1995: Inyanei Tefillah, L’chvod the Rav’s Yahrzeit

Shas Masechet Bava Batra, Yeshiva, Naveh Yeshiva, Bava Batra, Bava Batra, Bava Batra, Chavernai, Chavernai, Chavrei, Modah Ani, Modah Ani Lefanecha.

מודה אני לפניך ה' אלקי ואלקי אבותי ששמת חלקי בין יושבי בית המדרש ובפרט בית המדרש הגדול של ישיבת רבינו יצחק אלחנן.

Yeshiva, as we all know, is very unique, clearly central to the continuity of diaspora Jewry. Yeshiva is also unique in many other ways of which, due to constraints of time, I shall only mention one: it offers the vibrant opportunity to function simultaneously as a talmid, as a chaver, and as a rebbe as well. One is surrounded by outstanding rabbeim, outstanding chaverim, outstanding talmidim, umikulam lamadeti. The Yeshiva is sustained and directed by the tireless efforts of our distinguished Nasi HaYeshiva, and I take the opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Lamm for the opportunity he has provided me to be marbitz Torah in such a great Makom Torah. I also wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Menahal HaYeshiva, Rabbi Goldvicht, whose office is an address for me to go and bask in the warmth of friendship and counsel. This morning's shiur will focus on Mitzvas Tefillah. The Gemara in Brachos דף כ"ו עמוד א' poses the following question:

איבעיא להו טעה ולא התפלל מנחה מהו שיתפלל ערבית שתים?

If one accidentally omitted Tefillas HaMinchah, does he have the privilege and obligation of tashlumin, of compensating for it by reciting the Arvit Shmoneh Esrei twice?

אם תימצא לומר טעה ולא התפלל ערבית מתפלל שחרית שתים משום דחד יומא הוא דכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד אבל הכא תפילה במקום קרבן וכיון דעבר יומא בטל קרבנו או דילמא כיון דרחמי היא כל אימת דבעי מצלי ואזיל.

Is the possibility of tashlumin restricted to the same halachic day, in which case we may not trespass the boundary of one day to the next and therefore we would be denied the possibility of tashlumin for Minchah the following night because al pi din it constitutes a new day? Or perhaps, on the other hand, because Tefillah represents rachamei, supplication, petitioning, it transcends the boundaries of time, and therefore tashlumin would be possible even at night for Tefillah which was omitted the previous afternoon? The Gemara responds. Ta shema

דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב יוחנן טעה ולא התפלל מנחה מתפלל ערבית שתים ואין בזה משום דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו.

And indeed, we asked for the possibility of tashlumin at night for the tefillah which was omitted the previous afternoon. However, upon closer inspection, the words of the Gemara are very perplexing. As the Gemara introduces its question, the Gemara clearly indicates that the seed of doubt is the fact that at night we have already entered a new day. That the possibility of tashlumin for Arvit in the morning, for Shacharis in the afternoon, is due to the fact that chad yoma hu דכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד. At this point, we expect the Gemara to conclude אבל הכא יומא אחרינא הוא. However, in the case which we have deliberated, the case of tashlumin for Mincha at night, it's a different day. And yet, the Gemara all of a sudden shifts gears and instead of concluding אבל הכא יומא אחרינא הוא, it's a new day, instead the Gemara says

אבל הכא תפילה ברחמי היא וכיון דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו.

But this is very, very difficult. If the halacha of tashlumin was subject to the provisions of tefillah bimkom korban, there would be no tashlumin whatsoever. The eivarim upedarim which were not placed upon the mizbe'ach at night, there was no possibility of tashlumin to place those eivarim upedarim on the mizbe'ach in the morning. A tamid shel shachar which was not offered in the morning in its appropriate timeframe, there was no way to compensate for that in the afternoon. So clearly, the very institution of tashlumin is not subject to the constraints of tefillah bimkom korban. So clearly, that is not a consideration, and the only consideration should be whether or not it's possible to be mashlim, whether or not it's possible to compensate for a tefillah which was omitted on a different day. And yet, that's not how the Gemara presents the question. The Gemara says

אבל הכא תפילה ברחמי היא וכיון דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו.

