We've been discussing this week how the Rambam presents the takkanah of three tefillos a day and the set zmanei tefillah as being part of the takkanah of introducing a set text for Shmoneh Esreh, a set text for tefillah. And the explanation being that kol zman that tefillah was in its original pristine de'oraisa state, where it was personal expression, so it was for that reason and in that vein that a person davened as often as he wanted every day and whenever he wanted during the course of the day. But the very minute Ezra u'Beis Dino were forced to standardize and formalize the tefillah, so it's no longer that pure personal expression, so now already Chazal need to tell us when to daven, how often to daven. And it's clear again from the Rambam that that's what he's saying. But in light of that, we now have to rethink again a very famous Gemara, now has to be rethought. So the Gemara in Brachos tells us, first a machlokes Amora'im, and then the Gemara tells us, brings braisos to support each opinion, whether tefillos avos tiknum or תפילות כנגד תמידים תקנום. So hanicha תפילות כנגד תמידים תקנום, אנשי כנסת הגדולה can tell us you should be davening in the morning, you should be davening in the afternoon, you should be davening at night because at that point, אנשי כנסת הגדולה had introduced a set text for tefillah, so it wasn't that pure personal expression, so therefore you no longer had the b'chol eis she'yirtzeh and as many times in the day as you wanted. But how are the Avos coming and telling us? No, that goes against at that point tefillah is still the—again, it's still the אם היה רגיל מרבה בתחינה ובקשה אם היה צח שפתים מדבר כפי יכלו בכל עת שירצה וכן מנין התפילות כל אחד כפי יכולתו יש מתפלל פעם אחת ביום.
So how can you have the tefillos avos tiknum? So it's interesting, the acharonim point out that the Rambam quotes both. Here in פרק א הלכות תפילה, he quotes תפילות כנגד תמידים תקנום, and in Hilchos Melachim in Perek Tes, he quotes the tefillos avos tiknum. על ששה דברים נצטווה אדם הראשון, the שבע מצוות בני נח minus eiver min hachai. הוסיף לנח אבר מן החי, וכן היה הדבר בכל העולם עד אברהם, נצטווה יתר על אלו במילה
v'hu hispallel shacharis. ויצחק הפריש מעשר והוסיף תפילה אחרת לפנות היום, ויעקב הוסיף גיד הנשה והתפלל ערבית.
The Kesef Mishneh says, וענין התפילות האלו שתיקנו האבות כך מפורש בברייתא ריש פרק תפילת השחר.
The Rambam is quoting the braisa of tefillos avos tiknum. But there's something remarkable here, right? The Rambam doesn't say בלשון אברהם תיקן שחרית, he says אברהם אבינו דאוון שחרית. But on the other hand, it's clearly something which has implications beyond the personal hanhaga. I mean, stam Avraham Avinu had lots of—his avodas Hashem was very—the Rambam doesn't tell us every—doesn't tell us how often he went to the mikvah, v'chulu v'chulu. So clearly the hanhaga of אברהם אבינו דאוון שחרית is something which had implications for the whole world and yet the Rambam doesn't say it bilshon takkanah. He says hu hispallel shacharis. Similarly, יצחק הוסיף תפילה אחרת and יעקב הוסיף גיד הנשה והתפלל ערבית. Doesn't say it bilshon takkanah. So the peshatus is—is like this. What the Rambam is saying is the following. משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say a person has a rebbi, someone who—who—who gives him hadracha in avodas Hashem. And—and—and both by—by—by means of observation as well as in terms of explicit teaching, he sees different hanhagos that the rebbi has. So he becomes sensitized to things in avodas Hashem. Not things that are legislated, not things that are imposed upon him, but he becomes sensitized to things in avodas Hashem. אברהם אבינו הוסיף תפילה אחרת, Avraham Avinu sensitized the world to the fact that the morning is a zman tefillah. Not that there's a chiyuv tefillah. He sensitized us to the fact that again, the same way with— The rebbe's giving the hadracha to the talmid, he's not being mechayiv anything. He's sensitizing him to—a person with religious sensitivity should be misorer, should be misorer in the morning to daven. Yitzchak Avinu taught the world, Yitzchak Avinu sensitized the world to the fact that in the afternoon, agam that a person davened in the morning, דלמא הכא אני חיוב. He's not telling anyone about a chiyuv that a person religiously sensitive should be misorer to the fact that there's an inyan to daven in the afternoon. Yaakov Avinu taught the world, sensitized the world the same thing to Tfilas Arvis. Erev v'voker v'tzohorayim as Dovid HaMelech says, or the way the Yerushalmi says that the first Biur Halacha quotes, there's an inyan to daven when chama bamizrach, there's an inyan to daven when chama bama'ariv, and there's an inyan and there's an inyan at night. And that's why the Rambam bedafke says it belashon Avraham hosif tfila. He wasn't being mechayiv a tfila. No, you can't be mechayiv a zman of tfila. Tfila again is that personal expression and that's why it doesn't have a set time and it doesn't have a set number, but you can teach someone, you can try to sensitize someone that they should be misorer me'aleihem. You take a look in the Gemara at the end of that sugya in Brachos, so the Gemara says that even the man d'amar who says tfilos avos tiknum agrees that Asmachinhu Rabanan akorbanos. So if tfilos avos tiknum, why was it necessary for Asmachinhu Rabanan akorbanos? So the Radbaz says what that line means in the Gemara is that mitzod ha'avos it wouldn't be a chova. So just to prevent misunderstanding, we're not suggesting that everything we said in the Rambam necessarily the Radbaz was assuming or intended. But if the Rambam reads that line in the Gemara the same way, so then the Gemara is saying explicitly that what the avos, what the avos said, takeh wasn't or isn't and maybe one would add על פי דרכו של הרמבם wasn't mechayiv and exactly for that reason because kol zman that there's no set text of tfila and it's that personal expression, so then all the avos could do in quotation marks is sensitize us to the fact that these are zmanei tfila, but it takeh isn't the chiyuv mitzod ha'avos. And that's why the Rambam says that Avraham hispallel Shacharis, not tikun, and Yaakov hispallel Arvis, not tikun. So why if Avraham davened Shacharis and Yaakov davened Arvis, why didn't Yitzchak daven Mincha? Why did Yitzchak just הוסיף תפילה אחרת לזמן היום? Shacharis and Arvis don't get their names from korbanos, so even bimei ha'avos you can call them Shacharis and Arvis. Mincha, menachos, so there the Rambam doesn't use the term Mincha, Yitzchak Avinu davened in the afternoon.