MAARIV – OPTIONAL?
Berachos 27b-28a based on Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman
A certain Talmid asked in the Bais Medrash: Is the Maariv prayer a matter of Reshus (optional – according to Tosfos may perform a different Mitzvah that cannot be done later instead of praying Maariv) or Chovah (obligatory). Rabbi Yehoshua answered reshus and Rabbi Gamliel answered chovah. The Gemura relates the famous story of downgrading of the role of Rabbi Gamliel and the installing of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah as Nasi. At the end of the story, the Gemura asks who was the Talmid that asked the question, and answers it was Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai.
The Gemara (Berachos 26b) relates a dispute as to the origin of ma’ariv; according to one opinion, the tefilos were originated by the Avos, and Ya’akov instituted ma’ariv; according to other opinion, the tefilos are based on korbanos – and ma’ariv corresponds to the burning of the aivarim u-fedarim.
There is a machlokes in the Gemara (Berachos 27b) whether tefilas ma’ariv is considered a reshus or a chovah. The opinion that ma’ariv is a reshus is very possibly the dominant opinion.
I. What are practical ramifications of ma’ariv being a reshus?
a. Rambam (Hil. Tefilah 3:7) – we are not precise about the time of ma’ariv (i.e, daven before dark – other rishonim understand this practice differently, for example, based on the view of R. Yehudah – see Tosafos Berachos 2a s.v. me-eimatai; or because Ya’akov himself davened before dark (Chulin 91b, Tosafos, Berachos 26b s.v. Ya’akov).
b. Rambam (Hil. Tefilah 9:9) - We have no chazaras hashat”z after ma’ariv for this reason.
1. Beis Yosef (OC 53) this is a limud zechus on places where minors serve as shaliach tzibbur for ma’ariv (Magen Avraham explains because there is no chazaras ha-shatz, Beis Yosef because of reshus).
2. Rav Shach (quoted in Resp. Shoa’lin U’Dorshin, I, p. 105) – no chazaras hashat”z, because the ability to be motzi someone else is due to “arvus”, which would not apply to a reshus.
c. Rabbenu Yonah (Berachos 2b bi-dapei ha-Rif) – we may not need shemoneh esrai at all because of this.
d. R. Amram Gaon (Tosfos Berachos 4b s.v. d’amar) - We are more lenient on “semichas geulah l’tefilah” because of this:
1. Machlokes in the Gemara (Berachos 4b) if we require “semichas geulah l’tefilah” for ma’ariv; we pasken that you do.
2. Nonetheless, we are more lenient about interruptions – in addition to hashkivenu (which the Gemara explains is permitted as an “extended geulah”), we recite kaddish, and some say “Baruch Hashem L’Olam”, etc. (During shacharis, no interruption whatsoever is permitted.)
3. The lesser obligation of “semichas geulah l’tefilah” results in the halakhah that if one comes to shul for ma’ariv and the congregation is up to shemoneh esrei, he joins them for shemoneh esrei rather than reciting krias shma first (as he would do during shacharis) (Orach Chaim 236:3) because tefilah b’tzibur is more important than “semichas geulah l’tefilah” in this case (see Mishnah Berurah 236:12)
4. According to some rishonim (see Tosfos Megilah 23a s.v keivan), we have interruptions on purpose in order to specifically declare that ma’ariv is a reshus. Why does that need to be announced?
A. Rav Soloveitchik (Shiurim L’Zecher Abba Mari, II, “B’Inyan Semichas Geulah L’Tefilah”) – two purposes of “semichas geulah l’tefilah” – to enhance geulah (krias shma), and to enhance and justify tefilah. For ma’ariv, we only have one purpose – to allow tefilah, all the more so, as it is a reshus and needs special permission; and as a reshus, it cannot be combined with krias shma, which is obligatory, and thus the distinction between them must be made clear. (See also Kehilas Ya’akov, Berachos #2).
e. Beis Yosef (O.C 268) quoting the geonim – on Friday night, one who does not recite ma’ariv can fulfill his obligation by listening to the chazzan recite Magen Avos, because ma’ariv is a reshus.
1. Maharil (Resp. 135) – one who has not davened minchah on erev Shabbos, instead of davening ma’ariv twice, can listen to Magen Avos for the second one.
2. Minchas Pittim (quoted in Orchos Chaim, Orach Chaim 108:9) – why should that be so – the position of the geonim is because ma’ariv is a reshus – but minchah is not; how can Magen Avos make up for minchah?
3. R. Natan Gestetner (Resp. Le-Horot Natan, V, 42) – can explain based on Rashash (Berachos 26a) – since ma’ariv is a reshus, any tefilah of tashlumin in that time period is also reshus and follows the same rules.
4. However, R. Shlomo Kluger (Resp.Ha-Elef Likha Shlomo, O.C., 53) says the opposite – cannot make up for minchah with Magen Avos, because minchah is a chovah. (See Resp. Yabbia Omer VI, 19)
II. Is ma’ariv really a reshus in the sense of optional?
a. Even if so, we don’t pass up on it lightly, without a good reason (Tosfos, Berachos 26a s.v. ta’ah; 27b, s.v halakhah; Shabbos 9b, s.v le-ma’an d’amar)
b. Many rishonim (Behag quoted in Tosfos, Yoma 87b, s.v. vi-ha’amar, Rambam Hil. Tefilah 1:6, maintain that nowadays, ma’ariv has been accepted as an obligation.