But again, were we to follow that logic to its natural conclusion, so that would totally eliminate any tashlumin. It would eliminate tashlumin of Arvit in the morning and of Shacharis in the afternoon because here too

תפילה במקום קרבן וכיון דעבר זימניה אפילו בתוך אותו היום בטל קרבנו.

The answer to this question lies in understanding the nature of Mitzvas Tefillah. Mitzvas Tefillah contains two distinct dimensions, two distinct קיומים וחיובים על כל פנים in the Mitzvas Tefillah. First of all, the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchos Tefillah:

מצות עשה להתפלל בכל יום שנאמר ועבדתם את השם אלקיכם מפי השמועה למדו שעבודה זו היא תפילה שנאמר ולעבדו בכל לבבכם אמרו חכמים אי זו היא עבודה שבלב זו היא תפילה.

The Rambam, from the Sifrei, the Gemara Ta'anis, the source of Mitzvas Tefillah, ועבדתם את השם אלקיכם. Tefillah is a form of avodah. It's important to take notice of the fact that this is not merely a metaphorical equation between tefillah and avodah, but a very literal, unambiguous equation. The Mishnah in Yoma, the Rambam explains, that even though the only possible context for duchanen is within the context of avodas tzibur, and nevertheless the Gemara indicates in many places that nesias kapayim, duchanen, does exist mide'oraisa even in Chutz La'aretz. even outside of the Beis Hamikdash. How is one to reconcile that apparent contradiction? The only allowable context for nesias kapayim is avodas hatzibbur and yet on the other hand nesias kapayim is operative mideoraisa in chutz la'aretz as well. So the Mishkenos Yaakov said and this was extended and elaborated upon by Reb Chaim that the context mideoraisa for duchening in chutz la'aretz is tefilla. That tefilla ikre avoda, tefilla is referred to as avoda and is a kiyum avoda. It's not a rhetorical equation but a very real, rigorous and literal one. Tefilla ikre avoda and hence within the context of tefilla b'tzibbur we have both the possibility and the chiyuv of nesias kapayim. The Mishkenos Yaakov further suggests that one who davens while intoxicated, shikor she'hispallel would be over the issur deoraisa which refers to a shikor who does avoda. The same way a kohen who performs the avoda while intoxicated violates an issur deoraisa, that selfsame issur would govern one who davens while intoxicated because tefilla ikre avoda. We're all familiar with the famous observation of Reb Chaim that even the Ramban who questions the chiyuv of tefilla mideoraisa does concede its standing mideoraisa, that even the Ramban recognizes that tefilla is a kiyum avoda mideoraisa and what we've said until now holds true according to the Ramban as well. The Rambam writes at the beginning of perek ches, hilchos tefilla, halacha alef:

תפילת הציבור נשמעת תמיד. אפילו היו בהן חוטאים אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מואס בתפילתן של רבים.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu always grants an audience to tefilla b'tzibbur even if amongst the tzibbur there are sinners, rachmana litzlan, Hakadosh Baruch Hu does not spurn that tefilla.

לפיכך צריך אדם לשתף עצמו עם הציבור ולא יתפלל ביחיד כל זמן שיכול להתפלל עם הציבור.

Consequently says the Rambam, a person is obligated to always integrate himself into the tzibbur and he should never daven privately when the possibility exists to daven b'tzibbur. There's a bit of a non sequitur here in the lashon haRambam. The Rambam begins by describing the virtue of tefilla b'tzibbur, the ma'ala of tefilla b'tzibbur, that

תפילת הציבור נשמעת תמיד שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא מואס בתפילתן של רבים.

He's set the stage for describing tefilla b'tzibbur as something laudatory, something desirable, and yet the Rambam follows up

תפילת הציבור נשמעת תמיד, אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מואס בתפילתן של רבים,

then all of a sudden the Rambam makes a leap and says לפיכך צריך אדם לשתף עצמו עם הציבור. Consequently a person is obligated to daven b'tzibbur. Not merely is it recommended, not merely is he urged to daven b'tzibbur, but he's tzorech, he's obligated to daven b'tzibbur. But there's a gap. How did the Rambam make the transition from the ma'ala of tefilla b'tzibbur, from the advantages and virtues of tefilla b'tzibbur to the imperative of tefilla b'tzibbur, lefikach tzarich ha'adam? Perhaps the explanation is as follows. In Hilchos Issurei Mizbeach, perek zayin, halacha alef, the Rambam writes:

כל דבר שאינו פסול מביא אותו לכתחילה. כיצד הרי חייב עולה לא יביא כחוש וכאור ויאמר הרי אין בו מום ועל זה נאמר וארור נוכל. אלא כל שיביא לקורבן יביא מן המובחר.

