Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4

The Enduring Echo: Making Up Our Collective Prayers

We live in a world steeped in the echoes of what should have been. Individually, we often grapple with the weight of missed opportunities, words unsaid, actions left undone. There's a human ache for tikkun, for repair, for a chance to make good on a forgotten promise or a neglected duty. We ask: can we truly make up for lost time? Can a past failure ever be fully rectified, or are some things simply lost forever? This fundamental human dilemma, the tension between the ideal and the real, between obligation and fallibility, resonates deeply in our collective story as a people. For the Jewish people, this question finds profound expression in our enduring relationship with the Land of Israel.

For two millennia, the "prayer" of national sovereignty and continuous dwelling in our ancestral homeland was largely "missed." It wasn't an intentional omission, but rather a consequence of relentless exile, persecution, and circumstances beyond our control. Our daily prayers were filled with fervent pleas for return, our holidays punctuated by the longing for Jerusalem. Then, in the 20th century, something extraordinary happened: the Zionist movement, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel. This wasn't merely a political event; it was, in a profound spiritual sense, an act of tashlumin—a collective "make-up prayer" for generations of longing, a reclamation of a deferred obligation.

Yet, like all acts of tashlumin, it’s far from simple. It’s not an undoing of the past, but a continuation, a "next prayer" that carries the weight and complexity of what came before, and simultaneously creates new obligations and new "missed prayers" for others. The return to Zion, while a miraculous fulfillment of ancient prophecy and a vital act of self-determination, also brought about displacement and hardship for another people. How do we hold the profound spiritual imperative of our return alongside the ethical responsibility for its impact? How do we acknowledge our own historical "extenuating circumstances" without dismissing the very real circumstances of others? This is the core dilemma we confront when we engage with Zionism and modern Israel – a powerful, complex, and hopeful act of making up a prayer, while simultaneously navigating the new prayers that arise from its very existence.

Our text today, from the Shulchan Arukh, provides a meticulously detailed halakhic framework for individual "make-up prayers." While seemingly ritualistic, its underlying principles offer a surprisingly potent lens through which to examine our collective journey, our responsibilities, and the ongoing work of building a just and thriving society in our ancient homeland. It teaches us about the resilience of obligation, the nuance of intent, the limits of rectification, and the enduring power of voluntary commitment. As we delve into its intricate details, we will explore how these principles resonate with the Zionist project, challenging us to consider not just that we made up a prayer, but how we continue to pray it, with strong spine and open heart, for the future of all.

Text Snapshot

The Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:2-4 meticulously outlines the laws of tashlumin, or make-up prayers:

• Make-up Mechanism: "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." This principle applies across all daily prayers.
• Immediacy and Limits: The make-up prayer applies "specifically during the time of [the next Amidah] prayer... There are no make-up prayers other than the immediately adjoining [i.e. preceding] prayer alone."
• Intent vs. Circumstance: "If it was on purpose and one did not pray [an Amidah], there is no make-up for it." However, those who miss due to "mistake, or an extenuating circumstance... are considered people with extenuating circumstances and they [do] have [an opportunity for] a make-up."
• Voluntary Innovation: Even for missed prayers that cannot be formally made up, "if one wants to pray that one as a voluntary prayer and one will innovate something [new] into it, one is allowed to and it is proper to do so."
• Ethical Considerations: Commentaries like the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah debate the strictures around eating before the make-up prayer, and the placement of Ashrei (praise) and Tachanun (supplication) between the two Amidahs, highlighting the spiritual and ethical considerations woven into this halakhic process.

Context

Date: 16th Century & Beyond

The core text, the Shulchan Arukh (Code of Jewish Law), was compiled by Rabbi Yosef Karo in Safed, Ottoman Palestine, and first published around 1563 CE. This period immediately followed the traumatic expulsion of Jews from Spain (1492) and Portugal (1497), an era marked by profound displacement, spiritual upheaval, and the urgent need for consolidation and clarity in Jewish practice across scattered communities. The subsequent commentaries (Magen Avraham, Turei Zahav, Ba'er Hetev, Mishnah Berurah) span from the 17th to the 20th centuries, reflecting an ongoing process of interpreting, refining, and applying these laws to evolving contexts and new dilemmas. This continuous engagement with the text highlights the dynamic nature of Halakha, always seeking to balance timeless principles with the lived realities of changing times.

