Tefilah and Birkat Kohanim - Chapter 10

See Chapter 4, Halachah 15, which states: “Any prayer that is recited without proper intention is not prayer.” However, the continuation of the present halachah, which differentiates between the first blessing and the rest of the Shemoneh Esrei, is not mentioned in Chapter 4. Many commentaries do not see a contradiction between the two halachot and interpret our halachah as an explanation of the statements in Chapter 4.
Rav Chayim Soloveitchik does not accept this premise. He explains that the two halachot refer to two different levels of concentration:
a) In Chapter 4, the Rambam refers to the concentration mentioned in Halachah 16, which involves the removal of all other thoughts from one’s mind and meditation on the concept that one is standing before God. This intention is required throughout the Shemoneh Esrei.
b) Our present halachah refers to concentration on the meanings of the prayers one recites. This is desirable throughout the Shemoneh Esrei and required while reciting the first blessing.

In one of his responsa, Rav Avraham, the Rambam’s son, explains that more importance is given to the first blessing, since greater concentration is required when one begins prayer. Also, the content of this blessing revolves around the acceptance of the yoke of God’s sovereignty.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 114:8 and the Mishnah Berurah 114:34 explain that this refers to an error in the conclusion of a blessing, for it is an error that cannot be corrected. However, if one errs within the blessing, provided the essential content of the blessing is not changed, one may correct one’s mistake by concluding the blessing in the proper manner.

Since the first three blessings of the Shemoneh Esrei are viewed as praise rendered to God before one makes a request, they are considered to be a single unit.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, the final three blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh are expressions of thanks. Hence, they are considered to be a single unit. The most common example of such an error is the omission of Ya’aleh V’yavo on Rosh Chodesh or Chol HaMo’ed. The Rambam deals with this question individually in Halachot 10 and 11.

And concludes that blessing without correcting the error, or if one omits a blessing, regardless of how far one has proceeded within the Shemoneh Esreh.

Since the chazan’s prayers are intended to fulfill the obligation of those who do not know how to pray, his prayer must follow all the above principles (Ma’aseh Rokeach).

There is one exception—the omission of Ya’aleh v’yavo on Rosh Chodesh—as explained in Halachah 10.

The latter expression implies an original conclusion of the Rambam’s, for which he has no direct source.

In having to wait for him.

And will thereby fulfill his obligation to pray.

This implies that the time factor is the essential difficulty. If the chazan realizes his error while reciting the first three blessings, correcting his mistake will not cause the congregation a prolonged wait.

Today, when a chazan generally has a siddur available (in contrast to the Talmudic era when the prayers were usually recited by heart), this law is less relevant. The Shulchan Aruch (O"C 126:1) suggests that if a chazan becomes confused or skips a blessing, a member of the congregation should remind him of the correct blessing.

Though the Hebrew שעה is often translated as “an hour,” it is questionable if the Rambam would desire that the congregation wait for such an extended period (Merkevat HaMishneh). (See Be’ur Halachah 126.)

And continue the recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh, as described in the following halachah.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

For we are afraid that he might have become possessed by heretical thoughts and does not want to curse himself.

Immediately. However, the first individual is allowed to serve as a chazan in the future (Magen Avraham 126:2).

Berachot 29a relates that once Shmuel HaKatan erred in his recitation of the blessing that curses the heretics. However, since he had already begun the blessing, the congregation waited a prolonged period for him.

Generally, as a gesture of humility, it is proper for anyone but the permanent chazan to refuse to serve as chazan until he is asked three times. However, in such a situation, one should accept the appointment immediately, because the congregation is waiting (Berachot 34a; Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 53:16).

I.e., when a chazan has to be replaced, as mentioned in the previous halachah.

These laws follow the principles mentioned in Halachah 1. In this regard, there is no difference between the prayers of a chazan and those of an individual.

For each of the intermediate blessings is considered to be an entity in its own right.

For the final three blessings are also considered to be a single unit.

The Talmud (Megillah 24b) explains that such statements cause us to fear that perhaps they might have temporarily become possessed by heretical thoughts.

However, he may serve as chazan at other times. The Ra’avad does not accept this principle and forbids him from ever serving as a chazan again. The Rambam’s view is accepted as halachah. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 53:18; the responsa of the Rivash, 224.)

For, according to some other faiths, wearing white is a sign of piety.

This was also a heretical practice followed by those who worshiped animals and forbade their slaughter.