The Rambam reflecting a Gemara in Menachos as quoted by the Kesef Mishneh articulates a very important principle. When it comes to korbanos, anything which constitutes a hidur, anything which would enhance the offering of the korban, ipso ipso by that very fact becomes obligatory. It doesn't remain in the realm of zeh kaili v'anveihu, it doesn't remain in the realm of mitzvah min hamuvchar, but anything which would enhance the hakravas hakorban, anything which would upgrade the ma'aseh hamitzvah of... of hakravas hakorban, therefore by definition becomes obligatory. We don't find that a person who neglects Zeh Keili V'Anveihu should have an arur, should have a curse directed against him. So clearly this chiyuv in context of hakravas korbanos is not merely the universal principle of Zeh Keili V'Anveihu, but there is a special halacha which relates to avoda, to korbanos, that anything which would potentially constitute a hiddur, where accessible, where available, a person is chayav lehader, a person is obligated to search after that hiddur. In light of this, lichora, that then would be the correct understanding in the Rambam. We had asked how the Rambam makes the leap from beginning by merely describing the virtues or advantages of tefila b'tzibur, and then the Rambam makes a leap and the Rambam discusses the imperative of tefila b'tzibur. The answer is that since tefila ikar avoda, and again, that's a real and rigorous equation, a very literal one, so consequently this chiyuv of arur nochel, this chiyuv that the fact that it's acceptable is not sufficient, governs hilchos tefila as well. And if tefila b'tzibur is a ma'ala, if tefila b'tzibur is more advantageous and more virtuous than tefila b'yachid, so consequently it constitutes a chiyuv. That's what the Rambam writes, that

תפילת הציבור נשמעת תמיד ואין הקדוש ברוך הוא מואס בתפילתם של רבים לפיכך צריך האדם לשתף עצמו עם הציבור.

And finally, in terms of concretizing, documenting the kiyum avoda in tefila, clearly the halacha of תפילות כנגד תמידים תקנום, the correlation between tefilos and temidim, extended by the Rishonim, that the possibility of tefilas nedava is also correlated with the possibility of korban nedava, all point very clearly to the fact that tefila is a kiyum v'chiyuv avoda. On the other hand, there is a second dimension to mitzvas tefila. That dimension is expressed very clearly within the sugya we read before. The Gemara contrasts the dimension of tefila bimkom korban with דילמא כיון דצלותא רחמי היא. So apparently, in addition to the kiyum v'chiyuv avoda which is contained in tefila, in addition to that dimension, there is a second dimension of tefila rachamei, which has an independent standing, totally independent of any equation between tefila and avoda, tefila as a form of rachamei, a person approaching and supplicating Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Similarly earlier, the Gemara in Daf Kaf, in discussing why nashim are obligated in tefila, says dirachamei ninhu. Again, the Gemara invokes this dimension, this universal dimension of tefila, of rachamei. The Rambam in Hilchos Melachim,

פרק ט הלכה א: אברהם התפלל שחרית ויצחק הוסיף תפילה אחרת לפני היום ויעקב התפלל ערבית,

reflecting the man d'amar tefilos avos tiknum. Earlier in Perek Aleph of Hilchos Tefila, the Rambam has quoted the man d'amar תפילות כנגד תמידים תקנום. Clearly, the Rambam learned pshat מה אמר חדא ומה אמר חדא ולא פליגי, that the two views were not mutually exclusive. What then, what two dimensions are being reflected in these two opinions in the Gemara? It would seem that it corresponds to the kiyum rachamei of tefilos avos tiknum and the kiyum avoda of תפילות כנגד תמידים תקנום. The Gemara in Eruvin Samach Daled:

אמר רבה בר רב הונא שתוי אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפילתו תפילה שיכור אל יתפלל ואם התפלל תפילתו תועבה היכי דמי שתוי והיכי דמי שיכור שתוי כל שיכול לדבר לפני המלך. שיכור כל שאינו יכול לדבר לפני המלך.

