Who causes the dew to fall
[1] (halacha 533)
Question: What is the halacha for one who erred and said "morid hageshem" during the summer?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Taanis1 says: 'Rabbi Chanina said: Therefore: during the summer, if he said "mashiv haruach" - we do not make him repeat, if he said "morid hageshem" - we make him repeat'.
Regarding the reason he is made to repeat, Rashi2 wrote: 'Because rains in the summer are a sign of a curse, on account of the harvest'.
However, the Rishonim disagreed in the explanation of the Gemara's words - 'we make him repeat': Some explained that "we make him repeat" means that he must repeat the tefillah, as Rashi wrote there: '"morid hageshem" we make him repeat - for it is withheld, and since he requested rain - he did not pray his tefillah properly, and he returns to the beginning of the bracha, and says it without "morid hageshem"'.
But there are Rishonim who wrote that he does not repeat the tefillah, but rather we only instruct him to pray correctly, as the Ohr Zarua3 wrote in the name of the Riva: 'And Rabbi Yitzchak bar Asher explained that "we make him repeat" is not literal, for what difference would it make, since he has already mentioned it, rather it means we instruct him and turn him back from this matter, so that he is careful when he prays a second time not to say "morid hageshem", and according to his explanation, [regarding] "mashiv haruach" we do not make him repeat, for we do not even instruct him not to say it'.
And so wrote the Mordechai4: 'And it appears to Rabbeinu5 that we do not literally make him return to the beginning of the bracha, but rather it means we rebuke him and protest against him so that he not say [it] again, for it is astonishing to say we make him return to the beginning of the bracha, for what would it accomplish, has he not already said it: during the rainy season, if he did not say "morid hageshem" we make him repeat - here certainly we make him repeat (to the beginning) literally to the beginning of the bracha. And Raavyah6 [wrote as follows] if he said "morid hageshem" we make him return to the beginning of the bracha, for there is no discernible correction in rebuking him to say to begin from "mechalkel chaim", for such is also its law during the rainy season, to say "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem, mechalkel chaim", therefore he returns to the beginning of the bracha'7.
The Agudah8 also brought this dispute, as follows: 'If he said "morid hageshem" we make him repeat. Some explain we rebuke him. And Rabbeinu Avyah and other Geonim explained we make him return to the beginning of the bracha'.
But the Ohr Zarua there wrote regarding this explanation that we rebuke him: 'And this is an astonishing matter, but that which it says during the rainy season, if he did not say "morid hageshem" we make him repeat, it is obvious that this "we make him repeat" means literally making him repeat .. and so it also implies in the Yerushalmi of our chapter and in the Yerushalmi of Berachos, chapter Ein Omdin .. we learn from there that the explanation of "we make him repeat" means literally making him repeat, and it disagrees with our Talmud regarding "gevuros geshamim"'.
And the Maadanei Yom Tov9 explained: 'And if you ask, what is its remedy in repeating, since he has already cursed, and because of this the Mordechai wrote at the beginning of Taanis that it appears to Rabbeinu that we do not make him return to the beginning of the brochos, but rather it means we rebuke him and protest against him so that he not say [it] again, for it is astonishing to say we make him return to the beginning of the bracha, for what would it accomplish, has he not already said it, end of quote. But he himself concludes in the name of the Avi HaEzri that he returns to the beginning, and so is the consensus of the poskim. And I, in my poverty, say that it is not astonishing at all, for in general we say that repeating within the time of speech ("toch kedei dibbur") is a repeating, except for one who curses ("meimar") and blasphemes etc., and if in general, even though some said "except", nevertheless in all [cases] it is repeating within the time of speech, then we too shall say that here, in a case like this where it cannot be corrected in any other way except by repeating, that it is a repeating even not within the time of speech, for in any event he is repeating and does not desire what he said at first, and it is revealed before Heaven that he is repeating and his repeating is a repeating'.
And in a different manner the Korban Nesanel10 explains: '"morid hageshem" we make him repeat. And if you ask, what is its remedy in repeating, has he not already cursed. Rashi already answered that he did not pray his tefillah properly and it is not considered anything, therefore he returns to the beginning of the bracha'.
And as halacha, the Rambam11 and the Rosh12 wrote like the words of Rashi, that "we make him repeat" means that he repeats the tefillah.
And so wrote the Beis Yosef13: 'And nevertheless the words of the Mordechai were rejected, who wrote that it appears to Rabbeinu that we do not make him return to the beginning of the bracha but rather it means we rebuke him and protest against him so that he not say [it] again ..'.
And based on this the Mechaber14 wrote: 'If he said "morid hageshem" during the summer, we make him repeat and he returns ...'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe15: 'If he said "morid hageshem" during the summer we make him repeat, because rains in the summer are only a sign of a curse, therefore they required this one who mentioned a curse in his tefillah to return and pray without a curse that bracha in which he mentioned a curse ..'.
Thus we have seen that one who mentioned rain in the summer must go back and correct his error, and in the coming halachos we will learn to where he returns.
