Siman 104

Even though in the middle of Kiryat Shema it is permitted to interrupt due to fear and honor, as I wrote in siman 66, nevertheless, in the Shemoneh Esrei prayer it is not so. For since he is like one standing before the King—it is forbidden for him to interrupt even due to monetary loss. And all the more so due to fear and honor, for behold, one who stands before a king of flesh and blood, if he interrupts in the middle of his speech with the king—his head would be forfeit to the monarchy. And it is a kal vachomer when standing before the King of kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. And it was not permitted to interrupt except in a case of concern for danger to life, for nothing stands before pikuach nefesh. And the law of the prayer is like the law of the verse "Shema Yisrael" that was explained there, that it is forbidden to interrupt except in a case of concern for danger to life.

And this is what the sages taught in the Mishnah: that even if the king greets him—he shall not interrupt; even if a snake is wrapped around his heel—he shall not interrupt. And they said in the Gemara (32b): They only taught this regarding the kings of Israel. But for the kings of the nations he interrupts, lest he kill him. And so too, an oppressor who comes upon him in the middle of the prayer—he interrupts for this reason. And he is obligated to interrupt, as it is written: "And you shall guard your souls." And that which we find in the Gemara there: a story of a certain pious man whom the hegemon questioned in the middle of the prayer and he did not interrupt, and it was in his power to kill him as is explained there—this was because he was certain that the hegemon would accept his answer and would not kill him, as indeed occurred (see Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And more than this we find regarding Rabbi Yochanan in the Yerushalmi there, that he was engaged in Torah and did not interrupt, and they wanted to harm him but did not harm him, see there. And there is room for doubt if there is no concern of killing but only a concern of suffering, namely that he will strike him, if it is permitted for him to interrupt. And it requires further study.

And even in a place where he is compelled to interrupt as I have written, nevertheless, if it is possible for him to shorten—he should shorten. And this means that he should say the beginning of the blessing and its end before it reaches him, and he should shorten thus in all the blessings. Or if it is possible for him to turn aside from the path—he should turn aside and not interrupt with speech. And walking is not considered an interruption like speech. And if all these are impossible for him, and there is a concern of danger—he should interrupt with speech.

And not only is an interruption of speech forbidden during prayer and an interruption of walking, but even a mere hint is forbidden during prayer. And there is one who permits, when a child is crying and confuses him in his prayer, to hint to him with his hands so that he will not cry. And if it is not effective – he should distance himself from him. And so too, one who stands in prayer and feels that the shliach tzibbur is waiting for him – it is permitted for him to hint with his hand that he should not wait because of tircha d'tzibbur (Sha'arei Teshuva). And I wonder greatly at this: for even in the first paragraph of Kiryat Shema it is forbidden to hint, as I wrote in siman 63, and all the more so in the verse "Shema Yisrael." And it is a kal vachomer in Shmoneh Esreh, for even if we say it is a necessity of the prayer or tircha d'tzibbur, it is impossible to permit, and all the more so to walk. Therefore, it appears to me that it is forbidden in all these cases. And when a child is crying and confuses him – he should strengthen himself in his prayer and from Heaven they will help him. And because of tircha d'tzibbur he should shorten and not lengthen, but not interrupt with hints and all the more so with walking.

And even if a snake is wound around his heel, he shall not interrupt, because it does not bite in most instances (the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah). However, for a scorpion he interrupts, as it bites in most instances, and it is more prone to cause harm than the snake. And for a snake as well, if he saw that it is angry and prepared to cause harm – he interrupts. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that even with an ordinary snake, he may walk to another place so that the snake will fall from his leg. Thus far his words. That is to say: he shall not interrupt with speech to tell another to remove it from him, or that he himself should occupy himself with waving his leg to remove it, for this is a great interruption. But with a small amount of walking so that it falls – it is permitted. And there is one who says this is because walking is not considered an interruption (Magen Avraham subsection 3 in the name of Tosafot R"I). And the intention is not that it is not considered an interruption, for certainly walking is an interruption (as the Taz wrote in subsection 1). Rather, the intention is that this is not an interruption like speech or action. And they permitted this interruption because even though in most instances it does not harm, nevertheless there is some concern of danger, and therefore they permitted the interruption of walking. And it appears to me that this is specifically when it is on his heel. But if the snake is on his body – he may himself cast it off with his hands. But on his heel – of necessity he must wave the leg, and there is in this an interruption of action. And there is room to doubt if specifically when his heel is covered they did not permit him to interrupt, but when his heel is bare it is permitted as the danger is imminent. Or perhaps even in such a case there is no danger. And it requires further study. And in our countries, snakes and scorpions are not common at all. And there are places where snakes are common, and they say they do not harm at all. And whenever there is a doubt in this – a doubt regarding lives is treated leniently.

