Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:5-7

Sugya Map

The sugya before us in Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:5-7 grapples with the intricate laws of Tashlumin (make-up prayers) for the Amidah. This discussion is rooted deeply in the Gemara and Rishonim, addressing the circumstances under which one may or must compensate for a missed prayer.

Issue: The Scope and Conditions of Tashlumin

The central issue is defining who is obligated to perform Tashlumin, for which prayers, and under what conditions. This involves discerning between intentional omission (mizid) and unintentional/extenuating circumstances (shogeg or ones), determining the temporal window for Tashlumin, and establishing the number of prayers one can make up. A significant nuance involves the concept of Tefillat Nedavah (voluntary prayer) as an alternative when Tashlumin are not strictly obligatory.

Nafka Mina(s):

• Circumstances for Tashlumin: Does Tashlumin apply only to one who erred (shogeg) or was forced (ones), or also to one who intentionally skipped a prayer (mizid)? The Shulchan Arukh explicitly distinguishes, allowing Tashlumin only for shogeg or ones.
• Temporal Proximity: Can one make up any missed prayer, or only the immediately preceding one (tefillah smucha)? The Shulchan Arukh unequivocally states the latter, leading to complexities when multiple prayers are missed.
• Order of Prayers: If one is making up a previous prayer, must it follow the current prayer, or can it precede it? The Shulchan Arukh rules it must follow.
• Nature of Tefillat Nedavah: When Tashlumin are not obligatory (e.g., for a mizid, or for a prayer that is not smucha), can one pray a Tefillat Nedavah instead? If so, does it require an "innovation" (chiddush)?
• Special Days: How do Tashlumin apply on Shabbat, Yom Tov, or Rosh Chodesh, especially concerning Musaf prayers and the inclusion of special insertions like Ya'aleh V'yavo or Ata Chonantanu?
• "Mizid Katan": The Shulchan Arukh distinguishes between a complete mizid and one who is "close to ones" (e.g., misjudging time, monetary loss, drunkenness), allowing Tashlumin for the latter.

Primary Sources:

• Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:5-7
• Gemara, Berachot 26a-b (the foundational source for Tashlumin)
• Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah 3:10-11 (codification of Tashlumin)
• Tur, Orach Chayim 108 (Rabbenu Asher's (the Rosh) view and basis for the Shulchan Arukh)
• Rema, Glosses on Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:5-7 (introducing additional perspectives and psak)

Text Snapshot

The core text for our analysis is Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:5-7. We will examine specific lines and the dikduk and leshon nuances they present.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:5

"אם טעה או אונס ולא התפלל תפלת שחרית, יתפלל מנחה שתים: הראשונה תפלת מנחה, והשניה לתשלומין. ואם הפך, לא יצא י"ח בתפלה שהיא תשלומין וצריך לחזור ולהתפלל. וכן הדין בכל מקום שיש לו תשלומין. אם טעה ולא התפלל מנחה, יתפלל ערבית שתים: הראשונה תפלת ערבית, והשניה לתשלומין. אם טעה ולא התפלל ערבית, יתפלל שחרית שתים: הראשונה תפלת שחרית, והשניה לתשלומין. אחר שיאמר יוצר וי"ח, יאמר אשרי ואחר כך יתפלל י"ח לתשלומי ערבית."

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrasing "טעה או אונס" (erred or was forced) clearly delineates the permissible circumstances for Tashlumin, excluding intentional omission. The strict requirement "אם הפך, לא יצא י"ח" (if he inverted [the order], he has not fulfilled his obligation) emphasizes the necessity of praying the current prayer first, before the Tashlumin. The use of "וכן הדין בכל מקום שיש לו תשלומין" (and the same law applies in every case in which one must pray a make-up prayer) generalizes this principle. The explicit instruction to say Ashrei between the two Amidot for Tashlumin of Ma'ariv (after Yotzer and Shemoneh Esrei) points to a concern for hefsek (interruption) or a distinction between the two prayers. The Rema adds a gloss: "[וכן כשמתפלל ערבית שתים מפני שלא התפלל מנחה, יאמר אשרי בין תפלה לתפלה.]" This extends the Ashrei interposition to Ma'ariv for Mincha Tashlumin, ensuring consistency.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:6

"דוקא בשעת תפלה, אבל כשאינו שעת תפלה אינו משלים. ואין תשלומין אלא לתפלה הסמוכה לה בלבד; שאם טעה ולא התפלל שחרית ומנחה, אינו מתפלל ערבית אלא שתים, וזו האחרונה תשלומין למנחה, אבל לשחרית אין לה תשלומין; וכן לכל שאר התפלות."