Actor: Rabbi Yosef Karo & Subsequent Halakhic Authorities

Rabbi Yosef Karo was a towering halakhic authority, mystic, and jurist whose monumental work, the Shulchan Arukh, became the most widely accepted code of Jewish law. His aim was to provide a concise, accessible, and authoritative guide for Jewish life, ensuring uniformity and continuity for a dispersed people. The laws of tashlumin, like many others, were drawn from earlier rabbinic literature, including the Talmud and Rishonim (early medieval authorities), meticulously arranged and presented. The subsequent commentators—such as Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (Magen Avraham), Rabbi David HaLevi Segal (Turei Zahav), Rabbi Zecharya Mendel (Ba'er Hetev), and Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (Mishnah Berurah)—were likewise esteemed scholars who engaged in a critical dialogue with Karo's work, clarifying ambiguities, presenting dissenting opinions, and offering practical guidance, ensuring the Shulchan Arukh remained a living and breathing text. Their collective efforts demonstrate the collaborative and interpretive nature of Jewish legal tradition.

Aim: Maintaining Spiritual Continuity Amidst Human Imperfection

The primary aim of these laws is to provide a mechanism for individuals to maintain their spiritual obligations and connection to God even when faced with human error, forgetfulness, or unavoidable circumstances. Recognizing that human beings are fallible, the halakhic system offers a path back, a way to mend a broken link in the chain of prayer. It acknowledges the ideal of constant prayer while providing a compassionate framework for when that ideal is not met. By allowing for "make-up prayers," the system reinforces the enduring nature of the mitzvah (commandment) and the importance of striving for its fulfillment, even if imperfectly. This framework of resilience, responsibility, and the possibility of repair becomes a powerful lens through which to examine larger collective narratives, particularly the Jewish people's long and complex relationship with its homeland.

Two Readings: Zionism as Tashlumin—Covenantal Imperative vs. Civic Responsibility

Our text from the Shulchan Arukh, focusing on the intricate laws of tashlumin, or make-up prayers, offers a remarkably rich metaphorical framework for understanding Zionism and modern Israel. While on the surface a technical discussion of ritual, its underlying principles—of obligation, continuity, intent, limits, and voluntary action—resonate deeply with the historical, spiritual, and ethical dimensions of the Jewish return to sovereignty. We can explore two distinct, yet interdependent, readings of Zionism through this lens: one emphasizing a Covenantal Imperative, and the other a Civic Responsibility and the Imperative of Repair (Tikkun). Holding both perspectives is crucial for a nuanced, compassionate, and future-minded understanding of Israel's reality.

The Covenantal Imperative of Tashlumin

This reading frames Zionism as a profound act of tashlumin rooted in the enduring covenantal bond between the Jewish people, God, and the Land of Israel. From this perspective, the establishment of the State of Israel is not merely a political or secular endeavor, but the fulfillment of a divine promise, a spiritual imperative that spans millennia.

Obligation and Continuity: Making Up for Millennia of Absence

Just as the daily prayers are a fundamental obligation, so too is the Jewish people's connection to the Land of Israel. For nearly two thousand years, the "prayer" of living in, building, and having sovereignty over the Land was "missed." This absence, however, was largely due to "extenuating circumstance" (כאונס) – exile, persecution, and political subjugation – not intentional abandonment. The return to Zion, therefore, is understood as a collective act of tashlumin, a necessary re-engagement with a sacred obligation that had been deferred.

The text's instruction to "pray the next prayer twice" offers a powerful metaphor. Modern Israel isn't simply a new state; it is the "next prayer" that carries the weight and historical memory of the preceding "missed prayer" of exile. The very act of building the state and cultivating the land is a double act: fulfilling the present commandment of dwelling in Israel and simultaneously making up for the long period of absence. This implies a profound continuity, where the present reality is inextricably linked to the historical past, drawing strength and purpose from it. The "first prayer" (the present reality) contains within it the "second prayer" (the make-up for the past). This intertwining means that the aspirations and challenges of modern Israel are not just contemporary issues, but are imbued with the spiritual and historical depth of Jewish continuity.