Footnotes:
1 ג, ב ↩
2 ד"ה מוריד הגשם ↩
3 הל' הזכרת גשם וטל סי' שצט ↩
4 תענית רמז תריב ↩
5 במרדכי השלם עמ"ס תענית (הוצאת מכון י-ם) ע' תפה הערה 4 העירו שבחלק מכת"י הגירסא היא: לר"י ↩
6 תענית תתמו ↩
7 להעיר שבפסקי תוספות תענית אות ב כתוב: 'אמר משיב הרוח בימות החמה גוערין בו ומוחין לבל יעשה עוד'. אלא שלא ברורה כוונתו אם ר"ל שאמר משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם או רק משיב הרוח, ועצ"ע ↩
8 תענית פ"א סי' א ↩
9 ברכות פ"ד סי' יד אות נ ↩
10 תענית פ"א סי' א אות ו ↩
11 הל' תפלה פ"י ה"ח ↩
12 תענית פ"א סי' א ↩
13 או"ח סי' קיד ↩
14 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
15 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
[2] (halacha 534)
In the previous halacha we learned that one who mentioned "morid hageshem" during the summer must repeat his tefillah.
Question: A person who said "morid hageshem" and became aware after he finished the bracha of "mechayeh hameisim" - to where does he return?
Answer: The Rosh1 wrote: 'And if he finished the bracha he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, for the first three [brochos] are one'.
And so ruled the Mechaber2: 'And if he finished the bracha, he returns to the beginning of the tefillah'.
And these are the words of the Alter Rebbe3: 'And if he became aware after the conclusion of the bracha he must return to the beginning of the tefillah, because anyone who errs in some bracha in a manner that he must go back and correct his error and did not go back until he concluded this bracha, it is not enough for him to return to the place where he erred to correct his error, but rather he must return to the beginning of the bracha as will be explained, and the three first brochos are considered as one bracha as will be explained'.
And later in the siman4 the Alter Rebbe wrote: 'The three first brochos are considered as one since their matter is one - to arrange the praise of the Omnipresent before requesting one's needs, like a servant who arranges praise before his master before he requests a reward from him, and likewise the three last [brochos] are considered as one, for they are like a servant who has received a reward from his master and takes his leave and goes on his way, as is explained in siman 112, therefore in every case where he erred in the three first [brochos] he returns to the beginning of the tefillah'.
Thus, when he finished the bracha, he must return to the beginning of the tefillah.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is considered the conclusion of the bracha, is it the saying of "mechayeh hameisim", or specifically when he began to say the words "atah kadosh"?
Answer: The Tur5 brought what his father the Rosh wrote above: 'And if he finished the bracha he returns to the beginning of the tefillah', and from the plain sense of his language and the language of the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch it is understood that the moment he finished saying the words "mechayeh hameisim", even though he did not begin "atah kadosh", he must return to the beginning of the tefillah.
But the Bach wrote regarding the words of the Tur: 'And below in se'if 9 it will be explained in the words of the Avi HaEzri that this which we say here, that if he finished he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, this is specifically when he began the bracha that follows it'.
On the other hand, the Levush6 wrote: 'And if he finished the entire bracha even though he did not begin "atah kadosh" he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, for the three first [brochos] are considered as one'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah7 wrote: '"finished" etc. even though he did not begin "atah kadosh" etc. And even though in se'if 7 we say that as long as he did not begin "atah kadosh" he says "mashiv haruach", it appears that there [the reason] is as the Levush wrote, that it is like an extended conclusion ("chasima arichta"), but here since he already completed the conclusion and the bracha was completed he must return to the beginning. But the Bach wrote that here too it deals specifically with when he began "atah kadosh" as there. And it appears that he holds the reason there is because as long as he has [not] begun "atah kadosh" it is as if the bracha was not completed, and here too, as long as he did not begin "atah kadosh" he returns only to "atah gibor". And the Tur and Shulchan Aruch left this unqualified, and the Acharonim also did not note this dispute, and as to the practical ruling it appears reasonable to me like the Bach'.
The Pri Megadim8 remained on this in doubt, as follows: 'And that which is written in the Shulchan Aruch, if he finished the bracha he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, even though he did not begin "atah kadosh", and it is not similar to se'if 6, to say it in the place where he became aware, and so wrote the Levush of blessed memory. But the Eliyah Rabbah letter 6 agreed with the Bach that here too, as long as he did not begin "atah kadosh" it is as if he stands within the bracha and he returns to the beginning of the bracha, and he ruled thus. And as to the practical ruling it requires examination9, for one could say "safek brochos lehakel" ..'.
But as above, from the plain sense of the language of the Tur and the Mechaber it appears that with his saying "mechayeh hameisim" the bracha was concluded regarding this matter, and so wrote the Derech Chaim10 that so it appears explicitly from the words of the Shulchan Aruch. And so it appears from the unqualified words of the Alter Rebbe11 who wrote like the words of the Mechaber.
And thus, when he finished the bracha of "mechayeh hameisim", even though he has not yet begun to say "atah kadosh", he must return to the beginning of the tefillah.
