Siman 268

The shaliach tzibbur says half kaddish, and they stand to pray seven blessings: the first three are like on weekdays, since they are praises of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and Shabbat is like a weekday. However, the middle blessings are requests which should not be said on Shabbat. In the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon, there is also an addition on Shabbat in the first blessing, for when he reaches "and brings a redeemer to their children's children," he adds: "Be pleased and grant Shabbat to their children for rest for the sake of His name in love," and he does not say "and brings a redeemer to their children's children." It seems to me that his reason is that this is not a request but a praise, namely, that He should bring the redemption and the redemption will be through the merit of Shabbat, as in their statement, of blessed memory (Shabbat 118b): "If Israel were to keep two Shabbats according to their laws—they would be redeemed immediately." Therefore, when he says "Be pleased and grant etc."—it is as if he says "and brings a redeemer etc.," but our custom is not so. (See the Bach who struggled with the reason of the Gaon, and according to what I have written it is settled well with good reason)

And afterward, he says one blessing in the middle, and its essence is: "Our G-d... be pleased with our rest" until "Who sanctifies the Shabbat," and this is the primary part and is equal in all the prayers of Shabbat. However, the Men of the Great Assembly added to each prayer from its specific theme. That is, at night, which is the time of the entrance of Shabbat, they mention the sanctity of Shabbat and the creation of the beginning, and they say: "You sanctified... the purpose of the work of heaven and earth," because the purpose of the days are the Shabbats. And the term "purpose" is of two facets: the first is the language of completion, for with it the work of creation was completed; and the second is the language of purpose and essence, as has been written. And they say "Vayechulu" as they said in Shabbat (119b): "Whoever prays on the eve of Shabbat and says 'Vayechulu'—it is as if he became a partner with the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the work of creation, etc.," and so it is written in Your Torah, "Vayechulu," etc., meaning that regarding the purpose of the work of heaven and earth it is said "Vayechulu," and regarding "and You blessed it above all days and sanctified it above all times" it is written: "And G-d blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." (Tur) And the Sephardim also say "They shall rejoice in Your kingdom" in the Arvit prayer as in Shacharit and Musaf, and the Ashkenazim do not say it in Arvit, and I do not know a reason for this. However, as a matter of law, it seems to me that if he did not say "You sanctified," but only "Our G-d, be pleased" until "Who sanctifies the Shabbat"—he has fulfilled his obligation and does not need to repeat it. But when he did not say "Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies the Shabbat"—he has not fulfilled his obligation and must repeat it, for this is the essence. And it seems to me that even if he only said: "Blessed are You, Hashem, Who sanctifies the Shabbat" alone, and did not also say: "Our G-d, be pleased"—he has also fulfilled his obligation, and similarly in Shacharit and Mincha, and only in Musaf is he obligated to mention the verses of the Musaf offerings. And afterward, he says the final three blessings as on all weekdays, and it is customary to also say "My G-d, guard" on Shabbat, and even though one should not request personal requests on Shabbat, nevertheless, since everyone says this on weekdays—it is considered like the order of the prayer, only he should be careful to say "May the words of my mouth be acceptable" before "My G-d, guard."

If one erred and began "Atah Chonen" — he completes that berakhah, because it would have been appropriate even on Shabbat to pray the entire Shemoneh Esrei, since it is the established form of prayer, and this is not like a specific request on Shabbat, for such is the order of prayers, and they would have also added the Shabbat portions, but the sages did not wish to burden us; and since he began the berakhah, he must complete it. (Berakhot 21a.) And there is no distinction between the berakhah of "Atah Chonen" and any other berakhah, unlike the one who makes a distinction in this. (See Beit Yosef) And even if he said several weekday berakhot and began the one after them — he completes it, and afterward says "Atah Kidashta," and so it is in all Shabbat prayers. And some say that in Musaf he stops even in the middle of a berakhah, for there is no Musaf on weekdays, and it is not relevant to say that it would have been appropriate to pray in it as on a weekday. And the first opinion holds that since the name of prayer is upon it — in it too it would have been appropriate to pray eighteen, and this is the opinion of the Tur, but the opinion of the Rambam is like the "some say," and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, decided like the Rambam; see there. And I wonder why in the Shulchan Arukh, section 2, they wrote it in the name of "some say," for it is obvious that in practice one must be concerned for a berakhah levatalah, and one must stop in Musaf. (Bach and Eliyah Rabbah)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: "If he thought it was a weekday and began with the intent of a weekday prayer, and immediately upon saying the word 'Atah' he remembered before saying 'Chonen'—it is considered as if he began a weekday blessing, and he completes that blessing. But if he knew it was Shabbat, and unintentionally began the word 'Atah', even if it is in the Shacharit prayer which does not open with 'Atah'—he does not complete the blessing of 'Atah Chonen', for we consider him like one who erred in the Shabbat prayer between one and another, since he can say 'Atah Kidashta' or 'Atah Echad'." Thus far his words, meaning that this does not invalidate the prayer ex post facto.

