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.