Siman 286

Before Musaf, Kaddish is recited, and this refers back to what was said previously: "Ashrei" and other matters, for there is no Kaddish without preceding matters. And Musaf is prayed: the first three and the last three blessings, with the sanctity of the day and the Musaf offerings in the middle. The primary element is the verses of the offerings, "And on the Sabbath day, two lambs, etc.," and the blessing "be pleased with our rest." They added "Tikanta Shabbat" beforehand, just as in Shacharit they added "Yismach Moshe." And since the sanctity of Musaf is greater than the sanctity of Shacharit—therefore they mentioned in it the future redemption: "that You may bring us up in joy to our land, etc.," and so too in all the Musaf prayers.

And they instituted "Tikanta Shabbat" according to the alphabet in reverse: Tav Shin Resh Kuf, Tzadi Peh Ayin Samekh, Nun Mem Lamed Kaf, Yod Tet Chet Zayin, Vav Heh Dalet Gimel, Beit Aleph. And the allusion for this: Tav Shin Resh Kuf—alludes to "I will whistle [eshrekah] for them and gather them" (Zechariah 10:8); Tzadi Peh Ayin Samekh—"the mountains shall drip sweet wine [asis]" (Joel 4:18), and the Tzadi is like a Tet, that the sweetness shall float [tzafin] everywhere; Nun Mem Lamed Kaf—"And the Lord shall be King [le-melekh]" (Zechariah 14:9); Yod Tet Chet Zayin—"they shall incline [yatu] with one shoulder to serve Him," and Chet Zayin is the language of a visionary [chozeh]—"for eye to eye they shall see" (Isaiah 52:8); Vav Heh Dalet Gimel Beit Aleph—Leviathan shall come [yavo] and companions [chaverim] shall make a banquet over him (Beit Yosef). And how good and beautiful is the version of the Sephardim: "Then from Sinai they were commanded the commands of its actions as is proper," for it contains the letters Mantzepakh, and Mantzepakh is prophets, as in "from the watchmen [mi-tzofim]" as stated at the beginning of Megillah. And for this reason they say "from Sinai they were commanded," meaning that all of them are from Sinai. And regarding "Tikanta," some read it with a Kuf, the language of "tikkun" [rectification], and some with a Kaf, the language of "I have established [tikanti] etc." And the meaning of "You desired its sacrifices" was explained by the Tur, that even though there is labor involved—nevertheless You permitted on Shabbat to offer the daily offerings and the additional offerings, see there. Alternatively, that the additional sacrifices of Shabbat are for favor, as they do not include a measurement for a sin offering (see Beit Yosef). "You commanded its explanations [perusheha] with the arrangements of its libations"—and this refers to the portion "Command the children of Israel," for there the Shabbat offering is explained; "You commanded its sacrifices"—those explained therein; "with the arrangements of its libations"—these are the six arrangements of the showbread, and its translation [Targum] is "shait sidrin," and "nesakheha" is from the language of "the jars of the libation [kesot ha-nesakh]" (Beit Yosef). And it would seem more correct to say "perusheha" with a left-dot Shin, the language of "And he spread [vayifros] the tent over the Tabernacle," and so too here, the spreading of the showbread upon the table; "with the arrangements of its libations"—these are the bowls, which are the jars of the libation. "Those who delight in it shall inherit eternal glory"—as it is stated in the Pesikta: In the merit of three things Israel delights before the Holy One, blessed be He: in the merit of Shabbat, etc., as it is written: "Then you shall delight in the Lord." "Those who taste it have merited life"—those who honor it with varieties of food and delicacies. And some rely on this to taste the cooked food on the eve of Shabbat (ibid.), like one who invites a king to his table, who is obligated to taste beforehand if it is good to eat. "And also those who love its words have chosen greatness"—it seems to me that in Jeremiah (17:24-25) it is written: "And it shall be if you diligently hearken etc. and to hallow the Shabbat day etc. then there shall enter into the gates of this city kings and princes etc." And in Shabbat (119a) we say: The wealthy of other lands, by what do they merit [their wealth]—because they honor the Shabbat; and Joseph who honored Shabbat became very wealthy, and so too the butcher who set aside every fine animal for Shabbat became very wealthy, as is explained there. "Then from Sinai they were commanded the commands of its actions as is proper"—meaning that even though Shabbat was commanded at Marah before Sinai, nevertheless the laws of Shabbat were commanded to us as is proper at Sinai; and so too for the Ashkenaz version "Then from Sinai etc. and You commanded us to offer etc."—for at Marah they were not commanded regarding sacrifices. And some explained "Then from Sinai" as meaning before Sinai (Beit Yosef), but it is a great strain, and the matter is clarified as we have explained with the help of Heaven.

