הלכה על ברכות 63:35

The proper order of prayer is to begin by praising God and only then to petition Him. We learn this from Moshe, who opened his prayer with words of praise, saying (Devarim 3:24), “Lord, God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness and Your mighty hand. What force is there in heaven or earth that can perform deeds and mighty acts as You do?” Only afterwards did Moshe plead, “Please let me cross [the Jordan] so that I may see the good land…” Based on this, Rav Simlai interprets, “One should always praise God first and afterwards pray” (Berakhot 32a). The primary application of putting praise before request is found in the berakhot of the Amida, for as previously mentioned (12:9), the first three berakhot open with words of praise and only later continue to the petitionary berakhot. However, even in the rest of one’s prayer, it is proper to open with words of praise, and that is the purpose of Pesukei De-zimra.

However, we were not permitted to go out from it [wantonly, but] rather [only] with the stratagem and counsel of the sage; that the one who swore come in front of the man who is wise and understanding of the ways of the Torah and confess to him that [the oath] was from his lack of knowledge - that he did not know at the time that he swore something that he knew afterwards - that he wants to annul what he swore about (Nedarim 71a); and that he recognizes that the smallness of his knowledge and his lacking caused the annulment, not something else or an external thought that would be in his heart, God forbid. And after the confession of his mouth about this, the sage recognizes and sees that there is substance in his words that something new happened to him that if he had had to agree to it at the time that he swore, he would not have sworn and that this is why he regrets [it]; he accepts his confession and he releases him from his oath. And this is what they, may their memory be blessed, said (Berachot 32b), "He cannot forgive [it], but others can forgive it to him." Therefore it is never possible to annul an oath, except with the reason of something new to the one who swore - for example, that he will say, "If I had known thing x, I would never have sworn." As this is like duress. But if he says, "Annul me my oath," without a claim, no man has the power to annul it. And based on this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 64a) that we do not create an opening (to annul the vow) with something new that is not found (that has not happened). As [with this] he does not clearly say that he regrets that he swore - that we should consider it duress - but rather that his will today is like it was at the beginning, but he [just] wants it annulled now. How is this? He swears that he not benefit from x and [x] becomes the town scribe or butcher, and he says, "My will [still] stands that I did not want to benefit from him and I [also] did not want him to become the scribe or the butcher." We do not annul [it] for him until he says, "Since I see that this man has become the scribe, I regret that I swore [off] his benefit forever. And if only I had not sworn!" In this way, we annul [it] for him; as behold, he concedes that his will has changed and that he regrets his deeds completely, due to the lack of his knowledge - as had he known at the time of the oath what he knows today, he never would have sworn. And it is like duress. And we expound (Shevuot 26a), "'A man with an oath' (Leviticus 5:4) - to exclude duress."

It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] because most sins of people are done as a result of much eating and drinking, as it is written (Deuteronomy 32:15), "And Yeshurun grew fat and kicked." And so [too,] "you became fat, you became thick, you became covered; and he abandoned the God that made him, etc." And so [too,] did they, may their memory be blessed, say [about a man's cow] (Berakhot 32a), "Who caused you to kick (rebel against) me? The vetch which I fed you." And more generally they said, "Filling his stomach is a type of sin" - meaning to say after filling the stomach, a person come to do bad sins. And the matter is that foodstuffs are the dough for the physical, whereas contemplation of the intellect and of the fear of God and His precious commandments is the dough of the soul. And the soul and the physical are complete opposites, as I have written at the beginning of the book. And so with the strengthening of the dough of the physical, the dough of the soul is weakened a little. And from this root there were some of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, that would only benefit from foodstuffs just what they required, only to keep their souls alive; and as it is written (Proverbs 13:28), "A righteous person eats to the satiation of his soul." And therefore, for our good, did our perfect Torah prevent us form indulging in eating and drinking more than is necessary - lest the physical overcome the soul greatly, until it makes it ill and destroys it completely. And so in order to distance this matter fully, it warned us about this with a strong punishment - and that is the death penalty. And this is what appears [correct] to me about the topic. And a man is warned about this at the start of the power of the passion of his youth and at the beginning of his obligation to guard his soul (to observe the commandments) - and these are the first three months from when he begins to grow two [pubic] hairs until [the hair] surrounds the whole member. And from that time, he is to take ethical teaching for all of his days. As in that foods are a constant matter with man - it is impossible for him without it - the Torah did not command about it at every instance, but rather it 'teaches him early' at one time, to benefit him for all of the times.