The additions to tefillah during the Aseres Yemei Teshuvah
[1] (halacha 661)
Question: What is the source for saying the additions inserted into the Shemoneh Esrei during the Ten Days of Repentance?
Answer: These additions were not mentioned in the Gemara, and were first brought in the words of the Geonim, as follows:
The first place where it is mentioned that there is a change is in Maseches Sofrim1: 'Just as the conclusion of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur differs from the other Yamim Tovim, so too their tefillah; and one does not mention Zichronos in the first three and the last three, but rather only on the two days of Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah and on Yom Kippur, and even these they permitted only with difficulty.'
But from this wording it appears that they were accustomed to change and add only in the tefillos of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur [and not during the Ten Days of Repentance].
However, in greater detail they were mentioned in the words of the Bahag2, except that he rejected saying them in the first three brochos, and these are his words: 'Rav Yehudah said: A person should never request his needs, not in the first three and not in the last three, but rather in the middle ones, for Rabbi Chanina said: the first three are comparable to a servant who arranges praise before his master, the middle ones are comparable to a servant who requests a reward from his master, the last ones are comparable to a servant who received a reward from his master and took leave and went on his way. And from here the Rabbanan do not allow saying while standing, and even Zochreinu LeChaim in Magen we do not say, and all the more so Zechor Rachamecha and Kevosh Kaascha in Modim we do not say; but UveSefer Chaim we do say in Sim Shalom, since the Shemoneh Esrei has concluded for them and it is like supplications.'
On the other hand, in Seder Rav Amram Gaon3 he mentioned saying them as something obvious: 'And the weekday tefillah of all the Ten Days of Repentance, from Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur, one says Zochreinu LeChaim, and Mi Chamocha Av HaRachaman, and HaMelech HaKadosh, and Zechor Rachamecha, and Kesov LeChaim, and UveSefer Chaim, Avinu Malkeinu, and they fall on their faces.'
And so wrote Rav Hai Gaon in a responsum4, and he resolved the difficulty of the Bahag from the Gemara in Brochos: 'And that which you asked regarding that which Rav Yehudah said, a person should not request his needs, not in the three etc., and it was difficult for you regarding Zochreinu LeChaim which is requested in the first three [brochos] and UveSefer Chaim in the last three — such is the custom in the two Yeshivos, that they request in Magen Zochreinu LeChaim, and in Hodaah Kesov LeChaim, and in Sim Shalom BeSefer Chaim, from Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur, and there is no difficulty against Rav Yehudah, for when Rabbi Yehudah said [this] he was speaking of the needs of an individual, such as an individual who has something he needs to request, and as the Chachamim said: Nachum the Median says, a person requests his needs in Shomea Tefillah, and Rav Chiya said in the name of Rav: even though the Chachamim said a person requests his needs in Shomea Tefillah, if he had a sick person in his house he says it in Birkas Cholim, if he needed sustenance he says it in Birkas HaShanim — and that which Rav Yehudah said a person should not request his needs, of such a case he was speaking. And the proof for this is that he did not say "one does not request" but rather "a person should not request," such as an individual; but a congregation, such as Zochreinu LeChaim which all of Israel need, they may request, and there is no difficulty against Rav Yehudah, and all the more so between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, when the whole world is judged, and all need to request all their needs, and the hour requires it, for it is the needs of the many, and there is no difficulty5.'
The Rambam6 also mentioned the minhag to say: 'There are places that are accustomed to add during these ten days, in the first bracha Zochreinu LeChaim etc., and in the second Mi Chamocha Av HaRachamim etc., and in Hodaah Zechor Rachamecha etc., and they add in the last bracha BeSefer Chaim etc.'
