Tashlumim (Compensation) for a Missed Shema
TOPICS IN
HALAKHA
Tashlumin
(compensation) for a Missed
Shema
HaRav Yehuda Amital,
zt"l
I
R. Yosef Karo rules: (Shulchan Arukh, OC
58:7):
If one did not recite
[Shema] during the day, some say that one can compensate by reciting it
[tashlumin] at night. And similarly, if one did not recite
Shema at night, one can compensate by reciting it during the day. Others,
however, disagree.
This ruling is based on the Kolbo cited by R. Karo in the Bet
Yosef (ibid.):
The Kolbo (no. 9)
writes: If one erred regarding the morning Shema¸ some say that there is
no tashlumin at night, and no [tashlumin] for the evening
[Shema] during the day. But Rabbenu Chayyim writes that Shema is
equivalent [regarding this matter] to the Amida
prayer.
It should be noted that
when he paraphrases the Kolbo in the Shulchan Arukh, R. Karo
reverses the order of the two positions, thus indicating that he has decided in
favor of the view that there is no tashlumin, since he generally rules in
accordance with the position he cites last.
The source of this law is found in Berakhot 26a, which deals
with compensatory (tashlumin) prayer:
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav Yitzchak who said in the
name of Rabbi Yochanan: If a man erred and did not say the afternoon prayer, he
prays twice in the evening, and we do not apply here the principle that if the
day has passed the offering lapses. An objection was raised: "'That which is
crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is wanting cannot be numbered'
(Kohelet 1:25). 'That which is crooked cannot be made straight' - this
applies to one who omitted the Shema of the evening or the Shema
of the morning or the Amida prayer of the evening or the Amida
prayer of the morning. 'And that which is wanting cannot be numbered' – this
applies to one whose comrades formed a group to perform a religious act and he
was not included with them." Rav Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:
With what case are we dealing here? With one who omitted deliberately. Rav Ashi
said: The proof of this is that it says "omitted," and it does not say, "erred."
This proves it.
While the Gemara links the Shema and the Amida prayer in
this passage, the Acharonim disagree as to what can be inferred from this
passage regarding Shema. The Be'er Heitev cites an objection
raised by the Mishneh La-melekh (Hilkhot Tefila 3:9) against
Rabbenu Chayyim [cited in the Kolbo that there is tashlumin for
Shema]: "This is surprising, for the following teaching is known:
'"That which is crooked cannot be made straight" - this applies to
one who omitted the Shema.'" The Be'er Heitev writes that the
Mishneh La-melekh raised this objection against those who maintain that
there is tashlumin for a missed Shema. But the Be'er Heitev
notes that the passage cited implies the opposite conclusion – it limits the
application of the condemning verse to a case where the omission is deliberate,
with Shema being treated as equivalent to prayer. If so, the Gemara
proves that there is tashlumin for a missed Shema just as
there is tashlumin for a missed prayer. The Sha'arei Teshuva, on
the other hand, writes that the Mishneh La-melekh's objection was raised
against those who maintain that there is no tashlumin for a missed
Shema, for the passage indeed proves that it is only in a case of
deliberate omission that there is no tashlumin, but in a case of error
there is tashlumin.
In any event, the Tzelach (Berakhot, ad loc.) understands,
based on the Gemara, that there is no tashlumin for a missed Shema.
He writes that his students asked: What is the Gemara's question from the
verse, "That which is crooked cannot be made straight?” For the Gemara states
that one who says a compensatory prayer receives reward for praying, but he does
not receive reward for praying in the proper time. This being the case, perhaps
"That which is crooked cannot be made straight" refers to the reward for prayer
in the proper time, but one might still be obligated to recite a compensatory
prayer. He answers that the Gemara’s question emerges from the fact that the
Baraita equates prayer to Shema, thus implying that just like Shema
does not have tashlumin at all, so too prayer does not have
tashlumin. The Tzelach then asks: If this is the Gemara’s
question, then how does the Gemara's answer address it? The Gemara answers that
the Baraita is dealing with a case of one who omitted deliberately, inferring
this from the fact that the Baraita says "omitted," rather than "erred." But how
does this address the question – prayer is not similar to Shema, which
has no tashlumin, even in a case of error! The Tzelach answers
that since the Baraita explicitly states that no corrective can be done for
prayer specifically in a case where he "omitted" the prayer intentionally, this
itself implies the fact that tashlumin are possible in a case of
unintentional omission. This is an adequate basis for the notion that
tashlumin are possible in a case of unintentional omission of prayer,
despite the difference between Shema and prayer.
