Rebbi Chanina's Approach

And Rabbi Ḥanina says: A person injures his finger below, on earth, only if they declare about him on high that he should be injured, as it is stated: It is of the Lord that a man’s goings are established; and a man, what does he understand of his way (see Psalms 37:23 and Proverbs 20:24). Rabbi Elazar says: The blood of a wound effects atonement like the blood of a burnt offering. Rava said: This is stated with regard to a wound on his right thumb, as one applies force with that thumb and the wound is consequently more severe; and it is also stated with regard to a second wound in the same place before the first has healed, and it is provided that he is wounded while going to perform a matter involving a mitzva.

The hosts sifted the barley with a utensil, but the donkey did not eat it. They separated the chaff from the barley by hand, but the donkey did not eat it. They wondered why the donkey would not eat the barley. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to his hosts: Perhaps the barley is not tithed. They tithed it and the donkey ate it. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said: This poor animal is going to perform the will of its Maker, and you are feeding it untithed produce? Rabbi Zeira was referring to this donkey when it spoke of God preventing mishaps from occurring through animals of the righteous. The Gemara asks: And is one who purchases grain that is demai in order to feed his animal obligated to tithe it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Demai 1:3): One who purchases grain in the market for sowing or for feeding an animal, or flour to process animal hides, or oil to kindle a lamp, or oil to smear on vessels is exempt from the obligation of tithing demai? The Gemara answers: There, it was stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this only in a case where one purchased those items initially for the animal or for the other purposes enumerated in the mishna, but if he purchased them initially for a person and reconsidered his plans for them and decided to use them for an animal, he is obligated to tithe the demai. And it is taught in a baraita in support of that understanding: In the case of one who purchases produce from the market for human consumption, and he reconsidered his plans for it and decided to use it for an animal, that person may neither place it before his animal nor before the animal of another unless he tithed the produce. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir arrived, and he emerged to greet him. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Is it your desire to dine with me? Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s face beamed [tzahavu], as it was well known that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir did not accept invitations to dine with others. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Are you under the impression that deriving benefit from the Jewish people is forbidden to me by vow? On the contrary, the Jewish people are holy. I avoid accepting invitations, as there is one who wants to invite guests to dine with him but he does not have the means, and I do not want to enjoy a meal that my host cannot afford. And there is one who has the means but does not want to host guests, and with regard to those people it is written: “Eat not the bread of him that has an evil eye, neither desire his delicacies. For as one that has reckoned within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, says he to you; but his heart is not with you” (Proverbs 23:6–7). But you want to invite guests to dine with you, and you have the means. But now I am rushing [mesarheivna], as I am engaged in the performance of a matter involving a mitzva. When I come back I will enter to dine with you. When Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir came back, he happened to enter through that entrance in which white mules were standing. He said: The Angel of Death is in this person’s house, and I will eat with him? White mules were known to be dangerous animals. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard the comment of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir and emerged to greet him. He said to him: I will sell the mules. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: You will thereby violate the prohibition: “Nor place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as it is prohibited for any Jew to keep a destructive animal in his possession. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will declare the mules ownerless. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: You will thereby increase the damage, as there will be no owner to restrain it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will remove their hooves so that they will be unable to kick and cause damage. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: There is the requirement to prevent suffering to animals, and you will be violating it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will kill them. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: There is the prohibition: Do not destroy items of value. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was greatly imploring him to enter his home until a mountain rose between them and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could no longer speak with him. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: If during their lifetimes it is so that the righteous are great, after their death it is all the more so true. The Gemara comments: This is as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: The righteous are greater after their death, more so than during their lifetimes, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that they spied a raiding party; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet” (II Kings 13:21). Rav Pappa said to Abaye: This proof from the case of Elisha that the righteous are greater after death is not valid. And perhaps this transpired to fulfill with regard to Elisha the blessing of Elijah, as it is written: “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (II Kings 2:9). Elijah revived one dead person and this one is the second revived by Elisha. Abaye said to Rav Pappa: If so, is this consistent with that which is taught in a baraita: The dead person arose on his feet but he did not go to his home, indicating that he had not truly been revived? The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, in what manner was Elijah’s blessing fulfilled? It is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The blessing was fulfilled when he cured the leprosy of Naaman, since a leper is equivalent to a dead person, as it