Intent vs. Circumstance: The Narrative of Unavoidable Exile

The Shulchan Arukh explicitly distinguishes between missing a prayer "by mistake or extenuating circumstance" (שוגג או אונס) and missing it "on purpose" (במזיד). For the former, tashlumin is available; for the latter, it is not. This distinction is vital for the covenantal reading of Zionism. The narrative of Jewish exile overwhelmingly falls under "extenuating circumstance." Jews were expelled, prohibited from returning, and subjected to foreign rule. This historical reality underpins the Zionist claim: the Jewish people never intentionally abandoned their homeland. Their absence was forced, their longing constant. Therefore, the return to Zion, as a tashlumin, is entirely justified and spiritually necessary. It is an affirmation that despite all the hardships, the covenantal bond was never broken, merely deferred.

Conversely, this aspect of the text can be interpreted to suggest that those who actively oppose the Jewish return, or who had the opportunity to return but intentionally chose not to, are in a sense choosing "intentional omission." While this is a sensitive area, it speaks to the internal Jewish debate about the urgency and divine imperative of aliyah (immigration to Israel). From a covenantal perspective, rejecting the opportunity to participate in this collective tashlumin can be seen as a profound missed opportunity, one for which a make-up may not be as readily available.

Voluntary Prayer with Innovation: Building Beyond Obligation

Even for missed prayers that cannot be formally made up (e.g., if too many prayers were skipped, or if the omission was intentional), the text offers an alternative: "if one wants to pray that one as a voluntary prayer and one will innovate something [new] into it, one is allowed to and it is proper to do so." This concept of "voluntary prayer with innovation" is incredibly powerful when applied to Zionism.

The Zionist project was not merely about re-establishing what once was. It was a deeply creative, pioneering, and innovative endeavor. The revival of Hebrew as a modern spoken language, the creation of unique social structures like the kibbutz, the establishment of democratic institutions in a region largely devoid of them, and the development of cutting-edge technology and science—these are all "innovations" that go beyond the bare minimum of national return. They represent a "voluntary prayer," an overflowing of commitment and creativity that exceeded strict obligation. This innovation speaks to the Jewish people's determination not just to survive, but to thrive and contribute meaningfully to the world, making the restored land a beacon of new ideas and societal models. It signifies that the return was not just an act of historical necessity, but a passionate, forward-looking commitment to building something new and exemplary.

Limits and Imperfection: A New Chapter, Not a Perfect Replication

The text states, "There are no make-up prayers other than the immediately adjoining [i.e. preceding] prayer alone." This suggests that some things cannot be fully "made up." For instance, the "additional prayer" (Musaf) on Shabbat or festivals has no make-up if missed. This could symbolize that certain aspects of the ancient Temple service, or the specific nature of pre-exilic sovereignty, are unique to their time and place and cannot be perfectly replicated or "made up" in the modern era. Modern Israel is not a perfect carbon copy of ancient Israel; it is a new chapter, built on the foundations of the past but distinct in its form and challenges. This acknowledges that while the return is profound, it doesn't erase all historical losses or create a flawless reality. It is a dynamic continuation, not a static restoration.

The Civic Responsibility and the Imperative of Repair (Tikkun)

While the covenantal reading emphasizes the internal Jewish narrative and divine imperative, the civic reading brings in the ethical and moral responsibilities that accompany sovereignty, particularly when that sovereignty is re-established in a land already inhabited. This reading centers on the imperative of tikkun (repair) not just for past Jewish suffering, but for the present-day impact of the Zionist project on all inhabitants of the land.

Extenuating Circumstance vs. On Purpose: The Ethical Scrutiny of Action

The distinction between "extenuating circumstance" (אונס) and "on purpose" (במזיד) becomes profoundly challenging here. While the Jewish people's millennia-long exile can be unequivocally deemed oness, the actions taken during the establishment and consolidation of the State of Israel, and its ongoing policies, require rigorous ethical scrutiny. Were all actions that led to Palestinian displacement and ongoing occupation truly under "extenuating circumstance" (e.g., self-defense in war), or were some "on purpose" (e.g., policies of land confiscation, settlement expansion, or discriminatory practices)?

