A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
3 edited body
source | link

Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe vol. 8, Orach Chayim 24:8 discusses the closely related question of whether the opening (this one) and closing ("...יהיו לרצון") verses that surround sh'mone esre must be said at all (לעיכובא). He holds that in this day and age - when there are no karbanos - they must. In principle, not saying either of those lines would call for one repeating everything from that point on (though this applies differently to the closing pasuk than the opening one).

From the 3rd page, righthand column:

אבל פשוט שמי שטעה בתפלתו באופן שצריך לחזור לראש כשהוא עדיין עומד בתפילה,‏ שלא עקר רגליו,‏ שלא יצטרך לחזור אלא לתחלת ברכה ראשונה שהוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳",‏ לא מ"ה׳ שפתי".‏ מאחר דהתפילה עצמה מתחלת בברכה ראשונה שהוא מריש הברכה,‏ שהתחלתה הוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳" דברכת אבות.‏

Obviously somebody who erred in his t'fila in a way that requires him to return "to the beginning" while still standing in t'fila [mode], having not moved [from his position], would only need to return to the beginning of the first b'racha, i.e. "ברוך אתה ה", not [to] "ה', שפתי".

So if one were to have to repeat that prefatory pasuk it would be for its own sake, and not because it is part of the first b'racha.

Further on, he explores the hypothetical situation in which an audience member is relying on the sh'liach tzibur to recite the amida by proxy, as opposed to the common practice today of listening intently to the repetition thereof after having discharged each of our personal obligations ourselves. He assumes that even those who are not well enough versed to say the whole amida could still learn or repeat word-for-word the verse in question, and that they would do so right before the repetition. However. . .

‏ ואם היה מזדמן אחד שגם לומר עם אחר לא היה יכול לומר אף רק פסוק זה,‏ היה פטור מטעם אונםאונס.‏

If there were a person who was unable to say even this sole pasuk [by repeating after] another person, they would be exempt due to [the technical exemption from obligations that arises in the presence of uncontrollable external] forces.

While this does not address saying the words without intent, he seems to be setting the bar very low for what qualifies as prepending "...ה', שפתי" - i.e. repeating another person's words after them. Even if one were required to have some level of intent in saying that line (e.g. knowing that it was one's gateway to t'fila in a general sense) the requirement would be dissociated from the reason making intent during the first b'racha a sine qua non.

Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe vol. 8, Orach Chayim 24:8 discusses the closely related question of whether the opening (this one) and closing ("...יהיו לרצון") verses that surround sh'mone esre must be said at all (לעיכובא). He holds that in this day and age - when there are no karbanos - they must. In principle, not saying either of those lines would call for one repeating everything from that point on (though this applies differently to the closing pasuk than the opening one).

From the 3rd page, righthand column:

אבל פשוט שמי שטעה בתפלתו באופן שצריך לחזור לראש כשהוא עדיין עומד בתפילה,‏ שלא עקר רגליו,‏ שלא יצטרך לחזור אלא לתחלת ברכה ראשונה שהוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳",‏ לא מ"ה׳ שפתי".‏ מאחר דהתפילה עצמה מתחלת בברכה ראשונה שהוא מריש הברכה,‏ שהתחלתה הוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳" דברכת אבות.‏

Obviously somebody who erred in his t'fila in a way that requires him to return "to the beginning" while still standing in t'fila [mode], having not moved [from his position], would only need to return to the beginning of the first b'racha, i.e. "ברוך אתה ה", not [to] "ה', שפתי".

So if one were to have to repeat that prefatory pasuk it would be for its own sake, and not because it is part of the first b'racha.

Further on, he explores the hypothetical situation in which an audience member is relying on the sh'liach tzibur to recite the amida by proxy, as opposed to the common practice today of listening intently to the repetition thereof after having discharged each of our personal obligations ourselves. He assumes that even those who are not well enough versed to say the whole amida could still learn or repeat word-for-word the verse in question, and that they would do so right before the repetition. However. . .

‏ ואם היה מזדמן אחד שגם לומר עם אחר לא היה יכול לומר אף רק פסוק זה,‏ היה פטור מטעם אונם.‏

If there were a person who was unable to say even this sole pasuk [by repeating after] another person, they would be exempt due to [the technical exemption from obligations that arises in the presence of uncontrollable external] forces.

While this does not address saying the words without intent, he seems to be setting the bar very low for what qualifies as prepending "...ה', שפתי" - i.e. repeating another person's words after them. Even if one were required to have some level of intent in saying that line (e.g. knowing that it was one's gateway to t'fila in a general sense) the requirement would be dissociated from the reason making intent during the first b'racha a sine qua non.

Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe vol. 8, Orach Chayim 24:8 discusses the closely related question of whether the opening (this one) and closing ("...יהיו לרצון") verses that surround sh'mone esre must be said at all (לעיכובא). He holds that in this day and age - when there are no karbanos - they must. In principle, not saying either of those lines would call for one repeating everything from that point on (though this applies differently to the closing pasuk than the opening one).

