פירוש על ברכות 48:10

[HE] FEELS FOR IT [AND REMOVES IT] WITH HIS GARMENT. The Gemara is listing the activities Rebbe engaged in while praying. Rashi explained that the purpose of handling his garment was to remove a louse that was biting him. The second statement but he did not wrap himself in his Talis if his Talis fell off during sh’moneh esray is an independent statement. And they are two separate things.
And Rabainu Chananel said that they are one item. This means: he handled his garment, he fixed the garment so that it should not fall off his head, but if it fell off his head he would not wrap himself in it once again for that would be an interruption, if he would wrap himself in the Talis since it fell off entirely. However, to reposition it slightly so that it should not fall is not an interruption.
This is a short prayer excusing oneself for behaving albeit inadvertently, in an unfitting way while addressing Hashem in prayer. At what point in the prayer does he say this? Immediately, in middle of his prayer, and afterwards he begins from the point that he interrupted the prayer.
R’ Abuhu was following behind R’ Yochonon in a filthy alleyway. R’ Abuhu stopped reciting sh’ma, because he holds that one may not recite sh’ma in a filthy alleyway. When he passed out of the alleyway he asked R’ Yochonon if he must begin sh’ma again or he may return to where he stopped. R’ Yochonon answered, I do not agree with what you did, but according to your behavior you must start sh’ma from the beginning. About what particular aspect of R’ Abuhu’s deeds did R’ Yochonon disapprove?
The explanation of R’ Yochonon’s disapproval is because of two issues. First, that I hold that following even a prolonged interruption one need not return to the beginning.¹See Maharsho, who asks that Tosfos is contradicting what he said earlier in the name of the Prince of Coucy. There Tosfos concluded that if one is forced to interrupt the performance of a mitzvoh, R’ Yochonon agrees that the interruption negates the fulfillment of the mitzvoh. It is only when one voluntarily extends the mitzvoh that R’ Yochonon says that an interruption does not negate the mitzvoh. If so, how can Tosfos present R’ Yochonon’s opinion about the interruption of our Gemara where it seems that R’ Abuhu’s stopping to recite sh’ma was not voluntary but because he found himself in a filthy alleyway. The Maharsho explains that this is truly what Tosfos means when he says the second reason why R’ Yochonon did not agree with R’ Abuhu’s behavior is that he holds that one need not stop reciting sh’ma in a filthy alleyway and R’ Abuhu’s stopping is actually voluntary and therefore the interruption does not negate the fulfillment of the mitzvoh. Maharsho explains that according to this understanding we must say that when Tosfos says at the outset that R’ Yochonon disagreed with R’ Abuhu for two reasons, Tosfos does not mean that each one independently is sufficient to disapprove of R’ Abuhu’s deeds. What he meant was that because of the combination of these two reasons he did not approve of R’ Abuhu’s deeds. First, because R’ Yochonon holds that a voluntary interruption does not negate a mitzvoh. Second, this is a voluntary interruption because one may recite sh’ma in a filthy alleyway by covering his mouth. See פני יהושע who disagrees with Maharsho’s approach. He says that Tosfos here is following the opinion of Rabainu Yehudoh cited in that Tosfos, who disagrees with the Prince of Coucy. Perhaps Maharsho here felt that it is evident that Tosfos is following the Prince of Coucy, because Tosfos here says after presenting his second reason, that I, R’ Yochonon hold that you, R’ Abuhu did not need to stop and therefore you need not return to the beginning, but since you hold that you did have to stop, you must return to the beginning. This is logical according to the Prince of Coucy, because if he had to stop, the interruption is not voluntary and then one must return to the beginning. However, according to Rabainu Yehudoh, one never needs to return to the beginning even if the interruption was involuntary. Why then does Tosfos say that according to R’ Abuhu who holds that he had to stop, he must return to the beginning? The Maharsho therefore favors his understanding that the two reasons of Tosfos must combine as one so that R’ Abuhu did not need to return to the beginning according to R’ Yochonon and that he did have to return to the beginning according to his own opinion. We find that R’ Yochonon says (Rosh Hashonoh 34b) if one heard nine t’keeos, blasts of the shofor, extended over nine hours even though there certainly must have been an interruption long enough to complete the mitzvoh he has fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, there is no need for you to start the sh’mna again.
And furthermore, I hold that while one is in a filthy alleyway, he may place his hand on his mouth and continue reciting sh’ma.And if so, he, R’ Abuhu was eligible to recite sh’ma, even while in the alleyway and it was not necessary for him to stop at all. However, according to your thinking that you hold you were obliged to stop etc. you are obligated to start at the beginning.

WITH ROPES OF VANITY. The prophet bemoans those who draw sin upon themselves through “ropes that are שוא”. The word שוא usually means for naught. Rashi here says that the Gemara means that he will be punished for his even for his inappropriate speech. He did not need to say the sh’ma in the filthy alleyway and even though it is a relatively minor offense as compared to one who sins by action, he will be punished. שוא then refers to speech which is relatively minor as compared to action. Tosfos may not be satisfied with this interpretation because שוא as it is used according to Rashi does not mean for naught, as it usually does, rather, it means for a lesser offense which is not the usual meaning of שוא.
Tosfos therefore offers another explanation. What is meant is – for no reason they draw the sin upon themselves. For it would be better if they did not fulfill the mitzvoh at all rather than saying the words of sh’ma in a place that violates their holiness. The word שוא here means for no positive reason, referring to the motive behind their action when saying the sh’ma in an unclean place. According to this explanation, the word שוא maintains its usual meaning, for naught.

This is how some of the commentators understand the phrase. According to Rashi, it means "search in his garment (so. for vermin)" which are unescapable in the East ; cf. Lane, p. 3.

In his Tallit, if it fell from him during prayer.

He acts as though God were hard of hearing.

Of the prophets of Baal it is said, "And they cried aloud" (I Kings xviii. 28).

When Rabbi acted so.

Since it is regarded as an involantary act.

The verb "to sneeze" is also used euphemistically in the sense "to break wind,"

He was susceptible to sneezing and experienced it even when praying. Hence this teaching relieved his mind.

It is a sign his prayer will be heard in Heaven. Mr H. Loewe drew my attention to a Latin parallel : "Hoc ut dixit, Amor, sinistra ut ante, dextra sternuit approbationem" ; Catullus 45.

See p. 154 n. 6.

Added by M.

And the upper part of his body bare.