Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This refers to the side of the synagogue on which there is an entrance. However, a person walking on the other side of the synagogue does not appear to dismiss the idea of prayer, since he has not willfully abstained from entering the place of worship (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 90).

Rashi, Berachot 61a, explains that a person passing by appears to be fleeing from the synagogue and the obligations observed therein.

Since he is carrying a bundle, it is clearly understood why he is not entering the synagogue. Berachot 8b quotes the above prohibition in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. It then quotes Abbaye who mentions the various qualifications related by the Rambam.

Berachot 8b mentions the idea of two entrances to the synagogue. However, the specification that the entrances be on different sides is the Rambam’s addition. Only in such a case could one seeing the person imagine that he is entering the synagogue by its other entrance. If the entrances are on the same side, the observer need simply wait to see if he also passes by the second entrance.

And is not shirking his responsibility to pray.

See Hilchot Tefillin 4:25 which mentions the obligation to wear tefillin throughout the entire day. At present, as explained in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 39), it is customary to wear tefillin only during prayer.

From the passage from Berachot quoted below, it would appear that the prohibition was instituted to prevent the discomfort that would be caused were the congregation to be forced to wait for one individual to finish his prayers.

Berachot 31a states:
This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva; when praying in a congregation he would shorten his prayer in order not to bother those present, but when he prayed alone, one would leave him while he was in one corner of the room and [return and] find him in the other corner because of his bowings and prostrations.

I.e., after he has completed Shemoneh Esreh.

The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 8a) states that even though generally one should limit his requests during the recitation of Shemoneh Esrei to the blessing of שומע תפלה (“The One Who Hears Prayer”), this restriction does not apply after one concludes praying.

The Talmud (ibid.) (and, similarly, the authoritative Oxford manuscript of the Mishneh Torah) states that after prayer, one may add “the order of the day of Yom Kippur” and does not mention וידוי (confession). One might conclude that this indicates that one may add as much as he likes. The prayers of Yom Kippur are mentioned since they serve as the paradigm of long prayer.

As explained in the following halachah.

By the last clause of the previous halachah.

Avodah Zarah 8a notes: Even though [the Sages] taught that a person should make his special requests in [the blessing of] שומע תפילה, one may add something relevant to that particular blessing at the end of each blessing. The Talmud quotes a second teaching which specifically mentions the two examples given by the Rambam.

Note Chapter 1, Halachah 4, which explains that the reason the Sages established a standard text of prayer was to prevent people from praying in a non-eloquent manner. Though a person is allowed to make whatever additions to prayer he desires, he should try to use the most elegant means of expression as possible.

The sixth of the intermediate blessings.

For example, Rashi (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) explains that one desiring not to forget that which he has learned should make such a request in חונן הדעת [the first of the intermediate blessings].

Without qualms. There is no requirement to make one’s requests in the other blessings as mentioned above.

See Berachot 34a and also Chapter 1, Halachah 9, and commentary.

Berachot 10b relates:
What does [Leviticus 19:26]: “You should not eat with blood” mean? You should not eat before you have prayed al dimchem [lit. “for your blood”]...
Anyone who eats and drinks and [only] afterwards prays—about him [I Kings 14:9 [states: “... And you have cast Me behind your body.” Do not read גויך (your body), but rather גאיך (your pride). The Holy One, blessed be He, says: “After you have acted proudly and haughtily [by eating], will you accept upon yourself the sovereignty of Heaven?”
Thus, it is clear that one must deal with his spiritual obligations before fulfilling his physical needs. Note Chapter 5, Halachah 2, where the Rambam states that one who is hungry or thirsty is considered sick and must eat or drink before prayer in order to pray with proper intention. For this reason, medicines also present no problem and may be taken before Shacharit (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 89:3). The Mishnah Berurah (89:22) grants permission to drink tea or coffee before prayer, if this will help one’s concentration during prayer. However, he suggests not putting sugar into the drink. The Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chayim 89:23) allows one to add sugar to tea and even suggests that adding milk is permissible. Even according to the lenient opinions, one should, nevertheless, recite the Morning Blessings and the Shema before eating or drinking.

Berachot 14a relates: “A person is forbidden to deal with his personal matters before he prays, as [Psalms 85:14] states: ‘[He will place] righteousness before him and he will place his feet in the path.’”
Rashi explains that first one must pay heed to the righteousness of the Creator, and only then walk in the way—i.e., do work that is necessary for his own personal needs.

Dawn is the earliest possible time for the Morning Prayer. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 7.) Therefore, as soon as the obligation of prayer exists, one is forbidden to eat or drink.

