Siman 102

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: It is forbidden to sit within four amot of one who is praying. Whether in front of him or from the sides – one must distance himself four amot. Thus far his words. And it is explained that behind him is permitted, and so wrote the Levush, see there. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote: even from behind him, see there. And know that several printing errors fell into this matter. For behold, before us it is written in the Tur "whether from in front of him or from behind him," see there. And our teacher, the Rema, in his book Darkei Moshe, raised a difficulty against him: Why did he not write "behind him," like the Rosh in the fifth chapter (siman 8) who wrote "behind him"? And from this he decided that behind him is also forbidden. And all the commentators of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that the Tur did not forbid behind him (Bach, and Perishah, and Taz subsection 2), and their entire reliance is upon the Rosh.

And it is a wondrous thing: for it is clear that this error fell also into the Rosh as into the Tur according to the version before us, for in the Abridged Piskei HaRosh it is not written "from behind him," see there. And also the Ma'adanei Yom Tov wrote there that the version "behind him" is not in the Rosh, see there. And furthermore: that if the version "behind him" were in the Rosh – our teacher, the Beit Yosef, would not have refrained from mentioning it in his book as is his way. And on the contrary, he wrote that the words of the Tur are like the words of the Tosafot and the Rosh and the Mordechai, see there. Deduce from this that before him, in all of them, "from behind him" was not written. (And also in the Beit Yosef a printing error fell, as it is written in it "behind him," and this is certainly not so as I have written. And examine closely and you will find it simple.) And in Tosafot (31b) "behind him" was written and erased, see there. And our teacher, the Rema, himself there brought in the name of "there are those who say" that the version in the Rosh is not "behind him," see there. For in truth, the matter of the Shekhinah appears to be relevant only in front of the one praying and not behind him, for for this reason when he paces three paces he walks backward because of the honor of the Shekhinah. And one who happens to have saliva – shall spit behind him. (And more wondrous is what they themselves questioned, that the Rosh gave a sign in this that it totals twelve, and if also behind him – behold it is sixteen. And the excuses that were said regarding this are far from being heard as the law. See Darkhei Moshe, and Bach, and Taz, and Magen Avraham. And it appears in my humble opinion that one who relies in this on the Beit Yosef and the Levush has not lost. And what he wrote in Darkhei Moshe in the name of the Zohar – will be explained later with the help of Heaven in section 12. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

All of our teachers wrote in the name of the Geonim that it is specifically when one sits idle that it is forbidden. However, if he is engaged in matters that are part of the arrangements of the prayers, and even in the chapter "Eizehu Mekoman"—he is not required to distance himself, for since they have the custom to recite it, it is like the arrangements of the prayers, and it is permitted for him to sit. The Tur wrote that one who is engaged in Torah—it is forbidden. And even though Torah is more stringent than prayer, nevertheless in this matter it is not so. For the reason it is forbidden to sit within four amot is because it appears as if his fellow is accepting upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and he is not accepting it. Therefore, when he is engaged in matters of prayer—it is considered as if he too is accepting upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, but not with Torah; see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that Torah is superior, and this too is the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch that some say that even when engaged in Torah it is permitted; see there. And this is specifically when he learns with his mouth and not in thought (Taz and Magen Avraham).

But the primary reasoning of the Tur is puzzling: for if so, regarding the recitation of Shema, which is the essence of accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven—it should be forbidden for the second person to sit near him within four amot. Furthermore: if so, what benefit is there to being outside of four amot (Taz, subsection 3)? Furthermore, this applies to a congregation and not to an individual. And in truth, the reason appears to be: that this place is holy as long as he is praying. And the place of a person is four amot, and one must treat it with respect. Therefore, when he sits idly—it is forbidden. But when he prays or studies—behold, he is engaged in matters of holiness (ibid.). And so the Levush ruled that when one is engaged in matters of Torah—it is permitted to sit, see there (and see Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 2).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 that there is one who says that this is specifically from the side. However, opposite him, even as far as the eyes can see—it is forbidden (to sit), even if he is engaged in the recitation of Shema. Thus far his words. In my humble opinion, this is not understood: for behold the Tosafot, and the Rosh, and the Tosafot of R"i, and the Mordechai, and the Smag, and the Rashba—all of them wrote in the name of the Geonim that for one engaged in prayer (and in Torah) it is permitted. And if it should enter your mind that in front of him it is forbidden, how did they not clarify this, and thereby place a stumbling block before those who study? Also the Tur did not clarify this. And in his great book he brought this in the name of the book Ohel Moed, see there. And seemingly it is a lone opinion. It appears to me that this is the intention of the Levush, who wrote regarding this: because it appears as if he is prostrating to him. Thus far his words. And his intention is: certainly there is no difference between in front of him and from the sides. Rather, directly opposite him is certainly unseemly, as it appears as if he is prostrating to a person. And this matter did not need to be clarified. But as long as it is not directly opposite his face—it is permitted, even in front of him. And so it appears primary for the halacha. (And what the Perishah wrote requires great study, for what is the relevance of standing to one who passes in front of him? And the Eliyah Rabbah already wondered at this in small subsection 3).

Regarding the matter of the sides: Certainly the sides to his front are like his front, and the sides to his back are like his back. If to his back is forbidden—the sides to his back are also forbidden. And if to his back is permitted—the sides to his back are also permitted. And if he sits diagonally—one measures the four amot diagonally, and there is no need for four amot and its diagonal (and see Peri Chadash and Magen Avraham subsection 1).