And behold, that which he ruled that if one began with the intent of a weekday prayer he must complete it, follows his reasoning above in siman 209, where he ruled according to the opinion of the Rambam that the primary factor depends on the intention in the heart during prayer. And even though with his mouth he expressed it correctly, nevertheless, since he thought in his heart the opposite—the berakhah is nothing. And although he brought there also the opinion of Rashi, that if one intended at the beginning of the berakhah for a different berakhah, if he concluded it correctly he has fulfilled his obligation, see there—this is because it is a question in the Gemara whether we follow the intention of the beginning of the berakhah or follow its conclusion, but nevertheless, even according to Rashi the primary factor is the intention in the heart. And he did not bring at all the opinion of the Ra'avad and other poskim, that intention is nothing, and therefore he ruled here that since in saying "Atah" he intended for a weekday prayer—he must complete it, and his intention refers to all the prayers of Shabbat, as the Levush wrote. (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 5 and Tosefet Shabbat subsection 4) And there is one who explained that his intention refers only to Shacharit, which does not open with "Atah," but in Arvit and Minchah—even our teacher, the Beit Yosef, admits. (Magen Avraham subsection 3) And it is not so, for behold, we are dealing with Arvit, and furthermore, according to his reasoning it works well as I wrote. However, for the halakhah it is certainly so, that the intention is not a hindrance, and also in siman 209 we hold thus, not like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, see there. And also regarding the core of the matter, it is not similar to there, for there he said: "Barukh Atah Hashem Elokeinu Melekh HaOlam" with a different intention which is the essence and substance of the berakhah, but with the word "Atah" alone, what of it. And it seems that the primary reason of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is because by law one should pray eighteen on Shabbat, but the sages did not want to burden us as has been explained, and therefore even with the word "Atah" alone—there is no objection if he completes the berakhah, and nevertheless for the halakhah we do not hold thus. (See Machatzit HaShekel who apologized for the Magen Avraham that his intention was according to the opinion of the Ra'avad see there, and it is very puzzling, for behold, the Beit Yosef did not bring the opinion of the Ra'avad at all in siman 209)

And with this which has been explained, that when he knew it was Shabbat and without intention he began "Atah," that even in Shacharit he does not finish the weekday blessing because he can say "Atah Kidashta" or "Atah Echad," and from this it implies that if not for this reason—he would have to finish the weekday blessing, and if so, if he said "Atah Chonen" he would have to finish "Chonen HaDa'at." But reason does not dictate so, for since he knew it was Shabbat, but rather through a lack of intention and the flow of the tongue he said "Atah Chonen," why should he have to conclude the blessing? And therefore it seems to me that in truth, even if he began with several words—in such a case he stops and says that of Shabbat. And the reason he wrote was not specific, but rather because he was dealing with the word "Atah," it was convenient for him to state this reason, and to inform us that even in Shacharit when he said "Atah Kidashta" or "Atah Echad" it does not invalidate it. And automatically, the same law applies in Arvit if he said "Yismach Moshe" or "Atah Echad," and likewise in Mincha when he said "Yismach Moshe" or "Atah Kidashta," for all of Shabbat is one. (So it seems in my humble opinion, and see in the Biur Halacha who remained in further study)

And if one forgot and did not pray the Maariv of Shabbat, such that he prays Shacharit twice—it is simple that ab initio he should pray 'Yismach Moshe' in both of them, for it is not relevant ab initio to say 'Atah Kiddashta' during the day, as this is only at the onset of Shabbat. (She'eilot U'Tshuvot in the name of the Shelah) And similarly, if he did not pray Shacharit and prays Mincha twice—he should say 'Atah Echad' in both of them. However, ex post facto—there is no hindrance regardless of what he said. And it appears to me that in Shacharit when he prays twice: one for the obligation and the second for the completion of Maariv, and he is compelled to prioritize the obligatory prayer over the completion prayer, and if not so he has not fulfilled his obligation, as is written in siman 108. And according to this, if he said 'Atah Kiddashta' in the first and 'Yismach Moshe' in the second, even though there is no hindrance in the matter as has been explained—nevertheless he has not fulfilled his obligation, because he revealed through his intent that he prioritized the completion over the obligation. And he must pray afterwards another prayer for the completion, and whichever he says he fulfills his obligation, and ab initio he should say 'Yismach Moshe' as I have written, and one should learn this law from the law of Havdalah that was explained there, see there.

