Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:11-109:1

Hook

Imagine standing at the edge of a vast, ancient ocean, the salt spray on your face, the rhythmic crash of waves a constant reminder of time’s passage. Before you lies the boundless sea of Jewish tradition, a heritage of law, ritual, and collective memory stretching back millennia. And within this ocean, we find a seemingly small, yet profoundly significant, island of discourse: the intricate rules surrounding missed prayers and their make-ups, as codified in the Shulchan Arukh. This isn't just about punctuality or religious obligation; it's about navigating the currents of human fallibility, the unpredictability of life, and the enduring hope for continuity and connection. How do we, as individuals and as a people, grapple with moments of missed connection, with the "what ifs" and "if onlys"? The laws of Tefillah B'racha, the prayer of make-up, offer us a compelling lens through which to explore these universal human experiences, and, crucially, how they resonate with the ongoing narrative of Zionism and the modern State of Israel.

Text Snapshot

"If one erred or was forced [by circumstance] and did not pray the morning prayer, one should pray the afternoon prayer twice: the first is the afternoon prayer, and the second as a make-up. If one inverted [the order], one has not fulfilled one obligation in prayer for the prayer which is a make-up, and one needs to go back and pray it [again]. And the same law applies in every case in which one must pray a make-up prayer.

If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer, one should pray the evening prayer twice: the first is for the evening prayer, and the second is for the make-up.

[This statement] that one can complete [i.e. make-up] the [Amidah] prayer that one missed applies specifically during the time of [the next Amidah] prayer, but when it is not the time of [that next Amidah] prayer, one may not.

There are no make-up prayers other than the immediately adjoining [i.e. preceding] prayer alone; so that if one erred and did not pray the morning prayer and [also] the afternoon prayer, one [only] prays the evening prayer twice [with] the latter prayer as a make-up for the afternoon prayer, but for the morning prayer there is no make-up; and the same goes for all the rest of the prayers.

Even though there are no make-up prayers other than for the prayer immediately adjoining that prayer, and (other) prayers that one missed [i.e. one skipped two or more as mentioned above] do not have a make-up; if one wants to pray that one [i.e. the one that cannot be make-up anymore] as a voluntary prayer and one will innovate something [new] into it, one is allowed to and it is proper to do so.

If it was on purpose and one did not pray [an Amidah], there is no make-up for it. Even at the prayer that is immediately adjoining it. And if one wanted, one may pray it as a voluntary prayer and one does need an innovation of something new [in it] if one prayed it at the prayer time immediately adjoining it."

Context

Date

The Shulchan Arukh, compiled by Rabbi Yosef Karo in the 16th century, represents a monumental effort to codify Jewish law, drawing from centuries of Talmudic and post-Talmudic discussion. Orach Chayim, the section we are examining, specifically deals with the daily laws of life. While the text itself is from the 16th century, the discussions it synthesizes and the laws it codifies reach back to the Mishnah and Talmud.

Actor

Rabbi Yosef Karo, the primary author of the Shulchan Arukh, was a Sephardic sage who lived in Safed. He aimed to create a clear and authoritative code of Jewish law for all Jewish communities. The commentaries we've reviewed – Turei Zahav, Magen Avraham, Ba'er Hetev, and Mishnah Berurah – are from later Ashkenazic authorities, further demonstrating the ongoing dialogue and refinement of these laws across different Jewish traditions.

Aim

The Shulchan Arukh's aim was to provide a comprehensive and accessible guide to Jewish observance. Regarding the laws of prayer, the aim is to ensure that individuals can fulfill their obligations, even when faced with errors, extenuating circumstances, or intentional omissions. The rules surrounding make-up prayers are designed to offer pathways for repair and continuity, acknowledging the realities of human life while upholding the sanctity of prayer.

Two Readings

The Shulchan Arukh’s intricate regulations concerning missed prayers and the concept of make-up prayers (Tefillah B'racha) can be understood through at least two primary interpretative lenses, each offering a distinct perspective on the underlying principles at play. These readings, while not mutually exclusive, highlight different facets of the Jewish legal and theological approach to missed obligations.

