Showing posts with label halacha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label halacha. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Berachot 20a: Rabbi Yochanan and Maternal Impression

On Berachot 20a, the following:
R. Johanan was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the bathing place. He said: When the daughters of Israel come up from bathing they look at me and they have children as handsome as I am.12
This corresponds to an ancient belief held by Galen, and also held by Chazal, of maternal impression. What the woman sees of is thinking about when she has intercourse would have an impact on the baby. This accounts, if I recall correctly, for a Roman matron having a black baby.

In that regard, I am reminded of the following joke:

A missionary is sent into deepest darkest depths of Africa to live with a tribe. He spends years with the people, teaching them to read, write and good Christian values. One thing he particularly stresses is the evil of sexual sin. “Thou must not commit adultery or fornication!”
One day the wife of one of the Tribe’s noblemen gives birth to a white baby. The village is shocked and the chief is sent by his people to talk with the missionary.  
You have taught us of the evils of sexual sin, yet here a black woman gives birth to a white child. You are the only white man who has ever set foot in our village. Anyone can see what’s going on here!”
The missionary replies, “No, no, my good man. You are mistaken. What you have here is a natural occurrence - what is called an albino. Look to thy yonder field. See a field of white sheep, and yet amongst them is one black one. Nature does this on occasion.” 
The chief pauses for a moment then says, “Tell you what, you don'’t say anything about the sheep, I won'’t say anything about the white baby.”
This also finds purchase in the Torah, with Yaakov using striped sticks to influence the sheep to have striped offspring, and as interpreted by Chazal.

Even Shadal adopts this ancient science as likely. See here on parshablog. Other interpretations of that pasuk are still possible.

It seems that the following halacha:
See for example Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 198:48, where R. Moses Isserles states that if a woman coming home from the mikveh enounters a דבר טמא או גוי , if she is pious she will immerse again.
Is based on this theory of maternal impression. Here is the Rama:
And here is the Shach on the side who brings other sources that say that she should not go back and re-immerse if she encounters a horse, because it means that her children will come out quite nicely:
Nowadays, perhaps halacha is not widely practiced because it is so difficult not to encounter someone on the way, or because, as some explain, it is the first thing encountered, which is the mikveh lady.

I think that even besides this, we don't need to concern ourselves with these quasi-kabbalistic concerns which are really rooted in ancient science which was only recently uprooted. This was not encoded as halacha by the gemara, and at this point, we know that this recommendation by specific Rishonim and Acharonim was based on incorrect science.

Monday, August 13, 2012

Berachot 10: College students and sof zman krias Shema

Cartoon from Ohr Sameach
There is a famous story about what happened when NASA sent the first frum Jew into space. On his return, he was asked by reporters how he liked it.
He came into the room completely dishevelled. His beard was tangled, his kippah was askew and his tallis was creased. The reporters asked him whether he enjoyed the experience.
He threw his hands in the air and said, "Enjoy? Oy vay, you must be joking. How could I find time to enjoy? Every few minutes the sun was rising and setting! So it was on with the tefillin, off with the tefillin, shacharis, mincha, maariv, shacharis, mincha, maariv...."
Obviously, the halachos of tefillah and tefillin would change given the different metzius.