From the 3rd page, righthand column:

אבל פשוט שמי שטעה בתפלתו באופן שצריך לחזור לראש כשהוא עדיין עומד בתפילה,‏ שלא עקר רגליו,‏ שלא יצטרך לחזור אלא לתחלת ברכה ראשונה שהוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳",‏ לא מ"ה׳ שפתי".‏ מאחר דהתפילה עצמה מתחלת בברכה ראשונה שהוא מריש הברכה,‏ שהתחלתה הוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳" דברכת אבות.‏

Obviously somebody who erred in his t'fila in a way that requires him to return "to the beginning" while still standing in t'fila [mode], having not moved [from his position], would only need to return to the beginning of the first b'racha, i.e. "ברוך אתה ה", not [to] "ה', שפתי".

So if one were to have to repeat that prefatory pasuk it would be for its own sake, and not because it is part of the first b'racha.

Further on, he explores the hypothetical situation in which an audience member is relying on the sh'liach tzibur to recite the amida by proxy, as opposed to the common practice today of listening intently to the repetition thereof after having discharged each of our personal obligations ourselves. He assumes that even those who are not well enough versed to say the whole amida could still learn or repeat word-for-word the verse in question, and that they would do so right before the repetition. However. . .

‏ ואם היה מזדמן אחד שגם לומר עם אחר לא היה יכול לומר אף רק פסוק זה,‏ היה פטור מטעם אונס.‏

If there were a person who was unable to say even this sole pasuk [by repeating after] another person, they would be exempt due to [the technical exemption from obligations that arises in the presence of uncontrollable external] forces.

While this does not address saying the words without intent, he seems to be setting the bar very low for what qualifies as prepending "...ה', שפתי" - i.e. repeating another person's words after them. Even if one were required to have some level of intent in saying that line (e.g. knowing that it was one's gateway to t'fila in a general sense) the requirement would be dissociated from the reason making intent during the first b'racha a sine qua non.

    Post Undeleted by WAF
2 Overhauled answer in light of new and more relevant findings.
source | link

It does not appear that those who stated or held this rule assumed the prefatoryRav Moshe Feinstein in pasukIgros Moshe to be included in the requirement to have intent while saying the wordsvol. The clearest indication of this lack8, Orach Chayim 24:8 discusses the closely related question of assumption I have found iswhether the opening (this one) and closing ("...יהיו לרצון") verses that surround Aruch Hashulchansh'mone esre must be said at all (לעיכובא). He holds that in Orach Chayimthis day and age 101:1- when there are no karbanos - they must. In principle, who says in passingnot saying either of those lines would call for one repeating everything from that point on (though this applies differently to the firstclosing b'rachapasuk begins and ends withthan the word "ברוך"opening one).  

From the 3rd page, righthand column:

המתפלל צריך שיכוין בכל הברכות. ואם אינו יכול לכוין בכולם – לפחות יכוין באבות ..אבל פשוט שמי שטעה בתפלתו באופן שצריך לחזור לראש כשהוא עדיין עומד בתפילה,‏ שלא עקר רגליו,‏ שלא יצטרך לחזור אלא לתחלת ברכה ראשונה שהוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳",‏ לא מ"ה׳ שפתי". משום דברכה זו‏ מאחר דהתפילה עצמה מתחלת ב"ברוך" ומסיימת ב"ברוך"בברכה ראשונה שהוא מריש הברכה,‏ שהתחלתה הוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳" דברכת אבות.‏

The supplicant(?) needsObviously somebody who erred in his t'fila in a way that requires him to have intent during all ofreturn "to the beginning" while still standing in b'rachost'fila. And if one is [mode], having not ablemoved [from his position], would only need to have intent for allreturn to the beginning of them at least have intent for Avos (thethe first b'racha) , i.e. "ברוך אתה ה", not [to] "ה', שפתי". since that b'racha begins with "baruch" and ends with "baruch"...

ItSo if one were to have to repeat that prefatory pasuk it would be strange in this contextfor its own sake, whichand not because it is directly related to the boundspart of the requisitefirst kavanab'racha, to state those bounds imprecisely.


 

I would note thatFurther on, he explores the hypothetical situation in which an audience member is relying on the Aruch Hashulchansh'liach tzibur goes on to explain whyrecite the amida by proxy, following inas opposed to the footstepscommon practice today of listening intently to the repetition thereof after having discharged each of our personal obligations ourselves. He assumes that even those who are not well enough versed to say the whole Ram"aamida could still learn or repeat word-for-word the verse in question, heand that they would do so right before the repetition. However. . .

