Siman 235

It is known that in the times of the ancients they would pray Arvit while the day was still long. And behold, according to the view of the Rambam its time begins from the start of the night, and according to the view of Rabbeinu Tam and Ri and all the Tosafists and the Rosh and other Rishonim its time is from plag hamincha for one who conducts himself like Rabbi Yehuda, who does not pray Mincha after plag hamincha. But those who pray Mincha until the night should not advance the Arvit prayer before the night, and all this we explained in siman 233. And many great ones labored over from where this custom came to advance the Arvit prayer while it is still day, and all the Rishonim answered that because of the burden on the community to gather at night they were forced to do so, and it is understood that this is not a sufficient answer, and it is necessary to find merit for Israel. And I say that this matter is explained in the Mishnah and in the Gemara and in the Yerushalmi and from the essential law it is so, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

We learned at the beginning of the fourth chapter: "The morning prayer is until midday, the afternoon prayer is until evening, the evening prayer has no fixed time." And the Gemara asks (27b): "What is 'has no fixed time'? If we say that if one desires he may pray the entire night, let it teach: 'The evening prayer is all night.' Rather, what is 'has no fixed time'? Like the one who says the evening prayer is optional," see there. And it is not understood, for we should also ask on this: "Let it teach the evening prayer is optional." Furthermore, if so, why indeed did it not teach the time as it taught us the times of the morning and afternoon prayers; and if it is because it is optional, nevertheless one must know the time of this option. Furthermore, how is it possible to say that this "has no fixed time" does not mean that its time is the entire night, for it is explicitly taught there (26a): "And for what reason did they say the evening prayer has no fixed time? Because the limbs and fats that were not consumed from the evening continue to be offered the entire night," see there. Behold, it is explicit that this "has no fixed time" refers to the time of the entire night.

However, the truth is that this is the explanation: Certainly, that which was stated, "it has no fixed time"—meaning it has no fixed point in time, for since it corresponds to the burning of the limbs, and it is known that the burning began while it was still day after the burning of the sacrificial fats, yet it remains valid all night long, therefore the prayer also begins while it was still day and continues all night. Rather, the Gemara says that since it did not explicitly teach this, we learn from it also that the Arvit prayer is optional, but the primary explanation is as I have written. And according to this, even according to the Rabbis who hold that the Mincha prayer is until the evening, nevertheless, one is also permitted to pray the Arvit prayer from the time of the burning of the limbs, which is approximately from Plag HaMincha and onwards. And all the more so on Shabbat, for the primary prayer must be while it is still day, as the limbs of the afternoon Tamid of the eve of Shabbat are forbidden to be offered at night on Shabbat, as we say in Shabbat (24b): "and not the burnt-offering of a weekday on Shabbat."

And even according to the one who says that the patriarchs established the prayers, this is also proven, as we say there that Yaakov established the Maariv prayer. And the Tosafot raised a difficulty, for in Chullin (91b) it is explicitly stated that Yaakov prayed while it was still day. And they answered that according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that Mincha is until Pelag HaMincha, it works out well, for the time of Maariv begins from Pelag HaMincha, see there; yet it is still difficult according to the Rabbanan. However, according to our words it works out well, for even according to the Rabbanan the time of Maariv begins while it is still day. (And with this the words of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 7 are understood, and even though he attributed it to the fact that it is voluntary, see there, nevertheless the primary reason is as I have written, and examine this closely).

And so it is proven in the Yerushalmi (beginning of chapter 4) where we say there: "Rabbi commanded Avdan, proclaim before the public: whoever prays, let him pray the evening prayer while the day still stands, and so Rabbi Hiyya would proclaim" see there. And ostensibly this is only according to Rabbi Yehuda, and if so, how does our Gemara say that the halacha was stated neither like the Rabbanan nor like Rabbi Yehuda, for behold, Rabbi and Rabbi Hiyya instructed in practice like Rabbi Yehuda. Rather, it is certainly that the evening prayer does not pertain to the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan, and even according to the Rabbanan it is permitted to pray while it is still day. (And this requires further study according to this from what we say: "From the fact that Rav prays the Sabbath prayer on the eve of Sabbath, learn from this that he holds like Rabbi Yehuda." And it rejects: "On the contrary, from the fact that Rav Huna and the Rabbanan did not pray until night, learn from this that the halacha is like the Rabbanan" see there, and according to our words, even according to the Rabbanan it is so regarding the evening prayer. And one must say that in truth it could have rejected it so, and it also could have rejected it for the reason of adding to the Sabbath, as it is stated in the Yerushalmi there that regarding the matter of Sabbath it is obvious see there, but rather it rejects that from this there is no proof at all. And perforce one must say so, for if not so, what is the relevance of 'on the contrary', let us say in truth that they argue about this. Rather, it is certainly that this is the explanation: that from the prayers there is no proof at all, for just as we cannot infer from Rav Huna that the halacha is like the Rabbanan, for does Rabbi Yehuda hold one should not pray at night, so too we should not infer from Rav that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda, for behold even according to the Rabbanan one can do so, and according to this 'on the contrary' is a proof for our words. And the Gemara rejects: that from the evening prayer there is no proof for the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbanan, and examine this carefully).

