Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

In the second chapter, the Rambam discussed various halachot regarding the proper state of mind necessary for the reciting of the Shema. In Chapter 3, the discussion centers on the proper physical surroundings required for the performance of the mitzvah and those situations that preclude its fulfillment.
Deuteronomy 23:10-15 discusses the laws regarding army camps, stating the fundamental guiding principle: “God walks among your camp, therefore... your camp must be holy” (ibid.:15). Included in that guideline is the obligation for every soldier to carry a spade in order to cover his excrement (ibid. 23:14). (See positive commandments 192 and 193 in Sefer HaMitzvot; Hilchot Melachim 6:14-15.)
Since these laws were instituted because “God walks among your camp,” it follows that they are also relevant when the Jews attempt to relate to God through prayer. Thus, these verses also serve as the source for the laws regarding the prohibition of reciting the Shema in the presence of feces as discussed in this chapter.
Commenting on the above verses, the Sifri states: “From here, we are taught that one should not recite the Shema next to the soakings of the clothes’ washers”—i.e., that one should not recite the Shema in a place where there is a foul odor or an unclean substance.

Rabbi Yochanan says: “A person who wants to accept upon himself the kingship of Heaven in the most complete fashion should see to his bodily needs, wash his hands, put on tefillin, recite the Shema and pray.” Rav Chiyya bar Abba equates this process with the building of the altar and the bringing of sacrifices, based on the verse in Psalms 26:6: “I wash my hands in cleanliness and circle Your altar, O God” (Berachot 14a-15a).

This is the case even if one’s hands are not obviously dirty, because hands tend to touch the covered parts of one’s body, and thus, require the washing of hands.
The Rambam holds that a blessing is recited after one washes one’s hands before Kri’at Shema. (See Hilchot Berachot 6:2.) The requirement to wash our hands upon rising in the morning was established by the Sages as a preparation for Kri’at Shema and the Amidah. A blessing was instituted for this act and, therefore, a blessing is recited every time that one washes his hands before Kri’at Shema or the Amidah. (Rabbenu Asher also shares this position. See his notes to the ninth chapter of Berachot.)
The Rashba explains, however, that the blessing על נטילת ידים was instituted as one of the many blessings that one recites upon rising in the morning (השחר ברכות). In response to receiving anew his soul from Heaven, one is obligated to praise and thank God. In that context, the Sages also instituted the requirement that he sanctify himself for his day’s worship, just as the priests in the Temple did—i.e., by washing his hands with water from a vessel. There is, however, no intrinsic connection between the washing of hands, and Kri’at Shema and the Amidah. Therefore, the blessing is recited only in the morning upon rising.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 92:5 and 233:2 agrees with the Rashba and does not require a blessing upon washing hands in preparation for Kri’at Shema and the Amidah. (See also Beit Yosef on Tur, Orach Chayim 7, Magen Avraham, the Mishnah Berurah on Orach Chayim 4:1, and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim 4:1.)

See Chapter 1, Halachah 11. According to the Rambam’s position, this refers to ten minutes before sunrise. The differing opinions will interpret it to mean that the third hour of the morning will soon pass.

In contrast, in Hilchot Tefillah 4:2 and 4:3, the Rambam obligates one to travel a substantial distance (up to 4 kilometers) to find water in order to wash his hands before the Amidah. Rabbenu Manoach explains that, in the latter instance, the law is stricter because there is a longer time during which one may recite the Amidah—until the end of the fourth hour. Hence, we need not worry that he will miss the proper time.
The Kessef Mishneh adds that we are stricter regarding the time of Kri’at Shema since it is a Scriptural obligation. Were a person obligated to travel great distances in search of water, he might miss the proper time of Kri’at Shema simply in order to fulfill the Rabbinic ordinance regarding washing his hands.

Berachot 15a explains that Psalms 26:6, the verse from which the obligation to wash is derived, does not state “I wash my hands in water,” but rather binikayon, “in cleanliness.” Thus, anything useful for cleaning the hands may be used, although water is most preferable.

Berachot 15a uses the expression “anything that cleans.” Therefore, rough clothing is also useful for this purpose (Kessef Mishneh), as is cleaning one’s hands by rubbing them against the wall (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 92:6).

When describing the proper environment for an army camp, Deuteronomy 23:15 states: “He shall not see any nakedness among you.” Implied is that nakedness, and also a place where people undress even if no naked people are there, is not appropriate for “God to walk among you.” Hence, neither Shema nor the Amidah can be recited there. See Halachot 16-19.

Berachot 26a and Shabbat 10a explain that even without the presence of fecal matter, a latrine is not a fit place for prayer.

Berachot 18a. Proverbs 17:5 states: “The one who mocks the poor (rash) reproaches his Creator.” The Talmud also explains that this term also refers to the dead and derives many halachot regarding conduct in the presence of a corpse from this verse. It is forbidden to wear tefillin or carry a Torah scroll in a graveyard, since one would, in a certain sense, be mocking the dead, who are unable to perform mitzvot. This is the case regarding Kri’at Shema also.

Sotah 43b teaches us that a corpse “occupies” a space of four cubits regarding Kri’at Shema.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s position is based on the notion of קנסוהו רבנן, i.e., that the Rabbis disallowed the recitation of the Shema even in a case where one was unaware of the impropriety of the place, so that people would exercise greater care in this matter.
The Ra’avad differs with one aspect of the Rambam’s decision. He maintains that although it is certainly forbidden to read the Shema in the presence of a corpse or in a graveyard, the violation of this prohibition does not override the fact that one did recite the Shema. Therefore, he need not repeat it. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 71:7, follows the Rambam’s ruling.

The designation alone of a building for such a purpose attaches a stigma to it such that it is unfit for the Shema to be recited inside it.
Shabbat 10a raises the question of praying in such a building and does not resolve the issue. The Ra’avad therefore disagrees with the Rambam and feels that such a doubt should be dealt with leniently—i.e., that we should allow one to pray inside such a building.

Rav Adda bar Ahava states: “One may pray in a bathhouse” (Shabbat, loc. cit.) The Talmud explains that he was referring to a new bathhouse. Rashi explains that this means that it has been designated as such but no one has ever bathed there. The Sages felt the stigma attached to a bathhouse was not as severe as that attached to a latrine and hence, were more lenient.

