"נסיון האושר השלם" - על השמחה

In the morning, the Sages rolled up these rugs and took them, and they arose and went out to the market with them. And when Abba found them, the Sages said to him: Let the Master appraise these rugs, how much they are worth. He said to them: Their value is such and such. They said to him: But perhaps they are worth more. He said to them: This is what I paid for them. They said to him: The rugs are yours and we took them from you. After explaining the reason for their actions, the Sages said to him: Please tell us, what did you suspect of us? You knew that we had taken your rugs, and yet you did not say anything. He said to them: I said to myself, certainly an unexpected opportunity for a ransom of prisoners became available for the Sages, and they required immediate funds, but they were too embarrassed to say so to me or to ask for money. Instead, they took the rugs. The Sages said to him: Now that we have explained the situation, let the Master take back the rugs. He said to them: From that moment when I realized they were missing, I put them out of my mind and consigned them for charity. As far as I am concerned, they are already designated for that purpose, and I cannot take them back. Rava was distressed due to the fact that Abaye received greetings from Heaven every Shabbat eve, while Rava received such greetings only once a year, on Yom Kippur eve, as stated above. They said to him: Be content that through your merit you protect your entire city. § The Gemara relates another story about the righteousness of common people. Rabbi Beroka Ḥoza’a was often found in the market of Bei Lefet, and Elijah the Prophet would often appear to him. Once Rabbi Beroka said to Elijah: Of all the people who come here, is there anyone in this market worthy of the World-to-Come? He said to him: No. In the meantime, Rabbi Beroka saw a man who was wearing black shoes, contrary to Jewish custom, and who did not place the sky-blue, dyed thread of ritual fringes on his garment. Elijah said to Rabbi Beroka: That man is worthy of the World-to-Come. Rabbi Beroka ran after the man and said to him: What is your occupation? The man said to him: Go away now, as I have no time, but come back tomorrow and we will talk. The next day, Rabbi Beroka arrived and again said to him: What is your occupation? The man said to him: I am a prison guard [zandukana], and I imprison the men separately and the women separately, and I place my bed between them so that they will not come to transgression. When I see a Jewish woman upon whom gentiles have set their eyes, I risk my life to save her. One day, there was a betrothed young woman among us, upon whom the gentiles had set their eyes. I took dregs [durdayya] of red wine and threw them on the lower part of her dress, and I said: She is menstruating [dastana], so that they would leave her alone. Rabbi Beroka said to him: What is the reason that you do not have threads of ritual fringes, and why do you wear black shoes? The man said to him: Since I come and go among gentiles, I dress this way so that they will not know that I am a Jew. When they issue a decree, I inform the Sages, and they pray for mercy and annul the decree. Rabbi Beroka further inquired: And what is the reason that when I said to you: What is your occupation, you said to me: Go away now but come tomorrow? The man said to him: At that moment, they had just issued a decree, and I said to myself: First I must go and inform the Sages, so that they will pray for mercy over this matter. In the meantime, two brothers came to the marketplace. Elijah said to Rabbi Beroka: These two also have a share in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Beroka went over to the men and said to them: What is your occupation? They said to him: We are jesters, and we cheer up the depressed. Alternatively, when we see two people who have a quarrel between them, we strive to make peace. It is said that for this behavior one enjoys the profits of his actions in this world, and yet his reward is not diminished in the World-to-Come. § The mishna states: For the following calamities they sound the alarm in every place. The Sages taught: For the following calamities they sound the alarm in every place: For blight, for mildew, for locusts, for caterpillars, a type of locust that comes in large swarms and descends upon a certain place, and for dangerous beasts. Rabbi Akiva says: For blight and mildew they sound the alarm over any amount. For locusts, and for caterpillar, even if only a single wing of one of these pests was seen in all of Eretz Yisrael, they sound the alarm over them, as this is a sign that more are on their way. The mishna taught that they sound the alarm for dangerous beasts that have invaded a town. The Sages taught in a baraita: The term dangerous beasts that they said is referring to a situation when there is an abnormal outbreak of the animals in a populated area (see Leviticus 26:22). In this case, they sound the alarm over them. However, if it is not an outbreak, they do not sound the alarm over them. The Gemara elaborates: What is considered an outbreak and what is not an outbreak? If a dangerous beast is seen in the city, this is an outbreak. If it is seen in the field, where it is usually found, this is not an outbreak. If it is seen during the day, this is an outbreak. If it is seen at night, this is not an outbreak. The baraita continues: If the beast saw two people and chased after them, this is an outbreak. If it hid from them, this is not an outbreak. If it tore apart two people and ate one of them, this is an outbreak, as it is clear that the animal did not attack merely due to hunger. If it ate both of them, this is not an outbreak, as the animal was evidently hungry and acted in accordance with its nature. If it climbed to the roof and took a baby from its cradle, this is an outbreak. This concludes the Gemara’s citation of the baraita. The Gemara asks: This baraita is itself difficult. Initially, you said that if a dangerous beast is seen in the city, this is an outbreak, which indicates that it is no different whether it is seen by day and it is no different if it is seen at night. And then you said: If the animal is seen during the day, this is an outbreak; if it is seen at night, this is not an outbreak. The Gemara resolves this difficulty: This is not difficult, as this is what the baraita is saying: If it is seen in the city during the day, this is an outbreak; if it is seen in the city at night, this is not an outbreak. Alternatively, if it is seen in the field, even during the day, this is not an outbreak. If it is spotted in the field at night, this is certainly not an outbreak. The Gemara inquires about another apparent contradiction: The baraita states that if the beast saw two people and chased after them, this is an outbreak. This indicates that if it stands but does not run away, this is not an outbreak. And then you said that if it hid from them, this is not an outbreak, from which it may be inferred that if it stands and does not run away, this is an outbreak. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the two sections of the baraita describe different situations. Here, where it is an outbreak, the beast is standing in a field near a marsh. It is natural for the animal to stand, for the beast knows that if people attempt to catch it, it can run into the marsh. Conversely, there, where it is not an outbreak, the beast is standing in a field that is not near a marsh. Since it has nowhere to run, standing demonstrates an unnatural lack of fear. The baraita taught that if the beast tore apart two people and ate one of them, this is an outbreak, but if it ate both of them this is not an outbreak. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that even if the animal merely chased after two people, this is an outbreak? Rav Pappa said: When that ruling of a beast that tore apart two people is taught, it is referring to an animal in a marsh. Since it is in its own habitat, it is natural for a territorial beast to attack. The Gemara returns to the matter of the baraita itself. If a wild animal climbed to the roof and took a baby from its cradle, this is an outbreak. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this animal is acting unnaturally. Why does the baraita mention this case? Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to the roof of a hunter’s hideout. Since this hut is in a wild area, one might have thought that it is natural for the beast to attack. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is still considered an outbreak. § The mishna taught that they sound the alarm for the sword. The Sages taught: With regard to the sword that they mentioned, it is not necessary to state that this includes a sword that is not of peace, i.e., an enemy army that has come to wage war against the Jews. Rather, even in a case of a sword of peace, when an army passes through with no intention of waging war against the Jews, but is merely on its way to another place, this is enough to obligate the court to sound the alarm, as you do not have a greater example of a sword of peace than Pharaoh Neco. He passed through Eretz Yisrael to wage war with Nebuchadnezzar, and nevertheless King Josiah stumbled in this matter, as it is stated:

And all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee. And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever; because thou didst not serve the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things;

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

in Neharde’a, where there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual who was not praying in a prayer quorum. Shmuel’s conduct was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Yet this opinion was not universally accepted. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, sat before Rabbi Yannai, and he sat and he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and read your verses outside, as that halakha is not accepted by the Sages in the study hall, and it belongs outside, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rabbi Yannai, who prayed and then prayed again. Presumably, his first prayer was the morning prayer and his second prayer was the additional prayer. Apparently, he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rather, he holds that even when not part of a prayer quorum, an individual must recite the additional prayer. Later on, when this story was related in the study hall, Rabbi Yirmeya said to his teacher, Rabbi Zeira: What proof is there that the second prayer was the additional prayer? Perhaps initially he did not focus his mind on his prayer and ultimately he focused his mind, i.e., he repeated the morning prayer in order to do so with proper concentration. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Look at who the great man is who is testifying about him. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly observed carefully before relating what he witnessed. Regarding prayers of the Sages, the Gemara further relates that, although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would only pray between the columns where they studied, as prayer is beloved in the eyes of God, specifically in a place of Torah. It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the morning prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the morning prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the additional prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the additional prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the afternoon prayer? Omitting mention of the New Moon does not require one to repeat the Amida prayer. Consequently, that was not the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed a second time. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Wasn’t it stated about that baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this baraita specifically with regard to prayer in a communal framework? However, an individual who fails to mention the New Moon is required to pray again? That is why Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed twice. Stemming from the discussion about individuals who recite two prayers consecutively, the Gemara asks: How long should one wait between the first prayer and the second prayer? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda agreed about this in principle, but they formulated their opinions differently (Rashi). One said that an individual must wait long enough so that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], enabling him to recite the second prayer as a plea. One of them said: Long enough so that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel], enabling him to beseech God in his second prayer. The Gemara points out that both Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda based their positions on the prayers of Moses. The one who said: So that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], as it is written: “And I pleaded [va’etḥanan] before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And the one who said: So that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel] as it is written: “And Moses besought [vayeḥal] the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). The Gemara resumes the above discussion with regard to omission of the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer. Rav Anan said that Rav said: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because the court only sanctifies the new month by day, and the prayer of the New Moon, which parallels the court’s sanctification of the new month, belongs in the daytime prayer. Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Since Rav states a reason for his statement, what difference is there to me if the month is short, and what difference is there to me if it is full? Rather, there is no difference. Rav based his opinion on the parallel drawn between the sanctification of the month and the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer; the sanctification of the month is not relevant at night. May we return unto thee : The morning Tefillah ! MISHNA: One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission. There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that prayer should be undertaken in an atmosphere of gravity. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: They are derived from the verses describing the prayer of Hannah, mother of Samuel, as the verse states: “And she felt bitterness of soul, and she prayed to the Lord and she wept and wept” (I Samuel 1:10). The Gemara rejects this proof: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Hannah is different, as her heart was extremely embittered, her prayer was embittered as well. This does not prove that everyone must pray in that frame of mind. Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, it can be proved from here, as David said: “But as for me, by Your abundant loving-kindness I will enter Your house, at Your Holy Temple I will bow in reverence for You” (Psalms 5:8). Entering into prayer like entering the Holy Temple must be performed reverentially. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps David is different, as he would excessively afflict himself in prayer in order to atone for his transgression with Bathsheba. Consequently, his cannot serve as a paradigm for proper conduct in prayer. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, it can be derived from here, from this verse that David said, not about his own worship, but about worship of God in general: “Give, unto the Lord, the honor of His name, bow to the Lord in the beauty of holiness [behadrat kodesh]” (Psalms 29:2). Do not read: In the beauty of [behadrat] holiness. Rather read: In trembling of [beḥerdat] holiness; one must enter into prayer from an atmosphere of gravity engendered by sanctity. The Gemara rejects this too: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I would say to you that it should be read as it is written: Specifically, “in the beauty,” and it means that one should pray in beautiful clothing, as in the case of Rav Yehuda who would adorn himself and then pray. Rav Yehuda believed that one who comes before the King must wear his most beautiful clothing. The Gemara has yet to find a source for the halakha that one must approach prayer from an atmosphere of gravity. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said it can be derived from here, from this verse: “Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Having cited this verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of rejoice with trembling? Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rabba said: One may not experience unbridled joy; even where there is rejoicing, there should be trembling. On that note, the Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before his teacher Rabba, and Rabba saw that he was excessively joyful. He said to Abaye: It is written: Rejoice with trembling, one’s joy should not be unrestrained. Abaye said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries now and as long as they are upon me they ensure that the fear of God is upon me. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira. He saw that Rabbi Yirmeya was excessively joyful. He said to him: It is written: “In all sorrow there is profit” (Proverbs 14:23); sorrow is appropriate, not excessive joy. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a valuable cup worth four hundred zuz and broke it before them and they became sad. The Gemara also relates: Rav Ashi made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a cup of extremely valuable white glass and broke it before them, and they became sad. Similarly, the Gemara relates: The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding feast of Mar, son of Ravina: Let the Master sing for us. Since he believed that the merriment had become excessive, he said to them, singing: Woe unto us, for we shall die, woe unto us, for we shall die. They said to him: What shall we respond after you? What is the chorus of the song? He said to them, you should respond: Where is Torah and where is mitzva that protect us? In a similar vein, Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is forbidden to fill his mouth with mirth in this world, as long as we are in exile (ge’onim), as it is stated: “When the Lord returns the captivity of Zion we will be as dreamers” (Psalms 126:1). Only “then will our mouths fill with laughter and our lips with song” (Psalms 126:2). When will that joyous era arrive? When “they will say among nations, the Lord has done great things with these” (Psalms 126:2). They said about Reish Lakish that throughout his life he did not fill his mouth with laughter in this world once he heard this statement from his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥanan. We learned in the mishna that it is appropriate to stand and begin to pray from an atmosphere of gravity. Regarding this, the Sages taught: One may neither stand and begin to pray, directly from involvement in judgment nor directly from deliberation over the ruling in a matter of halakha, as his preoccupation with the judgment or the halakhic ruling will distract him from prayer. Rather it is appropriate to pray directly from involvement in the study of a universally accepted conclusive halakha that leaves no room for further deliberation and will not distract him during prayer. And the Gemara asks: What is an example of a conclusive halakha? The Gemara offers several examples: Abaye said: One like this halakha of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent with themselves; to the extent that even if they see a drop of blood corresponding to the size of a mustard seed she sits seven clean days for it. By Torah law, a woman who witnesses the emission of blood during the eleven days following her fixed menstrual period is not considered a menstruating woman; rather she immerses herself and is purified the next day. However, the women of Israel accepted the stringency upon themselves that if they see any blood whatsoever, they act as it if were the blood of a zava, which obligates her to count seven more clean days before becoming ritually pure (see Leviticus 15:25). Citing an additional example of a conclusive halakha, Rava said: One like this halakha of Rav Hoshaya, as Rav Hoshaya said: A person may employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain and bring it into the courtyard in its chaff so that his animal will eat from it, and the grain is exempt from tithes. Halakha dictates that one is obligated to tithe grain that has been threshed and piled, regardless of the ultimate purpose for which the grain was intended. By Torah law, one is exempt from tithing grain that was not threshed and is therefore still in its chaff. By rabbinic law, one is prohibited from eating this grain in the framework of a meal. Feeding animals is permitted without first tithing that grain. And if you wish, say instead yet another example of a conclusive halakha, which is the recommended prelude to prayer. One like this halakha of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rabbi Zeira said: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice; deriving benefit from that blood is prohibited. Although blood of an offering that was sprinkled on the altar is not considered Temple property, nevertheless, deriving benefit from the blood of a living, consecrated animal is considered prohibited use of Temple property. In so doing, one misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and as in any other case of misusing Temple property, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering. It is related that the Sages acted in accordance with the opinion of our mishna and rose to pray from an atmosphere of gravity; Rav Ashi acted in accordance with the opinion of the baraita and preceded his prayer with a conclusive halakha. On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from an atmosphere of sorrow nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. Similarly, a person should neither take leave of another from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha. As we found in the books of the Bible dealing with the early prophets, that they would conclude their talks with words of praise and consolation. And so Mari, the grandson of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, taught in a baraita: One should only take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha, so that, consequently, he will remember him; whenever he recalls the one from whom he took leave, he will think well of him because of the new halakha that he taught him (Eliyahu Zuta). As in the incident related by the Gemara that Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from the town of Pum Nahara to the palm grove in Babylonia. When he arrived there, Rav Kahana said to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: Master, what is meant by that which people say: These palm trees of Babylonia have been in this place from the time of Adam the first man until now? Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: You reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In a land through which no man has passed and where no person [adam] has settled” (Jeremiah 2:6)? This verse is difficult; since it is a land through which no person has passed, how could anyone have settled there permanently? The statement that “no person has settled there” is redundant. Rather, this verse comes to teach that every land through which Adam the first man passed and decreed that it would be settled was settled, and every land through which Adam passed and decreed that it would not be settled was not settled. Based on this, what people say is true, and the palm trees of Babylonia are from the time of Adam, meaning that from the time of Adam this land was decreed to be suitable for growing palm trees (Me’iri). The Gemara cited an example of how one who parts from another with Torah learns something new. Having mentioned the mitzva for a student to accompany his Rabbi, the Gemara relates that Rav Mordekhai accompanied his mentor, Rav Shimi bar Ashi, a great distance, from the city of Hagronya to Bei Keifei; and some say that he accompanied from Hagronya to Bei Dura. Returning to the topic of preparation for prayer, the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One who prays must focus his heart toward Heaven. Abba Shaul says: An indication of the importance of this matter is stated in the verse: “The desire of the humble You have heard, Lord; direct their hearts, Your ear will listen” (Psalms 10:17). In other words, if one focuses his heart in prayer as a result of God directing his heart, his prayer will be accepted as God’s ear will listen. With regard to one’s intent during prayer, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva, when he would pray with the congregation he would shorten his prayer and go up, due to his desire to avoid being an encumbrance on the congregation by making them wait for him to finish his prayer. But when he prayed by himself he would extend his prayers to an extent that a person would leave Rabbi Akiva alone in one corner of the study hall and later find him still praying in another corner. And why would Rabbi Akiva move about so much? Because of his bows and prostrations. Rabbi Akiva’s enthusiasm in prayer was so great, that as a result of his bows and prostrations, he would unwittingly move from one corner to the other (Rav Hai Gaon). Many halakhot are derived from evoking the prayers of biblical characters. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One should always pray in a house with windows, as it is stated regarding Daniel: “And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house. In his attic there were open windows facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:11). In the Tosefta, additional halakhot were derived from Daniel’s prayer. I might have thought that one could pray as many times as he wishes throughout the entire day; it has already been articulated by Daniel, with regard to whom it is stated: “And three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed.” This teaches that there are fixed prayers. I might have thought that this practice of fixed prayer began only when he came to the Babylonian exile; it was stated: “Just as he had done before.” Further, I might have thought that one may pray facing any direction he wishes; the verse states: The appropriate direction for prayer is “facing Jerusalem.” Daniel does not describe how these three prayers are distributed during the day. I might have thought that one may include all three prayers at one time; it has already been articulated by David that one may not do so, as it is written: “Evening and morning and noon, I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18). Furthermore, I might have thought that one may make his voice heard in his Amida prayer; it has already been articulated by Hannah in her prayer, as it is stated: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13). Halakhot regarding the order of the prayers were also learned from the prayers of biblical characters. I might have thought that one should request his own needs first, and afterwards recite prayers of thanksgiving and praise; it has already been articulated by Solomon that this is not so, as in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Holy Temple it is stated: “To hear the song and the prayer that Your servant prays before You today” (I Kings 8:28). In this verse, song is prayer in the sense of thanks and praise, and prayer is one’s request of his personal needs. Therefore, one who is praying does not speak matters of request after he began to recite emet veyatziv prior to the Amida prayer, which is the essence of prayer. Rather, he begins with praise in the first three blessings of the Amida prayer, and only thereafter does he include requests for his needs. But after the Amida prayer there is no limit. If he desires to recite even the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite it. This was also stated by an amora; Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Although the Sages said that one requests his personal needs in the blessing: Who listens to prayer, that is with regard to one who wishes to do so as part of the Amida prayer. If he comes to add and recite additional requests after completing his Amida prayer, even if his personal requests are the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, he may recite them. Rav Hamnuna said: How many significant halakhot can be derived from these verses of the prayer of Hannah? As it says: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard, so Eli thought her to be drunk” (I Samuel 1:13). The Gemara elaborates: From that which is stated here: “And Hannah spoke in her heart,” the halakha that one who prays must focus his heart on his prayer is derived. And from that which is stated here: “Only her lips moved,” the halakha that one who prays must enunciate the words with his lips, not only contemplate them in his heart, is derived. From that which is written here: “And her voice could not be heard,” the halakha that one is forbidden to raise his voice in his Amida prayer as it must be recited silently. From the continuation of the verse here: “So Eli thought her to be drunk,” the halakha that a drunk person is forbidden to pray. That is why he rebuked her. On the subject of Eli’s rebuke of Hannah, as it is stated: “And Eli said to her: How long will you remain drunk? Remove your wine from yourself” (I Samuel 1:14); Rabbi Elazar said: From here the halakha that one who sees in another

ויתעצב אל לבו AND IT GRIEVED HIM AT HIS HEART— He mourned at the failure of His handiwork. Similarly (2 Samuel 19:3) ‘The king grieved (נעצב) for his son”. (Similarly here: God grieved for his (man’s) heart: that it had changed from good to bad). The following extract from the Midrash Rabbah I am writing in order that you may know how to refute the arguments of certain heretics: A gentile once asked Rabbi Joshua, the son of Korcha, saying to him, “Do you not admit that the Holy One, blessed be He, knows what is to happen in the future?” He replied, “Yes.” The gentile retorted, “But is it not written ‘and He was grieved in His heart’?” He answered: “Have you ever had a son born to you?” The reply was “Yes.” He asked (the gentile): “And what did you do?” He replied: “I rejoiced and I made others rejoice also.” The Rabbi asked him: “But did you not know that he must die?” The heathen replied: “At the time of joy, let there be joy, at the time of mourning let there be mourning”. The Rabbi then said: “Such, too, is the way of the Holy One, blessed be He: although it was clear to Him that in the end men would sin and would be destroyed, He did not refrain from creating them for the sake of the righteous men who were to issue from them” (Genesis Rabbah 27:4).