‏ ואם היה מזדמן אחד שגם לומר עם אחר לא היה יכול לומר אף רק פסוק זה,‏ היה פטור מטעם אונם.‏

If there were a person who was unable to say even this sole pasuk [by repeating after] another person, they would be exempt due to [the technical exemption from obligations that arises in the presence of uncontrollable external] forces.

While this does not believe thisaddress saying the words without intent, he seems to be setting the bar very low for what qualifies as prepending "...ה', שפתי" - i.e. repeating another person's words after them. Even if one were required to have some level of intent in saying that line (e.g. knowing that it was one's gateway to halachat'fila is widely applicablein a general sense) the requirement would be dissociated from the reason making intent during the first b'racha a sine qua non.

It does not appear that those who stated or held this rule assumed the prefatory pasuk to be included in the requirement to have intent while saying the words. The clearest indication of this lack of assumption I have found is the Aruch Hashulchan in Orach Chayim 101:1, who says in passing that the first b'racha begins and ends with the word "ברוך".  

המתפלל צריך שיכוין בכל הברכות. ואם אינו יכול לכוין בכולם – לפחות יכוין באבות ... משום דברכה זו מתחלת ב"ברוך" ומסיימת ב"ברוך"

The supplicant(?) needs to have intent during all of the b'rachos. And if one is not able to have intent for all of them at least have intent for Avos (the first b'racha) ... since that b'racha begins with "baruch" and ends with "baruch"...

It would be strange in this context, which is directly related to the bounds of the requisite kavana, to state those bounds imprecisely.


 

I would note that the Aruch Hashulchan goes on to explain why, following in the footsteps of the Ram"a, he does not believe this halacha is widely applicable.

Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe vol. 8, Orach Chayim 24:8 discusses the closely related question of whether the opening (this one) and closing ("...יהיו לרצון") verses that surround sh'mone esre must be said at all (לעיכובא). He holds that in this day and age - when there are no karbanos - they must. In principle, not saying either of those lines would call for one repeating everything from that point on (though this applies differently to the closing pasuk than the opening one).

From the 3rd page, righthand column:

אבל פשוט שמי שטעה בתפלתו באופן שצריך לחזור לראש כשהוא עדיין עומד בתפילה,‏ שלא עקר רגליו,‏ שלא יצטרך לחזור אלא לתחלת ברכה ראשונה שהוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳",‏ לא מ"ה׳ שפתי".‏ מאחר דהתפילה עצמה מתחלת בברכה ראשונה שהוא מריש הברכה,‏ שהתחלתה הוא מ"ברוך אתה ה׳" דברכת אבות.‏

Obviously somebody who erred in his t'fila in a way that requires him to return "to the beginning" while still standing in t'fila [mode], having not moved [from his position], would only need to return to the beginning of the first b'racha, i.e. "ברוך אתה ה", not [to] "ה', שפתי".

So if one were to have to repeat that prefatory pasuk it would be for its own sake, and not because it is part of the first b'racha.

Further on, he explores the hypothetical situation in which an audience member is relying on the sh'liach tzibur to recite the amida by proxy, as opposed to the common practice today of listening intently to the repetition thereof after having discharged each of our personal obligations ourselves. He assumes that even those who are not well enough versed to say the whole amida could still learn or repeat word-for-word the verse in question, and that they would do so right before the repetition. However. . .

‏ ואם היה מזדמן אחד שגם לומר עם אחר לא היה יכול לומר אף רק פסוק זה,‏ היה פטור מטעם אונם.‏

If there were a person who was unable to say even this sole pasuk [by repeating after] another person, they would be exempt due to [the technical exemption from obligations that arises in the presence of uncontrollable external] forces.

While this does not address saying the words without intent, he seems to be setting the bar very low for what qualifies as prepending "...ה', שפתי" - i.e. repeating another person's words after them. Even if one were required to have some level of intent in saying that line (e.g. knowing that it was one's gateway to t'fila in a general sense) the requirement would be dissociated from the reason making intent during the first b'racha a sine qua non.

    Post Deleted by WAF
1
source | link

It does not appear that those who stated or held this rule assumed the prefatory pasuk to be included in the requirement to have intent while saying the words. The clearest indication of this lack of assumption I have found is the Aruch Hashulchan in Orach Chayim 101:1, who says in passing that the first b'racha begins and ends with the word "ברוך".

המתפלל צריך שיכוין בכל הברכות. ואם אינו יכול לכוין בכולם – לפחות יכוין באבות ... משום דברכה זו מתחלת ב"ברוך" ומסיימת ב"ברוך"

The supplicant(?) needs to have intent during all of the b'rachos. And if one is not able to have intent for all of them at least have intent for Avos (the first b'racha) ... since that b'racha begins with "baruch" and ends with "baruch"...

It would be strange in this context, which is directly related to the bounds of the requisite kavana, to state those bounds imprecisely.


I would note that the Aruch Hashulchan goes on to explain why, following in the footsteps of the Ram"a, he does not believe this halacha is widely applicable.