Footnotes:
1 תענית פ"א סי' א ↩
2 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
3 או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
4 שם ס"ח ↩
5 או"ח סי' קיד ↩
6 או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
7 סי' קיד ס"ק ו ↩
8 משב"ז סי' קיד ס"ק י ↩
9 וראה כף החיים סי' קיד אות כז ↩
10 פל"ג דין לח, וכ"כ במאמר מרדכי סי' קיד ס"ק י, וראה גם בביאור הלכה ד"ה ואם סיים. וראה עוד הנסמן בפסקי תשובות הע' 68 ↩
11 ולהעיר מדברי אדמו"ר הזקן בס"ז שכתב: 'שכל שלא התחיל בברכה שלאחריה לא נקרא סיום ברכה זו לגמרי לענין דברים שמחזירין אותו אעפ"י שנקרא סיום לענין דברים שאין מחזירין אותו'. אך כנ"ל בסברא שמביא הא"ר כמו"כ י"ל בכוונת אדה"ז שהיא לגבי הוספה אחרי הברכה, ולא לגבי תיקון טעות בברכה. וכך פסקו עוד מרבני חב"ד. ועצ"ע ↩
[3] (halacha 535)
In the previous halacha we learned that when he finished the bracha and said the words "mechayeh meisim" he returns to the beginning of the tefillah
Question: What is the halacha when he noticed his error after he said the Name of Hashem of the conclusion of the bracha, but still before he said the words "mechayeh hameisim"?
Answer: The Acharonim disagreed, according to the views that hold that when one erred in the bracha he returns to the beginning of the bracha1, what is the halacha in a case where he managed to say only the words "baruch atah Hashem", and became aware that he mentioned "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem", what must he do - should he finish the bracha or should he say "lamdeni chukecha", as follows:
The Ritva2 wrote, brought by the Shaarei Teshuvah3: 'And in the name of the Rav HaChasid of blessed memory that even if he said "baruch atah Hashem", he concludes as one reading in the Torah "lamdeni chukecha", like the law of anyone who wished to make a bracha and fruits fell from his mouth and the like, and it turns out that he did not finish his bracha and repeats it properly, even in a place where they did not say to make him repeat, for this is not a repeating, but this is not the view of the great ones of the French [sages] of blessed memory, but rather anyone who began the conclusion concludes and goes on his way in a place where we do not make him repeat, but in a place where we make him repeat he does so and returns to his law'.
However, the Pri Megadim4 wrote: 'And know, every place where they said "he finished the bracha" it means that he said the Name, see siman תרפ"ב se'if א and Eliyah Rabbah [siman] 294 letter 85.
But the Mishnah Berurah6 noted regarding the Pri Megadim: 'And if he finished the bracha - see in the Pri Megadim who wrote that this means after he said "baruch atah Hashem", but the Shaarei Teshuvah and the Chayei Adam wrote specifically if he finished completely, but if he became aware after the Name he concludes "lamdeni chukecha" so that it not be in vain, and then it is as if he still stands in the middle of the bracha and returns to "atah gibor"'.
And although the Gra"ch Naeh wrote7: 'And if he became aware after he said "baruch atah Hashem" before he finished "mechayeh hameisim", the Shaarei Teshuvah wrote in the name of the Ritva that he concludes "lamdeni chukecha" and returns to the beginning of the bracha, and in the Mishnah Berurah se'if katan 20 he brought that the Pri Megadim disagrees with this, and seemingly one could say that in concluding "lamdeni chukecha", which does not belong to the tefillah, its law would be like one who spoke intentionally, and consequently he would need to return to the beginning of the tefillah8, and in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe nothing at all is mentioned of this, and in practice it requires examination'.
But in practice the Gra"ch Naeh himself9 retracted, and wrote: 'And now I retract, for granted that he would need to return to the beginning, but if he finishes "mechayeh hameisim" he would also need to return to the beginning and would also say a bracha in vain, since he has already spoiled the bracha of "atah gibor", let him now conclude "lamdeni chukecha" so that in any event there not be a bracha in vain in this, for certainly speech in the middle of the tefillah is more lenient than a bracha in vain. And as to the essential law it also appears that in concluding "lamdeni chukecha" he does not need to return to the beginning, for it is not like one who spoke .. and one could say that "speech" specifically means when he speaks with his fellow, that he interrupts his tefillah, for he stood and spoke before the Holy One blessed be He and he turns to his fellow, therefore it is an interruption, but when he speaks before the Holy One blessed be He, even though it is not of the matter of the tefillah, it is not like one who spoke, and is not called an interruption after the fact'10. And so it is in practice in the Luach Kollel Chabad, to say "lamdeni chukecha"11.
Thus we have seen that when he said "morid hageshem" in the summer and noticed his error after saying "baruch atah Hashem" before the conclusion of the bracha, he says "lamdeni chukecha", and returns to the beginning of this bracha.
Footnotes:
1 בהלכה הבאה נלמד את מחלוקת הראשונים בדין זה ↩
2 תענית ג, ב ↩
3 סי' קיד ס"ק ד, וכ"כ בחיי אדם כלל כד ס"ח, הובא גם בשו"ת אמרי יושר ח"ב סי' ט ↩
4 משב"ז על שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ק י ↩
5 אך לכאו' צ"ע להבין הדמיון דנדו"ד לשני מ"מ אלו, שהרי שם אינו חוזר, וא"כ לא יהא הזכרת ה' לבטלה. אך כאן בלא"ה צריך לחזור והוי הזכרת שם זה ללא ברכה כתקנה. אלא השאלה האם צריך לחזור לראש ברכה ראשונה או שניה, וזה לכאו' לא ניתן ללמוד משם. וראה דעת גדולי הצרפתיים בדברי הריטב"א הנ"ל ↩
6 סי' קיד ס"כ ↩
7 קצוה"ש סי' כא בדה"ש אות יב ↩
8 וכ"כ בשו"ת אג"מ ח"ד סי' צג וז"ל: 'אבל הוא תמוה מאד שלא מובן כלל הא ודאי ברור ופשוט שאסור ללמוד אף פסוקי תורה באמצע התפלה ובאמצע ברכות והלומד באמצע הוא הפסק גמור ובטל ברכה זו וצע"ג' וראה שם שלכאו' לדבריו י"ל שלמרות שאם לא יסיים צריך לחזור רק לראש הברכה, יש עדיפות לסיים ולחזור לראש התפילה. 'כי ברוך אתה ה' הוא יותר אסור מברכה לבטלה שהיה עכ"פ דבריו דברי שבח שהרי נאמר השבח והמעשה שהוא ברוך בזה ולכן טוב יותר לגמור ולחזור לרצה לדידהו' ↩
9 סי' מז בדה"ש אות ז ↩
10 וראה גם יביע אומר ח"א או"ח כב, ויחווה דעת ח"ה סי' מט והנסמן שם. אור לציון ח"ב פ"ז אות כט ↩
11 להעיר שבשבח המועדים ע' 228 הערה 5 *כתב בשם הגרז"ש דווארקין שלא נוהגים כך ולא אומרים למדני חוקיך באמצע שמו"ע.* ↩
[4] (halacha 536)
We learned that one who erred and said "morid hageshem" in the summer must go back and correct the curse he mentioned, and if he concluded the bracha he must return to the beginning of Shemoneh Esrei.
Question: One who became aware before the conclusion of the bracha - to where must he return?
Answer: The Rambam1 wrote: 'And if he erred during the summer and said "morid hageshem" he returns to the beginning', and regarding this the Beis Yosef2 wrote: 'It implies from his words that he always returns to the beginning of the tefillah3.
But it appears from the words of Rashi4 that he must return to the beginning of the bracha, as follows: '"morid hageshem" we make him repeat - for it is withheld, and since he requested rain - he did not pray his tefillah properly, and he returns to the beginning of the bracha, and says it without "morid hageshem", because rains in the summer are a sign of a curse, on account of the harvest'.
And the Raavyah5 wrote: 'Rabbi said, one who passes before the ark ("teivah") during the summer and said "mashiv haruach" we do not make him repeat, [if] he said "morid hageshem" we make him repeat. The explanation is to the beginning of the bracha, for there is no discernible correction in what they would rebuke him to say and to begin from "mechalkel chaim", and such is their law during the rainy season, to say after "mashiv haruach" and "morid hageshem" "mechalkel chaim", therefore he returns to the beginning of the bracha'.
[But in these words of the Raavyah it appears that the main reason to return to the beginning is so that the correction be discernible, whereas in the words of Rashi it appears that he must return to the beginning of the bracha because the bracha was not proper. (And see in halacha 533 that the Maadanei Yom Tov explained like the words of the Raavyah, and the Korban Nesanel like the words of Rashi)].
And the Rosh6 wrote: '"morid hageshem" we make him repeat and he returns to the beginning of the bracha. And if he finished the bracha he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, for the three first [brochos] are one'.
And the Korban Nesanel7 explained: 'And he returns to the beginning of the bracha. This is because Rabbi Chanina did not say he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, implying that he returns only to the beginning of the bracha. For it is not for nothing that the Sages established fathers ("avos") for the three brochos. And so that it not be difficult for you [that] behold Rav Huna and Rav Asi both hold that one who erred in the three first [brochos] returns to the beginning, therefore Rabbeinu distinguishes that if he finished the entire bracha and made a bracha in vain, it is like one who skipped an entire bracha and then he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, for it is in such a matter that Rav Huna and Rav Asi spoke, referring to the Mishnah there of "one who passes before the ark and erred", and as Rashi explained. And thus Rabbi Chanina and Rav Huna and Rav Asi do not disagree'.
Thus we have seen that it appears the Rishonim disagreed as to what the halacha is when one errs in the middle of the second bracha - "mechayeh hameisim", whether he can correct the bracha or whether he must return to the beginning of the tefillah.
As halacha the Beis Yosef there wrote: 'And to decide the halacha between the Rambam and the Rosh it appears to rule like the Rosh, for the Raavyah supports him, and further because the words of the Rambam are not explicitly clarified'. And so wrote the Bach there: 'And thus we hold, that such is the view of the poskim, not like the Rambam in perek yud of Hilchos Tefillah that he always returns to the beginning of the tefillah, and the Beis Yosef brings it [to say] that it is not so'.
And so wrote the Mechaber8: 'If he said "morid hageshem" during the summer, we make him repeat and he returns to the beginning of the bracha9 and if he finished the bracha, he returns to the beginning of the tefillah. And even in a place where they need rain during the summer, if he mentioned rain in the place of dew ("tal"), we make him repeat'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe10: 'If he said "morid hageshem" during the summer we make him repeat, because rains in the summer are only a sign of a curse, therefore they required this one who mentioned a curse in his tefillah to return and pray without a curse that bracha in which he mentioned a curse, therefore he must return to the beginning of the bracha'.
Thus one who erred and said "morid hageshem" in the summer must go back and correct his error, and therefore in a case where he did not finish the bracha he returns to the beginning of the bracha.
In the coming days we will learn additional details, when and what is meant by returning to the beginning.
Footnotes:
1 הל' תפילה פ"י ה"ח ↩
2 או"ח סי' קיד ↩
3 וכ"כ ביאור הגר"א או"ח סי' קיד אות י: 'וחוזר לראש הברכה כו'. רא"ש בריש תענית ומרדכי בשם ראבי"ה וצ"ע הא אמרינן בברכות טעה בג' ראשונות חוזר לראש, דג' ראשונות חשובות כאחת *ונראה כמ"ש הרמב"ם דלעולם חוזר לראש'* ↩
4 תענית ג, ב ↩
5 הל' תענית סי' תתמו ↩
6 תענית פ"א סי' א ↩
7 אות ז ↩
8 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
9 המשנ"ב בביאור הלכה הביא את הגר"א שבהערה 3 שפסק כרמב"ם שחוזר לראש התפלה ↩
10 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
[5] (halacha 537)
We learned that one who erred and mentioned "morid hageshem" and became aware in the middle of the bracha should return to the beginning of the bracha.
Question: What is meant by returning to the beginning of the bracha and what is the reason for this?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim disagreed regarding the reason that one must return to the beginning of the bracha, that Rashi wrote it is for the reason that: 'he did not pray his tefillah properly', and the Raavyah wrote: 'that there is no discernible correction .. to begin from "mechalkel chaim"'.
And seemingly on these two reasons will depend to where he must return when he said "morid hageshem", as the Korban Nesanel1 wrote in the view of Rashi: 'Rashi already answered that he did not pray his tefillah properly and it is not considered anything, therefore he returns to the beginning of the bracha'. And in a similar manner he wrote2 [in the view of the Rosh regarding one who did not mention rain during the rainy season]: 'The words of Rabbeinu are upright to those who find knowledge, for without his reasoning it is impossible to say [that if he did not say rain] that he returns to "mechalkel chaim" since he did not mention [it], he did not3 pray his tefillah properly. And what he prayed from "atah gibor" until "mechalkel" is not considered anything. Thus it is proper to return to the beginning of the bracha ..'.
On the other hand, according to the view of the Raavyah seemingly there is no need to return literally to the beginning of the bracha, but rather it is enough that he return in a manner that will be discernible, for according to his words the problem is only in the correction that 'there is no discernible correction in what they would rebuke him to say and to begin from "mechalkel chaim"', [and similarly in the words of the Rosh that it would not help 'if he were to return to "mechalkel chaim" he would not nullify what he mentioned improperly'], and thus according to them a correction that would be discernible or that would nullify what he said would help even if he does not return to the beginning of the bracha.
But the Acharonim wrote that even according to this view he must return literally to the beginning, as Mahar"i Abuhav4 wrote: 'And if you ask, let him return to "rav lehoshia", since he returns above the error he should return to the beginning of the tefillah'.
And so wrote the Pri Megadim5: 'This repeating is because it is not discernible when he says "mechalkel" thus etc., and even "rav lehoshia mechalkel" they did not wish to rely upon this, only that he say from the beginning'6.
However, the Maamar Mordechai7 wrote: 'And behold, from the aforementioned reason it would appear that he need not return literally to the beginning of the bracha, for if he says "rav lehoshia morid hatal mechalkel chaim etc." it appears that it is enough, for he shows by this that he nullifies what he said improperly, and even according to the Ashkenazi custom that does not mention dew ("tal") during the summer it appears that this is enough since he begins some words before the place where they mention rain there and does not mention [it], thus it appears that he retracts from what he said at first, as above from reasoning, except that I have not found so in any Acharon of blessed memory'.
And in the Shalmei Tzibur8 he brought the Maamar Mordechai and wrote: 'And in my humble opinion it appears that these words are words of reason. And nevertheless, since this matter is not found explicitly, it is good and proper that he return from the beginning of the bracha "atah gibor" etc. However, if it happened that he did not return from the beginning but only to "rav lehoshia" etc. and concluded his bracha, we do not make him repeat'.
But that which they wrote that they did not find poskim who wrote like them, on the contrary we have seen that there are some of the great poskim who wrote the opposite (except that the Acharonim did not see the words of Mahar"i Abuhav which were printed in recent years).
Thus we have seen that although in principle according to the view of the Raavyah there is no need to return literally from the beginning of the bracha, in practice the poskim wrote that one must return from the beginning of the bracha.
And so it also appears in the words of the Alter Rebbe, that although from the perspective of the correction itself it was not necessarily [the case] that he would need to return to the beginning of the bracha9, and it is enough that he return and pray the passage in which he erred, nevertheless he held that one must return to the beginning of the bracha, as follows: 'If he said "morid hageshem" during the summer we make him repeat because rains in the summer are only a sign of a curse, therefore they required this one who mentioned a curse in his tefillah to return and pray without a curse that bracha in which he mentioned a curse, therefore he must return to the beginning of the bracha, for if he returns to "mechalkel chaim" he would not nullify by this what he mentioned improperly, for such is the law of the mention during the rainy season, to say "mechalkel chaim" after "morid hageshem"'.
And based on this, some wrote10 in practice that one who becomes aware in the middle must always return literally to the beginning of the bracha.
On the other hand, some wrote11 that according to the view of the Alter Rebbe he need not return to the beginning of the bracha, and it is enough that he say "morid hatal mechalkel chaim" etc., for the words of the Alter Rebbe that he should not return to "mechalkel chaim" are according to the custom that does not mention "morid hatal" in the summer at all, as he wrote12: 'There are places that have the custom to mention it during the summer and to request it both during the summer and during the rainy season .. and in these lands the custom is to request dew during the rainy season and not during the summer, and not to mention it, neither during the summer nor during the rainy season'. And therefore he ruled that he should return literally to the beginning of the bracha, since if he returns to "mechalkel chaim" there is no matter of correction here. But since in the text that is in the siddur the Alter Rebbe established that they should say "morid hatal" during the summer, thus the moment he returns and says "morid hatal" and continues "mechalkel chaim" he has corrected his error, and he need not return to the beginning of the bracha.
Thus, in practice, one who becomes aware in the middle of the bracha that he said "morid hageshem" in the summer should return to the beginning of the bracha, to "atah gibor"13.
--------------
Footnotes:
1 אות ו ↩
2 אות ח ↩
3 תוקן עפ"י דפוס משנת תקטו ↩
4 או"ח סי' קיד ↩
5 או"ח א"א סי' קיד ס"ק ט ↩
6 וראה תהלה לדוד סי' קיד ס"ק ד ↩
7 סי' קיד ס"ק ט ↩
8 דף קי"ז סק"ג הובא בשע"ת סק"ג וראה גם בחיי"א כלל כא ס"ו, ומשנ"ב סי' קיד סקי"ט ↩
9 לכאורה נראה שאדה"ז נקט כהרא"ש שיש לבטל את מה שהזכיר שלא כדין, אך לא ביאר כדברי הקרבן נתנאל הנ"ל שכתב שהמילים שנאמרו קודם הטעות נחשב שלא אמרם ↩
10 ראה לוח כולל חב"ד. שו"ע הקצר פל"א ס"ג. (וכ"ה בהוצאה החדשה של סידור תהלת ה' בהלכות שלפני מוריד הטל) ↩
11 ראה שערי תפלה ומנהג (הגרמ"ש אשכנזי) סי' סא ↩
12 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ג ↩
13 שהרי המחבר ושאר הפוסקים הספרדים (ראה אור לציון ח"ב פ"ז דין כט. ילקוט יוסף תפלה ב סי' קיד ס"ד, וראה באריכות בויעמוד פנחס (מוסבי) עמ' כב) שנוסח תפלתם הוא כנוסח שלנו שמזכירים בקיץ מוריד הטל, ואעפ"כ כתבו בפשיטות שיש לו לחזור מתחילת הברכה, וכמ"ש בתהל"ד שם: 'ואפשר לומר כי היכי דכתב הא"א סק"ט דלא רצו לסמוך ע"ז שיתחיל רב להושיע ה"נ לא רצו לסמוך ע"ז שיתחיל מוריד הטל'. וראה גם בדברי אדמו"ר הזקן בסי' קיז ס"ג אודות שאילת גשמים שיש לחזור לראש הברכה [אלא שבשערי תפילה סי' סה מבאר שהוא דין מיוחד בברכת השנים, אך לכאו' מכך שמציין שם לסי' קיד נראה שאין הוא דין מיוחד לשם] ↩
[6] (halacha 538)
We learned that a person who said "morid hageshem" in the summer and became aware after he finished the bracha returns to the beginning of the tefillah.
Question: In a case where he returns to the beginning of the tefillah, must he also say the pasuk "Hashem sefasai tiftach"?
Answer: In the Siddur of Rabbeinu Saadya Gaon1 it is written: 'And one who prayed and forgot to say "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem" in its place .. and afterward became aware while he is still in the tefillah, he must return from the beginning of "Hashem sefasai tiftach", because these three passages are considered as one'.
But the Ritva2 wrote: 'And behold we hold that anyone who erred [in one] of the three first [brochos] returns to the beginning, meaning to the first bracha, and need not return and say "Hashem sefasai tiftach"'.
And with regard to the case where he finished his tefillah, Rabbeinu Yehonasan of Lunel3 wrote: 'And if he finished he returns to the beginning, to the beginning of the entire tefillah, and it does not suffice for him to return to "atah chonen", for what difference is there to return to "atah chonen" more than to "avos" and "gevuros", for behold he erred in the three last [brochos] and nevertheless we do not make him repeat more than the three last [brochos], rather certainly he returns entirely from "Hashem sefasai tiftach". If he uprooted his feet, even though he is accustomed to say supplications all the days of the year after his tefillah, now that he erred and uprooted his feet before he began them and became aware, he returns to the beginning. And if he did not uproot his feet and is not accustomed to say [anything] after "sim shalom" but "yihyu leratzon imrei fi" alone, it is like one who uprooted his feet and he returns to the beginning. And if he is accustomed to say supplications after his tefillah, such as "Elokai netzor" or "malkeinu Elokeinu yached shimcha be'olamecha", even though he finished "sim shalom", as long as he did not uproot his feet, even though he began the supplications, he returns to "avodah" because of Rosh Chodesh and to "shome'a tefillah" because of the request.
And in practice the Shaarei Teshuvah4 brought the Ritva, that he does not return and say "Hashem sefasai tiftach". And so wrote the Gra"ch Naeh5: that when he returns he does not say "Hashem sefasai tiftach", unless he finished the tefillah and returns to the beginning.
But the Aruch HaShulchan6 wrote: 'And it appears to me that he must say the pasuk "Hashem sefasai tiftach" once more, for since the Rabbis established it to be said before the tefillah, and its earlier saying was already interrupted by the brochos and they are void, therefore he must say it anew. And even in lands that need rain during the summer, we make him repeat when he mentioned rain, or rain and dew, for specifically regarding the request there is a difference and not regarding the mention as I wrote [and in the Shaarei Teshuvah he wrote not to say "Hashem sefasai tiftach" once more, and it requires examination'.
And to note that in the Igros Moshe7 he wrote to explain that there is no dispute between Rasa"g and the Ritva: 'And if he has already ceased his tefillah, which is when he uprooted his feet, and became aware that he did not mention Rosh Chodesh or Chol Hamoed, that he must return to pray, since it is not fitting to consider it as still one tefillah, since he already completed it even though he did not interrupt with speech, and all the more so if he interrupted, he must say "Hashem sefasai" beforehand, because his first tefillah before which he said "Hashem sefasai" was necessarily already interrupted. And it is regarding this repeating that it appears what is written in the Siddur of Rav Saadya Gaon (Mekitzei Nirdamim edition page 23) that he returns also to "Hashem sefasai", for behold he wrote his law regarding one who forgot "yaaleh veyavo" on Rosh Chodesh, that only after he uprooted his feet and the like does he return to the beginning of the tefillah, [so] he indeed holds that he must return also to "Hashem sefasai". And there is no contradiction or difficulty at all from the Siddur of Rav Saadya Gaon to what the Ritva wrote that he need not say "Hashem sefasai", and it is in my humble opinion simple and clear .. for certainly his siddur was known to the Ritva and to all our early Rabbis. And according to what I wrote it is settled that there is no dispute at all between the Ritva and the Siddur of Rav Saadya Gaon, but rather when he did not complete his tefillah as in the case of the Ritva, according to all he returns to the beginning of the first bracha and need not say "Hashem sefasai", and when he completed his tefillah as in the case that Rav Saadya Gaon took, according to all he returns also to "Hashem sefasai".'
But the publisher of the Igros Moshe already noted that the matter is not settled, for as above Rasa"g wrote this also regarding a case of one who forgot "mashiv haruach umorid hageshem" and did not finish his tefillah. (Except that the publisher wrote: 'And perhaps his intent in the Arabic text that is in the manuscript is not that he returns to the beginning of "Hashem sefasai tiftach", but rather that he returns to the beginning, to the place of "Hashem sefasai tiftach", that is, to the beginning of the bracha').
And in practice, since as above such is what Rasa"g wrote, and likewise there are some of the Acharonim8 who held so, in practice it is proper to return and say "Hashem sefasai tiftach".
Footnotes:
1 מהדורת תשכג ע' כב, וראה גם עמ' כג ↩
2 תענית ג, ב ↩
3 על הרי"ף ברכות כ, א ↩
4 סי' קיד ס"ק ד, וכ"כ במשנ"ב סי' קיד ס"ק כא ↩
5 קצוה"ש סי' כא ס"ג ובדה"ש הערה ו. וראה ג"כ ילקוט יוסף תפלה סי' קיד סי"ד, ובאישי ישראל פכ"ג הערה נח ↩
6 או"ח סי' קיד ס"ח ↩
7 שו"ת אג"מ או"ח ח"ה סי' כד ↩
8 ויתכן ששאר האחרונים הנ"ל לא ראו את הרס"ג ↩
[7] (halacha 539)
Question: Regarding repeating for one who mentioned rains in the summer, is there a difference between the month of Nissan and the rest of the summer?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Taanis1 says: 'Once Nissan has passed and rains have not fallen, it is a sign of a curse2, as it is stated3 "הלוא קציר חטים היום וגו'" ("Is it not the wheat harvest today, etc.")4.
But in the Yerushalmi5 it is stated: ''Once Nissan has passed the rains are a sign of a curse, Rabbi Yosi b'Rabbi Bun said the Nissan of the season ("tekufah")'. That is, its meaning is not the month of Nissan of the lunar months but rather the Nissan of the season.