It is a simple matter that even though it has been explained that one who thinks it is a weekday and began "Atah Chonen" or another blessing—that he must complete it, if he did not complete it and stopped in the middle and returned to that of Shabbat, and completed the prayer of Shabbat—we have no concern with it, and he does not need to return to "Atah Chonen" or to the other blessing to complete it. (Sha'arei Teshuvah in the name of Machzik Berachah) And there is one who wishes to say regarding one who continued in the blessings of the weekday until "Mevarech HaShanim," and it was in the winter and he did not say "tal u-matar" and completed the blessing and remembered and returned to that of Shabbat and completed the prayer—that he must return and say "tal u-matar." And it is a puzzling ruling, and there is no doubt that since he returned to that of Shabbat, even though he has not yet completed the prayer—he does not need to return to that of the weekday in any manner. (ibid.)

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 4: "One who prayed the prayer of a weekday on Shabbat and did not mention that of Shabbat—he has not fulfilled his obligation. But if he mentioned that of Shabbat within the eighteen, even though he did not establish a blessing for Shabbat—he has fulfilled his obligation. And in Musaf, even if he only said: 'And we shall perform before You our obligations in the daily offerings and in the Musaf offering'—he has fulfilled his obligation." Thus far their words. And this law, that if he mentioned that of Shabbat even though he did not establish a blessing for Shabbat he has fulfilled his obligation, is not mentioned in the Gemara or in the poskim, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this law in his great book from his own reasoning; see there. And according to this, the power of Shabbat is no greater than Rosh Chodesh, for a mere mention suffices. And it is a wondrous thing, for since the sages instituted a specific blessing for Shabbat and Yom Tov, granted that the version is not indispensable—nevertheless, why should the essence of the blessing not be indispensable? And how is this inferior to 'the Holy King' during the Ten Days of Repentance, or 'Who causes the wind to blow' and 'dew and rain' in the winter, which are indispensable. And if it is because it would have been proper to pray all eighteen blessings as has been written, nevertheless, in the end, they did institute a blessing for Shabbat.

Furthermore, it was taught in Eruvin (40b): "A Shabbat that falls on Rosh Chodesh or on Chol HaMoed: for Arvit, Shacharit, and Mincha he prays his usual seven, and says the matter of the occasion in the Avodah, and if he did not say it—they return him. And in Musaf, he begins with that of Shabbat and concludes with that of Shabbat and says the sanctity of the day in the middle," see there. And if it should enter your mind that regarding Shabbat as well it is sufficient post facto with a mere mention, it should have informed us that when he did not pray the prayer of Shabbat—he fulfilled his obligation with a mere mention. And so too the Rambam in chapter 10 of Tefillah, law 7, who wrote: "One who erred and prayed the prayer of a weekday on Shabbat—he did not fulfill his obligation," see there, he should have said: "and if he mentioned that of Shabbat with a mere mention—he fulfilled his obligation," for behold, it is a great novelty. Furthermore, in Berakhot (21a) where it says: "Those who err and mention that of a weekday on Shabbat—they complete the blessing," as I wrote in section 4, let it inform us of an even greater novelty, that even if he prayed the entire prayer of a weekday—he fulfilled his obligation, if only he mentioned that of Shabbat. Furthermore, it is a fixed halacha that everything follows the conclusion (ibid. 12a), and this law requires great study. (The Magen Avraham in sub-section 5 also raised a difficulty from siman 487, that if he concluded on Yom Tov with "Who sanctifies the Shabbat"—he did not fulfill his obligation, even though he mentioned that of Yom Tov in the middle, and he answered that this is even worse, see there. And in siman 487 he wrote that it deals with a case where he did not mention that of Yom Tov in the middle, and they have already been aroused against him in the Eliyah Rabbah sub-section 7 and in the Tosefot Shabbat sub-section 6, and the truth is that he labored to answer in this manner and in that manner. And in any case, the commentators did not disagree with the Beit Yosef in practice.)

And if one is in doubt whether he mentioned that of Shabbat or not: according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, below in siman 422—he does not need to repeat [the prayer], and there are those who disagree with him and hold that he must repeat it, (Bach and Magen Avraham ibid.) because certainly his weekday habit took hold of him. And there is one who says that if before his prayer his intention was upon Shabbat—he does not need to repeat it, for presumably he said that of Shabbat. But if his intention was not upon Shabbat—he must repeat it, for certainly his weekday habit took hold of him, (Taz ibid.) and such is the primary ruling in halacha.