This brings me to the following Mishna and gemara. On Berachot daf 9b, we have the Mishna:
מתני' מאימתי קורין את שמע בשחרית משיכיר בין תכלת ללבן ר' אליעזר אומר בין תכלת לכרתי (וגומרה) עד הנץ החמה ר' יהושע אומר עד שלש שעות שכן דרך מלכים לעמוד בשלש שעות הקורא מכאן ואילך לא הפסיד כאדם הקורא בתורה:
Or, in English:
MISHNAH. FROM WHAT TIME MAY ONE RECITE THE SHEMA IN THE MORNING? FROM THE TIME THAT ONE CAN DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BLUE AND WHITE. R. ELIEZER SAYS: BETWEEN BLUE AND GREEN. AND HE HAS TIME TO FINISH UNTIL SUNRISE. R. JOSHUA SAYS: UNTIL THE THIRD HOUR OF THE DAY, FOR SUCH IS THE CUSTOM OF KINGS, TO RISE AT THE THIRD HOUR. IF ONE RECITES THE SHEMA' LATER HE LOSES NOTHING, BEING LIKE ONE WHO READS IN THE TORAH.12
To explain the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, the Torah sets the time of Shema via the following pasuk, in Devarim 6:7:
ז  וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ, וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ.7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And 'when thou risest up' means the time of rising. Since kings rise three hours after sunrise, it is considered to be a time of kima, waking up, even for non-kings.

On daf 10b:
ר' יהושע אומר עד ג' שעות:
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהושע:
Thus,we pasken like Rabbi Yehoshua.

Now, there are two ways of understanding the halacha. One is that the Torah said וּבְקוּמֶךָ and so it is as if the Torah said 'until three hours'. Or, more correct, that the Torah said וּבְקוּמֶךָ and so it means 'when people in general are waking up', and the application of that is 'until three hours'.

The position of the Chazon Ish is that reality at the time of the Talmud defines halachic practice. Thus:
Should the halachot of treifot then change to fit the current reality? The Chazon Ish explains, based on the Gemara in Avodah Zarah 9a, that the world was divided into three periods - two thousand years of tohu, two thousand years of Torah, and two thousand years of Mashiach. The full explanation of this passage is fascinating but will take us well off topic. However, the Chazon Ish explained that the halachot of treifot were based on nature as it was during the time of Torah, the two thousand years between Avraham and approximately the close of the Mishna. Since at that time the treifot as described in the Talmud caused an animal to die within a year, we are still forbidden to eat such animals even if they can now survive for over a year.
So too (Rav Schachter mentioned in shiur), it might be that we must be koveah the sof zman krias Shema based on when people rose at the time of the gemara.

I don't think we should say like the Chazon Ish. And if so, consider that on the day I wrote the post, the sof zman krias Shema was:

Latest Shema Magen Avrahamסוף זמן קריאת שמע
מגן אברהם
Using "90 minutes..." as dawn and nightfall8:31:26לפי 90 דקות במעלות
Using "Fixed 72 minutes..."8:54:41לפי 72 דקות שוות
Using "72 minutes as 16.1 degrees"8:44:09לפי 72 דקות במעלות
Latest Shema Gra & Baal Tanya9:30:41סוף זמן קריאת שמע
גר"א ובעל התני


Meanwhile, when does your typical college student wake up? Nishtaneh hateva, nature changed! College students are a demographic just as much as kings are. And if the zeman is indeed when people are waking up, then I would not worry too much about sof zman krias Shema.

Speaking more broadly, two things have changed since the time of the gemara: we are no longer an agrarian society, and the introduction of cheap electric lights. A farmer wakes at dawn and works till dusk, since he needs the daylight. Nowadays, by and large, not so many people are working the land, and we can set for ourselves what the day, and workday, will look like. Should this cause a shift in ובשכבך ובקומיך?

Of course, consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Monday, August 6, 2012

Berachot 2a-4b: Real recitation upon one's bed

First, read the Rosh on Berachot 2a in English here.



מאימתי קורין את שמע בערבין? משעה שהכהנים נכנסים לאכול בתרומתן.
עד סוף האשמורה הראשונה, דברי רבי אליעזר. וחכמים אומרים: עד חצות. רבן גמליאל אומר:  עד שיעלה עמוד השחר.
{Brachot 2a}
[1] MISHNAH. FROM WHAT TIME MAY ONE RECITE THE SHEMA' IN THE EVENING? FROM THE TIME THAT THE PRIESTS ENTER [THEIR HOUSES] IN ORDER TO EAT THEIRTERUMAH UNTIL THE END OF THE FIRST WATCH. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. THE SAGES SAY: UNTIL MIDNIGHT. R. GAMALIEL SAYS: UNTIL THE DAWN COMES UP.

