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.