If one is shatuy, intoxicated, but still capable of conducting himself properly were he granted a royal audience, so then lechatchilah he's not allowed to daven, but bediavad if he did so, utfilato is acknowledged as a tefillah. By contrast, if a person's state of intoxication is such that he would not be able to conduct himself properly given a royal audience, so then tefillato to'evah, his tefillah's an abomination. Lich'orah it's difficult in light of this equation which we've seen between tefillah and avodah. The halachah for purposes of avodah in the גמרא כריתות י"ג, quoted by the Rambam in פרק א' הלכות ביאת מקדש, if a person drinks as much as a revi'is of wine, so then אם עבד עבודתו פסולה. His avodah is nifseles by his having drunk a mere revi'is, which clearly falls short of the level of intoxication of אינו יכול לדבר לפני המלך. So why then is the tefillah of a shatuy, why is it recognized bediavad as tefillato tefillah? Given the equation between tefillah and avodah, once he drinks a revi'is yayin, once he is a shatuy, that should disqualify the tefillah. But perhaps the answer would be that ein hachi nami, having become a shatuy, having disqualified himself from avodah, he's not supposed to daven. And interestingly the halachah is that even though bediavad his tefillah would be recognized as a tefillah, nevertheless lechatchilah he's not allowed to daven even though in so doing he will miss out entirely on tefillah. The reason for this is because since tefillah is a form of avodah, so once he's a shatuy, he has no right to engage in avodah. However, bediavad, ex post facto, if he did daven, tefillah has another dimension as well, a dimension of rachamei. The kiyum rachamei in tefillah, the dimension of rachamei in tefillah is not measured and is not governed by the regulations of avodah, but rather by whether or not he's יכול לדבר לפני המלך. And consequently, if only he was יכול לדבר לפני המלך, then bediavad tefillato tefillah. We recognize the tefillah, the dimension of rachamei was evident in the tefillah. Now it would seem in light of what we've been discussing that there are two kiyumim, two chiyuvim in tefillah, both a kiyum and chiyuv avodah as well as a kiyum and chiyuv rachamei, that when we come to discuss the definition of yom, of day, for purposes of Hilchos Tefillah, we should have a double definition. The definition of yom, of day, in kol haTorah kulah, again we needn't go further than the Gemara with which we began: ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר שהיום הולך אחר הלילה. The day begins at night and day follows night. However, the Gemara in Temurah yud dalet tells us that there is one exception to this rule. That for purposes of kodashim, the Gemara interprets שהלילה הולך אחר היום. That for purposes of kodashim, for purposes of achilas kodashim, the day comes first and the night follows. Now it would appear that אם כן הם דברינו אלו, that there are two kiyumim, two chiyuvim in tefillah, both a kiyum rachamei, a chiyuv rachamei, as well as a kiyum and chiyuv avodah, so we should find traces of both definitions of yom in Hilchos Tefillah. Both the yom of kol haTorah kulah, the definition of yom which governs kol haTorah kulah, as well as the definition of yom of achilas kodashim. And in fact, not only do we find this unique definition of yom, of שהלילה הולך אחר היום, that night follows day, not only do we... Find not only is that reflected in hilchos tfila, but for many halachos, that seems to be the primary koveia, the primary determinant in hilchos tfila. Let's review some of those halachos known to all of us. Gmara in Brachos

דף י עמוד ב: מאי דכתיב לא תאכלו על הדם לא תאכלו קודם שתתפללו על דמכם.

