול לכוין יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל יש לפרש התם נמי באחת מהן:
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא מִשּׁוּם חַד דְּבֵי רַבִּי: בְּאָבוֹת.
Regarding this baraita , Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rav Safra said in the name of one of the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In one refers to the blessing of Patriarchs.
״אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא״ וכו׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בּוֹרֵא נִיב שְׂפָתַיִם שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם לָרָחוֹק וְלַקָּרוֹב אָמַר ה׳ וּרְפָאתִיו״.
We learned in the mishna: They said about Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa that the indication whether or not his prayer was accepted was whether the prayer was fluent in his mouth as he recited it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that this is an accurate indication of whether or not his prayer was accepted, derived? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: As the verse stated: “The Lord that creates the expression of the lips
RASHI
בורא ניב שפתים כשהניב בריא באדם אז מובטח על השלום:
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים כּוּלָּן לֹא נִתְנַבְּאוּ אֶלָּא לְמַשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם וּלְעוֹשֶׂה פְּרַקְמַטְיָא לְתַּלְמִיד חָכָם, וְלִמְהַנֶּה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם מִנְּכָסָיו, אֲבָל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים עַצְמָן – ״עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ יַעֲשֶׂה לִמְחַכֵּה לוֹ״.
In conclusion of this discussion, the Gemara cites that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said with regard to the reward of the righteous: All the prophets only prophesied in their prophecies of consolation, with regard to one who values wisdom and therefore marries his daughter to a Torah scholar and to one who conducts business [ perakmatya ]
RASHI
לא נתנבאו הטובות והנחמות:
עין לא ראתה לא נראית ולא נגלית לשום נביא:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים כּוּלָּן לֹא נִתְנַבְּאוּ אֶלָּא לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, אֲבָל לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא – ״עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ״.
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All the prophets only prophesied with regard to the change in world order in the end of days with regard to the days of the Messiah. However, with regard to the World-to-Come, which exists on a higher level, it is stated: “No eye has seen it, God, aside from You.”
וּפְּלִיגָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין בֵּין הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה לִימוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ אֶלָּא שִׁעְבּוּד מַלְכוּיּוֹת בִּלְבַד. שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֹא יֶחְדַּל אֶבְיוֹן מִקֶּרֶב הָאָרֶץ״.
And the Gemara notes that this statement disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: The only difference between this world and the days of the Messiah
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים כּוּלָּן לֹא נִתְנַבְּאוּ אֶלָּא לְבַעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה, אֲבָל צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים – ״עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה אֱלֹהִים זוּלָתְךָ״.
And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: All of the prophets only prophesied their prophecies of consolation with regard to penitents but with regard to the full-fledged righteous it is stated: “No eye has seen it, God, aside from You.”
וּפְּלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ: מָקוֹם שֶׁבַּעֲלֵי תְשׁוּבָה עוֹמְדִין – צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִים אֵינָם עוֹמְדִין, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם לָרָחוֹק וְלַקָּרוֹב״. לָרָחוֹק בְּרֵישָׁא וַהֲדַר לַקָּרוֹב.
And the Gemara notes that this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu who holds that penitents are superior to the righteous. As Rabbi Abbahu said: In the place where penitents stand, even the full-fledged righteous do not stand,
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לָךְ: מַאי ״רָחוֹק״ – שֶׁהָיָה רָחוֹק מִדְּבַר עֲבֵירָה מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּמַאי קָרוֹב – שֶׁהָיָה קָרוֹב לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה, וְנִתְרַחֵק מִמֶּנּוּ הָשְׁתָּא.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: What is the meaning of him who is far? This refers to the full-fledged righteous who was distant from an act of transgression from the outset, and to whom peace is extended first. What is meant by him who is near? This refers to the penitent who was close to an act of transgression but has now distanced himself from it, and to whom peace is extended only after it has been extended to him who has been righteous from the outset.
RASHI
רחוק שהיה רחוק כל ימיו מן העבירה דהיינו צדיק מעיקרו:
מַאי ״עַיִן לֹא רָאָתָה״? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: זֶה יַיִן הַמְשׁוּמָּר בַּעֲנָבָיו מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית; רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: זֶה עֵדֶן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁלְטָה בּוֹ עֵין כָּל בִּרְיָה.