The Talmud (Berachot 14a) explains that this prohibition only applies to going to a friend’s house to greet him. Greeting him in the street is permitted.

Berachot, loc. cit., derives this law based on the same verse used as the source for the prohibition of working before praying.

Berachot 28b quotes two opinions, one of Rav Huna forbidding eating before Musaf, and one of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi forbidding eating before Minchah, but does not accept either of them as binding.

Though the Talmud rejects the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi regarding טעימה (tasting). However, there are restrictions in regard to eating a meal as explained in the following halachah (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., six and a half hours (seasonal hours) of the day, as explained in Chapter 3, Halachah 2.

This and the following laws are based on the Mishnah (Shabbat 9b): “One should not sit in a barber’s chair close to Minchah until he has prayed...” The Talmud explains that this refers to Minchah Gedolah.

I.e., the person is not interested in bathing in a hot or cold bath or washing himself well, which are time-consuming activities.

In the previous halachah, the Rambam rules that one may taste food before Minchah, but forbids eating a meal. Here, he states that even a snack is forbidden. The Kessef Mishneh explains that eating a כביצה (the equivalent of an egg, 57 or 100 cubic centimeters, according to Shiurei Torah and the Chazon Ish, respectively) of fruit, or a כזית (an olive size, approximately 28 or 50 cubic centimeters, according to the references cited) of bread constitutes achilat ar’ai which we have translated as a snack.

The mishnah quoted above states simply that one must not sit in judgment close to Minchah. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam states:
Even if the case is finished and the judges have heard the claims of the adversaries in the case, and have deliberated [and reached a verdict], and need only announce their final decision, the judge should not sit to render this decision close to the time of Minchah, lest he see the case in a different light and be required to start again, or the adversaries restate their claims and the matters drag on until the time [for Minchah] passes.

As opposed to the especially intricate haircut given the High Priest, called the haircut of “ben Elasa” (Shabbat 9b). (See also Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 5:6.)

And the time for prayer pass before the barber can secure another scissors.

The Rambam explains, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, that if one sees a deficiency in the hide, he will attempt to stop further damage, and his involvement in this work could last until after the end of the time for Minchah.
The Rambam’s interpretation of the mishnah is not accepted by other authorities. Tosafot (Shabbat, loc. cit.) rules that only complicated activities are forbidden and simple acts, e.g., a snack or a normal haircut are permitted. This disagreement finds expression in the rulings of the later authorities. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 232:2) quotes the Rambam’s view. The Rama brings a third opinion (of the Ba’al a) which rules that even a large meal is permissible before Minchah Gedolah, and that a snack is permissible even before Minchah K’tanah. He adds that perhaps the reason for this leniency is that since it was customary to call people to synagogue, it is unlikely that they would forget to go. It is, however, advisable to follow the more stringent view when praying alone (Mishnah Berurah 232:25).

Even if he began after the time of Minchah Gedolah and, therefore, his beginning was a transgression (Hagahot Maimoniot).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that this leniency is granted only if he will be able to recite Minchah before the conclusion of the appropriate time. To emphasize this point, the Rambam mentions explicitly: “and then recite Minchah”—i.e., after he finishes doing whatever it is that he has started doing. However, if there will not be time to pray afterwards, he must stop and pray. Only then may he resume his activity.

In Halachah 5, the Rambam taught us that if one had already begun his involvement in any of these activities, he need not stop in order to recite Minchah. Therefore, it is necessary to understand what constitutes involvement in these activities.

The מעפורת is an apron used to collect the hairs falling from one’s head during a haircut, so that they do not fall onto his clothes (Shabbat 9b).

I.e., when is he considered to be bathing, so that he need not stop to pray?

Literally, “the garments next to his skin.” This is based on the Rambam’s interpretation of Shabbat 9b: “When he removes his מעפרתו from himself.” Rashi, in his commentary on that passage, offers a different interpretation—one’s outermost garment, i.e., the first garment removed. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 232:2) rules in line with Rashi’s position.

Shabbat 9b states simply: “When he ties between his shoulders.” In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that it is when he ties his belt in order to work with the skins. Evidently this means the belt around his apron. There is a version of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah which mentions also that the person must begin working with the skins. This is, however, hard to understand in light of his ruling here in the Mishneh Torah.

Shabbat 9b records a disagreement between Rav and Rabbi Chanina. Rav states that washing one’s hands constitutes the beginning of eating, whereas Rabbi Chanina is of the opinion that loosening one’s belt before eating is the beginning of the meal. The Talmud concludes that there is no real argument. Rav described the halachah for inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, and Rabbi Chanina, for those of Babylonia.