And behold, all this is regarding the matter of prayer, but for the evening Recitation of Shema, all our teachers, the Rishonim and Acharonim, ruled that its time is at night when three medium stars emerge, according to the anonymous Mishnah at the beginning of Berakhot, as we learned: "From what time do we recite the Shema in the evenings? From the time the priests enter to eat their terumah," and it was taught regarding this in a Baraita that this is the emergence of the stars. If so, granted that the time for prayer is earlier, nevertheless, since the time for the Recitation of Shema is at night and one must join redemption to prayer, it is necessary that he pray at night. And already all our teachers at the beginning of Berakhot investigated this regarding their custom, for they would recite the Recitation of Shema and pray while it was still day.

The approach of Rabbeinu Tam is that just as regarding prayer, from plag hamincha is the time for prayer according to Rabbi Yehuda, so too regarding kriat shema. And the Rosh raised a difficulty: what is the connection between prayer and kriat shema? For regarding kriat shema we require "and when you lie down," the time of lying down, see there. And it can be said that in truth we say that then is the time of lying down, for just as it is night regarding prayer, so too for kriat shema (Bach). And although the Mordechai wrote that the Ra'avyah agreed to this, nevertheless, among most of our teachers this approach was not accepted, as is explained in the Tur, see there; and in truth, regarding kriat shema which is from the Torah, it is impossible to be lenient as with prayer which is rabbinic. And in the Yerushalmi it is stated that even if one recited kriat shema during bein hashemashot—he must return and recite it at night, and the reason is simple, for bein hashemashot is a doubt and kriat shema is from the Torah, and a doubt regarding a Torah commandment is ruled stringently (and so wrote the Sha'agat Aryeh, siman 3).

Therefore, they wrote in the name of Rav Hai Gaon that if the congregation is early to recite kariat shema and to pray while it is still day—he should pray with them, for prayer with a minyan is a very great matter; and he should also recite kariat shema with them with its blessings and pray, and afterwards at night he should recite kariat shema once more, all three passages, without blessings. And if it is because he recited the blessings of kariat shema while it was still day, we are not concerned about it, for the Rashba already wrote in the name of the Geonim that the blessings of kariat shema are not connected to kariat shema and they are a matter unto themselves, but rather they attached them to kariat shema; therefore, when he recites kariat shema afterwards without blessings, we have no problem with it. And if it is because he says in the blessings: "Who rolls away light before darkness," "Who removes day and brings night," and likewise "Hashkivenu," and it is still day, we are not concerned about it, for since he may pray the evening prayer, he may also say these blessings, and only kariat shema alone must he return and recite at night, and this is the straight and superior path. And so we practice regarding the acceptance of Shabbat, that we pray while it is still day when the sun is on the earth after plag hamincha; when we come to our homes, we wait until night and recite kariat shema, all three passages, and afterwards we make kiddush over wine and eat, and such is our obligation and such is proper for us.