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: "דוקא בשעת תפלה" (specifically during the time of [the next Amidah] prayer) limits the Tashlumin window. The crucial phrase "ואין תשלומין אלא לתפלה הסמוכה לה בלבד" (there are no make-up prayers other than the immediately adjoining prayer alone) is a cornerstone of this sugya, establishing that only the immediately preceding prayer can be made up. This is then illustrated with the example of missing Shacharit and Mincha, where only Mincha can be made up during Ma'ariv.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 108:7

"אעפ"י שאין תשלומין אלא לתפלה הסמוכה לה, ואין להם תשלומין לשאר תפלות שעברו; מ"מ אם רצה להתפלל אותה נדבה, ויחדש בה דבר, הרשות בידו ומצוה נמי איכא. אם עבר כל היום ולא התפלל מוסף, אין לה תשלומין. במזיד ולא התפלל, אין לה תשלומין, אפילו בתפלה הסמוכה לה. ואם רצה, יתפלל אותה נדבה ואין צריך חידוש דבר אם התפלל אותה בתפלה הסמוכה לה. מי שלא התפלל בעוד שהיה לו שהות להתפלל לפי שחשב שישאר לו שהות אחר שיגמור מה שהיה עוסק בו, ובין דבר לדבר עבר הזמן; וכן מי שהיה טרוד בצרכי ממון שלא יפסיד, ובזה איבד מלהתפלל; וכן מי שהוא שיכור ולא התפלל. כל אלו דינם כאנוסים ויש להם תשלומין. הגה: מ"מ לכתחלה אין לו להעביר זמן תפלה מפני הפסד ממון. (תרומת הדשן סימן ה')"

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: This se'if introduces Tefillat Nedavah. "מ"מ אם רצה להתפלל אותה נדבה, ויחדש בה דבר" (nevertheless, if one wants to pray it as a voluntary prayer, and will innovate something new into it) highlights the condition for Nedavah when it's not a direct Tashlumin. The Musaf prayer is singled out as having no Tashlumin. The Shulchan Arukh then contrasts mizid (intentional omission) with specific cases that appear intentional but are deemed ones (e.g., misjudging time, monetary loss, drunkenness). For a mizid, no Tashlumin even for tefillah smucha. However, the Rema adds a crucial nuance: "ואם רצה, יתפלל אותה נדבה ואין צריך חידוש דבר אם התפלל אותה בתפלה הסמוכה לה." This means a mizid can pray Nedavah for the smucha prayer without a chiddush, implying a slightly different status for this Nedavah. The Rema's gloss on monetary loss ("מ"מ לכתחלה אין לו להעביר זמן תפלה מפני הפסד ממון" - from the outset, one should not let the prayer time pass because of monetary loss) provides an ethical l'chatchila (ideally) directive.

Readings

The sugya of Tashlumin is rich with interpretive layers, particularly concerning the interaction between obligatory Tashlumin and the optional Tefillat Nedavah. The Rishonim and Acharonim build upon the Gemara's foundational principles, navigating complex scenarios.

1. Rabbeinu Yonah on Berachot 26a (cited by Be'er HaGolah 108:6)

The Be'er HaGolah's laconic citation, "הר"ר יונה שם" (Rabbeinu Yonah there), points us to Rabbeinu Yonah's commentary on Berachot 26a. The Gemara there discusses the source for Tashlumin, with R. Yochanan deriving it from Mincha (which "completes" Shacharit) and R. Yehoshua ben Levi from Musaf. Rabbeinu Yonah, in his commentary on Berachot, elucidates this fundamental concept, explaining that the very notion of Tashlumin implies that prayer is not merely a mitzvah tied to a specific time, but rather a chiyuv (obligation) that, if missed, can be compensated for. Rabbeinu Yonah's chiddush, as reflected in the Shulchan Arukh, lies in establishing the two primary conditions for Tashlumin:

1. "Tefillah Smucha": Only the immediately adjoining prayer can serve as Tashlumin for the missed one. This is a direct consequence of the Gemara's derivation from Mincha completing Shacharit – the proximity is key. If one misses Shacharit and Mincha, only Mincha can be made up during Ma'ariv, as Shacharit is no longer smucha.
2. "Shogeg or Ones": Tashlumin are generally reserved for one who erred (shogeg) or was under duress (ones). The Gemara's focus on "טעה" (erred) or situations of unavoidable circumstances forms the basis. An intentional omission (mizid) typically forfeits the opportunity for Tashlumin, reflecting a principle that one who willfully disregards a mitzvah loses the chance to rectify it in the same manner. This distinction is crucial for understanding the Shulchan Arukh's subsequent discussion of Tefillat Nedavah. The Be'er HaGolah's reference serves to underscore that the Shulchan Arukh's rulings on these core aspects are not novel, but rather a faithful codification of established Gemaric principles as understood by Rishonim like Rabbeinu Yonah.

