FROM WHERE DOES [HE] COMMENCE? FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE BLESSING IN WHICH [THE FORMER] HAD ERRED. The Mishna is teaching us that if the sh’leeach tzibur, the leader of the prayers is unable to continue for whatever reason, the one who replaces him must begin at the beginning of the b’rochoh that the first leader started before becoming confused. For example, if the first leader said the words תקע בשופר גדול לחרותינו and could not proceed further, his replacement cannot begin with the words ושא נס לקבץ. He must start the b’rochoh at the beginning with the words תקע בשופר. Tosfos will now teach us that there is an exception to this rule. We learned in Yerushalmee. B’titi who was acting as leader of the congregation became silent at והאופנים in middle of the first b’rochoh prior to the sh’ma. They came to ask R’ Bun where his replacement should begin. He, R’ Bun, said to them in the name of R’ Yehoshua ben Laivee, the one who went to lead the congregation in his place should start from the place where B’titi stopped, at והאופנים. And Yerushalmee asks: but we have learned in our Mishna the replacement begins at the beginning of the b’rochoh where the first leader became confused. The second leader should have to begin at the beginning of the b’rochoh of אור יוצר. He, R’ Bun, said to them as soon as you said the Sanctification, קדוש קדוש קדוש that is equivalent to the beginning of a b’rochoh. Although the b’rochoh יוצר אור is definitely only one b’rochoh, as far as starting at the beginning when the congregational leader became confused is concerned, והאופנים is the beginning of a second section and the new congregational leader need only begin at והאופנים.
HE SHOULD NOT RESPOND AMEN AFTER [THE BLESSING OF] THE PRIESTS, BECAUSE OF CONFUSION. The Mishna said that the congregational leader should not answer אמן after the b’rochos of the Kohanim, because he may become confused and not be able to return to his prayer. This is bewildering. The rule that he may not answer אמן should be known because it is an interruption of the prayer that the congregational leader is in middle of saying if he answers אמן. And we can answer: that since the Gemara does not offer this reason for not answering אמן; we can learn from this, that answering אמן is not considered an interruption since it is a requirement of the prayer. Answering אמן to the b’rochos of the Kohanim is essentially accepting their b’rochoh and that is thought of as part of the prayer service and not as an interruption. Tosfos will now discuss a related issue, calling the Kohanim to recite their b’rochoh. In most synagogues the common custom is that the congregational leader calls the Kohanim to say the Birchas Kohanim. We will see further in this Tosfos that immediately after concluding the b’rochoh of modim with the words הטוב שמך ולך נאה להודות the leader would call כהנים. Rabainu Tam says that this is wrong. It is not the function of the congregational leader who is in middle of praying. Rather, it is the function of the sexton. Tosfos will explain that during the days of the Mishna and Gemara, the sexton was called the chazon. Nowadays the chazon is the congregational leader of the prayers. This difference in names of the various functionaries can cause a bit of confusion. But to call the Kohanim to the duchon, says Rabainu Tam, that the congregational leader cannot call them, because it is considered an interruption of the prayers. Rather, one of the members of the congregation calls them. And that which we say in Sotoh perek Ailu Nemorim (38a) that for two kohanim he calls Kohanim etc. that is not referring to the congregational leader of the prayers, rather, it refers to the chazon, as we have learned in Sifray (Parshas Noso) the Torah says אמור להם, literally say to them the Kohanim, this teaches us that the chazon says to them, recite the b’rochoh. Who is this chazon? And the chazon is not the congregational leader of prayer, for the chazon is the one who is involved in the needs of the congregation. Tosfos offers further proof that the congregational leader does not call the Kohanim to the duchon. And so too, it appears from Sotoh (39b) that the word קורא does not refer to the congregational leader, for initially the Gemara said that the Kohanim may not begin to recite the b’rochoh until the utterance calling Kohanim ceases to reverberate from the mouth of the קורא. This means the קורא, who calls “Kohanim”. And afterwards the Gemara says, the congregational leader is not permitted to etc. Since the Gemara speaks of a קורא and a שליח צבור, a congregational leader, it appears that they are two distinct people. The קורא, who is not the congregational leader, calls the Kohanim to the duchon, while the שליח צבור remains silent. There are those who take this concept of the congregational leader not being allowed to interrupt his prayer a step further. And there are those who want to say that just as the congregational leader is not allowed to call