  פירש״י ואנן שקורין שמע בבית הכנסת קודם צאת הכוכבים אין אנו יוצאים ילי חובתנו אלא בקריאת  שמע שעל מטתנו פרק ראשון. ומה שאנו קורין אותה בבית הכנסת כלי לעמוד בתפלה מתוך דברי תורה.והכי תניא בברכות ירושלמי בריש פירקין הקורא את שמע קודם לכן לא יצא. א״כ למה קורין אותה בבית הכנסת. לא להוציא (את הרבים) ידי חובתן אלא כלי לעמוד בתפלה מתוך דברי תורה

Rashi explains: And we who read Shema in shul before tzais hakochavim, we only fulfill our obligation with kriat Shema upon our beds, the first parasha. And that which we read it in shul is in order to transition into tefillah [J: meaning Shmoneh Esrei] from words of Torah. And so is taught in a brayta in Berachot Yerushalmi [1b], at the beginning of our perek: One who reads Shema before this does not fulfill [his obligation]. If so, why do we read it in shul? Not (for the public) to fulfill their obligation, but so as to transition into tefillah [J: Shmoneh Esrei] from words of Torah.

וכן כתב הריב״א והרי״ץ גיאת ז״ל וכן כתב רב עמרם ז״ל [נ״א ומחמת זה כתב שצריך לברך אקב״ו על קריאת שמע כשהוא קורא לפני מטתו.]ש


מתוך דבריהם משמע שאדם יוצא ידי חובתו מתוך אותה קריאה 
And so wrote the Riva and the Ritz Gaius zal, and so wrote Rav Amram za'l. [Another nusach: And because of that he wrote that one needs to bless asher kideshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al kriat shema when he recites before his bed.]




It is implied from their words that a person fulfills his obligation via that recitation.
This sounds good, although the Rosh proceeds to attack the idea, on the basis arguments presented in Rabbenu Tam. At the end, it seems that his conclusion is that the actual Shema recitation is together with Maariv, even when done early, and the reading of a single parsha of Shema upon one's bed is a separate din entirely.

I will attempt here to defend the idea put forth in Rashi, citing the Yerushalmi, in the face of all the various attacks. Let us consider the arguments:

 ול״נ לר״ת ז״ל שהרי ק״ש שעל מטתו אין אנו קורין כי אם פרשה ראשונה ושלא בברכותיה ובבית הכנסת אנו קורין אותה כולה בברכותיה בלא זמנה ועוד דקאמר בגמרא אם תלמיד חכם הוא אינו צריך לקרות ק״ש על מטתו. ויש לדחות דמיירי היכא דקרא בזמנה בבהכ״נ. ועוד הקשה דאם כן אנו נוהגין כריב״ל דאמר תפלות באמצע תקנום ואנן קי״ל כרבי יוחנן דאמר דק״ש של ערבית תחלה ואח״כ תפלה דתניא לקמן בפירקין כוותיה. 

