English translation — ר"ה-ו' תשרי

In tractate Berachot¹

the Gemara says "Rav Hamnuna said: How many great halachot²

there are to learn from these verses of Chana³

And Chana was speaking upon her heart — from here that one who prays must direct his heart,

only her lips moved — from here that one who prays must enunciate with his lips,

and her voice was not heard — from here that it is forbidden to raise one's voice in his prayer,

and she was considered etc."

And it requires explanation: All matters in Torah are precise to the utmost,

the matter of prayer is already in

(the Five Books of)

Torah,

and several times starting from the prayers of Avraham⁴

Yitzchak⁵

and Yaakov⁶,

the prayer of Moshe⁷

A.

A.

A.

and⁸

— how does it come that the source for "how many halachot etc." is specifically in the prayer of Chana

(in the section of Prophets,

words of Kabbalah)

and not in the prayers that are in the Torah?

At first glance one could say that the prayer of Hannah is unique in that it is a prayer for a fundamental and general matter — for having children — "and give to Your maidservant seed of men"<sup>9</sup>,

that this is a matter which is most hidden,

and that it is one of the "keys" that is "in the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He"

(that were not given over to the hand of a messenger)

that in general to Him one prays,

and specifically to Him".

And it is also most relevant,

and in the language of Rachel<sup>12</sup>

"And if not, I am dead"<sup>13</sup>.

And because the content and request of the prayer of Chanah is a matter most elevated,

therefore this prayer is a foundation and source from which one learns "many great laws" in prayer.

One cannot, however, answer in this way,

because also the prayer of Yitzchak¹⁴

(and Rivkah)

was indeed exactly on the same essential matter,

for children — "And Yitzchak entreated the L-rd opposite his wife

(as Rashi translates "he prayed much and pleaded in prayer")

for she was barren"¹⁵

2.

One also cannot excuse oneself,

that from the prayers of the Patriarchs one could not learn,

since "we do not derive [laws] from before the Giving of the Torah"¹⁶

Because,

first,

it is not speaking here about a derivation

(literally)

from a verse,

but about a revelation of a matter

(like an asmakhta¹⁷)

as it must be¹⁸

the manner of conduct in prayer; and especially since the entire

(matter and)

order of prayer, the Gemara indeed says¹⁹

that "the Patriarchs instituted the prayers" — "Abraham instituted the morning prayer, as it is said etc. Isaac instituted the afternoon prayer, as it is said etc."

Moreover: Regarding a part of the “halachic strong matters,”

that “there is to learn from these verses of Chana,”

says the Maharsha<sup>20</sup>

that “several things that are counted here, such as that one must direct his heart and it is forbidden to raise his voice, we learn them also from other places as above, but he says that from these verses of Chana also there is to learn them.”

And accordingly: But these “things” that “we learn them also from other places” could certainly have been hinted in one of the prayers of the Patriarchs,

which then would be entirely not in contradiction to “we do not learn from before the giving of the Torah,”

since that is not the sole source for these laws.

One must say,

that that which Chazal are precise and emphasize "how many great halachos can be learned from these verses of Chana" is this because in the prayer of Chana one finds a unique novelty in the aspect of prayer.

3.

And one must say the explanation of this:

In the content of prayer there are two general types: There is a prayer that "a person supplicates and prays every day"<sup>21</sup>,

namely for the regular and constant needs that a person requires every day; and there is the prayer "at times when he needs something from the things,

like<sup>22</sup>

at a time of distress and the like"<sup>23</sup>.

And even the poskim who say<sup>24</sup>,

that "prayer every day and the text of the prayer is a rabbinic commandment"<sup>25</sup>,

they hold however,

that it is a biblical commandment "that a person pray ..

at a time of distress" and the like,

when he needs a particular thing.

And the explanation in the opinion of these poskim is understood based on what is explained in many places regarding the definition of prayer and — as the definition is distinct from the definition of blessing<sup>26</sup>

A blessing is from the term "pool" — a place of concentration of water<sup>27</sup>

and the like,

and from there one draws the water according to the needs and particular details that are appropriate.

And a blessing is also from the term "hamavrich"<sup>28</sup>,

whose meaning is drawing forth,

A blessing is the concept of drawing forth a thing from its source.

That is: the activity of blessing is only — when the matter

(of the blessing)

is already present

(in its source),

only for some reason it holds itself back from being drawn down to the one being blessed — and the blessing causes that it should be drawn down from the source and come down below.

And in the language of the verse<sup>29</sup>

: A man according to his blessing he blessed them — with the blessing,

that which was fitting and prepared for each one,

with that he blessed them,

i.

e.

the blessing drew down to each one below that which was in the source above.

And as is brought upon this the proof from the blessing that Yaakov blessed the sons of Yosef,

that Yaakov placed<sup>30</sup>

"his right hand ..

on the head of Efrayim ..

and his left hand on the head of Menasheh",

and Yosef said to him<sup>31</sup>

"for this is the firstborn, place your right hand on his head, and his father refused ..

his younger brother will be greater than he, and his seed will be the fullness of the nations".