out “Kohanim”, the congregational leader is similarly not allowed to read יברכך before the Kohanim as the custom is that the leader reads each word and the Kohanim recite after him. For that too, is an interruption of his prayer. However, Rabainu Yehudoh explained that it is openly found in the Midrosh of the reasons for words with extra or missing letters, that the word אמור להם with an extra ו, teaches that the congregational leader says to them, that they should recite the particular word for each and every word that the Kohanim say. We see that it is the שליח צבור who must do the reading before the Kohanim. There are those who want to say that even calling out Kohanim is permitted for the congregational leader nowadays. And so too, there are those who want to permit the congregational leader himself to call “Kohanim” even according to Rabainu Tam’s explanation. For that which he explained that it is an interruption, that was specifically in their days when immediately upon finishing the b’rochoh of modim they did not say “Our G-d and the G-d of our fathers, bless us with the blessing etc. as is our custom today. This is evident from Sotoh (ibid.) where the Gemara says the קורא is not permitted to call “Kohanim” until the word אמן ceases to reverberate from the mouths of the congregation. Which אמן is the Gemara referring to? The explanation is the אמן that they answer at the conclusion of the b’rochoh of modim. We see that it is evident that they only said “Kohanim” immediately at the conclusion of the b’rochoh of modim and they did not say “Our G-d and the G-d of our fathers as we do. But now, that it became the custom to say “Our G-d” in the format of a b’rochoh and prayer, this is not an interruption of the prayers, for it is not worse than answering אמן for the b’rochos of the Kohanim, which is not considered an interruption as we have explained earlier.
THE MIDDLE [BLESSINGS] HAVE NO [SET] ORDER - Rav Huna says that there are three sections of sh’moneh esray, the first three b’rochos, the middle thirteen and the final three b’rochos. When one errs in any one of the three sections he returns to the beginning of that section. So, if one errs during the first three b’rochos, he starts at the beginning of sh’moneh esray. If he errs during the last three b’rochos he starts again at r’tzay. When he errs during the middle b’rochos Rav Huno holds that he starts again at atoh chonain. This ruling about the middle b’rochos is the subject of a dispute. Rav Asee disagrees with Rav Huno about the middle b’rochos. The term that he uses in voicing his disagreement is that the middle b’rochos have no order. The exact meaning of these words is a dispute between Rashi and Tosfos. Rashi explained that the meaning of “they have no order” is as follows: And if one omitted one b’rochoh and then remembered it in the wrong place, he can say it in the wrong place, wherever he is at that time and he need not repeat any of the b’rochos that he has already said. And this explanation is not clear. For we have learned in a Mishna in M’giloh (17a), one who reads the m’giloh out of sequence has not fulfilled his obligation. And we learned in a Braiso, and so too, for halel and so too, for reciting sh’ma and so too, for prayer. If one says the sh’moneh esray out of sequence, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This contradicts Rashi who says that we can insert a forgotten b’rochoh at any point during the middle b’rochos of sh’moneh esray and we need not repeat any of the b’rochos that we have said. Therefore, the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas appears to be logical. That when Rav Asee says they have no order, that means that he should start from the point that he omitted the b’rochoh and from there and further he should say everything according to the order. For example, if one realized that he omitted רפאנו after he said את צמח he should say רפאנו at that point and continue reciting all the b’rochos from רפאנו on. Even though he already said the b’rochos between רפאנו and את צמח he must repeat them once again. But he certainly does not have to begin again at אתה חונן, as he must do when erring in the first three b’rochos and the last three b’rochos where he must return to the beginning of that section. Tosfos offers proof to the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas. And there is proof from that which we learned in a Braiso in the Tosefto of our Gemara, he who reads sh’ma and left out one verse, should not read that verse by itself. Rather, he starts from that verse and continues further and completes it till the end. We see that when reciting sh’ma one must say the verse he omitted and continue from that point on so that his recital should not be out of sequence. And we also learned in a Braiso in the second perek of M’giloh (18b) that if one omitted one verse in the m’giloh that he reads according to the order of the m’giloh from that verse and further. And there the Gemara equates prayer