Rashi explains that the custom in Babylonia was to wear their belts particularly tight, necessitating that they be loosened prior to eating. This was not the case in Eretz Yisrael.

Rashi explains that the judges wore their talleisim in court in order to focus their attention on the serious nature of the matter at hand. Shabbat 10a states: “Any judge who adjudicates a judgment of absolute truth..., is considered by the Torah to be a partner with God in the creation of the world.”

Shabbat 10a makes this point of clarification.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 6 and the notes there.

Berachot 4b discusses the decree of the Sages requiring the recitation of the Shema before midnight even though its actual time lasts until dawn (see Hilchot Kri’at Shema 1:9). That passage states:
The Sages produced a support for their words in order that a person not come in from the field in the evening and say: “I shall go home, eat a little, sleep a little and then recite the Shema and pray,” lest he be overcome by sleep and sleep all night.
Rather, he should come from the field in the evening and enter the synagogue. If he is accustomed to studying the Written Law, he should. If he is accustomed to studying the Oral Law first, he should study, recite the Shema, pray and then eat his bread and recite grace.

In contrast to the restrictions mentioned in the previous halachah in regard to the afternoon prayers.

Since the Mishnah cited above mentions only “close to Minchah,” the Rambam assumes that the halachot apply only to מנחה and not to שחרית for the reason he explains. The Rambam does not mention going to the tanning house or eating in this halachah, because they are included in Halachah 4 regarding working or eating before the Morning Prayer, both of which are prohibited.

The Mishnah (Shabbat 9b) states that one must stop for Kri’at Shema, but not for prayer. The Talmud (11a) explains that this refers to one involved in the study of Torah.

Shabbat (ibid.) continues: “This applies only to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues, whose full time occupation was the study of Torah, but we stop studying to recite the Shema and to pray.” Rashi explains that anyone who interrupts his studies in order to work, must also interrupt his studies in order to pray.

In Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:3, the Rambam states: “There is no commandment among all the commandments that is equal to the study of Torah. Rather, the study of Torah is equal to all the other commandments, since study brings one to action. Therefore, study comes before action at all times.”
A person involved in Torah study achieves a level of unity with God that is unparalleled by any other activity. One’s intellect and God’s wisdom become inextricably linked, until they are indistinguishable during the moments of one’s actual involvement in study. On this basis, we can understand the description of Torah with the metaphor of bread (Proverbs 9:5, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 4:13). After bread is consumed by a person, it becomes assimilated into his blood and becomes part of the person himself. Similarly, when Torah is studied, it becomes absorbed into the person’s character and becomes an integral part of his being (Tanya, Chapter 5).
As explained in the introduction to this text, prayer focuses on our attempt to relate to the Godliness that permeates our worldly existence. Though this is an extremely significant service, the connection established through Torah study is more complete. Thus, Shabbat 10a records how Ravvah rebuked Rav Hamnuna for neglecting his Torah studies to prolong his prayers. By doing so he was “abandoning eternal life for transient life.” Therefore, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues whose commitment to Torah was all encompassing were not required to interrupt their studies for prayer.

I.e., he can be compared to one whose full time occupation is the study of Torah. Therefore, he is exempt from the Amidah at that time. This comparison of communal work to the study of Torah is found in the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 5:1. However, there it is taught in the context of praying in the midst of words of Torah. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 18.) Communal work is also considered like Torah study, so that one may pray after carrying out such work and it is considered as if he prayed in the midst of words of Torah.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam derives this law from the continuation of the Talmudic passage (Shabbat 11a) cited above. The Talmud states that one involved in the decision of whether or not to proclaim a leap year (עיבור שנה) need not stop to pray, even though Torah study is not his full-time occupation. The Kessef Mishneh posits that the Rambam views involvement in עיבור שנה as community work. On this basis, he concludes that one need not stop in order to pray if he is involved in such activities.

In Hilchot Kri’at Shema 2:15-17, we discussed the various situations in which one is allowed to interrupt his recitation of the Shema. Here, the Rambam teaches that the laws regarding the Amidah are much stricter. Only a threat to one’s very life is considered sufficient cause to interrupt the Amidah.