And this displeases Rabbenu Tam, for kriat Shema upon one's bed, we only recite the first parasha, and without its brachos, while in shul we recite it in its entirety, not at its proper time. And furthermore, it states in the gemara that if he is a talmid chacham he does not need to recite kriat Shema upon his bed. And there is to push this off, that it is dealing with where he [J: already] recited it at its proper time in shul. And he asks further that if so, we are practicing like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that the tefillot [J: Shmoneh Esrei] were instituted in the middle [J: meaning, Shema of morning, then Shmoneh Esrei of Shacharit, Shmoneh Esrei of Mincha, Shmoneh Esrei of Maariv, and then Shema of night]. And meanwhile, we establish [the halacha] like Rabbi Yochanan, who said that recital of Shema at night is first, and afterwards is tefillah [J: Shemoneh Esrei], for we teach a brayta later in our perek like him.
In terms of the first objection, that upon his bed, he is reciting only the first parasha, meaning the first few pesukim, perhaps this is indeed enough to fulfill the obligation. Consider Berachot 13b:
Our Rabbis taught: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one': this was R. Judah the Prince's recital of the Shema'.16  Rab said once to R. Hiyya: I do not see Rabbi accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.17  He replied to him: Son of Princes!18  In the moment when he passes his hand over his eyes, he accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven. Does he finish it afterwards or does he not finish it afterwards?19  Bar Kappara said: He does not finish it afterwards; R. Simeon son of Rabbi said, He does finish it afterwards. Said Bar Kappara to R. Simeon the son of Rabbi: On my view that he does not finish it afterwards, there is a good reason why Rabbi always is anxious to take a lesson in which there is mention of the exodus from Egypt.20  But on your view that he does finish it afterwards, why is he anxious to take such a lesson? — So as to mention the going forth from Egypt at the proper time.21
R. Ela the son of R. Samuel b. Martha said in the name of Rab: If one said 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one', and was then overpowered by sleep, he has performed his obligation. R. Nahman said to his slave Daru: For the first verse prod me,22  but do not prod me for any more. R. Joseph said to R. Joseph the son of Rabbah: How did your father use to do? He replied: For the first verse he used to take pains [to keep awake], for the rest he did not use to take pains.
Now, they instituted other parshiyot of Shema to recite, and we do so in the daytime Shema. And in the nighttime Shema as well, if the Shema of Maariv is said at the appropriate time, then he is saying the full Shema. And if not, he still said these instituted parshiyot, while his basic obligation of the first parsha he is fulfilling upon his bed.

Therefore, I don't see this as a strong objection.

In terms of the Talmid Chacham being exempt from saying Shema upon his bed, indeed, the Rosh's answer is a pretty good one; it would be speaking about where he has already fulfilled his obligation, which could be a common case, such that the only concern is either mazikin or impure thoughts. It is somewhat difficult, though.

I would add that I think it likely that Shema was developed and instituted in stages, and in different ways. That is why there can be a machlokes between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi as to whether the Shema is recited in shul, or when in one's bed. How can you have a machlokes about something so basic?! First, because Maariv in its entirety is a reshut. Secondly, because these practices developed in parallel.

So, initially both practices developed in parallel as a fulfillment for one's chova. And then, as one or the other won out, the opposite practice was not removed entirely, but given a different purpose. Thus, Shema upon one's bed might be just to drive off the mazikin; and Shema in shul might be simply leading in with words of Torah, akin to Ashrei.

So indeed, restore the objection that a talmid chacham need not say it; all these Amoraim were acting on the basis of the bed-time one not being the chovah; later practice adopted the contrary position.

And don't bother me with klalei horaah! That is if we were paskening from scratch, trying to determine how to conduct ourselves. Instead, at some stage, this was already paskened and is established practice. And Rashi explains how this came about. And then, it is a matter of making everyone happy while still establishing, as we seem to have, that the primary fulfillment is upon one's bed, such that we can, if we wish, say Shema before tzais.

Let us consider the objections again:
And this displeases Rabbenu Tam, for kriat Shema upon one's bed, we only recite the first parasha, and without its brachos, while in shul we recite it in its entirety, not at its proper time.
But the first parasha suffices, mei'ikkar hadin, as we have seen. And we know that the parallel, halachically deflated practice of reading in shul is still in existence, such that nobody is not saying those extra parshiyot somewhere.


What about the fact that we say no berachot upon our bed? Well, according to some opinions / nuschaot, we should say a blessing upon our beds, of asher kiddeshanu bemitzvotav vetzivanu al kriat Shema. But if we have not instituted the bracha, because of the historical confusion or because often, people will indeed be reading the earlier Shema in a proper time, that is acceptable. The bracha is not meakev.

