Tell me more ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 2 down vote favorite

When a person says "HaKel HaKodesh" instead of "HaMelech HaKodesh" during Eseres Yamei Teshuva the halacha is they must go back to the beginning of the tefillah and start over again. What would be the din of the person didn't go back to the beginning but rather said the bracha of "Atah Kodesh" over again with "HaMelech HaKodesh" and then continued davening normally. Would this be ok b'dieved or would they have to start the whole tefillah over again after finishing?

share|improve this question

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote

This is not a special עשרת ימי תשובה law, but a general law that the first three Brachos are seen as one unit. The last three as well.

If one makes a mistake in a Bracha he needs to return to the beginning of that Bracha. If a mistake is made in one of the first three - he returns to the beginning of the three, which is the beginning of 18.

(EDIT) Hence, if one fails to fix the Bracha which was messed up - the whole Tfila should be said again.

Rambam, Tefila 10:1:

מי שטעה באחת משלוש ברכות הראשונות חוזר לראש
ואם טעה באחת משלוש אחרונות חוזר לעבודה
ואם טעה באחת מן האמצעיות חוזר לתחילת הברכה שטעה בה

EDIT

A friend pointed out Rav Ovadia saying that a shatz during chazara should return to third bracha. However, he explains this is because during chazara the 3-bracha-unit ends after kedusha, so there's no need to go to beginning. A yachid should go to beginning. Other poskim do not agree with this psak (I've seen Rav M. Eliyahu explicitly).

(P.S. The friend argued that if it was possible to return to 3rd bracha only that's what the psak would be since we make a bracha levatala (on the first two brachot) doing otherwise. I'm unsure about this point.)

share|improve this answer
But what if they didn't do that? – Double AA♦ Sep 24 '12 at 13:39
What @DoubleAA said. The part of this answer that's relevant to the question merely repeats the premise already stated as the first sentence of the question. −1. – msh210♦ Sep 24 '12 at 19:42
Obviously, re- daven. – JNF Sep 27 '12 at 6:16
1  
@JNF, not obvious to me. Can you argue the case, or cite a source? – msh210♦ Sep 27 '12 at 7:58
1  
That's one way to read the Rambam. The other is that he must go back to the start: but going back to "Ata kadosh" suffices b'diavad. The halacha you cite is already impliedly known to the asker above; any source for the b'diavad case? – msh210♦ Sep 27 '12 at 14:53
show 6 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.