Question: Why does the Gemara leave K'ri'as Sh'ma, which it is currently discussing, which is also something that the community are all reciting, and about which our Mishnah specifically states 'Eino Mevarech Lefanehah ... '?

Answer: The Gemara asks from Tefilah on account of the Chidush of Tefilah - even though Tefilah is said standing, and it is clear to all that he is not standing like they are, we nevertheless say that if he has not yet begun, he should not begin!

Question: Since the Gemara does not yet know the reasons that we are about to present, why does it also ask on Ravina as to why one recites the Sh'ma and Birchas ha'Mazon any more than Tefilah?

Answer: According to Ravina it is obvious that since Hirhur is like Dibur, one needs to recite K'ri'as Sh'ma and Birchas ha'Mazon which are mi'd'Oraysa, more than Tefilah, which is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

Answer (cont.): Whereas according to Rav Chisda, since Hirhur is ineffective, other than it should not appear as if he is doing nothing, why should there be a distinction drawn between K'ri'as Sh'ma and Tefilah?

Question: Maybe the Mishnah is referring to Dibur, but Hirhur is permitted?

Answer: The Mishnah implies that one should not begin even thinking, since the Tana did not say that he should cut his Dibur short or think at length.

Clarification: Only K'ri'as Sh'ma and Birchas ha'Mazon are d'Oraysa and Tefilah, de'Rabanan.

Clarification (cont.): And we do not insert anything else after that until 'Amar Rav Yehudah Amar Rav' (Se Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Clarification (cont.): Rashi explains that K'ri'as Sh'ma is d'Oraysa since he does not say 'Emes ve'Yatziv', as Tosfos explained in the Mishnah.

Alternative Text #1: Some texts however, read 'But K'ri'as Sh'ma is de'Rabbanan? And it answers that (the correct text is that) 'K'ri'as Sh'ma contains Malchus Shamayim, whereas Birchas ha'Mazon id d'Oraysa, and Tefilah is de'Rabbanan'. And this is in fact, Rashi's text.

Question: But in our Mishnah he explained that K'ri'as Sh'ma is d'Oraysa according to all opinions, seeing he did not recite 'Emes ve'Yatziv', since that is how the Mishnah is speaking.

Alternative Text #2: There are also those who have the text that 'Tefilah is different, in that it does not contain Malchus Shamayim.

Question: But how about Birchas ha'Mazon, which does not contain Malchus Shamayim, yet we have learned that one recites a B'rachah after the meal ... ?

Answer: The reason must therefore be because K'ri'as Sh'ma contains Malchus Shamayim, Birchas ha'Mazon is d'Oraysa, whereas Tefilah is only de'Rabbanan.

Conclusion: And on this text too, one can ask, as we explained.

Question: We are forced to explain that his doubt covers K'ri'as Sh'ma as well ...

Question (cont.): Because if he was certain that he recited the Sh'ma and was in doubt only with regard to 'Emes ve'Yatziv', then it would not be min ha'Torah, seeing as he mentioned Yetzi'as Mitzrayim when he recited K'ri'as Sh'ma.

Question (cont.): In that case, since he is in doubt with regard to both of them, let him repeat the Sh'ma, which contains both Malchus Shamayim and Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, which is surely preferable than reciting 'Emes ve'Yatziv', which contains only the latter, as the Gemara will say shortly with regard to our Mishnah?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that certainly regarding our Mishnah, where we know for sure that he said neither the Sh'ma not 'Emes ve'Yatziv' at all, and we now want to permit him. It is preferable to permit him to say the Sh'ma, which contains two things.

Answer (cont.): But in our case where there is s doubt whether he said 'Emes ve'Yatziv' and also whether he said the Sh'ma, as we explained, it is preferable for him to repeat 'Emes ve'Yatziv', than to repeat the Sh'ma.

Answer (cont.): Because if he say 'Emes ve'Yatziv' there is a possibility that he has now fixed everything - since, assuming that he already said 'Emes ve'Yatziv, he also will have said the Sh'ma, following the order that one Davens, first the Sh'ma and then 'Emes ve'Yatziv' (in which case he has already been Yotzei).

Answer (cont.): And even if we assume that he did nid not say both of them, it is possible that he said the Sh'ma but not 'Emes ve'Yatziv'. And if that is so, then when he says 'Emes ve'Yatziv' now, he will have said everything that he is supposed to say.

Answer (cont.): And even if one assumes that he said neither ...

Answer (cont.): Since it is merely a Safek, the Chachamim did not want to bother to repeat both the Sh'ma and 'Emes ve'Yatziv'.

Answer (cont.): But if, on the other hand, he repeats the Sh'ma, it will not be as complete a Takanah as repeating 'Emes ve'Yatziv', since he may have already recited the Sh'ma, so that what he says now achieves nothing.

Answer (cont.): Whereas if he is sure that that he did not recite the Sh'ma, he did not recite 'Emes ve'Yatziv' either, seeing as it is unusual to say 'Emes ve'Yatziv without saying the Sh'ma. If therefore he now recites the Sh'ma, he has not achieved anything, and he has not 'rectified his Safek'.

Alternative Explanation: Alternatively, ha'Rav Shimon explained that it speaks where his doubt was confined to 'Emes ve'Yatziv', but knows that he recited the Shma.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): Nevertheless, 'Emes ve'Yatziv' is d'Oraysa, because his doubt is as to whether he said 'Emes ve'Yatziv' together with Parshas Tzitzis, that perhaps he said neither Parshas Tzitzis not 'Emes ve'Yatziv'.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): In that case, he did not mention Yetzi'as Mitzrayim at all - and the Gemara is referring to the entire piece containing Yetzi'as Mitzrayim as 'Emes ve'Yatziv'.