Nedarim 7a mentions this case within the context of the Talmudic concept of yad (“a handle”) of a vow or other significant utterance. This term refers to expressions that are not completely self-explanatory and leave room for doubt. Just as the handle of a cup is not the essential part of the cup, and yet when one grabs the handle the whole cup follows, so, too, a statement can be made which in itself is incomplete or unclear, but seems to contain within it an intimation of a complete idea. In our case, it is unclear whether the word וזה refers also to a latrine or to another idea altogether.

Nedarim 7a deals explicitly with this case and interprets “Also this” as clearly referring to a latrine.

In contrast to the previous cases in this halachah, this applies to the courtyard of a bathhouse which is being used.

Shabbat 10a distinguishes between the middle room where some people are clothed and others naked, and the courtyard of the bathhouse, where everyone is clothed. Only there, in the courtyard, is one permitted to recite the Shema. In the middle room one is prohibited from reciting Kriat Shema even if there are no naked people there at the time (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim 84:1).

E. g., Torah study or prayers.

Berachot 24b quotes various verses which equate such utterances with very serious transgressions.

Psalms 12:7 states: “The words of God are pure words.” Therefore, it is improper for them to be uttered or contemplated in a place of filth (Sefer Chassidim 546).

Zevachim 102b relates that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon thought of a halachah while at the latrine. The Talmud then asks how he could have done such a thing, since such thought is forbidden. They explain that a state that is unavoidable (ones) is different.
Rashi explains that Rabbi Elazar was so immersed in his Torah study that he thought about it even against his will. Rabbenu Manoach quotes the Ra’avad as saying that in such a case, thoughts of Torah are permitted when at the latrine. Sefer Chassidim (loc. cit.) advises that people should force themselves to think of mundane matters in order to avoid thoughts of Torah in unclean places. (See Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 85).

The Rama (Orach Chayim 3:2) mentions that it is preferable not to speak at all at the latrine.

The terms used to praise God, but which are not His specific names and may therefore be erased (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:5).

רחום in Hebrew. The Ra’avad disagrees with the Rambam and states that since this attribute is used as a name only in relation to God, it may not be uttered in the latrine. Rabbenu Yonah quotes Psalms 112:4 as a source that uses the term רחום in relation to a righteous person, thereby refuting the Ra’avad. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 85:2 accepts the Rambam’s position.

Even if the intent is to refer to G‑d, since these names are not fundamentally holy, they may be used in such a place (Mishnah Berurah 85:11).

In Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (loc. cit.) the Rambam gives a larger list than appears here and includes descriptive terms used to refer to God, e.g., the Great One, the Mighty One, and other names.
The Kessef Mishneh expresses surprise at the exclusion of the term שלום. Shabbat 10b explicitly mentions it as forbidden to be uttered in the bathhouse—all the more so at the latrine—since it is specifically used as a name of God (Judges 6:24). The Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 84) also forbids the utterance of שלום in such places.

This refers only to the bathhouse for these statements may not be recited in a latrine even though it has not been used.

Shabbat 40b quotes an instance in which Rabbi Meir explicitly mentioned a halachah in the bathhouse in order to stop a pupil from transgressing. Accordingly, it distinguishes between distancing someone from wrongdoing, which is permitted, and uttering other words of Torah, which is forbidden (as mentioned).

Even if it emits no foul odor. (See Rashi on Berachot 25a).

Skins were frequently soaked in feces in the process of making them into leather.

This includes chicken or donkey dung (Kessef Mishneh based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 3:5).

I.e., the Shema may be recited next to it. The Ra’avad disagrees with the Rambam and quotes the Jerusalem Talmud, which includes donkey urine as one of those items that prohibit Kri’at Shema. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the teaching on which the Rambam based his decision most probably mentioned donkey dung (as mentioned in the previous comment) and not donkey urine. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:6 reflects the position of the Ra’avad.
Rabbenu Asher points out that the Rambam mentions animal urine alone as not being problematic, thereby indicating that animal dung (e.g., cow or horse excrement) would be problematic. Rabbenu Asher himself sees no room to prohibit animal dung, since it is never mentioned in the Talmud as problematic. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the Rambam’s position is that animal dung is prohibited only if its smell causes discomfort, and that the extent of this discomfort is somewhat subjective. Therefore, the Rambam did not mention it explicitly. And in his Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:4, Rav Yosef Caro rules in accordance with this understanding of the Rambam.

The weight of an olive cannot be determined by weighing an average olive today. Rather, it is dependent on the measure established by the Sages, and this is the subject of debate by the Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) explains that the Rambam considers an olive as one third the size of an egg (כביצה, a more familiar Talmudic measure). In terms of modern measurements, this olive size would be between 19.2 and 24 grams, according to various Halachic opinions.
Tosafot (Chullin 103a) differs, and defines the size of an olive as one half the size of an egg (between 28.6 and 36 grams according to the various opinions).

There are five types of grain cereal—wheat, barley, oats, spelt and rye (See Hilchot Chametz U’Matzah 5:1).

This measure (אכילת פרס in Hebrew) is significant in halachah. Just as the Torah requires a specific quantity, the size of an olive, as regards many of the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating, it also specifies a limited period in which this amount of food must be consumed: כדי אכילת פרס the time it takes to eat this measure.
This measure is also a point of Rabbinic controversy. Here and in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 14:8, the Rambam defines אכילת פרס as three eggs. Rashi (Pesachim 44a) takes a more lenient view, defining it as four eggs.
This halachah is based on the principle that it is unnecessary to distance oneself from a child’s feces or urine which does not have a foul odor. Thus while a child’s sole source of nourishment is nursing, there is no prohibition. However, grains emit a foul odor after being digested (Rashi on Succah 42b). Therefore, once the child begins eating them, the Shema may not be recited in the soiled child’s presence

Berachot 25a defines this as feces which when either: a) rolled, or b) thrown will not crumble. At such a time, they are regarded like a shard. The Rambam chooses the stricter of these two opinions—i.e., that if thrown, it still retains its shape and is, therefore, forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

Rabbenu Manoach states that it must really crumble and not just break into two pieces.

However, if they still emit a foul odor, the Shema may not be recited next to them, as mentioned in Halachah 12 in regard to a foul smell emanating from a substance (Kessef Mishneh).

