Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4

Sugya Map

• Issue: The laws of tashlumin (make-up prayers) for a missed Amidah, detailing conditions, order, and specific nuances for various scenarios.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The requirement to pray the subsequent Amidah twice, with the second being the tashlumin for the preceding missed prayer.
  • The strict order: tashlumin must follow the current Amidah; inverting invalidates the tashlumin.
  • Limitation: tashlumin is only for the immediately preceding Amidah; one cannot make up multiple missed prayers.
  • Distinction between shogeg (mistake/forced) and meizid (intentional) – meizid generally has no tashlumin.
  • Special cases: Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, Musaf, and tefillat nedavah (voluntary prayer).
  • The role and placement of Ashrei between the two Amidot.
  • The definition of "extenuating circumstance" ( ones ) for tashlumin.
• Primary Sources:
  • Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4.
  • Talmud Bavli, Berachot 26a-b (the foundational source for tashlumin).

Text Snapshot

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4 states:

אם טעה או נאנס ולא התפלל תפלת שחרית, יתפלל מנחה שתים: הראשונה למנחה, והשניה לתשלומין. ואם הפך, לא יצא ידי חובת תפלה זו לתשלומין, וצריך לחזור ולהתפלל. והוא הדין בכל מקום שצריך להתפלל תשלומין. אם טעה ולא התפלל תפלת מנחה, יתפלל ערבית שתים: הראשונה לערבית, והשניה לתשלומין. אם טעה ולא התפלל תפלת ערבית, יתפלל שחרית שתים: הראשונה לשחרית, והשניה לתשלומין. אחר שיאמר יוצר וי"ח יאמר אשרי ואחר כך יתפלל י"ח של תשלומין של ערבית. [וכן כשמתפלל ערבית שתים משום שלא התפלל מנחה יאמר אשרי בין תפלה לתפלה.] [סמ"ק וריב"ש סימן ק"מ]

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. If one erred and did not pray the evening prayer, one should pray the morning prayer (i.e. Amidah) twice: the first for the morning prayer, and the second as a make-up. After one says "Yotzeir" [the blessings of the Recitation of the Sh'ma in the morning prayer] and the Eighteen Blessings (i.e. the Amidah), one should say Ashrei and then afterwards pray the Eighteen Blessings for the make-up evening prayer. [And similarly, when one prays the evening prayer twice because one did not pray the afternoon prayer, one should say Ashrei between one prayer [i.e. Amidah] and [the other] prayer.] [Sefer Mitzvot Katan and the Rivash - Siman 140]

[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 the whole day passed and one did not pray the additional prayer [on Shabbat, Festivals, and Rosh Chodesh], there is no make-up for it.

