What is the source that "Chidlu Lachem..." discusses greeting a friend before praying, [and it is like making him a Bamah]?

Rashi: Why should one refrain from man?! This is only when you should engage in Hash-m's honor.

Maharsha: Tefilah is in place of Avodas ha'Korbanos. Greeting a friend before greeting the Shechinah is like going to offer on a Bamah, and abandoning offering Hash-m's Korban on the Mizbe'ach in the Mikdash.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why does it say "Asher Neshamah b'Apo"? Everyone's Neshamah is in (his life depends on) his nose! Also, why should one refrain from man? Rather, this hints that man's Neshamah departed at night; you and your friend would be dead, had Hash-m not returned your Neshamos. How do you go to greet your friend before praying and praising Hash-m for returning them?! Why does the verse conclude "va'Meh Nechshav"? It already gave a reason! Rather, it teaches that via going to greet your friend, you do not aggrandize him - you lower him. You make him like a Bamah to idolatry! Also, it should have said 'Ki Mah Nechshav.' It says va'Meh for this Drashah.

Megadim Chadashim, Daf Al ha'Daf citing She'eris Nasan: The Zohar (Chadash, Rus 90:4) says that when one rises in the morning, the Neshamah returns to the nose; after praying, it returns to the rest of the body. Refrain from greeting others when the Neshamah is still b'Apo! Megadim Chadashim - also Ben Yehoyada says so; I do not know why he cited Zohar Tetzaveh - it is not explicit there.

Iyun Yakov #1: Shalom is like Korbanos, for they are Shalom between Yisrael and their Father, like Midrashim say. This is why Kohanim are in the congregation of Shalom - "Hineni Nosen Lo Es Brisi Shalom... Bris Kehunas Olam." It is proper to give Shalom to Hash-m first, via praying - "Oseh Shalom bi'Mromav" (Iyov 25:2), Hu Ya'aseh Shalom Aleinu.

Iyun Yakov #2: One who offers on a Bamah l'Shem Shamayim, he intends for a Mitzvah, but he transgresses. The same applies to one who greets a friend before praying.

How does Shmuel expound the verse?

Rashi: He explains "ba'Meh" simply. The verse asks [rhetorically], "how do you consider this one, that you put his honor before Mine?!"

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since your friend's life depends on Hash-m, who returned his Neshamah, why do you honor him, rather than Elokim?

Rav discusses greeting a friend. What was the question from our Mishnah, which permits greeting due to honor?

Anaf Yosef citing Mayan ha'Brachos: 'Friend' is not precise. The same applies to greeting one who is greater than himself.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Hilchos Ketanos (2:4) says that a master should teach his servants that before they serve him in the morning, they should say some Brachos and the first Parashah of Shema. Shevus Yakov (2:22) disagrees. We forbid only one who goes to another's house to honor him. Here, servants do their obligation! Workers read Keri'as Shma on top of the tree (16a; they continue working, before praying). This is like Rav; the Halachah follows him. Shmuel forbids honoring another before honoring Hash-m.

May one greet a friend before praying if he did not go to his friend's house, just he happened to meet him?

Rashi: Yes.

Me'iri: However, one should not elaborate. If one already said at least one Brachah, and recited Keri'as Shma, but did not pray yet, the Isur to go to his friend's house to greet him is not so severe, for he accepted Ol Malchus Shamayim.

Megadim Chadashim: The Ra'avad (Tamid 28a) explains that we forbid going to one's own opening to greet all who pass by. This answers how Ish Har ha'Bayis could give Shalom to those who guard in the Beis ha'Mikdash. This is a big Chidush.

Rav Elyashiv: If he is in the Beis ha'Keneses, he may not go to his friend's place to greet him. It is forbidden even without saying 'Shalom'. However, R. Yonah brings an opinion that forbids only if he says 'Shalom', for it is a name of Hash-m. The Ra'avad forbids 'Shalom' even if he happened to encounter him. This is so he will remember to pray. It is included in the Isur to do his desires before praying. A stringency of his desires over giving Shalom is a decree lest it extend [past the time to pray].

Why did they ask 'did you say Bamah?' Perhaps he holds like Rav!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rav said only it is as if he made him a Bamah. However, he could have answered, also I said 'as if'! This requires investigation. According to texts that R. Yonah discusses one who does his needs before prayer, this is unlike Rav; it is not difficult why they asked him.

