Berakhot 111

David Sieradzki writes concerning the hapless cantor who declares that "Your mercy extends even to a bird's nest" [Berakhot 107]:

I thought part of the problem with this phrase was connected with the story about a sage (Elisha b. Abuya, and possibly others as well?) who saw someone observe this mitzvah, about which the Bible says "in order that your days may be lengthened," and then saw the person fall to his death, after which the sage lost faith. We don't want cantors to get too wrapped up in praising God for rewarding those who observe the mitzvot – because sometimes He doesn't. This is connected with avoiding dualism. God is the One who (sometimes) is merciful to those who observe the mitzvah of the bird's nest – and God is the One who set up the world so that sometimes those who observe that mitzvah
fall down and die.

Joel Friedman writes in a similar vein:

I'd like you to consider the …. bird's nest.. as a reaction to the apostate Elisha ben Abuyah; who along with the others who entered Pardess [religious mystical esotericism – SR] is held out as an example of dangerous thinking. Maybe? I was so struck by that mitzvah in Deut. being the alleged final straw in the apostacy when he saw a young man obeying his father and God and still falling out of the tree and dying.

I respond:

The story of Rabbi Elisha ben-Avuyah is fascinating and romantic – and most people who know of it know only of the episode quoted by David and Joel. However, I can find no justifiable reason to connect the mishnah under discussion with Elisha ben-Avuyah. Our mishnah shows all the signs of reflecting a period at the end of the first century CE and which is the time-slot to which all the named disputants belong, so I don't think that it reflects a story that developed half a century later. [For a full discussion on Elisha ben-Avuyah see Avot 265 and the subsequent shiurim.]

Ed Frankel, on the other hand, comments on this same mishnah differently:

When Rabbi Sam Lax taught me this Gemara, among the first I ever learned, I also remember being stymied by this reference [about the bird's nest – SR]. His explanation, ever the philosopher that he was, sticks with me. There is nothing wrong with noting God is merciful. Still, it is not for humankind to ascribe motives to God's commands or actions. While we might see the treatment of the mother birds as a merciful act, this is not necessarily God's motivation. Therefore, in prayer, to mention this as a merciful act would be akin to blasphemy, and similar in structure to the Gnosticism of the prior sections. This type of approach does restore some balance to the mishnah. Further it involves the Seifa [last section -SR] with the core ideas that seem to link the other sections.

Sherry Fyman asks about what happens when a cantor "comes unstuck" [Berakhot 108]:

What does the mishna mean "another person should officiate in their stead"? For just that one berakhah or is the original cantor replaced for the balance of the davening? Your explanation seems to suggest the latter, but yet I don't understand why someone would be totally disqualified because he stumbled over one berakhah.

I respond:

I prefer to recite my prayers from memory with my eyes closed. However, I always hold a siddur in my hand – just in case. Many a time and oft when something has momentarily distracted my concentration I have "lost myself". Where was I? What are the next words? Under such circumstances I can use the siddur as my "prompter". But what can a cantor do who is improvising extempore? There is no one in the "prompter's box" who can help him out – he's inventing both the words and the music as he goes along. If he comes to a "dead stop", unless he manages to recover almost instantaneously he will not be able to recover at all, and under such circumstances it is a kindness to save him any further embarrassment and to send in 'the understudy'. In answer to your other question: "the understudy" continues to the end (or until he comes unstuck too).