In the repetition of the Shliach Tzibbur, the Sephardim say the Kedushah of Keter, which is above all levels. The Ashkenazim say "Na'aritzcha," because they hold that the Kedushah of Keter is not appropriate for outside the Land. One should not raise a difficulty regarding the Kedushah of Keter where they say: "A crown they shall give to You, the multitudes above and Your people Israel gathered below; together, all of them shall threefold sanctify You," for how is it possible to say this, seeing as we say in Chullin (91b) that the angels do not say song until Israel says it first, and this refers to the song of Kedushah? How then can they say "together, all of them shall threefold sanctify You"? For it can be said that since Israel already said Kedushah in Shacharit, therefore in Musaf they can say it together with Israel. And they say "Ayyeh mekom kevodo" (Where is the place of His glory), and "Ayyeh" is an acronym for "Remember the Sabbath day" (Pri Etz Chaim), for on Shabbat His sovereignty, may He be blessed, is recognizable to us by one who sanctifies the Shabbat properly, and they stand on the same level as the angels who feel great holiness. For this reason they ask "Where is the place of His glory," because this they do not grasp, for there is no end to His holiness, may He be blessed. And they say "Shema Yisrael" in the Kedushah of Musaf because once a decree was issued not to recite Kriyat Shema, and they would say "Shema Yisrael" in every Kedushah. When the decree was nullified, the sages of that generation enacted to leave it in Musaf as a remembrance, so that the miracle would be publicized for generations, since in Musaf there is no Kriyat Shema, but in Shacharit they already said Kriyat Shema according to its enactment. (Or Zarua HaGadol, siman 50, in the name of Rav Sar Shalom, head of the academy)

And we say "He is our G-d" and not "One, He is our G-d," for we do not say "One" two times one after the other, as it is like "Shema Shema" or "Modim Modim" where we silence him. And there are prayer books in which "One" is written two times—and it is not correct (see Magen Avraham). "He is our G-d"—that we accept the yoke of His sovereignty, blessed be He, upon us; "He is our Father"—and every father desires to fulfill the will of his children but lacks the ability, but the King has the ability, and for this we say "He is our King." Therefore we are certain that "He is our Savior," and we are assured that "He will let us hear in His mercy a second time in the sight of all living etc.," meaning publicly, as it was during the exodus from Egypt. And in the Sephardic rite it is more clarified: "He will save us and redeem us a second time soon... Behold I have redeemed etc.," for on Shabbat we mention matters of redemption, as their statement, of blessed memory: "If they had kept... they would have been redeemed immediately," and in the verse it says: "For thus says Hashem to the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths... and I will bring them to My holy mountain etc." And there are those who do not pause between "to be for you a G-d" and "I am Hashem your G-d" (Or Zarua ibid.).

