Siman 294

Just as kiddush is in prayer and over the cup, so too havdalah must be performed in prayer, which is to say that one adds in the blessing of "Atah Chonen" the passage "Atah Chonantanu, and You have distinguished us, Hashem our G-d, between the sacred and the profane, etc.," and also over the cup. Thus the Men of the Great Assembly ordained, that one requires havdalah in prayer and over the cup, and one who does so, blessings shall rest upon his head (Berakhot 33a). They ordained havdalah in "Chonen HaDa'at" because it is wisdom to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and they established it in the blessing of wisdom (Tur, siman 115), for through knowledge we mention the virtue of rest, and we know how to distinguish between the sacred and the profane (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah, ibid.), and if there is no knowledge—there is no havdalah, for knowledge in physicality is animalistic knowledge, and the essence of knowledge is in spirituality, which is the knowledge of the Torah and the fulfillment of its mitzvot. This is why we say "You have graced us with the knowledge of Your Torah, and You have taught us to perform the statutes of Your will, and You have distinguished, Hashem our G-d, between the sacred and the profane, etc."—behold, these are dependent upon one another.

Some say that since we say "You have graced us" (Atah Chonantanu)—one no longer needs to say "You grace" (Atah Chonen), as it is a duplication of the matter. However, many and great authorities required both, and they are two distinct matters: for "You grace man with knowledge" refers to the general intellect of the entire human species, such as first principles, in which man's superiority over the animal lies; and "You have graced us with the knowledge of Your Torah" refers to the wisdom of the Torah (Levush and Bach). And behold, it is certain that "grace us from Yourself with wisdom, understanding, and intellect" refers to the wisdom of the Torah, only "You grace" may be said to refer to human intellect. It may also be said that even "You grace" refers to the wisdom of the Torah, but "You have graced us" refers to the wisdom of Havdalah (Taz, subsection 1). And we say "and grace us from Yourself," for it refers back to what was above. Some wish to say "and grace us from Yourself with wisdom etc." two times: once before "You have graced us" and once after it, but his words were rejected (see Bach and Taz). And in the Yerushalmi, chapter Ein Omdin (Halacha 2), it is stated: that for this reason we say "You have graced us" at the beginning of the middle blessings, for just as it is forbidden to do work until one performs Havdalah—so too it is forbidden to request one's needs before Havdalah; therefore, one performs Havdalah and requests his needs (the Gra elaborated on this, see there).

And I have a question regarding this: since the sages instituted Havdalah just as they did Kiddush, that it should be both in the prayer and over the cup as has been written—and this is explained in Berakhot (33b): "Like Kiddush; just as with Kiddush, even though one sanctifies in the prayer, one sanctifies over the cup—so too Havdalah etc.," see there—if so, why did they not institute a blessing for the Havdalah of the prayer as they did for the Kiddush of the prayer? And it must be said that certainly it is difficult to institute two blessings for one matter, as is understood, and therefore they did not institute a blessing for Havdalah. And that which they instituted for Kiddush was not because of the obligation of Kiddush, but because of the obligation of the prayer, for there is no other blessing in the Shabbat prayer, and it is practiced in all the prayers, even in prayers where there is no Kiddush, such as Musaf and Mincha. But regarding the Havdalah of the prayer, where there are nineteen blessings, they did not want to add a blessing for Havdalah, and the Havdalah over the cup is sufficient.

I have another question: how do we say four distinctions in Atah Chonantanu: "between holy and profane, between light and darkness, between Israel and the nations, between the seventh day and the six days of labor"? For in Pesachim (103b), the Gemara challenges this version based on that which we hold: "One who subtracts should not subtract from three, and one who adds should not add beyond seven," and there is a meticulous requirement for specifically these numbers, which hint at certain matters (Tosafot ibid. 104a, s.v. "u-mar"). And it answered that "between the seventh day and the six days of labor" is not part of the count of distinctions, but rather because we require a theme similar to the conclusion adjacent to the conclusion; see there. And now it is difficult, for it is well and good regarding the cup where there is a conclusion, one requires a theme similar to the conclusion adjacent to it; but in the prayer where there is no conclusion, we should not have said "between the seventh day and the six days of labor." And it is well and good in the havdalah of the conclusion of Shabbat going into a Yom Tov that we say this version, because there we say seven distinctions as Tosafot wrote there, but in the havdalah of the prayer on a weekday it is difficult. And one must say that since on the cup one must say this version, they did not want to change it in the prayer as well, or perhaps the meticulous requirement only exists regarding the cup. Nevertheless, this is not settled in the heart, and it would have been better not to say it, and it requires great study. (Afterward I found this in the Mordechai.)

