Question: Tosfos does not understand as to why the Gemara does not also inquire about Ne'ilah of a Ta'anis, as it does about Minchah.

Source: Seeing as the Gemara in Sheloshah Perakim (Ta'anis, 26:) implies that there is Ne'ilah on a Ta'anis, even though there is no Musaf.

Question: Even though, the Ri explains, we say in Perek ha'Ro'eh (B'rachos, Daf 55:) that 'Someone who has a bad dream ... '.

Answer: That they permitted on account of life-danger, in case it is a dream that predicts one's death and that requires a cure.

Proof: Seeing as they permitted fasting a Ta'anis Chalom even on Shabbos (for the same reason).

Halachah: Rabeinu Chananel rules that all the rulings of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, Rebbi Chin'na bar Papa and Rebbi Avahu are all Halachah.

Clarification: The Aruch, under the heading 'Hoda'ah' cites Rebbi Moshe the Rosh yeshivah, son of Moreinu Ya'akov, who explains that when the Tzibur say 'Modim', they rely on the Shali'ach Tzibur.

Clarification (cont.): And when they say 'Al she'Anu Modim Lach' - they are referring to the thanks that are said by the Shatz, and they respond with 'Amen'.

Yerushalmi, Text #1: And the Yerushalmi in the first Perek of B'rachos also cites the following (three texts regarding Modim de'Rabbanan): 1. Rebbi Aba bar Zavda says in the name of Rav - 'We thank You, since we are obligated to thank Your Name, My lips will praise You when I will sing to You. Blessed are You, Hash-m, the G-d of thanks'.

Yerushalmi, Text #2: 2. Rebbi Shmuel b'Rebbi Unya in the name of Rebbi Acha says - 'Thanks and praise to Your great Name; Might is Your's, Glory is Your's, May it be Your will, Hash-m our G-d, and the G-d of our fathers, that You support us in our prayers, and raise us from being bent, because you are the one who supports the fallen and who straightens those who are bent; You are full of Mercy and there is none besides You. Blessed are You, Hash-m, the G-d of thanks'.

Yerushalmi, Text #3: 3. bar Kaparah says - 'To You one must kneel, to You one must bless, to You one must bend and to You one must prostrate oneself. Because to You every knee will kneel and to You every tongue will swear. To You belongs greatness and might ... ; And wealth and honor are before You ... And now, Hash-m our G-d, we will prostrate ourselves before You with all our hearts and with all our souls; All my bones will praise You, who is like You? Blessed are You, Hash-m, the G-d of thanks'.

Yerushalmi (concl.): Rebbi Yudan said that the Rabbanan had the custom to recite all of the above, though according to others, they said either one or the other.

Halachah: Rabeinu Chananel extrapolates from here that one is permitted to enter a Shul wearing one's sandals or shoes, since they only forbade (Kohanim) going up to Duchen wearing sandals.

Support: And Tosfos' Rebbe also cited this ruling, based on the Gemara in the third Perek of Megilah (Daf 24:) 'Someone who declares that he will not go to the Amud wearing sandals, may not even go barefooted'. So we see that one is even allowed to go the Amud wearing sandals.

Further Proof: And this is also the conclusion of the Gemara in Perek ha'Ro'eh (B'rachos, Daf 63.), where Rava said that 'Just as one tends to be fussy about people making a short cut through one's house, but not about spitting or about wearing shoes in it, so too, may one not take a short cut through a Shul, but one may spit and wear shoes in Shul.

Question #1: but did they not answer 'Baruch Shem ... ' whenever they heard the Name of Hash-m?

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Amar lahem ha'Memuneh (Yoma, Daf 35:) and in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (there, Daf 39.) ...

Question #1 (concl.): And this is even a bigger Hefsek than that of answering 'Amen'?

Question #2: Moreover, they would fall on their faces, when they heard the Name of Hash-m from the mouth of the Kohen Gadol during the drawing of the lots (on Yom Kipur)?

Proof: As we learned in the Yerushalmi in Yoma: 'Those who were near would fall on their faces, whilst those who were standing further away would say 'Baruch Shem ... . Both parties would not move from there before they had forgotten it'.

Proof (cont.): The explanation there is that 'Those who were near wold fall on their faces and all the more so would they say 'Baruch Shem ... '; whereas those who stood further away would say 'Baruch Shem ... ', but would not fall on their faces. Either way, the Name of Hash-m would be hidden from them and forgotten before they moved from the spot.

Question #2 (concl.): In any event, we see that they interrupted by answering 'Amen'?

Answer: Perhaps they answered 'Baruch Shem ... ' immediately upon hearing the Honored and Awesome Name of Hash-m, without waiting until the end of the Pasuk. And since they did not interrupt between one Pasuk and the other, it is considered one B'rachah.

Clarification: The Gemara in the second Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 16:) explains that the "Tehilah" there refers to 'Baruch Shem ... '.

Clarification: Rav Yitzchak bar Mord'chai in Perek Ba lo (Yoma, Daf 69:) explains that this refers to the S'gan receiving the Seifer-Torah from the head of th K'neses, and not from the Chazan Beis-ha'Keneses.

Clarification (cont.): It turns out that the head of the K'neses gives the S'gan Kavod, since he needs to receive it from the hand of the Chazan ha'Keneses and to hand it to the S'gan..