2. Magen Avraham 108:7 s.v. "אם רצה" & 108:8 s.v. "ושיחדש"

The Magen Avraham introduces a significant chiddush that expands the application of Tefillat Nedavah in specific circumstances, particularly for those who missed multiple prayers due to prolonged ones. His first comment, on 108:7 s.v. "אם רצה" (referring to the Rema's allowance for nedavah even for a mizid):

"ולכן מי שהיה חולה או תפוס בתפיס' (ולא היה המקום נקי) כשיצא יתפלל כל התפלות שהפסיד [ב"י תר"י] ואם יצא מתפיסה בר"ח מזכיר בכלם יעלה ויבא וה"ה אם יצא בשבת [כ"ה]" (And therefore, one who was sick or imprisoned (and the place was not clean) when he is released, he should pray all the prayers he missed [Beit Yosef 610]. And if he was released from prison on Rosh Chodesh, he mentions Ya'aleh V'yavo in all of them. And the same applies if he was released on Shabbat [Knesset HaGedolah].) The chiddush here is profound: for someone who was severely ill or imprisoned (choleh o tafus b'tfisa) and thus missed many prayers, the Magen Avraham implies that they can make up all of them, even those not smucha, through Tefillat Nedavah. This goes against the explicit Shulchan Arukh ruling in 108:6 that "אין תשלומין אלא לתפלה הסמוכה לה בלבד." The Magen Avraham leverages the concept of Nedavah to provide a path for these individuals to rectify their missed obligations, treating their unique ones as a quasi-obligation that can be fulfilled voluntarily. Furthermore, he extends this to special days: if such a person is released on Rosh Chodesh or Shabbat, they should include Ya'aleh V'yavo or the Shabbat additions in all these Nedavah prayers. This suggests that these Nedavah prayers are not merely generic voluntary prayers, but retain the specific character of the prayers they are making up.

His second comment, on 108:8 s.v. "ושיחדש" (referring to the Rema's requirement for Nedavah to "innovate something new"):

"ולפי מ"ש רמ"א שם דצריך שיתחדש אצלו לא שייך כאן" (And according to what the Rema wrote there that something new needs to be innovated, it is not relevant here.) This is a critical clarification. The Shulchan Arukh (108:7) and Rema (ibid.) state that a Nedavah prayer, when not fulfilling a direct Tashlumin, requires a "חידוש דבר" (innovation of something new) to distinguish it from an unnecessary prayer which might be a bracha l'vatala (blessing in vain). However, the Magen Avraham states that for the choleh or tafus b'tfisa making up multiple missed prayers, this chiddush is not required. The chiddush here is the recognition that these Nedavah prayers, while technically voluntary, are not entirely so. They are a rectification of a missed chiyuv, albeit one that falls outside the standard Tashlumin rules. The underlying chiyuv provides sufficient justification to bypass the need for a chiddush, which is usually meant to elevate a purely voluntary act to a mitzvah. This implies that the Magen Avraham views these Nedavah prayers as having a quasi-obligatory status, or at least a highly meritorious one, that distinguishes them from a casual Nedavah.

3. Mishnah Berurah 108:18 s.v. "אם רצה" & 108:19 s.v. "ונכון וכו'"

The Mishnah Berurah engages directly with the Magen Avraham's chiddush and introduces further practical and theoretical considerations.

On 108:18 s.v. "אם רצה" (referring to the Magen Avraham's choleh/tafus case):

"(יח) אם רצה - ולכן מי שהיה חולה או תפוס בתפיסה ולא היה המקום נקי כשיצא יתפלל כל התפילות שהפסיד ויתפלל מעריב ואח"כ מנחה ואח"כ שחרית ואם יצא מתפיסה בר"ח מזכיר בכולם יעלה ויבא אבל אם יצא בשבת ויו"ט ימתין עד הערב ויתפלל דקי"ל בסימן ק"ז שאין מתפללין נדבה בשבת ויו"ט:" (18) If one wants - And therefore, one who was sick or imprisoned and the place was not clean, when he is released, he should pray all the prayers he missed, and he should pray Ma'ariv, and afterwards Mincha, and afterwards Shacharit. And if he was released from prison on Rosh Chodesh, he mentions Ya'aleh V'yavo in all of them. But if he was released on Shabbat or Yom Tov, he should wait until the evening and pray, for we hold in Siman 107 that one does not pray Nedavah on Shabbat or Yom Tov.) The Mishnah Berurah initially endorses the Magen Avraham's leniency for the choleh/tafus to make up all missed prayers as Nedavah. He even specifies the order for these Tashlumin-Nedavah prayers: Ma'ariv, then Mincha, then Shacharit (reverse chronological order of omission, but in the order of the actual prayers of the day). He agrees that Ya'aleh V'yavo should be said on Rosh Chodesh. However, his major chiddush here is the stark qualification regarding Shabbat and Yom Tov. He explicitly states that if one is released on Shabbat or Yom Tov, they cannot pray these Nedavah prayers until after Shabbat/Yom Tov, i.e., at night. The reason is a direct appeal to Shulchan Arukh OC 107, which rules that Tefillat Nedavah is prohibited on Shabbat and Yom Tov. This creates a significant tension with the Magen Avraham's earlier statement "וה"ה אם יצא בשבת" (and the same applies if he was released on Shabbat), suggesting that the Magen Avraham would allow it. The Mishnah Berurah clarifies that while the Magen Avraham's leniency applies to Nedavah for multiple missed prayers, it does not override the specific prohibition of Nedavah on Shabbat/Yom Tov. This limits the scope of the Magen Avraham's chiddush.