It is interesting that the Rambam does not state, as he did in the first instance, that such a person is prevented only from serving as chazan for the one prayer service. Note the Meiri’s comments on Megillah (loc. cit.), which indicate that the latter instance creates more serious suspicion. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) and other halachic authorities do not differentiate between the two.

Since our prayers were established to compensate for the offerings in the Temple, reciting a single prayer twice would be considered like offering the daily sacrifice a second time. The latter is deemed a violation of the prohibition against adding to God’s commandments (בל תוסיף; Tosafot, Berachot 2la).

The word נדבה also has the connotation of “gift.” Such a prayer parallels a freewill offering, which could be brought as a sacrifice by an individual. (See Chapter 1, Halachah 9.)

Based on statements by the Rashba, the Magen Avraham (107:1) states that one should offer the prayer with the following condition: “If I have already prayed, may this prayer be considered to be a voluntary prayer. If I have not prayed, may it be considered as the fulfillment of my obligation.”
Since he does not view the prayer as an obligation, it is not considered as if he is offering two daily sacrifices.

In contrast to a congregation. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 10, a congregation should not recite a voluntary prayer, since a congregation never brought a freewill offering.

Berachot (loc. cit.) quotes Rabbi Yochanan as saying, “O, that a person would pray all day long.”
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 9, when a person recites a voluntary prayer, he is ordinarily required to add a new idea in the midst of the prayer service. In this instance, however, he is not required to make any additions to his prayers.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 107:1 maintains that one is obligated to recite a voluntary prayer in such a situation. The Be’ur Halachah considers offering such a prayer to be desirable, but not obligatory. The license to recite a voluntary prayer does not apply regarding the Musaf Service or on the Sabbath or festivals. See Chapter 1, Halachah 10.

Berachot (loc. cit.) mentions this instance in connection with the previous law. The motivating principle is the same: reciting a second prayer would be considered like offering a second daily sacrifice.
One cannot continue reciting the Shemoneh Esrei with the intent that it be considered to be a voluntary prayer, since a single prayer cannot be considered to be half obligatory and half voluntary (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 107:2).

The Ra’avad objects to the distinction made between the Evening Service and the other prayers, since the Evening Service has already been accepted as an obligation. See Magen Avraham 107:2 who favors the Ra’avad’s view.
The rationale for the Rambam’s ruling is that, although with regard to the individual himself, the service is now obligatory, the basis for that obligation is the conduct of the Jewish people as a whole, and the problem of an individual adding to a Scriptural command does not apply (Kessef Mishneh).

Because he is obligated to mention the Sabbath in his prayers, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 5.
The Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1438) notes that some of the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah state “he has fulfilled his obligation.” They explain that this would apply only when one mentions the Sabbath in the final blessings (e.g., in the blessing Retzey). In no way can he fulfill his obligation to pray without mentioning the Sabbath at all.

Berachot 21a explains that, in essence, one should have been obligated to recite the entire weekday Shemoneh Esreh on the Sabbath. However, in honor of the Sabbath, the Sages did not require the recitation of all the weekday prayers. Therefore, he should conclude the blessing he began. Nevertheless, it is not proper to begin another blessing.

Since there is no obligation to recite the nineteen blessings of the weekday Shemoneh Esreh for Musaf.
Rabbenu Asher does not accept this decision, and maintains that one should complete the blessing he is reciting even in Musaf, since, were he to recite the weekday Shemoneh Esreh and mention the Musaf offering, he is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 268:2) follows Rabbenu Asher’s opinion. However, this decision is not accepted by all authorities. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 268:3.)

For there is no connection between the weekday Shemoneh Esreh and the Musaf Prayers. The Kessef Mishneh notes that this clause appears to support the text which states that if one recites the weekday service on the Sabbath he fulfilled his obligation. According to the accepted version, after stating that one does not fulfill his obligation regarding the Morning Service, there would be no question with regard to Musaf.

Including Chol Hamo’ed.

The addition praising God for “causing rain to descend,” which is included in the second blessing during the rainy season. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 15.)
In our prayers, we also praise God for “causing the wind to blow.” However, omission of this praise is not considered significant enough to require one to repeat his prayers (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 114:3).

I.e., the addition praising God for “causing the dew to descend,” which is included in the second blessing during the summer. (See Chapter 2, loc. cit.)

For he has omitted an essential element of God’s praise.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 114:6) states that one is obligated to begin one’s prayers again only if he already began the third blessing, Attah Kadosh. Otherwise, he should recite morid hageshem at the place in prayer where he remembers.