Note: Rif initially discusses the text in Ein Yakov, that R. Yonah said 'one who greets a friend... he made him a Bamah.' The text in our Gemara is 'one who does his needs before prayer, it is as if he built a Bamah.' (PF)

Iyun Yakov: Sometimes there is a Heter for Bamos. "Chidlu Lachem..." always forbids! The answer was, I forbid, like one who offers on a Bamah when it is forbidden.

What is the source that "Tzedek Lefanav..." discusses prayer?

Rashi: Tzedek is Tefilah, in which one vindicates his Creator; afterwards, he pursues his desires.

Maharsha: This is like "Shim'ah Hash-m Tzedek Hakshivah Rinasi..." (Tehilim 17:1). According to the text of the Rif (Alfasi) and Rosh, both Drashos discuss going on a journey. In the first, v'Yasem refers to the person - he must pray before going. In the second, v'Yasem refers to Hash-m - He will make the person succeed.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Mechaber (OC 89:3) learns from our Gemara the Isurim to engage in his needs or go on a journey before praying. The Vilna Gaon holds that our Gemara discusses only going on a journey, like the Rif's text. We learn the Isur to engage in his needs from Aba Binyamin, who always exerted that his Tefilah be near his bed (5b). Rashi explained, he would not work before reciting Shma and praying. (Note: Since one may not work before praying, why did Aba Binyamin mention that he was always careful about this? - PF)

Iyun Yakov: Tzedek is Tefilah. We learn from "Ani b'Tzedek Echezeh Fanecha" (Tehilim 17:15); due to this verse, R. Elazar would give a Perutah to an Oni before praying (Bava Basra 10a).

Note: All the Meforshim there, including Iyun Yakov, explain that Tzedek refers to Tzedakah! Perhaps Iyun Yakov means that a verse connects it with Tefilah. (PF)

Why is one who does not have a dream for seven days called a Rasha?

Rashi: Because he is evil, Shamayim does not give to him a dream.

Iyun Yakov: At night, one dreams about what he was thinking about during the day - "Rayonach Al Mishkevach Seliku" (56a). No one avoids thoughts of sin every day. Afterwards, one must have thoughts of Teshuvah. If he did not have a dream for seven days, this shows that he had no thoughts of Teshuvah.

Rav Elyashiv: This discusses one who does not ponder his deeds before sleeping, and Shamayim does not arouse him. One who does so, he does not need this arousal; he is not called evil.

Why don't they expound simply, that one who goes to sleep satiated will not have a mishap?

Maharsha: Rav Acha learns from the Reisha "Yir'as Hash-m l'Chayim v'Save'a..." He satiates himself with Yir'as Hash-m (Torah); he does not say that Keri'as Shma suffices. He will not receive bad tidings, i.e. bad dreams.

Megadim Chadashim: The Gemara said only that he will not hear bad tidings, but we discussed dreams. One could explain unlike Maharsha, that this does not discuss dreams, like 'one who does a Mitzvah properly, he will not know an evil matter (mishap - Shabbos 63a).'

Rif (on the Ein Yakov 16b): One who is satiated with food is prone to have a seminal emission.

What was Rabah's comment about the man who repeated 'Emes'?

Rashi: The habit of saying 'Emes' overcame him.

Ha'Boneh (on Ein Yakov, 13b): Just like one may not say 'Echad Echad', for this is plurality, and not unity, so one may not so 'Emes Emes', for there is only one Emes. He intended to strengthen and add to his words about Hash-m's Emes, but he detracts!

Rav Elyashiv: Rashi implies that there is no reason to repeat Emes, but there is no Isur. The simple reading is like those who forbid, just like 'Shema Shema', for his words imply that there are two powers. One may not infer that one may repeat other words of Shema, without concern for interruption. Here there is a Havah Amina to repeat Emes!

Note: What was his Havah Amina to infer that repeating other words of Shema is not an interruption? After he said Emes, he completed Shema! (PF)

Maharsha: Emes refers to what came before, and also to what comes after. The man thought that one must say 'Emes' for each; one 'Emes' does not suffice for both, like R. Avahu holds.

How is reciting Shema without Tefilin like testifying falsely about himself?

Rashi: This is a euphemism (it is as if he testifies falsely about Hash-m).

