שחרית מנחה ערבית - שלש תפילות שונות
אנו מתפללים שלש פעמים בכל יום, אכן, עלינו לדעת שאין פירוש הדבר שצריכים להתפלל את אותה תפילה שלש פעמים ביום, אלא צריך להתפלל שלש תפילות ביום, ואלו שלש תפילות נפרדות
שלושת התפילות הללו, כל אחת יש לה שם בפני עצמה, שהיא צריכה להיקרא דווקא כך
תפילת השחר זו עמידה שממנה יוצאים אל היום
תפילת השחר, זו מציאות אחרת של תפילה, שם תפילה, כשהיא מצטרפת לשחר, כשהיא מצטרפת לבוקר, לתחילת היום, היא נקראת תפילה של לפני ההתחלה, כאשר, כלשון הפסוק, "יצא אדם לפעלו ולעבודתו עדי ערב", אדם יוצא לפעלו וחוזר
הפשט הפשוט בזה, פירוש המילות הוא, דהנה, כל הליכה מתחילה בעמידה
דוגמא לדבר, על הפסוק בתחילת פרשת וירא "והוא ישב פתח האהל כחם היום" מביא רש"י את דברי חז"ל "ישֵׁב - ישב כתיב, בקש לעמוד, אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא שב ואני אעמוד ואתה סימן לבניך שעתיד אני להתיצב בעדת הדיינין והן יושבין שנאמר אלקים נצב בעדת קל"
הפירוש בזה לפי ערכנו, עד כמה שאנו יכולים להבין בעומק הדברים
זה הפירוש אלקים ניצב בעדת קל
ועוד מצינו בירושלמי בכתובות (פ"א ה"ב) "אמר רבי אבין, אקרא לאלקים עליון לקל גומר עלי, בת שלש שנים ויום אחד ונמלכין ב"ד לעוברו הבתולין חוזרין, ואם לאו אין הבתולין חוזרין", הקב"ה מתנהג כמו שהחליטו בית דין של מטה אם לעבר את החודש או לא ולפי זה נקבעת במציאות אם היא כבר בת שלש ויום אחד ואין בתוליה חוזרין
עמידתו של אברהם זו תפילה שהיא שורש לכל ההנהגה
עתה, בפשט הפשוט, עמידה של תפילת השחר זו הצורה של תפילת השחר
כשמדברים על עמידה בתפילת השחר עניינה שמכאן יוצאים, מכאן זו נקודת המוצא
זה חלק אחד, זאת הצורה של תפילת אברהם, של צלותיה דאברהם [אף שבאמת כשכתוב בגמרא צלותיה דאברהם מדובר על תפילת מנחה של אברהם, שם כתוב "צלותיה דאברהם מכי משחרי כותלי" והנידון הוא מתי אברהם התפלל מנחה גדולה, על כל פנים צירוף המילים צלותיה דאברהם, מתכוין לתפילה עצמה של אברהם, מה שהוא תיקן, וזו תפילת שחרית]
העמידה של אברהם, נקראת תפילה
עמידתו של אברהם בתפילה על סדום קבעה הנהגה חדשה
נתבונן בעמידתו של אברהם אבינו בתפילתו על סדום
אכן, באמת, מצד סדום עצמה, הרי שלהיפך, כיון שזאת היא ההנהגה בעולם על פי התפילה, לכן סדום היתה צריכה להיחרב אפילו על פי המידה הזאת, אפילו לפי התפילה הזאת, אפילו אחרי תפילתו של אברהם
שנינו באבות (פ"ה מ"ב) "עשרה דורות מאדם עד נח להודיע כמה ארך אפים לפניו שכל הדורות היו מכעיסין ובאין עד שהביא עליהם את מי המבול, עשרה
דורות מנח עד אברהם להודיע כמה ארך אפים לפניו שכל הדורות היו מכעיסין ובאין עד שבא אברהם וקבל עליו שכר כולם"
יש שיטה אחת במנין השלש עשרה מידות שארך אפים נמנית כשתים
עתה, בארך אפים לרשעים, כולם היו מכעיסין ובאין והקב"ה האריך אף עד שהתנהג איתם כמו שמתנהגים עם רשעים
ארך אפים בהנהגה שצריכים להתנהג עם צדיקים, הכוונה היא בהנהגה של שכר
אברהם נטל שכר כולם, פירוש הדבר, את כל הסייעתא דשמיא, כל השפע שצריך היה להיות ניתן לכל הדורות
הנפקא מינא בעצם שבין אברהם לבין נח היא, שנח הועיל לעצמו ואברהם הועיל לכל העולם כולו
וכך, זאת ההנהגה של אברהם וזאת ההנהגה של נח
אברהם היה זה שהעמיד בסיס בעולם שאילו יצויר שיש שורש טוב באיזה שהוא עניין, אין חורבן
