TEFILAH OF A RASHA IS DESPISED [Tefilah :Zevach Resha'im To'evah]
If the owner did not repent, Hash-m does not desire his Korban - "Zevach Resha'im To'evah"!
Berachos 22b (Beraisa #1): If during Shemoneh Esreh one saw excrement in front of him, he should go four Amos in front of it.
Contradiction (Beraisa #2): He should go (four Amos) to the side.
Resolution: If he can, he goes in front of it. If not, he goes to the side.
(Rabah): If one prayed and later found excrement, even though he transgressed, his Tefilah was valid.
Objection (Rava): "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" - it was abominable.
24b (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): If one was walking in a filthy alley, and he was saying Shema, and he did not stop, this is "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah."
Eruvin 64a (Rabah bar Rav Huna): A Shasuy (one who drank) may not pray. If he did, it was a valid prayer. A Shikor (one who is drunk) may not pray. If he did, it was an abomination.
(R. Aba or R. Menasiya): A Shasuy is one who can speak (properly) in front of the king. A Shikor is one who cannot.
Rif and Rosh (Berachos 14a and 3:22): (Rabah): If one prayed and later found excrement, his Tefilah was valid.
Rosh (ibid): The Ri says that we discuss one who prayed in a place where there was reason to suspect that there is excrement. Therefore, he transgressed, and his Tefilah was an abomination. If there was no reason to suspect, his Tefilah was valid, and he need not pray again. R. Yonah proved this from the previous Beraisa (one who saw excrement in front of him during Tefilah). He need not pray again, because there was no reason for him to suspect.
Rosh (Eruvin 6:5): If a Shasuy prayed, it was a valid prayer. If a Shikor prayed, it was an abomination. It is not clear whether we equate Berachos to Tefilah regarding a Shikor or excrement. They are not totally the same. L'Chatchilah, a Shasuy may not pray until the wine wears off, but the Yerushalmi says that he may bless Birkas ha'Mazon and all Berachos. "You will eat and be satiated (and bless)" - even a Medumdam (Shasuy).
Shulchan Aruch (OC 76:8): If one recited Kri'as Shema in a place where there was reason to suspect that there is excrement, and later he found excrement, he must repeat Shema.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Im): Even though the Gemara discussed Tefilah, the Tur learns from it to Kri'as Shema.
Mishnah Berurah (28): A place where young children are found is a place where there was reason to suspect that there is excrement.
Mishnah Berurah (29): The excrement was within his four Amos. If it was outside four Amos but he could see it, see below 81:2.
Mishnah Berurah (30): "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" applies, for he should have checked the place. The same applies if after Tefilah he found excrement on his clothes or shoes, and before Tefilah he was in a filthy place such as a privy and he did not guard himself. If at night one sat in a place with cat excrement or similar things and it stuck to his clothes and he prayed in the Beis ha'Keneses and he found the filth when he returned home, this is like a place where one did not need to suspect that there is excrement.
Mishnah Berurah (31): He repeats Shema with the Berachos. The same applies to Tefilah. If the time for Tefilah passed, he does not pray again at the next Tefilah, for he was negligent. Tashlumim is only for Ohnes.
Kaf ha'Chayim (37): Kri'as Shema is mid'Oraisa, and there is no concern for Berachah Levatalah, so he repeats it, without the Berachos.
Bi'ur Halachah (DH Kara): If one needed to check but did not, and after Tefilah he left and cannot return to check, the Pri Megadim was unsure. He leans to exempt from praying again. Yeshhu'os Yakov is stringent if there was a wasteheap there, for almost surely it has excrement, so we are stringent even for a mid'Rabanan law. If it is an even Safek, one prays again only if he found excrement there.
Kaf ha'Chayim (40): If this occurred, one should be pained, and give Tzedakah or fast one day.
Shulchan Aruch (ibid): If there was no reason to suspect that there is excrement, he need not repeat Shema.
Kaf ha'Chayim (42): In such a case one does not pray again Nedavah, for nowadays we do not pray Nedavah, but he should read Shema again without the Berachos, for there is no concern for Berachah Levatalah.
Shulchan Aruch (ibid): If one said Shema in a place where there was reason to be concerned for urine (and later he found urine), he need not repeat it.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Chasvu): Tosfos says that even if Berachos are like Tefilah regarding excrement, one need not pray again if he found urine. It is not as stringent as excrement. The Torah forbids only facing urine in midair. Once it is on the ground, it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan.