Earlier, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that there is a reward referred to in the verse: “No eye has seen it.” The Gemara asks: What is this reward about which it is said: “No eye has seen it”? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: That is the wine that has been preserved
שֶׁמָּא תֹּאמַר, אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן הֵיכָן הָיָה? – בַּגַן.
Lest you will say: Where was Adam the first man? Wasn’t he there and didn’t he survey Eden? The Gemara responds: Adam was only in the Garden of Eden, not in Eden itself.
וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמַר: הוּא גַּן, הוּא עֵדֶן – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְנָהָר יוֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת הַגָּן״, גַּן לְחוּד וְעֵדֶן לְחוּד.
And lest you will say: It is the Garden and it is Eden; two names describing the same place. That is not the case, as the verse states: “And a river went out from Eden to water the Garden” (Genesis 2:10). Obviously, the Garden exists on its own and Eden exists on its own.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁחָלָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שִׁגֵּר שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֵצֶל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא לְבַקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. כֵּיוָן שֶרָאָה אוֹתָם עָלָה לָעֲלִיָּיה וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. בִּירִידָתוֹ, אָמַר לָהֶם: לְכוּ – שֶׁחֲלָצְתוֹ חַמָּה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וְכִי נָבִיא אַתָּה?! אָמַר לָהֶן: לֹא נָבִיא אָנֹכִי וְלֹא בֶן נָבִיא אָנֹכִי, אֶלָּא כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי: אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְּפִלָּתִי בְּפִי – יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְקוּבָּל, וְאִם לָאו – יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְטוֹרָף. יָשְׁבוּ וְכָתְבוּ וְכִוְּונוּ אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. וּכְשֶׁבָּאוּ אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָמַר לָהֶן: הָעֲבוֹדָה! לֹא חִסַּרְתֶּם וְלֹא הוֹתַרְתֶּם אֶלָּא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה חֲלָצַתּוּ חַמָּה וְשָׁאַל לָנוּ מַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת.
Having mentioned Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa in our mishna, the Gemara proceeds to further praise the efficacy of his prayer: The Sages taught: There was an incident where Rabban Gamliel’s son fell ill. Rabban Gamliel dispatched two scholars to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa to pray for mercy and healing on his behalf. When Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa saw them approaching, he went up to the attic on the roof of his house and prayed for mercy on his behalf. Upon his descent, he said to the messengers: You may go and return to Rabban Gamliel, as the fever has already left his son and he has been healed. The messengers asked him: How do you know? Are you a prophet? He replied to them: I am neither a prophet nor son of a prophet (see Amos 7:14), but I have received a tradition with regard to this indication: If my prayer is fluent in my mouth as I recite it and there are no errors, I know that my prayer is accepted. And if not, I know that my prayer is rejected. The Gemara relates that these messengers sat and wrote and approximated that precise moment when Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa told them this. When they came before Rabban Gamliel and related all that had happened and showed him what they had written, Rabban Gamliel said to them: I swear by the Temple service that in the time you wrote you were neither earlier or later; rather, this is how the event transpired: Precisely at that moment his fever broke and he asked us for water to drink.
RASHI
חלצתו חמה שלפתו ניטלה מגופו החמה הוא החולי הקודחו חלצתו לשון חלץ מהם:
לא חסרתם שעה:
וְשׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא שֶׁהָלַךְ לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְחָלָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי. אָמַר לוֹ: חֲנִינָא בְּנִי, בַּקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים וְיִחְיֶה. הִנִּיחַ רֹאשׁוֹ בֵּין בִּרְכָּיו וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים – וְחָיָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי: אִלְמָלֵי הִטִּיחַ בֶּן זַכַּאי אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בֵּין בִּרְכָּיו כָּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ – לֹא הָיוּ מַשְׁגִּיחִים עָלָיו. אָמְרָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ: וְכִי חֲנִינָא גָּדוֹל מִמְּךָ?! אָמַר לָהּ: לָאו, אֶלָּא הוּא דּוֹמֶה כְּעֶבֶד לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ, וַאֲנִי דּוֹמֶה כְּשַׂר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ.