Iyun Yakov: (Above (12a), it says that they abolished saying Aseres ha'Dibros with Keri'as Shma, lest heretics say that Hash-m did not give the rest of the Torah.) We are not concerned lest heretics say so about Keri'as Shma, for [we can say that] we read due to wearing Tefilin and Tzitzis. If one does not wear Tefilin, it is as if he testifies that only Keri'as Shma is from Shamayim!

R. Yonah: He says "u'Kshartam l'Os Al Yadecha v'Hayu l'Totafos Bein Einecha", and does not do so. He testifies about himself - he does not do what he says that he must do!

Me'iri: This refers to one who is lenient about Tefilin amidst casting off the yoke of Mitzvos. We do not discuss one who refrains because Tefilin requires a clean body, and while wearing them he must be careful not to sleep, divert his mind from them or engage in a filthy matter.

Maharsha: Hash-m gave to us three Mitzvos that are called 'Os' - Shabbos, Bris Milah and Tefilin. "Al Pi Shenayim Edim Yakum Davar" - on Shabbos we have Shabbos and Milah. On weekdays, we need Tefilin for a second witness. If he does not wear them, the second witness (Tefilin) testifies falsely about himself.

Rav Elyashiv: The author of Hilchos Ketanos would wear Tefilin at Tefilas Ma'ariv, lest he testify falsely about himself. We hold that mid'Oraisa, Tefilin applies at night; mid'Rabanan said not to wear Tefilin at night. The custom is unlike this; at Tzeis ha'Kochavim, one must remove Tefilin.

Iyun Yakov #1: The primary Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim is via wearing Tefilin. If he recites Shema in order to accept Ol Malchus Shamayim, without the primary acceptance, this is like lying about himself.

Iyun Yakov #2: If one says 'I and Ploni transgressed', he is believed about Ploni, but not about himself, for one cannot make himself a Rasha (Sanhedrin 9b). Also here, he says 'you will tie [Tefilin]', and others fulfill, but he does not, he is believed only about others.

What is the comparison to offering an Olah without a Minchah?

Rashi: He was commanded to offer a Minchah with it - "va'Asiris ha'Eifah..." Also, here, he did not complete the Mitzvah. Really, both Olah and Shelamim require both Minchah and Nesachim. R. Chiya bar Aba adopted the wording of the verse "Olah u'Minchah Zevach u'Nesachim" (Vayikra 23:37).

Maharsha: Why did the verse attribute Minchah to Olah and Nesachim to Zevach? One who offers Olah, surely his heart is to Shamayim, for it is Kalil (totally burned; he gets nothing from it). Minchah is said with it, about which it says "Nefesh Ki Sakriv..." - it is considered that he offered his Nefesh. Zevach is not Kalil; we do not find 'Nefesh' written about Nesachim. The first two Parshiyos of Shema mention Tefilin. In the first Parashah he accepts Ol Malchus Shamayim - this is like an Olah. Without Tefilin, it is as if he lacks the Minchah - the completion of the Mitzvah, in which he offers his Nefesh. In the second Parashah he accepts Ol Mitzvos - without Tefilin this is like a Zevach without its completion (Nesachim).

Iyun Yakov: Why do only Olas Behemah and Shelamim require Nesachim? They do not come for sin. When the Chelev and Emunah are burned on the Mizbe'ach, they make a putrid smell - we put wine on the Mizbe'ach for Rei'ach Nicho'ach (a pleasant smell). We find that wine is used for Ziluf (to sprinkle on the ground to make a nice scent). Wine without smell is Pasul for Nesachim (Ramban Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 6:10). We do not pour Nesachim for Chatas and Asham, which are for sin, to show that they are not Rei'ach Nicho'ach. Likewise, we do not put Levonah on Minchas Chotei, lest his Korban be beautiful. There are Nesachim with Chatas and Asham of a Metzora, for the Tzara'as already atoned for his sin (Shevu'os 8a). For Olah, even the bones are burned - this is a very bad smell. (Surely Nesachim are needed;) the Chidush is, even without Minchah it is not accepted. Shelamim is not so putrid - even so, it is not accepted l'Rei'ach Nicho'ach without Nesachim. A verse hints to this - "Lo Yisku la'Shem Yayin v'Lo Ye'ervu Lo Zivcheihem" (Hoshe'a 9:14). It mentions Olah and Shelamim, Kodshei Kodoshim and Kodshim Kalim, corresponding to Shema (Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim) and v'Hayah Im Shamo'a (Kabalas Ol Mitzvos).