What about in shul, that we read the brachot of Shema? Well, those brachot are not really brachot in the sense of asher kiddeshanu bemitzvotav. They were instituted as liturgy, framing the brachot before and after. And those could be said earlier to fulfill the recommendation of juxtaposition. Consider the parallel, in the brachot of Shema in Shacharit:
The Mishna (Berakhot 9b) rules that "One recites the Shema… until the third hour of the day… and one who recites the Shema later loses nothing, as he is like one who reads the Torah…"

            The Gemara (10b) elaborates,

Rav Chisda said in the name of Mar Ukba: “What is the meaning of ‘HE LOSES NOTHING’?  He does not lose the berakhot.” 
It has been taught to the same effect: “He who says the Shema later loses nothing, being like one who reads from the Torah, but he says two blessings before and one after…"
We thus see that the blessings can be moved, and said outside their normal time frame.

Continuing with the next objection:

 And furthermore, it states in the gemara that if he is a talmid chacham he does not need to recite kriat Shema upon his bed. 
Indeed, that entire gemara was according to Rabbi Yochanan, that the primary obligation was being fulfilled earlier at Maariv. Practically, for us, if we have davened Maariv after tzais, then I would say that this gemara still holds true. Otherwise, indeed, even a talmid chacham needs to say at least the first parasha.

Note that it is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says (4b):
R. Joshua b. Levi says: Though a man has recited the Shema' in the synagogue, it is a religious act to recite it again upon his bed. 
And then there are these explanations of why it is a religious act. It is possible that R' Yehoshua ben Levi simply meant that this is because he has not fulfilled; or that he gets an additional fulfillment of the literal ובשכבך. But it is not developed in this manner by others. And so, we have support for the idea that when one is deflated, there is still is validity and reason for doing the other.

The next objection:
 And he asks further that if so, we are practicing like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said that the tefillot [J: Shmoneh Esrei] were instituted in the middle [J: meaning, Shema of morning, then Shmoneh Esrei of Shacharit, Shmoneh Esrei of Mincha, Shmoneh Esrei of Maariv, and then Shema of night]. And meanwhile, we establish [the halacha] like Rabbi Yochanan, who said that recital of Shema at night is first, and afterwards is tefillah [J: Shemoneh Esrei], for we teach a brayta later in our perek like him.
Indeed, this a contradiction. But Rabbi Yochanan did not need a brayta as support, since as a first generation Amora of Eretz Yisrael, "he was a Tanna" and so could argue. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was his older contemporary, also a first generation Amora of Eretz Yisrael. Perhaps he may also argue with a brayta, and both are reflecting an earlier tradition. In other words, I don't care that there was a support from a brayta. Perhaps this even reflects an earlier Tannaitic tradition.

And besides, practically we are still fulfilling Rabbi Yochanan (and the brayta) and putting the Shema before the Shemoneh Esrei, so as to have Geulah and Tefillah juxtaposed! But this could simply be as a way of leading in with a devar Torah; or so as to get the final instituted bracha of Geulah together with tefillah. It is not a total contradiction if we are still fulfilling it, in its 'deflated' state.

You can read in the Rosh the difficulties with Rabbenu Tam's position. In the end, I don't find it convincing. I would say that early Maariv is acceptable because Maariv does not have a keva, because it is a reshut. As such, I don't believe it is really a problem of tartei desatrei, as discussed there. But I don't think the time of Shema has anything to do with the Amidah, except that it is dragged along with it.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Berachot 3a: Why not enter a ruin to pray?

We see three reasons not to enter a ruins mentioned in the brayta in the gemara:
The Sages taught: Because of three things one does not enter a ruin: because of suspicion, because of collapse, and because of mazikin [harmful spirits].
It should not trouble us that the brayta lists three reasons. So long as they are all true reasons, why not? The setama degamara, however, assumes that if three are given, each must have a chance to hold absent the other two. And so what follows is an extremely systematic analysis, as to how one can construct a situation for each of the three in the absence of the other two.