If one was praying on the road and saw an animal or a wagon opposite him, and he is praying while standing and not while walking, in any case, he is forced to turn from the path and shall not interrupt with speech. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: But in another matter, one should not leave his place until he finishes his prayer, unless he is in the supplications after the prayer. Thus far his words. And it must be understood, what is "another matter"? If for a mundane matter—even in the supplications he should not uproot himself from his place until after he takes three steps, as I wrote in siman 123. And if he is forced to uproot himself from his place, such as if a foul odor was made in this place—behold, even in the middle of the prayer he uproots himself from his place, as I wrote at the end of siman 90, see there.

However, the explanation of his words is as follows: For in the Gemara (31a) it is stated: They said about Rabbi Akiva that in public he would shorten [his prayer], but when he prayed alone, a person would leave him in one corner and find him in another corner, due to the abundance of bowings and prostrations. That is to say: when he would prostrate with the spreading of hands and feet, he would automatically be uprooted from his place (Tosafot R.I.). And our teachers asked: Is it not forbidden to add to the prostrations? And they answered that he did this during the supplications after the prayer, for if not so, it is forbidden to be uprooted from one's place (the Rosh and Tosafot R.I.). And the Tosafot answered there that in the middle of a blessing it is permitted to increase prostrations, see there. And it must be said regarding that which they did not concern themselves with his being uprooted from his place, that since this is not literally an uprooting by way of walking, but rather by way of prostrations—it is not considered being uprooted from one's place.

And these are the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: That in another matter, even for a mitzvah, he should not leave his place in the middle of the prayer, but rather during the supplications that follow the prayer. But for a voluntary matter – it is forbidden before the strides. And it appears to me that this is specifically for a complete mitzvah. But if they honor him with the opening of the holy ark and the like, or even if they call him to ascend to the Torah – he should not go without the strides; rather, he should shorten the supplications and ascend after he takes the three strides. For there is no delay of time in this, and even for any matter of a mitzvah he can do so. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, only said that there is no prohibition in this like that of Rava Akiva and the like. And he does not hold like the Tosafot that Rabbi Akiva did this in the middle of the blessings, but rather like the Rosh and the Tosafot of Ri. But in any other matter of a mitzvah where he can stride immediately and shorten the supplications – he is obligated to do so. So it appears in my humble opinion. (And see Magen Avraham subsection 2, and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 3. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.) And the chazzanim on Yom Kippur who uproot themselves from their place for "Koreim" – it is not correct to do so. (And perhaps according to the Tosafot it is permitted, as I wrote in the previous section. And examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

If he saw an ox coming toward him—he interrupts, for one distances himself from a tam ox fifty cubits, and from a muad ox as far as his eyes can see. And if the oxen in this place are established as not causing damage—he does not interrupt. And likewise if some damaging wild animal comes toward him—he interrupts, and all the more so a rabid dog and the like. And one must understand according to the matter.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: In any place where one pauses, if he delayed long enough to complete the entire prayer – he returns to the beginning. And if not – he returns to the beginning of the blessing in which he paused. And if he paused in the first three – he returns to the beginning. And if in the final ones – he returns to "Retzei." Thus far his words. And it has already been explained in siman 65 that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds like the Rif and the Rambam, that in prayer one always returns to the beginning when he delayed long enough to complete the entire prayer. And our teacher, the Rema, holds like the Tosafot and the Rosh, that when he delayed willfully – he does not return to the beginning, and when he delayed under duress – he returns to the beginning. And therefore he did not gloss anything here, because here he surely delayed under duress, as he was forced to delay because of the oppressor or because of the scorpion or because of the ox, as has been explained. And that which he ruled that he returns to the beginning of the blessing in which he erred, is because the middle of a blessing is nothing. And similarly, the first three are considered like one blessing, and similarly the final three. And behold, also in the blessings of the recitation of Shema he returns to the beginning of the blessing, as I wrote in siman 59, see there. (And so wrote the Taz, subsection 2, not like the Bach who holds that according to the Tosafot here he does not return to the beginning, see there.)

