Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The M"B in Siman 108 Sif-Katan 4 brings that someone who missed a tefillah and is now the shliach tzibbur may use the chazaras ha'shatz for his tashlumim.

(Makor in Radbaz Siman 361.)

The Radbaz does clearly say this. But why? Consider a case where the person missed shachris and is now davening mincha. The shliach tziibur is a shliach to daven mincha for the tzibbur how can he also have kavana (intention) for the tefillah to be good for his teshlumim from Shachris?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

I think the Radvaz answers this with these words:

והשנייה בקול רם יכוין לתשלומין ולהוציא את מי שאינו בקי

With the second out loud he should intend as a make-up and to exempt the one who isn't fluent

The Shliach Tzibbur is being Yotzei the ones who can't say their own Tefilah under the principel of יצא מוצאי - someone who already fulfilled their obligation can say it for and exempt someone else. So when the Shliach Tzibbur is saying Shmona Esre the second time, he generally is doing it to be Motzei others, despite his not having an obligation. He can, at the same time, have a second intention - to fulfill his own Tashlumin. This is because the Tashlumin is a fixing of his mistakes, but is not considered a prayer in its time, rather is a request for mercy, which does not contradict having someone else in mind.

share|improve this answer
    
Why does that ulterior intent not contradict? Are they or are they not two different intents? The whole question is how can I have two separate purposes and your answer seems to be "you just can" –  YeZ May 28 at 3:27
    
@YEZ, because in either event, the Tefillah that the Shatz is saying is not really connected to the obligation of time (other than coincidentally - they both have to come after and be connected to an obligated Tefillah at a specific time), so in either case it is a "request for mercy" and nothing more. So my point is the intents merge. –  Yishai May 28 at 3:54
    
If I have intent for mercy and not tashlumin would that be OK? –  YeZ May 28 at 3:59
    
@YEZ, OK for what? I'm not sure I understand your question. –  Yishai May 28 at 14:10
    
I assume you would agree that if I daven a tefillah with intent that it should not be for tashlumin, just a "request for mercy" then it would not serve as tashlumin. I am trying to show that it is not self-evident why they should merge, if they are separate intents on top of just being "for mercy" –  YeZ May 28 at 17:20

The tashlumin that one davens for missing a tefillah is not going back in time to that missed tefillah. When you daven two minchas, one is a mincha, and the other is a mincha that is making up for a missed tefillah (as opposed to the other being an out-of-place shacharis).

This is seen from the halacha that if you miss mincha on erev Shabbos, for example, you would daven two tefillos on Friday night, both of which will be maariv of Shabbos (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 108:9) - even though you missed a 19-blessing weekday mincha, you "make it up" with a 7-blessing Shabbos davening. In fact, some opinions hold (Ta"z) that if you would mess up and accidentally daven a weekday davening, it wouldn't count.

The only difference between the two davenings is that the second one is the one being done because you missed the first. But the two are interchangeable in terms of which tefillah you are davening. In fact, the M.B. cites a halacha that if you davened twice to make up for a missed tefillah, and then you realize that you messed up your first davening of the two, if you did not explicitly intend for the second to be the make-up, the second one will count as your obligatory davening, even though if you hadn't messed up the first would have been the obligatory and the second would have been the make-up. (In other words, the same davening that would have fulfilled your make-up requirement can become your obligatory davening - it seems that one is not mutually exclusive of the other.)

share|improve this answer
    
hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=1&daf=26b&format=pdf the second Rashi seems to contradict what you are saying. –  Yishai May 27 at 22:39
    
@Yishai I don't know what you see from that Rashi. Care to explain? –  YeZ May 28 at 3:14
    
you see from there that a statement like "the two are interchangable" is hard to justify. –  Yishai May 28 at 3:20
    
@Yishai I specifically did not make that unqualified statement. I merely said that they are a davening of the same tefillah. I don't think the M.B. I referenced at the end would be bothered by that Rashi - everyone understands the tashlumin is a tashlumin and if done with intent as such cannot be out of order. My point is that it functions as a mincha (or shacharis or whatever the case is). –  YeZ May 28 at 3:23

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.