Forgetting V’Sein Tal/Yaaleh V’Yavo on Rosh Chodesh

hero image

On Rosh Chodesh during the winter, what is the halacha if someone forgot to say v’sein tal u’matar, and when he repeated Shmoneh Esrei, he forgot yaaleh v’yavo? In Brachos (26b) there is a machlokes Rishonim brought down in Tosafos and the Rosh regarding someone who forgot to say yaaleh v’yavo in Mincha of Rosh Chodesh, and only realized after nightfall.  By then, it was no longer Rosh Chodesh.  One shitah holds that there is no reason to daven a tefilas tashlumin (a make-up Shmoneh Esrei which immediately follows the one he is currently davening), because what will he gain by doing that?  The whole reason he needs to daven again is in order to get the missed yaaleh v’yavo, and he is not going to get that since tashlumin is always the same Shmoneh Esrei as that of the current tefillah.  The other shitah, though, says that having missed yaaleh v’yavo is as if he did not daven, and he must daven a tefilas tashlumin to make up for that lost tefillah. The first shitah holds that missing yaaleh v’yavo is not as if you didn’t daven.  Yaaleh v’yavo, according to the first shitah, was not enacted as an inherent part of the Shmoneh Esrei; rather, it is a separate obligation of b’chol yom v’yom tein lo mei’ein birchosav – a requirement to mention mei’ein ha’meorah, the specialness of that particular day.

To sharpen the point, consider the following question.  In general, when one has to daven again because of forgetting yaaleh v’yavo, is he allowed to eat before davening again?  The answer is that it depends if he is considered to have already davened or not.  According to the first shitah, it makes sense to say that he is allowed to eat since he davened already, just he has a chiyuv to daven again in order to facilitate the recitation of yaaleh v’yavo.  Whereas according to the second shitah that it is as if he has not davened, then the issur of lo sochlu al ha’dam should still apply. Another nafka minah that sharpens the point: when someone forgot yaaleh v’yavo, are all the brachos of his first Shmoneh Esrei l’vatalah?  According to the first shitah no, and according to the second shitah yes.

There is a maaseh that Rav Meir Soloveitchik once forgot yaaleh v’yavo on Shabbos.  His father, the Brisker Rav said to him, “Nu, so now you have another seven brachos towards your meiah brachos.”  Such “offhanded” comments from the Brisker Rav contained hilchesah gevirtah.  What he meant is this, that the brachos are not l’vatalah (like the first shitah); although there is a chiyuv to daven again in order to be able to say yaaleh v’yavo, it doesn’t mean that the first teffilah was not a teffilah, it was. It would seem, then, that the above case of someone who forgot v’sein tal u’matar the first time around and yaaleh v’yavo the second time around, is going to be subject to this machlokes.  According to the second opinion, he will for sure have to daven a third time – since each time he missed something which is l’ikuvah it is as if he did not daven; and according to the first opinion he should not have to daven again since he already fulfilled his obligation of mei’ein ha’meorah in the first Shmoneh Esrei, and now, in the second one he said v’sein tal u’matar.

However, that is not so pashut. In Chiddushei Ha’Grach (stencils) it says that someone who forgot v’sein tal u’matar in Mincha of Erev Shabbos – and only realized his mistake after nightfall – must daven two Maariv’s.  Why?  Harei, according to the first shitah in Tosafos we should ostensibly say, “What does he stand to gain?!  He is now holding by Maariv of Shabbos in which there is no v’sein tal u’matar, so his tashlumin will not make up for what he lost?!  The reasoning that Reb Chaim gives is, “because he was meshaneh mi’matbeiah sheh’tavu Chachamim.”  In other words, v’sein tal u’matar is not an extraneous hazkarah, it was enacted as an essential part of the actual Shmoneh Esrei.  Therefore, when one forgets v’sein tal u’matar, his requirement to re-daven Shmoneh Esrei is not just in order to be able to say the hazkarah of tal u’matar; rather, it is the din teffilah itself that requires him to daven again.  This is in contrast to yaaleh v’yavo which the first shitah holds is not part of the teffilah itself, but just and added hazkarah of mei’ein ha’meorah.

That being the case, one could posit that everyone would agree that in the aforementioned scenario (of forgetting tal u’matar the first time around and yaaleh v’yavo the second time around) that he has to daven a third time since the context in which he said yaaleh v’yavo the first time around was deficient. However, there is room to argue that even according to Reb Chaim, he does not have to daven a third time (according to the first shitah).  How is that?  It is as follows.  What is the halacha if someone forgot v’sein tal u’matar in Bareich Aleinu and remembered in the middle of Shma Koleinu?  The din is that he says the bakasha of v’sein tal u’matar right there in Shma Koleinu!  Now, what if he forgot the entire bracha of Bareich Aleinu – or any other bracha for that matter – can he make it up in Shma Koleinu?  For sure not!  There is no question that if someone omitted a bracha, he has thereby ruined the Shmoneh Esrei and it cannot be “fixed” by inserting it into Shma Koleinu.  A Shmoneh Esrei has to be a Shmoneh Esrei, and without all the brachos, it simply isn’t.  What we see, then, from the fact that v’sein tal u’matar can be made up in Shma Koleinu, is that the omission of v’sein tal u’matar from Bareich Aleinu does not make it as if you are now missing that bracha.  The bracha is still in place, just you still have a chiyuv to say v’sein tal u’matar. What could come out, then, is that what Reb Chaim means is that when one omits v’sein tal u’matar (completely), the requirement to daven again is because he does not have a kiyum of teffilah, he did not fulfill his obligation of davening a proper Shmoneh Esrei.  However, it could nevertheless be that it was still in fact a cheftzah of teffilah; the Shmoneh Esrei that he davened did not become null and void, and therefore may well be a valid enough of a context in which he could fulfill his obligation of mei’ein ha’meorah of yaaleh v’yavo.
(Audio recording)

Provided courtesy of