He further wrote: That which we say "if he paused long enough to complete it all" – we measure by the reader. Thus far his words, meaning: we measure by the one praying, for if according to his prayer the interruption was long enough that he could have prayed from the beginning of the prayer until its end – it is called "paused long enough to complete it all." And so too the opposite: if according to his prayer he did not pause long enough to complete it all, even though according to the prayer of others it would be long enough to complete it all – he does not return to the beginning. For we only measure by him and not by others, as with the recitation of Shema above in siman 65. And that which he wrote the language "we measure by the reader" is because the source of this law is from the Rashba at the beginning of the second chapter, and he is dealing with the recitation of Shema. Therefore, he employs the language of the recitation of Shema here as well. And know that there is one who says that this which we say, that he returns to the beginning of the blessing – specifically when he interrupted with speech. But without speech – he returns to the place where he stopped (Derech HaChayim). And it does not appear so. (And what he wrote regarding urine there as well, I do not know from where we have this to say so. For the Beit Yosef equates this to returning to the beginning, and there it is certainly so as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

He further wrote: If one spoke during the Tefillah—his law regarding returning is like the law of the interruptions mentioned in this siman. Thus far his words, meaning: if he spoke a small amount of conversation—he returns to the beginning of the blessing, even if he only tarried for a moment. And if he tarried long enough to finish the entire Tefillah—he returns to the beginning of the Tefillah. And the first three are considered as one, and likewise the last ones. And this is when he spoke under duress or inadvertently. But if he spoke willfully—some say that it is like duress and inadvertence, and they have one law (Levush, and Taz subsection 3, and the Gra in the name of the Rashba). And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. And some say that in a willful case, in any event, he returns to the beginning (Bach, and Magen Avraham subsection 6; and regarding Kriyat Shema he is in doubt, see there). And if he spoke between one blessing and another, and did not tarry long enough to finish the whole of it—there is no remedy here, and he finishes his Tefillah. And if he spoke in the middle of the blessing, and started from the place where he stopped or tarried long enough to finish the whole of it, and did not return to the beginning and finished his Tefillah—what he did is done, and he does not need to pray anew. And it is not similar to one who forgot "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" and finished the Tefillah where he is obligated to return and pray, for there he did not pray what he was obligated to pray. But here he prayed everything that is necessary, only that he interrupted, and since he finished—he finished (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 8). And there is one who says that his law is like "Ya'aleh V'Yavo," and he must return and pray (Taz end of subsection 3). And it appears that the primary view is like the first opinion.

It is forbidden to interrupt in the middle of the prayer, even for Kaddish, Kedushah, or "Barchu." Rather, one should remain silent until the shaliach tzibbur says "Yitbarach" in Kaddish, and in Kedushah until "Yimloch," and in "Barchu" until the congregation answers "Baruch Hashem…". This is the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory, in Sukkah (38b): If he heard and directed his heart to hear, even though he did not answer—he has fulfilled the obligation. And so too for those praying with a congregation when the shaliach tzibbur says Kedushah or "Yehei Shmei Rabba"—they should remain silent in their prayer and listen with intention, and they are as if they answered. And when they finish the Kedushah—they shall return to their prayer. And so too established the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot. Thus far his words. And one should not ask: If so, why did they say that one who enters the synagogue and finds the congregation praying, if he is able to start and finish before the shaliach tzibbur reaches Kedushah or "Modim" he should pray, and if not he should not pray, as will be explained in siman 109? And why should he not pray, for can he not remain silent and listen? Rather, certainly if he were to remain silent, his listening would be an interruption of his prayer. However, perhaps even though "one who hears is like one who answers," nevertheless answering is preferable and a mitzvah of the highest caliber. So wrote our teachers the Tosafists there. And in Berakhot (21b) they wrote that Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri disagree on this, for since "one who hears is like one who answers"—it constitutes an interruption when he remains silent. And nevertheless, the people are accustomed to remain silent and listen, and the custom is great. Thus far their words. And the Rosh also investigated this and agreed with Rashi and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot. And the Tur brought the two opinions and did not decide. And Rabbeinu Yonah wrote there that regarding a matter that depends on the pillars of the world—we do not have the power to decide between them. And one who acts like this master—has acted, and like this master—has acted, provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7 ruled simply like Rashi, and such is the simple custom.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If one was standing in prayer, and they called him to ascend to the Sefer Torah – he does not interrupt. Thus far his words. And there is no novelty in this, for behold, even during Kriat Shema he does not interrupt, as I wrote in siman 135, and certainly so in prayer. However, his intention is: because above in siman 66 they brought two opinions regarding Kriat Shema, and there are those who say that he interrupts, therefore he says that in prayer everyone agrees that he does not interrupt. And know that if he interrupted for Kedushah and Kaddish and "Barchu," and answered verbally – it is an interruption, and his law is like one who interrupted for a mundane matter. And according to those who hold that if done intentionally he returns to the beginning – here too it is so (see Magen Avraham subsection 8). And after he has finished the eighteen blessings – he may interrupt for all these matters, and he should say "Yihyu leratzon" and take the steps, and ascend to the Torah. But for the answering of Kedushah and Kaddish and "Barchu" – he does not need to take the steps. And also all the "Amens" he may answer.