Conclusion: Which explains why Parshah Tzitzis is included in 'Emes ve'Yatziv'.

Implied Question: When the Gemara then explains on Daf Beis that the reason that the Tana first discusses K'ri'as Sh'ma shel Arvis is because the Torah first writes "be'Shochb'cha" and then "u've'Kumecha" ...

Answer: That is merely an Asmachta (since according to our Sugya, the Torah is not really talking about K'ri'as Sh'ma at all).

Halachah: The Ri rules like Rebbi Yochanan.

Qualification: Though only in the case of Safek Hispalel, but not if one knows for sure that he has Davened.

Proof: Since he probably does not argue with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who will shortly rule a. that if someone is in the middle of the Amidah and he remembers that he has already Davened, he must stop even in the middle of a B'achah.

Alternative: And b. that if he enters a Shul and the Tzibur Davening the Amidah, he is permitted to join them (even if he has already Davened, provided he is able to add something new to his Tefilah; otherwise not.

Clarification: The reason is because one needs to bow down at 'Modim' together with the Tzibur, so that it should not appear that he denies the One to whoim the community are bowing down.

Clarification (cont.): And the same applies if one reaches 'Modim' simultaneously with the Shali'ach Tzibur, that this is in order, seeing as he bows down together with the community, only that case is not so clear cut.

Rejected Explanation: The reason does not however, appear to be because of an obligation to bow down down when Modim de'Rabbanan is being said ...

Reason: Since nowhere in the Gemara do we find such an obligation.

Rabeinu Tam's Minhag: Whenever Rabeinu Tam Davened (in Shul) without a Minyan, when the Chazen reached 'Modim', he would bow down together with the Tzibur, without saying anything.

Rabeinu Tam's Minhag (cont.): He would only do this however, in the middle of a B'rachah, but not at the end, since the Gemara will say later (on Daf 34.) 'That is forbidden to bow down at the end of a B'rachah.

Reservation: Initially however, one should avoid doing like Rabeinu Tam, as is implied in our Sugya.

Rashi Writes: In Succah Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Daf 38:) that someone who is Davening and who hears Kaddish or Kedushah from the Chazen is not permitted to interrupt and to answer with the Tzibur. He must however remain silent and wait for a short while, due to the principle 'Shome'a ke'Oneh'.

Reservation: Lechatchilah however, one should not do that, because actually answering is a more ideal form of Mitzvah.

Objection: Rabeinu Tam and the Ri both maintain that to the contrary, if 'Shome'a ke'Oneh', then being silent (and listening to Kaddish or Kedushah is considered an interruption (and is therefoe forbidden).

Minhag: Nevertheless people tend to be silent and listen - and Minhag is thing to go by.

Yerushalmi: In Peerek Tefilas ha'Shachar, the Yerushalmi states that someone who has not yet Davened Shachris comes to Shul and finds them Davening Musaf, if he knows that he is able to finish Shachris before the Shatz reaches the point where one answers 'Amen', the he should go ahead and Adven; Otherwise not.

Yerushalmi (cont.): Which 'Amen' is a dispute between two Amora'im - According to one, it is the 'Amen' of 'ha'Keil ha'Kadosh; according to the other, it is the 'Amen' of 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): They do not in fact, argue, because one speaks during the week (when we say 'Shome'a Tefilah), the other, on Shabbos (when we don't).

Halachah: Therefore one should be careful to answer Amen for 'haKel ha'Kadosh' and also to answer Amen for 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Implication: And from the Yerushalmi it appears that they were accustomed to say the full eighteen blessings for Musaf of a day that is Chol such as Rosh Chodesh and Chol ha'Moed.

Halachah: However we rely on that which is said Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (29a) 'eighteen (blessings) were instituted, nineteen (blessings) were not instituted.

Implied Question: And that which we recite 'Aneinu' between the blessings of 'Go'el Yisrael' and 'Rofeh' is not difficult...

Answer: for it is only the Sheliach Tzibbur (Chazan). An individual, however, includes it in the blessing of Shmoe'a Tefilah.

Proof from Tosefta: And Rabbeinu Chaim says further that the Tosefta (Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar) says explicitly as our custom...

Proof from Tosefta (cont.): For it says there 'Days that there is a Korban Musaf brought, such as Rosh Chodesh and Chol ha'Moed, he Davens the complete eighteen Berachos and he mentions the holiday in (the Berachah of) Avodah; and if he did not say it, we make him return.

Proof from Tosefta (cont.): And for Musaf he Davens seven (Berachos), and he says (the Berachah of) Kedushas ha'Yom as the middle Berachah.

Amending Yerushalmi: And in the Yerushalmi also, one could say that there is an error by the scribe, and we should not include in the text 'of Musaf', but instead 'and he came and found them in the middle of Davening', and so too is it implied in the Yerushalmi in Perek Mi sh'Meiso where this statement is also written, and it did not mention that of Musaf at all.

Halachah #1: And this is the Halachah.

Halachah #2: If someone Davens the Amidah with the Chazen however, when the Chazen reaches Kedushah, should recite 'Nekadesh' together with him, and he may then recite the rest of the Kedushah with the Tzibur, since this is not considered a Yachid.