Siman 99

The Rambam wrote in the fourth chapter, law 17: A drunk person should not pray, because he lacks intention. And if he prayed – his prayer is an abomination. Therefore, he must return and pray when he is emptied of his drunkenness. One who has drunk should not pray, but if he prayed – his prayer is a prayer. Who is a drunk person? One who is unable to speak before the king. One who has drunk – he is able to speak before the king and does not become confused. Nevertheless, since he drank a revi'it of wine – he should not pray until his wine has passed from him. Thus far his words.

And one must be precise regarding his words: for if the primary reason that a drunkard is forbidden to pray is because he lacks kavanah, why is his prayer an abomination? Is it then that one who prays without kavanah, his prayer is an abomination, Heaven forbid? For according to our practice, we do not repeat the prayer due to a lack of kavanah, as I wrote in the previous siman. Furthermore: in Berakhot (31b) they said that a drunkard who prays is as if he worships stars, see there. And does one who prays without kavanah stand at this level, Heaven forbid? And in truth, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not write this phrasing, and according to them the reason is that it is a loathsome thing like excrement. Therefore his prayer is an abomination and as if..., and therefore even according to our practice he must repeat and pray. This is not the case according to the reason of the Rambam – we would not have to repeat and pray, for we do not repeat due to a lack of kavanah as I have written.

It appears, in my humble opinion, that the Rambam has informed us of a great matter regarding the subject of prayer. For behold, in Eruvin (65a) it is explained that we are dealing with a drunkard who has not reached the drunkenness of Lot, and because of this they said there that the purchase of a drunkard is a valid purchase and his sale is a valid sale. It is only that he is forbidden in prayer, and if so, he possesses some level of intellect. For this reason they said there: I am able to exempt the entire world from the law of prayer, because we are "drunk, but not from wine." And according to this, why indeed is his prayer an abomination? And more difficult than this: if so, it should be forbidden for us to pray in this time, since we are like drunkards. Furthermore: why did the poskim not cite this statement? Rather, it is certainly due to the lack of kavanah, like the words of the Rambam, and if so, why indeed is his prayer an abomination?

However, the matter is as follows: it has already been explained that prayer is like standing before the King, and according to this, one must prepare himself with proper kavanah to stand before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He. Nevertheless, if while standing in prayer his kavanah became confused—the Torah was not given to the ministering angels. And what can he do? Therefore, one does not repeat the prayer due to a lack of kavanah. But one who sets himself up beforehand to pray without kavanah—there is no greater audacity than this. And there is nothing more loathsome than this, to enter the palace of a king with a confused mind. Therefore, his prayer is an abomination, and he must repeat the prayer. Regarding this they said that in this time we could be exempt from the law of prayer, meaning: from the fact that we do not have proper kavanah, because we are like intoxicated people. And perhaps from this it emerged for the poskim that we do not repeat the prayer due to a lack of kavanah, since we are like intoxicated people. All this applies during the prayer itself, but the preparation beforehand must be proper. Regarding this they said a drunkard is anyone who cannot speak before the King: and how can you enter the palace of a King, for this is a great audacity and is loathsome in the eyes of the King? Therefore, he must repeat the prayer. Regarding this they said: it is as if he worships stars. Meaning: that he shows that his service before Him, may He be blessed, is of no importance in his eyes at all, like...

And from this emerges a great moral lesson for those people who come from the street to the beit knesset without any derech eretz and without any preparation for even a few moments, and snatch and pray, and do not know between their right and their left. Rather, every person is obligated to contemplate for a few moments, each one according to his own level. Therefore, we walk three steps backward before the prayer and return, like one preparing himself to enter the palace of a king. And if afterward his kavanah becomes confused—the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically with His creatures. Therefore, the poskim did not cite the statement that in this time one can be exempt from the law of prayer: because the meaning is not to refrain from praying at all, Heaven forbid, but rather from the "law of prayer" in that we do not focus our kavanah properly. And this they indeed cited, that we do not repeat the prayer due to a lack of kavanah. (And with this it is understood in the Gemara where they said that if one does not pray while in his drunkenness—his reward is very great and troubles are closed off from him, see there. And it is difficult: why is it so? Rather, because through this itself he demonstrates that one must stand as one standing before the King, and currently he cannot due to his drunkenness, and therefore his reward is great.)