And the Ramban7 wrote that the basis for the addition is from Maseches Sofrim: 'That which we learned in the Mishnah, the order of brochos: he says Avos and Gevuros etc. — this implies that they do not change anything in them, and this that they were accustomed to say Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha, the Rishonim did not find for it a basis in the words of our Rabbis, but in Maseches Sofrim I found this wording: "And just as the conclusion of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur differs from the other days, so too their tefillah differs, and one does not say Zochreinu in the first three and the last three but rather on the two days of Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and they permitted it only with difficulty8.'
But the Ritva there wrote that the words of the Mishnah are not to teach us that one does not change, but rather that there is no obligation to change and it is not indispensable, and these are his words: '...and according to this I have to say, according to our approach, that the Mishnah teaches what is obligatory, and to say that one says the three first and three last as he normally does and needs no more, for Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha are not indispensable; and because they were accustomed to say them, the Tanna had to state thus, but in any event the Tanna concedes that if one comes to say them one does not protest against him, for even though a person does not request his needs in the first three, here, where it is [Rosh Hashanah] and Yom Kippur, they permitted requesting the needs of the many, but not on other days; and it is obvious that if one did not say [them] one does not return him.'
The Meiri9 wrote: 'In the essence of their formation there is an old dispute among the Geonim. There is one who says that it is forbidden to add anything in the first three and the last three, and their proof for this is from what they said: a person should never request his needs, not in the first three and not in the last three, for these brochos are arranged for the praise of the Omnipresent, and there is no room in them for any request of need, neither for an individual nor for the many, and they testified concerning the minhag of the two Yeshivos of Spain that they did not add anything in them, and for this reason they would prevent the congregation from saying Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha and Uvechein, Uvechein, Uvechein in the first three, and likewise from saying Kesov LeChaim and UveSefer Chaim in the last three; and among them are those who permitted adding and left it for those who were accustomed to these additions, and not only that, but it was with them a fine and praiseworthy minhag, and they were not prevented from this by their statement, of blessed memory, that a person should not request his needs in the first three and the last three, for this was not stated, in their opinion, except regarding the needs of the individual, but for the needs of the many it is permitted. And from what appears to me, it is permitted in these additions, for this is not in my view called a request of need at all, neither the need of an individual nor the need of the many; and the intent of the one who said "a person should not request his needs etc." was only regarding the needs of the body, which they permitted requesting in the middle brochos, each according to the nature of each bracha — that is to say, if he had a sick person he includes it in Birkas Refaeinu and the like.'
And the Tur10 brought the dispute of the Geonim but concluded: 'And they have already become accustomed to say it throughout all Ten Days of Repentance.'
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe11: 'The Geonim instituted to say during the Ten Days of Repentance, in Birkas Avos, Zochreinu, and in Gevuros, Mi Chamocha, and in Hodaah, Kesov, and in Sim Shalom, BeSefer.'
If so, in practice the Geonim instituted several additions in the tefillah of Shemoneh Esrei of the Ten Days of Repentance, and indeed at first the Geonim disputed whether and where and when to say them, but in practice already in the time of the Rishonim the minhag became accepted to say them as we say them.
In the following halachos we will learn about the explanation of these additions, and what the law is for one who forgets.
Footnotes:
1 פי"ט ה"ו ↩
2 סי' א הל' ברכות פ"ה עמוד נט ↩
3 סדר אשמורות. וראה גם אוצר הגאונים ר"ה סי' כח ↩
4 תשובות הגאונים - שערי תשובה סי' קנא ↩
5 וכ"כ הר"ן ר"ה ח, ב מדפי הרי"ף בשם הרי"צ גיאת. וכ"כ האבודרהם בשם רב האיי, רבינו חננאל, ורבינו תם ↩
6 הל' תפילה פ"ב הי"ט ↩
7 ר"ה לב, א ↩
8 בבן ידיד הל' תפילה פ"ב הי"ט כתב: 'והקשה מהר"י הכהן, הובאו דבריו במרכבת המשנה, על הרמב"ן דמההיא דמס' סופרים משמע איפכא עי"ש ודברי המס' סופרים הם בפי"ט הל' ח' עי"ש ולק"מ דלכן כתב סמך לדבר ולא כתב ראיה לדבר בהדיא דלענין דאין לשאול צרכים בג' ראשונות מייתי קצת ראיה דבמס' סופרים כתוב לומר כן בר"ה ויוה"כ דוקא ואף אלו בקושי התירו והכונה דאין לשאול בג' ראשונות אלא לפי שהם ימי דין והוא צורך רבים בקושי התירו וה"ה למנהג בכל הימי תשובה וברור וק"ל' ↩
9 בחיבור התשובה - משיב נפש מ"ב פ"ב ↩
10 או"ח סי' תקפב ↩
11 שו"ע או"ח סי' תקפב ס"ו ↩
[2] (halacha 662)
Question: What is the law for one who forgot to say them and completed his tefillah?
