Analyzes the division of the Amidah into praise, petition, and thanksgiving, clarifying the halakhic and structural status of the opening blessings.
אמצעיות אין להן סדר - פי' בקונטרס ואם דלג ברכה אחת ואחר כך נזכר בה שלא במקומה אומרה במקום שנזכר. ולא נהירא דהא תנן במגילה (פ"ב ד' יז.) הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא ותניא (שם) וכן בהלל וכן בק"ש וכן בתפלה לכך נראה כפירוש רשב"ם ורב אלפס דאין להן סדר דקאמר היינו שיתחיל במקום שדלג הברכה ומשם ואילך יאמר הכל על הסדר אבל ודאי לא יתחיל באתה חונן כמו בג' ראשונות וג' אחרונות שחוזר לראש וראיה מדתניא בתוספתא דמכילתין הקורא את שמע והשמיט בה פסוק אחד לא יקרא אותו פסוק בפני עצמו אלא מתחיל מאותו פסוק ואילך וגומר עד סופה ותניא נמי בפ"ב דמגילה (ד' יח:) שאם השמיט פסוק א' במגילה שקורא על הסדר מאותו פסוק ואילך והתם משוי תפלה למגילה לענין הך מילתא כדפרישית ובה"ג פסק כרב אסי דאמר אמצעיות אין להן סדר חדא דרב הונא כתלמיד לגבי רב אסי כדאמרינן בכמה מקומות אמר רב הונא אמר רב אסי ועוד דלרב הונא צריך לדחוק ולשנויי מתני' דכולהו חדא ברכתא נינהו ואשנויי דחיקי לא ניקום ונסמוך ועוד דרב אסי ורב ששת קיימי בחד שיטתא ועוד דבשל סופרים הלך אחר המיקל וא"כ אדם שטעה ודלג ברכה אחת באמצעיות או שלא אמר המלך המשפט בין ר"ה ליוה"כ דקי"ל בפ"ק (דף יב:) דמחזירין אותו לא יחזור לאתה חונן אלא לאותה ברכה שדלג ומשם ואילך יאמר על הסדר כדפי' רשב"ם והיכא שטעה בג' ראשונות כגון שטעה בחתימתן או לא הזכיר בין ר"ה ליוה"כ בברכת אבות זכרנו או בתחיית המתים מי כמוך או שלא אמר המלך הקדוש חוזר לראשונה והיכא שטעה בשלש אחרונות כגון שטעה כמו כן בחתימתן או שלא הזכיר בין ראש השנה ליוה"כ בשים שלום בספר חיים טובים או וכתוב לחיים טובים בהודאה חוזר לעבודה וטעמא דכיון שכולה שבח הוי כברכה א'. ותענית צבור שש"צ קובע ברכה לעצמו שאומר עננו בין גואל לרופא אם שכחה ונזכר בה קודם סיום תפלה אין מחזירין אותו כיון שהיה צריך לחזור ולומר על הסדר כפי' רשב"ם א"כ הויא ברכה לבטלה אם מחזירין אותו אבל לפי' הקונטרס היה אומרה במקום שנזכר ואין כאן ברכה לבטלה: אל ישאל אדם צרכיו לא בג' ראשונות ולא בג' אחרונות - פי' ר"ח ורבינו האי דוקא ליחיד אבל צרכי צבור שואלין ולכך אנו אומרים זכרנו וקרובץ ויעלה ויבא בהם ותדע דדוקא יחיד קאמר שהרי עיקר ברכות אחרונות צרכי צבור הם:
THE MIDDLE [BLESSINGS] HAVE NO [SET] ORDER. Rav Huna says that there are three sections of sh’moneh esray, the first three b’rochos, the middle thirteen and the final three b’rochos. When one errs in any one of the three sections he returns to the beginning of that section. So, if one errs during the first three b’rochos, he starts at the beginning of sh’moneh esray. If he errs during the last three b’rochos he starts again at r’tzay. When he errs during the middle b’rochos Rav Huno holds that he starts again at atoh chonain. This ruling about the middle b’rochos is the subject of a dispute. Rav Asee disagrees with Rav Huno about the middle b’rochos. The term that he uses in voicing his disagreement is that the middle b’rochos have no order. The exact meaning of these words is a dispute between Rashi and Tosfos. Rashi explained that the meaning of “they have no order” is as follows: And if one omitted one b’rochoh and then remembered it in the wrong place, he can say it in the wrong place, wherever he is at that time and he need not repeat any of the b’rochos that he has already said. And this explanation is not clear. For we have learned in a Mishna in M’giloh (17a), one who reads the m’giloh out of sequence has not fulfilled his obligation. And we learned in a Braiso, and so too, for halel and so too, for reciting sh’ma and so too, for prayer. If one says the sh’moneh esray out of sequence, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This contradicts Rashi who says that we can insert a forgotten b’rochoh at any point during the middle b’rochos of sh’moneh esray and we need not repeat any of the b’rochos that we have said. Therefore, the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas appears to be logical. That when Rav Asee says they have no order, that means that he should start from the point that he omitted the b’rochoh and from there and further he should say everything according to the order. For example, if one realized that he omitted רפאנו after he said את צמח he should say רפאנו at that point and continue reciting all the b’rochos from רפאנו on. Even though he already said the b’rochos between רפאנו and את צמח he must repeat them once again. But he certainly does not have to begin again at אתה חונן, as he must do when erring in the first three b’rochos and the last three b’rochos where he must return to the beginning of that section. Tosfos offers proof to the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas. And there is proof from that which we learned in a Braiso in the Tosefto of our Gemara, he who reads sh’ma and left out one verse, should not read that verse by itself. Rather, he starts from that verse and continues further