איתא בסנהדרין בסוף פרק חלק (קי"א ע"א) "כי אנכי בעלתי בכם ולקחתי אתכם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה, אמר ריש לקיש דברים ככתבן, אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לא ניחא ליה למרייהו דאמרת להו הכי אלא אחד מעיר מזכה כל העיר כולה ושנים ממשפחה מזכין כל המשפחה כולה", לריש לקיש בימות המשיח ישרדו רק אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה אולם ר' יוחנן אומר שאין זה הפשט בפסוק אלא הפשט הוא שאחד מעיר מציל על כל העיר ושנים ממשפחה מצילים על כל המשפחה", וזו כנראה המסקנה לדינא
בתפילה שהיא שיחה האדם אומר את עצמו - מבעה זה אדם
תפילתו של יצחק נקרא שיחה, והכי איתא בע"ז (ז' ע"ב) "ר' אליעזר אומר שואל אדם צרכיו ואחר כך יתפלל שנאמר תפלה לעני כי יעטוף ולפני ה' ישפוך שיחו וגו', אין שיחה אלא תפלה שנאמר ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה", תפילה נקראת ישפוך שיחו
מה היא ההגדרה של שיחה
באמת, מהמקורות האלה, מכח המושג שיחת חולין של תלמידי חכמים, ניתן להבין מה היא השיחה
על אותה שיחת חולין בעלמא של תלמידי חכמים כתוב ועלהו לא יבול וכל אשר יעשה יצליח, יש לזה דין כמו לעלה
כשאליעזר עבד אברהם אמר, הוא לא אמר דברי תורה, הוא אמר 'שיחתם', כאדם שבא ומספר מעשה שהיה
זה סוד 'מבעה זה אדם'
בספר תהילים (ק"ט ד') כתוב "תחת אהבתי ישטנוני ואני תפלה", דוד המלך אומר על עצמו שהוא תפילה
בעומק הבנת הדברים, צורת אדם אמיתית, צורת אדם לאמיתה, כשזה לא מעוות ולא השתבש, כשלא קרה לזה שום דבר, כשצורת אדם נראית כמו שהיא צריכה להיראות באמת, כל עצמו זה תפילה
תפילה בגדר שיחה, הכונה היא שאין כאן שום חידוש דבר חוץ מהדיבור של האדם האומר את מה שבליבו
ודאי, יש לאדם תפקיד שהקב"ה הטיל עליו, מכיון שהוא נמצא בעולם הרי שהקב"ה מבקש ממנו משהו, אחרת הוא לא היה פה, אז הקב"ה מטיל עליו איזה תפקיד, אכן, האדם הוא כולו בקשה שהקב"ה יתן לו אפשרות להיות מה שצריך
עתה, יש לבאר מדוע הבקשה והתפילה הזו של שיחה שייכים למנחה ושייכים ליצחק, והאמת היא ששניהם אותו דבר, הא בהא תליא
Three Modes of Tefillah Among the Avos: Amidah–Shacharis, Sichah–Minchah, and Pegi’ah–Maariv [Part I]
Shacharis, Minchah, and Maariv: Three Distinct Modes of Avodah
We daven three times each day. Yet we must understand that this does not mean simply repeating the identical tefillah three times over; rather, one is obligated to daven three fundamentally distinct tefillos. There is Tefillas HaShachar—the morning tefillah, which is tzlosa d’Avraham; there is Tefillas HaMinchah, bound to the afternoon hours, which is tzlosa d’Yitzchak; and there is Tefillas Arvis—the evening prayer, which is tzlosa d’Yaakov.
Each of these three tefillos bears its own distinctive designation, capturing its unique essence. The morning tefillah is designated as Amidah (standing): "And Avraham arose early in the morning to the place where he had stood (amad) before Hashem" (Bereishis 19:27). The afternoon tefillah is designated as Sichah (outpouring/discourse): "And Yitzchak went out to converse (lasu’ach) in the field toward evening" (ibid. 24:63). The evening tefillah is termed Pegi’ah (encounter/impact): "And he encountered (vayifga) the place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set" (ibid. 28:11). These are three separate modalities of tefillah, each defined by an autonomous title whose internal conceptual core requires profound clarification.
