פירוש על ברכות 42:19

BEFORE THE PRAYER LEADER REACHES MODIM. One who walks into a synagogue and finds the congregation in middle of shmoneh esray, should only begin to say shmoneh esray if he can finish before the chazon reaches modim. And the reason that he should not begin unless he can finish before the chazon reaches modim is because he must bow for modim together with the congregation, so that it should not appear by his not bowing that he denies the G-d to whom the congregation is bowing. And the ruling is the same that he may begin sh’moneh esray if he will reach modim when the chazon reaches modim, since he will bow together with his neighbors. However the Gemara does not mention this because this situation that one may calculate that he is going to arrive at modim together with the congregation is not definite.
But it does not appear that because one who starts shmoneh esray who will not finish before the chazon reaches modim will not be able to say modim of the Rabanan is the reason that Rav Huno said this, for it is a mitzvoh to respond with modim of the Rabanan, however, it is not likely that this is the reason because we do not find any mention of it, modim of the Rabanan, in the Gemara. Since this prayer is not mentioned in the Gemara it is unlikely that one should not start saying shmoneh esray because he might miss this prayer.

Of saying the Tefillah a second time in error.

Which points out that even if the Tefillah has been commenced a second time, he mast stop as soon as he recalls his mistake.

Singer, p. 51, at which words the Congregation bows and makes a response.

In order to be able to make the necessary response.

Singer, p. 45, "We will sanctify," to which also the Congregation makes responses.

Therefore being able to say it individually, Rab Huna allows him up to "We give thanks unto Thee" in which to say the Tefillah.

It must be said with the Congregation ; therefore if he cannot say the Tefillah before making the responses, he should not commence it.

On the argument, see p. 18 n. 5.

It cannot be deduced from Num. xvi. 21 that there were ten. In the parallel passage (Megillah 23b), a further analogy is drawn between the use of the word "Congregation" here and in ibid. xiv. 27 where the reference is to the twelve spies, minus Joshua and Caleb. See p. 28 n. 2.

In the Kaddish; see p. 8 n. 4.

Viz. Judah b. Pazzi and Simeon b. Abba; Hyman, II. p. 664a.

Lit. "the Work of the Chariot," the tbeosophical teaching about the Heavenly Chariot, derived from Ezek. i. and x. This was regarded as one of the highest forms of study upon which but a chosen few should venture, after severe mental and physical discipline. See J. E. viii. p. 498; Abelson, Jewish Mysticism, Chap. ii.

Since he permits the saying of Grace after meals, which is a Biblical ordinance; see above p. 135.

See p. 134 n. 6.

See Glossary, s.v. Semukin. The deduction just drawn comes under this role.

But the mode of her death is not mentioned.

This is not stated in the Torah ; but see Sanh. 54 b.

I.e. use the severest form of execution (viz. stoning) on such flimsy grounds! He therefore proceeds to give a stronger argument.

Why is it specially mentioned of them that they shall be stoned? Cf. Lev. 20:27.

This is an illustration of the eighth of R. Ishmael's exegetical principles by which the Torah is expounded : If anything is included in a general proposition [diviners are in the category of sorcerers] and is then made the subject of a special statement [as in Lev. xx. 27], that which is predicated of it [viz. death by stoning] is not to be understood as limited to itself alone, but is to be applied to the whole of the general proposition ; Singer, pp. 13 f. It is hereby shown that R. Judah rejected the inference from juxtaposition and based his conclusion upon this rule.

M. more accurately : For there is a Mishnaic teaching. What follows is from Mishnah Jebamot xi. 1.

Why, then, does not R. Judah accept the deduction from Deut. iv. 9 f . above that a Ba'al Keri is forbidden to study Torah?

Accordingly, while R. Judah adopts the method in Deuteronomy, he does not accept the deduction which R. Joshua b. Levi drew from the verses quoted.

Before reading the Shema' or studying Torah.

This would be contrary to the lenient view taken by R. Judah in the Mishnah on fol. 20b, p. 134.

Who compel even him to have immersion.