In Ashkenaz they say in Musaf "Na'aritzcha VeNakdishcha," for so it is found in Masekhet Soferim at the end of chapter 16, to prioritize "Na'aritzcha" over "Nakdishcha," see there. And the Sefardim in Shacharit say "Nakdishcha VeNa'aritzcha," for so the prophet said: "And they shall sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall stand in awe of the God of Israel" (Isaiah 29:23). And one must contemplate that the Shacharit prayer is entirely in the masculine: "Velo Netato," "Velo Hinchalto," "Vegam Bimnuchato Lo Yishkenu Arelim," and in Musaf it is in the feminine: "Ratzita Korbanoteiha," "Tzivita Perusheiha Sidurei Nesakheiha Me'anageiha To'ameiha Devareiha," etc. And even though Shabbat is both masculine and feminine, as I wrote in siman 268, see there, nevertheless, why did they choose thus in Shacharit and thus in Musaf. And we have already written there that during the day it is masculine, and in Musaf itself they say: "Uvashvi'i Ratzita Bo Chemdat Yamim Oto Karata," "Veyanuchu Vo." (And perhaps because the primary reception of holiness from the influence of the Neshama Yetira is in Musaf, as is known, and every reception is in the feminine, as is known. And it is possible that for this reason "Tikanta" is in reverse alphabetical order and "El Adon" in Shacharit is in alphabetical order. And the Shelah in his Siddur and the Ramak wondered greatly at this, see there, and according to what I wrote it works well, for every reversal is from Gevurah and this is its attribute, and delve into this.)

And after the Musaf of the leader's repetition, he says a full kaddish, and they say "Ein K'Eloheinu," "Pittum HaKetoret," and the mishnah of "The song that the Levites would say in the Beit HaMikdash." And they instituted this for two intentions: The first is in order to mention the headings of the daily songs on the holy Shabbat, to indicate that all of them draw their sustenance from Shabbat, for it is the source of blessing and the purpose of the days and Shabbats. And the second is because in this mishnah it is explained that Shabbat hints at the day that is entirely Shabbat, and those who keep Shabbat will merit this. And they say the passage "Everyone who studies halachot," and "Torah scholars increase peace in the world," and some say here the kaddish d'rabanan, but among us, we do not interrupt here with kaddish. And they say "Aleinu" and the mourner's kaddish, and afterward they say "Anim Zemirot," which is a holy song and fitting to say on Shabbats and festivals, for then the holiness dwells. And there are places where they also say "Shir HaYichud" and afterward they say the song of the day and "Adon Olam," each and every place according to its custom. And it is proper to be careful not to multiply kaddishes, as I wrote in siman 55. (The Tur wrote: It is the custom in Spain to say the mishnah of chapter "Echad," and see the Bach and Perisha and Taz who labored over this, and perhaps the intention is regarding the mishnah of "The song that the Levites etc.," and he called the chapter by the name "Echad" because in it "echad" is written ten times, and it is the final mishnah of Tamid, see there.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: The time for the Musaf prayer is immediately after the Shacharit prayer, as its time begins in the morning, which corresponds to the Musaf sacrifice whose time is immediately in the morning. For in Tractate Yoma it requires a verse to teach that the libations precede the Musaf offerings, and were it not for the verse, the Musaf offerings would be valid to precede them, even though regarding the libations it is written "in the morning." It follows that the time for the Musaf sacrifice is immediately in the morning, and since its time is in the morning, it is good to prioritize it immediately after the Shacharit prayer (Tur). The explanation of the matter: For seemingly, since regarding Musaf it is not written "in the morning" but rather "and on the Sabbath day" (and in the Taz, subsection 1, there is an error regarding this), and the expression "on the day" they said in Yoma (34a) that it is later, for "on the day" implies when the light is intense and not in its morning (Rashi ibid.), and if so, it should be disqualified in the morning. And regarding this he says that if so, why is a verse required to teach that libations precede them, for regarding libations it is written "in the morning," but rather it is certain that the time for Musaf is immediately in the morning. And based on this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that if one prayed Musaf before Shacharit, he has fulfilled his obligation; see there.

And according to my humble opinion, the matters are perplexing, for indeed the Tosafot there raise this difficulty, and this is their wording: 'It is a wonder, why does it not state the reason—that a matter of which it is said "in the morning" should precede a matter of which it is said "in the day," and regardless, the verse of "sacrifice and libations" was needed for another derivation, that the libations are not sanctified except through the slaughter of the sacrifice, as it is found in Menachot (79a). And it appears to me that it was needed for the one who says the censers precede the musafim… for "in the day" does not imply to him "after" etc.' Thus far their words. And behold, for us who maintain that musafim precede the censers, like Rabbi Akiva at the beginning of the chapter "Pesach is slaughtered" and like Abaye regarding the order of the arrangement, and so the Rambam ruled in chapter 6 of Tamidin, if so, indeed that verse of "sacrifice and libations" is not needed, but rather due to the reason that "in the morning precedes in the day," and if so—one has not fulfilled the obligation when he preceded the musaf to the shacharit.

