Brochas: Daf  Nun Daled amud beis

R. Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Four (types of people) must give thanks - Yordei haYam (seafarers), Holchei Midbaros (those travelling through deserts, one was ill and recovered, and one who was imprisoned and was released.

The Ben HaYehoyada raises a series of questions on this Brysa.

Q. Psalm 107 speaks first of travellers in deserts, and only then of seafarers. Why does the Brysa reverse the order? And why does the sick person precede the prisoner?

A. A ship requires a company of sailors, whereas those travelling in a desert can be few in number. The remaining cases refer to individuals, but the sick person is a more common occurrence than that of the prisoner.

Q. The Brysa's first two cases are in the plural while the third and fourth cases are in the singular. Why is this so?

A. The seafarer and desert caravan traveller take on the dangers of their profession of their own volition and have no need to separate themselves from their fellow man, unlike the sick person and the prisoner. In each of the two pairs, the more dangerous situation precedes the less dangerous.

Q. Why in the two final cases does it mention the means of redemption, recovery and release; whereas in the first two cases no mention is made of having survived the experience?

A. In the first two case one is required to give thanks even if there was no apparent danger i.e. even if there were no storms or robbers.

Brochas: Daf Nun Gimmel amud beis

Beis Hillel said to Beis Shammai, "according to your opinion, do you hold that someone who ate at the top of a mansion and forgot and went down and did not recite Birchas HaMazon, must return to the top of the mansion and recite it (even though this involves considerable effort?)" Beis Shammai responded to Beis Hillel "according to your opinion, one who forgot a purse on top of a mansion, would he not go up and retrieve it?  If he ascends on account of his own honour, how much more (should he be required to go up) for the honour of heaven."

The Ben HaYehoyada points out that the two cases do not seem directly analogous, in as much as it is impossible to recover the purse without going up again, but it is possible to recite Birchas HaMazon in the lower level of the mansion. He answers this by saying that while it is possible to send someone else to recover the money, typically in such a situation we show considerable alacrity in wishing to recover the money ourselves. This being the case, we should be careful to exercise at least the same alacrity in performing the Mitzva in a fashion which is undoubtedly preferable.

Brochas: Daf Nun Beis amud beis

We do not recite blessing (for Havdalah) over the flame of gentiles...

It is understandable in respect of a flame, for it did not rest (on the Sabbath)

Rashi seems to suggest that there is a transgression ("aveira"). Despite the fact that one would expect this to be acceptable given that a gentile is permitted to light the lamp on Shabbos (since he has no mitzva to keep Shabbos), there is still apparently a hint of an aveira, given that it would have been forbidden for a Jew to complete the same action. The Taz (Orach Chaim 298:5) comments that this Gezeira is implemented despite the fact that a Jew is permitted to make use of a lamp lit by a gentile for his own use, since the blessing (as opposed to the use) requires there should be no hint of "aveira."

This prohibition is not extended writes the B'eer Haitiv to a lamp lit by a Jew from a lamp lit by a gentile.

Brochas: daf Nun aleph

One takes the cup with both his hands...

And places the cup in his right hand... What is the law as to whether the left hand may assist the right hand? Rav Ashi said, since the earlier ones asked the same question without resolving it, one should act stringently (and not do so.)

He raises it a tefach above the ground. R. Acha the son of R. Chanina said, which verse is the scriptural source for this (Psalms 116:13) I will raise up the cup of salvations and call out the name of Hashem.

The Maharsha points out that the two hands represent Din (justice) and Rachamim (mercy). Since the right hand represents mercy it should end up holding the cup. The word Cos (cup) has the gematria 81, as does the word Elokim (the attribute of G-d represented by justice. Thus the Cos shel Brocha  (the cup of blessing drunk at the end of the meal) is a cup of salvation, achieved by calling on the name of Hashem (the attribute of mercy) to take precedence over Cos/Elokim, Din/strict justice.

R. Yochanan said: whoever recites Birchas HaMazon over a full cup is given an inheritance without boundaries, as it says in the verse "when filled with Hashem's blessing, West and South you shall inherit ("y'rosha")." R. Yose bar Chanina says, "he merits and inherits two worlds, this world and the world to come."

Tosfos explain that the word "y'rosha" could have been written without the initial "yud" and final "heh". And as the verse in Isaiah (26:4) which we say daily at the very end of our morning prayers says: "ki b'Ka Hashem tzur olamim," "Trust in Hashem forever, for in G-d (Yud Heh) Hashem is the strength of the worlds," which the gemara (Menachos 29b) explains is this world and the world to come.  See there for explanations as to why this should be so. 

Brochas: Daf Nun amud aleph

And from one's blessings it can be discerned whether or not he is a Torah scholar. How so? Rebbi says (if in the zimun blessing he says) "B'Tuvo" (Blessed is He of whose we have eaten and through whose goodness we live), he is a Talmid Chocham. (But if he says "U'MiTuvu" (and from whose goodness we live) he is an ignoramus.

The Ben haYehoyada writes that a Talmid Chocham is happy with his lot in life and has restrained material needs, focusing on his study of Torah. G-d provides what we need. Therefore, by definition what we are given is what we require; thus for him B'Tuvo represents complete good. By contrast the ignoramus is focused on his material wants; when he is given a hundred, he desires two hundred. "MiTuvo" is as Rashi comments a restrictive description. "From" implies less than all. He is focused on what he does not have, rather than what he does have. 

49 hold

Brochas: Daf Mem Ches amud beis

(The Chachomim) established the blessing of "HaTov v'haMaitiv" ("He who is good and does good to all") in Birchas haMazon, in response to those killed in Beitar (whose bodies did not decompose and who were eventually brought to burial.

The Anaf Yosef quotes the Tzlach who asks given that the bodies did not decompose what was the necessity of burial, since it is the decomposition which is the embarrassment for the body? His response is that burial is needed for the "nefesh" allowing the spirit to cleave to G-d. The Mekubalim explain that while each person's body is individual, his spirit is a fragment of a unified G-dly whole. That the body does not compose is Tov, good, but the good is confined to the individual; that the nefesh via burial can rejoin with the entirety of the G-dly whole, is Maitiv, it does good for the klal, for the community of Yisrael.

Brochas: Daf Mem Zayin amud aleph

(Rav Chisda) said to him (Rami bar Chama) ... whoever answers Amen longer than necessary is simply mistaken

The Rabbis taught ... And whoever prolongs his saying Amen, they lengthen his days and his years for him

Tosfos say that answering Amen longer than necessary is simply mistaken because is because it will lead to mispronunciation of the word and because it also delays the moment at which the person who made the Motzi blessing is allowed to eat.

The Maharsha takes a completely different approach. Saying Amen for longer than necessary is simply mistaken because it is predicated on an erroneous assumption that extended life (which prolonging the saying of Amen will cause) is always good. A long life is positive, a life which is longer than appropriate is not. Quality of life, not mere quantity is that to which we should aspire. 

Brochas; Daf Mem Vov amud beis

The Rabbis taught in a Brysa: we do not accord honour (by giving on precedence), neither (when travelling) on roads, nor (when passing over) bridges, nor (with regard to washing) soiled hands.

The Ben haYehoyada draws a Mussar message, a moral lesson from this Brysa. The material world, Olam haZeh, is compared to a road and a bridge along which we travel and must pass; and that man is soiled/polluted by the Nachash, (Yeitzer Hora.) The world is thus a vehicle to rid ourselves of this contamination. This is achieved by distancing ourselves from Kovod, honour.  

Brochas: Daf Mem Heh amud aleph

R. Shimon ben Pazzi said: "From where is it derived that the translator (of the Torah reading) is not permitted to raise his voice above that of the reader?  For it is stated (Exodus 19:19): 'Moses would speak and G-d would respond to him with a voice'. The words 'with a voice are redundant, so what do they teach: 'with a voice (equal in volume to that) of Moses."

Tosfos points out in the name of the Rif that presumably Moses when translating spoke at the top of his voice so he could be heard by the whole people. Since G-d was speaking only to Moses one might have expected the volume to be different; that it wasn't, shows us that there must be an obligation on the translator to match his volume to that of the reader.