Reading 1: The Covenantal Imperative of Continuity and Repair

This reading frames the laws of Tefillah B'racha through the lens of a covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and God. The daily prayers, particularly the Amidah, are not merely rituals but vital expressions of this covenantal bond, a continuous dialogue of praise, petition, and thanksgiving. When an individual misses a prayer, it is seen as a rupture, however unintentional, in this ongoing conversation. The concept of a make-up prayer, therefore, is not simply a logistical solution but a profound act of teshuvah – return or repentance – and a reassertion of commitment to the covenant.

1. The Structure of Time and Divine Presence: The division of the day into distinct prayer times – Shacharit (morning), Mincha (afternoon), and Ma'ariv (evening) – is not arbitrary. It reflects a divinely ordained rhythm, an invitation to encounter the Divine presence at specific moments. Missing a prayer is akin to missing an appointment with the Divine. The Shulchan Arukh's rule that make-up prayers are only permissible during the time of the next prayer underscores this: the opportunity for repair is intrinsically linked to the subsequent divinely appointed time. It suggests that continuity is key. The morning prayer’s missed obligation can be addressed during the afternoon; the afternoon’s during the evening. This creates a structured flow, a system of checks and balances designed to prevent the complete disintegration of the prayer obligation. The commentary by Turei Zahav and Mishnah Berurah on the make-up prayer for Shabbat evening prayer illustrates this: "If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer on the eve of Shabbat, one should pray the evening prayer [i.e. Shabbat Amidah] twice: the first is for the evening prayer, and the second is the make-up [for the afternoon prayer]." This demonstrates a deep concern for ensuring that no specific prayer obligation is left permanently unmet, emphasizing the continuous nature of our engagement with the divine.

2. The Nature of the "Rupture" and the "Repair": The distinction between unintentional missed prayers (due to error, coercion, or extenuating circumstances) and intentional omissions is crucial. The text states unequivocally: "If it was on purpose and one did not pray [an Amidah], there is no make-up for it." This highlights that the make-up prayer is a mechanism for repair and re-engagement within the covenantal framework. It presupposes a desire to be connected. For those who intentionally miss prayer, the pathway to reconnection is not through a simple make-up but through a more profound process of teshuvah, potentially involving a voluntary prayer with added elements ("one will innovate something [new] into it"). This suggests that intentional absence carries a different weight, one that requires a more deliberate and perhaps personal act of recommitment. The commentaries here are particularly illuminating. Magen Avraham on 108:16 notes that if Rosh Chodesh falls on the eve of Shabbat, and one missed the afternoon prayer, the evening prayer is recited twice, with the second serving as a make-up. This highlights the layered nature of obligations and the system's capacity to address missed components, such as the special Ya'aleh V'yavo insertion for Rosh Chodesh. The Ba'er Hetev on 108:16 further clarifies this, stating that if one misses the Ya'aleh V'yavo in the first prayer but remembers it in the make-up prayer, they are covered. This demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of how the system of make-up prayers can, in fact, restore the full observance of the obligation.

3. The Significance of Adjacency and Succession: The rule that make-ups are generally limited to the "immediately adjoining prayer" is a powerful statement about the structure of covenantal observance. It emphasizes the flow and succession of divine appointments. Missing two consecutive prayers (morning and afternoon) results in the morning prayer having no direct make-up. This is not a punitive measure but a reflection of the covenantal rhythm. The missed morning prayer represents a more significant break in the dialogue. However, even in such cases, the text offers a path: "if one wants to pray that one [i.e. the one that cannot be make-up anymore] as a voluntary prayer and one will innovate something [new] into it, one is allowed to and it is proper to do so." This provision for voluntary prayer, with the added element of innovation, underscores that even when the prescribed make-up is not possible, the door to reconnecting with the divine remains open, albeit through a more personalized and perhaps effortful route. It speaks to the enduring nature of the covenantal relationship, which always seeks to draw the individual back into its embrace. The commentaries, such as the Turei Zahav on 108:11, wrestle with this: "Some Sages were of the opinion that one does not need to pray again for this, as one has already prayed the Amidah, only that one forgot the Shabbat [addition]. And when one completes the Amidah prayer and does not mention the Shabbat, what is gained by this make-up? But the Sages of Provence were of the opinion that the Amidah prayer that one prayed without the Shabbat mention is as if one did not pray at all, because one did not do it according to the law." This debate reveals the deep concern for fulfilling the spirit of the covenant, not just the letter, and the various approaches to achieving that fulfillment.