It should be noted that the position of Rabbenu Chayyim that there is
tashlumin for Shema has other advocates. It is also the view of
the Ra’avya in Megilla (no. 571). And it is also the view of the
Roke'ach, cited in the Bet Yosef, no. 672, regarding one who did
not light candles on one of the nights of Chanuka:
And so writes the Roke'ach (no. 226, p. 128): If a person did
not light one night, he may not light the next night or some other night
[additional candles to compensate for] what he should have lit then [on the
night he missed], for it is not similar to Shema or the Amida
prayer, regarding which it was said in chapter Tefillat ha-Shachar
that one recites Shema and prays again.
II
As for the reasoning of those who disagree with Rabbenu Chayyim and say
that there is no tashlumin for Shema, the Peri Chadash
writes:
It seems that the reason according to those who say that there is no
tashlumin for Shema is that the Amida prayer is different;
since it is [supplication for] mercy, “he could pray all day long.” But
Shema, where this notion does not apply, there is no
tashlumin.
A similar explanation is to be found in the work of the Meiri
in his explanation of the first Mishna of Berakhot[1] and in Sefer Ha-me'orot
(beginning of chapter Tefilat Ha-shachar). The first view in the
Kolbo, that there is no tashlumin, is based on the Mikhtam,
the Orchot Chayyim of R. Aharon of Lunel (Hilkhot Keri'at Shema,
no. 23) and the Sefer Hashlama. It is explicitly stated in those works
that one cannot perform tashlumin for Shema because of the
blessings. The Orchot Chayyim writes as follows:
If one erred regarding the morning Shema, some say that there is no
tashlumin at night, and no [tashlumin] for the night
[Shema] during the day, because the blessings of the morning Shema
are not the same as those of the evening [Shema], and those of the
evening [Shema] are not the same as those of the morning [Shema].
This is also the position of the Hashlama. But Rabbenu Chayyim,
z"l, writes that Shema is similar in this regard to the
Amida prayer, even though they do not have the same wording.
However, this position is difficult because the generally accepted
position is that one can fulfill the obligation to recite Shema without
reciting the blessings. Even according to the Tosafot (Berakhot
13a, s.v. haya kore) and Rav Hai Gaon (cited by the Bet Yosef, no.
60), that changing the order of the blessings does not prevent one from
fulfilling the obligation while the blessings themselves are required, that is
only true regarding a congregation, but an individual can fulfill the obligation
even without the blessings themselves. It seems then that these Rishonim
must maintain that the blessings are indispensable, and this is indeed how the
Bach (no. 60) explains the position of Rav Hai Gaon, explaining that the
blessings are necessary both for a congregation and an individual to fulfill the
mitzva.
III
Against this background, even according to the view that there is
tashlumin for Shema, further study is needed to determine the law
regarding the blessings of Shema – if they should be recited, which
blessings are appropriate? It might be proposed that according to Rabbenu
Chayyim, one always recites the blessings that are appropriate for the time of
the tashlumin. This would be similar to the law regarding one who forgot
to recite the Mincha service on Friday afternoon, that he recites two
Shabbat Ma'ariv services on Friday night, and also to the law regarding
one who forgot to recite the Mincha service on Shabbat afternoon, that he
recites two weekday Ma'ariv services on Motza'ei Shabbat. The Meiri
(Berakhot 26b) raises this possibility regarding Shema, but
rejects it:
You might say that he should recite the blessings that are
appropriate for now, like the law regarding a [missed] Friday [service] on
Shabbat, or a [missed] Shabbat [service] on Motza'ei Shabbat, but there the
reason is that an obligation of an Amida of eighteen blessings exists
even on Shabbat, only that the honor of Shabbat pushes it
aside.
That is to say, even in those cases when a different prayer is in
fact recited, the requirement is the same – in either case there is a
requirement to recite the full Amida, but circumstances (whether or not
it is Shabbat) determine whether that requirement is actualized. This is not
true regarding the Shema, where the morning and evening blessings are
different in principle. But this objection is not decisive, for the Rema
(108:69) rules: "The same is true if one did not recite Mincha on the eve
of Rosh Chodesh, that he recites two Rosh Chodesh Ma'ariv services."[2] This ruling of the Rema, that one
recites the Rosh Chodesh service twice, even though the original obligation was
not for a Rosh Chodesh prayer, indicates that the recitation of tashlumin
is determined based on the current situation rather than on the original
obligation. Similarly, then, regarding Shema, there is room to say that
when reciting a compensatory Shema in the morning for having missed the
evening Shema that he should recite the blessings appropriate for the
morning Shema.
Another possibility according to Rabbenu Chayyim is that when reciting a
compensatory Shema for a missed evening Shema one should recite
the blessings appropriate for the evening Shema. The Meiri inclines
toward this position:
Regarding the text of the
blessings, one may rely on the fact that they are general for the day and the
night, as they said that one is to mention the distinctive feature of the day at
night and the distinctive feature of the night during the day.[3]
And he
concludes:
In any case, even
according to this opinion, he should recite it as a voluntary act, and not as
compensation as we discussed in the first chapter.