is stated with regard to Miriam when she was afflicted with leprosy: “Please, let her not be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12). Apropos white mules, which were likened to the Angel of Death, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Why are the mules called yemim (see Genesis 36:24)? It is because their terror [eimatam] is cast over all creatures, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: In all my days, no man has asked me about a wound caused him by a white mule and survived, indicating that they are extremely dangerous. The Gemara asks: But haven’t we seen that some people survive after being wounded by a white mule? The Gemara answers: Say instead, no man has asked me about a wound caused him by a mule and the wound healed. The Gemara asks: But haven’t we seen that such wounds heal? The Gemara answers: The wound that we say does not heal is one caused by a mule the top of whose legs are white. The Gemara relates other statements of Rabbi Ḥanina: With regard to the verse: “There is none else beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35), Rabbi Ḥanina says: And even sorcery is ineffective against the will of God. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who would try to take dust from beneath the feet of Rabbi Ḥanina in order to perform sorcery on him and harm him. Rabbi Ḥanina said to her: Take the dust, but the matter will be ineffective for you, as it is written: “There is none other beside Him.” The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Why is sorcery called keshafim? It is an acronym for makhḥishin pamalya shel mala, meaning: That they diminish the heavenly entourage [pamalya], indicating that they function contrary to the will of God. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina is different, as, because his merit is great, sorcery has no effect on him. And Rabbi Ḥanina says: A person injures his finger below, on earth, only if they declare about him on high that he should be injured, as it is stated: It is of the Lord that a man’s goings are established; and a man, what does he understand of his way (see Psalms 37:23 and Proverbs 20:24). Rabbi Elazar says: The blood of a wound effects atonement like the blood of a burnt offering. Rava said: This is stated with regard to a wound on his right thumb, as one applies force with that thumb and the wound is consequently more severe; and it is also stated with regard to a second wound in the same place before the first has healed, and it is provided that he is wounded while going to perform a matter involving a mitzva. Apropos Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir, the Gemara notes that they said about Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir: In all his days he never broke bread and recited a blessing on a piece of bread that was not his, and from the day that he achieved cognition he did not benefit even from the meal of his father, because he eschewed benefit from everyone.

intercourse with women for which one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, e.g., an Egyptian convert and an Edomite convert (see Deuteronomy 23:8–9). If he raped a first- or second-generation Egyptian or Edomite convert, even Rabbi Yeshevav agrees that the child is not a mamzer, as the betrothal takes effect. On the other hand, it is prohibited for him to sustain her as a wife. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Yeshevav if he is coming to reject the opinion of Rabbi Simai. If Rabbi Yeshevav merely takes issue with Rabbi Simai, who said that all offspring of forbidden relations are mamzerim according to Rabbi Akiva except for those resulting from relations between a widow and a High Priest, then it may well be explained that Rabbi Yeshevav holds that Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect and that there is mamzerut when one violates the prohibitions of the priesthood. However, if he is stating his own opinion, independent of Rabbi Simai’s statement, his ruling is more comprehensive and leads to the conclusion that in the case of relations with anyone who does not have the possibility of permitted relations among the Jewish people, the child is a mamzer, and this is true even of women for relations with whom one is liable for violating positive mitzvot, e.g., Egyptian or Edomite converts. In that case, what is the difference between the opinions of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in the case of a non-virgin raped by a High Priest. And the Gemara asks: Here, too, she is a woman for relations with whom one is liable for violating a positive mitzva, as the High Priest fails to fulfill the mitzva “But a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife” (Leviticus 21:14). If Rabbi Akiva rules that betrothal does not take effect when a positive mitzva is violated, what is different about this case? The Gemara answers: It is different because it is a positive mitzva whose application is not equal for all. There are two lenient aspects to this mitzva: It is a positive mitzva and not a prohibition, and it applies only to the High Priest and not to all Jews. Even Rabbi Yeshevav would agree that according to Rabbi Akiva, a child born from relations between a High Priest and a non-virgin is not a mamzer. However, the High Priest may not sustain the woman as his wife. Therefore, this case is the practical difference between the statements of Shimon HaTimni and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya. § Rav Ḥisda said: Everyone agrees with regard to one who engaged in forced intercourse with a menstruating woman that he pays the fine. He elaborates: According to the one who says that the criterion is whether there is betrothal, for this woman too there is betrothal. According to the one who says that the criterion is whether the woman is suitable for him to sustain, this woman is suitable for him to sustain. § The Gemara comments: And the mishna’s ruling that one who has relations with his sister is liable to pay the fine comes to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment for damages. Just as one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment for damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana? Abaye said: It states the word harm at the hands of man, in the verse “But if any harm follow, then you shall give a soul for a soul” (Exodus 21:23) and it states the word harm at the hand of Heaven, in the verse in which Jacob states: “My son shall not descend with you…and harm befalls him on the way” (Genesis 42:38). Just as with regard to harm that is stated at the hands of man, e.g., one who kills and is liable to be executed, one is exempt from the associated payment, so too, with regard to harm that is stated at the hand of Heaven, one is exempt from the associated payment. Rav Adda bar Ahava strongly objects to this: From where is it derived that when Jacob is warning his sons he is warning them about cold and heat [tzinim paḥim], which are at the hand of Heaven? Perhaps he was warning them about a lion and thieves, which are harm at the hands of man, meaning that unlike heat and cold, these dangers are not calibrated by God. The Gemara refutes this: Is that to say that Jacob warned them about this harm at the hand of man, but about that harm at the hand of Heaven he did not warn them? Jacob warned them about all potentially harmful matters that might befall Benjamin, not merely one particular form of catastrophe. The Gemara asks: And are cold and heat at the hand of Heaven? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: All matters are at the hand of Heaven except for cold and heat, as it is stated: “Cold and heat are on the path of the crooked, he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5)? This indicates that cold and heat are forms of harm caused by man, from which one can protect himself. And furthermore, are a lion and thieves forms of harm at the hands of man? But didn’t Rav Yosef say, and similarly, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin was abolished the four death penalties were not abolished? The Gemara asks: Were they not abolished? It is clear that they were abolished, as today there is neither Sanhedrin nor capital punishment. Rather, it means that although there are no court-imposed executions,

There are conflicting opinions with regard to reciting havdala over the cup of wine after reciting it in the Amida prayer. One opinion holds that it is appropriate to recite havdala a second time, while the other holds that it is prohibited. Ravina said to Rava: What is the halakha? Rava said to him: The halakha in the case of havdala is like the halakha in the case of kiddush. Just as in the case of kiddush, although one recited kiddush in the Amida prayer he must, nevertheless, recite kiddush again over the cup of wine, so too with havdala, although one recited havdala in the Amida prayer he must recite havdala again over the cup of wine. The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the Amida prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. The Gemara cites the conclusion with regard to this halakha by relating a story: Rabbi Zeira was riding a donkey while Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin was coming and walking after him. He said to him: Is it true that you said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat? Since in that case, one cannot recite havdala in the blessing of Who graciously grants knowledge, as it is not included in the Amida prayer on the Festival, there is no alternative but to adopt Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling. He said to him: Yes. The Gemara wonders: Saying that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, indicates that his peers dispute his opinion. Where do we find that dispute? The Gemara rejects this: And don’t they dispute his opinion? Don’t the Rabbis dispute his opinion, as, in their opinion the blessing of havdala is recited in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge? The Gemara replies: Say that the Rabbis dispute Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion during the rest of the days of the year, when the option to recite havdala in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge exists, but in the case of a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat, do they dispute his opinion? The Rabbis would agree with him in that case. The Gemara continues: Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva dispute his opinion? He holds that havdala is recited as an independent fourth blessing, in which case there is a dispute. The Gemara responds: Is that to say that throughout the entire year we act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in this matter, so that now, on a Festival that occurs directly after Shabbat, we will stand and act in accordance with his opinion? What is the reason that throughout the whole, entire year, we do not act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? Because the Sages instituted eighteen blessings, they did not institute nineteen blessings. Here, too, the Sages instituted seven blessings, they did not institute eight blessings. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is not taken into consideration in this case. In response to these questions, Rabbi Zeira said to him that it was not that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that was stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, from which one could infer that there was in fact a dispute; rather it was that one is inclined to favor the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that was stated in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As indeed it was stated that there is a dispute among the Sages in this matter. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And some say this statement: One is inclined to favor the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that there is no dispute here, and the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that it was established that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion appears to be correct. With regard to this difference of opinion Rabbi Zeira said: Take this statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in your hand, as he is scrupulous and he learned the halakha well from the mouth of its originator, like the Sage Raḥava from the city Pumbedita. Raḥava was famous for the precision with which he would transmit material that he learned from his teacher. The Gemara cites an example: Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double stav, and there was a stav within a stav. Here Raḥava used his Rabbi’s language in describing the structure of the Temple and the rows of columns it contained, a row within a row; but he did not employ the common term itzteba, portico, but rather stav, as he heard it from his Rabbi. Rav Yosef said the conclusive halakha on this topic: I don’t know this and I don’t know that, but I do know from the statements of Rav and Shmuel they have instituted a pearl for us in Babylonia. They established a version that combines the first blessing of the Festival with the formula of havdala, parallel to the opinion of the Rabbis who include havdala in the first blessing that follows the first three blessings. They instituted to recite: You have made known to us, Lord our God, Your righteous laws,
and taught us to perform Your will’s decrees.