[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. One who did not pray [the Amidah] while there was still enough time to pray because one supposed that time would still remain for one after one finished whatever thing one was involved in, and between one thing and another, the time passed; and similarly, one who was troubled with monetary needs so that one would not incur a loss, and because of that one lost [one's opportunity] to pray; and similarly someone who is drunk and did not pray. All of these are considered people with extenuating circumstances and they [do] have a [an opportunity for] a make-up. Gloss: From the outset, one should not let the prayer time pass because of monetary loss. [T'rumat Hadeshen - Siman 5] 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]. Gloss: similarly, if one did not pray the afternoon prayer on the eve of Rosh Chodesh [the New Month], one prays the Rosh Chodesh [prayer] twice. And if one did not mention "Ya'aleh V'yavo" [i.e. the insertion for Rosh Chodesh] in the first one, but one mentioned it in the second one, one must go back and pray [again]. But if one did not mention it in both of them, or if one mentioned it in the first but not the second, then one does not need to go back ([based on the] Kol Bo, except for what he wrote regarding saying the Rosh Chodesh prayer twice) If one erred and did not pray the afternoon prayer on Shabbat, one should pray it upon the [immediately after the end of] Shabbat (two weekday prayers); one separates [Shabbat from weekday i.e. the insertion of "ata chonantanu" into the 4th blessing of the Amidah] in the first, but one does not separate in the second. If one did not separate in the first, but separated in the second, the second prayer counts, but the first prayer does not count. If one separated in both of them, or did not separate in either of them, one has fulfilled one's obligation [for both recitations of the Amidah]. If one erred during the afternoon prayer of Shabbat and prayed the Eighteen [i.e. the weekday Amidah] and did not mention Shabbat, [immediately after the end of] Shabbat one prays [the Amidah] twice, and does not separate [Shabbat from weekday - i.e. insert "ata chonantanu"] in the second; and it should be prayed according to the law of a voluntary prayer and there is no need to innovate any [new] thing [into it]. The same applies if one did not mention "Ya-aleh V'yavo" during the afternoon prayer of Rosh Chodesh. One who erred and mentioned something [belonging to] one of the other days [i.e. a passage or insertion from a different occasion] in one's prayer when it was not its time [to say it], it is not considered an interruption. Gloss: if one realizes that one erred, one stops [saying the incorrect passage], even in the middle of the blessing(Ohr Zarua in Tractate B'rachot)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The term "הפך" (inverted) in 108:2 is precise; it refers to praying the tashlumin before the current Amidah, a critical error that invalidates the make-up prayer. The Rema's gloss in 108:3, "וכן כשמתפלל ערבית שתים משום שלא התפלל מנחה יאמר אשרי בין תפלה לתפלה", expands the initial specific instruction for Shacharit-as-tashlumin-for-Arvit to a general rule for any dual Amidah recitation, introducing a fascinating discussion among Acharonim.

Readings

Taz (Turei Zahav) on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:3

The Taz ${^1}$ delves into the rationale behind reciting Ashrei between the two Amidot. The Shulchan Arukh initially specifies Ashrei for the case of making up Arvit during Shacharit (praying Shacharit twice). The Rema's gloss then generalizes this, stating, "וכן כשמתפלל ערבית שתים משום שלא התפלל מנחה יאמר אשרי בין תפלה לתפלה" (And similarly, when one prays Arvit twice because one did not pray Mincha, one should say Ashrei between one prayer and the other).

The Taz asks, "צריך לתת טעם למה דילג בנתיים" (One needs to give a reason why it [Ashrei] was skipped in the interim), referring to the Rema's generalization. He offers a profound sevara: "הטעם כדי לעמוד בכל תפלה מתוך ד"ת" (The reason is to stand for every prayer from words of Torah). This isn't merely a pause; it's a substantive act of hachana (preparation). The recitation of Ashrei provides a brief engagement with divrei Torah (words of Torah), ensuring that the subsequent Amidah – even if it's a tashlumin – is approached with the appropriate solemnity and focus derived from Torah study. This aligns with the Gemara's directive, "אין עומדין להתפלל אלא מתוך כובד ראש" (One should not stand to pray except from a serious frame of mind) ${^2}$.

The Taz then explains why the Rema needed to specify both Shacharit and Arvit cases for Ashrei. He argues that if only the Shacharit case (making up Arvit) was mentioned, one might think Ashrei is said only there because Ashrei is already part of the regular Shacharit liturgy (before "למנצח") and thus it's simply being shifted to before the tashlumin. But for Arvit, where Ashrei is not typically recited, one might conclude it's unnecessary. Therefore, the Rema's explicit mention of Arvit clarifies that the principle of Ashrei for hachana is universal for tashlumin. Conversely, if only Mincha and Arvit were mentioned, one might limit it only to those, but not Shacharit because Ashrei is already part of Shacharit liturgy. Thus, both are needed to establish the general principle.

Magen Avraham on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:3 & 108:4

The Magen Avraham ${^3}$ adds another layer of halachic rigor regarding the tashlumin by addressing the prohibition of eating before the second Amidah. On OC 108:3, concerning praying Shacharit twice (the second for Arvit), he writes: "נ"ל דאסור לאכול קודם שיתפלל השניה" (It appears to me that it is forbidden to eat before one prays the second [Amidah]). He grounds this in the general principle from OC 89 and 232, which forbids eating before one's primary Amidah of the day. Since the tashlumin is now an obligated prayer, it carries the same weight. He qualifies this by adding, "ואם התחיל אינו מפסיק" (And if one started, one does not interrupt), implying that once eating has commenced, the obligation to interrupt is lessened, though the initial prohibition stands.

