Siman 106

All those who are exempt from the recitation of Shema because they are engaged in a mitzvah or with the preoccupation of a mitzvah, and those engaged with the deceased—are exempt from the prayer. And in one detail there is a greater exemption regarding the prayer than regarding the recitation of Shema, as the sages taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of the third chapter: The bearers of the bier... those before the bier who are needed—are exempt. And those after the bier who are needed—are obligated. And both these and those are exempt from the prayer. And the reason: for those who hold that prayer is rabbinic, the reason is simple, as the recitation of Shema is from the Torah and prayer is rabbinic. And for those who hold that prayer is from the Torah, it is because prayer requires standing and they do not have the leisure for this, which is not the case for the recitation of Shema: they may say it while walking, except for the first verse (Tosafot of R"i).

And know: that from the language of the Tur it is implied that specifically those for whom the bed has no need. And nevertheless, they are associated with the bearers of the bed. But those who escort the deceased, who have no association at all with the bearing of the bed – are obligated in prayer (Beit Yosef). But the Rambam wrote at the end of the sixth chapter that all who escort the deceased – are exempt from prayer, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled accordingly in section 1. And he holds that those for whom the bed has no need – they are included among the escorts. And perhaps the Tur also employed the language of the Shas, but regarding the law he admits that all escorts – are exempt. And thus wrote the students of our teacher Yonah in the name of the Yerushalmi, that those who are behind the bed – the bed never has need for them, see there. And if so, they are nothing other than escorts. (But I did not find this in the Yerushalmi.)

And it is simple that those who are exempt from the prayer – are exempt even if the time for the prayer passes. And also regarding the subsequent prayer, they will not need to pray two prayers, since they were exempt at the time of the obligation of the first. And it further appears to me: that even if it is still before midday, if a third of the day has passed – he should not pray anymore. And even though it was explained in siman 89 that until midday they give him the reward of prayer, see there – that is when he acted on his own, where he erred or transgressed and did not pray in its time as is explained there. But here, where by the law he is exempt in its time, how can we impose upon him to pray after the time? However, if he prayed until midday, it is possible that he receives reward like a prayer not in its time. Or it is possible that it is forbidden to pray since he was exempt at the time of obligation, and it is not similar to the recitation of Shema which is like one who reads in the Torah. But there are some of the poskim who wrote with simplicity that until midday he is obligated in prayer. (Magen Avraham in siman 71, subsection 1. And so we wrote there in section 2. And it requires further study.)

And there is a question regarding this according to the second reason in section 1: Why do we not permit him to pray while walking, just as we permitted one traveling on a road in siman 94? And there is one who answered that while he is walking, he is considered one engaged in a mitzvah and is exempt. Nevertheless, regarding the recitation of Shema he is obligated, because he can easily recite it (Magen Avraham subsection 1). And this is not sufficient, of course. And it appears to me that in truth, prayer is only while standing, and only on a road did the sages permit it for him for the reason explained there. And this is all regarding one who is obligated in it and not regarding one who is exempt from it, and it is impossible for us to institute for him a prayer that is not according to the essential law of prayer, which is specifically while standing.

Women and slaves, even though they are exempt from the recitation of Shema, are obligated in prayer. The Rambam wrote the reason at the beginning of the first chapter: because it is a positive commandment that is not time-bound. That is to say: he holds that prayer is a positive commandment from the Torah, and from the Torah it has no fixed time, and therefore it is a positive commandment that is not time-bound. Consequently, even though the Rabbis established the times of prayer and supported it with the verse "Evening and morning and at noon I will speak," as I wrote at the beginning of siman 89, nevertheless it is obvious that they did not come to be more lenient than the Torah to exempt women and slaves from this commandment. And this is what they said in the Mishnah (20b) that women and slaves are obligated in prayer. And the Gemara asks: Is this not obvious? And it answers: What might you have said? Since it is written regarding it "Evening and morning..." it is like a positive commandment that is time-bound? It comes to teach us. That is to say: it comes to teach us that since from the Torah it has no fixed time, they are obligated. And like the words of the Rambam, the Rif also wrote, see there. (And Rashi, of blessed memory, erased this version, as he wrote: This is our version: "for they are requests for mercy," and we do not have the version "Is this not obvious?", for it is not from the Torah. Thus far his words. For he holds like the Ramban, as we explained at the beginning of siman 89, that prayer is rabbinic. However, the Rif and the Rambam have the version "Is this not obvious?", and they do not have the version "for they are requests for mercy." And this is clear with the help of Heaven. And I have seen great scholars who struggled to explain this "for they are requests for mercy" according to the Rambam, but it is clear that they did not have that version at all. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