It's assur to eat or drink prior to davening shacharis. The Gmara explains the definition of the issur is that one's not allowed to eat or drink before the first tfila of the day. So the difficulty is what about tfilas arvis? What about tfilas arvis? If a person's already davened the previous night and the day begins at night, so when you wake up in the morning, if a person eats breakfast before shacharis, so he's not eating קודם שיתפלל על דמו. He's already davened at the beginning of the day. ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר. He's already davened at the beginning of the day, at night. Tosfos says tfilas arvis is not really reshus, it's really a mitzvah. So why are we totally ignoring or discounting tfilas arvis in the context of this issur of לא תאכלו על הדם that we're enjoined from eating prior to the first tfila of the day? But the answer would seem to be that the day with which we're operating here is the yom of avoda, the yom of kodesh. The day begins in the morning and ends at night. From that perspective, so the first tfila of the day will be tfilas shacharis. And if one will eat or drink prior to tfilas shacharis, so ein hachi nami, in fact, he is eating קודם שיתפלל על דמו. The Sefer HaChinuch, as is his wont in the Minyan Hamitzvos following the shittas ha-Rambam, enumerates mitzvas tfila amongst the taryag mitzvos and he concludes his discussion of that mitzvah, mitzva taf lamed gimel: V'noheget mitzvah zo, referring to mitzvas tfila,

בכל מקום ובכל זמן בזכרים ובנקבות ועובר על זה ועמד יום ולילה בלא תפילה כלל ביטל עשה זה כדעת הרמב"ם.

Lich'ora there is a little bit of imprecision in the words of the Sefer HaChinuch. The Sefer HaChinuch should have written

ועובר על זה ועמד לילה ויום בלא תפילה כלל ביטל עשה זה.

And this has practical implications. The question is on a de-oraisa level with a chiyuv of once daily, if a person will daven Monday night and then he'll daven again Wednesday morning, whether or not he has fulfilled the requirements mi-de-oraisa. So lich'ora, that's perfectly acceptable. The tfila of Monday night relates to Monday night and Tuesday. And then the period of Tuesday night and Wednesday is covered by his tfila Wednesday morning. And yet the Sefer HaChinuch says if a day and night pass without his engaging in tfila, he's been mevatel this mitzvas asei. From the Sefer HaChinuch one has the impression that in this example we gave if the person would daven Monday night and then not daven again until Wednesday morning, he would be guilty of being mevatel the mitzvas asei of tfila. How so? Again, lich'ora this reflects what we've been discussing, that the primary koveia here and on a de-oraisa level tfila is avoda, is the yom of kodesh. The yom of kodesh is הלילה הולך אחר היום. So consequently the day of Tuesday begins Tuesday morning at dawn, at amud ha-shachar, and extends into Tuesday night until the amud ha-shachar of Wednesday morning. And in fact, in that day of kodesh, by the definition of the yom of kodesh, he has allowed an entire day to elapse without engaging in tfila. The Gmara, the Mishna at the beginning of the fourth perek in Brachos has the well-known machlokes Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim as far as the appropriate zmanim for tfilas mincha and arvis. According to Rabbi Yehuda, tfilas mincha extends until plag ha-mincha, tfilas arvis begins immediately thereafter. According to the Rabbanan, tfilas mincha extends ad ha-erev, tfilas arvis begins immediately thereafter. The Gmara concludes:

השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר דעבד כמר עבד ודעבד כמר עבד.