And even if we say that the Tur does not hold like the Tosafot, as the words of the Tur are from the Rosh at the beginning of the fourth chapter of Berakhot—nevertheless, it is difficult regarding our teacher, the Rema, who ruled so as the law, and was not concerned for the words of the Tosafot that we cited. And also regarding the Rosh and the Tur it is difficult, for perhaps truly the intent of the Gemara is this: "sacrifice and libations," meaning just as the sacrifice is in the morning—so too the libations are in the morning. And even though regarding the libations themselves it is written: "in the morning," "as the meal offering of the morning and as its libation"—the Shas was not concerned to be lengthy, and because it previously said that the meal offering precedes the griddle-cakes for the reason of "burnt offering and meal offering," therefore also in this it concludes with the end of the verse of "sacrifice and libations." And perhaps you will say, why was this verse necessary? For this is not a question, as it was necessary for that which is in Menachot in the previous section. And I saw one who raised another difficulty against the Rosh, that perhaps two verses were necessary: one for ab initio and one to be indispensable (from Ma'aseh Oreg there). Meaning, because regarding consecrated items it is necessary that the verse be repeated to be indispensable, as we say everywhere. But the truth is that this verse is not superfluous at all, as I wrote. And I saw our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, who wrote: that the Rashba wrote that it appears from the Tosafot that if one preceded that of Musaf to that of Shacharit—he has fulfilled his obligation. Thus far his words. And I did not find this in the Rashba, neither in his novellae nor in his responsa, and also from the Tosafot it does not imply so. This is the wording of the Tosafot: "For the time of Musafim is all day, even from the morning, for behold one can offer the sacrifices immediately after the Tamid; if so, also the Musaf prayer one can pray immediately from the morning." Thus far his words. And since they wrote that one can offer immediately after the Tamid, it follows that also the prayer, which is in place of the sacrifice—is also specifically after Shacharit. And that which they wrote "from the morning"—this is from the perspective of the time, and so the Tosafot of Rabbi Yehuda wrote explicitly, and this is his wording: "But that of Musafim, its time is all day, except that one must precede the Yotzer prayer first." Thus far his words.

And also the intention of the Rosh and the Tur is such, that from the perspective of the time it is valid, but nevertheless not before the shacharit prayer, for the Tur says this explicitly, that the time of the musaf prayer is immediately after the morning prayer, etc., see there. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, because he saw the weakness of these matters, did not bring this in the Shulchan Aruch, and the words of our teacher, the Rema, require great scrutiny. However, if we say that in the Temple when they offered the musaf offerings before the tamid it is valid ex post facto, then automatically in prayer it is also so, and the words of our teacher, the Rema, are well-settled. And seemingly there is proof for this, for we hold: "that which is frequent and that which is not frequent, the frequent takes precedence," and nevertheless if one offered that which is not frequent first, it is valid ex post facto, as is proven in Zevachim (91a), and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 9 of Temidin, see there. However, in my humble opinion, it appears that this is regarding other matters but not regarding the tamid, for we say in Pesachim (58b): From where do we know that nothing should precede the morning tamid? The verse states "the burnt offering"—the first burnt offering; and at the beginning of "Kol HaTadir" we derive from the verse "aside from the morning burnt offering." And the Tosafot there asked why I need two verses, and they answered—one for the sprinkling and one for the burning, see there. And in the Tosefta of Pesachim chapter 4 we learned that all consecrated offerings that were offered before the morning tamid are invalid, see there, and our teachers the authors of the Tosafot in Pesachim and in Menachot there wanted to infer that it is valid, and nevertheless they wrote that by rabbinic decree it is invalid, see there. And if so, it would appear in my humble opinion, that also regarding prayer, when one prayed musaf before shacharit, he has not fulfilled his obligation, and he must return and pray after shacharit. So it appears to me as the law, but in practice one should deliberate, for I have not found among the great authorities anyone who disagrees with our teacher, the Rema.

We learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter "Tefilat HaShachar": "The Musaf prayer—all day." And it is stated in the Gemara: "Rabbi Yochanan said: And he is called negligent if he delays it." And the reason appears to be because Rabbi Yehuda disagrees in a Baraita and said until seven hours, and therefore even though the halacha follows the Sages, nevertheless, since he can fulfill the words of Rabbi Yehuda as well—why should he not do so. And a proof for this is from the words of the Rambam in chapter 3 of Tefilah, law 5, who wrote: "The time for the Musaf prayer is after the Shacharit prayer until seven hours of the day, and one who prays it after seven hours, even though he was negligent—he has fulfilled his obligation, because its time is all day." Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that ab initio we must be concerned for the words of Rabbi Yehuda. And this is what the Tur wrote: "And its time is all day, however, the primary fulfillment of its mitzvah is until the end of seven hours, and it is forbidden to delay it ab initio," see there, and so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef. And he added to say: that if he forgot and did not pray until its entire time passed—he has no tashlumin. Thus far his words. And it is not similar to other prayers which have tashlumin in the adjacent prayer, as written in siman 108, and there the reason for the difference was explained, see there. (And with this it is settled why the Rif brought the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who said: One who prays Musaf after seven hours according to Rabbi Yehuda—concerning him the verse says, 'I will gather those who grieve for the appointed season,' see there. And it is difficult why he brought this, for the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda. But according to what I wrote it works well, that ab initio we must be concerned for his words. And the Kesef Mishneh there brought in the name of the Ramakh who wondered why he is negligent, see there, and according to what I wrote it works well, and examine this carefully.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 2: Every single individual is obligated to pray the Musaf prayer, whether there is a tzibbur in the city or not. Thus far their words. This means that even though in Berakhot (30a) there is one who holds as the halacha that when there is a tzibbur in the city, the individual does not pray Musaf, but rather the shliach tzibbur alone—the halacha is not so; rather, it is like all other prayers. And consequently, the shliach tzibbur afterwards repeats the prayer as in other prayers. The Rambam did not mention this, and his reason is that since it does not differ from other prayers, why should he mention it? It also includes the lifting of the hands, and even though it is permitted to eat a little before Musaf, as will be explained, nevertheless, drunkenness is not common during it; therefore, it is not similar to Mincha, which does not include the lifting of the hands, for there drunkenness is common. And for us, there is no lifting of the hands except on Yom Tov during Musaf, as I wrote above in siman 128; see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: That it is permitted to taste before the Musaf prayer, which is to say the eating of fruits or even a small amount of bread, even a tasting that is sufficient to sustain the heart, but a meal is forbidden. Thus far his words. And the Tur brought proof that a meal is forbidden from that which we say in Taanit (26a) that in Musaf there is the lifting of the hands, because drunkenness is not common. And if it should enter your mind that a meal is permitted—behold, drunkenness would be common. And there is one who disagrees with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and holds that by the letter of the law even a meal is permitted, and the Tur did not speak of a prohibition, but rather that there is no custom to eat a fixed meal before Musaf, as this is not the way of people, and therefore drunkenness is not common (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 1). Therefore, one who is weak of heart, and it is difficult for him to pray Musaf before a fixed eating—he may eat a fixed meal and pray afterward (ibid.), and there is one who upholds the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef (Turei Zahav, subsection 2). And in my humble opinion, there appears to be proof for the permission, for the prohibition to eat before prayer we derive in Berakhot (10b) from "and Me you have cast behind your back etc."—after he has aggrandized himself, this one accepted upon himself the Kingdom of Heaven, see there, and the Kingdom of Heaven is only in Shacharit during the recitation of Shema, and between redemption and prayer, and prayer. Furthermore, since he has already prayed Shacharit, it is not relevant to say "and Me you have cast." However, the custom is not so, but one who is weak may simply rely on the opinions of those who permit.