Berachot 25a-b records the disagreement between Rabbi Yosse and the Sages regarding the degree of moisture necessary to be problematic. The Sages require that the hand be moist enough so that it itself would dampen something it came into contact with, while Rabbi Yosse requires moisture only on the hand itself. The Rambam decides the halachah in accordance with the position of Rabbi Yosse.

Even if a mark is still visible on the ground (Berachot 25a).

This halachah is based on the Mishnah (Berachot 22b). In modern measure, a cubit is 48 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah.

Berachot 26a modifies the Mishnah quoted (ibid. 22b): Ravvah says: “We learned (in our Mishnah) only regarding ‘behind him,’ but ‘in front of him’—he should distance himself until he cannot see it.”
The Rambam equates “its being at the side” with “behind him.” The Kessef Mishneh suggests that this only applies when it is impossible to move in front of the feces. However, if he is able to walk in front of them, he must. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:1 states simply that “to its being at the side” is equated with “behind him.”
The Magen Avraham quotes the statement of the Kessef Mishneh and mentions that if the feces were at the person’s side and slightly in front of him, they would be considered as if they were in front. Therefore, one would be required to move until they were out of sight.

Even at night, he must distance himself to the same the degree that he would in the daytime (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:1). This is also the case with a blind person.

I.e., that one must distance oneself four cubits from urine and feces.

I.e., approximately 80 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah.

He is considered to be in a different place (Berachot 25b).

Rabbenu Asher suggests that this leniency applies even if he can see the excrement. The Rashba, however, disagrees and states that if he can see it, he is forbidden to recite the Shema. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:2 quotes both positions. The Magen Avraham suggests that closing one’s eyes would be enough to allow one to recite the Shema.

This is not mentioned in the beraita in Berachot 25a. However, immediately after the halachah regarding separations, the beraita then states that a foul smell emanating from a solid substance prohibits recitation of the Shema. Hence, the Rambam associates the two halachot.
The Kessef Mishneh mentions that, based on the Rambam’s position, one should be careful not to recite the Shema or pray in a house with a foul odor, even if the odor is emanating from a different house. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:2 quotes this, but also mentions the positions of Rabbenu Yonah and Rabbenu Asher, that a separation is sufficient even if an odor remains.
The Magen Avraham suggests that it is best to be strict in such a case. However, he grants one leniency. Generally, one must distance oneself from an odor even if he himself cannot smell it. However, in this instance, a lack of smell would be enough to permit the reading of the Shema.

See Berachot 25b.

Berachot 25b equates this with a case where the feces are covered.

A revi’it whose modern equivalent is 86.4 cc according to Shiurei Torah.

I.e., regardless of the size of the discharge of urine, one revi’it is sufficient (Kessef Mishneh).
Rabbenu Asher explains that the Rambam mentions explicitly one discharge of urine in order to tell us that a revi’it must be added for each discharge of urine—i.e., two revi’iot for two, three revi’iot for three, etc.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no difference if the water is there before the discharge of urine or is added afterwards.

See Berachot 25b.

This is considered as a sufficient covering. We do not consider his sandal to be part of his body, in which case, the feces would not be considered covered. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 76:2 adds that there must be no foul smell from the צואה.

After stating the halachah that one may put one’s shoe on top of the hole in the ground, Berachot 25b questions the law when excreta is stuck to a person’s shoe, and leaves the question unresolved (תיקו). Accordingly, the more stringent opinion is followed.
The Rambam explains that this applies if there is any contact between the shoe and the feces. However, the Ra’avad maintains that this only applies when the feces are actually stuck to the shoe. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim (loc. cit.) 76:2 supports the Rambam’s position.

See Berachot 25b.

Berachot 25a states simply “if there are feces on one’s skin.” The Rambam explains this as referring to a residue of feces—i.e., a stain, with no actual substance.
Rabbenu Asher explains that this applies when there is actual substance on the person’s skin, but it is covered by his clothing. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 76:4 reflects the understanding of Rabbenu Asher. However, the Magen Avraham favors the Rambam’s position.

This decision is disputed in Berachot, loc. cit. Though most Halachic authorities accept the decision quoted by the Rambam, Rabbenu Chananel differs. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 76:4 advises that one follow the opinion of Rabbenu Chananel.

I.e., his anal opening.

See Yoma 30a.

The position of Rabbenu Chananel mentioned above.

Even though in strict halachic terms, one need not heed their teaching, it is fitting to do so, since it is improper to recite the Shema with dirty hands (Kessef Mishneh).

E. g., feces are found on the ground and a foul odor is emanating from them (Rashi, Berachot 25a).

Berachot 25a records a disagreement between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Rav Huna states that one must distance himself four cubits from such a substance. Rav Chisda requires that one must distance himself four cubits from the point where there is no foul smell.
The Rambam holds that the halachah follows Rav Huna. In the previous halachah, the Rambam also supported Rav Huna’s position, since Rav Chisda was a student of Rav Huna and thus, of lesser stature. In contrast, the Ra’avad accepts Rav Chisda’s position. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:1 quotes the Ra’avad’s view.

Rabbenu Manoach points out that this halachah applies only in the case where the substance is to his side or behind him. However, if the substance is in front of him, we have already learned in Halachah 8 that he must distance himself until he can no longer see it.

Rashi differs and explains that Rav Huna allows the Shema to be recited four cubits from the substance even if the odor has not subsided.

I.e., he does not necessarily have to distance himself four cubits. The Ra’avad also disagrees concerning this point and requires that one distance himself four cubits from the point at which the odor ceases. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:9) accepts the Rambam’s position.

In Hebrew גרף ועביט, both of which are clay vessels. גרף is used for excreta and עביט for urine (Rashi on Berachot 25b).

Among the present applications of this halachah is the need to distance oneself from a child’s potty when reciting the Shema and other prayers even if it does not contain feces or urine.

Berachot 25a mentions a difference of opinion between Ravvah and Abbaye about this case. Here, as is the general rule, the halachah follows with Ravvah’s opinion.

A pig is always rummaging around in garbage and excrement and, therefore, is judged as moving excreta at all times.

