Explanation #1 (Rashi): R. Chanina, who says that he must pass (omit) Tefilah while drunk, disagrees with Rav Sheshes [who told someone else to wake him. R. Chanina] forbids to pray until he wakens by himself.

Opinion #1 (Ri): Even if the time for Tefilah will pass, he does not pray, for we consider him to be a drunkard or one who drank until he wakens by himself.

Rebuttal: This is not so, for the Halachah follows Rav Sheshes.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): R. Chanina said that anyone who takes out a shield at the time of haughtiness, i.e. he passes a shield and covers his Yetzer at the time of haughtiness - i.e. when [his Yetzer ha'Ra] overpowers him, he buries it so it will not overpower - they close and seal afflictions from [harming] him.

The word "Mafik" means [coming out,] like "ka'Afik Nechalim Ya'avoru."

R. Yochanan says that he is not Mafik. I.e. he does not cover and remove, rather, he reveals and takes out a shield to fight against it and to suppress it. This haughtiness is at the time a person is drunk.

R. Chanina thought to suppress it through sleep, to remove it and blunt it, is better.

R. Yochanan said [not to, for] we are concerned lest he sink into a deep sleep, and refrain from (miss) Tefilah. Rather, it is better to reveal it, i.e. to engage in traveling and similar matters to wear off [his intoxication], and afterwards pray.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): I checked for this verse, and it is not in any Sefer [of Tanach]. Perhaps it is from Sefer Ben Sira (a collection of sayings from the son of Yirmeyah ha'Navi).

Remark: We find in several places that the Gemara brings "verses" from Sefer Ben Sira, like we find in Bava Kama (92b) "Kol Ohf l'Minehu Yishkon u'Ven Adam l'Domeh Lo", and "Salselah u'Seromemecha uv'Nedivim Toshivecha", and we say in the Yerushalmi in Brachos that it is written in Sefer Ben Sira.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): R. Klonimus answered that the Yerushalmi expounds that whoever is afflicted may not rule, for it says "Shim'i Na Zos Aniyah u'Shechuras v'Lo mi'Yayin."

Citation (Yerushalmi Brachos 5:1): One who comes from the road may not pray for this reason, for it says "Shim'i Na Zos..."

Also R. Zerika and R. Yochanan in the name of R. Eliezer ben R. Yosi ha'Gelili says that whoever is afflicted may not rule. Presumably, we learn from "Shim'i Na Zos."

Observation: Now, we compare pain to intoxication, and regarding intoxication it says "Lehavdil u'Lehoros", like we expound in Kerisus (13b). For this reason he may not pray, for he is drunk amidst distraction in his affliction and anger.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): [Here, we] expound "ha'Ya'aroch Shu'acha Lo b'Tzar." I.e. at the time of affliction, do not arrange your prayer when there is distraction;

In several places the Gemara is wont to abbreviate the verse, e.g. v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo. (This is an abridgement of Vayikra 27:19 "... v'Yasaf Chamishis Kesef Erkecha Alav v'Kam Lo.")

Question: [If so,] why does it say b'Tzar Al Yoreh? It should have said [b'Tzar] Al Yispalel!

Explanation: This refers to [the short] nights of Tekufas Tamuz. (Surely, the long nights of winter are not only for sleeping!)

Explanation: The simple meaning of the verse is literally water, for the end of the verse is "v'Hasirosi Machalah mi'Kirbecha." [Hash-m removes illness] through blessing the water;

This is like we find regarding curing the [bitter] water of Marah "Kol ha'Machalah Asher Samti b'Mitzrayim Lo Asim Alecha", and it says also "Ripisi la'Mayim ha'Eleh."

Question: Since it is common, if so, why is the inner [Chatzer] permitted in its place? We find that R. Eliezer ben Yakov permits an individual in place of a Nochri only because it is not common [for an individual] to live [with a Nochri]!

Answer: Since usually, it is not common for an individual [to live with a Nochri], Rabanan did not distinguish, and permit in every case.

Question: If so, what was his question "but here, one might have thought..."? Granted, it is not common. In any case it should be forbidden, for Rabanan did not distinguish, [and forbid] every two in place of a Nochri!

Answer: We do not say "Rabanan did not distinguish" to be stringent.

Inference: This proves like R. Tam says, that Reish Lakish was a great Chacham before he came in front of R. Yochanan, for this episode was shortly after Rebbi died, since they asked R. Efes. (If Rebbi was alive, they would have asked him!)