Either view is legitimate and acceptable halacha le-maaseh. The Rishonim explain provided that one is consistent. One One has to be consistent. So what does it mean practically to be consistent? So we know that what it means is if, as the widespread custom is at this time of year, if Friday night for instance we're going to be davening Arvis early, we're going to take advantage of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and we're going to daven Arvis after Plag, so we should therefore advance the previous Tefillas Mincha and daven Mincha prior to Plag. But the question is, l'chora, in the name of consistency, why aren't we required to daven the Mincha on Shabbos afternoon prior to Plag? By davening Arvis early Friday night, so implicitly we're making a statement that at the very least, minimally, for this day, we've adopted the view of Rabbi Yehuda. For this day we've adopted the view of Rabbi Yehuda that Tefillas Arvis commences at Plag ha-Mincha and that Tefillas Mincha terminates at that point. If that's the case, so for the rest of this day we have to be consistent. So why are we concerned only with a previous Tefillas Mincha? We should be concerned with the subsequent Tefillas Mincha also. If we're not going to get involved in a tartei de-sasrei, we should be required to daven Mincha Shabbos afternoon prior to Plag as well. ואל זה לא שמענו מעולם. The answer, again, is that the day, the definition of day that we're operating here with is the day of Kodshim, not the day of kol ha-Torah kullah. Ein hachi nami. If the determining factor here had been ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר, so we would be required to daven the following Mincha prior to Plag as well. But since the definition of day, which is kovei'a, which determines here, is that definition of Kodshim, that הלילה הולך אחר היום, so the Tefillas Mincha of Shabbos afternoon belongs to the next day already. The day of Kodshim extended from Friday morning until Shabbos morning and therefore our options are completely open for the rest of Shabbos day. The Gemara says in Eruvin on Daf Samech-Hei רב אחא יתיב ופרע. Rav Acha, if he had a set amount that he would learn on a daily basis, Daf Yomi or whatever the pace was that he set himself, if for some reason he wasn't able to complete his daily quota during the day, so he would borrow and he would pay back at night and he would complete that daily quota at night. And this Gemara is quoted in Shulchan Aruch at the end of the first chelek of Orach Chaim, and it says that אם היה טרוד היום, if a person was very busy and very preoccupied during the day and was unable to finish that daily quota, so then yashlimenu ba-layla miyad. Magen Avraham explains that if a person has the practice of completing a daily quota, so then as with any minig shel mitzvah, it's binding mitam neder. It's binding mitoras neder. But that's very problematic. If it's binding mitoras neder, so why do we allow him to become so preoccupied as to neglect a neder? Shulchan Aruch doesn't insist that hayah oness. Shulchan Aruch doesn't say that Rav Acha's practice was only when circumstances were beyond his control. Shulchan Aruch presents Rav Acha as im hayah tarud. If he was busy, if he was preoccupied. Shulchan Aruch is not here reflecting a p'tur oness. And nevertheless Rav Acha, even when he was only preoccupied, falling short of being an oness, nevertheless was yasiv u-para, nevertheless borrowed and repaid at night. How is this possible? L'chora, the answer is, the Rambam in Sefer Ha-Mitzvos, Mitzvas Aseh Hei, quotes from the Sifri, the Kessef Mishneh refers to this, the Rav discussed this at length in his Yahrtzeit shiurim: U-le-ovdo, says the Sifri, zu talmud, v'chein ovdu b'soraso. עבדו במקדשה. Torah, the Sifri says, על כל פנים צריך לקיים עבודה. Not only does the avoda of korbanos constitute a kiyum avoda, and not only does tefillah constitute a kiyum avoda, but talmud Torah as well constitutes a kiyum avoda. If that's the case, so then it would follow that again, for purposes of talmud Torah, the definition of day which we will adopt and which will apply is that definition of day for avoda, that night follows day. If that's the case, so that's the pshat. Rav Pappa didn't have to be ones. Even if Rav Pappa was just busy, Rav Pappa was just preoccupied, if he knew that he wouldn't fall asleep at night, if he knew that he would complete his daily quota at night, so he wouldn't have violated the neder, because he would have completed the daily quota within the same day, within the day of kodshim. And in fact, if you look in the Rosh in the first perek of Berachos, siman yud-gimmel, in context of birkas HaTorah, so the Rosh says explicitly וכן אם למד בלילה, not referring to this sugya in Eruvin, but referring to a question of birkas HaTorah, the Rosh writes mefurash, וכן אם למד בלילה הלילה הולך אחר היום, that the night follows the day for purposes of birkas HaTorah. To come back to our opening question, the pshat now in the Gemara is clear. We asked why is it when the Gemara questions the feasibility of tashlumin for Mincha at Maariv, why does the Gemara all of a sudden interject that tefillah bimkom korban וכיון דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו when it's abundantly clear that if we're going to regulate tashlumin by the halachos which govern korbanos, there would be no possibility of tashlumin. There would be no tashlumin for Maariv at Shacharis because כיון דעבר לילה בטלו הקרבנות and

כיון דעבר זמנו של תמיד של שחרית בטל תמיד של שחרית, כיון דעבר זמנו אפילו באותו יום בטל קרבנו.