Some Rishonim distinguish between moving feces and a stationary substance since in the former case, the feces will continue to proceed further. This would appear to be the Rambam’s opinion, as obvious from the contrast between a stationary substance emitting a foul odor where we are required to distance ourselves until it is out of sight (Halachah 8) and this halachah.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no Talmudic source for this distinction. Therefore, he explains that there is no difference between stationary and moving feces and that this halachah only applies to feces which are behind a person. If the feces are in front of him, the Shema cannot be recited until they move out of sight.
In the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 76:3, Rav Yosef Caro follows his explanation in the Kessef Mishneh. However, the Bach and the Magen Avraham (76:2) make the distinction between moving and stationary feces.

I.e., a place where there is a foul odor emanating from excreta or urine.

Berachot 24b relates:
Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: When one is walking in an unclean place, he may place his hand over his mouth and recite the Shema.
Rav Chisda said to him: My God—if Rabbi Yochanan himself said this to me I would not listen!”
The Hagahot Maimoniot and the Kessef Mishneh both explain that in this case, the Rambam supports the position of Rav Chisda over that of Rav Huna (as opposed to Halachot 12 and 13), because many other sages of the Gemara also accept the opinion of Rav Chisda.

For this is an odor that does not emanate from a solid substance as first mentioned in Halachah 12. The Hebrew word באשה is based on Joel 2:20.

Berachot 25a equates the two.

Rashi (Berachot 25a) explains the distinction between Kri’at Shema and Torah study as follows: One may leave the room and continue reciting the Shema. Therefore, one is obligated to stop if he remains. In contrast, a person studying Torah needs his books and therefore, cannot continue studying if he leaves the room. Accordingly, he need not interrupt his studies. This also explains the distinction between his own flatulence and that of a colleague. In the case of his flatulence, a person may leave for a moment and then return, but as the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 79:9 explains, we will not obligate a whole study hall to stop studying because of the flatulence of a few. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 79:11) adds that this is considered as a factor beyond one’s control, and, therefore, does not require the interruption of study. This is based on the general rule that an odor that does not emanate from a visible substance does not lead to any restrictions according to Scriptural Law.
The Magen Avraham (79:15) mentions that perhaps, if a person was studying alone and could leave the room in order to avoid the foul odor, he should do so. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav, however, makes no such distinction and also allows one to continue studying.

Rashi (Berachot 25a) explains that it is not a normal practice to leave such materials in a house. Therefore, we may assume that the house is clean.

This applies to a garbage heap that has no foul smell of its own, but a doubt arises regarding the presence, or lack of, of feces (Rabbenu Manoach).

The Torah forbids reciting holy matters only in the presence of urine while it is actually being expelled from the person. The Rabbis added an injunction prohibiting the recitation of the Shema in the presence of urine even after its discharge. However, a doubt regarding such urine would produce a lenient halachic ruling, based on the principle ספק דרבנן לקולא—a doubt in a Rabbinic law produces a lenient response.

The previous halachot in this chapter have dealt with the prohibition of reciting the Shema in the presence of unclean substances and foul odors. As mentioned, this is a Torah prohibition based on the verse (Deuteronomy 23:15): “And your camp must be holy.”
The succeeding words in that verse—ולא יראה בך ערות דבר—“Let Him not see any nakedness among you” serve as the basis for halachot that follow in this chapter. These halachot deal with the impropriety of reciting the Shema in the presence of human nakedness.

Since the prohibition is based on the idea of לא יראה בך (lit., “It shall not be seen to you”), sight, and not physical distance, is of primary importance.

See Berachot 25b. The Torah Temimah explains that this prohibition even applies regarding the nakedness of primitive peoples who carry on their daily affairs unclothed.

The Rama (Orach Chayim 75:4) mentions that until the age of 3 for a girl and 9 for a boy, the Shema may be recited in their presence if they are naked. However, other opinions are not that lenient and forbid recitation of holy words even in the presence of the nakedness of small children. See Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 5:15.

Berachot 25b distinguishes between feces behind a glass partition, which is permitted (see Halachah 10) and nakedness, which is forbidden. Regarding feces, the Torah demands (Deuteronomy 23:14): “And you shall cover your excrement,” and a glass partition fulfills this function. However, the prohibition regarding nakedness is one of sight: לא יראה בך (“It shall not be seen to you”), and one sees through glass perfectly.

That is usually covered.

With whom he is familiar, how much more so other women.

Berachot 24a relates:
Rav Yitzchak says: A tefach (handbreadth) of a woman is ervah (nakedness).
With regard to what? With regard to gazing at it. Behold, Rav Sheshet says that anyone who stares even at the
little finger of a woman is like one staring at her most private parts. Rather, it refers to his wife and to Kri’at
Shema.
Rashi interprets this to mean that a man may not recite the Shema next to his wife if a handbreadth of her body is uncovered. Rabbenu Asher explains that this refers to any part of his wife’s body that is usually covered and clothed.
Berachot also mentions a woman’s hair and her voice as ervah. The Lechem Mishneh interprets this passage to mean that since these restrictions were established with respect to one’s wife, any part of the body of a woman other than his wife would be problematic. Thus, the Shema should not be recited in her presence.
The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 75:1 does not distinguish between a man’s wife and another woman and forbids the recitation of the Shema if a handbreadth of their body which is usually covered is uncovered. However, the Rama mentions the opinon that even less than a handbreadth of the body of a woman other than one’s wife is considered as “nakedness.”

This is based on the concept that one’s heart should not see his nakedness. This same principle is expressed in Chapter 2, Halachah 7.

For a man, this means covering his genitalia.

Though some of these portions of the body are normally covered, they are not considered as “nakedness.”

I.e., when he is sitting with his feet tucked under himself.
Berachot 25b reports a disagreement as to whether a heel may “see” or touch ערוה, and rules that though the heel may see ערוה, it cannot touch it. The rationale for this distinction is that the Torah was not given to angels. Rashi explains that this implies that we cannot be expected to maintain such a formidable level of care, because we were created with physical nakedness against our will.
Rabbenu Asher and Rabbenu Yonah suggest that no part of the body may touch one’s genitalia during Kri’at Shema, and that the heel is given only as an example. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 74:5 accepts this position.

Between his heart and his genitalia.

Berachot 24b relates: “One who is lying under his sheet and is unable to stick out his head because of the cold should separate himself by placing his sheet under his neck, and recite [the Shema]; there are those that say on his heart.” The Rambam and the vast majority of Rishonim follow the second opinion, because the first opinion does not take into account the rule “One’s heart shall not see his nakedness.” If one is sleeping without clothes, he may separate the top half of his body from the lower half.