You have given us as our heritage seasons of joy and Festivals of voluntary offerings.
You have given us as our heritage the holiness of Shabbat, the glory of the festival and the festive offerings of the Pilgrim Festivals.
You have distinguished between the holiness of Shabbat and the holiness of the Festival,
and have made the seventh day holy over the six days of work.
You have distinguished and sanctified Your people Israel with Your holiness,
And You have given us, etc. MISHNA: Concluding the laws of prayer in this tractate, the mishna raises several prayer-related matters. This mishna speaks of certain innovations in the prayer formula that warrant the silencing of a communal prayer leader who attempts to introduce them in his prayers, as their content tends toward heresy. One who recites in his supplication: Just as Your mercy is extended to a bird’s nest, as You have commanded us to send away the mother before taking her chicks or eggs (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), so too extend Your mercy to us; and one who recites: May Your name be mentioned with the good or one who recites: We give thanks, we give thanks twice, they silence him. GEMARA: Our mishna cited three instances where the communal prayer leader is silenced. The Gemara clarifies: Granted, they silence one who repeats: We give thanks, we give thanks, as it appears like he is acknowledging and praying to two authorities. And granted that they also silence one who says: May Your name be mentioned with the good, as clearly he is thanking God only for the good and not for the bad, and we learned in a mishna: One is required to bless God for the bad just as he blesses Him for the good. However, in the case of one who recites: Just as Your mercy is extended to a bird’s nest, why do they silence him? Two amora’im in Eretz Yisrael disputed this question; Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida; one said that this was because he engenders jealousy among God’s creations, as it appears as though he is protesting the fact that the Lord favored one creature over all others. And one said that this was because he transforms the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, into expressions of mercy, when they are nothing but decrees of the King that must be fulfilled without inquiring into the reasons behind them. The Gemara relates that a particular individual descended before the ark as prayer leader in the presence of Rabba, and said in his prayers: You have shown mercy to the bird’s nest, now have mercy and pity upon us. Rabba said: How much does this Torah scholar know to appease the Lord, his Master. Abaye said to him: Didn’t we learn in a mishna that they silence him? The Gemara explains: And Rabba too held in accordance with this mishna but merely acted this way because he wanted to hone Abaye’s intellect. Rabba did not make his statement to praise the scholar, but simply to test his nephew, Abaye, and to encourage him to articulate what he knows about that mishna. With regard to additions to prayers formulated by the Sages, The Gemara relates that a particular individual descended before the ark as prayer leader in the presence of Rabbi Ḥanina. He extended his prayer and said: God, the great, mighty, awesome, powerful, mighty, awe-inspiring, strong, fearless, steadfast and honored. Rabbi Ḥanina waited for him until he completed his prayer. When he finished, Rabbi Ḥanina asked him: Have you concluded all of the praises of your Master? Why do I need all of this superfluous praise? Even these three praises that we recite: The great, mighty and awesome, had Moses our teacher not said them in the Torah and had the members of the Great Assembly not come and incorporated them into the Amida prayer, we would not be permitted to recite them. And you went on and recited all of these. It is comparable to a king who possessed many thousands of golden dinars, yet they were praising him for silver ones. Isn’t that deprecatory? All of the praises we could possibly lavish upon the Lord are nothing but a few silver dinars relative to many thousands of gold dinars. Reciting a litany of praise does not enhance God’s honor. Tangentially, the Gemara cites an additional statement by Rabbi Ḥanina concerning principles of faith. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: Everything is in the hands of Heaven, except for fear of Heaven. Man has free will to serve God or not, as it is stated: “And now Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all of His ways, to love Him and to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deuteronomy 10:12). The Lord asks man to perform these matters because ultimately, the choice is in his hands. The verse says: What does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fear the Lord your God. The Gemara asks: Is fear of Heaven a minor matter that it can be presented as if God is not asking anything significant? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥanina say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The Holy One, Blessed be He, has nothing in his treasury other than a treasure of fear of Heaven, as it is stated: “Fear of the Lord is his treasure” (Isaiah 33:6). The Lord values and treasures fear of Heaven over all else. The Gemara responds: Indeed, for Moses fear of Heaven is a minor matter. As Rabbi Ḥanina stated: It is comparable to one who is asked for a large vessel and he has one, it seems to him like a small vessel because he owns it. However, one who is asked for just a small vessel and he does not have one, it seems to him like a large vessel. Therefore, Moses could say: What does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fear, because in his eyes it was a minor matter. We learned in the mishna if one repeats: We give thanks, we give thanks, they silence him. Rabbi Zeira said: One who repeats himself while reciting Shema and says: Listen Israel, Listen Israel is like one who says: We give thanks, we give thanks. The Gemara raises an objection: It was taught in a baraita: One who recites Shema and repeats it, it is reprehensible. One may infer: It is reprehensible, but they do not silence him. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; this case, where although it is reprehensible when one repeats Shema, they do not silence him, is referring to one who recites and repeats each individual word as he says it. In so doing he ruins the recitation of Shema. However, this case, where Rabbi Zeira holds that one who repeats Shema they silence him, refers to one who recites and repeats an entire verse, as it appears that he is worshiping separate authorities. Rav Pappa said to Abaye with regard to this halakha: And perhaps initially he did not focus his attention on the recitation of Shema, so he repeated it and ultimately he focused his attention as he recited it the second time? Abaye said to him:

