רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אֵיזוֹהִי דֶרֶךְ יְשָׁרָה שֶׁיָּבֹר לוֹ הָאָדָם, כֹּל שֶׁהִיא תִפְאֶרֶת לְעוֹשֶׂיהָ וְתִפְאֶרֶת לוֹ מִן הָאָדָם. וֶהֱוֵי זָהִיר בְּמִצְוָה קַלָּה כְבַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מַתַּן שְׂכָרָן שֶׁל מִצְוֹת. וֶהֱוֵי מְחַשֵּׁב הֶפְסֵד מִצְוָה כְּנֶגֶד שְׂכָרָהּ, וּשְׂכַר עֲבֵרָה כְנֶגֶד הֶפְסֵדָהּ. וְהִסְתַּכֵּל בִּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים וְאִי אַתָּה בָא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה, דַּע מַה לְּמַעְלָה מִמְּךָ, עַיִן רוֹאָה וְאֹזֶן שׁוֹמַעַת, וְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיךָ בַסֵּפֶר נִכְתָּבִין:
Rabbi says: Which is the just path that a man should choose for himself? All that is gratifying to its doer and that earns him the praise of man. [And this will obtain when he walks in all the middoth (character traits) in the middle path and does not incline to one of the two extremes. For if he is extremely stingy, this is gratifying to him, for he thereby amasses great wealth, but men do not praise him for this. And if he is vainly extravagant, the men who receive from him praise him, but this (extravagance) is not gratifying to its doer, for he thereby reduces himself to poverty. But the middah of generosity, which is the mean between stinginess and extravagance, is gratifying to its doer, for he thereby preserves his wealth and is not overly extravagant, and this earns him the praise of men for living as he should. The same is true of all of the middoth]. And take heed of a "light" mitzvah as of a "heavy" one, for you do not know the reward of mitzvoth. [The Torah does not specify the reward of one who fulfills a positive commandment nor the punishment of one who fails to fulfill it. For the punishments of the negative commandments are specific: stoning, burning, the sword, strangulation, cutting-off, death at the hands of Heaven, stripes — the light punishment for the "light" transgression, and the heavy punishment for the "heavy" one], and weigh the "loss" of (performing) a mitzvah [i.e., what you lose of your wares or your money by engaging in a mitzvah] against its reward [in this world or the next, which will exceed that loss], and the "reward" of a transgression [i.e., what you gain from it] against its loss [i.e., what you are destined to lose by it.], and contemplate these things and you will not come to transgression: Know what is above you — a seeing eye and a hearing ear and all of your deeds are recorded in a book.
Terumat HaDeshen
Answer: It seems to me that he may indeed pray Ma’ariv twice, even though the great ones have written: “If one purposefully did not pray one of the prayers in its proper time, there is no make-up prayer (tashlumin), for something that is crooked cannot be fixed.” It seems to me that the present case would not be considered purposeful (mezid), and is similar to one who is compelled. This is inferred from the beginning of the chapter “Elu Megalhin” (Mo’ed Katan 14a): “What is the law if he lost something? Do we say that since he must seek it out, he is considered compelled (oneis)?” We see from here that whenever one neglects a mitzva to prevent loss of money is considered compelled. It further states in the first chapter of Berakhot: “Beware of a Torah scholar who forgot his learning because he was compelled.” Rashi explains: “He was ill or preoccupied with working because foot is scarce.” Mordechai, in the first chapter of Shabbat, in the name of Rabbeinu Tam regarding the passage that forbids setting sail [before Shabbat], distinguishes someone who is traveling for the sake of a mitzva from one who is traveling a voluntary matter (devar reshut). A voluntary matter refers to one who is traveling for pleasure; if one is traveling for commerce, to earn a living, it is considered traveling for a mitzva. All of this implies that, in the present case, he is not considered to be acting purposefully, even though we can make a distinction: with regard to prayer, which is worship of the Creator, he should not be worried about the loss of his money. It is even said about Torah scholars that they keep the times of study and the times of prayer separate, and it is stated in Avot (2:1): “Calculate the reward of a mitzva against its costs.” So granted, he did not act appropriately; nevertheless, this is not called “purposeful.” It is akin to one who erred or was unwitting about his prayer, who indeed may make it up. It is further stated in the chapter “Tefilat Ha-shahar”: “Shmuel’s father and Levi were walking on the road. They arose early and prayed.” Rashi explains: “They prayed before dawn.” At first glance, it is implied that they were traveling voluntarily, for their own needs, yet they would pray, even ab initio, outside the prescribed time. Even according to Tosafot ad loc., which explains that they prayed after dawn but before sunrise, the primary time for prayers is only after sunrise, and nevertheless they forsook the primary time for prayer for the sake of their business dealings, even ab initio. Thus, we may say that ex post facto one is not called a sinner and purposeful if he misses the entire interval to avoid losing money. Rosh wrote ad loc.: “Rabbeinu Hananel ruled in accordance with Shmuel’s father and Levi.” Even though Halakhot Gedolot ruled against this, that may have been for a different reason, namely, that [the blessing of] redemption should immediately precede prayer (mismakh ge’ula le-tefila). Moreover, Rosh wrote that R. Hananel’s position stands to reason.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