And there was another incident involving Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, who went to study Torah before Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s son fell ill. He said to him: Ḥanina, my son, pray for mercy on behalf of my son so that he will live. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa placed his head between his knees in order to meditate and prayed for mercy upon his behalf, and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s son lived. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said about himself: Had ben Zakkai stuck his head between his knees throughout the entire day, they would have paid him no attention. His wife said to him: And is Ḥanina greater than you? He replied to her: No, but his prayer is better received than my own because he is like a servant before the King,
RASHI
כעבד בן בית נכנס ויוצא שלא ברשות:
כשר לפני המלך שאינו רגיל לבא לפניו:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם אֶלָּא בְּבַיִת שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם חַלּוֹנוֹת, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר: ״וְכַוִּין פְּתִיחָן לֵיהּ בְּעִלִּיתֵהּ (לָקֳבֵל) נֶגֶד יְרוּשְׁלֶם.״
And on the topic of prayer, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may only pray in a house with windows,
RASHI
חלונות שגורמין לו שיכוין לבו שהוא מסתכל כלפי שמים ולבו נכנע:
אֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: חֲצִיף עָלַי מַאן דִּמְצַלֵּי בְּבַקְתָא.
With regard to the appropriate place to pray, Rav Kahana said: I consider impudent one who prays in a field.
RASHI
דמצלי בבקתא בבקעה שכשהוא במקום צניעות חלה עליו אימת מלך ולבו נשבר:
TOSAFOT
חציף עלי מאן דמצלי בבקתא וא"ת הכתיב ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה (בראשית כ״ד:ס״ג) י"ל דהתם מיירי בהר המוריה כדאמרי' בפסחים פרק האשה (פסחים פח א) לא כיצחק שקראו שדה וכו' א"נ בקתא דהכא מיירי בבקעה במקום שרגילין שם בני אדם לעבור והולכי דרכים:
וַאֲמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: חֲצִיף עָלַי מַאן דִּמְפָרֵשׁ חֶטְאֵיהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵי נְשׂוּי פֶּשַׁע כְּסוּי חֲטָאָה״. הדרן עלך אין עומדין
Employing parallel language, Rav Kahana also said: I consider impudent one who specifies his transgression,
TOSAFOT
כסוי חטאה וטעמא לפי שאז מתבייש על חטאו אבל אם מפרש חטאיו דומה שאינו מתבייש עליו ואמרינן לעיל פרק קמא (ברכות ד' יב:) כל העושה דבר ומתבייש מוחלים לו מיד:
SUMMARY
Chapter Five contains discussions of ideas, mostly aggadic in nature, relating to the essence of prayer and its general role. Nevertheless, the aggada sections do not deal solely with the abstract and the sublime; they have practical halakhic ramifications in determining the appropriate manner of prayer. Two discussions constitute the bulk of the chapter. The first deals with an individual’s approach to prayer; the second relates to permitted and prohibited additions to the prayer formula. Discussion of the individual’s approach to prayer, which appears at the beginning and the end of the chapter, establishes the need for absolute concentration on the prayer. The mitzva of prayer, as opposed to the mitzva to recite Shema, is not by Torah law.However, since the essence of prayer is the intent of the heart one must concentrate on his prayer with all his might. Only a clear and present danger to one’s life exempts him from this absolute demand. Because of the obligation to concentrate in this manner, any error or slip of the tongue in the course of prayer renders it seriously flawed, which is disgraceful for the prayer leader and for those who sent him. Most of the halakhot in this chapter deal with additions to the established prayers. At the same time, not all of the changes are discussed in this chapter. They appear in the prayer book, which details the additions and changes introduced on Shabbat, Festivals, and other days of a unique nature. Furthermore, any of the issues that relate to changes in the prayers are discussed throughout the Talmud in different contexts: The prayers for rain in tractate Ta’anit; the additions on Shabbat, the New Moon, and Hanukka in tractate Shabbat; and so on. However, as Tosafot explains, the halakhot here can be seen as fundamental principles that serve as the basis for more detailed discussions in other tractates. In this chapter, only the general framework is presented: These types of additions to prayer exist, and they are to be recited at the appropriate times. The discussions in this chapter do not reach a clear conclusion even with regard to inappropriate additions. These include those that undermine the style of prayer, e.g., unnecessary repetition, or those that compromise the fundamental tenets of the Torah, e.g., additions that are liable to appear heretical. These issues are discussed in greater detail in other tractates.