On 108:19 s.v. "ונכון וכו'" (referring to the Rema's general statement that praying Nedavah is proper):

"(יט) ונכון וכו' - עיין בפמ"ג שהסכים דטוב שיתנה ויאמר אם אני חייב להתפלל ה"ז לחובתי וא"ל הרי זו לנדבה ובזה יצא ידי כל הדיעות שיש כמה דיעות שסוברים דיש תשלומין לתפילה אפילו לכמה תפילות שעברו:" (19) And it is proper, etc. - See in the P'ri Megadim who agreed that it is good to make a condition and say: "If I am obligated to pray, this is for my obligation, and if not, then this is for a Nedavah." And with this, one fulfills all opinions, for there are several opinions who hold that there are Tashlumin for prayer even for several prayers that have passed.) Here, the Mishnah Berurah brings the P'ri Megadim's ingenious solution to the safek d'dina (halakhic doubt) surrounding the extent of Tashlumin. As noted, the Shulchan Arukh limits Tashlumin to tefillah smucha. However, the Magen Avraham (and the sources he cites, like the Beit Yosef for Musaf and the Knesset HaGedolah) clearly indicates that some poskim allow Tashlumin (or Nedavah in lieu of Tashlumin) for multiple prayers, especially for an ones. The P'ri Megadim's chiddush, endorsed by the Mishnah Berurah, is the tenai (condition). By explicitly stating "אם אני חייב להתפלל ה"ז לחובתי וא"ל הרי זו לנדבה" (If I am obligated to pray, this is for my obligation, and if not, then this is for a Nedavah), one covers all bases. If Tashlumin for multiple prayers are indeed valid according to some opinions, then the prayer counts as such. If not, it functions as a Nedavah. This allows one to fulfill a potential chiyuv without risking a bracha l'vatala or transgressing the rule of "אין תשלומין אלא לתפלה הסמוכה," while still acknowledging the Magen Avraham's leniency for onesim. This tenai becomes a widely adopted practical psak.

4. Sha'arei Teshuvah 108:8 s.v. "נדבה"

The Sha'arei Teshuvah directly confronts the tension introduced by the Magen Avraham's allowance of Nedavah for a choleh/tafus on Shabbat, which the Mishnah Berurah explicitly rejects.

"נדבה עבה"ט אם יצא בשבת כו' ועיין בדגול מרבבה שכתב דהיינו לדעת הפוסקים דגם בשבת מתפלל נדבה ועיץ בב"י סי' ק"ז ולפי"ז לא היה לו להמג"א להעתיק דין זה ונראה דסבירא ליה כיון דאיכא דעות שיכול להשלים כמה תפלות ואיכא דעות שמתפלל נדבה בשבת לכך סמיך ע"ז להתיר אך צ"ע כיון שע"כ הוצרך לחשוב בתורת נדבה לצאת למ"ד שאין תשלומין כ"א לתפלה הסמוכה וא"כ בשבת אסור לעשות כן כיון דהש"ע תפיס עיקר כדעה זו שאין תפלת נדבה בשבת וצ"ע:" (Nedavah - See Ba'er Hetev regarding if he was released on Shabbat, etc. And see in the Dagul Mervavah who wrote that this is according to the opinion of poskim who hold that one also prays Nedavah on Shabbat, and see Beit Yosef Siman 107. And according to this, the Magen Avraham should not have copied this law. But it appears that he holds that since there are opinions that one can make up several prayers, and there are opinions that one prays Nedavah on Shabbat, therefore he relies on this to permit it. However, it is puzzling, since he certainly needed to consider it as a Nedavah in order to satisfy the opinion that there are Tashlumin only for the adjoining prayer. And if so, on Shabbat it is forbidden to do so, since the Shulchan Arukh primarily holds this opinion that there is no Nedavah prayer on Shabbat, and it is puzzling.) The Sha'arei Teshuvah's chiddush is to highlight the internal inconsistency or the reliance on minority opinions within the Magen Avraham's position. He notes that the Dagul Mervavah attributes the Magen Avraham's ruling (allowing Nedavah on Shabbat for the choleh/tafus) to a reliance on two minority opinions: one that allows Tashlumin for multiple prayers, and another that permits Nedavah on Shabbat. The Sha'arei Teshuvah questions this approach, as the Shulchan Arukh itself (in OC 107) explicitly rules against Nedavah on Shabbat. He expresses "צ"ע" (it is puzzling) because if the Magen Avraham is relying on Nedavah to get around the "אין תשלומין אלא לתפלה הסמוכה" rule, he should then be bound by the general rule against Nedavah on Shabbat. This demonstrates a deep analytical engagement with the Magen Avraham's sources and the hierarchy of halakhic principles. His analysis strengthens the Mishnah Berurah's restrictive psak on Nedavah on Shabbat.