At first glance,

since Yaakov is the one who blesses them,

could he not have blessed Menasheh with the same blessing,

that he should be greater than Efrayim?

But the matter is as above: a blessing does not bring about any new thing — it merely draws down

("makes a blessing")

the matter of the blessing from the source.

Therefore Yaakov could not effect with his blessing,

that Menashe should be greater than Efrayim,

because this was not in the source].

But prayer, its matter is,

that one asks the Most High — "May it be [His] will"

(and the like),

that there should be a will,

a new thing,

that was not before.

And based on this, the reason is understood of those opinions that hold that the definition of the commandment of prayer is specifically at a time of the times like at a time of distress and the like,

because prayer is

its main essence is "May it be [His] will",

to effect something new — not like the order that was until then — and the activity of prayer is not so appropriate at a prayer for the regular and habitual needs that are every day

(where it is not noticeable that one effects "May it be [His] will",

something new)

but specifically at a prayer for a change and innovation in the conduct — that there should be a relief, salvation and rescue from the "time of distress" and the like.

Based on this it is understood,

that the greatness of prayer is according to the measure of the greatness of the change and innovation in the matter for which one is praying.

And therefore, although a prayer to nullify a cessation of rains or to heal the sick and the like, its content is "May it be His will,"

to effect a new conduct that should not be according to the decree etc. — this, however, does not reach the prayer for children of a barren woman,

where there must come about an innovation that is contrary to the order of nature,

nature

(barren man and barren woman —)

the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And it is understood,

that in this case the strength and virtue of prayer is expressed with greater emphasis etc.

D.

And based on this it will be understood in our matter:

Although prayer for children in the aforementioned manner is a great virtue as above

(And this matter was with the Patriarchs as above sec. 1),

But the prayer of Channah is unique in this very thing.

And the explanation: The content of the prayer of Channah is as it is written³²

"And she vowed a vow and said, 'Lord of Hosts, if You will indeed look upon the affliction of Your maidservant ..

And give Your maidservant seed of men etc.'",

About which it says in Rashi

(from Yalkut)

on the spot,

that by this she meant "righteous ones"³³.

That

is

she prayed to have not just ordinary children,

but "seed of men — righteous ones";

And her intention thereby was not only a matter of a tzaddik in potential

(that he should have the soul of a tzaddik³⁴)

— but also a tzaddik in actuality³⁵,

as she said in her vow

(which was a part and continuation of her prayer)

"And I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life",

that he will in actuality be given to the Lord all the days of his life.

And since that afterwards it was as she had prayed — there was born to her Samuel,

who indeed in actuality³⁶

was given to the Lord — it is logical,

that this came because the Almighty fulfilled her prayer and request and gave her such a son as she had asked³⁷

(which will actually be given to Hashem).

If this is a matter which is opposite not only from the conduct of nature which the Most High has established in the world,

but, as it were, also above the limitations as they are according to Torah:

It is indeed known³⁸,

that "the angel appointed over pregnancy etc. says before Him

(Hashem)

Master of the Universe etc. mighty or weak etc. But wicked or righteous he does not say",

because³⁸

"everything is in the hands of Heaven except fear of Heaven".

The concept of free choice,

that "authority³⁹

is given to every person: if he wishes to incline himself to the path of good and be righteous, the authority is in his hand, and if he wishes etc.",

is "a great⁴⁰

principle, and it is the pillar of the Torah and the commandment".

It follows that Hannah's prayer was⁴

for a matter that is not only above the nature that Hashem implanted in His world,

but also not according to the limitations and definitions that the Most High established in His Torah, and all this is a great principle and pillar.

5.

The matter of the aforementioned also touches upon halacha:

The Mishnah says⁴²

: Samuel was a nazirite etc., as it is said³²

And a razor shall not go up on his head, it is said regarding Samson⁴³

And a razor, and it is said regarding Samuel, and a razor: just as the razor said regarding Samson [indicates] a nazirite⁴⁴

so too the razor said regarding Samuel [indicates] a nazirite.

And so the Rambam rules

that "Samuel the Ramathite was a perpetual nazirite."

It is known the question

in this: How could the laws of naziriteship apply to Samuel?

The fact that Hannah said a vow "and a razor shall not go up on his head" does not have the power

(according to Torah)

that Samuel should through this become a nazirite: a)

Samuel was at the time of the vow not yet in the world.

b)

Even if he had then been in the world,

"A man may make his son a nazirite, but a woman may not make her son a nazirite"

One has already spoken at length⁴⁸

that the laws of naziriteship

(upon Samuel)

came into effect through the fact that Samuel himself took it upon himself: because when he became a great one, he

(not only did not protest,

but he)

continued the conduct of naziriteship

(according to how Hannah had conducted herself with him previously),

the conduct

(agreement)

effected the applicability of the sanctity of naziriteship retroactively⁴⁹.

