Prayer without intention

My point was that I knew for sure that I would not be able to direct with words at all.
Although it is not the case with Kerem Elai, the Maimonides ruled that if he finds his mind disturbed and his heart troubled, “he should not pray.” I will copy the halacha (P.D. 15):
“Any prayer that is not intentional is not prayer; and if he prayed unintentionally, he should return and pray intentionally. If he finds his mind disturbed and his heart troubled, he is forbidden to pray until his mind settles down.” (Why not? “Try!”). And in the 17th chapter: How is the intention (which supposedly prevents) that he should turn his heart away from all thoughts and see himself as if standing before the Divine Presence?
All of this is in practice, explicitly, without much room for debate. I know that Maran ruled similarly to him regarding the matter of repetition (the opinion of the Rema that it is repeated, but perhaps he too did not speak of praying without intention from the outset but in retrospect). Does this mean that Maran believes the above ruling with all its baggage in practice? If so, then whoever has a “defective opinion” that we all have the same opinion, is prohibited from praying.
Therefore, it is not similar to R’I’ai’s Mimra, because he spoke of a person who wants to commit a sin, and it is clear that we cannot rule like him and permit him. Here, praying without intention is the sin!

And regarding the fear of ”abolishing the commandment of prayer”, I agree that this is the explanation at the basis of the renewal of the Torah, but the Maimonides and their followers undoubtedly disagreed on this because there are no reservations in their ruling. The Shul requires returning and praying to those who did not direct.
So if we do not unify the sources, at least I have Maran (although I am Ashkenazi..) to rely on. Certainly in extreme cases of prayer that is all disgrace and meaningless mumbling.

In the 2nd 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

To David, my dear uncles and uncles, by Ezekiel,

A rule from the Talmud that if one can concentrate on the first blessing, he should pray, and it is a two-minute effort.

There is a good chance that if you catch yourself and concentrate on the first blessing, you will continue with intention, and if not throughout the prayer, then with the closing blessings and the blessing of Modim.

Remember, crises pass, but when you get used to overlapping, the habit becomes innate! And the most important thing is to make sure you have regular sleep hours!

With the blessing of ‘May it be a year of vigilance and life’, S.C. Levinger

In the Baraita of Blessings 44,2, “And if he cannot bless with all of them, he should bless with one.” And Rabbi Chiya explained: “With the ancestors,” and he ruled similarly in the Shulchan Orch 10:1.

And I extended the issue in my response, “The First Ones?! The Gemara!” (Ramdat 1, from the day of Tammuz, column 77, and in my responses there later.

With blessings, S.C. Levinger:

To the Rashi
Thanks for the advice, I will try to implement it. I suppose that if I know in retrospect that it is enough to direct in the first blessing, it is much easier.
For us, in the Shul's ruling there is still room for discussion because he ruled the above-mentioned gemal only in retrospect for those who prayed and did not direct. There is no explicit source that permitted praying this way to begin with. On the contrary, in the sign (cha) he ruled not to stand to pray neither out of law nor out of halacha fiddling, and even the Rema did not disagree with this halacha (and although the Rabbi wrote that he should not direct when he misses prayer time, the Maran himself did not reserve this, perhaps he believed that in such a situation he would not be able to direct even in the first blessing).
Even what Rabbi Michi links between the exemption from repeating the prayer for someone who did not direct, and the permission to pray in this way from the beginning, needs a source and is not necessary at all (I can argue that their understanding is the opposite, that they did not want to multiply the prayers that a person prays without directing). However, Chazinen Dharmala ruled that Tarvihu: He may not pray out of necessity, and he may not repeat if he has already prayed and did not direct.
The above baraita also did not permit someone who cannot recite the blessing in one go.

The language of the Shulchan Ar-Rahman:
The person praying must be mindful of all the blessings,
and if he is unable to be mindful of all of them, he should be mindful of the Avos.

He explained in his commentary on the Halacha:
This language means that even initially it is permissible to stand to pray, since he is a forced man who cannot settle his mind [in all the blessings except the first. Sh’al] and so does the meaning of the Yishna Devarita *)

Regarding a person who has prayed, if he returns when he has not been mindful, the Shulchan Ar-Rahman (ibid.) wrote:
And if he has not been mindful of the Avos, even though he has been mindful of all the rest, he should return and pray.

