Tzlach

I had three questions on today's daf yomi (32) and I was very happy to see that the Tzlach addressed all 3. I figured I'd write it up here in case others had the same questions and didn't have a Tzlach.

1. The gemara says that Chana, Shmuel, and Moshe all were "hitiach" their words towards Hashem. Rashi tells us that means that they were zoreik their words. He only says it though when the gemara is talking about Moshe. Why did he suddenly wake up then and explain it and not explain it the first time the gemara said it by Chana?
The Tzlach also quotes the Maharsha who asks another question. You don't see from what Moshe said that he was being chutzpadik at all. The only reason that the gemara says this is because it changes the word el (with an alef) to al (with an ayin). Why would the gemara change the word to make Moshe sound chutzpadik?
The Tzlach answers both questions by saying that the word "hitiach" really means two different things. By Chana and Shmuel it means that they spoke with chutzpa and that's obvious from their dialogues. However, by Moshe it means that he threw the words. Bnai Yisrael was complaining to him and he took the words and threw them onto Hashem.

2. Moshe said to Hashem that if a three legged chair couldn't protect Klal Yisrael then certainly a one legged chair won't be able to protect them. The Maharsha asks that it wouldn't be just one leg because Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov would still be the forefathers together with Moshe. So he answers that Moshe just meant that if the three of them couldn't protect them on their own then Moshe won't add anything. That bothered me because it doesn't sound like what the gemara is saying and also then it's not a kal v'chomer. So what is pshat - why wouldn't the avos have counted anymore? I was thinking that had Hashem carried out his plan then Moshe would have been the av of Klal Yisrael. It's true that everyone would have still been descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov but they would not have been considered avos because they weren't the builders and founders of this new nation just like Adam and Noach aren't considered our avos even though we all come from them. The Tzlach answers slightly differently. He says that Moshe was saying that the avos wouldn't want to have been included anymore and would no longer have davened on behalf of Bnei Yisrael if Moshe didn't stick up for them.

3. The gemara says that we see from Moshe that davening is more important than maasim tovim since he was answered only after he davened even though he had maasim tovim. How do you see that tefila is greater than maasim tovim? All you see from this is that tefila with maasim tovim are better than maasim tovim alone but how do you see that tefila alone is better? The Tzlach also asks another question: What does this gemara (on top of 32b) have to do with anything we talked about on 32a. He says that the first question could be answered by the second question. The gemara on the bottom of 32a learns from Moshe that before the bakashos in davening you should say shevach. That's actually a machlokes in the gemara in Avoda Zara on daf 7b. One opinion is that we learn from Moshe the order like our gemara says but the other opinion is that you can't learn from Moshe because he only did it that way because he was such a tzadik and had great maasim tovim but normal people shouldn't do it in that order. Our gemara is paskening like the opinion that this tefila had nothing to do with Moshe's maasim tovim and we could learn from Moshe. If that's true, the gemara continues on amud beis, then you see that Moshe was only granted his request because of the tefila and it had nothing to do with the maasim tovim.