Note: He said that Chatas and Asham are not Rei'ach Nicho'ach. It says Rei'ach Nicho'ach about Chatas (Vayikra 4:31)! Also, what is the source that Shelamim without Minchah is not Rei'ach Nicho'ach? We cannot learn from Olah without Minchah, and not from Shelamim without Nesachim - each has a greater problem. Do we learn from a Tzad ha'Shavah?! (PF)

Etz Yosef: Ula holds that he fulfilled the Mitzvah of Shma, just he also transgressed and testified falsely about himself. R. Yochanan holds that he did not properly fulfill the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shma, for he did not accept Ol Malchus Shamayim. This is like a Todah without a Minchah!

Rav Elyashiv, based on R. Yonah: He was Yotzei, but he did not do the complete Mitzvah. This is like it says about Olah without Minchah 'it is as if he did not atone, and he atoned' (Yoma 5a). Imrei No'am (the Vilna Gaon) says that he must repeat Shema with Tefilin. This is astounding - he already fulfilled the Mitzvah! The Mechaber (OC 59:6) says that one opinion says that there is Tashlumin (compensation) for one who omitted Keri'as Shma. If so, also one who did not do the complete Mitzvah can do Tashlumin.

Rav Elyashiv, based on Rama mi'Pi'ano: One may offer his Korban today, and bring its Nesech 10 days later. Also here, even though he read Keri'as Shma without Tefilin, he must wear Tefilin afterwards.

Note: The Torah obligates wearing Tefilin on every weekday, independent of the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shma! Rather, he must wear Tefilin afterwards in order to 'fix' his recital of Shma; see the coming answer. (PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Beis Yitzchak (OC 17:3) and Me'asef l'Chol ha'Machanos citing Alfasi Zuta (of Rama mi'Pi'ano): One may read Keri'as Shma without Tefilin, with intent to wear Tefilin afterwards, just like one may bring an Olah today and offer the Nesachim afterwards. Toras Yekusi'el (11) permits even if afterwards he recites Keri'as Shma with Tefilin after the time for Keri'as Shma. Likutei Chaver ben Chayim says that the Chasam Sofer did not recite Keri'as Shma with Tefilin of R. Tam, lest he transgress saying Keri'as Shma without [Kosher] Tefilin, but the Kesav Sofer's son testified that his father said Keri'as Shma with R. Tam Tefilin; surely, he saw his father (the Chasam Sofer) do so. Shemiras ha'Lashon (Chasimas ha'Sefer 2) says that intent to wear Tefilin later does not suffice, for he says "u'Kshartam..." and does not fulfill it now. Likewise, one must love Hash-m when saying "v'Ahavta Es Hash-m"; it is not enough to fulfill it afterwards. He should contemplate Hash-m's grandeur, his own lowliness, the good that Hash-m did for him... If he cannot think all this at the time of Keri'as Shma, he must do so at least once a day, before he eats, like he must fulfill Tefilin, Lulav and other obligatory Mitzvos before eating.

Note: Seemingly, the others permit as long as he will wear Tefilin afterwards, even if he will not repeat Shma while wearing Tefilin. R. Y. C. Zonenfeld holds that one who reads Shma and does not train his children properly in Torah and Mitzvos testifies falsely about himself (Chashukei Chemed). (Tefilin and Ahavas Hash-m can be fulfilled while saying Shema. Chinuch Banim cannot! Perhaps he could intend to change, and train them properly. Even though only Hash-m knows his intent, it is called false testimony. However, Chashukei Chemed says that if there is no Mezuzah on his door, intent to affix one later does not evade 'Me'id Sheker'! (PF)

Does the same apply to one who says Keri'as Shma without Tzitzis?

Tosfos: No. Tzitzis is merely an obligation on the garment - if he has no Talis, he is exempt!

Megadim Chadashim: Also the Rishonim say so. Iyun Yakov said that Ula omitted Tzitzis, for he holds that Tzitzis is not a Chiyuv on the person. The Magen Avraham (24:3) brings from the Zohar that also one who says Keri'as Shma without Tzitzis testifies falsely about himself. This is for one who wants to be stringent like the Zohar.

Me'iri: Yes, if he is wearing a garment obligated in Tzitzis, and does not have Tzitzis.

Megadim Chadashim: It seems that that was his text in the Gemara. Some say that the Zohar discusses such a case; if so, it does not contradict Tosfos. However, Magen Avraham and others imply that the Zohar discusses even if he is not wearing a four-cornered garment.