to m’giloh as far as this issue of reading out of sequence is concerned, as we explained. The same formula for correcting an error that applies to the sh’ma and to the m’giloh applies to correcting an error in prayer. Namely, saying the b’rochoh that one omitted and continuing on from there. Tosfos will now deal with the halochoh in this dispute between Rav Huno and Rav Asee. And the author of Halochos G’dolos ruled like Rav Asee who says that the middle b’rochos do not have an order for a few reasons. One reason is that Rav Huno is like a student in regard to Rav Asee as we say in many places throughout the Gemara Rav Huno said in the name of Rav Asee. And furthermore, according to Rav Huno one must accept an awkward answer to our Mishna, that all the middle b’rochos are one b’rochoh. When the Gemara challenges Rav Huno with our Mishna that says he returns to the beginning of the b’rochoh in which he erred, Rav Huno must say that it means אתה חונן, which is definitely not the simple understanding of our Mishna. And upon awkward answers we do not want to stand up and rely. And furthermore, Rav Asee and Rav Shaishes who presented the challenge to Rav Huno from our Mishna are of one opinion. And furthermore, in matter of Rabbinic law, the obligation to pray, one should follow the lenient opinion. Rav Asee who says that one need not return to the beginning of אתה חונן is the lenient opinion. Tosfos conclusion is that we follow Rav Asee’s opinion. And if so, a person who erred or omitted a b’rochoh from the middle section of sh’moneh esray or if he did not say המלך המשפט between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur, where the halochoh is in the first perek that he must return to המלך המשפט, he should not return to אתה חונן, rather, to the b’rochoh that he omitted and proceed from there in the regular order. And where he erred in the first three b’rochos, for example he erred at their conclusion or he did not mention between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur in the b’rochoh of avos, זכרנו, or in the b’rochoh about resurrection of the dead he did not say מי כמוך, or he did not say המלך הקדוש, he must return to the beginning of sh’moneh esray. And where he erred in the last three b’rochos. For example, there as well he erred in the conclusion of one of the b’rochos, or he did not mention between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur in שים שלום, the special prayer בספר החיים, or he did not mention וכתוב לחיים טובים in the b’rochoh of modim, he must return to the b’rochoh of avodoh, r’tzay. And the reason that one must return to the beginning of the section is that since it is all praise of Hashem, it is all like one b’rochoh. Tosfos points out another major difference between the explanation of Rashi and the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas. And on a public fast when the congregational leader has a special b’rochoh for himself, that he says the b’rochoh of עננו, between גואל ישראל and רפאנו, if he forgot it and then remembered that he omitted it, before the conclusion of the prayer, we do not require of him to repeat it, since he would have to return and repeat all of the other b’rochos according to the order of sh’moneh esray, according to Rashbam’s explanation. If so, that would be a b’rochoh in vain, if we required him to repeat it. But according to Rashi’s explanation, he could say it at the point that he remembered and he would not have to repeat any other b’rochos and there would be no b’rochoh in vain.
ONE MUST NOT REQUEST HIS OWN NEEDS IN THE FIRST THREE OR IN THE LAST THREE [BLESSINGS]. Rabainu Chananel and Rav Hai explained that this ruling that one should not ask for his needs during the first and last three b’rochos, was said only for an individual, but for the needs of the public, we may ask even during the first and last three b’rochos. And that is why we say זכרנו, קרובץ and יעלה ויבא during these b’rochos. And I will prove that this was specifically said for an individual that the main point of the last b’rochos is the needs of the public. Therefore, one may certainly ask Hashem for the needs of the public while reciting these b’rochos. Just as the ruling against asking for one’s needs does not apply to the public in the last three b’rochos, so too, it does not apply to public needs in the first three b’rochos.
THEY TEACH HIM NOT TO BOW - There is no apparent reason why one cannot bow more than the Gemara allows him to bow. And if you ask: and let him bow and what of it? And we can answer: so that he should not come to uproot the words of the sages even when he wants to be more stringent than they. So that they should not say all individuals are stringent as they please and there is no enactment of the sages that brings about harmonious behavior, and also we are concerned about arrogance. Some people will attempt to show off their piety by adopting stringent behavior that is unnecessary. Our Sages opposed this type of individual expression.