If one erred and forgot to say "Atah Chonantanu" in the prayer—he does not need to repeat it, for he will recite havdalah over the cup. And even though he did not act according to the enactment of the sages—he was nevertheless unintentional, and it is forbidden for him to perform work until he says "Who separates between the holy and the profane," and it will be explained in siman 299. And if he erred also with the cup, such as if he tasted before havdalah, and even though we hold: "if he tasted—he recites havdalah," nevertheless there is at least an error, and he must return and pray, so ruled the Rosh and the Rashba and our teacher Yonah and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And the source of the law is from that which is said in Berakhot ibid.: "If one erred in this and in that—he returns to the beginning," and our teachers explained that he erred in the prayer and also with the cup, which is that he tasted before the cup, and therefore he returns to the prayer and to the cup.

The Rambam in chapter 10 of Laws of Prayer did not mention this law, and in truth it is not understood what rectification there will be for the fact that he tasted if he returns and prays, and if it is because since the havdalah over the cup is not proper due to his tasting he must perform havdalah in the prayer—behold, even in the prayer it will not be proper due to his tasting. And in truth, the Talmidei Rabbeinu Yonah wrote there that it is a penalty, because he tasted before havdalah, see there. And it is not understood, for what shall he do if he tasted inadvertently, and if we say that this is only specifically when he tasted intentionally—our teachers should have clarified this, and furthermore if it is because of a penalty—let us penalize him regarding that which he did not perform havdalah in the prayer, and let one who did not perform havdalah in the prayer return to the beginning, and furthermore where have we found a penalty involving the repetition of the prayer, for there are many blessings said in vain. And even though since the sages ordained it this is not in vain—but why did they ordain this to increase nineteen blessings for naught.

Therefore, it seems in my humble opinion that the Rambam, of blessed memory, interpreted the Gemara with a different explanation, and "erred in this and in that"—this is its explanation: that if he also erred in some other blessing of the middle blessings, where the law is that he returns to the beginning of the blessing in which he erred as long as he has not completed his prayer, as I wrote in siman 119, but here where he erred and also did not mention "Atah Chonantanu"—he returns to the beginning, meaning to the beginning of the middle blessings. And even though for its sake alone he would not return, nevertheless, since he must return for the sake of the other blessing—he returns for its sake as well, yet even this he did not bring. (And the Rashba wrote the reason that since he erred completely—he returns to his order, and your sign is: if one comes to sift—he sifts all of it, see there; and according to our explanation the comparison is better, however the knowledge of our teachers is broader than our knowledge.)

Since the reason one does not repeat the prayer when he erred and did not recite havdalah is because he can recite havdalah over a cup, therefore, if he does not have a cup at night and in his opinion he will also not have a cup tomorrow—he must repeat the prayer. And even though the time for havdalah is three days, as is written in siman 299, nevertheless, he will certainly not fast for three days (Perishah). That is to say, even if he will have a cup tomorrow, but he wishes to eat—it is obvious that he must pray and recite havdalah in the prayer; rather, it is the way of the matter that until tomorrow he can resolve in his mind not to eat. And on Tisha B'Av that falls on Sunday where one forgot "Atah Chonantanu"—he does not need to repeat the prayer, for he will recite havdalah after the fast.