IV
The Bet Yosef (108) cites the Semak:
If one erred and did not
recite the Arvit service, he should recite the Shacharit service
twice. After reciting the morning Shema with its blessings and the
[morning Amida of] eighteen blessings, he should start Ashrei, and
afterwards recite [an Amida of] eighteen blessings [as compensation] for
the evening service. However, he should not recite the blessings of the evening
Shema.
Based on this ruling, the Peri Chadash writes: "It seems to me
that the law is in accordance with those who say that [Shema] has
tashlumin." And he adds: "But the blessings of Shema do not have
tashlumin, and afterwards I found that the Bet Yosef (108) wrote
this in the name of the Semak." This position is difficult, for those who
disagree with Rabbenu Chayyim because it is there is no tashlumin for the
blessings of Shema maintain that there can be no tashlumin without
blessings, because the blessings are a necessary component of the mitzva. How then can the Peri
Chadash conclude that there is tashlumin for a missed Shema
without reciting the blessings? Perhaps he maintains that in a situation where
it is impossible to recite the blessings of Shema, one fulfills one's
obligation of Shema even without the blessings. Alternatively, one can
explain that the Peri Chadash agrees with the Tosafot and Rav Hai
Gaon that regarding an individual, the blessings of Shema are not
necessary to fulfill the obligation.[4]
Regarding the Shulchan Arukh's ruling brought above, where R.
Yosef Karo brings the two opinions as to whether or not Shema has
tashlumin, the Vilna Gaon writes in his commentary (end of section 58):
"Nevertheless, further study is required, for what tashlumin are there
here, and what prohibition is there, since it is as if he were reading from the
Torah." He seems to understand that the issue in dispute is whether or not to
recite Shema without its blessings, and therefore he asks, what
tashlumin are there here without blessings. But that which he writes,
"and what prohibition is there," implies that he maintains that the law of
tashlumin is not an obligation, but an allowance, because if the time of
prayer already passed, one should be forbidden to pray. And even though we rule
in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan, who says: "O that a person should pray all
day long," the Tosafot wrote (Berakhot 21a, s.v. ve-Rabbi
Yochanan) that he must add something new in this additional prayer, whereas
in a case where a person erred and did not pray, he may offer a compensatory
prayer, even without adding anything.
R. Arieli, z"l,
writes (Einayim la-Mishpat, Berakhot 26a) that this matter is the
subject of a disagreement among the Rishonim. He associates the view that
tashlumin are optional to Tosafot (Berakhot 26a, s.v.
iba'aya lehu), and the view that tashlumin are obligatory with the
V
Earlier, we raised two possible explanations for those who disagree with
Rabbenu Chayyim and reject tashlumin for Shema: 1) The blessings
of the morning and the evening Shema are different and thus cannot be
compensated; this is the view of the Mikhtam and the Orchot
Chayyim. 2) The law of tashlumin was only stated regarding the
Amida prayer which is a supplication for mercy, as is implied by the
wording of the Gemara (Berakhot 26a): "Or should we rather say that since
prayer is supplication for mercy, whenever one wishes, he can pray." As for
Rabbenu Chayyim who says that Shema is equivalent to prayer regarding
tashlumin, apparently the Gemara rejects the initial assumption that the
law of tashlumin is based on the fact that prayer is supplication for
mercy. For when the Gemara brings the Baraita which teaches that the verse,
"That which is crooked cannot be made straight," refers to one who omitted
either the Shema or the Amida prayer deliberately, with the
implication that one who erred regarding either of these “can make things
straight” – the rationale of supplication is rejected. This seems to be the
understanding of the Peri Chadash who explains the position of the
Shulchan Arukh that Shema has no tashlumin, because
tashlumin only applies to matters involving supplication, and then
concludes that even Shema has tashlumin, based on that very
passage.
It seems, however, that the Shulchan Arukh’s ruling that there is no tashlumin for Shema is not based on the fact that tashlumin only apply to supplications
for mercy, as argued by the Peri
Chadash, but because the blessings of the morning and evening Shema are different. For the Orchot Chayyim writes (Hilkhot Netilat Yadayim, no. 12): "The
author of the Hashlama wrote an
answer to a question in the name of a Gaon: If a person urinated, and thought
that he had finished urinating, and afterwards he urinated a second time, he
must recite the Asher yatzar blessing
twice. And he brought a proof from what the Sages, of blessed memory, said: If a
person erred and did not pray the Shacharit service, he must pray the Mincha service twice. And there is no
minimum measure for urination, for even for a single drop one is obligated to
recite the blessing." The Bet Yosef
(OC 7) brings this halakha in the
name of Mahari Abuhav who cites it from the Orchot Chayyim. And in the Shulchan Arukh (7:3), he codifies this as law. The
Magen Avraham and the Taz both cite the Bach who argues that Asher yatzar is a blessing of thanksgiving, and therefore
one blessing suffices for any given time, and they adduce proof from Birkat Ha-mazon. In any event none of these posekim suggests that tashlumin only applies to the Amida prayer which is a supplication for mercy.