Regarding this, the Rem’A wrote that they did not practice returning due to lack of intention, fearing that they would not repeat even in the second prayer, and the Sephardic poskim (such as ‘Kaf HaChayim’ and ’Yalkut Yosef’) wrote that the Sephardim also do not practice returning due to lack of intention.

With blessings, S.C. Levinger

*)
According to the M’B, even in our time, if one cannot recite the Avos – one should not stand to pray. On the other hand, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky (cited in ’Ashei Yisrael) wrote that they used to stand to pray even if one did not recite the Avos (and so instructed in ’Yalkut Yosef’). For the record, today, when everyone has siddurs in their hands – It is very rare for a situation not to be able to direct in the 'ancestors'.

If I accept it, I will.
The question is what is the value for me in such a prayer. In our degraded generation, God simply accepts what is possible. But isn't that turning prayer into a "one-sided position"?
I write this because I know that many others "suffer" spiritually from the problem.
I can testify that sometimes I try, for example, to combine and add various personal requests in my own language within the blessings. But it requires a real mental and even physical investment from me, and I don't always have the strength and "emotion" to do it. Maybe that's how prayer should look, I don't know.

I have already explained my opinion on Maimonides and will not repeat it again.
Obviously, if one is intimation in the first blessing, that is enough to pray. I understood that you claim that you are not intimation in the first one either.
The connection to Rabbi Elai is that the halakha does not recognize weaknesses and does not make concessions. Whoever fears weakness should try harder. I did not mean the comparison that this is a transgression. And see the article by Rabbi Elai in the commentary on legends about the forty days before the creation of the new born, which he wrote about when he was a determinist (and in my opinion he is not right in this, and I agree).

In the evening prayer of the Lord's Prayer, 5778

In the order of the Melchiot of Remembrance and Shofar, "Our God and the God of our fathers, be with the two-faced messengers of your people, the house of Israel," the messengers of the public are described in the printed version as standing in front of the Ark of the Covenant in fear.

However, in the cycle of Dr. Godschmidt, the late, the original formula is given: "Standing in front of robbery to fight." In prayer, we stand before the accuser, who wants to weaken us and nullify the value of our good deeds. And the messengers of the public stand before the Lord to defend Israel and to make their rights heard and to ask for mercy for them from the Lord of all.

However, the public emissaries are not enough. They need your people to surround them like a wall, that you, I, and all of us may gather our strength and join the struggle to open our hearts, following which, with the help of God, the gates of heaven will open.

The success of a struggle depends on its starting point. When you look at the great difficulty and panic, you lose in advance. But when you focus on the starting point and succeed in it, success leads to further successes. Did you aim at the ancestors? Try to hold on and aim for a few more blessings. Did you succeed a little today? Tomorrow, by God's grace, you will succeed more!

When you open an opening like the point of a needle, God helps to expand it immeasurably!

With greetings, S.C. Levinger

And regarding our ‘poor generation’ – precisely in the area of being able to focus in prayer, our situation could be better. We all know Hebrew at a native level, and we all have siddurs.

Imagine how difficult it was to focus when the prayer was said orally, and mental concentration on a section of the prayer could completely sever the thread of the prayer's thought, a problem that is exempt from those who have a siddur in front of them, and observe ‘said with the book – his evil thought will return’.

Following on from this question, do the words in the Kash, the Birkat HaMazon, and the Birkats in general also mean the intention of the words for the התחדה? Or is it only in prayer?

In the Kash, the intention is delayed in the first verse, and if it is not directed, one must go back and read. In the rest of the Kash, it is issued retrospectively even if it is not directed.
In the blessing of food and the blessings, there is no intention to delay (retroactively).
(The difference, in my opinion, is that the Kash is the essence of faith - “And these things which I command you today will be upon your heart”, while the blessings are to say “Thank you”, and the custom in the world is that saying thanks is sufficient).

It seems to me that the intention of the words hinders everything that involves speech. Speech without intention is not speech but just a movement of the lips. Although there are different levels of intention (understanding the words, intention of what they say, etc.).

What would be the ruling if you recited some blessing, say the blessings of K”S, and after a few sentences you realized that you were not concentrating and were not paying attention to what you were saying? Should you go back to the last point where you were concentrating? Or should we say that a general intention to fulfill the obligation of reciting the blessings of K”S is useful here?

It is difficult to say anything definitive here. I appreciate that a general intention is useful, especially according to the Rema and the Rishonim, who today do not even intend at the beginning of the standing.