R. Efes lived after Rebbi's death only two and a half years, like it says in Kesuvos (103b).

Note: What is Tosfos' proof? Tosfos (Gitin 84b DH Rebbi) says that Rav Kahana would not have gone to learn from R. Yochanan if Chizkiyah, R. Yochanan's Rebbi, was still alive, and surely not if Rebbi's son R. Shimon was alive. Perhaps also Reish Lakish would not have learned from R. Yochanan in their lifetimes, and it is unlikely that both of them died early in these two and a half years of R. Efes, with enough left for Reish Lakish to start learning from R. Yochanan and become great.

Observation: Also in Yevamos (57a) it connotes like this. (It says "is Reish Lakish a great Chacham, and R. Yochanan is not?" If Reish Lakish already came in front of R. Yochanan, it should have said "and R. Yochanan, his Rebbi, is not?!")

Explanation (Rashi): They were afraid lest the Nochri come during Shabbos.

Explanation: If he would not come, he would not forbid. This is like R. Yehudah, for a Mishnah (below, 86a) teaches that if one leaves his house to spend Shabbos in another city, whether he is a Yisrael or a Nochri, he forbids. R. Yehudah says, he does not forbid...

Implied question: We ruled above (47a) like R. Shimon, who says that even if he left his house and went to spend Shabbos with his daughter in the same city, he does not forbid! (This connotes that we permit only regarding a Yisrael!)

Answer #1: R. Shimon does not come to be more stringent about a Nochri than R. Yehudah is. Rather, he comes solely to be lenient, and permit regarding a Yisrael more than R. Yehudah. Even within the same city he permits, for [the one who left] already diverted his mind [from returning on Shabbos].

Answer #2: We hold like the lenient opinion in Eruv. (Even if R. Shimon were more stringent, the Halachah would not follow him.)

Implied question: R. Yochanan does not hold that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Eruv, for he said these Klalim (general rules about how we rule) absolutely above (46b. One Klal is that in an argument of) R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, the Halachah follows R. Yehudah!

Source: [The Gemara] wanted to infer that Rav argues with the Klalim, since we find that he ruled like R. Shimon regarding Eruv. (This shows that the Klalim override following the lenient opinion in Eruv.)

Answer: Even so, we hold like R. Yehoshua ben Levi against R. Yochanan, [and R. Yehoshua ben Levi] said (46a) that the Halachah follows the lenient opinion in Eruv;

This is like R. Tam deduces [that we follow R. Yehoshua ben Levi against R. Yochanan] from Megilah 27a regarding "v'Es Kol Bayis Gadol Saraf ba'Esh."

Explanation: There was not even one of his household there, for we say below (66a) that one may rent even from his Sachir or Lakit (resident worker for a year or the harvest season);

Also his wife, if she was there, could have rented [to them], like it connotes below (80a) regarding the [Nochri] overseer of the weapons of the city.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Before Shabbos the Yisrael residents in [the inn] were not able to be Me'arev, because the Nochri forbade them, even though he was not there.

Objection: This is astounding. He explains our Sugya unlike the Halachah! We hold that a Nochri forbids only when he is there, like I explained above (DH Ikle'u), and like also Rashi explained above in that episode!

Explanation #2: I found in other Perushim of Rashi that before Shabbos the Yisrael residents in it could have been Me'arev, because the Nochri does not forbid them when he is not there.

They said "may we rent from him, and then be Mevatel Reshus to one, and the one will be permitted to take out?" This is from [the other Perush of] Rashi.

Support: He is correct. He explained that Bitul is needed after rental, like is proven in the entire Sugya, that both are required - rental and Bitul;

Even if they were Me'arev, they are not permitted through rental alone, for once the Nochri comes, the Eruv is Batel. When they later rent [from him], the Eruv does not return to its previous [Heter].

Implied question: Regarding boats, it says in Shabbos (101b) that boats tied together may be Me'arev [together] and carry from one to the other. If [the ropes tying them] snapped, they are forbidden. If they became tied again, they return to their initial Heter!

Answer: Here is different, for initially, when he made the Eruv, it was not destined to last all of Shabbos, for the Nochri will come later. There the boats are not destined to be untied.

Implied question: When one member of the Chatzer forgot and was not Me'arev, their Eruv is not Batel. Rather, that one is Mevatel his Reshus to those who were Me'arev, and they are permitted to bring in and take out!

Answer: There is different, for before Shabbos they were all proper to be Me'arev. Therefore, their Eruv is not Batel at all.