However, the Maharsha suggests that it was Moshe who was reading in Hebrew and that it was G-d who was translating into the 70 languages (see Gemara Shabbos 78b where it says each and every word which issued from the mouth of HKBH split into 70 languages). In consequence, the proof would be that despite the fact that G-d was talking to everyone and Moses only to G-d, HKBH kept His voice at the same lower volume used by Moses.

Brochas; daf Mem Daled amud aleph

When Rav Dimi came, he said (There was this) one city that King Yannai had in HarMelech from which they would from one Friday to the next take out 600,000 bowls of tuna to feed the fig pickers.

When R. Yitzhak came he said, there was one city in Eretz Yisrael and gfufnis was its name in which there were 80 pairs of brothers who we're Kohanim married to 80 pairs of sisters who were Kohanos.

The Ben HaYehoyada explains that the first Brysa is an exaggeration for the purpose of teaching a parable, but the second Brysa is a description of an event which actually occurred. He concludes this by virtue of the fact that the second Brysa, unlike the first, gives the name of the city. He cites the example of the Gemara in Eiruvin (63a) which asks why the name of a particular rabbi, Yehuda ben Guria is given in connection with a particular incident. The gemara responds so that one should know that it is not a parable.

Brochas: Daf Mem Gimmel amud aleph

Rav Zutra bar Toviyah said in the name of Rav: "from where is it derived that we recite a blessing over a fragrance? As it says in the verse (Psalms 150:6) 'Let every soul praise G-d.'. What is something from which the soul derives pleasure, but the body does no? Say that this is the fragrant smell."

The Ben HaYehoyada writes that despite the Scriptural source, this is clearly an "asmacta b'alma" (a hint); however, according to the Ben HaYehoyada the Gemara's question is how do we know it is permissible to make a blessing over a fragrance. One might well think the contrary given the brief and transitory nature of the sensation. The Gemara brings the Scriptural proof that the pleasure for the Neshama is deemed of importance and it is permissible to make a blessing over it.

The Ben HaYehoyada goes on to question to the conclusion of the Brysa that the body does not benefit from the smell. He concludes that for the body it cannot be considered a substantive or complete pleasure because it works on the mind, which is a "haylek" of the Neshama.

Brochas: Daf Mem Beis amud aleph

R. Chiya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: There are three things which follow on immediately - immediately following smicha is slaughter; immediately following the blessing of redemption is the (Shemone Esre) prayer; and immediately following washing ones hands is (Birchas haMazon) blessing.  Abaye stated: we too can (add and) say: Immediately following Torah scholars is blessing, as it is stated (Genesis 30:27) and Hashem blessed me (Lavan) on account ("b'glalecha") of you (Jacob).

The Eitz Yosef asks how the verse proves the immediacy of the response. His answer is that the verse does not use the language of "through you" ("b'avoreicha") but "b'glalecha", from the root "gilgul, to turn around," with the implication that as soon as one has reached his destination, he immediately turns around. 

Brochas: Daf Mem Aleph amud beis

(Rav Hisda) said (admiringly to Rav Hamnuna in response to his exposition of Deuteronomy 8:8 – a land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey – as giving the order for precedence in the various fruit to be blessed): “Who will give us iron legs that we may serve you” (and constantly hear from you novel ideas)?

 The Ben HaYehoyada asks two questions in respect of this rather strange language of approbation: how will iron legs serve to assist the student follow and serve his Rebbe; and what is the significance of iron, as opposed to brass, or some other metal?

He gives four interlinked answers:

1. That the Mekubalim (the master of Kabalah) held that the Chachomim of earlier times travelled to liberate sparks of holiness from their materialistic husks  i.e. Psalm 119:1 ashrei tmimei derech haHolchim b'Toras Hashem (Happy are the pure travellers who journey in/with G-d's Torah.) And thus these righteous Rabbis were called, those of iron legs because they cut through the husks, ridding the world of confusion and despair, instead infusing it with Yishuv haDaas, the settled mind which is a function of an understanding that we live in an ordered universe run by HKBH

2. Both Malchus (sovereignty) and Torah sh'Bal Pe (oral Torah) are designated as "Iron". When the Talmidei Chachomin (?who represent Malchus?) travel "b'Toras Hashem" they are "travelling" in Torah sh'Bal Pe to cut through the materialistic husks.

3. Eretz Yisrael is compared to iron (its stones are iron) (?and therefore it is a hard place to live) but its air is deemed to make one who studies Torah there wiser than if he studies elsewhere. Wishing that a person has legs of iron is akin to wishing that he may have the merit to study in Eretz Yisrael.

4. In sefer Daniel, Nebuchanedzer's dream contains a figure with legs of iron which represents the final exile of Edom, which is hard as iron; and this exile causes confusion and despair. However, in the end HKBH will revenge us and install Yisrael above Edom. The one who is given legs of iron is thus the one to whom is given over the right to rule Edom. This will dispel the despair. 

Brochas: Daf Mem amud aleph

Rava bar Shmuel said in the name of R. Chiya, the one who breaks the bread is not permitted to (recite the blessing) and break the bread until they being salt and relish before each an every person.  Rava bar Shmuel visited the home of the Reish Galusa. They brought out bread for him and he (immediately) broke it (without waiting for salt or relish).   They asked, did Master retract his teaching? He said to them, this bread (because it has been made with refined flour and is therefore quite tasty - Rashi) does not require one to wait.

Tosfos comment that on refined bread such as ours (or bread which is tasty or itself contains salt) one is not required to wait for salt; however, R. Menachem was scrupulous based on a Medrash which says that guests while waiting for their host to break bread, post having washed their hands, are bereft of mitzvos and susceptible to the accusations of the "Saton." Having salt on the table acts as a shield against this. This custom is also cited by the Rema (Shulchan Orech OC167.5) who adds that the table is akin to the altar and food to the korban and that we are told (Vayikra 2:13) to add salt to all our korbanos.

Brochas Daf Lamed Tes amud aleph

For there were two disciples who were sitting before Bar Kappara. They brought before him cabbage, mountain spinach and partridge. Bar Kappara gave one of the disciples permission to recite the blessing. He hurried to do and recited (shehakol) over the partridge. His colleague mocked (on the basis that he should have given priority to an adoma blessing on the vegetables.)

Bar Kappara became angry. He said, it is not with the one who recited the (shehakol) blessing that I am angry, but rather with the one mocked him ...

He then said, it is not with the one who mocked him that I am angry, but rather with the one who recited the (shehakol) blessing that I am angry.

And he said "if wisdom is not here, is greater age not here?"  It was taught in a Brysa and neither of them lived out the year.

Why does the Gemara not write more concisely, "he was angry with both of them;" and on what basis did the students deserve to die early?

The Ben haYehoyada writes that sometimes one trangresses in a minor fashion and ones sin can be overlooked.  However, if two people sin at the same time, even if the transgressions are minor, they should be upbraided. In this case had the text said "he was angry with both of them;" each student would have thought his own sin was minor and he was only being castigated based on his error occurring at the same time as his fellow student. To avoid this, Bar Kappara reproved each student individually to emphasis the seriousness of each ones action.

The Brysa ends with Bar Kappara's reproof "if wisdom is not here, is greater age not here?" followed by an account of their demise. The point says the Ben haYehoyada is to explain that while each student might potentially have had wisdom, possibly in excess of that of his Rebbe, the latter was still owed the "kovod" (honour) of having his opinion sought on the basis that one show appropriate deference for age.

Brochas: Daf Lamed Ches amud beis

And the law is (we recite) "HaMotzi Lechem Min haAretz (rather than "Motzi" without the preceding article - "heh") for we hold in accordance with the Rabbis who say that ("HaMotzi" also) connotes the One who has brought forth (from Mitzrayim.)

Tosfos, based on a Yerushalmi, explain that the interposition of the letter "heh" prevents consecutive use of the letter "mem" at the end of "Olam" and beginning of "Motzi."  The Ben haYehoyada cites Tosfos and then briefly elaborates that the "hey" itself has significance on the basis of two "kavonos" elaborated by the Ari in his sefer Shaar haMitzvos daf 54

The two kavonos concern the two letters Heh in the Tetragrammaton (shem Havayah). These are Midos of Hashem. The first Heh = Ima Bina; the second Heh = Malchus. The first Heh represents the mother giving birth to existence; the second Heh represents existence in its finality (i.e. completeness).