And this is also the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 1, who wrote: "The time for the recitation of Shema at night is from the time of the emergence of three small stars; and if it is a cloudy day, he should wait until the doubt is removed from his heart. If he recited it before then, he must return and recite it without blessings. And if the congregation recites the Shema early while it is still day, he should recite the Shema and its blessings with them and pray with them, and when the time arrives, he recites the Shema without blessings. However, he should not return and pray at night even though the congregation precedes the night by a great deal, unless he is accustomed to other matters of abstinence and piety, for then it does not appear like arrogance that he returns and prays." Thus far their words. And even if they preceded it by two or three hours before nightfall, as was the custom among them, as is explained in Terumat HaDeshen (siman 1). However, in our days we have not heard of this custom, and only on Shabbat do we precede slightly before sunset, and in this it is certainly forbidden, Heaven forbid, to return and pray, for after plag hamincha it is a complete prayer according to the law, and according to what we explained, even according to the Rabbis it is so; but he should not rely on the recitation of Shema upon the bed (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And know that even though the Arvit prayer is voluntary, the Rif has already written that we have accepted it upon ourselves as an obligation, and therefore the poskim did not mention this at all, and there is no difference between it and the Shacharit and Mincha prayers. (See Turei Zahav, subsection 2, who wrote at length that the path of the Shulchan Aruch did not find favor in his eyes, and I do not know why, for their path is straight. And what was written in the Shulchan Aruch, "small stars," is not exact, but rather to exclude large ones; see Magen Avraham and Turei Zahav, subsection 1. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 3, that one who is accustomed to pray at night and erred and began the blessings of the recitation of Shema with the congregation while it was still day, should finish the blessings with the congregation, and at night he should recite the Shema without the blessings and pray, and he should not join the blessing of redemption to the prayer, see there. And behold, it is certainly so, but why should he act thus? For Rav Hai Gaon already warned to pray with the congregation while it is still day, and so it is written in the Shulchan Aruch, and how shall he act contrary to their words? And delve into this.)

Rashi, of blessed memory, explained at the beginning of Berakhot that those who pray and recite Shema while it is still day do not intend to fulfill their obligation with this recitation of Shema, but rather they fulfill it with the first paragraph that they recite upon the bed; see there. And if so, those who conduct themselves according to Rashi must recite the Shema upon the bed with intention in order to fulfill the obligation of Shema with it. And one should not ask that if so, how may they eat before the recitation of Shema, for it will be explained later that it is forbidden. For it can be said that since he has already recited and prayed, even though he has not yet fulfilled his obligation through this, nevertheless they were not concerned with it; and although they recite only the first paragraph, it can be said that according to the Torah this is sufficient, and certainly it is better to recite all three paragraphs or at the very least also the paragraph of "Ve-haya im shamoa." And regarding that which they recite without the blessings, we have already written that the matter of Shema is not dependent on the blessings, and the great authorities have already elaborated on this; however, the more upright path is as we wrote previously.

Just as it is forbidden to eat close to Mincha, as has been explained in siman 232, so too, half an hour close to Arvit it is forbidden to eat until one recites Kriat Shema and prays. On the contrary, in this regard it is more stringent than Mincha, for whereas regarding Mincha even if one began in a state of prohibition one does not interrupt, as has been explained there, regarding Arvit one does interrupt. There is a similar reason for this in the Gemara (Shabbat 9b), because at night drunkenness is common, and furthermore, since at night he has time the entire night, he is not afraid that the time will pass and meanwhile the entire night will pass, which is not the case regarding Mincha, see there. And the primary reason is because Kriat Shema is from the Torah, whereas prayer is rabbinic.

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 2: "It is forbidden to begin eating half an hour close to the time of the evening kariat shema, and if one began to eat after its time arrived—he stops and recites kariat shema without its blessings and finishes his meal, and afterward recites it with its blessings and prays, but he does not need to stop for tefillah, since he began to eat. However, if he did not begin to eat, even though he washed his hands—he must stop, and if there is no time to pray—he stops even for tefillah." Thus far their words. The explanation of their words: That when one began permittedly, meaning before half an hour close to evening—he does not need to stop even for kariat shema, because there is still time to pray. And if in truth no time remains, meaning that he is eating before the light of morning—he stops even for tefillah even if he began permittedly, as written in siman 232. But if he began prohibitedly—he stops for kariat shema and not for tefillah, as in siman 232 regarding mincha. Only in this is there a difference, for there it is called a beginning even from when he washes his hands as written there, but here this is not called a beginning, for the reason that at night drunkenness is common and the entire night is its time, as written in the previous section, for when he began to eat literally the sages did not see fit to be stringent for these reasons regarding tefillah, only for kariat shema which is from the Torah. But regarding washing his hands which is a light beginning, they were stringent even for tefillah in maariv for the reasons that were explained. And it appears to me that this is when he has not yet recited the blessing 'al netilat yadayim', but if he recited the blessing, he must necessarily eat so that there will not be an interruption between washing and hamotzi. And there is one from whose words it is implied that even in such a case he must stop (see Magen Avraham, subsection 6), and the matter is wondrous in my eyes (and so wrote the Olat Tamid). And there is one who wrote that even if he recited 'hamotzi' he must stop, for this is not a complete beginning (Eliyah Rabbah in the name of Piskei Tosafot), and I have not found this in any of the early authorities who would say so. And know that that which we said there is time to pray, that is until the light of day, but that which extends after midnight—we have no concern with it, even though initially it is a mitzvah to pray before midnight as will be explained, nevertheless regarding stopping we require the actual end of the time (so it appears in my humble opinion).

