Siman 557

In the Yerushalmi, the fourth chapter of Berakhot (halacha 3), it is brought: On Tisha B'Av, one must mention the nature of the event. What is it? "Comfort, Hashem our G-d, the mourners of Zion," etc. And where does one say it? In "Avodah," like every matter that concerns the future which we say in "Avodah," such as: "Ya'aleh V'Yavo." However, in this we practice not according to the Yerushalmi, but rather we mention it in the blessing of "Boneh Yerushalayim," for before the conclusion we say "Comfort..." and we conclude the blessing "Who comforts Zion and builds Jerusalem." And the Rif wrote at the end of Ta'anit that we rely on that which we say in the chapter "Lifnei Ideihen" (8a): that even though they said a person asks for his needs in "Shome'a Tefillah," if he wishes to say at the end of each and every blessing something of the nature of that blessing – he may say it, see there. And here it is of the nature of the blessing, as is understood.

Nevertheless, a reason is required: how do we act not in accordance with the Yerushalmi in a matter where there is no one who disagrees with it? And it appears to me that the matter is as follows: for behold, in the Tosefta of Berakhot at the end of the third chapter, it is stated that one includes "the sprout of David" in "Builder of Jerusalem," and so it is in the Yerushalmi in the fourth chapter there. According to this, these two blessings were one blessing. Therefore, the Yerushalmi did not have the ability to establish the blessing of the consolation of Zion earlier within the blessing of Jerusalem, since the kingdom of the House of David is mentioned in it, and in "Nachem" there is no hint of this. For this reason, they established it in the blessing of "Who restores His Shekhinah to Zion." But afterward, when they established the blessing of "the sprout of [David]" as a blessing unto itself, and the blessing of Jerusalem—its essence is only regarding Jerusalem, if so, why should we delay it until afterward? It is better to bring it forward. And even though even now "the throne of David" is mentioned in the blessing of "Builder of Jerusalem," nevertheless, the essence of the blessing is regarding Jerusalem, which was not the case when the two blessings were together—its essence was regarding the kingdom of the House of David.

Behold, we do not say "Nachem" except in Mincha. The Rosh there wondered about this: why is it not also said in Maariv and Shacharit? However, the reason is that throughout the day it is impossible to offer consolations, as it is like his deceased relative is lying before him. But at Mincha they are able to receive consolations (Bach). Furthermore: at evening time they ignited the fire in the Mikdash, therefore at that time we mention its lowliness and supplicate to build it (Beit Yosef in the name of Rav Saadia Gaon, see there). And one who eats on Tisha B'Av should say "Nachem" in Birkat HaMazon, before "And build Jerusalem." And if he did not say it – we do not make him return. And in the Tefillah, when he forgot to say it at "Who builds Jerusalem" – he should say it in "Avodah." (And what the Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham wrote to say it at "And for all these" – is an error, and against the Yerushalmi.) And if he forgot it there as well, it appears to me that we do not make him return, and he should say it at the end of the Tefillah without a concluding blessing. And also "Anenu" must be said in Mincha in "Shomea Tefillah," and the Shaliach Tzibbur says it in Shacharit and Mincha between "Goel" and "Rofeh," as in every public fast. (And the Magen Avraham wrote that one who fasts on the tenth – should say it in all the Tefillot, see there.) (And I saw one who wishes to say that the Shaliach Tzibbur should not say "Anenu" in Shacharit, and this is a wonderous thing.)