Siman 126

A shaliach tzibbur who erred in one of the blessings, such that he skipped it inadvertently or out of haste, and when they remind him he knows to return to his place—we do not remove him even from this prayer, and even if he erred in two or three or more. But if he skipped the blessing of "Vela-malshinim"—we remove him immediately from this prayer, for we fear perhaps heresy was cast into him. Therefore, even though it is a mere suspicion, and we do not remove him from being a shaliach tzibbur forever, nevertheless in this prayer we do not remind him. And he descends from the teivah and another shall ascend, unless he remembered on his own and said it. And so too if he began it, and stumbled in it and erred—we remind him, for in this it is evident that it is not on account of heresy. But without this—we remove him from this prayer since he has no loss in this. And even though he has shame from this—he should have been careful. And all this is in a case of inadvertence and error. But if he skipped one blessing willfully, even any blessing whatsoever—we remove him so that he shall never be a shaliach tzibbur, for you have no greater insolence than this, until he returns in complete repentance. And so too regarding "Vela-malshinim" where he erred by saying the end of the blessing without its beginning—we also remind him. (Magen Avraham subsection 1. And from his words it is implied that in some versions there is "Vela-kofrim," see there.)

And know that in the Yerushalmi, chapter "Ein Omdin," it says that two other blessings are similar in law to "and for the slanderers": the blessing of "Who revives the dead," because we fear perhaps he is a denier of the resurrection of the dead, and in "Who builds Jerusalem," perhaps he does not believe in the coming of the Mashaich. And in our Shas, this is not mentioned. The Tur brought this Yerushalmi, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, wondered why he brought it, since this is against the Shas? And in my humble opinion, it appears that certainly if we come to be concerned—it is obvious that in these too there are concerns. And the distinctions that the commentators wrote are forced, as is clear to the one who examines them. And it was obvious to the Tur that our Shas also does not disagree with this. And that which is found in the Gemara (29a) only this blessing, is because in truth this is not a statement on its own in the Gemara there, but rather regarding an incident that occurred with Shmuel HaKatan who forgot it. And on this the Shas asks why they did not remove him, see there. And with these blessings it does not deal there, but certainly for the law there is no difference. However, regarding the resurrection of the dead, it works out well regardless, for behold "Who revives the dead with great mercy" is not at the beginning of the blessing, and if so, whichever way you look at it: if he began with "You are mighty"—behold even in "and for the slanderers" we do not remove him, as has been explained. And if he did not begin with "You are mighty"—behold this does not pertain to the resurrection of the dead. And the Yerushalmi perhaps does not hold of the distinction between whether he began it or did not begin it. And the wording of the Yerushalmi implies explicitly that it is particular specifically about the end of the blessing, see there. And if so, it automatically does not hold like our Shas. And perhaps the opinion of the Tur is that our Shas deals with the beginning of the blessing, and in this, this blessing is different from these two. And the Yerushalmi deals with the end of the blessing, and in this they are all equal, and our Shas would also admit to this. And all of this requires further reflection.

However, I wonder about the essence of these matters: for the subject of the Yerushalmi does not relate at all to the words of our Shas. And thus it is stated there (Halacha 3): For everything we do not make him return, except for one who did not say "Who revives the dead," "and Who humbles the arrogant," and "Who builds Jerusalem"…, see there. And it is not dealing at all with his removal, but rather regarding the matter of if he already said further on – we do not make him return because of the burden of the congregation, except in these three blessings. And what relation does this have to our Shas? And the Tur wrote regarding the Yerushalmi the language of "removing." And it is puzzling, and perhaps such was the version before him. However, in any event, from this Yerushalmi it is explained that if he skipped one of the blessings, and at the time of the act the congregation did not notice, and he prayed further on – we do not make him return because of the burden of the congregation, and all the more so if he finished his prayer. But we do not hold accordingly, as will be explained in section 5. (And I found that also in the Rashba he brought this version that is before us. And see Beit Yosef and Bach who wrote that also in this we do not hold like the Yerushalmi, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.)

A shaliach tzibbur who erred in one of the blessings, and his mind is not settled enough to return to his place even when they remind him because of his agitation, and another must stand in his place—another shall stand in his place immediately without refusal, as I wrote in siman 53. And from where does he begin? If the error was in the first three or in the last three—he returns to the beginning, for it has already been explained that the first three are considered as one, and likewise for the last ones he begins at "Retzei." However, if he erred in the middle ones—he returns to the beginning of the blessing in which this one erred, and from there he prays in order, even if the one who erred said several blessings further on.