So the two Kavonos when saying HaMotzi are:

1.       Heh Motzi = Ima Bina the source of existence and of sustenance.

2.       Heh Motzi = Malchus the completeness of that existence

On eating bread one recognises both source and completeness.

The two "Hehin" are the same letter, because the ultimate purpose of existence is to match the final outcome to the original intention – sof maaseh bemachshovo techila.

Brochas: Daf Lamed Zayin amud aleph

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the Elders ... and they brought dates before them and they ate. And Rabban Gamliel gave R. Akiva permission to recite the blessing. R. Akiva hastened to recite the one blessing which is an abridgement of three (i.e. the blessing made after consuming one of the seven species.). Rabban Gamliel said to him: Akiva until when will you poke your head into a dispute. (R. Akiva) said to him, our master, even though you say thus and your colleagues thus, you have taught us our master (that in a matter of dispute between) an individual and many, we follow the opinion of the majority.

Tosfos explain that Rabban Gamliel thaought that R. Akiva would recite Motzi in accordance with his views.

The BenYehoyada explains that R. Akiva was justifiably nervous of the reaction of his Rebbe, Rabban Gamliel.  Even though he had both been given permission to recite the blessing and believed he was justified in acting in accord with his own opinion, given that it was also the opinion of the Chachomim, he recognised both that the Tannaim were typically stringent when it came to reproving those they felt had impinged upon their honour, and that he personally, as the son of a convert, did not possess “Zchus Avos” (the merit of the Forefathers.) In consequence, he was quick to stress to Rabban Gamliel, the Halachic dictum which Rabban Gamliel had himself taught, namely: that in a matter of dispute between an individual and many, we follow the opinion of the majority.

Brochas: Daf Lamed Vov amud beis

Rava said one who chews peppercorns on Yom Kippur is exempt (from the penalties associated with eating on Yom Kippur, because they are deemed not to be a food.)

...Then what does the Torah teach by stating "Food Tree?". It comes to include (in the law of Orlah i.e. forbidden consumption), (?the fruit of?) a tree whose wood and fruit are equal in taste. And this is the pepper tree.

... It is not difficult, this brysa (which holds peppercorns to be food is dealing with) moist ones; (while the ruling of Rava which considers them to be inedible is talking about) dry ones. 

The Rashba asks why we don't cite the case of the esrog, the wood of which also tastes like the fruit. He answers that we don't need a posuk to tell us that an esrog is fruit, while peppercorns because they are typically dry might well not be considered fruit.

The Ben haYehoyada points out that originally Hashem's intention was that all trees should have fruit and tree with the same taste. But the Earth chose to ignore this stricture because it knew that man would sin; nonetheless since G-d's intention will eventually be fulfilled, it was important that there should exist an example of a tree which had fulfilled the intent of the Creator.

He also explains that G-d's intent with the first Luchos (two tablets of commandments given by G-d to Moses) was that their internal spiritual essence should be akin to their external material appearance. When we sinned we caused the Torah available to us to be on a lower, more materialistic level. But in the future, matters will revert to their proper mode; at this point, the tree (which represents Torah - "Aitz Chaim He") and its fruit will once again taste the same. In the meantime, the pepper tree gives an example of what should have been.  Why is the pepper tree particularly  appropriate to fulfil this function? Because of the last part of the Brysa. If it is moist i.e. living and being renewed, it is food for the soul; if it is dry i.e. lifeless, it provides scant nourishment. 

Brochas: Daf Lamed Hei, amud aleph and beis

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who derives benefit from this world without saying a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to Heaven, as it is stated: “The Earth and all it contains are the L-rd’s” (Psalms 24:1).  Rabbi Levi pointed out a contradiction.  It is written: “The Earth and all it contains are the L-rd’s,” and it is written elsewhere: “The heavens are the L-rd’s and the earth he has given over to mankind (Psalms 115:16).  This is not difficult, the former is before a blessing, the latter afterwards.

R. Chanina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without saying a blessing, it is as if he stole from G-d and from the community of Israel.

The Maharal (Gevuros Hashem 693) explains that “b’Din v’Mishpat” (in strict legal terms) the entire cosmos, both Heaven and Earth belongs to G-d.  However, out of His goodness, He has given Earth to mankind.  [The gift is however conditional upon our recognition of the goodness that has been bestowed upon us.]  By saying a blessing we demonstrate our awareness of this, which in turn allows G-d to bestow yet more goodness.

The Iyun Yaakov tells that the true intention of creation is not to benefit mankind, but rather to bring “Kovod Shomayim”, honour to HKBH. Thus it is only when man makes a blessing and thus manifests an awareness that bringing honour to G-d is in fact the purpose of the creation that it becomes permissible to derive benefit from the world.

The Rif elaborates that a person who fails to say a blessing undermines the flow of goodness that Hashem wishes to bestow upon the world.  This consequence is a diminished store of things over which we can make new blessings.  As such, a failure to make an individual blessing not only undermines Kovod Shomayim directly, but sets in motion a chain reaction which has further ramifications in terms of the quantum of Kovod Shomayim in the world.  The reverse is surely also true: one who makes a blessing with the appropriate Kovonas (intentions) actualises positive spiritual energies which increase goodness in the world, thereby increasing our stock of physical objects over which we have the opportunity to utter further blessings, and thus manifest increased Kovod Shomayim.

Brochas: Daf Lamed Daled amud aleph

The Rabbis taught in a brysa. Three things are bad in excess, but fine in moderation. And they are yeast, salt and refusal (to become Shliach Tzibor)

The Eitz Yosef explains the connection. Yeast and salt both strengthen mixtures into which they are placed if included in small quantities, but ruin the mixture and weaken it, if added to excess. Similarly an over zealous and/or prolonged refusal to serve the community as Shliach Tzibbor causes the klal to lose the opportunity to come together as a united body in the service of G-d. And the one who demonstrates this trait demonstrates the lack of worth he attributes to taking up his communal responsibilities. 

Brochas: Daf Lamed Beis amud beis and Lamed Gimmel amud aleph

  

The Rabbis taught, of an incident involving a particular Chossid (pious man) who was praying (while travelling) upon the road.  An officer came and greeted him. (He) did not respond with a greeting. (The officer) waited until he had finished his prayer.  After he finished, he said to him – you good for nothing; isn’t it written in your Torah “Take utmost care and guard yourself diligently” (Devorim 4:9). And it is also written “Therefore take good care of yourself” (Devorim 4:15).  When I greeted you, why did you not respond with a greeting?  Were I to sever your head with a sword, who would hold me accountable for your blood (i.e. death)?  

(The Chossid) said to him – wait for me until I appease you with my words.  He said to him – had you been standing before a flesh and blood king and your friend came and greeted you, would you return his greeting?  (The officer) said to him – no.  (The Chossid then asked) and were you to greet him, what would they do to you?  He replied – they would cut off my head.  

(The Chossid) said to him – then is this not a matter of a fortiori inference? You who stand before a human king who (you should fear in a strictly limited fashion) given that he is here (today) but tomorrow will be in the grave, (do you not recognise) that I, who stand before the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, who lives and endures for eternity, (have I not) all the more so (acted appropriately.) The officer was immediately appeased and the pious an returned home in peace.

  

The Brysa is brought to illustrate the principle being discussed in the Gemara, that when Jewish king greets you while you are praying you should not interrupt your Tefilloh in order to respond.  However, when greeted by a non-Jewish authority who may pose a threat to your safety, you should interrupt your prayer in order to respond.  The Taz (Shulchan Orach - Orach Chaim 66) therefore asks why the Chossid put himself into danger by failing to respond, commenting in passing that he was certainly not entitled to rely upon a miracle. He answers that because the Officer offered a greeting and showed himself willing to wait, the Chossid was able to conclude that it was appropriate (because safe) to complete his prayer.

The Marhashal in his commentary Chochmas Shlomo (Shulchan Orach - Orach Chaim 104:1) uses this Brysa to engage in fascinating discourse on the subject of a Jew’s obligations in respect of giving up one’s life.  He posits that when the officer asked the Chossid the question – “Were I to sever your head with a sword, who would hold me accountable for your blood death?” he meant, “I would not even be accountable “b’yday Shomayim” (in Heaven) for my actions, because you have acted in such a foolish fashion.” The Marhashal takes as a given both that even if the Chossid was not destined to die at this time, the Officer could exercise free will and execute him, and that gross stupidity may render one culpable as regards one’s own fate to the degree that the Chossid’s action/inaction might in certain circumstances be deemed akin to suicide!  