4. The Role of Extenuating Circumstances: The text explicitly recognizes that life’s circumstances can interfere with prayer. Monetary needs, being drunk, or being forced by external pressures are listed as extenuating circumstances that do allow for make-up prayers. This demonstrates a compassionate understanding of human frailty within the covenant. The covenant is not meant to be a rigid, unyielding structure that crushes the individual, but a guiding framework that accommodates the realities of human existence. The gloss from T'rumat Ha'deshen cautions, "From the outset, one should not let the prayer time pass because of monetary loss." This reinforces that while compassion exists, the ideal is to prioritize the covenantal obligations as much as possible. This tension between ideal observance and lived reality is a constant theme in Jewish law and theology, and the rules of make-up prayer are a prime example of how this tension is navigated. The Mishnah Berurah on 108:33 explains that a make-up prayer should ideally be conditional, a prayer offered "in the form of a voluntary offering (nedavah)." This nuanced approach ensures that the prayer is offered as a gesture of commitment, acknowledging the potential obligation without definitively assuming it if the initial obligation was indeed fulfilled.

This covenantal reading emphasizes that the laws of make-up prayer are about preserving the sacred dialogue, about ensuring that the threads of connection are not permanently severed, and that every individual has pathways to re-engage with their divine obligations, even after moments of lapse. It is about the enduring commitment to the People of Israel and their relationship with God, a commitment that seeks to mend and restore.

Reading 2: The Civic Imperative of Shared Responsibility and Collective Performance

This reading interprets the laws of Tefillah B'racha through the lens of a civic community, where prayer is not solely an individual act of devotion but a crucial element of collective life and shared responsibility. In this view, the synagogue is a public space, and prayer, especially when performed communally, reinforces social bonds, establishes shared norms, and contributes to the collective well-being of the community. The rules governing prayer and make-ups reflect the needs of a structured society, where adherence to established practices is essential for communal cohesion and effective function.

1. The Synagogue as a Public Square: The second section of the provided text, focusing on "How An Individual Should Conduct Themselves In Order To Focus Their Prayer [Together] With The Congregation," directly addresses the civic dimension of prayer. The synagogue is presented as a shared space where individuals must navigate their personal observance in relation to the collective. The rules about when to pray and when to wait ("if one is able to start and finish [one's Amidah] before the prayer leader arrives at Kedushah...") are not merely about personal piety but about maintaining the integrity of the communal prayer experience. The aim is to allow individuals to fulfill their obligation without disrupting the congregation's rhythm. This echoes the idea of civic duty – contributing to the smooth functioning of the community. The commentary on answering "Amen" to blessings, likening it to responding to Kaddish and Kedushah, further emphasizes the communal aspect. These are shared pronouncements that bind the community together.

2. The Importance of Synchronicity and Shared Experience: The detailed instructions on how an individual praying alone should synchronize their Amidah with the prayer leader, particularly regarding Kedushah and Modim, highlight the civic value placed on shared experience. The goal is to "bow with [the prayer leader]" and to recite parts of the prayer "word by word." This is not just about individual spiritual fulfillment; it is about participating in a collective act of worship that strengthens the sense of belonging and shared identity. The commentary about not saying "Kadosh Kadosh..." with the congregation when they are reciting Kedushah D'Sidrah demonstrates a concern for maintaining distinct communal roles and understandings, while still valuing the principle of "one who heard is like one who responded." This indicates a sophisticated understanding of how to integrate individual practice within a communal framework. The underlying principle is that shared prayer creates shared meaning and strengthens the fabric of the community.

3. The "Make-Up" as a Mechanism for Social Reintegration: From a civic perspective, the make-up prayer can be seen as a mechanism for social reintegration. When an individual misses a prayer, they are momentarily outside the rhythm of the community. The make-up prayer offers a structured way to rejoin that rhythm. The strictures around when a make-up can be performed and what it entails serve to reinforce the established order. The fact that intentional omissions are not afforded make-ups can be understood as a civic statement: deliberate disengagement from communal practice has consequences for one's standing within the community. The commentary from Turei Zahav and Mishnah Berurah, discussing the need for a voluntary prayer with an innovation if a make-up is not possible, can be seen as a civic path for re-engagement. It requires an individual to demonstrate renewed commitment and initiative, thus reaffirming their place within the civic order. This isn't about divine judgment; it's about community responsibility.