For causing dew to descend is also an expression of God’s might, and compensates, to a certain extent, for the lack of rain. (See Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 1:1.)

For in Eretz Yisrael, rain is sign of curse in the summer (Ta’anit 1:7).

Indeed, it is the custom in the Ashkenazic community outside Eretz Yisrael not to mention dew at all.

Ta’anit 3a states that even when there is a drought, dew will descend.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 6, during the winter months one should add a request for rain in the sixth of the intermediate blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav 117:5 states that if one remembers immediately after reciting the words, mevorech hashanim—the conclusion of the blessing for material prosperity—before beginning the blessing T’ka b’shofar, one may make the request for rain there.

Literally, “He who hears prayer,” the final intermediate blessing.

As mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 3, one is allowed to request all his needs in the blessing, shome’a tefilah. Therefore, requesting rain in this blessing is also appropriate.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) states that if one remembers immediately after reciting the conclusion of the blessing, shome’a tefilah, before beginning the blessing R’tzey, one may make the request for rain there.

According to the law mentioned in Halachah 1, that a person who errs in the recitation of one of the intermediate blessings should return to that blessing.

Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 117:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 117:13 state that in countries which require rain in the summer, even though one should not request rain in one’s prayers, if one errs and does so, he should repeat his prayers only as a voluntary Shemoneh Esrei.

The passage added to the blessing, R’tzey to mention the unique aspects of the day on Rosh Chodesh and Chol Hamo’ed. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 10.)

For this omission is deemed serious enough to disqualify his prayers.

As is our custom in reciting the paragraph, Elo-hai netzor (Rashi, Berachot 29b).

As mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 10, after concluding the Shemoneh Esreh one should take three steps backwards.
Note the statement of the Magen Avraham 422:2, which explains that if one has concluded his supplicatory prayers, even if he has not actually taken three steps backward, he must return to the beginning of the Shemoneh Esreh.

And recite the blessing again, including Ya’aleh v’yavo, and then repeat the conclusion of the Shemoneh Esreh.
The Lechem Mishneh maintains that the definition of the conclusion of prayer as lifting up one’s feet (or concluding one’s supplicatory prayers) is also relevant with regard to errors in other blessings—e.g., an omission of the request for rain in the blessing for material prosperity. Though there is some debate about this matter, this opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 117:5) and other halachic authorities.

In all the prayer services.

The K’nesset HaGedolah states that this applies only if one has not recited the Musaf Prayers. However, if one has already recited Musaf, the mention of Rosh Chodesh in that service is sufficient, and one need not recite the Morning Service a second time. (See also the following halachah.)
Though there is some debate on this issue, this opinion is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 126:3. The Mishnah Berurah 422:4 suggests repeating the Morning Service with the following condition in mind. If one’s obligation has already been fulfilled, this prayer should be considered voluntary. If one’s obligation has not been fulfilled, this prayer should be considered as intended to fulfill that obligation.

Since the court would not consecrate the new moon on the night of Rosh Chodesh, but rather on the following day, the omission of Ya’aleh v’yavo at night is not considered significant (Berachot 30b).

Since the chazan recites his prayers to allow those who cannot pray to fulfill their obligation, his prayers are bound by all the rules of individual prayer. Even when there is no one who fulfills his obligation with the chazan’s prayer, these principles apply.

Rav David Arameah states that this leniency applies only to Rosh Chodesh and not to Chol Hamo’ed. The Ben Yedid supports this view, explaining that Rosh Chodesh is a work day. Hence, forcing the congregation to wait for a second repetition of the Shemoneh Esrei would involve a loss. In contrast, most work is prohibited on Chol Hamo’ed. Therefore, the difficulty of the congregation is not considered.

However, if he realizes his mistake before he completes his prayers, he is required to return to the blessing, R’tzey (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

This leniency is specifically mentioned in Berachot 30b.

When God reveals His sovereignty and judges the world.

“The holy God”—as one is accustomed to doing throughout the year, instead of reciting HaMelech hakadosh—“the holy King”—in acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty, as required by Chapter 2, Halachah 18.

For the failure to acknowledge God’s sovereignty is sufficient to negate the significance of the entire prayer. The Ra’avad does not accept this decision and explains that though one’s prayer is considered to be imperfect, one has fulfilled the obligation of prayer. All of the later halachic authorities accept the Rambam’s view.