5. Kaf HaChayim 108:26:1

The Kaf HaChayim provides a contemporary (from his perspective) and often more stringent psak, especially concerning Tefillat Nedavah.

"כו) [סעיף ה'] אעפ"י שאין תשלומין וכו' אם רצה להתפלל אותה נדבה וכו' ובפסקי תוספות חולק וכתב דבזמנינו אין להתפלל אותם בתורת נדבה ושיחדש בהם דבר, א"ר או' ה' וכ"כ לעיל סי' ק"ז או' ך' בשם האחרונים דבזה"ז אין להתפלל נדבה יעו"ש, והגם שכתבנו שם דאם יש ספיקא דדינא יכול להתפלל נדבה והכא נמי יש מי שאומר שאפי' לא התפלל תפלות הרבה לכולם יש להם תשלומין כנז"ל או' כ"כ הכא לא חשיב ספיקא דדיבא כיון דסברה זו של יש מי שאומר היא סברה יחידית ודעת רוב הפ"ו ומרן ז"ל אינו כן והכי ק"ל לענין דינא וע"כ אין לחוש לסברא זו ולהתפלל עבורה תפלת נדבה בזה"ז:" (26) [Se'if 5] Even though there are no Tashlumin, etc. - If one wants to pray it as a Nedavah, etc. And Piskei Tosafot disagrees and wrote that in our times one should not pray them as a Nedavah even with an innovation. Aruch HaShulchan Siman 5, and so it is written above in Siman 107, note 20, in the name of the Acharonim, that in our times one does not pray Nedavah, see there. And even though we wrote there that if there is a safek d'dina one can pray Nedavah, and here too there is an opinion that even if one missed many prayers, all of them have Tashlumin as mentioned above in note 20, here it is not considered a safek d'dina because this opinion of "יש מי שאומר" (there is an opinion) is a lone opinion, and the view of most poskim and Maran (the Shulchan Arukh) is not so. And this is the established halakha for practical purposes. Therefore, one should not rely on this opinion and pray a Nedavah for it in our times.) The Kaf HaChayim's chiddush is a significant curtailment of the Tefillat Nedavah option. He cites Piskei Tosafot and other Acharonim who argue that in "our times" (b'zmanenu), one should generally avoid Tefillat Nedavah altogether, even with a chiddush, due to concerns like bracha l'vatala or the diminished spiritual stature of later generations. More critically, he addresses the P'ri Megadim's tenai (conditional prayer) solution, which was designed to resolve safek d'dina. The Kaf HaChayim asserts that while a tenai is appropriate for a genuine safek, the case of Tashlumin for multiple missed prayers (beyond tefillah smucha) is not a true safek d'dina. He dismisses the opinion that allows Tashlumin for many prayers as a "סברה יחידית" (lone opinion), which is insufficient to create a safek that would warrant a tenai or a Nedavah. Therefore, the Kaf HaChayim's psak is that one should not pray Nedavah for multiple missed prayers in our times, effectively rejecting the Magen Avraham's leniency for the choleh/tafus and even undermining the P'ri Megadim's tenai for such scenarios. This represents a more conservative approach, prioritizing the established psak of the Shulchan Arukh and the majority poskim against the potential leniencies.

Friction

The most potent kushya arising from this sugya is the apparent contradiction between the Magen Avraham's leniency regarding Tefillat Nedavah for a choleh or tafus b'tfisa and the general halakha concerning Tefillat Nedavah on Shabbat and Yom Tov.

Kushya: The Magen Avraham's Shabbat Nedavah Paradox

The Shulchan Arukh in OC 107:1 rules unequivocally that "אין מתפללין נדבה בשבת ויו"ט" (one does not pray a Nedavah on Shabbat or Yom Tov), based on the Gemara (Ta'anit 27b) which states that one should not bring a voluntary offering on Shabbat, and by extension, one should not pray a voluntary prayer. The reason is that Shabbat is a day of rest and holiness, and nedavot (voluntary offerings/prayers) might detract from its unique character or imply a lack of satisfaction with the day's inherent spiritual offerings. Yet, the Magen Avraham (108:7 s.v. "אם רצה"), discussing the choleh or tafus b'tfisa who missed many prayers and is released on a special day, states: "ואם יצא מתפיסה בר"ח מזכיר בכלם יעלה ויבא וה"ה אם יצא בשבת [כ"ה]" (And if he was released from prison on Rosh Chodesh, he mentions Ya'aleh V'yavo in all of them. And the same applies if he was released on Shabbat [Knesset HaGedolah]). This statement, "וה"ה אם יצא בשבת," seems to imply that if one is released on Shabbat, one can pray these Nedavah-like Tashlumin prayers on Shabbat itself, incorporating the Shabbat liturgy. This directly clashes with the general rule of "אין מתפללין נדבה בשבת ויו"ט" from OC 107.