Without clothing.

And thus, his heart does not see his own nakedness.

Berachot 24a records a difference of opinion between Rav Yosef and Shmuel. Both agree (as the Rambam states later in this halachah) that when sleeping in the same bed with his wife, one need only turn his face away from her in order to recite the Shema. However, Shmuel is of the opinion that this same halachah applies even if he were sleeping with a person other than his wife, while Rav Yosef feels that this dispensation is only granted in regard to one’s wife.
Rashi explains the latter opinion as follows: Since a person is accustomed to being with his wife, lying with her will not prevent him from having proper intention while reciting the Shema. In contrast, when he lies with a person other than his wife, he must separate his body from that person’s, lest the touching of their bodies distract him.
It is interesting to note that there is a clear dispute between the great rabbis of Spain and North Africa (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, the Rambam and their disciples) and the great rabbis of Germany and France (Tosafot, Rabbenu Asher, and their disciples) concerning this halachah.
The Rabbis of France rule that one must make a separation with the sheet before reciting the Shema when sleeping in the same bed as one’s wife. Rav Yitzchak explains that the halachah is not according to either Shmuel or Rav Yosef and it is reasonable to be particularly strict based on a beraita
quoted in the Berachot 24a. In contrast, the Rabbis of Spain follow the Rambam’s view.
Generally, in such instances, the Shulchan Aruch will rule in accordance with the Rabbis of Spain, and the Rama with the Rabbis of France. In this instance, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 73:2, after quoting both positions, suggests that it is fitting to follow the ruling of the Rabbis of France.

In contrast, bodily contact above this point would not induce sexual thoughts.
The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 73:1) points out, regarding this halachah, that were one to separate himself from another with the sheet, he need not also turn his head away.

See the following halachah for a definition of this term.

I.e., he is familiar with them and sexual thoughts are not likely to be aroused.

The Magen Avraham 73:1 requires a person to turn away his whole body so that only the back of his body is touching them, lest he be bothered by sexual thoughts if the front of his body touches them.

So that his heart will not see his own nakedness.

Rashi (Berachot 24a) explains that these are the ages when puberty begins, and from this time onward, the youths become physically attractive. However, this opinion does not place any conditions on that age. The Rambam adds a further point, making the age requirement conditional on the youth’s physical development.

Based on Ezekiel 16:7, Niddah 6:1 mentions these as signs of a woman’s physical maturity. See also Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 2.
From this time onwards, he may not recite the Shema unless he has first separated himself from them with the sheet, as mentioned in the first clause of the previous halachah.

As mentioned in the second clause of the previous halachah.

At this point they are considered adults, even if they do not have the physical characteristics of adulthood. Rabbenu Asher quotes and supports the position of the Rambam.

Berachot 20b relates: A woman’s exemption from Kri’at Shema is obvious. It is a time-oriented commandment [i.e., the Shema must be recited at specific times and is thus classified as “time-oriented”, and women are exempt from all such commandments. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:1 rules that although women have no obligation, even Rabbinic, to recite the Shema, it is proper that they do so in order to accept upon themselves the yoke of the sovereignty of Heaven.

This refers to Canaanite slaves who have been sold to a Jewish owner and are obligated by all the commandments that women are obligated to perform. A halachic comparison between the two is found in Chaggigah 4a and Kiddushin 23a.
The Jerusalem Caro quotes a separate source for the exemption of slaves: “Hear O Israel, God our Lord, God is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). He who has no master other than the Almighty [is obligated to recite the Shema], thus exempting the slave, who has another master.

I.e., boys under the age of 13 years and one day. They are minors and exempt from all the Torah’s commandments.

The latter point represents a difference in opinion between Rashi and the Rambam. The Mishnah, Berachot 20a, states that children are free from the obligation to recite the Shema. Rashi states that they are entirely free of obligation even according to Rabbinic Law because their parents may not be available at the specific times at which the Shema must be recited.
The Rambam and Rabbenu Tam differ and maintain that the Mishnah is only referring to the obligations according to Scriptural Law, but according to Rabbinic decree they are obligated. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:2 rules in accordance with the Rambam and Rabbenu Tam.

According to Rashi (Berachot 48a) and the Ramban (Milchamot Hashem, Berachot 20b), there is no obligation incumbent on the child himself. Rather, the child’s father is obligated to educate him. If he has no father, the obligation falls on his mother and on the local Rabbinic court (Terumat Hadeshen 99).
Tosafot (Berachot 48a) differs and explains that the Sages placed the obligation on the minor himself. Support for this premise can be derived from the Rambam’s decision in Hilchot Berachot 5:15-16, which states that an adult who ate a small meal can fulfill his obligation to recite grace by listening to a child reciting those blessings (for both are obligated by virtue of Rabbinic decree). Though others object on the grounds that the child himself is not obligated in the mitzvah, the Rambam states that such a practice is acceptable. Thus it appears that he accepts the concept that the obligation for a Rabbinic commandment falls on the child himself.

Berachot 16b differentiates between a bridegroom, who is exempt because of his involvement in a mitzvah, and one whose ship is sinking in the sea. Though the latter individual is also anxious, he is obligated to recite the Shema, because his preoccupation is not with regard to a commandment.

This is based on the principle “One who is involved in one commandment is exempt from another” (Sukkah 25a).

I.e., even though it contains an acceptance of the yoke of the sovereignty of Heaven, he is still exempt
The phrase, Deuteronomy 6:7, ובשבתך בביתך (and while you are sitting in your house) implies that the obligation is only incumbent on someone who is involved in his own personal affairs—“your house.” Thus, it excludes one who is involved in the performance of a mitzvah (Berachot 11a and 16a).

The Mishnah, Berachot 16a, explains the derivation of the bridegroom’s exemption. The phrase “and as you go on your way” implies that the obligation to recite the Shema only applies to someone going on “your way,” i.e., involved in his own personal affairs and not preoccupied with the fulfillment of a mitzvah as is a bridegroom. [In his commentary to that Mishnah, the Rambam mentions that the bridegroom is involved in the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying.]
Rashi explains that this concept could not be derived from the phrase “and while you are sitting in your house,” because if there were only one verse, one would have thought that only one who is actually involved in the performance of a commandment is exempted. Thus, an additional phrase is necessary to exempt a bridegroom, who though not immediately involved in the performance of the mitzvah is in an anxious state, because of the possible problems inherent in the overall situation.