On OC 108:4, the Magen Avraham ${^4}$ engages with the placement of Tachanun when two Amidot are prayed. The Shulchan Arukh states Ashrei is said between them. The MA infers, "משמע דא"א תחנון עד אחר תפלה השניה דאל"כ ל"ל לאפסוקי באשרי" (It implies that one does not say Tachanun until after the second prayer, for otherwise, why would one need to interrupt with Ashrei?). He argues that if Tachanun were said after the first Amidah, it would be a significant interruption, and the need for Ashrei as a smaller, more spiritual interruption would be moot. This position is shared by the Levush. However, he notes that the L'ch (Lechem Chamudot) disagrees, holding that Tachanun is said after the first Amidah.

This discussion highlights a broader halachic tension: the imperative of semicha (juxtaposition) between the two Amidot versus the desire to perform all parts of the daily liturgy in their proper order. The MA, by delaying Tachanun, prioritizes the semicha of the Amidot, using Ashrei as a minimal, preparatory break rather than a full liturgical interruption.

Mishnah Berurah on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:10

The Mishnah Berurah ${^5}$ returns to the Magen Avraham's point about eating before the second Amidah. He states, "(י) שחרית שתים - ואסור לאכול קודם שיתפלל השניה דהא כבר הגיע זמנה" (One should pray Shacharit twice - and it is forbidden to eat before one prays the second [Amidah], for its time has already arrived). This reiterates the Magen Avraham's ruling, emphasizing that the tashlumin is now a timely obligation.

However, the Mishnah Berurah then introduces a crucial machloket: "אבל בספר מחצית השקל ובספר מגן גבורים הכריעו דאפילו בדיעבד מפסיק משום דצריך להסמיך התפילה השניה להראשונה בכל מה דאפשר" (But in the book Machatzit HaShekel and in the book Magen Giborim, they ruled that even b'dieved [after the fact], one interrupts, because one needs to juxtapose the second prayer to the first as much as possible). This directly contradicts the Magen Avraham's "ואם התחיל אינו מפסיק". The underlying sevara for Machatzit HaShekel and Magen Giborim is the paramount importance of semicha between the two Amidot. Eating, even if already begun, is considered too significant an interruption to maintain the desired proximity. This demonstrates the nuanced balance between avoiding interruption and the practical exigencies of daily life.

Friction

The most potent kushya arises from the Rema's instruction to say Ashrei between the current Amidah and its tashlumin, particularly in light of established customs and other Acharonic opinions. The Rema generalizes the practice, but the Magen Avraham himself, in OC 108:5, introduces a significant counter-tradition:

יאמר אשרי בין כו' . אבל המקובל ר"מ מרקנ"ט הזהיר מאוד שלא לומר אשרי אחר מנחה [ב"ח] ואני בעיני ראיתי ברקנ"ט פ' וירא ופ' קרח שכתב שלא לומר אשרי בערבית ועב"י סי' רל"ד בשם מהררא"י

One should say Ashrei between etc. But the Kabbalist Rabbeinu Menachem Recanati warned strongly not to say Ashrei after Mincha [Bach]. And I myself saw in Recanati, Parshat Vayeira and Parshat Korach, that he wrote not to say Ashrei in Arvit...

This creates a stark tension. The Taz (and Rema) present Ashrei as a general, salutary preparation for any Amidah, fulfilling "מתוך ד"ת". Yet, Rabbeinu Recanati, a significant Kabbalistic authority, "warned strongly" against saying it after Mincha and Arvit. How can we reconcile a seemingly universal principle of hachana with such a severe prohibition from a mekubal? This is not merely a preference but a strong warning against the practice.