The Marhashal explains that suicide is a sin because its premise is that we are owners of our own lives.  In fact we are granted our lives “b’Kovod Shomayim” (for the honour of Heaven).  In this case, it is possible that being Moser Nefesh (foregoing one’s life) in the context of Tefilloh would add to Kovod Shomayim and while not required, might be permissible, and certainly does not constitute suicide.  Furthermore, the Officer were he to have killed the Chossid would indeed be found guilty of murder and punishable "b'yday Shomayim.".

He goes on to explain that while we are only required to give up our lives if asked to transgress one of the three cardinal sins, interrupting one’s Tefilloh might conceivably be an exception in that it involves "standing before the King."

The Chossid’s response was designed very directly to demonstrate both the Kovod Shomayim intrinsic in Tefilloh, and the consequence of hasty action by the Officer;  hence the reaction “the Officer was immediately appeased.”

Brochas Lamed Beis amud aleph

In the academy of R. Yannai. ...Because of the silver and gold that You lavished on Israel... that is what caused them to make the golden calf. A parable, a lion does not roar in the midst of a basket of straw, but rather a basket of meat. R. Oshaya said: a parable of a person who had a cow that was lean and bony. He fed it vetch and it would kick him. R. Chiya bar Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan, this is analagous to a person who had a son. He bathed and anointed him, fed him and gave drink. He hung a purse around his neck and set him down outside a brothel. Do you expect him not to sin?

Why is there a need for three seperate parables. 

The Ben Yehoyada explains as follows: the lion is acting according to his innate nature and as such this is akin to a transgression committed "b'shogeg" (inadvertently). The cow in kicking out when fed is acting against its nature, which is a transgression committed "b'maized" (intentionally). Lastly the son who is left with money outside the brothel is akin to a transgression committed "shogeg hakoruv "l'maized" (a transgression which while nominally inadvertent could be expected to happen).

Klal Yisrael therefore claims that they should not be judged harshly for the Chet haEgel (the sin of the Golden Calf).  It is possible that it was contrary to our nature and we should have been able to withstand the Yeitzer Hara; but maybe it was rather that our sin was a function of an innate tayva (attraction) for Avodah Zara (idol worship); however, perhaps the most likely scenario is that the riches with which we were showered were too generous.

The comparison here is to Lot, on the second night post the destruction of Sdom. On the first night he became drunk and slept with his oldest daughter. When he became drunk the second night, he could not plead complete innocence. He should have been more aware.  So too, Hashem should have realised based on past experience that Klal Yisrael could not withstand the pressure to sin!

Brochas: Daf Lamed Beis amud aleph 

In the academy of R. Yannai. ...Because of the silver and gold that You lavished on Israel... that is what caused them to make the golden calf. A parable, a lion does not roar in the midst of a basket of straw, but rather a basket of meat. R. Oshaya said: a parable of a person who had a cow that was lean and bony. He fed it vetch and it would kick him. R. Chiya bar Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan, this is analagous to a person who had a son. He bathed and anointed him, fed him and gave drink. He hung a purse around his neck and set him down outside a brothel. Do you expect him not to sin?

Why is there a need for three seperate parables. 

The Ben Yehoyada explains as follows: the lion is acting according to his innate nature and as such this is akin to a transgression committed "b'shogeg" (inadvertently). The cow in kicking out when fed is acting against its nature, which is a transgression committed "b'maized" (intentionally). Lastly the son who is left with money outside the brothel is akin to a transgression committed "shogeg hakoruv "l'maized" (a transgression which while nominally inadvertent could be expected to happen).

Klal Yisrael therefore claims that they should not be judged harshly for the Chet haEgel (the sin of the Golden Calf).  It is possible that it was contrary to our nature and we should have been able to withstand the Yeitzer Hara; but maybe it was rather that our sin was a function of an innate tayva (attraction) for Avodah Zara (idol worship); however, perhaps the most likely scenario is that the riches with which we were showered were too generous.

The comparison here is to Lot, on the second night post the destruction of Sdom. On the first night he became drunk and slept with his oldest daughter. When he became drunk the second night, he could not plead complete innocence. He should have been more aware.  So too, Klal Yisrael's claim was that Hashem should have realised based on past experience that they would not withstand the pressure to sin!

Brochas: Daf Lamed Aleph amud beis

R. Elazar said in the name of R. Yose ben Zimra: (Chana) said before Him.  Master of the Universe, of all that you created in a woman, you did not create a single thing without purpose. ... Breasts with which to nurse. These breasts which you have placed upon my heart, what are they for? Are they not to nurse with? Grant me a son that I may nurse with them.

Having brought her question based on her breasts, why did Chana ask for a son, rather than a daughter and why is it relevant that the breasts are placed on her heart?

The Ben Yehoyada answers both questions by pointing out that the heart is "makom bina," the place of understanding. He therefore feels that the language of Chana's question already hints to her need for a son. "Bina" is a characteristic which is crucial for one who has an obligation to delve into the study of Torah, namely a male.  

Brochas: Daf Lamed amud beis

Mishna: One should not rise to pray (shemone esre) other than with an attitude of "coved rosh" (seriosness/reverence).

Gemara: From where (do we know) this?  ...R. Nachman bar Yitzhak said: Serve Hashem with "yira" (awe), and "gilo" (rejoice) with trepidation (Psalms 2:11)

The Bach (Orach Chaim 93)interprets the Gemara as suggesting that the preferable state of mind is awe. Failing that, one should have "simcha" (joy) in the mitzva of avodah/tefilloh, but should be careful to avoid "s'chok" (levity).

The Maharal (Netzach Yisrael 23) prefers an approach which suggests that there is no dichotomy between reverence and joy when it comes to tefillah.

The requirement of reverence is a function of Chorban Beis haMikdash, the destruction of the Temple. We need to recognise that the world has lost something fundamental and that unless there is a serious recognition of this fact, we cannot legitimately aspire to a restitution of the status quo ante. As such, the quality of our current interaction with Hashem which has become flawed due to the loss of the Beis haMikdash, (as it says on daf 32b: From the day the Temple was destroyed, the gates of prayer were locked) is dependent upon a certain seriousness/reverence of approach, facilitated by a recognition that we are created beings addressing our creator, an awareness of which should inspire the appropriate level of awe.

At the same time, a feeling of joy is completely appropriate. It stems from an understanding based on precisely the same factor that inspired awe, namely that we are created beings addressing our creator. The analogy the Maharal cites is of a servant addressing his master. And of course, there exists the strongest of bonds in this master/servant relationship.  We should be happy that as a servant we have automatic access to our Master and the ability to communicate to Him our needs and aspirations. 

Brochas: Daf Chof Tes amud beis

Elijah said to R. Yehuda the brother of R. Salla the pious: Do not become angry and you will not sin. Do not become drunk and you will not sin. And when you set out on the way, beg leave of your Creator and set out.

The Likutim on Ein Yaakov explain this brysa as follows:

The Gemara (Eruvin 65b) says that a man can be judged based on three factors, cos, cis, v'cas; cup, purse, anger. In other words, the way he drinks, the way he deploys his money, his approach to anger. The brysa explicitly mentions the first and last, while the reference to setting out on a journey is an allusion to money since in the text of the Tefillas haDerech given on the daf, we ask for a blessing b'Maseh Yodai, for ones handiwork (possessions/money)

The explanation continues with a reference to Gemara Pesochim 113b. That G-d loves a man who doesn't become angry, who doesn't become drunk and who is "mamad al midosav" explained to be "inyoni mamon" i.e. money.  Meanwhile, the flip side is that these three inyonim have the potential to lead one to transgress the three cardinal sins: misplaced anger leads to avodah zara, idol worship; drunkenness to arroyas, sexual misconduct, and in travelling, there is a risk of shfichus domim, murder.

Brochas Daf Chof Ches amud beis

And when R. Yochanan ben Zachai took ill, his students entered to visit him. When he saw them he began to weep. His students said to him: light of Israel, "right pillar", mighty hammer, why do you weep?