There is one who says that "half an hour" is not exact, but rather a short time before the period, for the Tur wrote: "Once its time has arrived it is forbidden etc." (Taz at the end of subsection 3). And so the Tosafot wrote (4a, s.v. "ve-korei"): "From here it is implied that from the time the period for the recitation of the Shema of the night has arrived, one may not eat a meal until he recites the Shema and prays Arvit." Thus far their words. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6 and from the wording of the Rosh (siman 9), see there. And only the Rashba and the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah inferred from the wording of the Gemara that even a short time before the period it is forbidden, see there. If so, it is sufficient for us to be stringent a short time before and not exactly half an hour. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote "half an hour," compared this to "close to Mincha" in siman 232, which is half an hour before, see there. Therefore, one who wishes to be lenient and began to eat half an hour before has upon what to rely.

The commentators of the Shulchan Aruch wrote that specifically a fixed eating, such as a meal, is forbidden, but a mere tasting is permitted (Magen Avraham subsection 4, and Taz subsection 3, and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 6). And so it is explained from the wording of the Tosafot that we brought, who wrote: "that he should not eat a meal etc.", and such is the wording of the Tur who wrote: "When the time for the recitation of Shema has arrived, it is forbidden to fix his meal until he prays" thus far his words; it is explicitly explained that specifically a meal is forbidden. And even though the wording of the Baraita (4b) is: "A person should not come from the field in the evening and say: I will eat a little and drink a little and sleep a little, and afterwards I will recite the Shema and pray, but rather etc." see there, and the term "a little" implies a small amount, and furthermore, perforce the intention is not that specifically all three together—eating, drinking, and sleeping—are forbidden, but rather it means "either or" (and so wrote the Taz there), and if so, this is the explanation: I will eat a little or I will drink a little, and drinking is not a fixed matter and nevertheless it is forbidden, and if so, so too is eating.

However, in truth, this is not a precise inference, for it refers to the common speech of people; that is to say, because he wishes first to eat and sleep a little and afterwards to recite kariat shema and to pray, he says to himself that there is no concern lest he not pray at all. To this end he says: "I will eat and drink a little and sleep a little." And it does not teach "or, or," for he says them all together, and he says that there is no concern lest he sleep the entire night, for behold, "I will eat and drink a little and sleep a little and arise immediately." But the sages were concerned that he would eat and drink much and sleep much. And the drinking that he mentions is because in most meals one drinks as well. And so it is proven from the language of the Rambam in chapter 6, law 7, who wrote: "Even though the evening prayer is optional, a person should not come from his work and say: I will eat a little and sleep a little etc., but rather he prays the evening prayer and afterwards eats and drinks or sleeps." Thus far his words. Behold, he omitted "drinks" entirely at first. And afterwards he also wrote: "eats and drinks or sleeps," because drinking is drawn after eating. And he was precise to say: "eat a little and sleep a little," meaning that by eating a little he will not sleep much. And so it is proven from the baraita itself which concluded: "and he recites kariat shema and prays, and eats his bread and recites the blessing," which shows that it refers to a fixed meal, for this is the meaning of the term "bread," and such is the primary halacha. (And there is one who wished to be stringent even regarding tasting, but it is not the primary view.) And even when the time for the evening prayer has arrived and also afterwards—tasting is permitted, meaning not in a fixed meal. And such is the custom of the world and there is no reason to doubt this at all, for such is the primary law.

