Siman 107

It is already known that the Men of the Great Assembly ordained for us three prayers every day. And they said (31a): Is it possible for a man to pray the entire day? The verse regarding Daniel states: "And three times...", see there. For this reason they said (21a): If one was standing in prayer and remembered that he had already prayed – he stops, even in the middle of a blessing. And they further said there: If it is a doubt whether he prayed or a doubt whether he did not pray – he does not return and pray. And the reason: for prayer is rabbinic, and a doubt is ruled leniently. And even according to the Rambam that prayer is from the Torah, nevertheless it has no known text and no fixed time, and is only once a day. And all of this is rabbinic, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 89. However, Rava said there: Would that a man should pray the entire day. Rashi, Tosafot, and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot explained that the halacha follows Rava in a case of doubt whether he prayed, but if he certainly prayed, the halacha is that he stops even in the middle of a blessing. And such is the opinion of several of the poskim. And even though in the words of Rava a doubt whether he prayed was not mentioned at all, they wrote that since the Shas established his words regarding a doubt whether he prayed – presumably it deals with such a case. And it further appears to me because in the Yerushalmi (Chapter 4, Halacha 4) it is explicitly stated so, as it says there: They asked before Rava: A doubt if he prayed or a doubt if he did not pray? He said to them: Would that we should pray all day, for prayer does not lose out. Thus far his words; behold, it explicitly refers to a doubt. (And this is the explanation: Would that we were able to pray all day. But it is forbidden for us more than three times, as it said: Is it possible he should pray all day..., and if so, "give it" that we should not add to it. For this is specifically when he certainly prayed, but in a case of doubt he is permitted to pray. So wrote the Bach, see there.)

And know that the statement that if he remembered that he had prayed he must stop—Shmuel said it. And he said another statement there in the Gemara: If one prayed, and entered the synagogue and found the congregation praying, if he is able to innovate something in it—he should return and pray. And if not—he should not return and pray. And it is explained in the Gemara that even an individual regarding a congregation—it is forbidden for him without an innovation to pray two times. And whether an individual by himself is permitted to pray a second time by means of an innovation is not explained in the Gemara. And that which is explained there, that a congregation is no better than an individual, this is that without an innovation it is forbidden even with a congregation. But that it should be permitted also for an individual without an innovation we have not heard. And from the wording of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot it is explicitly implied that only with a congregation is it permitted by means of an innovation, see there. But such is not the opinion of our teachers, as will be explained. And so it is implied from the Tosafot there, that by means of an innovation it is permitted even for an individual even if he certainly prayed, see there.

And this is the opinion of Rav Hai Gaon which the Rosh cited. And the Tosafot of Ri there and the Tur, for they hold that that which Rava said, "Would that a person would pray the entire day," refers to by means of a chiddush; and that which they forbade, to pray more than three times a day, this is without a chiddush, and there is no difference between in a tzibbur and in private. And this is regarding one who certainly prayed, he requires a chiddush, but regarding a doubt if he prayed, he does not require a chiddush, for since he must return and pray due to the doubt—you have no greater chiddush than this (Tosafot of Ri). And it turns out that regarding the matter of a doubt if he prayed, the opinion of the Gaon is like the opinion of Rashi and the Behag. However, regarding one who certainly prayed, whether it is permitted by means of a chiddush to pray further in private—the opinion of Rashi has not been clarified for us. (And also in the Behag it is possible to press the matter according to the words of the Gaon, that he did not specifically mean in a tzibbur. But it is a forced interpretation, see there.) And see in section 5.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, his opinion is equal to the previous opinions regarding one who certainly prayed, for by means of a chiddush he is permitted to return and pray. However, regarding a doubt if he prayed, he disagrees with the previous opinions, and for him certainty is equal to doubt, as will be explained. This is his wording in the first chapter, law 9: These prayers, one may not diminish them, but one may add to them. If a person desired to pray the entire day, he has permission, and all those prayers that he adds are like one who offers voluntary sacrifices. Therefore, he must innovate something in every single blessing of the middle blessings according to the theme of the blessings, and if he innovated even in one blessing – it is sufficient to make known that it is voluntary and not obligatory. And the first three and the last three, one never adds to them, nor diminishes from them, and one does not change anything in them. Thus far his words.