During that same period.

“The King who loves righteousness and justice”—as one is accustomed to doing throughout the year instead of reciting Hamelech hamishpat—“the just King”—in acknowledgement of God’s judgment of the world, as required by Chapter 2 (loc. cit.).

As prescribed in Halachah 1 for a person who erred in his recitation of one of the intermediate blessings of the Shemoneh Esreh.

This decision is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 582:1). However, the Rama (Orach Chayim 118:1) states that even if one concluded in his normal fashion, since he mentioned God’s sovereignty in connection with justice, he is not obligated to repeat his prayers. Nevertheless, most Ashkenazic authorities suggest reciting a second Shemoneh Esreh as a voluntary prayer.
Many of the manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah and one of the Rambam’s responsa state that during the year, the eleventh blessing should be concluded Baruch Attah Ado-nai, ohev tzedakah umishpat—“Blessed are You, God, who loves righteousness and mercy,” omitting any mention of God’s sovereignty. According to that text, the Rambam’s decision and that of the Rama, although different, are not contradictory. [Note that in the Order of Prayers for the Entire Year, the Rambam states that this blessing concludes: Melech...]

However, if one omits zochreinu... or any of the other additions mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 19, one is not obligated to repeat one’s prayers (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:5).

As required (see Chapter 2, Halachah 12.)

The later authorities (see Shulchan Aruch HaRav 294:5; Mishnah Berurah 294:6) mention that even when a person recalls his omission of Havdalah before the blessing, shome’a tefilah, he should not add Havdalah in that blessing, provided he has wine over which to recite Havdalah afterwards.

This omission is not considered significant, because, regardless, one is obligated to recite Havdalah on a cup of wine afterwards, as a separate prayer (Berachot 33a).
Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 294:2) states that if someone who does not have wine for Havdalah omits Havdalah in his prayers, he should recite the Shemoneh Esreh again and include Havdalah. Also, if one omits Havdalah in the Shemoneh Esreh, one should not perform any work until one recites this prayer.

As required (see Chapter 2, Halachah 13).

As required (see Chapter 2, Halachah 14). As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, the Rambam requires the mention of Anenu in all the prayer services of the fast day.

Shabbat 24a states that the omission of the mention of any day that was not marked by a Musaf sacrifice is not significant enough to require the repetition of the Shemoneh Esreh.
From the expression “need not repeat his prayers,” the Kessef Mishneh explains that it appears that the Rambam follows the opinion of Rabbenu Tam, who states that although a person who has completed his prayers need not repeat the Shemoneh Esreh, if one has not completed his prayers, he should return to the blessing Modim or shome’a tefilah, where the addition should be made.
This opinion is not accepted as halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 565:2, 682:1). On the contrary, repetition of these blessings is considered to be reciting blessings in vain.

Though the chazan is required to recite Anenu as a separate blessing, if he omits its recitation his prayer is still acceptable.
The Mishnah Berurah 565:3 states that if a chazan forgets to recite Anenu as a separate blessing, he should add the passage in the blessing shome’a tefilah.

As mentioned in Halachah 10, before one steps backward, he is considered as still in the midst of prayer.

Recite the prayer Anenu that he omitted as part of the supplicatory prayers recited after the Shemoneh Esreh.

One does not recite a blessing in conclusion of Anenu, but rather concludes as one concludes after reciting the Shemoneh Esreh at all times (Chapter 2, Halachah 9).

The Ma’aseh Rokeach notes that the Rambam mentions only the addition of Anenu, and concludes that Al hanisim should not be recited here. Anenu fits within the context of supplicatory prayer. In contrast, Al hanisim is an expression of praise and thanksgiving and would not be an appropriate addition. Nevertheless, the Mishnah Berurah 682:4 quotes Ashkenazic authorities who maintain that Al hanisim may also be recited in the supplicatory prayers after the Shemoneh Esreh if it had been omitted.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachot 8-9, a person who forgot to recite one of the prayers can compensate for its omission by reciting the following prayer service twice, once to fulfill his obligation for that service, and the second time to compensate for the missed prayer.

And the second prayer will serve as compensation for the Afternoon Service that was omitted even though the Shemoneh Esreh recited on the Sabbath night is very different in nature from the weekday Shemoneh Esreh. If one recited the weekday Shemoneh Esreh in the second service, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 108:14 states that one has not fulfilled his obligation. However, the Mishnah Berurah 108:25 maintains that he is not obligated to pray again.