The Tur wrote: "And where he has a cup, such that he does not need to repeat the prayer, immediately when he finished the blessing—he should not go back, even though he did not begin the subsequent blessing. And the Ra'ah wrote: As long as he did not begin the subsequent blessing—he goes back, and so too in all matters for which one does not need to repeat, such as 'Al HaNissim' etc." Thus far his words. For the Ra'ah holds that as long as he did not start the subsequent blessing—it is not called a repetition, and it is as if he is standing in the middle of the blessing. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 ruled like the Tur that he should not go back, but before he finished the blessing, having not yet said the Name, even if he said "Blessed are You"—he goes back and says "Atah Chonantanu" (Bach). And one should not ask that if so, why did we rule in siman 114 regarding "Mashiv HaRuach" that when he forgot, if he did not start "Atah Kadosh"—he says it there. For it is not comparable, as certainly in a matter where there is an obligation to repeat—it is not an interruption, but in a matter where there is no obligation—it is an interruption (Magen Avraham ibid. subsection 8), and according to this, when he does not have a cup—here too he says it even when he finished the blessing. And more than this they wrote, that when he does not have a cup and remembered before the blessing of Shome'a Tefillah—he can say it in Shome'a Tefillah (Magen Avraham subsection 3).

It appears to me that even though one does not need to repeat the prayer when he forgot 'Atah Chonantanu', and also in 'Shome'a Tefillah' he should not say it if he has a cup, for it would be an interruption, nevertheless, after 'Yihyu L'ratzon'—he should say it, for after the prayer an interruption is not applicable, and it is no worse than one who is accustomed to saying supplications after the prayer. And if it is because there is no blessing here at all—what does it matter to us, for we hold that only when one says 'Who separates between holy and profane'—it is permitted to do work even without a blessing, as will be explained in siman 299. And the reason the poskim did not mention this—is because it is a simple matter, and this is not a restoration of the enactment of the sages who enacted to recite havdalah in the prayer, for this is not havdalah in the prayer since it is after the prayer. And a proof for this is from 'Anenu' in siman 565, where they ruled there that if he did not say it in 'Shome'a Tefillah'—he should say it after the prayer, see there, and here too it is so. And one should not say it is because in 'Anenu' there are supplications, for here too there are: 'Our Father our King, begin for us the days... darkened from all sin, etc.'

The Tur further wrote: That Rabbeinu Tam holds that even if one began the subsequent blessing—he returns if he wishes, and so Rabbeinu Tam holds regarding all matters where the sages said one does not need to return, nevertheless if he wished—he returns as long as he has not finished his prayer, and he so performed an act himself, as is written in the Tosafot at the end of the chapter "Tefilat HaShachar." The Rosh disagrees with him, for since once he has uprooted his feet he does not return—so too when he has finished the blessing, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: In a place where they said he does not return, if he wished to be stringent upon himself to return if he finished his prayer—he is permitted, but if he has not yet finished his prayer—he is not permitted to return, thus far his words, and his intention is that he rules like the Rosh that it is forbidden to return when he has finished the blessing, and he says that on the contrary, once he has finished his prayer—he can be stringent and return, and that is when he prays as a voluntary prayer. And the essence of his intention is that this is the opposite of the reasoning of Rabbeinu Tam, for according to Rabbeinu Tam in the middle—he can return, and once he has finished—he cannot, and according to him in the middle—he cannot, and once he has finished if he wishes—he can return. However, it is simple that also according to Rabbeinu Tam when he has finished and wishes to pray a voluntary prayer—who shall protest against him (and see in the Tur and in the Taz subsection 3).

There are those who say that if one forgot to pray Maariv on Saturday night, such that he prays Shacharit twice—he should not say "Atah Chonantanu" in the prayer of completion (Magen Avraham, subsection 1, in the name of the Radbaz). And there is one who disagrees regarding this, for since in Maariv there was an obligation to mention it, and in the original enactment in the Gemara havdalah was only in the prayer, and even now the essence of the enactment is in the prayer, therefore he must mention it (Magen Avraham). And in my humble opinion, the primary view is like the first opinion, for certainly if he did not have a cup—he would be obligated to mention it in order to fulfill the obligation of havdalah in the prayer; however, when he had a cup and fulfilled the obligation of havdalah, even though if he prayed afterward he would need to mention it, nevertheless, when praying the next day—it is similar to one who did not pray Mincha on Friday afternoon, who prays Maariv twice for Shabbat, as is written in siman 108, and so too it is here. And during the day there is no havdalah, and the obligation of havdalah has already been fulfilled.