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. This is because the more lofty one’s status, the more important it is to demonstrate his subservience to God. 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). 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, that is bowing with one’s hands and legs spread in total submission, as it is stated in Jacob’s question to Joseph in response to his dream: “Shall we, I and your mother and your brothers, come and bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). On the topic of bowing, Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said: I saw Abaye and Rava, who would lean their heads and not actually prostrate themselves on the ground. 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. 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. Rava bowed in the blessing of thanksgiving, both beginning and end. The Sages said to him: Why does our master do this? He said to them: I saw Rav Naḥman who bowed in the blessing of thanksgiving, and I saw Rav Sheshet who did so as well. But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that one who bows in thanksgiving, it is reprehensible? 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. 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. 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. MISHNA: 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 that he would pray on behalf of the sick and immediately after his prayer he would say: This one shall recover from his illness and live and this one shall die. When they said to him: From where do you know? He said to them: 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. GEMARA: 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? 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.” 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 in all of the blessings. And if he is unable to focus his heart in all of them, he should focus his heart at least in one. 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. 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 says, Peace, peace, to him that is far off and to him that is near; and I will heal him” (Isaiah 57:19). It can be inferred from this verse that if speech of the lips, fluent speech, is granted to one who prays, it indicates that his prayer on behalf of the ill has been accepted and I will heal him, that person will be healed. 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] on behalf of a Torah scholar as well as to one who utilizes his wealth to benefit a Torah scholar in some other way. However, the prophets did not describe the extent of the reward for Torah scholars themselves, whose reward is not quantifiable as it is stated: “And from of old they have not heard, they have not lent an ear, no eye has seen it, God, aside from You, who will do for those who await Him” (Isaiah 64:3). 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.” 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 is with regard to servitude to foreign kingdoms alone. While in the days of the Messiah, Israel will be independent and free from enslavement to foreign powers, the world order will remain otherwise unchanged, as it is stated: “For the poor shall not cease from the land” (Deuteronomy 15:11), which indicates that the ways of the world are set and unchanging. 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.” 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, as it is stated: “Peace, peace upon him who is far and him who is near.” Peace and greeting is extended first to him who is far, the penitent, and only thereafter is peace extended to him who is near, the full-fledged righteous. 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. 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 in its grapes since the six days of creation and which no eye has ever seen. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: That is Eden, which no creature’s eye has ever surveyed. 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. 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. 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. 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, and as such he is able to enter before the King and make various requests at all times. I, on the other hand, am like a minister before the King, and I can enter only when invited and can make requests only with regard to especially significant matters. And on the topic of prayer, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may only pray in a house with windows, as then he can see the heavens and focus his heart, as it is stated with regard to Daniel’s prayer: “In his attic there were open windows facing Jerusalem” (Daniel 6:11). With regard to the appropriate place to pray, Rav Kahana said: I consider impudent one who prays in a field. Employing parallel language, Rav Kahana also said: I consider impudent one who specifies his transgression, as it is stated: “Happy is he whose iniquity is forgiven, whose transgression is covered over” (Psalms 32:1); one who conceals his transgressions indicates that he is ashamed of them, and due to his shame he will be forgiven. May we return unto thee : One must not stand.