The kushya intensifies because the Magen Avraham elsewhere (e.g., OC 107:1) himself acknowledges the prohibition of Nedavah on Shabbat. How can he, then, seemingly contradict this principle in the context of Tashlumin for an ones? Is there a fundamental distinction between a regular Tefillat Nedavah and one that arises from a previous chiyuv, even if that chiyuv is no longer subject to formal Tashlumin? The Sha'arei Teshuvah explicitly raises this difficulty, expressing "צ"ע" (it is puzzling) as to how the Magen Avraham could rely on such a position when the Shulchan Arukh itself holds the opposite view regarding Nedavah on Shabbat.

Terutz: Reconciling the Magen Avraham with the Mishnah Berurah and the Nature of "Ones"

The Mishnah Berurah (108:18), as we've seen, provides a direct terutz by explicitly stating: "אבל אם יצא בשבת ויו"ט ימתין עד הערב ויתפלל דקי"ל בסימן ק"ז שאין מתפללין נדבה בשבת ויו"ט." The Mishnah Berurah effectively rejects the Magen Avraham's implied permission for Nedavah on Shabbat in this context, prioritizing the clear rule of OC 107. However, we can attempt to offer an interpretation that might explain the Magen Avraham's original intent, even if the Mishnah Berurah ultimately rules against it.

Terutz 1: The Quasi-Obligatory Nature of "Tashlumin-Nedavah"

One possible terutz is to argue that the Nedavah prayers for a choleh or tafus b'tfisa are not considered pure Nedavah in the same category as a genuinely voluntary prayer. Rather, they are a unique category of Tefillat Nedavah that arises from a prior, unfulfilled chiyuv. The severe ones (illness, imprisonment) prevented the fulfillment of a strict obligation, and while the formal Tashlumin window has closed, the chiyuv itself retains a residual, albeit voluntary, force. In this view, these prayers are not Nedavah in the sense of adding something extra to the day, but rather an act of teshuvah and rectification for a missed chiyuv. The prohibition of Nedavah on Shabbat might apply to prayers that are purely voluntary, representing a desire for extra spiritual activity beyond the set chiyuvim of Shabbat. However, when the prayer is an attempt to compensate for a past chiyuv, even if through a Nedavah framework, its character changes. It is a form of hashlamah (completion) rather than hosafah (addition). The Magen Avraham's statement that such a Nedavah does not require a "חידוש דבר" (108:8 s.v. "ושיחדש") lends credence to this idea. The absence of a chiddush suggests that the prayer's validity is not derived from its innovative content but from its inherent purpose as a rectification. This purpose, perhaps, could be seen as sufficiently distinct to override the general prohibition of Nedavah on Shabbat, at least in the Magen Avraham's original understanding. The Knesset HaGedolah, whom the Magen Avraham cites, might have held this nuanced view.

Terutz 2: Relying on Minority Opinions (as suggested by Sha'arei Teshuvah)

The Sha'arei Teshuvah (108:8 s.v. "נדבה") provides a direct explanation: "ונראה דסבירא ליה כיון דאיכא דעות שיכול להשלים כמה תפלות ואיכא דעות שמתפלל נדבה בשבת לכך סמיך ע"ז להתיר." This terutz suggests that the Magen Avraham is relying on a confluence of minority opinions:

1. Multiple Tashlumin: There are poskim (though not the primary psak of the Shulchan Arukh) who believe that Tashlumin (or a form of it) can indeed be made for multiple missed prayers, even if not smucha. This is the underlying premise for the choleh/tafus case.
2. Nedavah on Shabbat: There are also poskim who permit Tefillat Nedavah on Shabbat, or at least in certain circumstances. While the Shulchan Arukh rules against it in OC 107, not all poskim agreed or interpreted the prohibition so broadly. For instance, some might argue that the prohibition applies only to Musaf Nedavah, or that it's a chumra (stringency) rather than an absolute issur d'Oraita or d'Rabbanan.

By combining these two minority positions, the Magen Avraham might have found a basis to permit these Tashlumin-Nedavah prayers on Shabbat for the ones. He relies on the possibility that such prayers are indeed considered Tashlumin (even if Nedavah in form) and that Nedavah on Shabbat, in this context, is permissible. However, the Sha'arei Teshuvah himself finds this problematic, as it means the Magen Avraham is contradicting the Shulchan Arukh's primary psak on both counts. The Mishnah Berurah's ruling, therefore, is a more straightforward and ultimately accepted psak, adhering to the Shulchan Arukh's explicit prohibition of Nedavah on Shabbat, even if it means delaying the rectification for the choleh/tafus. The Mishnah Berurah essentially limits the Magen Avraham's leniency to weekdays, where the Nedavah aspect is not in direct conflict with a separate issur.

In conclusion, while the Magen Avraham's position can be understood through a nuanced interpretation of Nedavah or reliance on minority opinions, the Mishnah Berurah's direct rejection of Nedavah on Shabbat for these cases has become the accepted psak, demonstrating the hierarchical nature of halakhic decision-making where clear prohibitions generally override potential leniencies based on less established interpretations.