The implication is that the Asher
yatzar blessing may be likened to
the Amida prayer, even though prayer is a supplication
for mercy, and thus there should be no problem applying the notion of tashlumin to the recitation of the Shema.
The Seder
Mishneh on the Rambam (Hilkhot Keri'at
Shema
1:11, s.v. sham shalosh sha'ot) writes that this disagreement whether
there are tashlumin for Shema depends on the disagreement between
the Rambam and the Ramban whether the reading of Shema in the morning and
in the evening constitute one mitzva or two mitzvot.
According to the Ramban who maintains that they are regarded as two separate
mitzvot, there can be no tashlumin for Shema –
for what connection is
there between the day-time Shema and the night, or vice versa. Surely
this is like one who compensates during the [subsequent] days of Pesach for the
olive-sized matza that he did not eat on the first night, which does not
help at all.
Whereas according to the
Rambam who maintains that they are regarded as a single mitzva, they are related to each
other, and this is similar to prayer, where all three prayer services are
considered a single mitzva.
This suggestion is also cited in the name of Ma'ayan Ha-chokhma.
In my opinion, however, it is very questionable. For it seems obvious to me
that there is no disagreement between the Rambam and the Ramban regarding the
essence and substance of the two mitzvot. Even the Rambam concedes that
the day-time Shema and the night-time Shema are two separate mitzva actions. The dispute between
them is limited to the question of how to count the 613 mitzvot – do we
count them as one mitzva or as
two mitzvot. The Ramban explains the principle behind this in Sefer
ha-Mitzvot (principle no. 11, erroneously published in principle no.
9):
And the two daily
offerings, and the incense offered in the morning and in the evening, and the
Shema are each counted as two mitzvot, for they are mitzvot
whose fulfillment are not interdependent, and the time of the one is not the
time of the other.
The Rambam certainly
agrees that the fulfillment of one is not necessary for the fulfillment of the
other, but he counts them as a single mitzva for the reason he writes
there: "It has already been explained to you that even parts that are not
interdependent are sometimes counted as a single mitzva, namely, when they are one
matter." The Rambam and Ramban dispute whether independence of fulfillment is
itself a reason for the two acts to be counted as separate mitzvot
(according to the Ramban), or whether they may still be categorized as
aspects of a single mitzva
(according to the Rambam).
A caveat should be added regarding the opinion that the law of
tashlumin depends on the fact that the day-time Shema and the
night-time Shema are a single mitzva, such that they are related to
each other. The reason that they are one mitzva on this view is not because
the verse joins them together, "and you shall speak of them… when you lie down
and when you rise up." For in that case, I would have only said that one can
perform tashlumin for the night-time Shema the following morning,
for they are connected by the verse; one would not be able to recite perform
tashlumin for the day-time Shema during the following evening, as
the Torah’s link would not be reversible. Rather, the reason that the Rambam
counts them as a single mitzva
is because they represent one idea, as the Rambam writes in his Sefer
ha-Mitzvot¸ principle no. 11 (cited above). For this reason, even the
day-time Shema is connected to the night-time Shema that follows
it, and therefore it is possible according to Rabbenu Chayyim to compensate for
a missing morning Shema the following evening.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] The Meiri there says as
follows: "Nevertheless, even after sunrise he recites [the evening Shema]
with its blessings as a non-obligatory reading, since [his failure to recite the
Shema in its proper time] was due to circumstances beyond his control.
What is more there are those who go as far as to say that this is an obligatory
reading based on tashlumin, similar to the law that one who erred and did
not pray the Arvit service prays the Shacharit service twice. But
this is certainly not correct, for this was only stated regarding the
Amida prayer, which is [supplication for] mercy, so that [even] if a
person [already] prayed, he can offer another voluntary prayer, which is not the
case regarding Shema and its blessings. Rather he recites it not as an
obligation, but with its blessings."
[2] See the Taz (ad loc.)
who notes that the Levush disagrees with the Rema on this
point.
[3] The Meiri refers here
to the Gemara in Berakhot 11b.
[4] See Magen Gibborim 58:9, who
argues that according to Rav Hai Gaon, who says that an individual can fulfill
the mitzva of Shema without reciting the blessings, there are
tashlumin for Shema. He explains that when the Gemara limits
"That which is crooked cannot be made straight" to that which is done
intentionally, learning that there are tashlumin for an unintentional
omission, this refers specifically to an individual.