The Gra explains the allusions embedded in the names gives R. Yochanan ben Zachai by his students. Chazal tell us that the world stands on three pillars, Avoda (the left pillar), Torah (the central pillar) and Gemilus Chasodim (the right pillar). Of these, post the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash (caused by our sins) the two former no longer exist (at least to the same degree): the third "right" pillar remains complete, and because of this, it is the only one still designated with the name pillar.

Ner Yisrael (light of Israel) is an allusion to Torah, which according to the posuk in Eicha (2:9) "her king and her princes are among the nations: there is no Torah" has been eliminated/(damaged?) post Churban. Meanwhile "mighty hammer" refers to Avoda, which the Gra informs us is achieved by overcoming our Yeitzer Hora and destroying it as with a mighty hammer. 

Brochas Daf Chof Zayin amud beis

There was an incident involving a certain disciple who came before R. Yehoshua. He said to him, is the evening prayer elective or obligatory? He replied it is elective...

...The questioner arose (in the study hall) and asked,is the evening prayer elective or obligatory? Raban Gamliel replied it is compulsory.  Raban Gamliel said to the sages, is there anyone here who disputes this ruling. R. Yehoshua said to him, "no."

The Ben Yehoyada asks how R. Yehoshua could change his response to the same question. He responds that the person asking the question was different and thus appropriately elicited different answers.

The disciple cited in the first part of the Brysa was, as the Gemara tells us, R. Yochanan ben Zachai. The questioner in the second half of the Brysa was the "Torgoman," the official designated within the study hall to announce the questions.

When R. Yehoshua was asked a question by R. Yochanan ben Zachai he realised that the question was not designed to elicit the halacha because once Jews "took on" the obligations of Maariv it became obligatory for them. Rather the question was designed to elicit either the essence of Maariv or alternatively to determine the relative priorities associated with fulfilling some other mitzva at the time Maariv falls due.

In the Beis Medrash when the questioner was the Torgoman, R. Yehoshua had to assume he was being asked about the basic Halacha, and therefore had no doubt in responding that it was obligatory. 

Brochas daf Chof Vov amud beis

R. Yosi, the son of R. Chanina, said that the Avos established the (three daily) tefillohs (of Shemone Esre)

The Gemara discusses whether the Avos established the three tefillohs, or whether they were instead established post Churban by the Anshei Kneses haGedola as a means of symbolically acknowledging the daily korban tomidim.

The Ben Yehoyada suggests that if we accept the latter view we can understand why Maariv is "reshus" (optional), as held by R. Yeshosha (daf 27b) given that it represents the "aivorim v'prodim" rather than the morning or afternoon korban tomid. By contrast, if it was the Avos who established the tefillohs, why should Maariv which Chazal tell us was established by Yaakov, have a different and lower status than Shachris (Avraham) or Mincha (Yitzhok), particularly when Yaakov was the "b'hir sh'b'Avos"?

His answer is based on the verse cited in the Gemara as the source text for Yaakov's establishing the tefilloh of Maariv (Bereishis 28:11) "and he slept there, when the sun set."  Chazal tell us that the sun set early. In consequence, although Yaakov davened Maariv at "night", it was in reality still day, which is the time of Mincha. Note that Tosfos on the daf hold (DH: Yaakov Taken Tefillas Arivis)  that "and our minhag is attractive... to daven Maariv while it is still just day."

In consequence, Maariv is qualatively different from Shachris and Mincha in that firstly it to some degree duplicates an existing prayer, i.e. Mincha; and/or, in a more radical interpretation, if davening at night is not really the optimal time the prayer, then if we do so it is a “left over” tefilloh, bearing the same relationship to Shachris and Mincha that the aivorim v’prodim bear to the Tomidim.

For this reason, even if we hold that the tefillohs were established by the Avos, Maariv is considered a "reshus".

The Ben Yehoyada also points out that the Zohar names three angels, Michoel, Gavriel and Nuriel, as the angelic powers representing respectively, Shachris, Mincha and Maariv. The acronym for these angels is MoGaiN, a shield, which Dovid haMelech hints at when he says (Shmuel 2:22) "and give me the shield of your salvation." Prayer is a shield.

Brochas Daf Chof Hey amud aleph

Rav Yehuda said (where there is) possible excrement, it is forbidden (to recite Krias Shema or pray)...

Others say that Rav Yehuda said (where there is) possible excrement in a house, it is permissible (to recite Krias Shema or pray; but (where there is possible excrement in a) rubbish dump (one is) prohibited.

The Rashba holds that in the earlier case (the first half of the Brysa) he has identified a possible source of excrement, but has not bothered to check whether it is the offending substance or only cement/mud. In such a case were he to pray, he would be negligent and required to repeat his davening. 

By contrast, the second half of the Brysa, in the case of the house, were one to pray, one would have no obligation to repeat one's Shemone Esre, because the use of the word "permitted" ("muteres") indicates that one is not negligent in making the assumption that there is no excrement in the house.

He points us to an earlier Gemara on daf Chaf Beis (amud beis) where he makes the same distinction between a man who begins davening and then sees excrement opposite him. He walks forward four amos (so that he can no longer see the excrement) and, the Rashba rules, resumes davening where he left off. By contrast, one who davens in a place where there is a reasonable expectation that there may be excrement is guilty of failing to secure himself within a place which qualifies as  "your camp should be holy" (Devorim 23:15). His davening is therefore an "abomination" and he is required to repeat it.

Question: as I benched Kiddush Levana tonight near a skip filled with household rubbish, including (perhaps) nappies/diapers I wondered whether it was permissible to stand within four amos facing it. I stood at a greater distance with my back to it, but did I have to?  Have concluded that since I couldn't smell anything and most people wrap their soiled nappies, the skip had the status of the house brought as an example in today's daf, so probably OK even within the four amos!

Brochas Daf Chof Daled amud beis

Rav Assi said "Woe to those who pull sin upon themselves with cords of 'shav' falsehood."

Rashi translates 'shav' as weak; Tosfos as gratuitous.

Ritva writes that the majority of mankind sins in order to give themselves pleasure. And this person sins gratuitously because while he performs the mitzva of Krias Shema, he simultaneously degrades the Torah by praying in an inappropriate environment, thereby pulling the sin upon himself for no good reason. 

Brochas Daf Chof Gimel amud aleph

"Guard your foot when you go to the House of G-d (and be ready to hearken, rather than to offer a sacrifice of fools for they do not know to do evil")(Koheles 4:17)

...Do not be like the fools who sin and bring a sacrifice and they do not know whether they are bringing it on account of good, or whether they are bringing it on account of bad. HKBH says, they are unable to differentiate between good and bad, and yet they bring a sacrifice before Me!

The Ben Yehoyada quotes Chazal. "Teshuva of love converts intentional sins into merits, while teshuva of fear converts intentional sins into unintentional sins." How does one define teshuva shel ahava (love)? As an internal repentance where one's heart is filled with remorse brought on by a realisation that what is happening to the korban which one is bringing for one's sin, should in reality have happened to oneself. By contrast, if one brings a korban as a gift, because one believes it will appease G-d, this constitutes an external teshuva of limited value.

A man is a fool if he fails to grasp the above distinction, unable to distinguish how the appropriate mind set can be transformative. If he brings the korban with the right kavana, he converts his sin into "good," a source of merit for himself. Because, he instead brings it as a mere palliative, then notwithstanding that he has indeed brought a korban, he is left with "bad," namely, his sin. 

Brochas Daf Chof Beis amud aleph

It happened that a certain student (was reciting teachings) before R. Yehuda ben Beseira and stammering. He said to him - open your mouth and let your words shine forth, for words of Torah do not contract tumah, as it is written: "behold my words are like fire, thus says G-d." Just as fire cannot contract tumah, so too words of Torah cannot contract tumah.

According to the Maharsha, the mystical sources tell us that at Sinai, the Torah was shown to us as black fire on white fire. Every letter represented names of HKBH and clearly such a name is the antithesis of tumah. Thus fire does not contract tumah and neither do the words of Torah. 

Brochas Daf Chof Aleph amud aleph

Rav Yehuda said, from where in the Torah (do we derive the obligation to recite) a blessing prior to (studying) the Torah?  For it is written "When I call out the name of Hashem, ascribe greatness to our G-d." (Devorim 32:3)

Rashi says that the posuk constitues proof because it comes at the beginning of the Song of Hazinu which represents Torah.  Moshe says "when I call out the name of Hashem" (which is written in the singular) constitutes the blessing, while the words "ascribe greatness to our G-d" (which is written in the plural)  constitues a response, the "amen" of the people.