Mishnah Berurah (33): L'Chatchilah one may pray without checking for urine. However, if he knew that there is definitely urine there, and transgressed and read Shema or prayed, he must repeat it, for he transgressed a Vadai mid'Rabanan law.
Shulchan Aruch (81:2): If one recited Shema and found excrement in front of him, he moves so it will be four Amos in back of him. If he cannot, he goes four Amos to the side. He resumes from where he stopped reading. According to R. Yonah, if he was in a place where there was reason to suspect that there is excrement, he must start again from the beginning.
Beis Yosef (DH Hayah, citing the Rashba): Finding excrement in one's place is more stringent than seeing it in front of him. One must check due to "Machanecha Kodesh". In front of him is forbidden only due to "Lo Yir'eh Vecha", and he did not see it when he began, so he was not negligent at all. Chachamim did not obligate him to check as far as he can see. Lo Yir'eh Vecha did not apply, for he did not see it until now.
Beis Yosef (DH v'Nir'eh): Even when in the middle he saw excrement in front of him and there was reason to suspect, he need not start again from the beginning. His Tefilah was valid, for Chachamim did not obligate him to check. However, R. Yonah says that the Gemara discusses a place where there was no reason to suspect. This implies that if there was reason to suspect, he must pray again, like when excrement was found in his place. It seems that we follow the Rashba, for he was later.
Magen Avraham (3): The Gemara discusses Tefilah, in which one must face Yerushalayim. For Kri'as Shema he can turn so the excrement will be in back! Perhaps the case is that there is excrement also in back.
Mishnah Berurah (8): Likewise, if one sees urine in front of him he must move so it is in back of him.
Mishnah Berurah (9): We discuss when he is more than four Amos from where the smell of the excrement ceases. If not, all agree that he repeats from the beginning, since he was negligent for not checking.
Mishnah Berurah (13): Eliyahu Rabah says that the Rosh and Roke'ach hold like R. Yonah. Still, b'Di'eved we are lenient, for many Acharonim bring only the first opinion.
Kaf ha'Chayim (13): When the Mechaber brings a law and then 'some say', he rules like the first opinion, but l'Chatchilah one should be concerned for the latter opinion. One repeats Shma, but not the Berachos.
Shulchan Aruch (185:4): Even if one is so drunk that he cannot speak properly, he blesses Birkas ha'Mazon.
Shulchan Aruch (5): If one blessed Birkas ha'Mazon and excrement was in front of him, or he was (Rema - totally) drunk, Tosfos and the Rosh were unsure if he must bless again. Surely, he need not do so due to urine.
Taz (2): Tosfos says that the Yerushalmi allows a Medumdam to say Birkas ha'Mazon. There is room for doubt only if Medumdam is only Shasuy, but not drunk. If one need not bless again if he was drunk, the same applies regarding excrement. Surely these are the same. The Rema (99:1) said that one who is drunk may bless. In Sa'if 4, the Mechaber obligates a Shikor to bless, for it is a Safek mid'Oraisa (perhaps he is Yotzei). Other Berachos are mid'Rabanan, so he does not bless. Why did the Rema say that he blesses, without distinguishing?
Mishnah Berurah (6): We discuss one who could not talk in front of the king. Perhaps he must bless again when he sobers up if the food was not yet digested. If he was as drunk as Lot, all agree that he was not Yotzei and he blesses again. Sa'if 4 discusses one who cannot talk properly, but he can talk in front of the king. Acharonim ask that this is illogical! If this occurred, he blesses; l'Chatchilah one must bless before getting so drunk.
Kaf ha'Chayim (13): The Mechaber rules in Sa'if 4 like Tosfos in Berachos. Here he brings Tosfos' opinion in Eruvin (who was unsure), to teach that one should be careful to avoid this.
Kaf ha'Chayim (14): One does not bless again due to Safek. It is best to eat more and bless with intent also for his first meal, or hear Birkas ha'Mazon from another. If not, he thinks Birkas ha'Mazon in his heart.
Bi'ur Halachah (DH Im): Seemingly, if he knew that there is excrement here, surely he must bless again. However, the Pri Megadim says that also this is a Safek, and Chayei Adam says that he does not bless again even in this case. Surely this is wrong. All agree that all Divrei Kedushah are forbidden near excrement. He disgraced Hash-m's word (Berachos 24b). How was he Yotzei?! Many are stringent even when he did not know initially.