Responsa sobre Pirkei Avot 2:22

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.