There is one who says that if the one sitting next to the one praying is a weak person—it is permitted, for everyone sees that due to his weakness he is forced to sit. And if it is difficult: who forces him to sit within his four amot? It is not difficult at all, such as when there is no other place to sit, and to move this chair or bench outside of the four amot is not within his capability. And it is simple that if he is able to move it outside the four amot of the one praying, he is obligated to do so. (And with this, the difficulty of the Taz, subsection 4, is well-settled. And that which he wrote that Eli was an old man, his words are perplexing: for the incident of Hannah was forty years prior. And they have already wondered about him regarding this.)

And the wording of the Shas (31b): It is forbidden to sit within four amot of prayer. And from this, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch inferred that this is specifically when this person comes to sit after the first began to pray. But if the one sitting was already sitting and this one stood at his side to pray – he does not need to stand, for this one has entered his boundary, and it does not appear as if he does not want to accept the Kingdom of Heaven according to the reasoning of the Tur. And also this is not a lack of respect according to the reasoning that we explained in section 4. And on the contrary, this one who prayed acts somewhat improperly, as he came to pray next to the person sitting. And therefore, it is a measure of piety to stand even in such a case, in order to remove a stumbling block from his fellow who acted improperly (the Gra"z). But according to the law, it is permitted.

And some say that this is specifically in his house. But in places designated for prayer, such as a beit knesset, even if the one sitting was already sitting—he is obligated to stand (Bach and Magen Avraham subsection 4). For since they are places designated for prayer, it is not relevant to say that this one acted improperly by standing to pray near the one sitting, for it is not within the power of the one sitting to prevent this one from praying in this place. And consequently, this one is obligated to stand. And even if he has a designated seat in the beit knesset and is sitting in it—he must stand. However, this is certainly when he is studying, for he does not need to rise even according to the opinion of the Tur that Torah study does not exempt one from standing; nevertheless, in such a case where he sat first, he does not need to stand. And even a measure of piety is not present.

One should be in doubt if Reuven is standing during Pesukei D'Zimrah, and Shimon sat next to him, such that at the time Reuven stands in prayer Shimon was already sitting, whether this is called "the one sitting preceded" and is permitted? Or perhaps "the one praying preceded," since the one sitting knew that he would immediately pray Shemoneh Esrei, and it is called "the one praying preceded" and he must stand? And from the perspective of logic, it seems that it is permitted, for there is no lack of honor here. And it also does not appear as a lack of accepting the Kingdom of Heaven, since he is sitting before he began to pray Shemoneh Esrei.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (27a) that it is forbidden to pass in front of one who is praying within his four amot from before his face. This is the wording of the Gemara: It is forbidden to pass before those who are praying. Our teachers inferred from this that it is specifically from before him that it is forbidden, but at their sides it is permitted to pass. For the reason is because by passing before him his kavanah will be nullified (Eliyah Rabbah), and at the sides his kavanah will not be nullified. And similarly, at a distance of four amot, even from before him his kavanah will not be nullified. And it is obvious that merely standing there involves no prohibition, for there is no nullification of kavanah in this. However, this is only if he was already standing there. But to come and stand there—behold, he perforce passes slightly before him and disturbs his kavanah. (And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 8. And from the Magen Avraham, subsection 6, it is explained regarding passing at his side that he should not go further than the place of his standing in prayer, for as long as he sees him, it is as if it is before his face, see there. And the custom is not so. And also the Eliyah Rabbah disagreed with him, for certainly as long as it is not exactly before his face, there is no nullification of kavanah here. And as for what is written in the Shulchan Aruch "to pass and stand"—the intention is not that it is forbidden to stand before him, but rather to pass and then stand is forbidden. But one who was standing beforehand—it is permitted. And the Eliyah Rabbah was pressed on this, and it appears as I have written. Examine and you will find it simple.) (And also when he says "Shema Yisrael"—one should not pass before him.)

And know that they wrote in the name of the Zohar in Parashat Chayei Sarah (page 133a) that even to pass by is forbidden on all sides. This is the wording of the Zohar: And one who prays – it is forbidden to pass within four amot near him. And they established these four amot for every side except for in front of him… Thus far his words. And from this they wrote (Magen Avraham subsection 5 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 8) that the Zohar forbids on every side. And it is difficult in my eyes to say that the Zohar would disagree with the Gemara in a place where there is no dispute in the Gemara. Furthermore: why did it need to say "except for in front of him"? And according to their words, the explanation is: "besides in front of him" it is additionally forbidden from all sides. And this is a forced interpretation. And it is also difficult: for if so, is it also forbidden behind him? And this is obvious that there is no logic to this at all, for behold, even to sit is permitted according to the Tur and the Beit Yosef as I have written. Furthermore: in every place that the Zohar says "and they established," we find this in some place. Therefore, it appears to me that on the contrary, the Zohar also permits on the sides. And regarding this it says "and they established," meaning: that the sages of the Shas said so. And this is the explanation: and they established these four amot, meaning: that they established this prohibition of four amot such that for every side – it is permitted, except for in front of him – it is forbidden. And it is a light phrasing in the manner of the Yerushalmi.

If one completed his prayer, and another person was praying behind him—it is forbidden for him to take three steps back until the one behind him finishes his prayer. For if he steps back—he is like one who passes in front of one who is praying. And one must be precise in this: even if the latter began to pray after him, since he has already begun. And it appears to me that if the one praying has already finished the Shemoneh Esrei but is prolonging his supplications—there is no prohibition to pass before him, for in this we do not fear the disruption of his prayer. Especially if there is a need for it, such as to take the steps back. Furthermore, it appears to me that a Rav who finished the prayer, and the sheliach tzibbur is waiting for him as is the custom—he is permitted to step back even if there is someone praying behind him, because of the burden on the congregation. And there is one who wishes to say that since the reason is due to the disruption of the prayer of the one praying, therefore if he drapes his tallit over his face—it is permitted to pass before him. And this is not clear at all. And if there is an object before the one praying that is ten tefachim high and four wide—it constitutes a partition.