Answer: The Tosafos1 wrote: 'And where one erred in the first three, such as where he erred in their conclusion, or did not mention, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in Birkas Avos, Zochreinu, or in Techiyas HaMeisim, Mi Chamocha, or did not say HaMelech HaKadosh, he returns to the first one; and where one erred in the last three, such as where he likewise erred in their conclusion, or did not mention, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur in Sim Shalom, BeSefer Chaim Tovim, or Kesov LeChaim Tovim in Hodaah, he returns to Avodah; and the reason is that since all of it is praise it is like a single bracha.'
If so, according to the view of Tosafos, one who forgot to add these additions, his law is like one who forgot to say HaMelech HaKadosh, that he returns to the beginning, or to the beginning of the three last brochos — Retzei.
But the Rishonim disagreed with the Tosafos, as the Rosh2 wrote: 'And I wonder why they return him, since it is not mentioned in the Gemara. For regarding HaMelech HaKadosh and HaMelech HaMishpat there is a dispute, and the Gemara ruled that he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. But regarding Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha, if it is an enactment of the Geonim to say it, from where do we [derive] that they return him? This is not called changing from the formula of the brochos, since it is not mentioned in the Gemara.'
And so wrote the Ran3: 'And in any event the matter is clear that if he did not say [it] one does not return him, and let us not add upon it; and I was required to write this because I saw that some of our French Rabbis, of blessed memory, wrote that if he did not say [it] one returns him.'
The Meiri4 also wrote: 'And even in some Tosafos they wrote regarding Zochreinu LeChaim that if one forgot one returns him, since it was mentioned in Maseches Sofrim it is certainly a fixed tefillah; but it does not appear so, for they stated it only as a mention of the occasion.'
In addition, we find also in the approach of the Baalei HaTosafos an approach that disagrees with the Ri, as the Hagahos Maimoniyos5 wrote: 'The Bahag wrote that there is a Rabbinic prohibition, that we conduct ourselves thus, from that which he said one should not request his needs in the first three, and in chapter 18 of Maseches Sofrim it is taught: one does not mention Zochreinu in the first three and last three but rather on the two days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and even these they permitted only with difficulty — thus far; and we have only the minhag of our Rabbis and our predecessors, of blessed memory. However, if one erred and forgot and did not say [it]... it appears from here that one does not return him, and so wrote Rabbeinu Tam, that one does not return regarding those things which the book did not explicitly conclude; and so I found in the Tosafos of HaRav Yehudah, that for these one does not return, since "changing from the formula of the Chachamim" is not applicable here, and so it implies in the Bahag as below in chapter 6 in the gloss. But in other Tosafos I found that one returns for them, for it is a change from the formula of the brochos, and so it is written in Sefer HaTerumah that the Ri was accustomed to return for them; and it is astonishing from that of Maseches Sofrim. And behold, the opinion of my teacher Rabbeinu is not to return for them, and so explained the Ravyah, and so HaRav Chaim told me that he heard from the mouth of HaRav Eliezer, of blessed memory, in his Yeshivah, that he said it does not appear to me [right] to return for them.'