With this is even more emphasized the sublime manner of Hannah's prayer and vow: although she knew that her vow alone cannot effect upon her son the sanctity of naziriteship — if he will not agree to it,

nevertheless she was certain that "a razor shall not pass over his head" — she was confident in her prayer that he would surely agree to her vow and would be a nazirite all the days of his life.

6.

And based on this, one must explain the special connection of these "several great halachos" to the prayer of Chana

("One can learn from these verses of Chana"),

that a "person praying must concentrate his heart",

"he should enunciate with his lips" but "it is forbidden to raise his voice in his prayer" and "a drunk person is forbidden to pray"⁵⁰

In the definition of prayer, there are two details: the concentration of the heart in prayer and the speech in prayer.

The main essence of prayer is,

as is known,

the intention of the heart in prayer.

With this, prayer is different from several commandments of speech,

for in prayer, the intention of the heart

(not merely a matter of the intention of the commandment,

as with other commandments of speech,

but)

is a part of the fulfillment of the commandment itself: the intention of prayer constitutes the object of the commandment of prayer,

also the speech of prayer

(as discussed at length elsewhere⁵¹).

And it can be said that this is the reason why one does not find emphasis on the necessity of intention in a blessing⁵²,

but in prayer, the main thing is the intention and feeling of the heart —

And it is sweetened according to the above: A blessing is its concept

(as above sec. 3),

to effect that the influence should be drawn from its source and come down into revelation below,

and therefore the main thing in it is the speech, whose concept is the revelation of thought.

But not so by prayer,

even though its purpose is that a change in the physical should be effected,

"that the sick person be healed and the rain descend from heaven to earth and it bring forth and cause to grow"⁵³,

this is however a result of that which one effects a new will, as it were, by the Holy One, blessed be He,

and this comes mainly through the intention of the heart of the one praying⁵⁴,

"that he turn his heart from all thoughts and see himself as if he stands before the Shechinah"⁵⁵.

When a Jew turns his heart away from all his thoughts and desires and nullifies himself like a servant before his Master⁵⁶

to the Above—the Most High, this brings about,

also above, as it were,

(As water reflects a face back to a face⁵⁷)

that there should be a new will,

which is not according to the limitations of the order of the world,

until even not according to the order and limitation of Torah,

the making of a new will⁵⁸.

And this matter was also a fundamental thing in the prayer of Chana: the emphasis in the verses is not so much the length in the speech of the prayer,

but specifically on the intention of the heart — "And she⁵⁹

was bitter of soul and prayed to the Lord and wept greatly"⁶⁰,

and as she said to Eli⁶¹

"And I poured out my soul before the Lord".

And therefore the content of the intention of the heart is the first matter of the "halachic strong matters" that one learns from the prayer of Chana.

And this is also the content<sup>63</sup>

of the other<sup>63</sup>

"halacha"<sup>64</sup>.

7.

According to the above it is also understood the connection in content,

of the haftarah to Rosh Hashanah<sup>65</sup>

(and in particular according to the known<sup>66</sup>

that the prayer of Chana was on Rosh Hashanah),

because then is the time when one does the new will by the Supreme One

(not only in connection to a particular matter in the creation,

but)

upon the entirety of creation.

The explanation in this:

The main service of Rosh Hashanah is⁶⁷

to effect the "Make Me king over you"⁶⁸

; each year one must anew crown the Most High as King of Israel

(and through this — King of the world).

And this comes through that one arouses in the Above the desire to want to be a king.

And by way of example, as this is by a king of flesh and blood,

That a true king is indeed "from his shoulder and upward he was higher than all the people"⁶⁹,

And this is that the concept of kingship,

To become a king and to lead the nation,

Is for him a descent

(Because that he from himself is high,

Exalted and separate from the nation),

And therefore one needs to arouse in him a desire for kingship.

And the arousal of the desire for kingship is brought about through the nullification that the nation shows forth to the king,

Which then is the concept of the coronation⁷⁰.

And likewise — and all the more so — it is in the analogue,

that the Blessed One Himself is completely above being a king,

because He is entirely separate and elevated from the entire matter of creation.

And through the service of Rosh Hashanah,

when Jews reveal their acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and complete self-nullification to the Blessed One,

one awakens in the Blessed One the desire to be a king.

And therefore "the commandment of the day is with the shofar"⁷¹,

because specifically the shofar blast contains within itself the content that does the matter of "make Me king",

as the Gemara says⁶⁸

"Say before Me on Rosh Hashanah kingships ..

so that you make Me king over you, and with what? With the shofar":

The sound of the shofar is a simple sound,

which comes from the breath of the heart,

which in the service of God is it⁷²

the simple cry of a Jew from the innerness of the heart,

as it is said⁷³

"Cry out their heart to God" — the inner cry of Jews to the Most High,

and therefore this arouses above an inner desire for kingship,

that the Most High should accept the coronation of the Jews and be King of Israel and through this the King of the world,

until it becomes revealed "And it will be⁷⁴

God King over all the earth on that day God will be One and His Name One".

(From the sicha of 6 Tishrei 5730)