And in the tenth chapter, law 6, he wrote: One who is in doubt whether he prayed or did not pray—he does not return and pray. Unless he prayed this prayer with the intent that it is a voluntary prayer, for if an individual desired to pray the entire day a voluntary prayer—he may pray. Thus far his words. And his intention is that he must innovate something within it as in the first chapter, for behold he wrote "with the intent that it is a voluntary prayer," and in the first chapter he explained that a voluntary prayer requires an innovation. And he did not see fit to explain this here, and relied on what he wrote there. And he follows the approach of the Rif, that Rava who said "if only one would pray..."—is not speaking of a certainty alone or a doubt alone, but rather in every case it is so. And in truth, even in the words of the Gaon this was not explained. Rather, our teacher Yonah ruled so, that in a case of doubt one does not require an innovation. But they do not hold so, but rather in every case one requires an innovation and the intent of a voluntary prayer.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, further wrote there in the tenth chapter: One who was standing in prayer and remembered that he had already prayed—he stops, even in the middle of a blessing. Thus far his words. And one should not raise a difficulty: Why should he stop? Let him finish it as a voluntary prayer and innovate something within it? For the Rif already explained there that the reason is because he already began it with the intent of an obligation, and it is like one who offers two Tamid sacrifices; see there. And this is why the Rambam concluded there that if it was the Maariv prayer, he does not stop, for he did not pray it from the beginning except with the understanding that it is not an obligation. Thus far his words. That is to say: for we hold that the Maariv prayer is voluntary. The Ra'avad was not satisfied with this and wrote: There is no satisfaction here. Thus far his words. And his intention is: for behold, we have accepted upon ourselves the Maariv prayer as an obligation (Kessef Mishneh). And it is not an objection, for behold, the Rambam himself did not distinguish in all the laws that were explained between Maariv and other prayers because we accepted it as an obligation. Rather, regarding this matter of stopping in the middle of the prayer, we establish it upon the essential law. And it appears to me that his intention is that in any event he should innovate something within it. For granted that both are voluntary, nevertheless, in the second one he must innovate some matter so that the prayers are not identical. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And even though one could distinguish, nevertheless it appears so. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And know that the Rif, of blessed memory, did not mention at all that one must innovate something in it, and he holds that even without an innovation one may pray a voluntary prayer. And even though the Rif subsequently cited that case of one who found a congregation praying, that if he can innovate…, nevertheless, it does not imply that this refers also to the previous laws. And a proof for this is from the words of the Tur, who wrote: And if he does not know how to innovate something, and it is also clear to him that he prayed, and he wishes to pray with the intent of a voluntary prayer – according to the Rif he may pray… and according to the Gaon one should not pray a voluntary prayer without an innovation. And so he wrote: It is impossible… Thus far his words. And the opinion of the Rambam in this is like the opinion of the Gaon, as we have explained. And the opinion of the Ra'avad in the first chapter is like the Rif, that he does not need an innovation, see there.

The Rambam wrote there in the first chapter: The community does not pray a voluntary prayer, because the community does not bring a voluntary sacrifice. And even an individual shall not pray Musaf twice, one for the obligation of the day and one as a voluntary prayer, because one does not volunteer a Musaf sacrifice. And there are some of the Geonim who instructed that it is forbidden to pray a voluntary prayer on Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim, because on them one does not offer a voluntary sacrifice but only an obligatory one. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad wrote that for a different reason one should not pray two prayers on Shabbat and Yom Tov: because every extra prayer is only to seek mercy and supplications, and in the prayers of Shabbat and Yom Tov there are only praises and thanksgivings, and any such addition would be a blessing in vain. And similarly the blessings of "Yotzer" and of Ma'ariv, and the blessings over fruits, and the blessings over the mitzvot—it is forbidden to double them, see there. And regarding what the Rambam wrote that the community does not bring a voluntary sacrifice, even though they bring voluntary burnt-offerings at a time when the altar was idle, and this is called "the dessert of the altar"—it was not so common, for the vast majority of the time the altar was not idle (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). Furthermore: the verses regarding voluntary sacrifices are written regarding an individual, and not regarding the community. Nevertheless, an individual who prays a voluntary prayer may pray it with the community (Eliyah Rabbah).