And regarding that which he wrote "eating fruit," they wondered about him, for we require kiddush in the place of a meal. And it seems to me that he is not dealing with this, and it is simple that one must eat a kezayit of mezonot; rather, this is what he is saying: that one is permitted to eat much fruit or even bread in order to satisfy the heart, that is, more than a kebeitzah. And there is one who answers that his intention is to rely on a cup of wine, as is written in siman 273, or that he should pray and afterwards eat the bread (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And in my humble opinion, it seems that this would be an interruption, and it is not called "in the place of a meal" (and so wrote the Tosefet Shabbat), and the matter is clear as we explained. And without kiddush—it is simple that it is forbidden to eat, for the obligation of kiddush has already fallen upon him.

If one did not pray musaf until the time of mincha arrived, which is half an hour after midday—it was ruled in the Gemara (Berakhot 28a) that one prays mincha and afterward musaf, for mincha is frequent relative to musaf, and between that which is frequent and that which is infrequent, the frequent takes precedence. The Rambam wrote at the end of the third chapter of Tefillah: There is one who instructed that this is not done in a congregation, so that they should not err. Thus far his words. Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote there that this is specifically when he needs to pray both now, such as when he wishes to eat, and it is forbidden for him to eat until he prays mincha, according to the one who holds so above in siman 232. But if he does not need to pray mincha now—he may prioritize musaf. However, when the time of mincha ketanah arrives, the Rishonim cited from the Yerushalmi—that he is necessarily obligated to pray mincha first. Nevertheless, in any case, if he prioritized musaf—he has fulfilled his obligation ex post facto, even in a situation where it was an obligation upon him to pray mincha first, and our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, brought all of this as halacha in section 4, see there.

And ostensibly it is not understood, for since the more frequent takes precedence by law, how is it possible to distinguish between a congregation and an individual, and between whether one needs to pray mincha now or does not need to. However, in truth, there is a basis for this in the essence of the law, for ostensibly this entire law is not understood: how is it possible to precede mincha to musaf, for the prayers were established in place of the sacrifices. And according to this, one would have to say that if they delayed offering the musaf sacrifice until after midday—that they should first offer the afternoon tamid, and this is certainly impossible, for it is forbidden to offer anything after the afternoon tamid, as "upon it, complete all the sacrifices," as is found in Pesachim (59a) and in Yoma (33a).

However, the reason is that we say in Zevachim (91a): Once the time for the mincha offering arrives, it is as if both of them have been slaughtered; see there. And according to this, it works out well, for the reason that in the Mikdash they did not offer the tamid of the afternoon earlier was because the tamid had not yet been slaughtered. But regarding prayer, since it is as if it has already been slaughtered, it is obvious that the frequent takes precedence for offering, and therefore one prays mincha first. And this is when one is forced now to pray mincha automatically, for it is like both have been slaughtered. But if one does not need mincha now, it is not like both have been slaughtered, and its law is like the sacrifice in the Mikdash, where in every case one offers the musaf first. And so too regarding a congregation, we judge them like in the Mikdash, and we do not say it is as if both have been slaughtered. But regarding mincha ketana, in every case it is as if both have been slaughtered, and therefore after the fact, if one preceded with musaf, he has fulfilled his obligation just as in the Mikdash. (And therefore among us, we have not heard of anyone who precedes mincha to musaf, even if he delayed musaf until mincha ketana, because we eat even after mincha ketana, as I wrote in siman 232, for we rely on the call of the shamash to the synagogue, and see Magen Avraham subsection 3; consequently, among us it is not like both have been slaughtered in every case. And the Magen Avraham wrote that if it is close to evening and there is no time to pray both, he should pray musaf, for mincha has a completion; see there. And what is written in the Shulchan Aruch, section 5, that on Shabbat and Yom Tov we do not say "Barchu" after the final Kaddish—among us even on weekdays this custom does not exist, as I wrote in siman 133; see there.)