Or on any other occasion, (e.g., Rosh Chodesh) when the Evening Service differs from that of the weekday service.

Even though he is compensating for a Sabbath prayer with a weekday prayer.

Since the first prayer is the Shemoneh Esreh of the Evening Service, in which Havdalah should be recited.

The addition of Havdalah is not considered significant. There are opinions which extend this concept, stating that the recitation of a passage describing the unique aspects of a day when that passage is not appropriate—e.g., reciting Ya’aleh v’yavo on a day which is not Rosh Chodesh—does not invalidate one’s prayers (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 108:12). However, this opinion is not accepted by all authorities. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav 108:18; Mishnah Berurah 108:38.)

For, as stated in the previous halachah, the omission of Havdalah does not invalidate the recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh.

As mentioned above, whenever one compensates for a missed prayer, the first Shemoneh Esrei he recites must be for the prayer he is obligated to recite at that time, and the second for the prayer he missed. A person who mentions Havdalah in the second Shemoneh Esrei clearly demonstrates that he intended the second Shemoneh Esrei to be the Evening Service. Hence, he is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation.

The Mishnah Berurah 108:29 and Shulchan Aruch HaRav 108:16 state that a person who specifically intends the first Shemoneh Esrei to be the Evening Service and the second to be compensation, but errs with regard to the recitation of Havdalah, fulfills his obligation.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 105:1), based on the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 4:6), states that one should wait at least the time it takes to walk four cubits.

Rashi (Berachot 30b) states that a person should wait until his mind is sufficiently settled so that he will able to offer his prayers in a supplicatory frame of mind, as mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 16.

In Chapter 8, Halachah 1, the Rambam stated that a person should always try to pray together with a congregation in a synagogue. The present halachah is more specific. It states that if one is present together with a congregation, the failure to pray together with them is considered to be an affront to the congregation (Orchot Chayim) and is, therefore, forbidden.
Although this concept is accepted in principle by the Halachic authorities, exceptions have been mentioned—e.g., a situation when the congregation will not complete the Shemoneh Esreh before the time for prayer has passed, or when one is sick or forced to complete his prayers early because of certain pressing matters. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 90:10; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 90:11; Mishnah Berurah 90:34-36.)

The commentaries explain that this halachah applies only with regard to the Afternoon Service. Regarding the Morning Service, although the principles derived from the halachah also apply, one must take into consideration the obligation to recite the Shema and its blessings in such a way that one can proceed immediately from the blessing of redemption to the Shemoneh Esrei (Chapter 9, Halachah 2).
With regard to the Evening Service, if he can complete his prayers before the chazan recites the Kaddish after the Shemoneh Esrei, he should join in the communal prayer. If not, he should wait and pray afterwards individually. In the Evening Service, praying together with the congregation takes precedence over joining the blessing of redemption to the Shemoneh Esrei (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 236:3).

And thus participate in communal prayer. Note the Pri Megadim (Orach Chayim 109), which explains that if one did not begin together with the congregation, joining them in the middle of the Shemoneh Esreh is not considered communal prayer in the fullest sense.

Even if he does not pray together with the chazan word for word, as long as he reaches Kedushah at the same time as the chazan, he may join in that prayer.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 109:2) states that he should recite Kedushah word for word together with the chazan, implying that he should recite those portions of the Kedushah recited by the chazan and not only the responses made by the congregation in Kedushah.

Note the comments of the Rama (Orach Chayim 109:2), who states that, if possible, it is preferable to wait and not begin one’s recitation of the Shemoneh Esrei until after the recitation of Kedushah.
The halachic authorities also mention that one must take into consideration the obligations to respond “Amen” to the blessing shome’a tefilah, to bow together with the congregation at Modim, and to respond Amen, yehei shemeih rabba... to the Kaddish after Shemoneh Esrei.

Nevertheless, he should pause and concentrate on the chazan’s prayers. This is considered to be equivalent to actually responding to Kedushah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 104:7).

The response to Kaddish, or make any other interruption.

Even when one has reached the end of one blessing, but has not begun the next.

Since the response to Kaddish is of greater importance than responding “Amen” to other blessings, it is understood that one should not interrupt Shemoneh Esreh in order to respond to them. The Rambam’s statements could also be interpreted to mean that one should not interrupt the recitation of other blessings to respond Amen, yehei shemeih rabba... (Kessef Mishneh).