Intertext

The sugya of Tashlumin is a cornerstone of halakhat tefillah, and its principles are deeply rooted in earlier sources, providing crucial context and justification for the rulings in the Shulchan Arukh.

1. Gemara Berachot 26a-b: The Foundational Source

The primary intertext for Tashlumin is the Gemara in Berachot 26a-b. This passage is where the concept is first introduced and debated among the Amoraim. The Gemara states: "תפלה ארוכה, מנחה סמוכה לה, שנאמר 'תכון תפלתי קטורת לפניך, משאת כפי מנחת ערב'" (A long prayer (Shacharit), Mincha is adjoining to it, as it is stated: 'Let my prayer be set forth as incense before You, the lifting up of my hands as the evening offering' [Psalms 141:2]). This is the source for the Shulchan Arukh's ruling (108:5) that if one missed Shacharit, one makes it up during Mincha, and if one missed Mincha, one makes it up during Ma'ariv. The Gemara’s derivation from Mincha being "סמוכה" (adjoining) to Shacharit establishes the crucial principle of "תפלה סמוכה לה בלבד" (only for the immediately adjoining prayer), as codified in Shulchan Arukh 108:6. The Gemara further records a machloket between R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi regarding the ultimate source:

• R. Yochanan: Derives Tashlumin from Mincha, which "completes" Shacharit. This implies a direct link between consecutive prayers.
• R. Yehoshua ben Levi: Derives Tashlumin from Musaf, which can be made up during Mincha. This suggests that even if a prayer's time has passed, its chiyuv can be transferred to the subsequent prayer. The practical nafka mina of this machloket is significant: R. Yehoshua ben Levi's opinion (that Musaf can be made up) is rejected by the Shulchan Arukh (108:7), which rules: "אם עבר כל היום ולא התפלל מוסף, אין לה תשלומין." This rejection aligns with R. Yochanan's view, which emphasizes the "סמוכה" aspect more strictly, and perhaps sees Musaf as a distinct chiyuv not directly linked to the daily prayer sequence in the same way Shacharit, Mincha, and Ma'ariv are. The Gemara also discusses the requirement for Tashlumin to be prayed after the current prayer. R. Yitzchak bar Yosef in the name of R. Yochanan states: "התפלל מנחה וטענה, צריך לחזור ולהתפלל" (If one prayed Mincha and made a mistake, one needs to go back and pray again). Rashi (Berachot 26a s.v. "התפלל מנחה") explains this refers to someone who intended to pray Tashlumin for Shacharit before the Mincha prayer itself. This is the source for the Shulchan Arukh's strict ruling (108:5) "ואם הפך, לא יצא י"ח בתפלה שהיא תשלומין וצריך לחזור ולהתפלל" (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]).

2. Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah u'Virkhat Kohanim 3:10-11: Codification of Tashlumin

The Rambam, as a pivotal Rishon and codifier, presents the laws of Tashlumin in a clear and concise manner, largely mirroring the Shulchan Arukh's rulings, which indicates the widespread acceptance of these principles. Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah 3:10:

"מי שטעה ולא התפלל תפילת שחרית - מתפלל מנחה שתים, הראשונה למנחה והשנייה לתשלומין לשחרית. ומי שטעה ולא התפלל מנחה - מתפלל ערבית שתים, הראשונה לערבית והשנייה לתשלומין למנחה. ומי שטעה ולא התפלל ערבית - מתפלל שחרית שתים, הראשונה לשחרית והשנייה לתשלומין לערבית." This directly corresponds to Shulchan Arukh 108:5, including the order of prayers. The Rambam uses the same "טעה" (erred) language, implicitly excluding mizid.

Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah 3:11:

"אין תשלומין אלא לתפילה הסמוכה לה בלבד. כיצד? מי שטעה ולא התפלל שחרית ומנחה - מתפלל ערבית שתים, הראשונה לערבית והשנייה לתשלומין למנחה, ואין לו תשלומין לשחרית. וכן אם טעה ולא התפלל ערבית ושחרית - מתפלל מנחה שתים, והשנייה לתשלומין לשחרית, ואין לו תשלומין לערבית. וכן כל כיוצא בזה." This passage is the direct source for Shulchan Arukh 108:6, emphasizing the "תפלה הסמוכה לה בלבד" rule and illustrating it with the example of missing Shacharit and Mincha. The Rambam's codification reinforces the strict limitations on Tashlumin, setting the stage for later Acharonim to explore the exceptional cases of ones through Tefillat Nedavah.

These intertextual references demonstrate that the Shulchan Arukh's rulings on Tashlumin are not arbitrary but are deeply rooted in the foundational texts of Halakha, specifically the Gemara and the Rishonim. The discussions of the Acharonim then build upon these established principles, exploring their application to complex, nuanced scenarios, such as the plight of the choleh or tafus b'tfisa, and the precise definition of Tefillat Nedavah.