Terutz

The Magen Avraham ${^6}$ himself attempts a reconciliation, though it's not without its own complexities. He notes that the common practice on Yom Kippur is to say Ashrei after Mincha, which seems to fly in the face of Recanati's warning. He then offers a brilliant, albeit subtle, distinction:

ונ"ל דשאני יה"כ שהוא ברצון כל היום ומ"מ משמע שם בזוהר דמותר לאומרו שלא אדעת' דחובה

And it appears to me that Yom Kippur is different, as it is a day of ratzon (divine favor/will) all day. And nevertheless, it implies there in the Zohar that it is permitted to say it shelo al da'ata dechova (not with the intention of obligation).

The MA suggests that Recanati's prohibition might only apply when Ashrei is said with the intention of obligation (al da'ata dechova) as part of the formal liturgy. However, if one recites Ashrei shelo al da'ata dechova, i.e., as a personal devotional act or a general study of divrei Torah (as per the Taz's rationale), then it would be permissible. On Yom Kippur, perhaps the unique nature of the day, being "ברצון כל היום", allows for a more flexible interpretation, or it's implicitly understood as shelo al da'ata dechova.

This terutz cleverly distinguishes between the act of saying Ashrei and the intent behind it. The Taz's sevara of "מתוך ד"ת" is fulfilled by the act, regardless of formal obligation. Recanati's warning, then, might be against integrating it into the chovat ha'tefillah itself outside of its prescribed place.

Another significant friction point, though perhaps less profound than the Ashrei debate, is the Magen Avraham's ruling that one should not eat before the tashlumin, but if one started, one does not interrupt ${^7}$. This is explicitly challenged by the Machatzit HaShekel and Magen Giborim, who rule that one must interrupt even b'dieved ${^8}$.

The terutz for this particular friction lies in the relative weight given to different halachic principles. The Magen Avraham likely prioritizes avoiding a hefsed (loss) or tircha (burden) for one who has already begun eating, similar to other cases where an interruption is permitted b'dieved. Machatzit HaShekel and Magen Giborim, however, emphasize the principle of semicha (juxtaposition) between the two Amidot, holding that any significant interruption (like eating) undermines this crucial aspect, necessitating an interruption even after the fact. The semicha principle is so strong that it overrides the consideration for tircha.

Intertext

Berachot 26a-b: The Genesis of Tashlumin

The entire concept of tashlumin finds its genesis in the Gemara in Masechet Berachot. The Gemara ${^9}$ derives the takanah of tashlumin from a Baraisa that states: "תפלות כנגד תמידין תקנום...תפלת ערבית רשות, יצא שבת ויום טוב ור"ח" (Prayers were instituted corresponding to the daily offerings... the evening prayer is optional, except for Shabbat, Yom Tov, and Rosh Chodesh). The Gemara challenges this, citing the ruling of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Yosi ben Zimra that if one misses Mincha, they pray Arvit twice. This implies Arvit is obligatory, as it can compensate for a missed obligatory prayer. The Gemara reconciles this by explaining that Arvit is indeed optional m'ikara (originally), but the Sages made it obligatory due to the institution of tashlumin.

This Gemara is the bedrock upon which SA OC 108:2-4 is built, establishing:

1. The very existence of tashlumin.
2. The principle that a later Amidah can compensate for an earlier missed one.
3. The semicha rule, where the tashlumin must follow the current Amidah. Rabbi Yochanan's statement explicitly says "מתפלל ערבית שתים" (one prays Arvit twice), implying the current Arvit first, then the make-up Mincha.

Berachot 30b: "אין עומדין להתפלל אלא מתוך כובד ראש"

The Gemara in Berachot ${^{10}}$ famously states, "אין עומדין להתפלל אלא מתוך כובד ראש" (One should not stand to pray except from a serious frame of mind). This dictum resonates deeply with the Taz's explanation of Ashrei between the two Amidot. The Taz posits that Ashrei serves "כדי לעמוד בכל תפלה מתוך ד"ת" ${^{11}}$ (to stand for every prayer from words of Torah).