Tefillas HaShachar: The Stance from Which Man Enters the Day
Tefillas HaShachar introduces a distinctive existential posture. When tefillah coalesces with dawn—with the inception of the day—it takes the form of a preparation before the outset. As Scripture describes: "Man goes forth unto his work and to his labor until evening" (Tehillim 104:23)—man steps out to accomplish his mission and ultimately returns. This opening posture is termed Amidah.
The elemental understanding of this terminology lies in the reality that every journey begins with a stance: Amidah is invariably the inception of motion. Sitting signifies permanence and fixture within a given place—one remains enclosed within oneself and does not advance outward. Standing, by contrast, is the posture of poised readiness to embark.
We find a classic illustration of this paradigm at the beginning of Parshas Vayeira. On the verse, "And he sat (yoshev) at the tent door in the heat of the day" (Bereishis 18:1), Rashi cites the Chazal:
"It is written yoshev [without the vav], denoting that he sought to stand. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: 'Sit, and I shall stand, serving as a sign to your children that in the future I will station Myself in the assembly of the judges while they sit,' as it is stated, 'Elokim nitzav ba’adas Keil'—God stands in the assembly of the divine judges (Tehillim 82:1)."
Likewise, the Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 48:4) notes that because Avraham stood over the angels beneath the tree while they ate, the Holy One repaid his descendants through this very dynamic: "Elokim nitzav ba’adas Keil."
What is the deeper message conveyed by the judges sitting while the Ribono Shel Olam stands?
According to our limited grasp of these profound depths, the principle of Elokim nitzav ba’adas Keil reveals that whatever the earthly Beis Din rules, the Almighty, as it were, proceeds to execute. The Beis Din sits because they occupy the seat of fixture and legislative determination; they define the halachic reality. The "standing" of the Almighty denotes the inception of the dynamic execution—the carrying out of that decree.
(Parenthetically, the concept of amidah possesses several nuances: there is an amidah representing the conclusion of a journey, where one halts and ceases to walk, as in the esoteric verse: "And His feet shall stand on that day upon the Mount of Olives" [Zecharyah 14:4]; there is an amidah in mid-stride, which is further divided halachically into "stopping to rest" which disrupts continuous carriage, versus "stopping to adjust one's burden" which does not terminate transit [cf. Shabbos 5b]; yet the amidah prior to the onset of the journey represents the quintessential launching point).
This is the meaning of Amidah—here is the source from which everything proceeds; the absolute starting point.
This illuminates Elokim nitzav ba’adas Keil. As Chazal formulate in Rosh Hashanah (8b): "For it is a statute for Yisrael, an ordinance for the God of Yaakov—this teaches that the Heavenly Court does not convene for judgment until the earthly Beis Din sanctifies the new month." Similarly, the Pesikta (Piska 15) recounts that when the ministering angels inquire of the Almighty when the Day of Judgment shall occur, He responds: "Let us descend to the earthly court; according to their decision we shall conduct the cosmos. If they sanctify the month, today is the Day of Judgment; if not, it is not." This is the essence of Elokim nitzav: the Divine governance manifests in direct execution of the determinations forged below.
So too does the Yerushalmi teach in Kesubos (1:2): "Rabbi Avin said: 'I will call unto God Most High, unto God Who fulfills all things for me'—if a girl is three years and a day old, and the Beis Din deliberates and decides to intercalate the year, her signs of virginity regenerate; if they do not intercalate, they do not regenerate." Divine providence synchronizes physical nature with the legislative ruling of the earthly court. That execution is the functional reality of Amidah.
Avraham's Stance: The Root of All Universal Governance
In its most straightforward sense, Amidah provides the archetypal form of the morning tefillah. Standing lifnei Hashem (before God) implies that man’s emergence—"man goes forth unto his work"—derives its momentum and orientation directly from that stance before the Shechinah. This is the hallmark of Tefillas HaShachar: the primal launching point. Avraham embodies this stance because he serves as the very head and fountainhead of all Divine governance (hanhagah). Hanhagah is movement, a directed journey—akin to a manhig (driver) leading cattle in the sugyos of Bava Metzia (8b).
When Chazal speak of Amidah at dawn, they signify the seminal point of departure. Through Tefillas HaShachar, we derive the spiritual potency to step out and realize our daily toil until evening.
