Siman 65

Know that when a person performs a mitzvah, such as reciting Keriat Shema, or praying, or blowing the shofar, or reading the Megillah; and he paused in the middle, and tarried during the pause for a duration sufficient to complete the whole of it; it is explained in Rosh Hashanah regarding the shofar blasts that if he heard nine blasts on the day of Rosh Hashanah over nine hours of the day—he has fulfilled his obligation (Rosh Hashanah 34b). And likewise in Megillah (11b) regarding a pause in the Megillah. And in Berakhot (22b) regarding one who was standing in prayer and began to urinate, and tarried for a duration sufficient to complete the whole of it—there is a dispute there, and the Rif ruled in the name of the Gaon that he returns to the beginning. And later there regarding Keriat Shema he ruled that he does not return to the beginning, and likewise in Megillah and shofar he does not return to the beginning. And he holds that only in prayer, which has a stringency, for it is forbidden to pause even if a king greets him—he returns to the beginning, but not in other matters. And also the Rambam, of blessed memory, ruled accordingly in the second chapter of Keriat Shema that he does not return, and in the fourth chapter of prayer he ruled that he returns, see there.

However, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote that all the laws are equal. And the practical difference is in what manner the interruption occurred: If he interrupted by his own will, and was able to finish if he had wanted—he does not return to the beginning, as it is not called an "interruption" since he was able to finish. But if he was forced to interrupt according to the law, such as when he began to urinate, or was walking in filthy alleyways and the like—he returns to the beginning when he paused for a duration sufficient to finish all of it, for this is certainly an interruption since he was forced to interrupt. And to this approach many of our teachers agreed. And this is what the Tur wrote: If he read it intermittently, that is to say with interruptions, even if he paused for a duration sufficient to finish all of it—he fulfills his obligation, provided that he did not pause in the meantime due to an unavoidable circumstance that prevented him from reading. But if he paused due to an unavoidable circumstance, in that the place was not fit for reading or some other unavoidable circumstance, if he interrupted and paused for a duration sufficient to finish all of it, when he returns to read he must start from the beginning. Thus far his words, and this is according to the approach of the Tosafot. And so ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 1, and he wrote that this is the custom. And we estimate the matter of the pause according to the reader and not according to the majority of people. Thus far his words. And any unavoidable circumstance is called an "unavoidable circumstance," even if bandits fell upon him. And there are those who disagree, as will be explained in section 4.

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: If one read it intermittently, meaning that he began to read and paused, whether in silence or with speech, and returned and completed it, even if he delayed long enough to complete the whole of it—he has fulfilled his obligation, even if the pause was due to circumstances beyond his control. Thus far his words. And later in siman 104 regarding the matter of prayer, he ruled that he returns to the beginning, see there. For he follows the approach of the Rif and the Rambam, that specifically in prayer one returns to the beginning, and not in the recitation of Shema and other mitzvot. And they did not distinguish between whether the pause was due to circumstances beyond his control or whether it was willful, but rather between prayer and other matters, for the reason we have explained.

And certainly for the halacha we hold like the opinion of the majority of our teachers, to distinguish between an accident and a non-accident. And we have explained that even bandits are called an "accident." And specifically when the delay was due to himself, such as if he wanted to stop, or he stopped due to a quarrel when it was in his power not to stop—this is not called an "accident." But whenever the delay is due to others, it is called an "accident." However, the opinion of the Ra'avad and the Ma'or is that it is not called an "accident" unless he was unable to pray according to the law, such as if he is urinating or the place is not clean. But other types of accidents are not considered an accident at all regarding this matter. Therefore, for the law regarding prayer, one may rely on the previous opinion that even bandits are considered an accident, since according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, even without this, one must return to the beginning in prayer. But regarding other matters, we hold like the Ra'avad and the Ma'or. And also in the Tosafot it is implied so (and so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 2).

According to what has been explained, there is no concern when the congregation prolongs the piyyutim before Shemoneh Esrei, and the chazzanim sing and prolong in the middle of "Yotzer Or" and in the middle of the final blessing after Keriat Shema where they sing at "Ezrat." And there is an interruption in the middle of the blessing for even more than the time it takes to finish all of it, and nevertheless, one does not need to return to the beginning. This is not only according to the system of the Rif and the Rambam, but even according to the system of most of our teachers who make it dependent on an unavoidable accident—here it is not considered an unavoidable accident, for it is in his power to finish the blessings. And certainly, ab initio, one should not interrupt in any manner, but if one does so in order to pray with the congregation—it is like post facto, and it is not called an "unavoidable accident" as I have written. (And the Tosafot and the Mordechai at the end of Rosh Hashanah who complained about this, it is because they did not bring the distinction there between an unavoidable accident and a willful act, see there. And the Magen Avraham in small subsection 1 wrote that their intention was regarding ab initio, see there. But it does not seem so from their words. Furthermore: since one must pray with the congregation, and if regarding the primary matter that piyyutim constitute an interruption—this is certainly considered like post facto since they have already instituted them. Rather, the main point is as I have written. And they had a difficulty regarding the primary matter of the piyyutim: does it not constitute an interruption and he must return to the beginning, and likewise regarding those who wait? But in truth, according to what I wrote in Berachot to distinguish between an unavoidable accident and one that is not an unavoidable accident, it is not difficult at all. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

When one enters the beit knesset and hears that the congregation is reciting Keriat Shema, even if he has already recited it, he is nevertheless obligated to say the verse of "Shema Yisrael" with the congregation, so that he does not appear as one who does not wish to accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven with his fellows. And so too, if he is in the beit knesset studying, or saying Tachanunim, or other matters in which he is permitted to interrupt, when the congregation reaches "Shema Yisrael" – he answers with them together. But if he is engaged in a place where he is not permitted to interrupt, such as from "Baruch She'amar" onwards, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 ruled that he should not interrupt. Rather, at the time the congregation answers Shema Yisrael – he should say the melody of it upon the words where he is standing, so that it will appear as if he is reciting with them. Thus far his words. And some say that he interrupts even in the middle of the blessings of Keriat Shema to answer "Shema Yisrael" with the congregation (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And we do not practice accordingly. However, in Pesukei D'Zimrah, one should certainly interrupt. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, follows his reasoning in siman 51 that one should not interrupt in Pesukei D'Zimrah for the answering of "Amen." But we have already explained there that we do answer "Amen" according to the Ari, of blessed memory, see there. If so, the answering of "Shema Yisrael" is no less than the answering of "Amen." And know that there are those who wish to say that for anything the congregation says, such as "Tehillah L'David" – one answers with them (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And we do not practice accordingly, except regarding "Shema Yisrael" and regarding "Aleinu" when they say "and we bow" – one must bow with them, as with "Modim," so that it does not appear that the entire people are bowing and he is not bowing. And some are accustomed to also say "Aleinu" with the congregation.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: One who recited Kriyat Shema, and entered the synagogue and found the congregation reciting Kriyat Shema – it is good that he recite the entire Kriyat Shema with them, and he will receive reward as one who reads in the Torah. Thus far his words, meaning: even though according to the law he only needs to say the verse "Shema Yisrael" with them as I myself wrote previously, nevertheless it is good that he recite Kriyat Shema in its entirety. And why should he not do so, since he is like one who reads in the Torah? And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote there: But he is only obligated in the first verse as has been explained. Thus far his words, and this is as I have written. And our custom is not so, and we only answer "Shema Yisrael".