One who erred and prayed the weekday prayer on Shabbat and did not mention that of Shabbat: if he has not yet uprooted his feet, which is to say he has not finished his prayer, or even if he finished his prayer until "Who blesses His people etc." and has not yet said "May the words... be acceptable," or even if he said "May the words... be acceptable" but has not yet said the supplications he is accustomed to saying after the prayer, such as "My G-d, guard," or if he is accustomed to other supplications—all this is called not having uprooted his feet, and he does not return to the beginning of the prayer but rather to that of Shabbat. However, if he finished all these things—it is called having uprooted his feet, even though he did not uproot them in practice, and he returns to the beginning of the prayer. And a shliach tzibbur who erred in the silent prayer—he may rely on the repetition of the shliach tzibbur when there is a repetition of the shliach tzibbur, such as in Shacharit, and he does not need to return and pray silently, as I wrote above in siman 126; see there.

One who errs in the Shabbat prayers and exchanged one for another—he does not return, for it is all one, as the essence is the blessing of "be pleased with our rest" as has been written. However, if he remembers in the middle—he stops from it and begins that which is appropriate for this prayer, for regarding them the concept of an interruption in the middle does not apply, as they are not blessings but merely praises. (Magen Avraham, subsection 7) And some say that if he exchanged the Musaf prayer for another or another for Musaf—he returns, because the matter of the Musaf prayer does not relate to the other prayers, for in "Tikkanta Shabbat" it speaks only of Musaf matters which have no connection to the other prayers, and also in the other prayers Musaf is not mentioned at all. And if so, it is worse than one who prayed a weekday prayer and mentioned Shabbat, where he fulfilled his obligation according to the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for there it is not a lie. But here, in all the prayers when he mentioned Musaf—it is like one who speaks lies, and conversely in Musaf when he mentioned another prayer—behold, he did not mention the Musaf offering at all, and he has not fulfilled his obligation even if he mentioned Shabbat. And the first opinion holds that since in any event he prayed a Shabbat prayer, even though he did not mention Musaf—he fulfilled his obligation, and it is a wonderous thing. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 9 and Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 11 who disagree with the Beit Yosef, and hold that he must return, and so it is implied in Tosafot at the end of Rosh Hashanah, see there; and so ruled the Gra"z in section 11 and omitted the first opinion entirely, see there; and the Turei Zahav, subsection 9 exerted himself to reject this and there is no primary reasoning in his words, see there; and it appears the essence is like the opinion of the "some say," and delve into this) (Yom Tov's law is like Shabbat regarding prayer, and also the second day of Yom Tov is so)

There are places where in the blessing of "Retzei bi-menuchatenu" in Arvit they say: "and they shall rest in her" (bah), and in Shacharit: "and they shall rest in him" (bo), and in Mincha: "and they shall rest in them" (bam). (Magen Avraham, subsection 3) And it seems to me the reason is that behold, Shabbat is referred to in the Torah in the feminine gender and in the masculine gender: "For it is holy (kodesh hi) to you, its profaners (mechalaleha) shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 31:14) — behold, the feminine gender; and it is written in Vayakhel: (ibid. 35:2) "And on the seventh day... anyone who performs work in him (bo)"; and so it is written: (ibid. 20:7) "Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify him (lekadesho)"; and so "One who guards Shabbat from profaning him (mechalalo)" (Isaiah 56:2) — behold, the masculine gender. Therefore, at night, as there is in the Torah the feminine gender "layil" — they say "bah"; and "yom" is always masculine gender in the Torah — therefore they say "bo"; and at Mincha, which is close to evening and is inclusive of both of them, they say "bam." (And according to the attributes it also works out well, and delve into it.) And they say: "Israel who sanctify Your name" so that it will be a thematic connection to the signature close to the signature, and there are those who wrote "who love Your name" and it is baffling, and also the custom is not so. (See Magen Avraham ibid.)

And after the prayer they say 'Vaykhulu', and even though each individual said it in the prayer—nevertheless they repeat it, everyone as one, in a loud voice and while standing, for even though we have all already testified in a whisper, and post facto one fulfills the obligation of testimony with this—nevertheless, the choicest form of testimony is for everyone to testify as one and in a loud voice, as it is written: "And he hears the voice of adjuration and he is a witness etc.", and also because of a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat, for they do not say 'Vaykhulu' in the prayer, and also to fulfill the obligation for one who does not know. Therefore, an individual who prays without a minyan—shall not repeat 'Vaykhulu', and if he wishes to say it, he should not intend it as testimony, but rather as reading in the Torah. (Taz, subsection 5)