As explained above. Rabbenu Manoach writes in the name of the Ra’avad that the bridegroom is exempt from Kri’at Shema only if he is able to have relations with his wife. However, if she is menstruating or sick, he is obligated to recite the Shema.
Rabbenu Manoach also discusses the different views regarding the bridegroom’s obligation to recite the Shema during the day if he does not engage in relations the first night. He concludes that he should be obligated since “the Jews are a holy people and the bridegroom will be able to divert his thoughts from his wife and concentrate on reciting the Shema.”

This is dependent on the Talmudic custom (Ketubot 2a), which relates that virgins would marry on Wednesday night.

The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:3, mentions that bridegrooms were originally exempt from Kri’at Shema for the first three days (i.e., days and nights) after the wedding. However, today, because of the general lack of intention that everyone has regarding Kri’at Shema, even such a bridegroom is obligated to recite the Shema.

On his wedding night.

The mitzvah of procreation.

For there is no question of the woman’s virginity.

Leviticus 21:2-3 mentions the six relatives for whom a person is obligated to mourn: a father, a mother, a son, a daughter, a brother, a sister. The Rabbis also added the obligation to mourn for one’s wife or husband. See Hilchot Evel 2:1.

And all the other mitzvot of the Torah (Hilchot Evel 4:6).

The Mishnah, Berachot 17b, states that one who has his dead one “lying in front of him” is exempt from Kri’at Shema. The Talmud (ibid. 18a) explains that any relative waiting to be buried is considered to be “lying in front of him.” This is derived from Abraham’s characterization of Sarah as being in front of him (Genesis 23:4), even though her body was not physically present.

I.e., even if he is not necessarily involved in dealing with the arrangements for the burial or the burial itself, he is exempt, because his mind is distracted (Kessef Mishneh).
The Jerusalem Caro (Berachot 3:1) derives this halachah from Deuteronomy 16:3: “to remember the day you left Egypt all the days of your life.” This implies “days that you are involved with the living and not days in which you are involved with the dead.” Since the obligation to remember the Exodus (an integral part of Kri’at Shema—see Chapter 1, Halachot 2 and 3) does not apply on those days when one is involved in dealing with the burial of one’s loved ones, one is also exempted from reciting the Shema at that time.
Sukkah 25a explains that the exemption of a mourner cannot be derived from that of a bridegroom mentioned in Halachah 1. A bridegroom’s lack of concentration stems from his involvement with a mitzvah. In contrast, the mourner’s inability to concentrate is a personal matter. Rashi elaborates: Though mourning is a mitzvah, the pain associated with mourning is not.
The Jerusalem Caro notes that a mourner should not voluntarily recite the Shema. It is a sign of disrespect to the departed for their relatives to recite the Shema before they have been buried.

I.e., guarding the body from an animal or other damage. (See Berachot 18a.)

Since a person involved in one commandment is exempt from another. (See the notes to Halachah 1.)

As opposed to the actual mourners, the watchmen are obligated to recite the Shema if they are able to. Their exemption is not based on their distracted condition, but on their involvement in the commandment. Therefore, if another is able to guard the body for a few moments, the guard must recite the Shema. However, if there is no one to relieve the guard, he is not allowed to recite the Shema (Mishnah Berurah 71:12).
The watchers must remove themselves in order not to recite the Shema within 6 feet of the dead person. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and notes.)

See Berachot 14b. His exemption is also based on the principle that one involved in a commandment is exempt from another. The Mishnah Berurah (Orach Chayim 71:13) points out that even while he is resting for a few moments, the gravedigger is still exempt, because his resting is also part of the mitzvah, since by resting he gains strength to continue his task.

Rashi, Berachot 19a, explains that doing so will prevent many people from reciting the Shema.

Berachot, ibid., questions the above statement, noting that when Rav Yosef died, his body was taken out for burial close to the time of Kri’at Shema. The Caro answers that a great man is different—i.e., for a man of Rav Yosef’s stature, even Kri’at Shema is postponed in order to honor his greatness.
Neither Rav Yitzchak Alfasi nor Rabbenu Asher mention this passage, indicating that they do not feel that it is halachically relevant. The Tur (Orach Chayim 72) mentions the Rambam’s view, but adds that his father, Rabbenu Asher, did not differentiate between important and normal people.
The Beit Yosef explains that, at present, there is no person of a stature that we would not delay his burial in order to recite the Shema at its proper time. Therefore, the halachah is not in force. The Shulchan Aruch also omits reference to it.
The Magen Avraham mentions that the prohibition against burying someone close to the time of Kri’at Shema relates only to Kri’at Shema in the morning. However, in the early evening, one should first bury the body and then recite the Shema, or recite the Shema early enough to allow the burial to take place before nightfall, so that the person will be buried as close to the day of his death as possible.

I.e., they have yet to carry it.

I.e., they have already carried it. It is customary for several people to carry the coffin, in order to involve themselves in the mitzvah.

The Mishnah, Berachot 17b, states:
The bearers of the coffin, their replacements and those who in turn will relieve the replacements, the ones
before the coffin and the ones after the coffin—the ones who are before it and are required to [carry] the coffin
are exempt. Those who are after it, even if they are required to [carry] the coffin, are obligated [to recite the
Shema].
This certainly seems to differentiate between those before and after the coffin and indicates clearly that those who have already carried the coffin are indeed obligated to recite the Shema, unlike the halachah written by the Rambam.
Rashi explains that those who have already carried the coffin are obligated to recite the Shema, even though they may be needed to carry it again, because they have already fulfilled their obligation.
There is, however, another version of the Mishnah. See Tosafot in Berachot 17b and most printed versions of the Mishnah (Rabbinic edition, Kahati, Mossad Harav Kook edition of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah). It states:
The bearers of the coffin and their replacements and those who in turn will relieve the replacements, the ones
before the coffin and the ones after the coffin—the ones who are required to [carry] the coffin—are exempt.
And those who are not required to [carry] the coffin are obligated to recite the Shema.
The Mishnah in this form can serve as the source for the Rambam’s halachah. The “are exempt” term in the halachah refers back to all the cases written before it, including “the ones after the coffin.”