This reflects the soul of tzlosa d’Avraham—an amidah positioned prior to all locomotion. One stands before the Almighty, and from that stance draws down the vital seed for every subsequent action. Avraham’s tefillah establishes the axiomatic principle of creation: "For I have said: the world shall be built upon chesed" (Tehillim 89:3). Chesed is the sovereign guide of cosmic existence; it represents the First Day of Creation, the primary attribute among the seven middos enumerated in Scripture: "Yours, Hashem, is the Greatness (Gedulah), and the Power, and the Splendor..." (Divrei HaYamim I 29:11). As Rashi notes on the verse "You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness" (Devarim 3:24): "Your greatness—this refers to Your attribute of goodness." Gedulah is Chesed—the first emanated middah that gives birth to the entirety of Divine providence. This precisely parallels Avraham’s stance before Hashem: the ontological wellspring of all reality.
Avraham's Intercession for Sedom: Instituting a New Paradigm of Preservation
Consider Avraham Avinu’s stance during his tefillah on behalf of Sedom. At first glance, one might assume that this amidah bore no practical fruit, as Sedom was ultimately overthrown. First, tefillah is not inherently guaranteed an overt positive response. Yet fundamentally, though it did not spare Sedom at that fleeting moment, Avraham’s prayer forged a permanent cosmic precedent. His amidah instituted a new principle of Divine governance in the world.
From the internal perspective of Sedom, their annihilation was warranted even under this newly minted measure. Avraham did not appeal for indiscriminate pardon; he pleaded: perchance there are ten righteous men within the city, forgive the place for their sake. Through this, Avraham crystallized a transcendent dynamic: if there exists an authentic core of tzaddikim within an environment, the entire city is preserved on their account.
We learn in Pirkei Avos (5:2):
"There were ten generations from Adam to Noach, to demonstrate how long-suffering He is; for all those generations provoked Him, until He brought upon them the waters of the Flood. There were ten generations from Noach to Avraham, to demonstrate how long-suffering He is; for all those generations provoked Him, until Avraham came and received the reward of them all."
Chazal elucidate in Bava Kama (50a):
"Why does Scripture state erech apayim [in the plural] rather than erech af? It signifies that He is slow to anger toward the righteous and toward the wicked alike."
Erech apayim comprises two distinct middos. According to the Gra’s reckoning of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, erech and apayim are counted as two independent attributes, directly derived from this Talmudic dictum.
Regarding the wicked, the Holy One exercises forbearance by delaying retributive justice until forbearance is no longer viable. But regarding the righteous, erech apayim denotes the deferral of their reward. The revelation of the consummate reward remains suspended until an individual of monumental stature appears and claims it. This is the underlying depth of the Mishnah: "until Avraham came and received the reward of them all."
Avraham’s receiving "the reward of them all" does not merely mean acquiring personal post-mortem merit (such as the principle in Chagigah 15a: "If a tzaddik merits, he takes his portion and his fellow's portion in Gan Eden"). Rather, it signifies that Avraham absorbed all the latent Divine assistance (siyata d'shmaya) and celestial bounty originally designated for those twenty generations—all the reservoirs of "the Holy One assists him" that stood ready but abandoned.
Herein lies the essential divide between Noach and Avraham: Noach insulated and preserved himself alone, whereas Avraham sustained and built the entirety of humanity. Noach is characterized as "For you have I seen righteous before Me in this generation" (Bereishis 7:1)—an isolated, segregated tzaddik who failed to integrate into the ultimate architecture of the world. Indeed, the deluge is designated by Scripture as the "Waters of Noach" (Mei Noach, Yeshayahu 54:9); as the Midrash clarifies, because he failed to plead for his generation, the tragedy bore his name.
Avraham Avinu, by contrast, stood as the foundational pillar of the world (Tzaddik yesod olam). From him sprang the irreversible historical trajectory wherein the entire universe will ultimately be transformed to invoke the Divine Name: "For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Hashem, to serve Him with one consent" (Tzefanyah 3:9)—a redemption rooted in Avraham’s original "and he called upon the Name of Hashem." He is the quintessential B’hibar’am—b’Avraham (Bereishis Rabbah 12:9)—the blueprint through which existence was created.
Avraham established the universal axiom that so long as an authentic root of goodness endures within a collective, destruction is averted. This is the metaphysical infrastructure he planted through his tefillah over Sedom.
We find this reflected in Sanhedrin (111a):
"Scripture states: 'And I will take you one from a city, and two from a family'; Reish Lakish maintained this is to be understood literally [only a tiny fraction will survive], while Rabbi Yochanan retorted: 'Their Master is not pleased that you say this of them! Rather, one tzaddik from a city redeems the entire city, and two from a family redeem the entire family.'"