This is the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 3: In any case where an individual returns and prays again—the shaliach tzibbur returns and prays again if he erred like him when he prays aloud, except for Shacharit of Rosh Chodesh, for if the shaliach tzibbur forgot and did not mention "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" until he completed his prayer—we do not make him return because of the burden on the congregation, since the Musaf prayer is before him in which he mentions Rosh Chodesh. But if he remembered before he completed his prayer—he returns to "Retzei," and there is no burden on the congregation in this. Thus far their words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that if he erred in Shacharit of Shabbat and Yom Tov—his law is like that of Rosh Chodesh, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And in this too the reason is because in Musaf he will mention Shabbat. And in truth, the Tur wrote that there is no reason to distinguish between Rosh Chodesh and Shabbat and Yom Tov. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote the reason: because on Shabbat and Yom Tov there is no cancellation of labor—they were not concerned with the burden on the congregation, see there. And it is difficult: for on the contrary, we find that they were more lenient on Shabbat and Yom Tov regarding prayer than on Rosh Chodesh, for because of the burden they did not ordain that they should pray eighteen blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tov, as I wrote in siman 268 (Magen Avraham, subsection 4)? Furthermore: what is the connection of the burden on the congregation to the cancellation of labor? And perhaps the reason is that just as on a weekday we make him return, and we do not rely on him saying this prayer at Mincha because there is a large interval of time between Shacharit and Mincha as the poskim wrote (see Beit Yosef), so too on Shabbat and Yom Tov when the readings are long and the those who ascend are many, and there is also Maftir and the Haftarah and vows and donations as is the custom, and it is a large interval like between Shacharit and Mincha. However, in any event, these laws are not according to the explanation of the Yerushalmi that we brought in section 3. (And this is all based on the Baraita at the end of the fourth chapter (Berakhot 30b): If he erred and did not mention... and regarding the congregation they taught according to the explanation of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot that Rashi brought, and this is the explanation of the Rif. And they do not have the version "in Musafim we do not make him return," see Beit Yosef. But according to the explanation of Rashi that it refers to an individual, because he can hear it from the shaliach tzibbur—one can uphold the approach of the Yerushalmi, see there. However, for the halacha we hold like the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. And this is also the approach of the Rambam and the Rif and the Rosh.)

The Rambam wrote in the tenth chapter, law 2: But if the shaliach tzibbur erred when he prayed silently, I say that he does not return and pray a second time because of the burden on the congregation, but rather relies on the prayer that he prays aloud. This is provided that he did not err in the first three, for if he erred in them, he always returns just as the individual returns. Thus far his words. This is the version before us, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote similarly in section 4. And it is not understood: what difference is there between the first three and the entire prayer regarding this matter (Lechem Mishneh)? And the Levush wrote that this is when he remembered before he finished his prayer, see there. And this too is not understood, for according to this, if he remembered before the end of the prayer, he returns to the beginning even though he will pray the entire Shemoneh Esrei a second time, and you have no greater burden on the congregation than this. And it is not logical at all. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 5, and it requires further study.) And in my humble opinion, it appears to the contrary, that this is what he meant: if he erred in the first three, and remembered there that he erred—he returns to the beginning, for there is not such a great burden here since he is still at the beginning of the prayer. But if he remembered afterward—he shall not return. However, the Tur brought the words of the Rambam in a corrected version, and this is his wording: The Rambam wrote… and if he erred in that which he prays aloud—he always returns like the individual. Thus far his words, see there. And he did not mention at all a difference between the first three and the entire prayer. And that which he wrote "he always returns"—this is only Shacharit of Rosh Chodesh, and as the Rambam himself wrote there and as I wrote above. And it appears in my humble opinion for practical law: if he erred in the first three, and remembered afterward—one should rely on the version of the Tur, and on our explanation according to our version, and he does not return.

And know that there is one who says that just as it was explained regarding the shacharit of Rosh Chodesh, that when the sheliach tzibbur did not say "Ya'aleh V'Yavo" he may rely on Musaf, so too an individual may also rely on Musaf; for a post facto situation for an individual is no worse than an ab initio situation for the public (Magen Avraham subsection 3 in the name of the Rama Mi-Pano). And this applies even when he prays in private, for if he were with the congregation, even without the reasoning of Musaf he could listen to the sheliach tzibbur, as I wrote in siman 124, and one may rely on this post facto (ibid.). And also regarding what was explained, that a sheliach tzibbur who erred and another entered in his place, who begins from the start of the blessing—some say that on Shabbat and Yom Tov in Musaf where the text is long, and he erred in "Umipnei Chata'einu"—that he does not need to return to "Atah Vechartanu." For the essence of the blessing is the Musaf offerings and its conclusion, and he can begin in the middle of "Umipnei Chata'einu" or in the middle of "Tikkanta Shabbat."