Berachoth, Chapter 4, Halacha 1

Unit 5: Replacing a missed prayer?

The previous unit cited Rabbi Yochanan that a quasi-replacement could be made for a missed prayer.

Now the Babylonian Talmud will probe that further:

 
מֵתִיבִי:

He challenges:

Ecclesiastes 1:15
מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן, וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת.
“What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be enumerated”
 
הָא כֵּיצַד מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקֹן? זֶה שֶׁבִּטֵּל קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל עַרְבִית, אוֹ קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל עַרְבִית, אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל מִנְחָה. וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת? זֶה שֶׁנִּמְנוּ חֲבֵרָיו לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וְהוּא לֹא נִמְנָה עִמָּהֶם.
How is it that what is crooked cannot be made straight? This is he who nullified the [recitation of the] evening Shema, or morning Shema, or evening prayer, or morning prayer, or afternoon prayer. “And what is lacking cannot be enumerated”? This is he whose friends were counted for a mitzvah, and he was not counted with them.

The quote from Ecclesiastes is curious: what kinds of things cannot be fixed once broken, or replaced once missing? One possible suggestion is that Ecclesiastes' first clause refers to missing the recitation of the Shema or prayer in its proper time, while the latter clause refers to someone who missed performing a group mitzvah.

If that is the case, how could Rabbi Yochanan have said in the previous unit that one can pray what is essentially a replacement prayer at a later time? His statement is challenged by the explanation of the verse from Ecclesiastes.

The Babylonian Talmud continues:

 
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָכָא בְמַאי עֲסִיקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁבִּטֵּל בְּמֵזִיד.
Rav Huna bar Yehudah said, that Rabbi Yitzchak said, that Rabbi Yochanan said: What are we dealing with here? For example, he nullified on purpose.
 
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי "בִּטֵּל" וְלָא קָתָנֵי "טָעָה" — שְׁמַע מִנָּה.
Rav Ashi said: This is also precise, for he taught “who nullified” and did not teach “who erred” — infer from this.

We now learn that Rabbi Yochanan’s statement about a quasi-replacement prayer applies to one who missed the prayer by accident; whereas the verse from Ecclesiastes refers to those who intentionally fail to recite the Shema or pray.

Rav Ashi teaches us to observe the precise nuance of the wording in this explanation of the verse from Ecclesiastes. It says “who nullified,” and does not refer to someone who made a mistake. From this we can deduce that one who merely erred can still recite a quasi-replacement prayer.

 

Next Unit


Extra Material