According to the approach of Rashi, Tosafot, and the Ramban that prayer is of rabbinic origin, and seemingly since its essence is of rabbinic origin and they established it at specific times it should be a time-bound commandment—for this they taught in the Gemara that it is because "it is a request for mercy." And according to the explanation of Rashi there, it is not relevant at all regarding rabbinic commandments to distinguish between "time-bound" and "not time-bound." However, the Tosafot there wrote that even regarding rabbinic commandments one must distinguish, just as they exempted women from Hallel because it is time-bound, even though it is of rabbinic origin (Sukkah 38a). Nevertheless, because prayer is a request for mercy, they instituted it even for women.

And behold, it is certain that according to Rashi, women are obligated in three prayers a day like men, for according to him there is no distinction in rabbinic law between "time-bound" and "not time-bound." And also according to the Tosafot it is so, for according to them the Gemara says this explicitly: that even though it is time-bound, nevertheless, since they are mercy—the sages obligated them even in a time-bound commandment, and automatically they are obligated like men. But according to the Rif and the Rambam, who do not cite the reason of "mercy," but rather their obligation is from the Torah because it is not time-bound, it follows that their obligation is only once a day and in whatever wording it may be. For one cannot say that after the sages enacted three times a day and in their times, this obligation applied to them as well, for if so, why does it ask "it is obvious," for it would be teaching us a great deal? Rather, it is certainly as I have written. (And the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, was brief in this. For certainly according to the Rambam it is so, but according to Rashi and Tosafot they are certainly obligated in all the prayers like men and in their times. And the students of our teacher Yonah wrote: Even though it has a fixed time, even so, since they said "would that a person should pray all day long"—we judge it as not time-bound, and therefore women are obligated. Alternatively: because it is mercy. Thus far their words. And I do not know why the first reason is needed? For according to Rashi and Tosafot the reason is explicit because they are mercy, and according to the Rif and the Rambam it is not difficult at all. And it must be said that they hold it is rabbinic, and they did not have the version "because they are mercy" before them, and it was difficult for them: is it not time-bound? And they hold like Tosafot that even in rabbinic law time-bound applies. And for this they answered two answers: and according to the first answer it can be said that women were only obligated once a day, like according to the Rambam. And the Levush wrote an entirely different reason, see there. And this is certainly a wonder: for he saw the version of Rashi and Tosafot "because they are mercy," and also in the Behag there is this reason and so too in the Yerushalmi, see there. And according to this, it is with difficulty that one can settle why our women are not careful in all three prayers according to the method of Rashi and Tosafot, but according to the Rif and the Rambam it works out well. And examine and you will find it easy.)