The Mishnah (Berachot 29b) states: “Even if the king greets him, he may not answer.” The Talmud explains that this applies only to a Jewish king, but not to a foreign king. A Jewish king is expected to appreciate the seriousness of prayer and realize that a person’s unwillingness to interrupt his prayers is not intended as an insult to the king’s authority, but rather, submission to an even greater authority.
It is interesting to note that this halachah is taught in the Mishnah within the context of halachot stressing the serious nature of the Amidah and the high level of concentration necessary. Just as we learned that the level of intention necessary for the Amidah is greater than that necessary for Kri’at Shema (see Chapter 5, Halachah 8 and the commentary there), so too, the halachot regarding interruptions are stricter, as mentioned.

As a rebel against the king. Berachot 32b-33a relates the following story which shows that the Sages did not always avail themselves of the leniency granted:
A righteous man was once praying on the road. A minister approached him and greeted him. However, he did not respond.
[The minister] waited until he had finished praying and said to him: “Empty one! Is it not written in your Torah: ‘Take heed and watch yourself carefully’ (Deuteronomy 4:9), and ‘Guard yourselves very carefully’ (Deuteronomy 4:15).
“When I greeted you, why didn’t you answer? If I had cut off your head with my sword, who would have sought vengeance for your life?”
He said to him: “Let me appease you with words. If you were standing in front of an earthly king and your friend came and greeted you would you answer him?”
[The minister] said: “No.”
“And if you did answer him what would they do to you?”
He replied: “They would cut off my head!”
He said: “And is it not reasonable that if you [would not interrupt] while standing in front of an earthly king who is here today and in the grave tomorrow, so too, I, standing in front of the King of Kings, the Holy One blessed be He, who is eternally present, all the more so [should I not interrupt in order to return greetings]?”
The minister was appeased immediately, and the righteous person returned home in peace.”

Rabbenu Yonah explains that this means simply to recite the beginning and end of each blessing. The Kessef Mishneh also agrees with this explanation. In Chapter 2, Halachot 2-3, the Rambam mentions the text for a shortened prayer. However, there is not necessarily a contradiction between this opinion and that law.

Berachot 32b offers these two alternatives. Rabbenu Yonah maintains that if possible, one should move slightly in order to avoid confronting the king or tyrant, and thus avoid the need to talk.

The Mishnah (Berachot 29b) states: “... and even if there is a snake curled around his ankle, he should not interrupt [his Amidah].” The Talmud (33a) mentions that a snake does not cause an interruption, but a scorpion does. Rashi explains that though snakes are not likely to bite, scorpions are likely to sting. Thus, the passage raises questions on the Rambam’s decision, for he does not distinguish between snakes and scorpions.
The Rambam’s statements appear to be based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Berachot 5:1, which states that one ignores a snake only if it is simply curling around his leg. However, were the snake to approach him in a menacing fashion, appearing likely to bite, he may flee from the snake. It is important to note that there is no actual need to interrupt his Amidah in the case of the dangerous creatures. He need simply leave that spot, find a safe place and continue praying.
Hagahot Maimoniot points out that in all the cases mentioned, even if he did actually speak in the middle of Shemoneh Esreh, he need only start again at the beginning of the blessing in which he stopped. If, however, he interrupted himself during the first or last three blessings, he should return to the beginning of the beginning of the first of the three blessings. The laws mentioned in this halachah are discussed in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 104.

According to the Rambam, however, it would appear that they are obligated only to recite a short prayer once a day. This halachah is discussed in Chapter 1, Halachah 2.

The laws regarding those exempt from Kri’at Shema are contained in Hilchot Kri’at Shema 4:3-6. The exemption of these people from the Amidah is stated explicitly in the Mishnah (Berachot 17b).

This is also based on the Mishnah (Berachot 17b) which teaches that though there are differences between the obligations people have regarding the recitation of the Shema (See Hilchot Kri’at Shema 4:4), “both are exempt from the Amidah.”
Rashi and Tosafot explain that the distinction between Kri’at Shema and the Amidah is based on the fact that the recital of the Shema is a Scriptural obligation. Some commentaries explain that this explanation would even be acceptable according to the Rambam. Though he holds that the Amidah is also a Scriptural obligation (see Chapter 1, Halachah 1), it is only necessary to pray once daily in order to fulfill one’s Scriptural obligation. Therefore, one may be more lenient in granting an exemption from the Amidah, since the Scriptural obligation may have already been fulfilled or may be fulfilled by another Amidah later in the day. However, the Rambam, himself, offers a different explanation in his Commentary to the Mishnah. There, he states that since one is troubled (לבו טרוד) by the burial, he is exempt from the Amidah. This seems to be a function of the greater need for intention in the Amidah rather than its non-Scriptural status.