Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4

This lesson explores the intricate details of make-up prayers in Jewish law, specifically focusing on the Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4. We will delve into the concept of praying a missed Amidah, the conditions under which it's permissible, and the procedural nuances involved.

Hook

The seemingly straightforward concept of "making up" a missed prayer quickly unravels into a complex web of timing, intent, and even the insertion of specific liturgical pieces. What appears to be a simple rescheduling of a missed obligation reveals a deeper philosophical engagement with the very structure of prayer and the flow of time.

Context

The Shulchan Arukh, compiled by Rabbi Yosef Karo in the 16th century, serves as a foundational code of Jewish law. It aims to present a clear and practical guide for daily observance, drawing heavily from earlier authorities. However, the layers of commentary, such as those by Rabbi Moshe Isserles (the Rema) and later halakhic giants like the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah, demonstrate that even seemingly simple laws often have intricate derivations and differing interpretations. This passage on make-up prayers is a prime example of how halakhic discourse grapples with unforeseen circumstances and seeks to preserve the sanctity and obligation of prayer. The concept of Tefillah B'tzibur (communal prayer) also implicitly informs these discussions, as the ideal is to pray with the community, and missed communal prayers necessitate a more careful consideration of how to fulfill the obligation individually.

Text Snapshot

Here are the core sections of Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4 that we will analyze:

"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 pan 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)

[URL: https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Orach_Chayim_108%3A2-4]

Close Reading

Let's break down some key elements of these s'ifim (halakhic sections):

Insight 1: The Temporal Constraint of Make-Up Prayers

The most striking structural element is the strict adherence to temporal proximity for make-up prayers. The text states unequivocally: "[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." This establishes a rigid "make-up window" that lasts only until the beginning of the next prayer's designated time.

Why this strictness? This isn't simply about logistical efficiency. It reflects a profound understanding of prayer as a divinely ordained appointment. Each prayer is tied to a specific time, a window of opportunity to connect with the Divine. Missing that window means the opportunity for that particular engagement has passed. The make-up prayer, therefore, isn't a perfect substitute for the original missed prayer; rather, it's a way to fulfill the obligation within the next available designated temporal framework. The structure reinforces the idea that prayer is not a task to be completed whenever convenient, but a series of sacred moments.

The consequence of missing this window is significant: "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." This highlights the concept of cascading loss. If you miss the first window, you can still catch the next. But if you miss two consecutive windows, the earlier one is irretrievably lost, a stark reminder of the importance of punctuality in observance.

Insight 2: The Role of "Ashrei" as a Liturgical Buffer

The instruction to say "Ashrei" between two prayers when performing a make-up is not merely a procedural detail; it serves a crucial function. The text specifies: "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.]"

What is the purpose of Ashrei here? The commentaries offer various insights, but a common thread is that "Ashrei" acts as a symbolic separation and a transition. It's a prayer of praise and supplication that is generally recited before the Amidah. By inserting it between the two Amidahs, the law creates a distinct break, ensuring that the second prayer is clearly understood as a make-up and not a continuation of the first. It demarcates the temporal boundaries, even within the act of praying two Amidahs consecutively.

The Turei Zahav (commentary on the Shulchan Arukh) notes the reasoning: "The reason is so that one stands in prayer from Torah study. And as the Rama writes, and similarly when one prays evening prayer twice, it is also from the words of Sefer Mitzvot Katan, and one needs to give a reason why one skipped in between." This suggests that "Ashrei," being a prayer derived from Torah, provides a moment of spiritual grounding before the make-up prayer. It also implies that the act of praying two Amidahs in succession, without some form of separation, might blur the distinction between the current prayer and the make-up, potentially diminishing the unique significance of each.

Insight 3: The Distinction Between Error and Intentional Omission

A critical distinction is drawn between missing a prayer due to an error or extenuating circumstance and intentionally omitting it. The text states: "[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." This is a powerful statement about the nature of religious observance.

What does this tell us? It highlights that the system of make-up prayers is designed to assist individuals in fulfilling their obligations when circumstances prevent them from doing so at the appointed time. It is not a license to disregard the mitzvah (commandment). The intention behind the omission is paramount. If the omission is wilful, it implies a rejection of the obligation itself, and therefore, the framework of make-up prayers, which is predicated on the desire to fulfill that obligation, does not apply.

However, even for intentional omissions, there's a subtle allowance: "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." This offers a path for repentance and re-engagement. While the specific obligation cannot be "made up," one can choose to pray a voluntary prayer, demonstrating a renewed commitment. The requirement of "innovating something new" suggests that a voluntary prayer should not simply replicate the missed obligation but should be a distinct act of devotion, perhaps focusing on a different aspect of prayer or a personal reflection, thus acknowledging the unique nature of the original missed prayer.

Two Angles

The concept of make-up prayers, particularly regarding the inclusion of "Ashrei" between prayers, has generated nuanced discussions among commentators. Let's contrast two classic approaches:

Angle 1: The Magen Avraham's Emphasis on Temporal Continuity and the Prohibition of Eating

The Magen Avraham, in his commentary on 108:3, focuses on the practical implications of praying two Amidahs in succession. He states: "The reason is so that one stands in prayer from Torah study... and similarly when one prays evening prayer twice, it is also from the words of Sefer Mitzvot Katan, and one needs to give a reason why one skipped in between." This emphasizes the continuity of prayer and the need for a halakhic justification for any break.