Because, as stated in the Mishnah: “And those who are not required to [carry] the coffin are obligated to recite the Shema.” The people are accompanying the body simply as a token of honor for the dead person, but are not so preoccupied in the performance of a mitzvah such that they would be exempt from Kri’at Shema. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 72:1 and Yoreh De’ah 358:1 quote the Rambam’s opinion.

See Berachot 19a.

In order not to recite the Shema in his presence, for doing so is considered as mocking the deceased, as it were.

But not all at once, because this is lacking in respect for the deceased.

I.e., there is then no problem of embarrassing the dead by performing commandments.

This halachah also underscores the fact that the exception for mourners is not conditional on their involvement in the care for the deceased. In our case, the deceased is not present and the mourner is sitting silent, and yet he is still not obligated because of his distracted state (see Halachah 3).

The people form a שורה—a line (or lines) around the mourners. Afterwards, they offer their condolences one by one, as they pass before the mourners (Hilchot Evel 13:1, 2). Others interpret the שורה as two lines facing each other. The mourners then walk between these two lines, and as they pass, the people offer their condolences.
The people are generally accustomed to say: “May God comfort you among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.”

Directly before the mourners.

The recitation of the Shema.
The above is conditional upon there being enough time afterwards to recite the Shema. However, if the third hour is passing, the Shema should be recited immediately (Kessef Mishneh).

Rabbenu Yonah explains that not only the burial of the dead, but also the consoling of the mourners is part of the commandment of גמילות חסדים (acts of loving-kindness). In his Commentary to the Mishnah Pe’ah 1:1, the Rambam divides acts of loving-kindness into two categories: a) those one does with his money, such as charity, b) those one does with his body—e.g., comforting mourners and accompanying the dead to burial.
Rabbenu Yonah states explicitly that this is a Torah commandment. The Rambam, however, is of the opinion that burying the dead, comforting the mourners, and all acts of lovingkindness are Rabbinic commandments. In Hilchot Eivel 14:1, he writes:
It is a positive commandment of Rabbinic origin to visit the sick, comfort those mourning, take out the dead,
bring in the bride, accompany guests [from your house] and to involve oneself in those things necessary for
burial—i.e., to carry [the coffin] on his shoulders, to walk before him, to eulogize him, to dig [the grave] and to
bury him.
The Rambam’s classification of these commandments as of Rabbinic origin creates a problem for us. How are we to understand the halachot we have just learned?
The Rambam has taught us that those involved in the burial of the dead and the comforting of the mourners are exempt from reciting the Shema, based on the principle that those involved in the performance of one commandment are exempt from another. According to Rabbenu Yonah, who understands גמילות חסד (acts of lovingkindness) to be Torah commandments, this is easily comprehended. However, according to the Rambam, how can involvement in a Rabbinic commandment exempt one from the fulfillment of a Torah obligation, especially one as central as Kri’at Shema?
The answer to this question depends on the continuation of Hilchot Eivel, ibid.:
Even though all these commandments are of Rabbinic origin, they are included [in the command] ואהבת לרעך
כמוך (“Love your fellow as yourself,” Leviticus 19:18). All those things that you would want others to do for you
in the realm of Torah and commandments, you should do for your colleague.
Thus, the Rabbinic commandments regarding acts of loving-kindness are the specific ways established by the sages to express the Torah commandment of “Love your fellow as yourself.” Accordingly, although these commandments are Rabbinic in origin, since their ultimate source is found in a Torah commandment, the rule that “one performing one commandment is exempt from another” applies to them as well.

This is in accordance with the beraita quoted in Berachot 19b. The Ra’avad understands, however, that the words “inner line” in the beraita refer to the inner circle—i.e., the family of the mourners. It is the Rambam’s position which is most widely accepted.

The Mishnah (Berachot 16b) records a difference of opinion whether a bridegroom may recite the Shema on the first night or not.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel states: “Not everyone who wants to take the name may take it,” (i.e., not everyone may pronounce God’s name whenever he pleases). The Sages differ and allow the Shema’s recitation.

The Sages maintain that a person has the potential to compose himself to the extent that he can recite the Shema with proper intention. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that this is not possible for most people. Indeed, a person who does so is considered to be acting haughtily, implying that he has the power to concentrate when most people cannot.

If he cannot compose himself, even the Sages agree that the Shema should not be recited.
The Rambam follows the majority position of the Sages. Rabbenu Asher accepts the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. However, Tosafot (ibid. 17b) explains that at present, our level of concentration has changed and all bridegrooms should recite the Shema. Any bridegroom who does not recite the Shema would be acting haughtily by intimating that usually he has a very high level of concentration. The Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 70:3 accepts Tosafot’s position. (See also the notes to Halachah 2.)
As mentioned above, a mourner should not recite the Shema for it is disrespectful to the deceased to imply that one could still concentrate on the Shema despite their passing. (See Shulchan Aruch 71:1 and commentaries.)

By immersing in the mikveh.

Before the time for the Shema passes. It is not necessary to make that effort and the person may recite the Shema in an impure state.

Leviticus 11:39 deems such a person as ritually impure.

Leviticus 15:19 states that not only a woman in the nidah state, but anyone or anything she touches contracts ritual impurity.

The term refers to a woman who experiences uterine bleeding for three consecutive days at a time other than the days when she usually menstruates (Hilchot Mechusrei Kaparah 1:6). Leviticus 15:25 equates the ritual impurity of such a woman with that of a woman in the nidah state.

See Leviticus 15:10 which explains that even a surface that someone which such impurity sat upon imparts impurity.

E. g., one who touches either a man with zav discharges or someone who contracts ritual impurity by contact with a corpse.

Leviticus 15:16 deems such a person as ritually impure. However, as above, that would not affect his ability to read the Shema.

This decree was one of 10 decrees issued by Ezra’s court (Bava Kama 82a).
Berachot 22a explains that the decree mentioned in our halachah was designed to restrain somewhat the physical relationships of the Torah scholars with their wives.

Berachot 22a relates that since this was only a Rabbinic decree, certain leniencies could be observed regarding this immersion.

See also Hilchot Tefillah 4:4-6 and notes.
It must be emphasized that though there is no need to immerse oneself in a mikveh, it is necessary to wash for it is forbidden to recite words of Torah with any traces of semen on his body. See Rama, Orach Chayim 76:4.