This halachic conclusion stems directly from the spiritual foundation laid by Avraham Avinu: one singular pillar can uphold the sanctification of the Divine Name on behalf of all mankind, bearing the destiny of the world upon his shoulders.
Sichah: The Articulation of Pure Selfhood ("Maveh Zeh Adam")
The tefillah of Yitzchak is defined as Sichah, as cited in Avodah Zarah (7b):
"Rabbi Eliezer says: A person should ask for his own needs and then daven, as it is stated: 'A prayer of the afflicted when he is overwhelmed, and pours out his discourse (sicho) before Hashem'... and sichah denotes nothing other than tefillah, as it is said: 'And Yitzchak went out to converse (lasu’ach) in the field.'"
What is the precise conceptual definition of Sichah?
We encounter a related concept in the domain of Chazal: the "casual conversation of Talmidei Chachamim" (sichas chullin shel talmidei chachamim). The Gemara in Sukkah (21b) teaches: "Whence do we derive that even the casual conversation of Torah scholars requires study? As it is stated: 'And his leaf shall not wither' (Tehillim 1:3)." What delineates their formal Torah from their sichah?
In Torah discourse, a scholar seeks to innovate conceptual frameworks, unveil novel insights, and formulate halachic definitions. In sichah, however, the scholar makes no attempt to innovate; he simply articulates his genuine inner state. He recounts an event or lays bare what rests within his heart. It is the unadorned expression of the self.
Scripture compares this to a leaf: the fruit represents that which has been deliberately cultivated and extracted from the depths of the tree's vitality; the leaf is merely the natural, organic outgrowth of the tree's very essence. "And his leaf shall not wither" teaches that even this uncalculated, organic manifestation of the scholar possesses enduring kedushah.
When Eliezer, the servant of Avraham, spoke, he did not expound novel halachic principles; he engaged in sichah—he related the narrative of what had transpired. When a person innovates, it is Torah; when he simply communicates what lies within his heart, it is sichah. Thus, the dictum "Ein sichah ela tefillah" reveals that at its profoundest depth, tefillah is the unvarnished revelation of man’s innermost reality directed upward toward his Creator.
This unlocks the esoteric teaching in Bava Kama (3b): "Rav said: Maveh—this refers to man, as it is written: 'The watchman said: The morning comes, and also the night; if you will inquire, inquire (im tib’ayun b’ayu)'." Maveh means one who prays, as Rashi explains in Yeshayahu (21:12): "If you will make your request to hasten the End." Every earnest petition addressed to the true Provider is essentially a tefillah. Hence, to define the primary archetype of Man as Maveh is to declare that Man, in his fundamental definition, is a petitioner—a being of tefillah.
King David proclaimed: "In return for my love they are my adversaries; but I am tefillah" (Tehillim 109:4). Dovid HaMelech did not merely daven; he was tefillah incarnate. Being entirely void of independent selfhood (leis lei mi-garmeih klum), he experienced his whole being as sheer supplication: "But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people" (ibid. 22:7). Stripped of any autonomous illusion of permanence, his entire presence was reconstituted as tefillah before Hashem.
In the uncorrupted, quintessential ideal of the human being, man is nothing other than tefillah. Left to his own devices, he possesses nothing of his own; his sole reality is an ongoing plea before the Almighty. This sincere manifestation of the human condition is the true definition of Sichah.
When tefillah takes the form of Sichah, it contains no artificial embellishments or novel intellectual constructions; it is merely the soul laying itself bare before Hashem: “I possess nothing of my own; I can do naught but pour out the reality of my heart.”
To be sure, man is tasked with a Divinely mandated mission. His very placement in this physical realm proves that the Creator demands his functional agency. Yet man remains a perpetual plea that the Almighty grant him the capacity to fulfill that task. Were he to undergo absolute metaphysical negation (bittul gemur), he would cease to exist—which runs contrary to the Divine will, for Hashem placed him here to labor and dwell within the world. Nevertheless, man recognizes that he possesses zero autonomous endurance; having been granted life, his ongoing existence remains a continuous, unbroken tefillah to the Ribono Shel Olam for the sustained gift of that existence. These are formidable concepts (devarim nora'im).
In Part II, with the help of Heaven, we shall elucidate why this specific mode of prayer—supplication within the framework of Sichah—pertains uniquely to the time of Minchah and to the persona of Yitzchak Avinu, demonstrating how the two are inextricably intertwined. Subsequently, we shall proceed to analyze the tefillah of Yaakov Avinu—the category of Pegi’ah, which governs Tefillas Arvis and the existential reality of the night.