So why all of a sudden does tashlumin for tefillas Mincha have to measure up to the standards of tefillah bimkom korban? But the answer is very simple. Tashlumin for Maariv at Shacharis, for Shacharis at Mincha, the Gemara thinks at this point, the Gemara says, is justified based on the yom of kol haTorah kula. It's based on the dimension of rachamei in tefillah. The dimension of rachamei, which implies the definition of yom of kol haTorah kula, facilitates the tashlumin. So consequently, we don't have to answer to the strictures and standards of tefillah bimkom korban because the practice of tashlumin is rooted in the dimension of tefillah rachamei. Tefillah rachamei has the definition of yom of kol haTorah kula. So as a result, Maariv to Shacharis has tashlumin, it's the same day, no problem. Shacharis to Mincha has tashlumin, it's the same day, no problem, ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד. Aval hacha, when we discuss the question of tashlumin for tefillas Mincha, so if we are to limit tashlumin to the same day, we must now invoke the kiyum avoda shebi'tefillah because by only invoking the kiyum rachamei in tefillah we won't be able to justify the tashlumin because we'll be trespassing from one day to the next. How is it that we can view the tashlumin for Mincha at Maariv as occurring within the same day? Only if we adopt the definition of yom of kodshim of הלילה הולך אחר היום. But if we're to do so, so then the tashlumin of Mincha, if it's rooted in the kiyum avoda shebi'tefillah and consequently it operates with a definition of day of kodshim, so then it should have to measure up to the standards of tefillah bimkom korban. And according to the standards of tefillah bimkom korban, וכיון דעבר יומו בטל קרבנו. O dilma, the Gemara says, maybe our premise is incorrect, maybe the premise... that tashlumin has to be limited to the same day is incorrect and therefore even if tfila is still viewed is still if we still focus on the dimension of rachamei btfila even though the tashlumin will be happening on another day tashlumin is not subject to the constraints of a day. It can go from one day to the next. That's the pshat in the Gemara. The Gemara in Chagiga

אמר ריש לקיש כל העוסק בתורה בעולם הזה שהוא דומה ללילה הקדוש ברוך הוא מושך עליו חוט של חסד לעולם הבא שהוא דומה ליום.

Olam hazeh is likened to night, to laila. The place of daunting darkness. Olam hazeh is a time of illusions and delusions, a time of confusions. This is a place where evil entices while nobility is neglected. Mindless materialism matters while sublime spirituality suffers. The ephemeral attracts and distracts from eternity. Careerism captivates and pettiness preponderates. We're taken with the trivial and transient, susceptible to spiritual slumber. Needless confrontation with one and all is commonplace and yet confounded we fear to confront our own mortality. Indeed we live initially in a time of night dominated by the dangers and distortions endemic to darkness. The messianic day has not dawned, the brilliant light of hakadosh baruch hu is still hidden.

אכן אתה אל מסתתר. ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד. היום הולך אחרי הלילה.

Day follows night and day has not yet dawned. But while it's an eternal truth that היום הולך אחרי הלילה, it is equally true that הלילה הולך אחרי היום. Night, its darkness, endemic dangers and distortions notwithstanding, is anchored in day. Night is also preceded by day and hence can be penetrated by the light of day. Beacons of light blaze paths through the darkness of night.

ויאמר אלוהים יהי אור ויהי אור. וירא אלוהים את האור כי טוב ויבדל אלוהים בין האור ובין החושך. ויקרא אלוהים לאור יום. אמר רבי סימון חמש פעמים כתיב כאן אור כנגד חמישה חומשי תורה. ויאמר אלוהים יהי אור כנגד ספר בראשית שבו נתעסק הקדוש ברוך הוא וברא עולמו. ויהי אור כנגד ספר שמות שבו יצאו ישראל מאפילה לאורה. וירא אלוהים את האור כי טוב כנגד ספר ויקרא שהוא מלא הלכות רבות. ויבדל אלוהים בין האור ובין החושך כנגד ספר במדבר שהוא מבדיל בין יוצאי מצרים לבואי הארץ. ויקרא אלוהים לאור יום כנגד ספר משנה תורה שהוא מלא הלכות רבות. כי נר מצוה ותורה אור.

We mentioned before the Gemara in Chagiga

אמר ריש לקיש כל העוסק בתורה בעולם הזה שהוא דומה ללילה הקדוש ברוך הוא מושך עליו חוט של חסד לעולם הבא שהוא דומה ליום שנאמר יומם יצוה השם חסדו ובלילה שירה עמי תפילה.