Thus:
It would be sufficient to say, because of falling debris'? When the ruin is new.1  But it would be sufficient to say: 'because of demons'? — When there are two people.2  If there are two people, then there is no suspicion either? — When both are licentious [there is suspicion]. — [It states] 'Because of falling debris'. It would be sufficient to say: 'because of suspicion and demons'? — When there are two decent people. [It states] 'Because of demons'. It would be sufficient to say; 'because of suspicion and falling debris'? — When there are two decent people going into a new ruin. But if there are two, then there is no danger of demons either? — In their haunt there is danger. If you like I can say, indeed the reference is to one man and to a new ruin which was situated in the fields; in which case there is no suspicion, for a woman would not be found in the fields, but the danger of demons does exist.
This is unnecessary, and indeed seems to me somewhat farfetched. In particular, where both are licentious?! Prutzim rather than kesheirim? Does the gemara really need to address them, to give them this cause? Surely prutzim would simply enter the ruin and disregard the brayta. (One can answer that one of them is a parutz, and so the one cannot rely on the other for chashad purposes; or, like one rishon, define kasher as a special level of tzadik, and parutz as a regular person; though both have drawbacks).

I have, though, sometimes noticed a trend in which not only is a non-rationalist reason given for a practice, but a rationalist reason alongside it. For example, consider the reason for Mezuzah, from parshas vaEschanan which just passed.
In the gemara in Menachot 33, there are two positions,one (Rabanan) which stresses the psychological impact of encountering it as one enters one's home, while the other (R' Chanina of Sura) regards it as a protective measure of the entire home.
So too, we have an extreme derech hateva reason: danger of collapse; a quasi-mystical reason: demons; and a moral/ethical/social/halachic reason: suspicion of sexual impropriety.

The Rambam, and other rationalists, do not believe in the existence of sheidim. And in general, he leaves out sheidim and other similar matters out of Mishneh Torah. As such, it is a good exercise to see just what he has to say about davening in a ruin.

The Rambam mentions this halacha in two places. Once, in hilchos tefillah,  5:6:
ז  [ו] תִּקּוּן הַמָּקוֹם כֵּיצַד:  יַעֲמֹד בְּמָקוֹם נָמוּךְ, וְיַחְזִיר פָּנָיו לַכּוֹתָל.  וְצָרִיךְ לִפְתֹּחַ חַלּוֹנוֹת אוֹ פְּתָחִים, כְּנֶגֶד יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, כְּדֵי לְהִתְפַּלַּל כְּנֶגְדָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "וְכַוִּין פְּתִיחִין לֵהּ בְּעִלִּיתֵהּ, נֶגֶד יְרוּשְׁלֶם" (ראה דנייאל ו,יא).  וְקוֹבֵעַ מָקוֹם לִתְפִלָּתוֹ, תָּמִיד.  וְאֵין מִתְפַּלְּלִין, בְּחֻרְבָה; וְלֹא לַאֲחוֹרֵי בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אֵלָא אִם כֵּן הִחְזִיר פָּנָיו לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת.  וְאָסוּר לֵישֵׁב בְּצַד הָעוֹמֵד בַּתְּפִלָּה, אוֹ לַעֲבֹר לְפָנָיו--עַד שֶׁיַּרְחִיק מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

but he does not give reasons. So too in hilchos rotzeach vishmirat nefesh, perek 12, about entering a ruin in general:
ה  [ו] וְכֵן לֹא יִנְעֹץ הַסַּכִּין בְּתוֹךְ הָאֶתְרוֹג אוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַצְּנוֹן--שֶׁמֶּא יִפֹּל אָדָם עַל חֻדָּהּ, וְיָמוּת.  וְכֵן אָסוּר לָאָדָם לַעֲבֹר תַּחַת קִיר נָטוּי, אוֹ עַל גֶּשֶׁר רָעוּעַ, אוֹ לְהִכָּנֵס לְחֻרְבָה; וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֶא בְּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר הַסַּכָּנוֹת, אָסוּר לַעֲמֹד בִּמְקוֹמָן.