And know that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch mentioned only the prohibition of eating, but the Rashba wrote that all those things that are prohibited close to Mincha [are prohibited here], namely haircutting, the bathhouse, the tannery, and legal judgment, and this is also clear from the wording of the Levush. However, from the wording of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, it is clear that they only prohibited eating because it induces sleep, but other activities do not induce sleep, and the night is long and there is no concern in this regard that the night will pass and he will not pray; one of the great authorities (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 6) wrote accordingly. Furthermore, if all these were prohibited also for Arvit, why did we learn in Shabbat (9b) only "close to Mincha," and it should have said "close to Mincha and Arvit." Rather, it is certainly because for Arvit there is no prohibition except for eating alone, therefore it did not teach Arvit in the Mishnah. And it is also clear from the wording of the Rambam there, for after he wrote that one eats after the Arvit prayer, he wrote: "And it is permitted to get a haircut and to enter the bathhouse close to Shacharit, for they only decreed close to Mincha etc." see there. And why did he juxtapose it to Arvit? Rather, this is the explanation: that in these laws Arvit and Shacharit are equal, for regarding eating both are prohibited, in Shacharit because it is prohibited to eat before the Shacharit prayer, and in Arvit the sages decreed as has been written. But all these things—in both of them they are permitted, because they only decreed this close to Mincha, and he explained the reason because most people enter there during the day, see there. (And one must further examine the Magen Avraham subsection 9 who wrote: "And it is prohibited to do all the labors mentioned in siman 232," and he cited Beit Yosef Rashba see there, but the Beit Yosef brought him there regarding a different matter, and since he did not bring it in the Shulchan Aruch, learn from this that he does not hold like him, as the Eliyah Rabbah wrote).

The Tur wrote: "And regarding the end of its time, we learned in a Mishnah: The sages say until midnight, and Rabban Gamliel says until the morning star rises, and the halacha is according to Rabban Gamliel, for Shmuel said: The halacha is according to Rabban Gamliel (8b), and even lekhatchila one may wait to recite it until the morning star rises." Thus far his words. And so wrote the Rosh there, that only eating and drinking are forbidden once the time has arrived, and so wrote the Rashba in his novellae, that it is permitted lekhatchila to study and to do work before the recitation of Shema and the evening prayer until an hour before the morning star rises, except for eating and all those works that are forbidden close to Mincha, but besides these, all works are permitted lekhatchila until before the morning star rises. And we have already written that all the poskim disagree with him regarding what he forbids in all those that are forbidden close to Mincha, and only eating is forbidden, as I wrote in the previous section.

But such is not the opinion of the Rambam and the Smag, for the Rambam in chapter 1 of Kriat Shema wrote: "Its mitzvah is from the time of the emergence of the stars until midnight, and if he transgressed and delayed and recited it before the dawn rose - he has fulfilled his obligation, for they only said 'until midnight' in order to distance a person from negligence." Thus far his words. This is the wording of the Smag: "From when do we recite... from the emergence of the stars until midnight according to the words of the sages, and if he transgressed and delayed and recited it before the dawn rose - he has fulfilled his obligation, for the halacha is like Rabban Gamliel who holds so, and the sages only said 'until midnight' in order to distance a person from transgression." Thus far his words (and for the reason for their dispute, see Beit Yosef and Bach). And I wonder at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 3: "Ab initio one must recite Kriat Shema immediately at the emergence of the stars, and its time is until midnight, and if he transgressed and delayed and recited it before the dawn rose - he has fulfilled his obligation." Thus far his words. Now, regarding that which he ruled like the Rambam and the Smag and did not bring at all the opinion of the Rashba and the Rosh and the Tur, it is because it appeared to him to be the primary view according to his great mind; but regarding that which he wrote that ab initio one must recite Kriat Shema immediately at the emergence of the stars, from where do we have it to rule against the Rashba and the Rosh and the Tur, for in the Rambam and Smag this is not clarified. And even though the students of our teacher Yonah wrote so at the beginning of Berakhot, and brought proof from the fact that it is forbidden to eat even a little before its time, see there, nevertheless it is a singular opinion against the Rashba and the Rosh and the Tur, and also his proof is not so simple; therefore the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, require further study (and with this, that which many are not exacting in this matter sits well).

One who recites the Shema of Arvit after the dawn has risen has not fulfilled his obligation, unless he was under duress, such as if he was ill or intoxicated. And specifically if he began to drink before the time for reciting Shema arrived, but if he began afterward, he is negligent and cannot recite (Taz, subsection 4), though there is one who hesitates regarding this (Eliyah Rabbah). And this is certainly so even if he began to drink after the time for reciting Shema arrived, provided it was not with the intent to become intoxicated and it happened that he became intoxicated—he is also called one under duress (Magen Avraham, siman 99, subsection 3). And one who recites Shema after the dawn has risen shall not say "Hashkivenu," as it is not a time of lying down then, but "HaMa'ariv Aravim," "Ahavat Olam," and "Emet Ve'Emunah" until "Ga'al Yisrael" he does say, and all the more so he prays the Shemoneh Esreh.