And the Bach6 wrote to explain the opinion of the Ri: 'And the Ri wrote etc., and so wrote the Tosafos at the end of the first chapter of Brochos, and it appears that the Ri holds that the plain matter of the formula of the tefillah which is in the hands of all Israel, we received it from the Men of the Great Assembly, and anyone who changes from the formula that the Chachamim, of blessed memory, instituted, it is a bracha that is not required and he must return; and that which it was not mentioned in the Talmud that one returns is because they do not dispute it, for according to all one returns if he changed, like all the tefillos that the Chachamim instituted; and regarding HaMelech HaKadosh and HaMelech HaMishpat, which they dispute, and there is one who holds that he fulfills [his obligation] in this as in that, it was mentioned in the Talmud, but all the rest of the formula of the tefillah they did not need to mention — so it appears to me, to settle the opinion of the Ri.'
And as the halacha, the Mechaber7 wrote in accordance with the words of most of the Rishonim: 'If one did not say Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha, one does not return him.'
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the law for one who forgot but remembered before he moved his feet?
Answer: The Terumas HaDeshen8 wrote: 'Question: One forgot Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha or Vechosov and remembered before he moved his feet — does he return or not? Answer: It appears that even though all the Geonim wrote that he returns regarding Zochreinu and the others, that is to say Mi Chamocha, even if he moved his feet — one should not conduct oneself thus, but rather as the Maharam ruled in the Ashiri, that he does not return, since this formula was not mentioned in the Talmud, and even if he did not move his feet. Even though the great authorities wrote that the Ri saw Rabbeinu Tam return after Modim, regarding a thing about which the Chachamim said if he did not say it one does not return him — and one can say that specifically when he moved his feet, in such a case the term "return" is applicable, but [if] he did not move his feet it is not called "returning." And the Semag wrote that one should act like Rabbeinu Tam in this, and likewise the Tosafos at the end of the chapter Tefillas HaShachar [state] that the practice of the people in this is like Rabbeinu Tam. In any event it appears that even Rabbeinu Tam held thus only regarding those things mentioned in the Talmud to be said, such as Al HaNisim in the tefillah of Chanukah and Purim... and even though the Chachamim said concerning them, if he did not say it one does not return him, Rabbeinu Tam explains that it means when he moved his feet, but as long as he did not move his feet he is obligated to say [it] as the Chachamim instituted. But Zochreinu and the others, which are not mentioned at all to be said, and are not the formula of the Sages of the Talmud — and therefore the Maharam and the Ashiri held that one does not return for them, so as not to make a bracha in vain because of returning to them — from where would we [derive] to distinguish between [whether] one moved [his feet] or did not move [them], since the term "return" is not stated concerning it in any place in the Talmud.'
And so the Rema9 wrote as the halacha: 'Even if he did not yet move his feet, only that he completed that bracha, and the same applies if he did not say Kesov, UveSefer, the law is likewise.'
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe10: 'And if he forgot to say them and remembered before he completed the bracha in which he forgot, he says them at the place where he remembered; and if he remembered after he mentioned the Name that is in the conclusion of the bracha, he does not say [it] at the place where he remembered, and also does not return to the beginning of the bracha, because of the prohibition of a bracha in vain, since they are only an enactment of the Geonim.'
If so, in practice one who forgot to say and mentioned the Name of Hashem that is at the conclusion of the bracha does not return.
-
Footnotes:
1 ברכות לד, א ↩
2 ברכות פ"א סי' טז ↩
3 ר"ה ח, ב מדפי הרי"ף ↩
4 ברכות לד, א ↩
5 הל' תפילה פ"ב אות כ ↩
6 או"ח סי' תקפב. אלא שלמעשה פסק שאינו חוזר. ולהעיר מהריטב"א ר"ה לב, א ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' תקפב ס"ה ↩
8 סי' קמד ↩
9 שו"ע סי' תקפב ס"ה בהג"ה ↩
10 שו"ע או"ח סי' תקפב ס"ו ↩
[3] (halacha 663)
Question: Which of the additions does the congregation say during the chazaras hashatz?
Answer: It is the minhag in many communities1 that the congregation says all the additions aloud during the chazaras hashatz, except that there are those who cast doubt on this, as written in the Adnei Paz2 (by HaRav Ephraim Hekscher): 'The world is accustomed to say together with the shliach tzibbur Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha and Kesov and UveSefer, and it is foolishness and a great error, and we also have not found this in any posek or [collection of] minhogim, and the error spread because many times the shliach tzibbur forgot to say Zochreinu, and the congregation would call out Zochreinu etc. to remind the shliach tzibbur to say so, and through this the error came about, that they thought one must say those things together with the shliach tzibbur. And one must prevent this matter, for what business has the congregation to daven together with the shliach tzibbur — have they not already davened, and this is in the middle of their tefillah? So it appears to me.'3
And so wrote the Maaseh Rav (Minhagei HaGra)4: 'During the chazaras hashatz the congregation does not say UveSefer Chaim, but only the shliach tzibbur alone.'
But the Sdei Chemed5 wrote: 'And it is a widespread minhag among us Sephardim, on the Yamim Noraim, during the chazaras hashatz of the shliach tzibbur, that the people respond [with] several things that contain Divine Names which they have already said in the silent tefillah, such as Zochreinu LeChaim etc., Lemaancha Elokim Chaim etc.... and likewise more in the tefillos of Yom Kippur, and no one opens his mouth [to protest] regarding their mention of these Names; and this is certainly based on the words of Maran the Beis Yosef in siman 124, that anything that is without an opening [bracha] and without a conclusion is only like a supplication, and a person is permitted to supplicate and to repeat and supplicate, and there is no concern in this. And perhaps they consider this somewhat necessary, to arouse the congregation to concentrate and not to divert their attention from the chazaras hatefillah, and whenever there is some necessity it is obvious that there is no concern in mentioning Names that are within the formula, and so too when one needs to say Kesov etc. he may say [it] in order, as is customary, and they will praise etc.'6
However, we find minhogim that distinguished between the additions, and recited aloud only 'Kesov' and 'UveSefer', as written in the Mateh Ephraim7: 'And they are accustomed, when the shliach tzibbur reaches Vechosov or UveSefer, the congregation says aloud Vechosov or UveSefer, and the chazzan waits until they finish and says it afterward.'
And regarding the reason for the minhag to distinguish between the additions, the Bnei Yissaschar8 wrote: 'That which they are accustomed throughout all the dispersions of Israel — Vechosov and UveSefer the congregation says together with the shliach tzibbur, whereas regarding Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha — it appears to me [the reason] is that, behold, the first three are comparable to a servant etc., whereas the last three are comparable to a servant who receives a reward from his master and goes on his way; and behold, the shliach tzibbur is the one who receives the reward on behalf of the entire congregation, therefore, when he receives the reward, behold each one says [it] with him and receives his portion of life and peace — so it appears to me.'
Another reason was written in the Yalkut Avraham (by HaRav Avraham Lifshitz)9: 'For behold the Tur, of blessed memory, wrote in siman 582, and these are his words: "And one would not say LeChaim Tovim but rather LeChaim until the end, in Hodaah, where one would say Vechosov LeChaim Tovim, for the one who requests must first request a small thing and afterward adds and continues etc.," and afterward he brings a parable for this, and the Beis Yosef wrote there, in the passage beginning "Vechosav," that the parable etc. is in the Midrash Tehillim, see there; and so too wrote the Machatzis HaShekel here, siman 582 subsection 4, in the name of the Midrash etc., that therefore one requests first remembering, and afterward writing, and afterward "tovim," see there. And according to this, in our case too, since some moments earlier in the silent tefillah they already requested and said Vechosov LeChaim Tovim, and likewise BeSefer Chaim etc. LeChaim Tovim and peace, then immediately when the shliach tzibbur says the Shemoneh Esrei, they refrain from this and say only Zochreinu LeChaim, and likewise Mi Chamocha etc. Zocher Yetzurav LeChaim BeRachamim, for even those poskim who disagree regarding Vechosov, that one should not say "tovim," concede that in BeSefer Chaim etc. one must say "tovim"; therefore they do not say together with the shliach tzibbur Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha, so it appears to me.'