This intertextual link reveals the profound pedagogical and spiritual aim of the Ashrei recitation. It's not a mere filler or a perfunctory pause. Rather, by engaging with the praises of God found in Ashrei (Tehillim 145), one cultivates the necessary koved rosh and yishuv ha'da'at (settled mind) to approach the Amidah with the proper reverence and concentration, even when performing a tashlumin. It ensures that the second Amidah, though a make-up, is still treated as an act of prayer demanding full spiritual presence, not just a mechanical fulfillment of obligation. This is especially poignant for tashlumin, which might otherwise feel like a secondary, less vital prayer.

Psak/Practice

The rulings in Shulchan Arukh 108:2-4, along with the Acharonim, significantly shape contemporary halachic practice regarding missed prayers.

1. Order of Tashlumin: The rule is inviolable: the current Amidah first, then the tashlumin. Inverting this order invalidates the tashlumin ${^{12}}$. This emphasizes the priority of the current, timely obligation.
2. Timing: Tashlumin is only valid during the time of the immediately subsequent Amidah ${^{13}}$. Missed prayers beyond that window cannot be made up as tashlumin, though they may sometimes be prayed as tefillat nedavah (voluntary prayer), often requiring an innovation (chiddush) for a meizid or a prayer that's too late ${^{14}}$.
3. Ashrei between Amidot: The Rema's generalization to say Ashrei between the current Amidah and its tashlumin (e.g., Mincha followed by tashlumin for Shacharit, or Arvit followed by tashlumin for Mincha) is widely accepted. The Magen Avraham's nuanced terutz that Rabbeinu Recanati's prohibition against Ashrei after Mincha applies only al da'ata dechova (with the intent of obligation) and not shelo al da'ata dechova (without such intent) allows for the continued practice. The common practice, therefore, is to say Ashrei between the two Amidot, understanding it as a preparation "מתוך ד"ת" rather than a formal, obligated part of the liturgy itself ${^{15}}$.
4. Eating before Tashlumin: While the Magen Avraham rules against eating before the tashlumin but permits continuing if one started, the Mishnah Berurah, siding with Machatzit HaShekel and Magen Giborim, rules that one should interrupt even if one has started eating, due to the importance of semicha between the two Amidot ${^{16}}$. This stricter opinion is the prevalent practice.
5. Extenuating Circumstances: The Shulchan Arukh provides a broad definition of ones (extenuating circumstance), including assuming one has more time, being preoccupied with monetary loss (though lechatchila one shouldn't allow this), or being drunk. These all qualify for tashlumin ${^{17}}$. This leniency highlights the compassion for human fallibility in fulfilling divine commands.

Takeaway

The laws of tashlumin reveal a profound tension between strict liturgical order and divine mercy, underpinned by a rigorous logical framework that prioritizes the spirit of prayer through structured preparation and immediate rectification, all while navigating nuanced halachic and kabbalistic traditions.

---

${^1}$ Turei Zahav, Orach Chayim 108:3 s.v. יאמר אשרי. ${^2}$ Berachot 30b. ${^3}$ Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 108:3 s.v. שחרית שתים. ${^4}$ Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 108:4 s.v. יאמר אשרי כו'. ${^5}$ Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chayim 108:10 s.v. שחרית שתים. ${^6}$ Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 108:5 s.v. יאמר אשרי בין כו'. ${^7}$ Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 108:3 s.v. שחרית שתים. ${^8}$ Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chayim 108:10 s.v. שחרית שתים. ${^9}$ Berachot 26a-b. ${^{10}}$ Berachot 30b. ${^{11}}$ Turei Zahav, Orach Chayim 108:3 s.v. יאמר אשרי. ${^{12}}$ Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2. ${^{13}}$ Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:3. ${^{14}}$ Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:3-4. ${^{15}}$ Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:3 (Rema's gloss); Magen Avraham, Orach Chayim 108:5. ${^{16}}$ Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chayim 108:10. ${^{17}}$ Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:4.