and completes it till the end. We see that when reciting sh’ma one must say the verse he omitted and continue from that point on so that his recital should not be out of sequence. And we also learned in a Braiso in the second perek of M’giloh (18b) that if one omitted one verse in the m’giloh that he reads according to the order of the m’giloh from that verse and further. And there the Gemara equates prayer to m’giloh as far as this issue of reading out of sequence is concerned, as we explained. The same formula for correcting an error that applies to the sh’ma and to the m’giloh applies to correcting an error in prayer. Namely, saying the b’rochoh that one omitted and continuing on from there. Tosfos will now deal with the halochoh in this dispute between Rav Huno and Rav Asee. And the author of Halochos G’dolos ruled like Rav Asee who says that the middle b’rochos do not have an order for a few reasons. One reason is that Rav Huno is like a student in regard to Rav Asee as we say in many places throughout the Gemara Rav Huno said in the name of Rav Asee. And furthermore, according to Rav Huno one must accept an awkward answer to our Mishna, that all the middle b’rochos are one b’rochoh. When the Gemara challenges Rav Huno with our Mishna that says he returns to the beginning of the b’rochoh in which he erred, Rav Huno must say that it means אתה חונן, which is definitely not the simple understanding of our Mishna. And upon awkward answers we do not want to stand up and rely. And furthermore, Rav Asee and Rav Shaishes who presented the challenge to Rav Huno from our Mishna are of one opinion. And furthermore, in matter of Rabbinic law, the obligation to pray, one should follow the lenient opinion. Rav Asee who says that one need not return to the beginning of אתה חונן is the lenient opinion. Tosfos conclusion is that we follow Rav Asee’s opinion. And if so, a person who erred or omitted a b’rochoh from the middle section of sh’moneh esray or if he did not say המלך המשפט between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur, where the halochoh is in the first perek that he must return to המלך המשפט, he should not return to אתה חונן, rather, to the b’rochoh that he omitted and proceed from there in the regular order. And where he erred in the first three b’rochos, for example he erred at their conclusion or he did not mention between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur in the b’rochoh of avos, זכרנו, or in the b’rochoh about resurrection of the dead he did not say מי כמוך, or he did not say המלך הקדוש, he must return to the beginning of sh’moneh esray. And where he erred in the last three b’rochos. For example, there as well he erred in the conclusion of one of the b’rochos, or he did not mention between Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kipur in שים שלום, the special prayer בספר החיים, or he did not mention וכתוב לחיים טובים in the b’rochoh of modim, he must return to the b’rochoh of avodoh, r’tzay. And the reason that one must return to the beginning of the section is that since it is all praise of Hashem, it is all like one b’rochoh. Tosfos points out another major difference between the explanation of Rashi and the explanation of Rashbam and Rav Alfas. And on a public fast when the congregational leader has a special b’rochoh for himself, that he says the b’rochoh of עננו, between גואל ישראל and רפאנו, if he forgot it and then remembered that he omitted it, before the conclusion of the prayer, we do not require of him to repeat it, since he would have to return and repeat all of the other b’rochos according to the order of sh’moneh esray, according to Rashbam’s explanation. If so, that would be a b’rochoh in vain, if we required him to repeat it. But according to Rashi’s explanation, he could say it at the point that he remembered and he would not have to repeat any other b’rochos and there would be no b’rochoh in vain. ONE MUST NOT REQUEST HIS OWN NEEDS IN THE FIRST THREE OR IN THE LAST THREE [BLESSINGS]. Rabainu Chananel and Rav Hai explained that this ruling that one should not ask for his needs during the first and last three b’rochos, was said only for an individual, but for the needs of the public, we may ask even during the first and last three b’rochos. And that is why we say זכרנו, קרובץ and יעלה ויבא during these b’rochos. And I will prove that this was specifically said for an individual that the main point of the last b’rochos is the needs of the public. Therefore, one may certainly ask Hashem for the needs of the public while reciting these b’rochos. Just as the ruling against asking for one’s needs does not apply to the public in the last three b’rochos, so too, it does not apply to public needs in the first three b’rochos.