I.e., because of the inability of the Jewish people to maintain this very high level of purity, the decree was never really accepted as law.

Berachot 22a relates that once one of Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira’s students was mumbling his words. When asked by Rabbi Yehudah to explain his behavior, he stated that he not been able to immerse himself after having a seminal emission. Rabbi Yehudah told him to speak up without embarrassment for the words of Torah cannot contract ritual impurity.

I.e., even one in a state of ritual impurity may involve himself in Torah study and prayer, because the Torah is unaffected by his impurity (Berachot, ibid.).
The Kessef Mishneh differentiates between physical filth, which renders the recitation of the Shema impossible (as we learned in Chapter 3), and ritual impurity, which does not affect it.
Our awareness of the presence of physical filth produces a subjective response to its somewhat disgusting nature. This response, in turn, has ramifications regarding the honor of the Torah studied in such a place.
Ritual impurity is, however, a wholly metaphysical reality, and that particular reality has no ability to affect the Torah.

Thus, the differentiation made above has its basis, not on human logic, but on Divine decree. Deuteronomy 23:13 teaches: “And your camp shall be holy,” forbidding the recitation of the Shema in the presence of physical filth. In contrast, the verse from Jeremiah quoted above clearly implies the inability of ritual impurity to exert its influence over the words of Torah (Kessef Mishneh).

This decision alludes to a fundamental concept regarding the nature of Torah study. On one hand, we see Torah study as being associated with the student, as obvious from the law, Hilchot Caro Torah 5:11, that allows a Torah scholar to forgo the honor due him. Although that honor is not being paid to him personally, but to the Torah knowledge he possesses, that Torah is considered his to the extent that he can forego the honor. Nevertheless, even while Torah is associated with the person studying it, its essential Godly nature remains intact to the extent that it cannot contract ritual impurity.

In Hebrew, מפי השמועה. Yad Malachi states that every halachah in the Oral Law that was communicated by the Sages of blessed memory from one generation to another from Moshe Rabbenu and is alluded to in the Torah is called by the Rambam מפי השמועה. This law has all the force of Scriptural Law.

Since the main aspect of prayer is “the service of the heart” and not the recitation of a particular set of words, the concentration and intention mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachot 15-16, are fundamental requirements for the fulfillment of this mitzvah.

Required every day.

Rather, one could pray as often or as infrequently as one desired provided at least one prayer was recited daily. See Halachot 3-8.

The Rambam bases himself on the Tosefta (Berachot 3:1) which explains that although the basic commandment of daily prayer is from the Torah, the specific applications of that command are Rabbinic in origin.

See Hilchot Kri’at Shema 4:1 which discusses the women’s exemption from any mitzvot which are time-oriented in nature.

This refers to Canaanite slaves—i.e., non-Jewish slaves—who are obligated to observe the same commandments that are incumbent upon women. (See Hilchot Kri’at Shema, op. cit.)

Since prayer has no set time prescribed by the Torah, it is not considered a time-oriented or time-bound commandment. Here, it appears that the Rambam is referring to prayer as it is a Scriptural command. Thus, women would be required merely to utter one short prayer each day. See also Chapter 6, Halachah 10 and notes.

Though the precise formula for our prayers is not prescribed by the Torah, prayer must contain the following fundamental elements (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., since prayer is a personal expression of one’s requests to God, every individual is given the opportunity to approach his Maker on his own level.

In the first two halachot, the Rambam discussed the origins and essence of the commandment of prayer. In this halachah, he begins to explain the historical realities which led to the institutionalized form of prayer that we know today.

I.e., regardless of whether a person is in Jerusalem or outside of Eretz Yisrael, he still faces the Temple when praying.

This refers to the first clauses of the Halachah, i.e., that every person would pray in accordance with his own ability.

Who conquered Jerusalem, destroyed the Temple, and exiled our people from our land.

The Rambam explains that the dispersion of the Jewish people led to a situation where, in effect, the type of prayer prevalent since the days of Moses became nonexistent.

There were no books at that time and prayers had to be learnt by heart. Having a standard text made this possible.

Not only the Shemoneh Esreh, but the entire prayer services and all the blessings.

From this point onward, the Jewish people began to pray according to a uniform pattern.

The Men of the Great Assembly.

I.e., that the number of prayers recited daily shall correspond to the two daily sacrifices that were brought, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

A musaf (additional) offering is brought on the Sabbath, festivals and Rosh Chodesh.

I.e., Yom Kippur and those days decreed as fast days in response to difficult situations, such as drought. (See Ta’anit 1:4-7.) On these days, we plead for Divine mercy. In contrast, the fasts instituted to commemorate the sorrows of the past, e.g., Tisha B’Av and the seventeenth of Tammuz, are associated with mourning (Beit Yosef 579).

It is the prayer recited when the servant, as he leaves the presence of the king, asks for one more thing, and then shuts the door behind him as he leaves (Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim 623:2). Likkutei Sichot, Vol. IV, gives a different interpretation of the concept of closing the gates. During the Ne’ilah service, a Jew is found alone with God. The doors are shut and no one is allowed to disturb their connection.

I.e., Pesach, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, and Sukkot.

As explained above, prayer requires intense concentration, and one should be very sure of himself before attempting to recite 19 blessings with God’s name at a time when it is not obligatory. Therefore, the Rabbis have suggested different avenues for the expression of one’s desire to pray, such as the recitation of Psalms or simply conversing with the Almighty and seeking help and guidance from Him as well as one is able in his own way.

The Shulcan Aruch HaRav (Orach Chayim 107:1) explains that the new idea is necessary in order that the prayer be different in a tangible way from the obligatory prayer. Since prayer corresponds to the daily sacrifices, just as it is forbidden to bring two morning sacrifices, it is forbidden to recite the same prayer twice.

Note Chapter 6, Halachah 3, which gives examples of possible additions; e.g., one may wish for the recovery of a sick person in the blessing dealing with the healing of the sick; one may wish for financial success in the blessing dealing with the yield of our crops.

I.e., a quorum of ten (a minyan) should not convene in order to recite a voluntary prayer in addition to the prayers that they normally recite together during the day.

I.e., the money donated by the community was used for obligatory offerings brought in the Temple. Freewill offerings were brought by individuals who desired to express their thanks to God or beseech Him for help.