Clarification: Specifically a Seifer-Torah, incorporating the five Chumashim, where it is correct to be stringent like the Seifer-Torah itself.

Clarification (cont.): But with regard to other Sefarim, merely covering them will suffice.

Question: Why does the Tana not say 'Kol ha'Yom' with regard to Minchah, like he says with regard to Musaf?

Answer: Because the time to Daven Musaf is all day, even in the morning` bearing in mind that one may sacrifice all Korbanos immediately after the Tamid (shel Shachar). Consequently, one may also Daven Tefilas Musaf from the morning.

Answer (cont.): Which is not the case regarding Minchah, which one may only Daven after six and a half hours.

Proof: And so we have learned in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 4:) 'One may not Daven Tefilas Musaf during the first three hours in the morning on Rosh ha'Shanah on one's own ...

Conclusion: A proof that during the rest of the year, it is permitted to do so.

Implied Question: The Tana nevertheless mentions Tefilas Minchah before Tefilas Musaf ...

Answer: Because it is recited every day and is therefore more common, even though factually, Musaf takes precedence.

Question #1: But does Rav not rule later (27:) that 'Ma'ariv is R'shus', and we hold like him?

Question #2: The Gemara will also say later (on Daf 30:) that 'If someone makes a mistake and omits "Ya'aleh Veyavo" at Ma'ariv of Rosh Chodesh, he does not need to repeat the Amidah, due to the principle 'Ein Mekadshin es ha'Chodesh ba'Laylah'.

Question #2 (cont.): Why do we need that reason? Why not simply because Tefilas Arvis R'shus'.

Answer: When the Gemara says 'Tefilas Arvis R'shus', it means relative to another passing Mitzvah. There we say that it takes precedence over Ma'ariv/ But to negate it without reason, that we don't say.

Reservation: If however, one delayed Minchah until Minchah of the following day, it would seem that since the time has passed, his Korban is cancelled, seeing as he waited so long.

Reservation (cont.): And after two Tefilos, we do not find that the Chachamim instituted to repeat the Amidah, if he forgot to say it earlier. Moreover, even after one Tefilah, someone who deliberately omitted the Amidah can no longer rectify what he did.

Conclusion: Indeed, we will shortly refer to someone who does so "A sinner who cannot put right his sin".

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask what the Din will be with regard to someone who erred and did not Daven Musaf ...

Answer #1: Since it is obvious that he does not Daven Musaf at Ma'ariv, because how can he recite the Korbanos, now that the time of Musaf has passed?

Answer #2: And besides, they only instituted the seven B'rachos of Musaf on account of the Pasuk "And let us pay the bulls with our lips", in which case, the time to Daven Musaf has definitely passed.

Conclusion: Whereas regarding other Tefilos, which are requests for mercy, we say 'It would be nice if a person Davened all day' ...

Conclusion (cont.): One cannot apply 'Avar Z'mano' simply because another Tefilah has fallen due.

Clarification: This refers to Tefilah of Motza'ei Shabbos. He inserts Havdalah in the first Amidah.

Halachah #1: Rabeinu Yehudah writes someone who erred and failed to mention Rosh Chodesh at Minchah, should not repeat the Amidah at Ma'ariv ...

Reason: Since what is the point of doing so, seeing as he has already Davened Minchah whilst it was still day, only he did not mention Rosh Chodesh. If so, he gains nothing by Davening again on Motza'ei Rosh Chodesh, since he is anyway not going to mention Rosh Chodesh, and the (same) Amidah he has already Davened.

Distinction: And it cannot be compared to the current case (of someone who failed to Daven Minchah on Shabbos, who Davens Ma'ariv of Chol twice on Motza'ei Shabbos, because he did not Daven Minchah at all. Consequently, he will gain the Amidah that he will Daven on Motza'ei Shabbos, despite the fact that he does not mention Shabbos.

Question: But surely he is Davening more than he was obligated to, seeing as he should only have Davened seven B'rachos, and he will now Daven eighteen.

Answer: One need not be concerned with this, since on Shabbos too, one really ought to recite the full Shemoneh-Esrei, and Chazal only exempted one from doing so, because of the bother. It therefore transpires that he gains the entire Amidah (as we explained).

Answer )cont.): Whereas there where he erred and merely failed to mention Rosh Chodesh, he will gain nothing by Davening twice on Motza'ei Rosh Chodesh.