This reading compels a candid self-assessment. It forces us to ask: where have we, as a collective, made choices that were not simply reactions to duress, but intentional decisions that created hardship for others? The text states that "if it was on purpose... there is no make-up for it." This is a stark warning. If certain actions were indeed "on purpose" and caused injustice, they cannot be easily rectified through subsequent "good deeds." This calls for genuine accountability, repentance, and a commitment to systemic change, rather than merely ritualistic "make-ups." It demands that we confront difficult truths about our past and present conduct, holding ourselves to the highest ethical standards.

The "Immediately Adjoining Prayer": Prioritizing Present Responsibilities

The Shulchan Arukh emphasizes that tashlumin is only for "the immediately adjoining prayer alone." This principle is crucial for the civic reading. While the historical narrative of Jewish suffering and return is undeniably important, the most urgent responsibilities lie in the present. The "immediately adjoining prayer" for modern Israel is not solely the historical act of return, but the ongoing work of building a just, secure, and peaceful society for all its citizens and neighbors now.

This means that historical claims, however legitimate, cannot be an excuse for neglecting present-day ethical obligations. The suffering of Palestinians, the challenges of occupation, the need for equal rights for all citizens within Israel, and the pursuit of peace are the "immediately adjoining prayers" that demand our attention and action. We cannot endlessly defer these critical responsibilities by solely focusing on the "make-up" for the past. The text pushes us to be present-oriented in our ethical considerations, recognizing that the past is made up through responsible action in the present.

The Ashrei and Tachanun Interruption: Infusing Justice and Humility

The commentaries on our text offer rich insights into the how of tashlumin. The Magen Avraham and Turei Zahav discuss the instruction to recite Ashrei (Psalm 145) between the original prayer and its make-up. Ashrei is a psalm of praise that extols God's justice, compassion, and sustenance for all creatures. The Taz explains the reason for saying Ashrei: "to stand in every prayer from a place of Torah study." This suggests that even in the act of making up a missed obligation, one must pause and infuse the process with a deep commitment to ethical values and divine attributes of justice and compassion.

Applying this to the Zionist project: the very act of "making up" for historical absence (establishing sovereignty) must be continuously interrupted and infused with the values of Ashrei. It means that as we build our nation, as we exercise power, we must constantly pause to reflect on justice for all, compassion for the vulnerable, and the equitable sustenance of all who live in the land. This is not just about our people; it's about the universal values that Ashrei represents. The Ba'er Hetev even notes a debate (citing the Zohar) on whether Ashrei should be said after Mincha, and the Magen Avraham suggests it might be permissible if not with "the intention of obligation"—implying that ethical reflection can sometimes be a voluntary, supererogatory act, above and beyond the letter of the law.

Furthermore, the Magen Avraham and Ba'er Hetev discuss the placement of Tachanun (a prayer of humble supplication and confession). Should it be said after the first prayer (the current reality) or after the second (after the make-up is complete)? If Tachanun is said after the first prayer, it implies that even as we are engaged in the act of national self-determination, we must acknowledge our shortcomings, confess our imperfections, and seek divine mercy before completing the "make-up." This emphasizes humility and introspection as an ongoing, integrated part of the national project. If it's said after the second prayer, it suggests that even after achieving our national aspirations, a spirit of humility and supplication is still required. The Mishnah Berurah's strong emphasis on semichut (maximal connection between the two prayers) in the context of prohibiting interruptions like eating underscores the urgency of integrating these ethical pauses and reflections directly into the process of national building.

Voluntary Prayer with Innovation: Towards a Just Future

The idea of "voluntary prayer with innovation" takes on a civic dimension here. Beyond merely fulfilling the obligation of sovereignty, what "innovations" can Israel offer in its pursuit of peace, its treatment of minorities, its democratic ideals, and its commitment to social justice? This is the "voluntary prayer" that goes beyond the minimum requirements of statehood to create a truly exemplary and ethical society for all its inhabitants. It challenges Israel to not just survive, but to lead with moral vision, to innovate solutions for complex conflicts, and to embody the highest ideals of justice and compassion.