The Maharsha approaches the posuk differently and thereby avoids a slight problem with Rashi's explanation, namely that although it is cited as the preceding blessing, it actually comes three psukim into the Song. On a mystical level the Torah is nothing but a composition of the different names of G-d. Therefore the Maharsha concludes that the posuk "when I call out the name of Hashem" is a reference to Torah; and prior to learning Torah, we need to "ascribe greatness to our G-d,." in other words, make a blessing.

But what is the blessing, and where is it? The Ein Yaakov points us in the direction of the Sifri, but says little more.

The Sifri on the posuk tells us that prior to saying the name of Hashem (i.e. the Torah according to the Maharsha) the angels say "kadosh, kadosh, kadosh," a preceding blessing. The Maharal among others explains that kadosh is represented by the number seven (Shabbos, Shmita etc). The twenty-one words in the Song of Hazinu which precede the word Hashem in our posuk (which the Sifri says are analagous to the three times the angels say kadosh (3x7)) are thus the preceding blessing. . (In the Kedusha of Shemone Esre, we also say 21 words before saying the name Hashem.)

The final question is why "kadosh, kadosh, kadosh” constitutes a blessing for the angels, and why the twenty-one words constitute a blessing for Moshe/Klal Yisrael.  On Brochas Daf 35a (see below) the Iyun Yaakov tells that the true intention of creation is not to benefit mankind, but rather to bring “Kovod Shomayim”, honour to HKBH. The inference from his teaching is that the blessing is the vehicle by which we manifest this Kovod Shomayim.  I think we can then go on to say that when the angels wish to bless G-d, they do so by focusing on (and broadcasting aloud) that aspect of the Divine which is most relevant to them as spiritual beings, namely His “seperateness” (kadosh means separate) – You are above and separate from the world, you affect creation, but creation does not affect you.  By contrast, what does Moshe say? “Listen, you heavens, and I will speak;  hear, you earth, the words of my mouth.  Let my teaching fall like rain and my words descend like dew, like showers on new grass, like abundant rain on tender plants. I will call out the name of Hashem…” The entire cosmos, both heaven and earth is testimony to the greatness of G-d. And crucially, the physical realm is nourished by Torah, represented by rain and dew; a recognition that G-d sustains us. Could anything be a more concrete proclamation of Kovod Shomayim?

Brochas Daf Chof amud aleph

The Gemara asks why miracles were perfomed for the earlier generation of Mishnaic sages, but are no longer performed for "us" (the Amoraim, the Rabbis of the times of the Gemara.) It puts forward and rejects the suggestion that this could be a function of the scope or depth of Torah learning, both of which it concludes are conducted more impressively in the later period. (Interesting to consider how this fits in with the concept of Yeridos haDoros.) Instead it concludes that the "Mesiros Nefesh" (sel abnegation) of the earlier generation was of a higher order.

The Ben Yehoda observes that by being Moser Nefesh, we demonstrate that Olam haZeh is relatively speaking unimportant to us. This allows HKBH to change nature in this world to our benefit without taking away from us the rewards that have accrued to us in Olam haBa through our merits in this world. Were we not to have shown that this world was unimportant, the performance of Nissim (miracles) in the here and now would be to our detriment.

The Ben Yehoyada goes on to explain that on a Kabbalistic level being Mesiros Nefesh draws together the letter of HaShem's name, which is the vehicle through which G-d performs miracles. This is hinted at in a posuk from Tehillim (60:6) where we are told Nissim will be performed because of "koshet, " an acronym for "kedushaseha shimcha tov" "for the holiness of you good name" i.e. Hashem. Meanwhile, if these letters are not pulled together then HKBH deals with the world through the midda of Elokim, which is Teva (nature). 

Brochas Daf Yud Tes amud aleph

One who speaks (ill) of the dead, is as if he has spoken to a stone. 

R. Yehoshua ben Levi says, one who speaks (ill) of a Talmid Chocham after (he lies) on his bier, will descend to Gehinnom. As for those who turn to perversion, Hashem will drive them with the workers of iniquity (to Gehinnom.) Peace be to Israel. Even where there is peace for Israel (i.e. peace for the Talmid Chochom after his death) Hashem will drive them (that disparage him) with the workers of iniquity (to Gehinnom)

The Maharsha explains the difference in language. A Talmid Chachom post his death is still called alive (because of his Torah). By employing the language of lying, it is as if he lies there alive.

The Ben Yehoyada amplifies on the final line of the brysa. By disparaging the Talmid Chocham, he attempts to distort the Heavenly scales that weigh up the merits of the deceased against his errors. When the Talmid Chocham passed away, there was Shalom because his good deeds outweighed his bad ones. By attempting to pervert the course of justice, the "worker of iniquity" reduces Shalom in the world and increases his own bad deeds, thus meriting Gehinnom. 

Brochas Daf Yud Ches amud aleph

[Rav Yonasan] said to him, but do [the dead] know so much [about what is going on in this world]?

The daf contains an extensive dispute as to whether or not the dead are aware of what is happening in Olam haZeh, our world, with many examples being brought to show that they are, or are not aware.

In Mictav mi-Eliyahu (volume Two, p.62), Rav Dessler explain that there need be no dispute.  Rather the protagonists are describing two different groups of dead people.

Those who have sinned extensively in this world, and have strong earthy appetites continue to struggle post death to liberate themselves with matters of this world.  Meanwhile their pre-occupation with this world means they remain hyper-aware of what is happening in the here and now; indeed their awareness coupled with their inability to actually participate and thus satisfy their tayvas, cause them significant pain.

By contrast, the righteous who have fully liberated themselves from their physical bodies and exist only in a spiritual dimension are much less aware of the happenings of Olam haZeh.  Indeed Rav Dessler points out that this perspective is buttresed by the activities of the prophet Jeremiah who needs to awake the Avos to pray for the salvation of Yisrael.  Without being awkened and apprised of the danger Yisrael faces, the Avos and Imahos are focused exclusively on the manefestations of the Divine.

Brochas Daf Yud Zayin amud aleph

Rav Safra, after davening the Amidah, would say: May it be your will, Hashem our G-d, that you establish peace in the Heavenly assembly and in the assembly here below, and between the students who are engaged in the study of your Torah, whether they are engaged for its own sake or not for its own sake. And regarding those who are engaged not for its own sake, may it be Your will, that they will engage (in Torah) for its own sake.

The Beis Levi in his commentary on Parshas Noach observes that the Medrash tell us that the animals prior to the flood became corrupted such that they had relations "lo b'mino" i.e. outside their own genus.  He asks how was this possible, since it is a canon of Judaism that only man has free will.  He answers that when man become corrupted, he in turn corrupts the environment around him until such time as nature itself changes to be corrupt.

In Mictav mi-Eliyahu (volume Two p.51-2), Rav Dessler continues in similar vein that each nation is charged with the task of perfecting a particular middo (character trait) so that they may improve the world, which at its foundation is dependent upon Yisrael.  This tikun (rectification), or G-d forbid its reverse, is effected by a two way flow between the material world and the Sar (angel) which represents each individual nation in the celestial realms.  As Rashi points out, discord between the Sarim in the upper worlds, causes wars between their nations in the world below.

Rav Dessler goes on to explain that there are two negative facets to each character trait, one of tayva (appetite) and one of gayva (haughtiness). The former, which is gashmi, is less serious, in that it has borders, because it is constrained by its physical host; hence gluttony or drunkenness is at the end of the day bounded by satiety.  By contrast, haughtiness, which is ruchni, is non tangible and has no limits.  The nations fall into one of two groups.  Most (Egypt, Bavel, Pras) enslave the Jews for their own end, to fulfill their own appetites, for gold, power, labour etc. However Esav desires nothing from the Jews, but to elevate itself at our expense; their hatred is lishma, (pure and for its own sake).

Rav Safra prayed that both the upper and lower worlds would behave in a fashion that would ensure peace.  He finished his prayer with the role of those who study Torah, since this is central to the world's continued existence, and focused on the need for our Torah learning to also be lishma to counteract the "purity" of Esav's evil.