Psak/Practice

The sugya of Tashlumin has a direct and significant impact on halakhic practice, shaping how individuals rectify missed prayers and the circumstances under which such rectification is possible.

Core Principles of Tashlumin

The primary psak follows the Shulchan Arukh (108:5-7) and the Rambam (Hilchot Tefillah 3:10-11):

1. Who is obligated? Only one who missed a prayer due to shogeg (unintentional error) or ones (extenuating circumstance). This includes cases like misjudging time, monetary loss, or drunkenness, which are considered ones (SA 108:7). One who intentionally missed a prayer (mizid) has no Tashlumin.
2. Which prayer? Only the immediately preceding prayer (tefillah smucha) can be made up. If multiple prayers were missed, only the one immediately before the current prayer can be compensated for. For instance, if Shacharit and Mincha were missed, only Mincha can be made up during Ma'ariv (SA 108:6).
3. Order: The current prayer must always be prayed first, followed by the Tashlumin. Inverting this order invalidates the Tashlumin prayer (SA 108:5).
4. Timing: Tashlumin can only be performed during the time of the next prayer. Once that time has passed, Tashlumin for the missed prayer is no longer possible (SA 108:6).
5. Musaf: There are no Tashlumin for Musaf prayers (SA 108:7).

The Role of Tefillat Nedavah (Voluntary Prayer)

The option of Tefillat Nedavah is a more complex area, subject to significant limitations and machloket among the Acharonim.

• General Rule: If one missed a prayer but Tashlumin is not applicable (e.g., mizid, or not tefillah smucha), one may pray it as a Nedavah, provided one "innovates something new" (yichadesh bah davar) in the prayer to distinguish it from a superfluous prayer (SA 108:7).
• "Mizid Katan": For a mizid who prays the Nedavah for the smucha prayer, the Rema (108:7) states that no chiddush is needed. This implies a slightly higher status for this Nedavah compared to a purely voluntary one for a non-smucha prayer.
• "Ones Gadol" (e.g., Choleh/Tafus): The Magen Avraham's leniency (108:7) for one who was very sick or imprisoned to pray all missed prayers as Nedavah (even those not smucha and without chiddush) is a significant point. However, the Mishnah Berurah (108:18) limits this, ruling that these Nedavah prayers cannot be performed on Shabbat or Yom Tov, due to the general prohibition of Nedavah on these days (OC 107). One must wait until after Shabbat/Yom Tov.
• The P'ri Megadim's Tenai: In cases of safek d'dina regarding whether one is obligated to pray (e.g., for multiple missed prayers where some poskim allow Tashlumin), the P'ri Megadim's advice (endorsed by Mishnah Berurah 108:19) is to make an explicit tenai (condition): "If I am obligated, this is for my obligation; if not, it is for a Nedavah." This is a widely adopted practice to avoid bracha l'vatala while still fulfilling a potential chiyuv.
• Kaf HaChayim's Stringency: The Kaf HaChayim (108:26:1) takes a more stringent stance, arguing that in our times, Tefillat Nedavah (even with chiddush) should generally be avoided, and specifically for multiple missed prayers, the opinion allowing Tashlumin for them is a "lone opinion" and insufficient to create a safek d'dina that would justify even a conditional Nedavah. This reflects a broader trend among some poskim to be cautious with Nedavah prayers.

Meta-Psak Heuristics

The sugya illustrates several important heuristics in halakhic decision-making:

• Primary vs. Secondary Obligations: Formal Tashlumin are primary, while Nedavah is a secondary, often conditional, means of rectification.
• Hierarchy of Rules: Clear prohibitions (like Nedavah on Shabbat) generally override leniencies derived from more complex interpretations or minority opinions, as seen in the Mishnah Berurah's rejection of Magen Avraham's implied leniency.
• Safek d'Dina: When there is genuine doubt, a tenai can be an effective tool for navigating machloket and ensuring one fulfills one's obligation without transgressing.
• The Weight of Opinions: The Kaf HaChayim's analysis demonstrates that not all "יש מי שאומר" (there is an opinion) are equal; a "סברה יחידית" (lone opinion) might not create sufficient safek to justify a deviation from the established psak.

In contemporary practice, one should strictly adhere to the Shulchan Arukh's rules for Tashlumin. For cases beyond these rules (e.g., multiple missed prayers due to ones), one should follow the Mishnah Berurah's guidance, using the P'ri Megadim's tenai on weekdays, and refraining from such Nedavah prayers on Shabbat/Yom Tov. The Kaf HaChayim's general caution regarding Nedavah prayers is also a factor many follow.

Takeaway

The laws of Tashlumin balance the enduring nature of prayer obligations with the strictures of fixed prayer times, illustrating Halakha's nuanced approach to unintentional omissions versus intentional neglect. While direct make-ups are narrowly defined, the option of Tefillat Nedavah offers a path for rectification, albeit heavily circumscribed by halakhic debate and practical considerations.