And afterward the shaliach tzibbur says the blessing of me'ein sheva, which is: "Blessed... Shield of the Fathers... find favor in our rest" until "Who sanctifies the Shabbat." For even though there is no repetition of the shmoneh esrei by the shaliach tzibbur in Arvit, nevertheless, because their batei knesiot were in the fields, and there were those who would arrive late to the beit knesset to pray Arvit—they instituted this blessing so that while the shaliach tzibbur says this blessing, the individuals would finish their prayer, so that individuals would not remain alone in the field, as there is danger in this. Therefore, this institution remains even today, even though our batei knesiot are in the city. And there is in this blessing the essence of the seven blessings of the Shabbat prayer. How so? "Shield of the Fathers with His word" corresponds to "Shield of Abraham"; "Who gives life to the dead with His utterance" corresponds to "Who gives life to the dead"; "The Holy God like Whom there is none" corresponds to "You are Holy"; "Who gives rest to His people on His holy Shabbat day" corresponds to "find favor in our rest"; "Before Him we shall serve with awe" corresponds to "find favor" etc., "the service of Israel Your people"; and "we shall give thanks to His name" corresponds to "we give thanks"; "Master of Peace" corresponds to "grant peace." (Eliyah Rabbah in the name of the Abudraham). Therefore, on a Yom Tov that falls on Shabbat—one does not mention Yom Tov in it, since the institution was only because of danger; therefore, they did not institute that one should mention Yom Tov in it, and it is said as on all Sabbaths. And even when Yom Tov falls on the eve of Shabbat, when everyone is free and they do not arrive late to the beit knesset—nevertheless, the institution did not move from its place, and the shaliach tzibbur says this blessing then as well, for the rabbis did not differentiate.

The entire congregation is obligated to hear this blessing from the mouth of the shatz, and they shall not speak at all, and also during the recitation of "Vayechulu" it is forbidden to speak. However, an individual shall not recite it, for it was only instituted for the shatz corresponding to the repetition of the shatz. And the custom is that the congregation recites "Magen Avot" until "zecher lema'aseh bereshit," for there is no blessing in this such that we would concern ourselves with a blessing in vain. However, there are places where the congregation does not recite it at all, and it is proper. And so too an individual who prays not in a congregation—certainly he is not to recite this blessing, and if he wishes to recite from "Magen Avot" until "zecher lema'aseh bereshit," one does not prevent him. And it was not instituted even in a congregation except in a synagogue or a permanent beit midrash or a permanent minyan, but when they pray there occasionally, such as in a house of grooms or in a house of mourners or another reason—they do not recite it at all. And there are those who recite "Magen Avot" until "zecher lema'aseh bereshit" and one does not prevent them, but there is no sense or reason in this. And the general rule of the matter: it was only instituted in a permanent minyan where there is a Sefer Torah (Knesset HaGedolah). Therefore, when they establish a minyan for a certain time, and there is a Sefer Torah there—they recite it, and if not—they shall not recite it, and one who recites it, it is a blessing in vain. And so too there are places where they recite after the full Kaddish "Mizmor LeDavid Hashem Ro'i" and half Kaddish and Barechu, and this too is only in a permanent minyan like the blessing of "Magen Avot," and there are those who err in this and it is necessary to warn them about this. (See Magen Avraham subsection 14 who wrote regarding the matter of the blessing of Me'ein Sheva in a minyan that is not permanent that one does not prevent them when they recite it, and the great authorities disagreed with him as the Pri Megadim wrote there, that there is a concern of a blessing in vain in this, see there.)

If one prayed the weekday prayer and did not mention the Sabbath, or if he did not pray at all, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 13 that if he heard the "abridged seven-fold blessing" from the shliach tzibbur from beginning to end—he has fulfilled his obligation, and it is good to say it along with the shliach tzibbur. (Ibid. subsection 15) And the reason we are lenient in this is because the Maariv prayer is optional. (Ibid.) And the Tur raised a difficulty with this law, see there, and in truth it has been explained several times that for us it is like an obligation; nevertheless, all the great authorities agreed to this as the law. However, it is certainly the case that if he did not hear it from the shliach tzibbur—he should not say it by himself in private, for it was only instituted for the shliach tzibbur in a congregation, but if he did say it—it counts for him. (Ibid., and there is one who wrote that on the Sabbath the Maariv prayer is not optional, but it does not appear so from all our teachers, and if it is because of Kiddush—behold, he will recite Kiddush over the cup. And so too according to this law, on a Sabbath upon which a Yom Tov falls, and he prayed the prayer of Yom Tov and did not mention the Sabbath—he can rely on his hearing the "abridged seven-fold blessing" from the shliach tzibbur.)