Indeed olam hazeh is likened to night, olam haba to day. And yet chazal comment additionally and they quote this very same pasuk. רבי יהודה אומר אלמלא נגנז מכל וכל if light had been entirely Rather it was hidden and planted, כהאי זרעא דעביד תולדין וזרעין ואיבין, as a seed which yields fruit. u'minei iskayem alma

ולאו לך יומא דלא נפיק מיניה לעלמא ומקיים כלא ביה. דבי זן קודשא בריך הוא עלמא ובכל אתר דלעאן באורייתא בליליא,

in every place where people toil at Torah at night, חד חוטא נפיק מההוא גניז, one ray emanates from that hidden light, ואתמשך על אינון דלעאן בה, and it envelops and embraces those who toil at Torah. יומם יצוה ה' חסדו ובלילה שירו עמי תפלה. Olam Hazeh resembles night, Olam Haba day. Yet, we dare not despair because it is equally true that הלילה הולך אחרי היום. The rays of Torah penetrate and illuminate the darkness of night. But the halacha of הלילה הולך אחרי היום, that night follows day, is preceded and penetrated by the light of day, refers to all forms of avodah: Torah, tefilla, and avodas hakorbanos. Each form of avodah functions as a lighthouse for our nocturnal sojourn. The reason is that avodah in each of its manifestations: Torah, tefilla, and avodas hakorbanos, catapults us lifnei Hashem. lifnei Hashem there is no darkness, only brilliant light. The Beis Hamikdash is lifnei Hashem: ושמחתם לפני ה' אלהיכם. At the moment of tefilla, all geographical boundaries are suspended and transcended: ויראה עצמו כאילו עומד לפני השכינה. When we stand in tefilla, we're again lifnei Hashem. And when studying Torah,

ויתחבר ויסתבק ביחודא דאורייתא בהקדוש ברוך הוא, היינו להסתבק בכל כחא בדבר ה' זו הלכה ובזה תוך השתלמות תורה הוא דבוק בו יתברך ממש כביכול, כי הוא יתברך ורצונו אחד כמו שכתוב בזוהר, וכל דין והלכה מן התורה הקדושה הוא רצונו יתברך.

The explosions of light as we encounter ha-oteh kasalma ora, hakadosh baruch hu who is the source of all light, through our Torah and tefilla illuminate for us the darkness of Olam Hazeh. And yet, the halacha teaches us that tefilla is governed by both definitions of yom. The definition of yom of kol haTorah kula, היום הולך אחרי הלילה, and also the chalos yom of kodshim that night follows day. We must always find refuge and seek salvation in tefilla. When we experience the chalos yom of kodshim where the light of day has preceded and penetrated night, clearly that clarity of perception impels us to tefilla. But even when we fail to experience the day of kodshim, even when we cannot fathom existence, when we experience the chalos yom of kol haTorah kula, where night precedes day and daunting darkness descends upon us, those trying times of ontological anguish are also occasions for tefilla. היום הולך אחרי הלילה, הלילה הולך אחרי היום. And finally in conclusion, in the Rav's absence, a blanket of darkness has descended upon us. For decades and decades, when world Jewry was dazed and disoriented. brilliant light of the Rav's Torah and his personality clarified confusion and provided direction by dispelling darkness. And now we are orphaned, bereft of him and his Torah. Vayehi erev, darkness has descended and how daunting it is. And yet Chazal teach that צדיקים במיתתם נקראו חיים, moreover גדולים צדיקים במיתתם יותר מבחייהם. We must not forget the yom of avoda, הלילה הולך אחרי היום, the night has been preceded and therefore is penetrated by the light of day. The Rav's legacy which preceded the present darkness also penetrates and illuminates it. The Rav zichrono livracha neither ignored nor did he succumb to the challenges of modernity. He courageously confronted them. He never sacrificed principle for popularity and above all he personified the principle that הלילה הולך אחרי היום. The radiating the light of Torah, sharing and shining forth its profundity and beauty will light up the night, captivate and conquer the hearts and minds of Jews. We must draw inspiration from and follow the direction of the Rav's legacy. Hayom kodem lalayla. The day of Torah and tefila must precede and penetrate the darkness of olam hazeh. And may the Ribbono Shel Olam grant that this inspiration bring us to the dawn of the day which follows night with the fulfillment of the pasuk

והיה ה' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד.