The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

The shift to "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" and "Ha-melekh ha-mishpat" in the text of the Amida during the Ten Days of Repentance has its roots in the Talmud. This shiur investigates the nature of these additions to prayers through a discussion of the primary talmudic source.

BERAKHOT 12A - RAV VS. R. ELAZAR

The gemara (Berakhot 12a) says:

The Rishonim dispute how to understand the argument between Rav and R. Elazar. Most of the Rishonim hold that they differ about whether one fulfills his obligation if he mistakenly says "Ha-E-l Ha-kadosh." This seems to flow out of the simple reading of the gemara - "R. Elazar said: Even if he said 'Ha-E-l Ha-kadosh' he fulfills his obligation." It seems that Rav does not hold that he fulfills his obligation.

THE BA'AL HA-MA'OR & THE RA'AVAD

The Ba'al Ha-ma'or, however, writes:

To summarize, the Ba'al Ha-ma'or claims that Rav and R. Elazar do not argue at all. R. Elazar comes to explain that Rav was referring only to what should ideally be said.

Although the Ra'avad (in his glosses on the Ba'al Ha-ma'or) disagrees with this interpretation, he ends up ruling (in his glosses on the Rambam's Mishneh Torah) in accordance with the Ba'al Ha-ma'or. In Hilkhot Tefilla (10:13) the Rambam rules:

The Ra'avad comments:

Even though the Ba'al Ha-ma'or and the Ra'avad both believe that one who mistakenly did not say "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" fulfills his obligation, they might still differ in their understandings of the passage in the Talmud. The Ba'al Ha-ma'or might learn that Rav and R. Elazar do not argue at all - that mistakenly not saying "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" does not flaw one's prayer at all, whereas the Ra'avad might hold that if one did not say "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" his prayer is flawed. Still, he need not repeat the Shemoneh Esrei for such a mistake.

There are two other plausible ways of understanding Rav and R. Elazar in our passage.

1. They might disagree, but only about what should ideally be done; both agree, though, that one fulfills his obligation if he forgets to say "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh."

2. They might have radically different approaches. Rav might hold that one must say "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" and repeat Shemoneh Esrei if he forgets to do this, and R. Elazar might say that one MUST say "Ha-E-l ha-kadosh" and repeat Shemoneh Esrei if he forgets it.

SUMMARY

There are four possible ways of understanding the relationship between the statemens of Rav and R. Elazar:

1. they argue about whether one fulfills his obligation be-di'avad by saying "Ha-E-l ha-kadosh" (most Rishonim);

2. they are in complete agreement and are just speaking about different situations, be-di'avad and le-khatchila (Ba'al Ha-ma'or);

3. they argue only about what ideally should be done;

4. they argue radically, one seeing one text as essential and the other seeing the second text as essential.

RAV VS. R. ELAZAR; RABBA VS. R. YOSEF

What is the relationship between the two arguments the gemara quotes: that of Rav and R. Elazar and that of Rabba and R. Yosef? The answer to this question is crucial to determining how we finally rule in a be-di'avad case. The gemara concludes that we rule in accordance with Rabba, but the gemara is unclear about whether the two arguments are interdependent (i.e. whether Rabba follows Rav and R. Yosef follows R. Elazar).

The simplest way of reading the gemara is to view the two arguments as distinct: Rav and R. Elazar argue about the be-di'avad level and Rabba and R. Yosef about what to say le-khatchila. The ruling at the end of the gemara (following Rabba) does not indicate how we rule in the first dispute (Rav or R. Elazar).

The Tosafot (Berakhot 12a s.v. Ve-hilkheta Kavatei De-Rabba) write:

It seems that the Tosafot viewed the two amoraic arguments as interdependent. Let us clarify the nature of this interdependence.

We can explain that the argument about whether one fulfills his requirement if he mistakenly says "Ha-E-l ha-kadosh" is in essence a factual argument about what the Sages decreed - whether they required "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" only ideally (le-khatchila), or under all circumstances (be-di'avad). We can understand the latter opinion - namely, that one does not fulfill his obligation of prayer if he says "Ha-E-l ha-kadosh" during the Ten Days of Repentance - in one of two ways:

1. Mentioning God's sovereignty during the Ten Days of Repentance is so crucial to prayer that it is inconceivable to not say "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh." Therefore, Chazal decreed that one must repeat the Shemoneh Esrei if he forgot it.

2. Once the Sages decreed to say "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh," it became the text of prayer; and based on the principle, "Anyone who deviates from the text of prayer does not fulfill his obligation," it became essential. One must repeat the Shemoneh Esrei if he forgot "Ha-meleha-kadosh" because he deviated from the Sages' text of prayer.

Tosafot seem to have taken the second approach, for they cite the reasoning that "Anyone who deviates from the text that the Sages set for prayers does not fulfill his obligation." It follows that there is no way to read the two arguments in the gemara as dealing with two separate issues, one (Rabba vs. R. Yosef) relating to the ideal text (le-khatchila) and the other (Rav vs. R. Elazar) relating to which text is essential to fulfilling your obligation (be-di'avad). There is only one dispute, since according to Rabba (and Rav), one can never say the non-ideal text because it means deviating from "the text that the Sages set for prayer."

[How far to go with this rule demands attention: it is difficult to say that any change is considered a deviation, for praying in another language is permissible, and the Hebrew text has variant texts (nuscha'ot). Which changes are considered deviating from the Sages' text - any change in content? Is there some standard of a radically different text? These questions require separate treatment.]

RA'AVYA

It is possible to offer another approach to understanding the argument between the Amoraim. The Ra'avya (siman 40) writes:

The gemara Ra'avya refers to reads as follows:

This gemara seems to lend explicit support to the Ra'avya's assertion that one need not repeat the Shemoneh Esrei if he forgets "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh." The Ra'avya then continues:

The Ra'avya, though he distinguishes between an incorrect text (which demands repeating Shemoneh Esrei) and an omission (which does not), views substituting "Ha-E-l" for "Ha-melekh" as an omission of mention of God's sovereignty, and not as saying an incorrect text.

SUMMARY

Three approaches present themselves with regard to how the dispute between Rabba and R. Yosef relates to that between Rav and R. Elazar.

1. THE SIMPLE READING of the gemara would seem to indicate that Rabba and R. Yosef disagree about whether 'Ha-melekh ha-kadosh' needs to be said ideally (le-khatchila), while Rav and R. Elazar argue about whether it is essential (even be-di'avad) to Shemoneh Esrei.

2. TOSAFOT most likely believe that the two arguments are interdependent, because once the Sages formulated the text of prayer (if only as an ideal), deviating from that text becomes by definition incorrect and illegitimate.

3. RA'AVYA claims that both pairs of Amoraim must only argue about the ideal text, for from the gemara in Shabbat (24a) it is clear that one does not have to repeat Shemoneh Esrei if he mistakenly omits "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh."

As mentioned, the Ra'avya believes that there is no need ever to repeat Shemoneh Esrei because of forgetting "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh." Only forgetting "Ya'aleh Ve-yavo," recited on days when a Mussaf sacrifice was offered, demands repeating the Shemoneh Esrei. "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" is more akin to the additions made on fast days or Ma'amadot; one does not repeat his prayer if they were forgotten. How can we explain the other Rishonim's reluctance to draw this comparison?

ORGANIC VS. EXTERNAL ADDITIONS

A comment made by Ha-rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt"l explaining an argument between the Rema and the Gra can help us understand the dispute between the Ra'avya and other Rishonim. The Rema (OC 557) rules: "One who ate on Tisha Be-Av should say 'Nachem' in Birkat Ha-mazon." The Gra (ibid.) argues with him:

Rav Soloveitchik explained that there are two types of additions to Shemoneh Esrei and Birkat Ha-mazon.

1. Additions which are not organically integrated into the Shemoneh Esrei are added in the blessing "Retzei." The Sages saw a need to mention Rosh Chodesh and Chol Ha-mo'ed, so they found a place in the Amida to do it.

2. Additions that become an organic part of the Shemoneh Esrei are added in the blessing that is most naturally appropriate. "Nachem" is therefore added to "Boneh Yerushalayim." It is not something extraneous "planted" in Shemoneh Esrei, but rather part of the natural text of Shemoneh Esrei. Thus, on Tisha Be-Av the blessing about Jerusalem is modified.

This distinction might be the key for understanding the Rema. At first glance, as the Gra points out, the Rema's position seems to fly in the face of the gemara in Shabbat (24a) - only days when there is a Mussaf sacrifice receive special mention in Birkat Ha-mazon. However, according to the Rema that gemara refers only to additions that are not an organic part of the Birkat Ha-mazon, such as those relating to the holidays, fasts and ma'amadot. "Nachem," though, is organically integrated into "Boneh Yerushalayim" in Birkat Ha-mazon. The distinction between days when there is a Mussaf and those when there is not is irrelevant to these types of additions.

The Rishonim who argue against the Ra'avya might likewise view "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" as an integral part of the prayers during the Ten Days of Repentance (like "Nachem" on Tisha Be-Av), and not merely as something the Sages ordained to say within the context of prayer (like "Ya'aleh Ve-yavo"). According to these Rishonim, the distinction between days when there is a Mussaf and those when there is no Mussaf does not apply to organic additions in Shemoneh Esrei, just as it does not apply to organic additions to Birkat Ha-mazon. [Though one does not NECESSARILY repeat the Shemoneh Esrei for forgetting an organic addition (e.g. one need not repeat Shemoneh Esrei if he forgot 'Al Ha-nissim,' an organic addition), it is still POSSIBLE to require repetition in such a case. At any rate, the gemara in Shabbat would be irrelevant to our case of "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh."]

To summarize, we can explain that the Ra'avya believes that "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" is an external addition planted in Shemoneh Esrei, which must follow the rule laid down in Shabbat (24a) and therefore would not require repeating Shemoneh Esrei if forgotten. The other Rishonim believe that "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" is anorganic part of the flow of Shemoneh Esrei and therefore not bound by the principle propounded by the gemara in Shabbat.

ADAPTING PRAYER VS. MITZVOT IN PRAYER

An alternate approach to this dispute centers around another distinction between two types of additions to the prayers. There are two reasons why something might be added to the text of a prayer. According to this approach, the Ra'avya and his opponents differ about what function "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" serves.

One reason to modify the text of the prayers emerges from Sukka (46a):

The verse teaches us a principle of prayer - our prayers should be modified to match the particular situation we are in. The text of our Shemoneh Esrei must fit the nature of the day, and similarly our blessings must be specific enough to relate to the food we are eating. This verse is the source for one type of addition to prayer - adapting the text of prayer to particular situations.

There is, though, a second function for additions to the standard text of prayer: fulfilling the mitzvot required on particular days. For instance, the Torah commands, "Remember the Shabbat day and sanctify it." This is "a positive mitzva to sanctify the Shabbat through words" (Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 29:1) and is fulfilled, among other places, in the Amida. Similarly, Yom Tov must also be declared in prayer.

[Mentioning Rosh Chodesh in prayer might also function as a way of sanctifying the new month. The community mentioning Rosh Chodesh in prayer may be a modern replacement for the declaration the community would make at the end of the kiddush ha-chodesh ceremony. "After the testimony about the new moon is affirmed, the head of the court says, 'It is sanctified,' and all of the people answer after him, 'It is sanctified; it is sanctified!'" (Rambam, Hilkhot Kiddush Ha-chodesh 2:8). Even though we do not today retain the monthly declaration of Rosh Chodesh (because of our fixed calendar system), the public declaration may have been retained.]

Perhaps the first requirement, adapting our prayers to particular situations, is only an ideal (le-khatchila) requirement, while the second, fulfilling a mitzva in the context of prayer, might be required on an essential level (be-di'avad). This is borne out by the mishna and gemara in Berakhot. The mishna (35a) reads,

The gemara (40a) sees Rabbi Yehuda's ruling as based on the principle, "'Blessed is God day by day' - Each day give Him according to His blessings," concluding that we should "bless Him in a way appropriate to each individual species." Certainly, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, "Borei peri ha-adama" is still an acceptable blessing over vegetables - for the mishna (40a) teaches that one even fulfills his obligation through, "She-hakol nihyeh bi-devaro." Apparently the rule of adapting prayer to specfic situations is required only le-khatchila.

If this is accurate, then then need to repeat a prayer because one has omitted mentioning a holiday or a special text must stem from a particular requirement of that holiday or situation. [Note, however, that this is not always necessarily so: despite the obligation of "publicizing the miracle," we do not repeat the Amida if we omit "Al Ha-nissim" on Chanuka.] One who prayed the weekday Shemoneh Esrei on Shabbat repeats the silent prayer because he did not remember Shabbat, not because his prayer was flawed.

This might explain the differing opinions about "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh." The Orchot Chaim (Tefilla 104) explains:

If so, it seems that mentioning "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" and "Ha-melekh Ha-mishpat" is part of the special mitzva of repentance that applies to the ten days from Rosh Ha-shana to Yom Kippur. Therefore, if one forgets these, he must repeat Shemoneh Esrei because he has not related properly to the Ten Days of Repentance, not because his prayer per se was flawed.

"HA-MELEKH HA-KADOSH" VS. "HA-MELEKH HA-MISHPAT"

On this basis, we can explain the opinion of Tosafot R. Yehuda Sirleon (Berakhot 12b, also quoted in Hagahot Maimoniot, Hilkhot Tefilla ch. 10, ot "nun") which distinguishes between "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" - where one need not repeat Shemoneh Esrei if he mistakenly omitted it - and "Ha-melekh Ha-mishpat" - where he must. The explanation offered there is that "He deviated from the Sages' text of blessings." This is difficult, for omitting "Ha-meklekh Ha-kadosh" is also a deviation from the text of the prayer (unless we wish to say that "Ha-melekh Ha-mishpat" is a greater deviation from "Melekh ohev tzedaka u-mishpat" than "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" is from "Ha-E-l Ha-kadosh").

One way of explaining this halakha (though without retaining the explanation written there) is by maintaining that the special obligation to repent during the Ten Days comes to expression in the supplicatory section of the Amida, where man's dependence is highlighted and his awe and dread of God come to the fore. Changing the text to read "Ha-melekh ha-mishpat" thus arouses fear of judgement and brings one to repent. Therefore, the prayer must be repeated if this section is forgotten, for one has not fulfilled his requirement to arouse penitence. By contrast, the change of "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" stems merely from the requirement that one's prayer make note of the time it is recited. The prayer need not be repeated if this was mistakenly omitted. In other words, the change of the text to read "Ha-melekh ha-mishpat" is due to the mitzva of teshuva, while "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" is due to the requirement of "Each day give Him according to His blessings." The former necessitates repetition if omitted; the latter does not.

ROSH HA-SHANA & YOM KIPPUR VS. THE REST OF THE TEN DAYS

Based on the above, we might suggest a further distinction - between Rosh Ha-shana and Yom Kippur on the one hand, and the rest of the Ten Days of Teshuva on the other. On Rosh Ha-shana there is a mitzva of coronating God as King, as we say in the prayers, "Rule over the whole world in Your honor." We say Malkhuyot, Zikhronot, and Shofarot "so you should make Me your King." Certainly, saying "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" on Rosh Ha-shana is not only a way of adapting the prayers to the time, but of fulfilling the mitzva on Rosh Ha-shana of coronating God.

Concerning Yom Kippur, the Rishonim disagree whether or not we should say "Ya'aleh Ve-yavo" and "Melokh al kol ha-olam" (Rule over the entire world) in the Shemoneh Esrei. The Tur (OC 619) cites a dispute between R. Yitzchak ibn Giat - who rules to say them - and Rav Amram, who says not to. In Ashkenaz the custom was to say "Ya'aleh Ve-yavo" and not "Melokh," while in Sefarad "Melokh" was also said. This might reflect a dispute about whether there is a mitzva of acknowledging God's sovereignty on Yom Kippur. If so, we might suggest that on Rosh Ha-shana, and perhaps on Yom Kippur, there is a mitzva to acknowledge God's sovereignty, and therefore one must repeat the prayers if he mistakenly omitted "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh." During the other days of , the mention of "Ha-melekh Ha-kadosh" is only part of adapting the prayers to the time period and therefore Shemoneh Esrei need not be repeated if "Ha-melekh ha-kadosh" is forgotten.

[This is a student summary of a shiur given on Shabbat Parashat Shoftim 5748.]

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il