4. The Role of Law in Maintaining Social Order: The entire edifice of Jewish law, including the detailed rules of prayer, can be viewed as a framework for maintaining social order. The Shulchan Arukh, in codifying these laws, provides a common set of expectations and procedures for all members of the community. The rules about prayer times and make-ups ensure a predictable and organized approach to a fundamental aspect of communal life. The distinction between errors and intentional omissions, and the varying consequences, reflects a society that values both order and individual accountability. The commentaries, by debating and clarifying these laws, demonstrate the ongoing civic dialogue that keeps the community’s practices relevant and functional. For example, the discussion in the commentaries about whether a prayer without the proper Shabbat mention truly counts as having been prayed highlights the communal agreement on what constitutes valid observance. If a prayer is deemed invalid by communal standards, then a make-up or a voluntary prayer with innovation is necessary to restore the individual's standing within the shared practice.

This civic reading emphasizes that the laws of make-up prayer are about preserving the integrity of the community, ensuring shared norms, and facilitating the smooth functioning of collective life. It is about the responsibility each member has to the whole, and how the structure of religious observance underpins the social fabric.

Civic Move

The exploration of Tefillah B'racha within the Shulchan Arukh, and its connection to the broader themes of continuity, responsibility, and communal life, offers a powerful framework for engaging with the complexities of Zionism and the modern State of Israel. The very act of establishing a modern Jewish state, after centuries of dispersion and vulnerability, can be seen as a monumental attempt to create a collective "make-up" for historical ruptures. However, the challenges and tensions within Israel today often stem from differing interpretations of what constitutes that make-up, and for whom.

Therefore, the civic move we propose is the establishment of "Covenantal Conversations: Bridging Divides in the Israeli Public Square."

This initiative would be a structured, facilitated dialogue program designed to bring together diverse voices within Israeli society – secular and religious, Ashkenazi and Sephardi, Mizrahi and Ethiopian, Left and Right, settlers and those living within the Green Line, those who have served in the IDF and those who have been exempt – to discuss core national issues through the lens of shared responsibility and historical continuity, drawing inspiration from the very principles we've examined.

Here's how it would function:

1. The "Prayer Time" of National Discourse: Identifying Shared Moments of Responsibility

Just as the Shulchan Arukh designates specific prayer times, this program would identify key national moments and symbols that, while currently divisive, represent opportunities for collective engagement. These could include:

• Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day): Moving beyond the act of remembrance to a discussion about collective responsibility for ensuring such an event never happens again, and how the existence of Israel is a testament to that commitment, while also acknowledging the ongoing trauma and the need for healing.
• Yom HaZikaron (Memorial Day for Fallen Soldiers) and Yom HaAtzmaut (Independence Day): Facilitating conversations about the sacrifices made for the state, the cost of security, and the ongoing debate about the nature of the state we are building. This would involve grappling with the absence of a recognized memorial day for Palestinian casualties of the conflict, and how to foster a shared sense of loss and memory, even amidst profound disagreement.
• Shabbat and Holidays: Using the rhythm of Jewish time as a framework for understanding differing approaches to secularism and religious observance in public life. Discussions could explore how to accommodate diverse needs and traditions within a shared national calendar, drawing parallels to the Tefillah B'racha rules that allow for make-ups and voluntary prayers.
• The Concept of "Extenuating Circumstances" in Policy Debates: Examining how contemporary social and economic challenges (e.g., poverty, integration of new immigrants, the occupation) are perceived and addressed within Israeli society. This would involve allowing participants to articulate their "extenuating circumstances" and how these shape their perspectives on policy, fostering empathy and understanding.

2. "Make-Up Prayers" for National Discourse: Repairing Ruptures in Shared Memory and Identity

Inspired by the Shulchan Arukh's approach to make-up prayers, the "Covenantal Conversations" would aim to facilitate a form of national "repair" for historical ruptures and ongoing disagreements.

