פירוש על ברכות 41:10

AND PRAYER, [WHICH IS A MATTER] IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY ETC. In the Gemara we have a dispute between Ravina and Rav Chisda. Ravina understands from our Mishna that when one thinks the words of sh’ma, he fulfills his obligation of reciting the sh’ma by Torah law. Rav Chisda disagrees. He holds that the words must be spoken and if one only thinks the words he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: if so, why does the Mishna advise the baal keri to think the words of sh’ma? And the Gemara answered that it is improper that all of the congregation should be reciting sh’ma and he should sit there idly. He should at least be thinking of the sh’ma that the congregation is saying. The Gemara now asks another question: we have learned that he does not even think of the words of the sh’moneh esray. Why not? Shouldn’t he participate with the congregation? Tosfos wonders why the Gemara suddenly decided to ask its question from the fact that he does not participate in the sh’moneh esray. There are other b’rachos besides the shmoneh esray in which he does not participate.
And if you ask: why did the Gemara depart from the segment of the Mishna about reading sh’ma that he was discussing in order to show that there are areas where the congregation is involved with a mitzvoh and the baal keri does not participate? For within the segment dealing with sh’ma there is also something that the congregation is occupied with, the brochos of sh’ma and the Mishna taught: he does not recite the b’rocho preceding and following the sh’ma etc. Why are these b’rochos not used as a basis for the question the Gemara is now asking, that we see there are things that the congregation is involved in and the baal keri does not participate with them. Why did the Gemara have to prove his point from the Mishna dealing with shmoneh esray?
And we can answer: because there is greater point that can be made by asking the question from the shmoneh esray, that is why the Gemara uses it as a basis for the question. That point is, that even though shmoneh esray is recited while standing and it can be seen by all present that he, the baal keri, is not standing as they, the congregation, are standing, even so if he did not begin to recite shmoneh esray, he should not begin. It is more evident from the fact that the baal keri does not recite the shmoneh esray, that we are not concerned that he should participate with the congregation.
Tosfos now turns to another issue. The Gemara asks a series of questions about Rav Chisda’s opinion that thinking is not equal to speaking. Those very same questions can be asked to Ravino as well. And if you ask: since the Gemara did not know the reason mentioned soon to differentiate between reading sh’ma, Birchas Hamozon and shmoneh esray, these questions that were asked to Rav Chisda can also be asked to Ravino as well. What is the difference between reciting sh’ma, Birchas Hamozon that the baal keri is required to say them more so than shmoneh esray?
And we can answer: that according to Ravino it makes sense. Since thinking is equivalent to speaking, and the baal keri will fulfill his obligation by thinking the words, we should require him to recite sh’ma and birchas hamozon which are Torah obligations more so than shmoneh esray which is Rabbinic. However according to Rav Chisda, since thinking the words is actually useless and he does not fulfill any mitzvoh by Torah law, and he is required to think the words only so that he should not sit idly while the congregation is involved with sh’ma, the Gemara asks, what is the difference between reciting sh’ma and sh’moneh esray?

HOWEVER, [IF] HE DID NOT [YET] BEGIN, [THEN] HE SHOULD NOT BEGIN. The Gemara is proving from the statement that the baal keri began to recite shmoneh esray shouls shorten his prayer, that if he did not begin at all he should not begin. This is presented as proof that a baal keri is not required to even think the words of shmoneh esray. And if you ask: I can say that the Mishna that indicates that the baal keri should not begin to recite shmoneh esray is discussing saying the words, but as far as thinking the words is concerned that is acceptable even for the baal keri.
And we can answer: That it appears that the baal keri should not begin to even think the words of shmoneh esray, since the Mishna when telling us how he must behave when he made the error of starting to pray does not say that he should shorten his saying of the words or he may think the words at length. If he would be required to think the words of shmoneh esray, when he began to say them the Mishna should have suggested that he may think all the words of the shmoneh esray. Since the Mishna does not mention thinking at all, it is obvious that it is not an option.

A quotation from the next Mishnah, fol. 22b, p. 148.

M. adds: in the name of Rab.

See fol. 11 b, p. 71.

In Joma 37a this verse is explained as follows: When Moses was about to begin his song, he said to Israel, "I will open with a benediction, viz. 'For I will proclaim the name of the Lord,' and ye will respond with 'Ascribe ye greatness unto our God '."

I.e. it is not ordained by the Torah.

No analogy can be drawn between the material gratification derived from a meal and the spiritual gain from studying Torah.

M. adds : in the name of Samuel.

The opening words of the benediction after the Shema' ; Singer, p. 42.

The words of Torah upon which the ordinance to read the Shema' is based; see fol. 2a, p. 2. How, then, can it be said that this ordinance is by the Rabbis?

And not the reading of the Shema'. See p. 85.

See Singer, p. 43.

In the third paragraph.

I.e. the Shema'.

Reference to the Kingdom of Heaven and the Exodus from Egypt.

Consequently, the uncertainty gives one a reason for saying the Tefillah again.

I.e. the benediction in which they discovered their error.

This opinion apparently contradicts that of Rab Judah who said that the prayer must be interrupted immediately the mistake is discovered.

Of the person who read the week-day Tefillah on the Sabbath.

Of the person who was reading the Tefillah for the second time.