גְּמָ׳ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִצְוֹת צְרִיכוֹת כַּוָּונָה. מַאי ״אִם כִּוֵּון לִבּוֹ״ — לִקְרוֹת. לִקְרוֹת?! וְהָא קָא קָרֵי! בְּקוֹרֵא לְהַגִּיהַּ.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one must focus his heart while reading the portion of Shema in the Torah in order to fulfill his obligation. From here, the Gemara seeks to conclude: Learn from this that mitzvot require intent, when one performs a mitzva, he must intend to fulfill his obligation. If he lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation. With that statement, this Gemara hopes to resolve an issue that is raised several times throughout the Talmud. The Gemara rejects this conclusion: What is the meaning of: If one focused his heart? It means that one had the intention to read. The Gemara attacks this explanation: How can you say that it means that one must have intention to read? Isn’t he already reading? The case in the mishna refers to a person who is reading from the Torah. Therefore, focused his heart must refer to intention to perform a mitzva. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the mishna speaks of one who is reading the Torah not for the purpose of reciting the words, but in order to emend mistakes in the text. Therefore, if he focused his heart and intended to read the words and not merely emend the text, he fulfills his obligation. He need not have the intention to fulfill his obligation.
...הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּכַוֵּין אֶת לִבּוֹ בְּכוּלָּן, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְכַוֵּין בְּכוּלָּן — יְכַוֵּין אֶת לִבּוֹ בְּאַחַת.
...One who prays must focus their heart in all of the blessings. And if they is unable to focus their heart in all of them, they should focus their heart at least in one.
אמר ליה רבינא לרב פפא לא הוית גבן באורתא בתחומא בי חרמך דרמי רבא מילי מעלייתא אהדדי ושני להו מאי מילי מעלייתא תנן כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כו' טעמא דשלא לשמן הא סתמא עלו נמי לבעלים לשם חובה אלמא סתמא נמי כלשמן דמי
§ Ravina said to Rav Pappa: Since you were not with us last night within the Shabbat limit of Bei Ḥarmakh, you did not hear that Rava raises a contradiction between two superior mishnaic statements and teaches their resolution. What are these superior statements? We learned in the mishna: All slaughtered offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. Rava infers: The reason they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner is specifically that they were slaughtered not for their sake. But if offerings were slaughtered without specification of intent, they, as well, satisfied the obligation of the owner. Apparently, if one performs any action without specification of intent, it is also considered as if he performed it expressly for its sake.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין עוֹמְדִין לְהִתְפַּלֵּל לֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְבוּת, וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְלוּת, וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק, וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה, וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ, וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂמְחָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה.
On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from an atmosphere of sorrow nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of conversation, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters. Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה תְּפִלָּתוֹ קֶבַע וְכוּ׳: מַאי ״קֶבַע״? אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כֹּל שֶׁתְּפִלָּתוֹ דּוֹמָה עָלָיו כְּמַשּׂוֹי. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: כׇּל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹמְרָהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן תַּחֲנוּנִים. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ דָּבָר.
We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: One whose prayer is fixed, his prayer is not supplication. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of fixed in this context? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Oshaya said: It means anyone for whom his prayer is like a burden upon him, from which he seeks to be quickly unburdened. The Rabbis say: This refers to anyone who does not recite prayer in the language of supplication, but as a standardized recitation without emotion. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: It refers to anyone unable to introduce a novel element, i.e., something personal reflecting his personal needs, to his prayer, and only recites the standard formula.
(יב) כַּבֵּ֥ד אֶת־אָבִ֖יךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּ֑ךָ לְמַ֙עַן֙ יַאֲרִכ֣וּן יָמֶ֔יךָ עַ֚ל הָאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ׃ {ס}
(12) Honor your father and your mother, that you may long endure on the land that Adonai your God is assigning to you.
(ג) אִ֣ישׁ אִמּ֤וֹ וְאָבִיו֙ תִּירָ֔אוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַ֖י תִּשְׁמֹ֑רוּ אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃
(3) You shall each revere your mother and your father, and keep My sabbaths: I Adonai am your God.
ת"ר איזהו מורא ואיזהו כיבוד מורא לא עומד במקומו ולא יושב במקומו ולא סותר את דבריו ולא מכריעו כיבוד מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא איבעיא להו משל מי רב יהודה אמר משל בן רב נתן בר אושעיא אמר משל אב אורו ליה רבנן לרב ירמיה ואמרי לה לבריה דרב ירמיה כמ"ד משל אב מיתיבי נאמר (שמות כ, יא) כבד את אביך ואת אמך ונאמר (משלי ג, ט) כבד את ה' מהונך מה להלן בחסרון כיס אף כאן בחסרון כיס ואי אמרת משל אב מאי נפקא ליה מיניה לביטול מלאכה
The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: From whose funds must one give his father food and drink? Rav Yehuda says: From the money of the son. Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: From the money of the father. The Sages gave this following ruling to Rav Yirmeya, and some say they gave this following ruling to the son of Rav Yirmeya: The halakha is like the one who says it must be paid from the money of the father. The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: It is stated: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), and it is stated: “Honor the Lord with your wealth” (Proverbs 3:9), which teaches the following verbal analogy: Just as there one honors God “with your wealth,” i.e., through monetary loss, so too here one must honor his father through monetary loss. And if you say that one honors him from the money of the father, what difference does it make to the son, i.e., what monetary loss does he suffer? The Gemara answers: It makes a difference to him with regard to the neglect of his work. Although he is not required to spend his own money, the son must leave aside his work to honor his father, which will cause him some financial loss.