Clarification (concl.): And Abaye answers that this is all on account of the Kavod of the Kohan Gadol, who will receive it from the S'gan, since, even though the S'gan is Chashuv and honored, the Kohen Gadol is on a higher level still.

Question: Why does the Gemara not refute the suggestion by establishing the case where the Kohen Gadol gives Kavod to the S'gan, and the S'gan to the head of the K'neses?

Support: As the Gemara rules there in Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra, Daf 119:), in answer to the two conflicting rulings 'Cholkin' and 'Ein Cholkin' ...

Support (cont.): 'One speaks where his Rebbe honors him, and the other, where he does not'.

Answer: Here the Mishnah says S'tam, implying that this was the Minhag irrespective as to whether the Rebbe gave Kavod or not. And the Machlokes there (in Bava Basra) also applies whether the Rebbe gave Kavod or not ...

Proof: Because if they were arguing where he gives him Kavod, then the Gemara ought to rule specifically like the opinion that holds 'Cholkin', whereas it they are arguing where he does not, then it ought to rule like the opinion that holds 'Ein Cholkin'.

The Source of this Ruling: Initially, Tosfos does not know the source of this statement.

Source #1: However, his Rebbe pointed to the Gemara in Cheilek (Daf 101:) as the source.

Source #2: And then his Rebbe, Rebbi Meir bar K'lonimus showed him that the source is a Tosefta in Sanhedrin (Perek Kohen Gadol).

Conclusion: And Tosfos accepts the Tosefta of Rebbi as the source, since the Yerushalmi (in this Perek) asks 'Did Rebbi Chiya not learn in a Beraisa that nobody other than the kings of Beis David were permitted to sit in the Azarah'. And Rebbi Ami citing Resh Lakish said that 'Even the kings of Beis David were not permitted to sit in the Azarah'.

Conclusion (cont.): (And to answer the question that David ha'Melech did sit in the Azarah), the Gemara explains that he placed a chair next to the wall and sat on it.

Question: 'But does the Pasuk not write "And David came and sat before Hash-m" '.

Answer: Rebbi Ayvu b'Rebbi Nagri answers that 'he settled down to Daven'.

Question: We learned there in the Mishnah (in Pesachim) 'The first group left the Azarah and sat on the Har ha'Bayis; the second group in the Cheil and the third group, in its place (in the Azarah)'?

Answer: Rebbi Nechemyah in the name of Rebbi Mana answers 'Does it say that it sat in its place'? No, It stood in its place'.

Source: The ruling of Rebbi Ami cited by the Yerushalmi that 'Even the kings of Beis David did not sit' has its source in at the beginning of Medrash Shochar Tov ...

Question: Where it is implied that a special chair was prepared for Beis David on which they sat?

Answer: But that chair was outside the Azarah.

Text of Medrash Shochar Tov: As it says there, when, commenting on the words "Ashrei ha'Ish, it cites the Pasuk "And David came and sat before Hash-m", and the Beraisa of Rebbi Chiya "There is no sitting in the Azarah other than for the kings of Beis David".

Text of Medrash Shochar Tov (cont.): Rebbi Ami in the name of Resh Lakish says that 'There is no sitting in the Azarah other than the location of Malchus Beis David', implying that in that location, anyone is allowed to sit.

Text of Medrash Shochar Tov (concl.): And it is from there that the Yerushalmi extrapolates that even David himself was not permitted to sit in the Azarah.

Text (cont.): And furthermore it cites the Pasuk there "And he sat before Hash-m".

Text (cont.): But did Rav Huna not say in the name of Rebbi Shimon that there is no sitting in Heaven, seeing as the angels do not have a knee-joint, as the Pasuk says "And their legs were straight".

Text (cont.): And the Pasuk says "Serafim standing above Him", and "All the Hosts of the Heaven were standing, some on His right and some on His left". And if in heaven there is no sitting, do you think that David wold sit?'

Text (cont.): Rebbi Ami answered that 'Also the kings of Beis David did not sit in the Azarah'

Text (cont.): 'So what does the Pasuk mean when it says 'And he sat before Hash-m"? - That he leaned against the wall'.

Text (cont.): And who was permitted to sit in the Azarah and in the Heichal? The Kohen Gadol, as it is written "And Eli the Kohen was sitting on a chair".

Text (concl.): So what does the Pasuk mean when it says that "he sat"? It means that he settled down to Daven'.

Question #1: If the Kohen Gadol was allowed to sit, then what is the Gemara asking here, seeing as the Sugya is talking about the Kohen Gadol?

Question #2: Furthermore, there is a Kashya from the second Perek of Zevachim (daf 19:), where in answer to the question how the Kohen Gadol washed his hands and feet, the Gemara explains that 'He placed his right hand on his right foot and washed them' (see the Gemara there). They said to him (to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah) You exaggerate, seeing as it impossible to do that!/

Question #2 (cont.): And following the Gemara's Kashya that the Chachamim were quite right, Rav Yosef answered that his friends would support him. And on the Kashya 'What is the difference between them (Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim), Abaye answers 'Standing with support!'

Question #2 (concl.): And in answer to the question why he cannot sit down, Ravina answers that the Torah says "Leshareis" (which requires standing)'.