Brochas Daf Tes Zayin amud beis

The Rabbis taught that we do not call anyone Avos except for three (Avraham, Yitzhak and Yaakov) and we do not call anyone matriarchs except for four (Sara, Rivka Rachel and Leah)

The Ben Yehoyda adduces proof for this statement from two sources, one textual, one kabbalistic.  The textual source is that the oldest of the shevotim (the tribes), which represents the generation after Yaakov is Reuven, which he darshans as Reuh Ben, "see, a son" - in other words, not an Av, a patriarch.  The kabbalistic rationale is based on the observation that the Shem Havaya, (Yud, K, Vav K) has the numeric value of 26, as does the number of letters in the combined names of the patriarchs and matriarchs.

Brochas Daf Tes Vov amud beis

The posuk (Mishlei 30:15-16) says: "There are three things which are never satisfied ... the grave, the barren womb, the earth that is satisfied with water."

The medium through which the earth is satisfied is given explicitly in the verse; those for the grave and womb are not.  The Maharsha suggests that the the posuk remains silent in respect of these juxtaposed entities to draw out a connection between them and brings a Medrash that links them.  Man has two creations, in Olam HaZeh, one of water represented by the the womb, the second from mud at the time of the resurrection of the dead, represented by the grave.

... and this verse is used by the Gemara to make the following statement: "From this [posuk we have] a refutation of those that say there is no Torah [source for the] resurrection of the dead.

Brochas Daf Yud Daled amud alpeh

Rav said that anyone who greets his fellow man prior to davening (Shemone Esre) is regarded as if he made that person into a Bameh (an illicit altar)

The Maharshah comments that tefillah is “b’makom avodas korban” and thus one who greets his friend with the salutation, Shalom (which is a name of HKBH) prior to praying, looks as if he has gone to sacrifice elsewhere.

The Ben Yehoyada takes a somewhat different approach – at the end of the Amidah the concluding blessing is “sim Shalom” which itself concludes with the words, “es amo Yisrael b’Shalom.”  Thus a person greeting his friend “Shalom” appears as if beseeching HKBH is less important to him than seeking his Yeshuas from his fellow man.

Brochas Daf Yud Gimmel amud aleph

“Avram is Avraham.  At first he became father to the nation of Aram, and ultimately he became father to the whole world.”

Rashi explains Avraham is a contraction of Av Hamon, father of a multitude, as is stated in Bereishis 17:5 “For I have made you father of a multitude of nations.”

The Maharsha comments based on Gemara Nedorim that there was a two stage process in changing his destiny.  First Avram left his land and merited a son, Yishmael, at which point he took on the designation of father of a single nation.  However, by changing his name, his ‘mazel’ was transformed to the extent that as Avraham he became father of nations, because each and every tribe within Israel is designated “goy v’khal goyim.”

Brochas Daf Yud Beis amud beis

At the conclusion of the daf we find the famous exegesis of Ben Zoma quoted at the beginning of the Pesach Hagadah.  The posuk says: “That you may remember the day when you come out of Egypt, all the days of your life.”  From the words, “the days of your life” we derive the requirement to mention the Exodus during the days; from the extra word “all” we derive the requirement to mention the Exodus by night.  The Chachomim’s interpretation of “the days of your life” is an obligation to mention the Exodus in our own era, with the superfluous “all” including a requirement to mention it even in the Messianic era.

The Maharal uses this passage to explain the basis of Midrashic exegesis.  “The words ‘all the days of your life” are completely superfluous and had they been omitted the meaning of this verse would not have been affected in any way.  According to the Midrashic perspective such superfluous words are intended to broaden the meaning of the verse (making it more inclusive,) so that it applies not only to the issue at hand (in this case, commemorating the Exodus on Pesach night) but also to the most closely associated issue, the requirement to commemorate the Exodus every day. 

Thus the Rabbis all agree, firstly, that the words ‘all the days of your life’ attribute a wider meaning, associating it with the daily mitzvah to commemorate the Exodus; after all, the Pesach sacrifice as well as the requirement to mention the Exodus, fulfil the same joint purpose to commemorate the Exodus and instil it in our memories. Secondly, they agree that the universal word ‘all’ within the phrase ‘all the days of your life’ is also superfluous.  It is, so to speak, a superfluous word, within a superfluous phrase (and therefore itself subject to elucidation).

For R. Elazar, the superfluous universal word ‘all’ indicates that we must interpret the word ‘day’ more widely, so that it includes day and night. By contrast, the Rabbis see the entire phrase as an organic whole, and therefore apply the superfluous word to the entire verse: Israel must commemorate the Exodus ‘all of Israel’s days’ i.e. both in the current era and subsequent to the coming of Messiah, when even greater miracles will have been done for us.

Brochas Daf Yud Aleph amud aleph

Tani d'Bei Rav Yehezkel …

Beis Shamai hold that the evening Shema can only be recited lying down; Beis Hillel that it can be recited in any position.  Rav Yehezkel holds that one who acts like Beis Shamai has fulfilled the mitzva; Rav Yosef holds that to the degree he has the kevana to act like Beis Shamai, he has not, and cites as a proof a Brysa from Gemara Succah (daf gimmel): a man sitting with his head and the majority of his body inside the succah, but with his table outside it, has fulfilled the mizva of eating in the succah according to Beis Hillel but not according to Beis Shamai.  Beis Hillel seek to prove their position by recounting an incident when R. Yochanan be HaChoranis acted in this fashion and the rabbis did not upbraid him. Beis Shamai retort that in fact the elders of Beis Shamai told him that if this was the way in which he had always acted, he had never fulfilled the mitzva of succah.

One of the issues identified as problematic with this Gemara is that Rav Yosef holds that that if one recites the evening Shema while reclining, but does so intending to fulfil the mitzva according to Beis Shamai, then surprisingly one is deemed not to have fulfilled the mitzva at all, even though acting in this fashion constitutes a practice which brings one within the ambit of the mitzva as constituted by Beis Hillel.  In other words even though the stricter standard of Beis Shamai should be acceptable to Beis Hillel, it is deemed not to be. Given this, citing Gemara Succah as a proof text seems untenable, because in that case, unlike in our Gemara, there would seem to be no overlap in the positions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai and therefore no reasonable expectation that Beis Shamai would agree to that eating with the table outside the succah constitutes performance of the mitzva.

In fact, Gemara Succah is an appropriate comparison, because where the succah is sufficiently large to encompass a table, but the table is in instead placed outside, Beis Shamai hold (in contra-distinction to Beis Hillel) that because the person may lean out of the succah to eat, he renders an otherwise kosher succah invalid even when he does not in fact lean outside the succah.  The two Gemaras are therefore analogous, since in both the protagonist is currently acting in a manner which should be held acceptable, but is deemed unacceptable.

Interestingly, the Pnei Yehoshua points out that according to Gemara Yevamos (daf Tes Zayin) R. Yochanan ben HaChoranis was a talmid of Beis Shamai (and perhaps that was why Beis Hillel cited him in particular).  Nonetheless, because the Halacha is that we hold like Beis Hillel, he deliberately ate with his table outside the succah to demonstrate that he subordinated himself to the Halacha, not only where the positions of Beis Hillel and Shamia overlapped, but in a case such as this where they did not.

Brochas Daf Yud amud beis

"I have done that which is good in Your eyes” – Rab Yehuda says in the name of Rav, he joined geulah to tefillah.” 

This gives a scriptural basis to the contention of R. Yochanan on daf daled and daf tes – “who is a ben Olam haBa? One who joins (the blessing of) redemption to the evening prayer.  But it doesn’t explain why this action, as opposed to some other action or tefillah qualifies him for this reward.  Also, in Pirkei Avos we are told Col Yisrael Yaish l’hem haylik b’Olam HaBa.  All of Israel has a place in Olam HaBa.  If I already have a portion, what does it mean that being careful in my seder ha tefillos will make me a Ben Olam HaBa?

The Chafetz Chaim among others, answers the second question. Every member of Klal Yisrael has a portion in Olam HaBa, but a portion can be large or small and can change in size. The defining characteristic of a Ben, of a son is that he has access to the entire property of his father.  The Ben Olam HaBa is therefore the recipient of all the largesse of HaKodesh BoraHu, not just some part of it.