Furthermore, in a related point on 108:4, the Magen Avraham, echoed by Ba'er Hetev, asserts: "It is forbidden to eat before praying the second [prayer], and if one has begun, one does not stop." This highlights the strict prohibition against eating during the prayer time, even when performing a make-up. The implication is that the entire period, from the start of the first Amidah to the completion of the second, is considered prayer time, and eating would constitute an interruption of the mitzvah. This perspective prioritizes the uninterrupted flow of prayer and the sanctity of the prayer time above other considerations. The emphasis is on completing the make-up prayer as soon as possible within the designated window, and not allowing any intervening activities like eating to disrupt this process.

Angle 2: The Ba'er Hetev's Consideration of Custom and the Zohar's Mystical Interpretation Regarding "Ashrei"

The Ba'er Hetev, drawing on various sources, presents a more complex picture, particularly concerning the recitation of "Ashrei" after the afternoon prayer (Mincha). He notes: "It is implied that one cannot say Tachanun until after the second prayer, because otherwise, why would it be necessary to separate with Ashrei? And so wrote L'vush. However, the Rosh writes that one should say Tachanun after the first prayer. And so wrote the Ateret Z'keinim." This reveals a debate about the optimal placement of Tachanun, a penitential prayer, in relation to the make-up prayers.

More significantly, in his commentary on 108:6, Ba'er Hetev discusses the practice of saying "Ashrei" after Mincha when praying it twice. He notes the opinion of the Bach and Magen Avraham that one should wait the duration of walking four amot (cubits) between prayers, rather than saying Ashrei, citing the Kabbalist R' Meir ben Menachem of Burgos who strongly advised against saying Ashrei after Mincha. This is contrasted with the common practice on Yom Kippur, where Ashrei is recited after Mincha. Ba'er Hetev then introduces a Zoharic passage (Parshat Pinchas) which seems to suggest that Ashrei should not be said after Mincha. He reconciles this by suggesting that perhaps it is permitted if not done with the intention of fulfilling a chovah (obligation), but rather as a voluntary act. This angle introduces the influence of Kabbalistic thought and established communal customs (minhag) into the halakhic discussion, demonstrating that the literal interpretation of the text can be nuanced by broader spiritual and communal traditions. The emphasis here shifts to the sanctity of specific prayer times and the potential for certain prayers to be less appropriate at certain junctures, influenced by deeper mystical considerations.

Practice Implication

This passage profoundly impacts how we approach our daily prayer obligations, especially when facing challenges. The strict temporal window for make-up prayers—only until the start of the next prayer—is a potent reminder that punctuality is not merely a preference but a halakhic imperative.

Decision-Making: If you realize you've missed Shacharit (morning prayer), the immediate, almost instinctive, thought shouldn't be "I'll catch up later." Instead, it must be, "I need to pray Mincha (afternoon prayer) twice, and the second one is my make-up for Shacharit." This requires a proactive mindset. It means actively checking the clock, considering your schedule for the day, and prioritizing the completion of the prayer within its permissible window. The law doesn't offer a leisurely grace period; it presents a sharp deadline.

This understanding encourages us to build prayer into our daily routines with greater intention. It prompts us to ask ourselves: "Is my schedule leaving me enough buffer time for prayer, or am I setting myself up to miss these critical windows?" It pushes us away from a passive approach where we hope to fulfill obligations and towards an active one where we strategically plan to meet them. The strictness of the halakha here serves as a constant, gentle nudge towards greater mindfulness and commitment in our spiritual lives, transforming prayer from a potential afterthought into a primary consideration.

Chevruta Mini

Let's engage in a brief Chevruta discussion to explore the trade-offs embedded in these laws:

Question 1: The "No Make-Up for Intentional Omission" vs. "Voluntary Prayer" Trade-off

The text states that if one intentionally misses a prayer, there is no make-up. However, one can pray it as a voluntary prayer with an innovation. What is the fundamental trade-off here? On one hand, the direct obligation is not being fulfilled through a make-up, which might feel like a loss of a chance to perfectly rectify the mistake. On the other hand, the allowance for a voluntary prayer, with its requirement for innovation, offers a path to re-engage with prayer, albeit in a different capacity. Does this trade-off emphasize accountability for intentional actions, or does it prioritize the potential for renewed commitment and spiritual growth, even after a lapse?

Question 2: The "Strict Temporal Window" vs. "Flexibility for Extenuating Circumstances" Trade-off

The law insists on make-up prayers only within the immediately adjoining prayer time, yet it also recognizes "extenuating circumstances" like being preoccupied with monetary needs or being drunk. What is the core tension here? Is the law prioritizing the absolute sanctity of prayer's designated time above all else, even at the cost of potentially losing the opportunity to make up an earlier prayer if unforeseen, but legitimate, circumstances arise? Or does the inclusion of extenuating circumstances acknowledge that human life is complex, and the halakha, while structured, must also accommodate the realities of human frailty and need, even if it means a more complex or less "clean" fulfillment of the prayer obligation?

Takeaway

The halakha surrounding make-up prayers reveals that fulfilling our spiritual obligations requires not just intention but also meticulous attention to time and circumstance, offering a path for rectifying missed connections.