• Structured Dialogue Sessions: Facilitated dialogues would provide a safe space for individuals to express their perspectives, listen to others, and explore areas of common ground. The emphasis would be on understanding, not necessarily on immediate agreement.
• "Voluntary Prayers with Innovation": Just as the Shulchan Arukh allows for voluntary prayer with an innovation when a direct make-up is not possible, this initiative would encourage participants to propose novel solutions and shared initiatives that go beyond existing paradigms. This could involve joint community projects, educational exchanges, or collaborative cultural endeavors.
• Addressing "Intentional Omissions": Recognizing that some historical narratives or grievances may have been deliberately sidelined or ignored, the program would create opportunities to bring these to the fore, not as accusations, but as necessary steps towards a more inclusive and honest national discourse. This would involve acknowledging the pain and the "cost" of such omissions.
• Focus on "Adjoining Prayers" – Incremental Steps: The Shulchan Arukh’s emphasis on the "immediately adjoining prayer" for make-ups suggests a preference for incremental repair rather than grand, unattainable gestures. Similarly, "Covenantal Conversations" would focus on achievable, step-by-step initiatives that build trust and understanding, rather than attempting to solve all national problems at once.

3. "Civic Moves" for Collective Responsibility: Building a Shared Future

Drawing on the civic implications of the Shulchan Arukh's laws, this initiative would translate dialogue into tangible actions that foster collective responsibility.

• Developing Shared Narratives: Encouraging the creation of educational materials and public art projects that incorporate diverse historical perspectives and acknowledge the complexities of Israeli society. This would be akin to a collective Ya'aleh V'yavo – a shared remembrance of crucial elements of our collective identity.
• Cross-Communal Service Projects: Organizing joint volunteer efforts that address shared societal needs, such as environmental protection, support for the elderly, or educational initiatives in underserved communities. These projects would embody the principle of shared responsibility.
• "Innovation in Public Square" Grants: Establishing a fund to support innovative projects that promote intergroup understanding and address societal challenges, encouraging participants from the dialogues to translate their ideas into action.
• Promoting Media Literacy and Responsible Discourse: Developing workshops and public awareness campaigns on how to engage in respectful and informed public discourse, countering the polarization and sensationalism that often characterize national conversations. This would be a civic act of ensuring the "integrity of the prayer" of public discourse.

The Ultimate Aim:

"Covenantal Conversations: Bridging Divides in the Israeli Public Square" would aim to foster a more resilient, inclusive, and hopeful Israeli society. By drawing on the rich tradition of Jewish law – its emphasis on continuity, repair, and communal responsibility – we can create spaces for genuine dialogue, acknowledge our shared humanity and our shared destiny, and actively work towards building a future that honors the complexity of our past and the aspirations of all its people. Just as the laws of Tefillah B'racha offer a path back to connection, so too can structured, empathetic dialogue offer a path towards healing and strengthening the collective soul of Israel.

Takeaway

The Shulchan Arukh's detailed laws on make-up prayers, seemingly a niche aspect of Jewish observance, offer a profound metaphor for navigating the challenges of human fallibility and the ongoing work of building and maintaining a collective destiny. Whether viewed through the lens of a covenantal imperative for continuity and repair, emphasizing our sacred relationship with the Divine and the need for constant return, or through a civic imperative for shared responsibility and collective performance, highlighting the importance of social cohesion and communal norms, these laws underscore a universal principle: lapses occur, but the commitment to repair and re-engagement is what defines us.

For us, wrestling with the ongoing narrative of Zionism and the modern State of Israel, this tradition provides not just historical precedent, but a living blueprint for action. The establishment of Israel itself was a monumental act of "make-up" for centuries of statelessness and persecution. Yet, the challenges we face today – internal divisions, the complexities of co-existence, the struggle to define our national identity – require us to continuously engage in the work of repair and re-engagement.

The "Covenantal Conversations" initiative proposed is more than just a program; it’s a commitment to applying these ancient principles to contemporary challenges. It's about recognizing that just as missed prayers can be addressed through structured pathways, so too can national ruptures be bridged through empathetic dialogue and a shared commitment to collective responsibility. It calls us to move beyond static positions and to actively seek opportunities for understanding, for repair, and for building a future where the diverse voices of the Israeli people can resonate in harmony, strengthening the fabric of our shared existence. The hope, and the responsibility, lies in our willingness to engage in these vital conversations, to learn from our past, and to actively shape a more unified and hopeful future.