My working assumption as to why this particular action qualifies one as a Ben Olam haBa had been that we were not liberated from Mitzrayim to become hefker, but to be servants of HKBH. Tefilloh represents avodah and thus the proximity demonstrates that we “get it.” i.e. we recognise that our purpose in this world is to divorce ourselves from untrammelled physicality and to lose no time attaching ourselves to spirituality. The Ben Yehoyada says that the evening prayer, which we are told was instituted by Yaakov, represents Bayis Shlishi, and that in joining a mention of geulah to that of the maariv Shemone Esre, we are effectively stressing our emunah/faith in an ultimate redemption.   

Interestingly, in the last lines of the Talmud Nida, which we studied less than two weeks ago, the final Brysa reads as follows:  Tana d’bei Eliyahu. Col haShone Halachos b’col yom, muvtach lo, sh’Hou Ben Olam HaB. All who learn Halochos daily, can be assured of being, a Ben Olah Haba.  In his Perush on Agadata the Maharal explains that Halocha represents an actualisation of Emes in Olam HaZe, of truth in this world.  A Halicha, a pathway, needs to take us from point A to point B.  If it veers to right or left we are misdirected.  Failing to achieve our goals by diverging from the proper path leads us literally says the Maharal into dead-ends.  This is the opposite of the true Halicha.  Following the Halocha keeps us on the straight and narrow, and that represents a journey to the infinite, the transcendental, which is Olam HaBa.

Brochas Daf Tes amud beis

The Gemara tells us that Dovid haMelech didn't start saying Hallelukah until he (prophetically) saw the downfall of the wicked. The Maharsha says this seems to contradict what we learn in the Midrash (as quoted in Sanhedrin daf lamed tes) that we don't say Hallel on the final days of Pesach because "HKBH says - my creation (the Mitzrim) drown, and you are going to say Shira!"

The Maharsha therefore suggests an alternative reason for not saying Hallel, namely that Hallel was instituted only when there was a change in the korban brought from one day to the next, which was not the case between the first and subsequent days of Pesach.

This explanation of the Maharsha seems at first sight to leave hanging the Gemara in Sanhedrin; but I have heard another explanation for that Gemara which removes the difficulty once the Maharsha supplies his alternative reason for not saying Hallel.

When Sancheriv's army, which was besieging Yerushalyim, was wiped out by the plague in a single night, we are told it was because the angels sang Shira. If this is the case, why then did the angels not sing Shira to kill the Mitzrim at the Yam by means of a plague? HKBH gives the answer - "My creations (Bnei Yisrael) drown (by the Mitzrim who caused their male children to be thrown in the river) and you (the angels) want to say Shira? No, their death must be mida kneged mida. I Hashem will kill them by drowning."

Brochas Daf Ches amud aleph

Raish Lokish said anyone who has a Beis Knesses in his town and fails to attend Tefillah is called a Shochein Ra, a bad neighbour. 

Why specifically is he designated a bad neighbour, as opposed to some other name?

The Mishkan (mem, shin, chof, nun) held four main keylim, the Aron, also called the Mita (mem), the Shulchan (shin), the Mizbeach, also called Cisei (chof) and the Menorah, also called Ner (nun).

Post the Churban, the Anshei Knesses haGedolah instituted the current form of the three daily Tefillohs in recognition of what we had lost. We retained Torah, which represents the Aron/Mita (mem), but lost the other three keylim. The Tefillohs therefore hint at three lost Tamidim: "Aish Tamid" which represents the Mizbeach/Cisei (chof), the "Ner Tamid" which represents the Menorah/Ner (nun), and the "Lechem Tamid" which represents the Shulchan (shin).

Therefore, one who fails to daven in shul is designated a Shochein Ra. Interestingly, the same keylim: Mita, Shulchan, Cisei and Menorah are tangentially referred to on daf Tes as the keylim which the Shunamite woman requests her husband to provide Elisha (Melochim Beis, Daled), perhaps creating a Shochein Tov for herself.

Brochas Daf Zayin amud aleph

In the neighbourhood of R. Joshua b. Levi there was a Sadducee  who used to annoy him very much with [his interpretations of] texts. One day the Rabbi took a cock, placed it between the legs of his bed and watched it. He thought: When this moment arrives I shall curse him. When the moment arrived he was dozing [On waking up] he said: We learn from this that it is not proper to act in such a way. It is written: And His tender mercies are over all His works. And it is further written: Neither is it good for the righteous to punish.

The verses suggest R. Yoshua's plan was wrong, but why? The Sadducee had debased God. Why wasn't he subject to the death penalty?

The Gra explains that it was not the punishment which was problematic, but rather the involvement of R. Yehoshua who had himself suffered at the hands of the Sadducee . Unless a judgement can be rendered without a hint of an ulterior motive --clearly  impossible if the judge is also the victim -- the judge will himself be guilty of Shfichus Damim and hence subject to the death penalty. That R. Yehoshua ben Levi nodded off at the crucial moment was a chessed from the Ribbono shel Olam.

Brochas Daf Vov amud aleph and beis

And how do you know that if two are sitting and studying the Torah together the Divine Presence is with them? For it is said: Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another;  and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name.

 R. Yohanan says: Whenever the Holy One, blessed be He, comes into a Synagogue and does not find ten persons there, He becomes angry at once.  For it is said: Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? When I called, was there no answer?  

When two people study Torah together (or even one alone) G-d is present. When HKBH comes to the Beis haKneses and fails to find ten men there he becomes angry. If G-d is happy to join two people learning, why is he unhappy if there are fewer than ten praying?

There were two manifestations of redemption in Mitzrayim. Firstly, by night, "Pidyon" which requires the consent of the imprisoning authority, thus Moshe says to Pharaoh - "if you wish to be exempted from the plagues, tell them (the Jews), "You are Bnei Horin, free.". Secondly, by day, "Motzi" or "Hatzolo" which is achieved even against the will of the imprisoner.

Torah fits within the category of Hatzola; it constitutes Chai Olam and intrinsically cleaves to HKBH and liberates the learner from the physical world. By contrast, Tefillah effects Pidyon as the Gemara says in Mesechta Shabbos (daf Yud), it is "Chai Sha," a lower level kedusha. But to effect even this lower level we need ten davening together. And thus the congregation's lack of recognition of the important role they themselves play causes HKBH to become angry, because G-d has caused the Shechina to precede the congregation to the Beis haKneses to facilitate this creation of kedusha, but they have failed to rise to the occasion.

Daf Vov amud beis

One who fails to respond to his friends greeting is called robber. As it says in the posuk in Isaiah - "you have consumed the vineyard; property robbed from the poor is in your houses.”

Rashi points out that theft from the wealth also constitutes theft, and hence concludes the posuk is talking of a man with no possessions other than his greeting, and this failure constitutes theft. The Gra elucidates the word "Oni" as deriving from "Aniyas Devorim," a response, as in "v'yaein Ephron". The theft is the absence of a response to his friend's Shalom. 

Brochas Daf Hei amud aleph

"Amar Reb Zeira ... HKBH is not like Boser v'Dam. When man sells a (precious) article, he is sad and his friend happy; but when G-d gave Torah to Bnei Yisrael he was happy."

The Gra points out the lack of a parallel. The seller of an object, no longer has the use of it; by contrast HKBH can continue to learn Torah.  The answer he suggests is that once Torah is given to mankind, even when G-d toils in learning, the Halacha is still determined by man, as the Gemara says in Psachim Kuf Yud Zion, "Elazar bni omer."

Furthermore, the upper world needs the lower world, just as a father cannot procreate without a mother. Torah has been given to us to sow and plough, and its form is determined by the way in which the workers, the Talmidei Chachomim, work.

Brochas Daf Daled amud beis

Ahshrei utilises both aleph-beis and the posuk "poseach es yadecha". The former signifies Torah which is comprised of the 22 letters; the latter physical maintenance. And the two go together because Torah is "mazon haNefesh" and lechem is "mazon haGuf" and we say "im ain kemach, ain Torah; v'im ain Torah, ain Kemach."

Michoel is greater than Gavriel. 

The former arrives at his destination in a single flight; the latter needs two hops. Michoel represents the element of water, which is Rachamim; Gavriel that of Aish which is Din.  Rachamim is greater than Din, and Gavriel is required to interrupt his journey, so that there should be more time for HKBH to exercise mercy.