1. Proofs (to either a. and b.) quoted in Tosfos and elsewhere: (1): We don’t require repetition of shemoneh esrai at night on Rosh Chodesh if ya’aleh ve-yavo is omitted because of “ein mekadshin es ha-chodesh ba-laylah” (Berachos 30b), and not because it is optional to begin with; (2). We require one who misses ma’ariv to daven twice at shacharis, and do not say that ma’ariv wasn’t necessary in the first place.
c. Two possible versions of the “acceptance” theory :
1. Either the whole klal Yisrael accepted it (Rif to Shabbos; Rambam);
2. Individuals accepted it on themselves (Behag and others).
A. Teshuvos HaRashba (III, 288) – There is no chazaras ha-shatz for ma’ariv because chazaras ha-shatz is to help those who do not know how to daven; and one who doesn’t know how to daven wouldn’t have an obligation of ma’ariv, because the obligation only comes after one has davened ma’ariv voluntarily.
B. R. Yitzchak Kulitz (Resp. Minchat Eliyahu, I. 9) - Communal acceptance is more binding than personal acceptance; ramification – statement of the Gemara (Shabbos 9b) that you do not have to interrupt a meal for ma’ariv doesn’t apply after communal acceptance of ma’ariv (based on Rif, above).
d. According to the Tikunei Zohar (brought in Sha’arei Teshuvah, 268:2) and some poskim such as R. Ya’akov Emden, ma’ariv on Shabbos night is a chovah. This may be because of the possibility that the biblical obligation of Kiddush is fulfilled through davening (Behag, as quoted by Netziv); (The Rambam is explicitly not of this opinion.) See Yabbia Omer, I, OC, 22:14.
III. After it has been accepted, does there continue to be a status of “reshus”?
Machlokes between the Rambam and the Ra’avad about someone who starts davening maariv and realizes in the middle that he davened already – the gemara is says, in general, if this happens, can’t switch to nedavah (voluntary prayer) in the middle (Berachos 21a, with Tosafos HaRosh). Rambam (Tefilah 10:6) - this is not true for ma’ariv (one can continue), as it is a reshus and can therefore merge with a nedavah. The Ra’avad disagrees; as Kesef Mishneh explains, ma’ariv has been accepted as obligatory.
a. R. Chaim Brisker: Ra’avad believes acceptance has made it equal to other tefilos, and Rambam believes acceptance means it must be said, but still maintains a status of “reshus”.
b. R. Mordechai Karlbach (Chavatzeles Ha-Sharon al ha-Torah, Bereishis) – opposite understanding from R. Chaim, because if ma’ariv was really equal to nedavah in nature, there should be no possibility of Tefilah B’Tzibur, which doesn’t apply to a nedavah. Rather, the tefilah itself was always equal to other tefilos (before and after acceptance); the issue is whether or not it must be recited.
IV. What is different about Ya’akov – why should his tefilah be a reshus?
Ya’akov was no less important than the other avos – in fact, the Midrash calls him bechir ha-avos.
a. Maybe this is only according to the opinion that tefilos k’neged hakarbanos. (Rif; Netziv, Ha’amek Shealah 8:1; However, Rosh is explicitly not this way)
b. Ya’akov never intended to institute a tefilah; he intended a nedavah – thus, his prayer continues to be voluntary (P’nei Yehoshua)
c. Ya’akov was davening a tashlumin for minchah (Toras Chaim, Chulin 91, expanded in R. Moshe Halberstam, Resp. Divrei Moshe, 16)
V. The unusual status of ma’ariv – optional, but universally performed
a. Iss it comparable to Chanukah. The lighting of a full menorah of eight candles is considered mehadrin min hamehadrin and yet it is universal practice. R. Meir Tzvi Bergman (Sha’arei Orah, I, 59-60) explains, based on a comment of the Maharit, that true hoda’ah cannot be mandatory, it must be voluntary.
b. Perhaps tefilas arvis reshus is a similar idea. Zohar (Parshas Terumah) – Ma’ariv is a reshus because no one can do it like Ya’akov. R. Tzvi Hirsch Frimer (Kozaglover Rav; Derashot Eretz Tzvi p. 46) – Ya’akov reached a level of hidden and private behavior that is impossible to imitate. Ma’ariv is a personal encounter – “pegiah” – ma’ariv can not be “obligatory”, has to be personal.
c. Further, R. Eliyah Bakshi Doron (Resp. Binyan Av, IV, 3) – There is a difference between the history of the three tefilos – Ya’akov’s prayer was as night approached, at a time of crisis, in contrast with Avraham’s beginning of the day with shacharis and Yitzchak’s connecting with Hashem at minchah. Shacharis and minchah have to be obligatory, because one may be overconfident in his abilities and forget about prayer; while one does not forget to pray in a time of crisis; Ya’akov just showed how to do it.
d. The Pnei Yehoshua (Brochos 26b s.v. Mihu) explains that Yaakov never intended to create a new prayer at night – he meant to daven mincha! Suddenly, HaShem made the sun set and darkness fell early, in order to force Yaakov to stop at that place. Thus, Yaakov’s prayer was because he had missed mincha, not because he was trying to institute a prayer in the evening.