The Enduring Tension

These two readings present a critical tension. The covenantal imperative validates the historical return and emphasizes the divine right and spiritual necessity of Jewish self-determination. The civic responsibility challenges that return to be continually measured against universal ethical standards, demanding accountability for its impact on others. The genius of the tashlumin framework is that it demands both. The "make-up" for the past is intertwined with the "next prayer" of the present. One cannot truly make up for a missed prayer without simultaneously engaging in the present one with integrity and responsibility. For Israel, this means embracing its deep historical and spiritual roots while rigorously upholding its moral obligations to all people in the land, striving for a future where both justice and self-determination flourish.

Civic Move: The "Tashlumin of Shared Stories" Initiative

The profound tension between Zionism as a covenantal imperative and a civic responsibility demands more than intellectual understanding; it requires active engagement, dialogue, and a commitment to repair. Our text, particularly its nuanced discussion of "extenuating circumstance" vs. "on purpose," the "immediately adjoining prayer," and the ethical pauses of Ashrei and Tachanun, provides a powerful framework for a contemporary civic move.

The Challenge: Reconciling Narratives of Return and Displacement

The core challenge in the Israeli-Palestinian context is the clash of narratives. For many Jews, Zionism is the ultimate act of tashlumin, a miraculous return from millennia of forced absence, a necessary rectification of historical injustice. For many Palestinians, the establishment of Israel represents a profound "missed prayer" of their own, a collective trauma, and an ongoing "extenuating circumstance" that has prevented their self-determination. Both narratives are deeply felt and rooted in historical experience. The danger lies in allowing one narrative to completely negate the other, leading to a zero-sum mentality that perpetuates conflict and prevents genuine repair.

Action: The "Tashlumin of Shared Stories" Dialogue Initiative

We propose a "Tashlumin of Shared Stories" initiative: a structured, facilitated dialogue and educational program designed to bridge these narratives, fostering empathy, mutual recognition, and a shared commitment to a just future. This initiative would bring together groups of Jews and Palestinians (or those who identify strongly with each narrative) for a series of intensive workshops, utilizing the principles of tashlumin as a lens for exploration.

How it Works: Applying the Tashlumin Framework

1. Exploring "Extenuating Circumstance" vs. "On Purpose" (שוגג או אונס vs. במזיד)

• Objective: To help participants articulate their own community's "missed prayers" and "extenuating circumstances," while also critically examining where their collective actions might have been "on purpose" and caused harm.
• Activity: Participants would first share their foundational narratives:
  • Jewish participants: Explain Zionism as the tashlumin for two millennia of exile and persecution (unquestionably oness). Then, critically reflect on specific actions taken during Israel's establishment and its ongoing policies. Were these always oness (self-defense, unavoidable consequences of war), or were there instances of b'mezid (intentional choices that caused displacement or injustice for Palestinians)? What is the halakhic implication if actions were indeed b'mezid ("no make-up for it")? This encourages internal Jewish moral reckoning.
  • Palestinian participants: Share their narrative of connection to the land, their "missed prayer" of sovereignty and national self-determination, and the "extenuating circumstances" of the Nakba, occupation, and ongoing displacement. They would then reflect on their own collective actions, particularly in moments of conflict, asking if any actions could be considered b'mezid (e.g., acts of violence against civilians) and their implications.
• Outcome: Not to achieve agreement on historical facts, but to foster mutual recognition of the profound depth of each other's experiences, and to encourage critical self-reflection within each community about their own ethical conduct.

2. The "Immediately Adjoining Prayer" (התפלה הסמוכה לה בלבד)

• Objective: To shift focus from endless historical debate to present-day responsibilities and the immediate actions required for a just future.
• Activity: Participants would identify their "immediately adjoining prayers" for the present moment.
  • For Israelis: This might involve discussing the moral obligations of occupation, ensuring equal rights for all citizens, addressing systemic inequalities, and actively pursuing peace.
  • For Palestinians: This might involve discussing the challenges of internal governance, non-violent resistance, and building a civil society that fosters pluralism and human rights.
• Outcome: To collaboratively identify concrete, present-day "civic moves" that each side can take, or advocate for, that would constitute a "make-up" or repair for immediate, ongoing injustices. This is about building a shared "next prayer" that integrates both peoples' aspirations.