We can also check out what the Meiri has to say about it:

"It is of the traits and approach of the Chachamim that one should not enter a ruin, nor any other place that would provide an opening, for those who see, for suspicion due to his entering those places. And even if he needs to enter there in order to pray in seclusion, it is better for him to play on the road. And when he prays, he should pray a short tefillah is he fears that passersby may interrupt him, rather then entering into the ruin. 'A short tefillah' -- this is not absolutely short, for behold they only permitted this because of wild animals and robbers. Rather, havineinu; or the beginning and end of each bracha [of Shmoneh Esrei], as is explained in perek Tefillat HaShachar [29b].


Even in a place where there is no worry [of suspicion] such as if there are two who are decent people known for their fear of sin, he needs to take care not to enter the ruin because of fear of falling debris, and so too from fear of anything which would be a concern for danger due to his entering there."


That last (bolded) phrase certainly seems to me to be a dance around the word mazikin as demons; yet he clearly does take to heart, and to halacha, the gemara and brayta's concern."

Though I am not at all convinced that this was the intent of the brayta and gemara, one can generalize from mazikin, or even take mazikin not as demons/evil spirits, but as harmful entities of any sort. Consider the Biblical discussions of seirim, taken as demons. E.g. Yeshaya 13:

יט  וְהָיְתָה בָבֶל צְבִי מַמְלָכוֹת, תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּאוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים, כְּמַהְפֵּכַת אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-סְדֹם וְאֶת-עֲמֹרָה.19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans' pride, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
כ  לֹא-תֵשֵׁב לָנֶצַח, וְלֹא תִשְׁכֹּן עַד-דּוֹר וָדוֹר; וְלֹא-יַהֵל שָׁם עֲרָבִי, וְרֹעִים לֹא-יַרְבִּצוּ שָׁם.20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
כא  וְרָבְצוּ-שָׁם צִיִּים, וּמָלְאוּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִים; וְשָׁכְנוּ שָׁם בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה, וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ-שָׁם.21 But wild-cats shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of ferrets; and ostriches shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
כב  וְעָנָה אִיִּים בְּאַלְמְנוֹתָיו, וְתַנִּים בְּהֵיכְלֵי עֹנֶג; וְקָרוֹב לָבוֹא עִתָּהּ, וְיָמֶיהָ לֹא יִמָּשֵׁכוּ.22 And jackals shall howl in their castles, and wild-dogs in the pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.


We see all sorts of animals in abandoned buildings. And even if we feel compelled to take reference to seirim to mean that they must exist, seirim does not need to mean demons. Malbim indeed takes it as sheidim, writing:

ושעירים -
הם השדים, כמו לשעירים אשר הם זונים אחריהם, ונקראו כן, לפי שהם נראים כדמות שעירים למאמין בהם.

וכן תרגם יונתן: 

ושידין יחייכון תמן.


Ibn Ezra, who does not believe in sheidim, seems to say (if I understand him correctly) that they are animals similar in form to sheidim. Thus, he writes on the pasuk that they are: כדמות שדים והם שעירים ברים.

A note of caution. Disbelief in sheidim may be hazardous to your health. Consider what happened to Ibn Ezra, according to the testimony of Rabbi Moshe Taku:



"Ibn Ezra wrote in his book," he says, "'Of a surety there are no demons in the world!' .Verily he erred in this matter, for they were ever at his side . . . and indeed they proved their existence to at him. I have heard from the people of Iglant [England?], where he died, that once when he was travelling through a forest he came upon a large band of black dogs who glared at him balefully; undoubtedly these were demons. When he had finally passed through their midst he fell seriously ill, and eventually he died of that illness."