And regarding minors, one is obligated to train them in the prayers if they have reached the age of chinuch. For according to the Rambam, that prayer is from the Torah—it is obvious that it is like all the mitzvot that one is obligated to train them in, and the obligation is incumbent upon the father. And even according to those who hold that prayer is rabbinic, nevertheless, since it is a request for mercy—the sages imposed upon the father to habituate them like adults. However, regarding the prohibition of eating before prayer—it is not practiced with them, and he should feed them before the prayer, for perhaps they will become weak and come to a state of danger. Furthermore: regarding a matter that is not an essential prohibition but rather depends on time—chinuch is not applicable to it. Therefore, they are permitted to eat even before kiddush, as will be explained in siman 269, and he may feed them with his own hands.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (Shabbat 9b): One interrupts for the recitation of Shema, but one does not interrupt for Tefillah. And it was established in the Gemara that this refers to one who is constantly engaged in Torah study. And the difference between the recitation of Shema and Tefillah is explained there in the Yerushalmi with three reasons: The first: that the recitation of Shema is from the Torah and Tefillah is rabbinic. And the one who says this holds like the Ramban that Tefillah is rabbinic. And the second: because the recitation of Shema has a fixed time from the Torah, and Tefillah does not have a fixed time. And the one who says this holds like the Rambam that Tefillah is from the Torah, but its time is not fixed. And it is necessary to say so: for if he held that it was rabbinic, behold, from a rabbinic standpoint its time is fixed. And the third: that the recitation of Shema does not require kavanah except for the first verse, and Tefillah requires kavanah, see there. And he also holds that it is from the Torah. And it turns out that the dispute of our teachers is present in the Yerushalmi. (And the Sha'agat Aryeh in siman 14 raised a difficulty against the Rambam from this Mishnah, see there. And he did not see this Yerushalmi, which must be explained as I have written. Analyze it and you will find it simple.)

It is stated in the Gemara there that this rule, that those occupied with Torah study do not interrupt for prayer, applies only to those such as Rava Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues, whose Torah was their sole occupation and they did not interrupt for even a moment. However, people such as us interrupt both for the recitation of Shema and for prayer when the time for prayer is passing; for if the time is not passing, even we are permitted to study (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ran and the Maor). But regarding Rava Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues, even when the time is passing, it is forbidden to interrupt (ibid.). And regarding the recitation of Shema, they are also obligated to recite it with the blessings before it and after it (Magen Avraham, subsection 4), for even though they are of rabbinic origin, nevertheless, since they became obligated in the recitation of Shema, they became obligated in its blessings as well. And afterward they cease and study, and they do not pray (ibid.). And that which we wrote, that when the time is not passing even we are permitted to study, this is according to the method of most of the poskim who disagree with Rashi, who forbids studying before prayer, as I wrote in siman 89, section 27; see there. And there it was explained that when one teaches others, he does not need to interrupt, neither for the recitation of Shema nor for prayer, for the Torah study of the many is very great. And so did our holy teacher, who would pass his hands over his eyes and recite only the verse "Shema Yisrael," and he would be careful to teach a halacha that mentions the Exodus from Egypt (13b), and after the study he would complete the recitation of Shema (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And know that even according to the method of Rashi, if he began to study, he should not interrupt if the time is not passing and there will still remain time to recite the recitation of Shema and to pray (ibid., subsection 9).

And know that the words of the Rambam in this matter are very puzzling. For he wrote in chapter six, law 8: One who was engaged in the study of Torah and the time for prayer arrived – he stops and prays. But if his Torah was his craft and he does no work at all, and he was engaged in Torah at the time of his prayer – he does not stop, for the mitzvah of Talmud Torah is greater than the mitzvah of prayer. Thus far his words. And it is a wonder, for behold, in the Gemara Rava said: They only taught this regarding the likes of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues, but we stop..., and as the Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote. And since Rava stopped, all the more so we. And Rava, it is obvious that his Torah was his craft, and how did he write that one whose Torah is his craft does not stop? Are we greater than Rava? And it requires great study.

It appears that the Rambam explains that which was said, "such as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues" — it does not deal with the greatness of their stature and their diligence, but rather because they did not perform any labor for a livelihood. And since he does not interrupt for a livelihood — he does not interrupt for prayer either. But the rest of the Tannaim and Amoraim had some form of livelihood, as is well known in the Shas, and therefore they interrupt. And according to this, even nowadays, one who has no labor — he also shall not interrupt. And know that from his words it is implied that only when the time for prayer arrives does he interrupt, and this is according to the method of Rashi that we wrote, that it is forbidden to study before prayer. And it is possible that his intention is that the time would pass, and it requires further study. (They did not institute a berakhah over prayer, see Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 4.)