Halachah #2: And the same will apply to someone who Davened the full Shemoneh-Esrei at Shabbos Minchah, it seems according to what we just explained, he does repeat the Amidah on Motza'ei Shabbos, seeing as he has already Davened the eighteen B'rachos.

Another Opinion: The Rif however, because even where one gains nothing by repeating the Amidah, he obligates someone who errs to repeat it?

Another Opinion (cont.): Here is his wording (with reference to someone who inserted Havdalah in the first Amidah, and not in the second one): 'But if he did not insert Havdalah in the first Amidah, only in the second one, he is Yotzei with the second Amidah, but not with the first, since he ought to have given precedence to the second one, which is the obligatory one. And by not reciting Havdalah in the first Amidah, only in the secondatory Amidah precedence over the one, he indicated that he considered the second one to be the obligatory one, in which case, he remains Chayav to Daven another Amidah, in order to give precedence to the first Amidah.

Another Opinion (cont.): If he inserted Havdalah in both Amidos, even though he ought not to have done so, he does not need to repeat the Amidah.

Another Opinion (cont.): Whereas if he inserted it in neither, we do not force him to repeat the Amidah, as we have learned in a Beraisa "If one erred and failed to mention Havdalah in 'Chonein ha'Da'as', one does not make him repeat the Amidah, seeing as one is able to recite it over a cup of wine" '.

Conclusion: So we see that the Rif obligates one to repeat the Amidah, even though he adds nothing to the second Amidah to what he said in the first. So R. Moshe from Aivra extrapolated from the words of the Rif.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that it speaks before they became wealthy ...

Source: Seeing as the Gemara will say later in Perek Ein Omdin (Daf 33.) that 'When they became wealthy, they established it over a Kos (See Maharsha)?

Answer: We do not find a Beraisa that was learned between the two Takanos.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara says in Yoma (28.) (with reference to Minchah) 'The Tefilah of Avraham is when the walls turn black'

Answer: That speaks specifically after Yitzchak introduced it,

Question: In the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (Daf 7:) the Gemara proves that 'Sichah' is Tefilah from the Pasuk (in Chayei Sarah) "Vayeitzei Yitzchak Lasu'ach ba'Sadeh")?

Answer: We find a similar Sugya in the first Perek of Megilah (13.) "And he (Mord'chai) raised Hadasah" - 'and Hadasim refers to Tzadikim', as it is written "And he stood among the Hadasim" '.

Answer (cont.):Whereas in Perek Cheilek (Daf 93.) the Gemara inverts the D'rashos.

Question: The Gemara states in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Chulin 91:) that 'Ya'akov initially went to Charan ("Vayeilech Charanah"), and that when he arrived there he wanted to go back, because, he exclaimed "Perhaps I passed the placed where my fathers Davened ... " ...

Question (cont.): A clear proof that he Davened Ma'ariv in the day, since it was only after he Davened that he decided to return, and only then did the sun set ...

Conclusion: A Kashya on the Mishnah in the first Perek, which presents the time to Daven Ma'ariv as 'Tzeis-ha'Kochavim' (See Hagahos ha'Bach)?

Answer: According to Tosfos' opinion at the beginning of the Masechta however, that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah, who gives the times of Minchah as 'until P'lag ha'Minchah' (at which point one my Daven Ma'ariv, the question is answered.

Conclusion: And our Minhag of Davening Ma'ariv shortly before nightfall is not only justified; but is a good thing to do.

Question: From where does Rebbi Yehudah know this? That Tefilas Minchah should last up to nine and a half hours is understandable (See Maharsha). But what is his source for P'lag ha'Minchah?

Answer: Rebbi Yehudah holds that the Chachamim instituted the Tefilos to correspond with the Ketores, as the Torah writes in Tehilim (141) "Tikon Tefilasi Ketores l'fanecha, Mas'as Kapai Minchas Arev".

Question: The Gemara in Nidah, Perek ha'Ro'eh Kesem (Daf 58:) states that 'All the measurements of the Chachamim are le'Chumra, with the exception of that of "the size of a G'ris with regard to the Kesamim of a Nidah" ' ...

Question (cont): A proof that 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal' (otherwise, in our case, it will be a Kula)?

Answer: Even if we say 'Ad ve'Ad be'Che'lal', there will still be a Chumra - in that he is Chayav to Daven, and we do not say that 'Since the time had passed, his "Korban" is Bateil' - even be'Meizid.