Only when he goes early to his door etc. The sages of Provence said that even when going early to his door, it is only forbidden when one mentions "shalom" (peace) to him, because God's name is Shalom, as we will say later. But it is permitted to say to him "good morning" in another language, since he does not mention "shalom" to him. However, it seems to my teacher that even this is only permitted when he needs to go see to some business matter or for some other purpose. But if he is only going to greet him before prayer, even this language is forbidden.

Mishnah: These are the breaks between sections etc. R' Yehuda says: Between "VaYomer" and "Emet VeYatziv" one should not interrupt. Some explain that "should not interrupt" means like between one section and another—that he does not ask out of respect and does not answer anyone. But he interrupts as in the middle of other sections, asking out of fear and answering out of respect. The correct interpretation, as the rabbis of France explained, is that he does not interrupt at all. Rather, immediately after saying "I am the Lord your God," he should say "Emet" (True), as we find it in the verse, as explained in the Gemara. After he says "Emet," if he needs to ask out of fear or answer out of respect, he may interrupt as in the middle of other sections.

Gemara: He repeats and says Emet. That is, whenever he interrupted out of fear or respect after saying "Emet," or for instance when he finished the Shema before the cantor and connected "I am the Lord your God" with "Emet" and waits for the cantor to begin and say it with him—does he need to repeat "Emet" again or not? The law is that he does not need to repeat "Emet" again, but rather begins from "VeYatziv" onwards or from the place where he interrupted.

Mishnah: R' Yehoshua ben Korcha said: Why does "Shema" come first etc.

Gemara: Whoever reads the Shema without tefillin is as if he testifies false testimony about himself etc. R' Chiya bar Abba said in the name of R' Yochanan: It is as if he offered a thanksgiving offering without its meal offering, and a sacrifice without its libations. The correct explanation is this: Ulla holds that since he recites "and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes" but does not put them on, he is found to be testifying false testimony about himself, for what he says is not true. Even though he fulfilled the commandment by discharging his obligation of reciting Shema, he nevertheless transgressed from another angle—that he testified false testimony about himself. R' Yochanan holds that even the commandment itself is not done completely, since he did not accept upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, for it is like one who offers a thanksgiving offering without its meal offering, since he recites without accepting the Kingdom of Heaven—from the mouth of my teacher.

One who wishes to accept upon himself the complete yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven etc. The reason for this is that with the tefillin on the head, a person subjugates to the Blessed Creator the soul that is in the brain, and with the tefillin on the arm, a person subjugates his body. Therefore they commanded to place them opposite the heart, for the heart is the source of desires and thoughts. Through this he will remember the Creator and diminish his pleasures. With the mezuzah, a person subjugates his property. However, they did not mention the mezuzah here because its commandment is fulfilled at another time. When he recites the Shema and prays in a manner that subjugates to Him his soul and his body—this is complete Kingdom of Heaven. From the fact that it says "and prays," it implies that also during prayer he must pray with tefillin on his head.

R' Yitzchak bar Yehuda, the teacher of Rashi, ruled that if the tallit was not available to a person before he began reciting the Shema, and they brought it to him while he was reciting—he interrupts, recites the blessing, wraps himself in his tallit, returns and completes, and prays. He brought proof from what is said in the Gemara: "Rav recited the Shema, put on tefillin, and prayed," and we say there that "the messenger delayed"—meaning the messenger was negligent and did not bring the tefillin at first, and therefore he put them on after he recited the Shema and prayed with them. He would say that just as we find this regarding tefillin, so is the law regarding tzitzit. But the rabbis of France did not agree with him, because one cannot compare tzitzit to tefillin. For tefillin—since it is an obligation to pray with them, as stated above—he interrupts. But the commandment of tzitzit, which is only an obligation of the garment, he should not interrupt in the blessings of the Shema in order to wrap himself, bless, and pray with tzitzit.

Rav Chisda cursed one who searches for water at the time of prayer." The Rif wrote: This applies to the Shema, but for prayer one must search. This is found in some books of the Gemara. The rabbis of France say that they do not have this text, and it is merely an interpretation that was inserted into the books of the early Geonim and is not correct. For the term "tzluta" (prayer) implies prayer more than Shema—so what reason is there to take the word out of its meaning and interpret "tzluta" to mean Shema and not prayer? Therefore they explain that it is forbidden both for prayer and for Shema. If you find difficult that which we learn in Pesachim regarding kneading, prayer, and washing—four mil—implying that he goes back four mil in order to wash his hands to pray: Rashi already answered this, that it does not mean washing his hands for prayer as they suppose. Rather, this is the interpretation: One who eats non-sacred food in purity should walk to one whom he knows kneads them in purity—four mil. Similarly, if he knows he will find in the synagogue where they pray with ten, he should go there and extend four mil. Similarly, "for washing" means for the purpose of a meal. We checked accurate manuscripts and found they did not include all this, nor did they include "at the time of prayer," but rather they had this text: "Rav Chisda cursed one who searches for water, and this applies at the time of Shema," implying that he came only to teach us the law of time alone—that once the time arrives, he should not go back for water, neither for prayer nor for Shema. The reason of the early authorities who said for Shema he does not go back but for prayer he does go back is because they hold that since Shema is biblical and prayer is rabbinic, they were stringent with it lest the time pass. This ruling is not correct for the reasons we wrote—from the mouth of my teacher.