And so wrote the Rambam6: 'The Torah scholars return on their own and fast Monday, Thursday, and Monday until the Nissan of the season has passed, but not the community .. Once the Nissan of the season has passed, which is when the sun reaches the beginning of the constellation Taurus ("shor"), they do not fast, for the rains at this time are only a sign of a curse, since they did not fall at all from the beginning of the year.
[Also regarding the meaning of: 'the Nissan of the season', the views disagreed7 whether it is a month from the beginning of the season of Nissan or whether it is the entire duration of the season, and this is not the place to elaborate].
But despite the aforementioned that the rain - is not a blessing, this is only once Nissan has passed, and according to some of the explanations it is possible that this is even after the conclusion of the season of Nissan, nevertheless regarding repeating when he mentioned "morid hageshem" the Ran8 wrote, brought in the Beis Yosef: 'And there is [reason] to inquire: during the summer too, why do we make him repeat all thirty days if he mentioned rain, when it is not a sign of a curse unless Nissan has passed etc. and moreover, Rabbi Yosi said [we request] in the request for rains until Nissan has passed, and granted that the halacha is not like him, nevertheless if he transgressed and mentioned [it] it is not a sign of a curse, and why do we make him repeat, and even though he added and said what was not established, behold "mashiv haruach" and "mafriach hatal" which were not established, and yet [regarding these] he said we do not make him repeat. One could say that since most of the time that he ceases from mentioning rain it is a sign of a curse, the Rabbis did not distinguish and said that from the moment he ceases from mentioning rain, if he mentioned [it] we make him repeat'.
And as halacha the Alter Rebbe9 wrote: 'And even at a time when the rain is not a sign of a curse such as when the Nissan of the sun has not yet passed, and even if they need the rains, we make him repeat, for since most of the time that they cease from mentioning rain, the rain in it is a sign of a curse, the Sages did not distinguish and said that from the moment they cease from mentioning [it], if he mentioned [it] we make him repeat'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the halacha in places - lands that need rain in the summer?
Answer: Rabbeinu Yonah10 wrote: 'And even in places that need the rain during the summer, if he mentioned rain in the place of dew ("tal") we make him repeat, for if they need rains let him request them in "shome'a tefillah" but let him not deviate from the coinage that the Sages established, and thus we say in Taanis11 the people of Nineveh sent to Rabbi [asking] such as we who need rain even in the season of Tammuz, what [should we do], he said to them like individuals and in "shome'a tefillah"'.
And the Mechaber12 wrote: 'And even in a place that they need rain during the summer, if he mentioned rain in the place of dew ("tal"), we make him repeat'.
And the Magen Avraham13 wrote that the reason we make him repeat in lands that need rain, whereas regarding the request of "veten tal umatar" we do not make him repeat, as follows: 'For in any event it does not belong to mention ("hazkarah") but only to request ("she'eilah") as I wrote in siman 117 se'if 2'.
And the Pri Megadim explained in the Eshel Avraham: 'And there is seasoning ("tavlin") for this, for there specifically when he needs [it] as the Magen Avraham wrote [there se'if katan] 4 and it may be said in "shome'a tefillah", if he said it in Birkas HaShanim we do not make him repeat. Whereas the mention, it may not be mentioned at all for he follows the majority of the world, [so] he repeats'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe in the Shulchan Aruch there: 'And even in lands that always need rains during the summer, in a manner that if he requested rains in them during the summer in Birkas HaShanim we do not make him repeat as will be explained in siman 117, nevertheless if he mentioned rain in them in "techiyas hameisim" we make him repeat, for the need of lands for rains does not belong to mention but rather to request (for in the request he is requesting for his land, but in the mention he is praising the Holy One blessed be He that He brings down rains out of their time, which are a sign of a curse for Eretz Yisrael and the like, therefore he must return and say that bracha without a curse)'.
Thus, in practice, one who said "morid hageshem" in the summer, even when it is still in the season of Nissan, and even within the month of Nissan, and even in lands that need rain in the summer, must repeat.
Footnotes:
1 יב, ב ↩
2 אך ראה פיה"מ לרמב"ם והרע"ב על המשנה שהסימן קללה הוא כשלא ירדו לפני כן, וראה גם בדברי הרמב"ם דלקמן ↩
3 שמואל א פי"ב פסוק יז ↩
4 ולהעיר מהמשנה בדף ה, א בדברי ר"מ ↩
5 תענית פ"א ה"ח ↩
6 הל' תעניות פ"ג ה"ט ↩
7 נחלקו בזה הב"ח והפרישה והלחם משנה (הל' תעניות פ"ג ה"ט) בדברי הטור או"ח הלכות תעניות סי' תקעה. וראה שו"ע שם ס"ז ומשנ"ב ס"ק כא ↩
8 תענית א, ב מדפי הרי"ף ↩
9 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ה ↩
10 ברכות כ, א ↩
11 יד, ב ↩
12 שו"ע או"ח סי' קיד ס"ד ↩
13 ס"ק ו ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project - Daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the group (silent): 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group