S’mikhat Geulah L’Tefilah

The gemara discusses the issue of juxtaposing the b'rakhah of ga'al yisrael with the beginning of the amidah, which is clearly obligatory at shacharit, but subject to dispute in regards to ma'ariv. Commentaries consider the question of which aspect is enhanced by this, the geulah or the tefilah. Rashi (based on the Yerushalmi) quotes two sources for this practice. One is the close placement of two p’sukim in Tehillim: “G-d, my Rock and Redeemer” (19:15) and “May G-d answer you on the day of distress” (20:2). Further, he brings a parable to describe one who fails to make this connection, comparing the situation to one who knocks on the door of the king’s palace, and then leaves before the door is answered.

R. Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai, 4) notes that the two possible beneficiaries of S’mikhat Geulah L’Tefilah may mirror the two sources cited in Rashi. The selections from Tehillim suggest that the juxtaposition enhances the geulah; the statement that ‘G-d is the Redeemer’ is made more emphatic by the immediate turning to Him to answer our needs. The parable, however, implies that geulah is to be viewed as a preparation for tefilah. (See, however, Kehilot Ya’akov to Berakhot, who perceives a dual interpretation in the parable; compare as well the Kogaglover Rav’s Siach haSadeh, p. 76).

Our practice is, at ma’ariv, to recite k’riat shma first, and then pray the amidah, apparently following the opinion of R. Yochanan that S’mikhat Geulah L’Tefilah is in effect at ma’ariv. However, there are clear differences between shacharit and ma’ariv; in the former, absolutely no interruption is allowed between the b’rakhah of ga’al yisrael and the amidah, while in the latter, at least kaddish would seem to interfere, in addition to hashkiveinu, which the Talmud calls “a long geulah”. The addition verses that appear afterward are considered by some rishonim to share that status (Tosafot 4b, s,v, d’amar). However, according to others (see Tosafot, Megillah 23a. s.v. keivan), these verses are there to display the fact that ma’ariv has the status of “r’shut” (literally, voluntary). This position is perplexing; why that fact makes a difference, and why it must be displayed, begs explanation.

Rav Soloveitchik, zatzal, elucidated this topic (Shiurim L'Zecher Abba Mari vol. 11, p. 35-57) by first noting the subject of nedavah, a voluntary prayer in addition to the daily requirements. The Talmud (21a) says that such a prayer is possible, provided it includes a chiddush, something new. This ruling reveals two principles: a) that there is a constant reality of compassionate receptivity to prayer; and b) it is necessary to ask permission in order to approach and access that receptivity.

This would then be one purpose of semikhat geulah l'tefilah, to create a structure that precedes prayer as a form of asking permission. A second purpose emerges from the gemara in Berakhot 9b, where we are told of the greatness of praying like the vatikin, who coordinated their amidah to begin with netz hachamah, and thus would juxtapose geulah and tefilah. This practice is connected to the verse, (Tehillim 72:5) “So that they will fear You as long as the sun and the moon endure, generation after generation”. Rashi comments that the “fear” is a reference to the acceptance of fear of Heaven through k’riat shma. This suggests a s’mikhat geulah l’tefilah that is a function of k’riat shma, which is enhanced by being performed as the sun rises.

Considering these two purposes is pivotal in understanding the distinction between shacharit and ma'ariv, assuming that ma'ariv is a r’shut. The need for “asking permission” is present both at shacharit and at ma’ariv. If anything, ma’ariv’s character as a r’shut makes this function more necessary, just as n’davah requires a chiddush.

However, the second function creates a different situation. K’riat shma is enhanced by joining together with the amidah as one package of acceptance of the Divine majesty. This is only possible, though, with a prayer that is obligatory. To combine the mandated k’riat shma with the voluntary prayer of ma’ariv would result in an unequal and inappropriate match. Were ma’ariv to be obligatory, this function would apply there as well; since it is a r’shut, that is not the case.

This, then, explains our differing approaches to shacharit and to ma’ariv. Shacharit requires smikhat geulah l’tefilah in a dual role, as an introduction to prayer and an enhancement to kriat shma. For ma’ariv, though, it plays only the first role. Thus, we maintain the structure of k’riat shma leading in to the amidah (against the view of R. Yehoshua b. Levi), but we intentionally insert kaddish, for example, as an indication that as a r’shut, ma’ariv can not actually join with k’riat shma in creating a joint acceptance of the yoke of Heaven.