And so writes the Rebbe10: 'In response to his question regarding the congregation saying Zochreinu etc. and UveSefer during the chazaras hashatz: His minhag is confirmed explicitly by my father-in-law, the Rebbe שליט"א, that the congregation repeats Vechosov Vechasum and UveSefer, and also on Shabbos and Yom Tov. And as to what he wrote, that there are those who also repeat Zochreinu and Mi Chamocha — it appears to me that so it should be, for what reason is there to distinguish between them and Vechosov etc.? I heard regarding this minhag of his, and I have always wondered at the repetition of Mi Chamocha, for this is not a request for mercy but rather a recounting of the praise of the Omnipresent. And as to why our minhag is not to repeat Zochreinu, it appears to me the reason is that, behold, the request of Zochreinu LeChaim is a request for a small thing, and therefore the congregation does not say this after they have already said Vechosov LeChaim Tovim, whereas the shliach tzibbur, who said Vechosov etc. so that his tefillah should be fluent in his mouth [does repeat them].'
If so, in practice our minhag is to say aloud only the passages Vechosov LeChaim and UveSefer Chaim.
--------------
Footnotes:
1 ראה לקוטי מהרי"ח ר"ה סח, א. ילקוט אברהם (מונקאטש תרצא) סי' תרב. קצה המטה סי' תקפד ס"ק כב ↩
2 נדפס באלטונא תק"ג, סי' תקפב ס"ה ↩
3 ולהעיר מהגר"ח פלאג'י במועד לכל חי סי' יג אות טז: 'ובספר אדני פז קרא תגר על המנהג דאומרים הקהל בקול רם זכרנו, מי כמוך, וכתוב, ובספר חיים, עיי"ש, דיש ללמד זכות דהוא בכונה מכוונת שלא ישכחו מלאומרו' ↩
4 אות רד ↩
5 מערכת ר"ה סי' ג אות ג (ח"ו ע' א'תח) ↩
6 וראה תשובות והנהגות ח"ה סי' קפג אות ג: 'הציבור נהגו לומר עם הש"ץ בחזרת הש"ץ, זכרינו לחיים, מי כמוך, וכתוב, ובספר חיים טובים, ולמנהג אשכנז אומרים עם החזן רק וכתוב ובספר, ולא מצאנו לזה שום יסוד וכבר תמהו ע"ז, ולפי זכרוני כ"ק האדמו"ר מגור רבי ישראל אלתר זצ"ל תמה על מנהג זה, ונדחק שמא כדי לזרז ולהזכיר את הש"ץ לאומרם. ובפשוטו נראה דהנה בחזרת הש"ץ צריך לשמוע כל תיבה מהש"ץ ולענות אמן ובזה יש לו תפלה נוספת, וכן בזה הוא תפלת הציבור ממש, והתפלה מעולה ומתקבלת ביותר, אבל בעו"ה לא זהירים בזה היום ולכן עכ"פ תפלות אלו אומרים יחד, לזרז הציבור ששייך לכל אחד תפלת הש"ץ שאז מרוצה ונשמעת טפי' ↩
7 סי' תקפד ס"י ↩
8 מאמרי חודש תשרי מאמר ב אות כג ↩
9 נסמן בהערה 1 ↩
10 אג"ק ח"ג ע' ה ↩
From the project 'Shoneh Halacha' - Daily Halacha with Reasons and Sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp Group