3. Infusing the "Make-Up" with Ashrei and Tachanun (אשרי ותחנון)

• Objective: To embed ethical reflection, praise for justice, and humble supplication directly into the process of dialogue and nation-building.
• Activity: Participants would engage with the commentaries' discussion on Ashrei and Tachanun.
  • The Ashrei Pause: Between articulating their own "make-up" (their national aspirations) and engaging with the other side's "make-up," groups would be guided to reflect on the universal values of Ashrei (justice, compassion, sustenance for all). What does it mean to build a society that truly embodies these values for everyone? This pause ensures that national self-interest is always tempered by universal ethics.
  • The Tachanun Reflection: When should Tachanun (humble supplication and confession) be said? After the first prayer (present reality) or after the second (after the make-up is complete)? This would prompt discussion on the timing of humility and self-critique. Should we always be in a state of humble reflection even as we pursue our national goals? Or only after we've achieved them? The Mishnah Berurah's emphasis on semichut – the maximal connection between the two prayers – suggests that this ethical pause should not be an afterthought, but woven into the very fabric of the "make-up" process.
• Outcome: To cultivate a culture of constant ethical self-reflection and humility within the pursuit of national goals, recognizing that genuine repair requires both strong convictions and open hearts.

4. "Voluntary Prayer with Innovation" (לחדש דבר) for a Shared Future

• Objective: To inspire creative, future-oriented solutions that go beyond the minimum requirements of conflict resolution.
• Activity: Brainstorming sessions focused on "innovations" that could create a truly shared and just future.
  • What are the "voluntary prayers" that Jews and Palestinians can offer each other? What innovative models for shared governance, economic cooperation, cultural exchange, or truth and reconciliation processes can be envisioned?
• Outcome: To generate actionable ideas for creating a future that transcends the limitations of past conflicts, demonstrating that even when formal "make-ups" are difficult, voluntary acts of creativity and generosity can pave new paths.

This "Tashlumin of Shared Stories" initiative aims to reframe the conflict not just as a clash of rights, but as a complex interplay of "missed prayers" and "make-ups," demanding both historical understanding and immediate ethical action. By using a framework deeply embedded in Jewish tradition, it can empower participants to engage with complexity, acknowledge mutual pain, and collaboratively seek paths toward a future infused with justice, compassion, and shared responsibility.

Takeaway

The ancient halakhic concept of tashlumin offers us a profound lens through which to understand the modern State of Israel. It reminds us that responsibility, both individual and collective, is enduring, not ephemeral. Zionism, in its deepest sense, is a powerful act of historical tashlumin—a miraculous "make-up prayer" for millennia of Jewish longing, absence, and forced displacement. It represents a tenacious commitment to continuity, a reclamation of a deferred covenantal obligation, and a testament to the resilience of a people.

However, our text also teaches us that every "make-up" is intertwined with the "next prayer," demanding immediate and ongoing civic and moral responsibilities. The act of making up for the past cannot, and must not, come at the cost of neglecting the present or perpetuating new injustices. The meticulous discussions of intent, the limits of rectification, and the placement of ethical pauses like Ashrei and Tachanun within the make-up process challenge us to infuse our national aspirations with unwavering justice, compassion, and humility.

The enduring dilemma for Israel, and for all who care about its future, is to hold this inherent complexity: to embrace the profound spiritual imperative of the Jewish return while rigorously upholding the highest ethical standards for all who live in the land. Our challenge is to ensure that our collective tashlumin is not just a historical achievement, but a continuous, living prayer—a prayer that is always "immediately adjoining" to our present responsibilities, always open to "innovation," and always infused with the spirit of tikkun for the sake of a better, more just, and peaceful future for everyone. This demands a strong spine to stand for our rights and an open heart to see the humanity and legitimate claims of others.