One who was drunk, and by the time his drunkenness passed the time for prayer had elapsed – he shall pray two in the subsequent prayer. And even though this is only in a case of an error or one who was under duress, and not in a case of a willful act as will be explained in siman 108, here we judge him as one who erred by not being sufficiently careful. And even if he began to drink after the time for this prayer arrived, if he thought that he would have time afterward – it is called "duress" (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And there is one who says that if he began to drink after the time for prayer arrived, it is called "willful" (see Taz). And in my humble opinion, it seems correct to decide that regarding a drinking of a mitzvah, such as a mitzvah feast and the like, and like the incident of the pairs of rabbis in the Gemara (9a), then even if they began after the arrival of the time; but a voluntary feast – it is not called "error" and duress unless they began before the arrival of the time. And know that the law of Kriat Shema is like the law of prayer. But other blessings, and likewise Birkat HaMazon – he may bless even when he is drunk (and more will be explained regarding this in siman 108).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2: A distance of a mil and any amount of sleep dissipate the wine. And these words apply when he drank a revi'it, but if he drank more, certainly (a little) sleep increases his intoxication and travel disturbs him. And these words apply to one walking on his feet, but for one riding, travel certainly dissipates the wine. Thus far his words; and the Tur brought this from the Bahag. And all the great authorities raised a difficulty, for in Eruvin (64b) it is explicitly proven that for one riding, three milin are required, see there. And many things were said regarding this. And regarding the halacha, for a revi'it, a mil is sufficient, and for more than a revi'it, one must require three milin (Eliyah Rabbah, and so it is implied in the Magen Avraham, subsection 5). The Rif and the Rosh did not mention at all the distinction between riding and walking. And it seems to me that they hold that according to the conclusion of the Gemara in Eruvin there—there is no need to distinguish between riding and walking, see there. (And so wrote the Korban Netanel there. And the words of the Taz, subsection 2, who wrote that they hold that riding a mil does not help—is astonishing, for if so, it is obvious they should have stated this explicitly. And so the Rambam in the first chapter of Biat Mikdash did not mention this distinction. And it is a wonder that the Rambam did not write this law at all in the laws of prayer. And perhaps he holds that specifically regarding Biat Mikdash, where he profanes the service and is liable for death—one must be precise in this. But regarding prayer, whenever it appears to him that his wine has left him—it is permitted to pray. Examine and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: Anyone who is intoxicated—it is sufficient for him according to what he feels in himself, that his wine has dissipated. Thus far his words, and in his great book he brought this in the name of the Geonim. And it is not understood: what is this teaching us? And it appears clear to me that their intention is that here we do not descend to distinguish between one who drank a revit and one who drank more, or between a sleep of any amount and much sleep, or between the distance of a mil and more or less. And that which our sages, of blessed memory, said so—this is specifically regarding the annulment of vows in Eruvin there, which is not a Torah prohibition, and similarly regarding entry to the Mikdash, in which there is a liability of death. But regarding prayer, one does not need to be exacting in this; rather, as long as it appears to him that his wine has dissipated—he is permitted to pray. And according to this, the opinion of the Rambam in the fourth chapter of Hilkhot Tefillah is understood, as he omitted all of this, as I wrote in the previous section. (And the Shulchan Aruch, which wrote both laws—it requires further study.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that therefore we are not careful regarding our wines which are not strong, for one may pray even though he drank a revit or more. And all the more so when he prays from a siddur in his hand, for we are not concerned with a small amount of drunkenness. Thus far his words. Furthermore: most of our wines are mixed with much water. Furthermore: we require that he drank the revit at one time (Magen Avraham, subsection 1), and this is not so common. Furthermore: if he drank during the meal—wine during the meal does not intoxicate. And some say that even before the meal it does not intoxicate (see Beit Yosef, siman 473). Nevertheless, regarding a halachic ruling, one should not rule even if he drank during the meal (ibid.). And on Yom Tov one may pray Mincha even though he drank a little, for it is impossible to wait until his wine has dissipated. And all the more so nowadays when, regardless, we do not concentrate so much (ibid., subsection 6). And it is simple that all intoxicating beverages—their law is like wine. And it is obvious that brandy is very intoxicating, and one must be careful in this.