And I have a question regarding this: for if the second prayer is in place of a voluntary offering, if so, how may one pray a voluntary prayer at mincha? For after one has prayed the obligatory mincha, it is as if he has offered the obligatory meal offering, which is the daily afternoon offering, and it is forbidden to offer any further sacrifice after the daily afternoon offering, for "upon it complete all the sacrifices" (Pesachim 58b)? And it appears to me to resolve this: since the prohibition after the daily afternoon offering is only regarding slaughtering and sprinkling, but burning is permitted as they may burn all night, therefore corresponding to them one may pray a voluntary prayer. For the maariv prayer was instituted corresponding to the burning of the limbs and the fats, as it is taught at the beginning of the fourth chapter, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled like the Rambam, except in the case of doubt whether one prayed, he rules not in accordance with him. This is his wording in section 1: If he is in doubt whether he prayed – he returns and prays, and he does not need to innovate anything… Thus far his words. Yet according to the Rambam, he must pray it as a voluntary prayer and by means of an innovation. And the Rashba wrote that he must stipulate: If I have not prayed, let this be for my obligation, and if I have prayed, let this be for my voluntary prayer (Magen Avraham subsection 1 and Beit Yosef). And I wonder: for if so, behold he must innovate something in it, for there is no voluntary prayer without an innovation according to the opinion of the Rambam? And many of the poskim are as I have written. And the Rashba, it is possible that he holds like the Rif and the Ra'avad that an innovation is not required, as I wrote in section 7. And it requires further study. And know that there is one who says that for Arvit he does not need to pray in a case of doubt whether he prayed or did not pray, for the Arvit prayer is voluntary (Derech HaChaim). But it does not imply thus from all the poskim. On the contrary, behold the Rambam is more lenient regarding Arvit, as I wrote in section 6.

Regarding the matter of innovating something in his prayer, we have already brought from the Rambam that ideally one should innovate in every blessing, and post facto it is sufficient in one blessing. The Tur wrote similarly, except that he wrote that in "Shome'a Tefilla" the innovation is not effective because it is a general blessing, and he can ask for whatever he desires, and it does not appear as much of an innovation; see there. All the other poskim did not bring this. The Rosh, of blessed memory, raised a difficulty: How is it relevant that one cannot innovate something? Who is it that cannot innovate something? Therefore, he explained that we require that some matter of request be innovated for him, whether regarding livelihood or other matters. Our teacher, the Rema, brought this in section 2; see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, raised a difficulty regarding this, for behold there are many who are unable to innovate anything, as they are simple people. And it is even more a matter of wonder: for in Berakhot (29b) it is explicitly explained that the explanation of "one who is unable to innovate" is that it is not within his ability to add; see there (Magen Avraham, subsection 4).

And it seems to me that the words of the Rosh are correct. For behold, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 4, wrote: One who wishes to pray a voluntary prayer—must recognize himself as careful and diligent and assess his mind, that he is able to focus in his prayer from beginning to end. But if he cannot focus well—we read concerning him "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices." And would that he could focus in the three fixed prayers per day. Thus far their words. And this is from a responsum of the Rosh, see there. And if so, such a person is certainly not a simple man but a talmid chakam who is careful and diligent. And such a man is certainly capable of innovating something, which is not the case regarding the blessings there where it deals with the community of Israel—certainly there are many unlearned people who do not know how to innovate something. Nevertheless, from what has been explained, one should distance himself in this time from praying a voluntary prayer, for we are not careful and diligent. And in truth, we have never seen anyone who would do so.

Nevertheless, in a case of doubt whether one prayed or did not pray—even nowadays one must return and pray. For according to most poskim, by the letter of the law one must return and pray and not by way of a nedavah, for one does not need to innovate anything in it according to the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, as I wrote in section 10. And even though we wrote there that according to the Rashba one must make a condition, it appears that this is not the opinion of most poskim. And so one should instruct. (And the Chayei Adam ruled even in this case that one should not pray, but it does not appear so.)