15 Sep DO I REALLY HAVE TO REPEAT THE AMIDAH?

I. Changing the
Ending
People are familiar
with the changes to
the Amidah prayer
during Aseres Yemei
Teshuvah, the time
from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur. In
addition to four insertions, we say Ha-Melech
Ha-Kadosh and Ha-Melech Ha-Mishpat at
the end of their respective blessings. We are
also familiar with the practical consequence,
at least regarding Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh:
if you forget the change, you have to repeat
the Amidah. What is less well known is that
a significant group of Rishonim disagrees.
According to them, if you mistakenly use the

regular wording instead of Ha-Melech Ha-
Kadosh, you do not repeat the Amidah.

Before asking why they are lenient, however,
we should ask the opposite question. Why
should you have to repeat at all? You recited
a perfectly good Amidah, using the wording
that is correct almost every day of the year.
You said the third blessing and praised
Hashem’s holiness. Nothing you said was
false or inappropriate. Why should the same
Amidah that would be valid a week earlier
suddenly become invalid because you failed
to make the special change?
The primary text for this discussion is a

Gemara (Berachos 12b) which teaches that
during the ten days from Rosh Hashanah
through Yom Kippur one says Ha-Melech
Ha-Kadosh and Ha-Melech Ha-Mishpat.
It also records an opinion that even if
someone failed to use the special wording,
he still fulfills his obligation. As support, the
Gemara cites a verse (Isa. 5:16) that uses the
regular terminology for Hashem’s holiness
specifically in the context of divine judgment.
The Gemara continues with a dispute over the
proper formulations and concludes that the
halachah requires Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh and
Ha-Melech Ha-Mishpat.
Rav Yitzchak Alfasi (Rif; 11th cen., Spain)
understands the conclusion strictly. He reads
the Gemara as ruling against the opinion that
the ordinary wording remains valid after the

fact. If someone fails to say Ha-Melech Ha-
Kadosh, he does not fulfill his obligation (Rif,

ad loc.).
Rambam (12th cen., Egypt) rules explicitly
this way. During the ten days from Rosh
Hashanah through Yom Kippur, if a person
mistakenly concludes the third blessing
without the special wording, he returns to the
beginning of the Amidah (Mishneh Torah,
Hilchos Tefillah 10:13). But that interpretation
is disputed.
II. The Change is Only Preferred
Rav Zerachyah Halevi (Baal Ha-Maor; 12th

cen., Provence) offers perhaps the clearest
formulation of the lenient position. He reads
the Gemara’s conclusion as telling us what
to do lechatchilah, preferably. During Aseres

Yemei Teshuvah, the proper wording is Ha-
Melech Ha-Kadosh. But if someone fails to

make the change, “we do not send him back”
(Commentary to Rif, ad loc.). He explains
that the two positions in the Gemara disagree
about what to do initially. Both agree that
after the fact, if you say the regular ending,
you can continue.
Ramban (13th cen., Israel) strongly rejects
this reading. He argues that the structure of
the discussion indicates that there is a genuine
dispute over whether the ordinary formulation
remains valid (Milchamos Hashem, ad loc.).
Still, Baal Ha-Maor is an early lenient view.
He distinguishes between the obligation
to pray and the obligation to emphasize
Hashem’s kingship during this period of
judgment. Both obligations are binding but
failure to do the latter does not erase the
prayer that was actually recited. Similarly,
Talmidei Rabbenu Yonah (ad loc.) quote the
sages of France who rule likewise.
Rav Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi (Raavyah; 13th
cen., Germany) develops the lenient position
further. He writes that a person who forgets
the special wording “did not say something
erroneous but rather failed to mention
kingship.” In other words, the basic
blessing remains intact. What is missing
is the special reference to Hashem’s
kingship required during these days. He
compares this to other seasonal additions
whose omission does not invalidate the
underlying prayer (Raavyah, Berachos,
par. 40).
Rav Shlomo ben Aderes (Rashba; 13th
cen., Spain) considers this view seriously
as well. However, he ultimately rejects
it, arguing that the Gemara’s language
implies a genuine dispute over validity, not
merely over the ideal wording (Rashba,
Berachos 12b).
III. Addition vs. Modification
We see a debate whether someone who
neglects to change the end of the blessing
to Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh must repeat the
whole prayer. The underlying disagreement

may be about the status of Ha-Melech Ha-
Kadosh within the Amidah.

One possibility is that it is essentially a
seasonal modification. The third berachah
remains the same blessing of Hashem’s
sanctity. During Aseres Yemei Teshuvah,
we must express an additional theme:
Hashem is the King who sits in judgment.
According to this approach, the special
wording is mandatory lechatchilah,
initially, but its omission need not
undermine the underlying Amidah. You
were supposed to emphasize divine
kingship and failed to do so but you still
recited the entire prayer. We are familiar
with this concept elsewhere in the Amidah:

additions that must be said because of the
particular day or season, whose omission can
be a real mistake without meaning that the
entire prayer was never recited. If Ha-Melech
Ha-Kadosh functions similarly, the lenient
Rishonim are easy to understand: Aseres
Yemei Teshuvah adds something to the
Amidah, and forgetting that addition leaves
the basic Amidah intact.
The stricter position understands the change
differently. During Aseres Yemei Teshuvah,
we do not recite Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh as
merely a seasonal addition to the ordinary
prayer. It is the prescribed matbei’a, the
official form of the blessing for these ten

days. If that is the case, failing to say Ha-
Melech Ha-Kadosh is more than just omitting

a seasonal thought; it is deviating from the
formula the Sages established for the blessing
at this particular time of year.
To put it differently, the lenient view sees
continuity: this is still the regular third blessing,
with an important seasonal modification
emphasizing Hashem’s kingship. We are
required to make the change, but failure to
do so does not mean that no valid blessing
was said. The strict view sees a new required
formulation: during these ten days, the Sages
established Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh as the
proper ending of this berachah, and once that
becomes the required form, failing to use it
is a deviation from the formal structure of
the Amidah, not merely the omission of an
addition.
IV. In Practice
Rabbenu Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh; 14th cen.,
Germany-Spain) follows the strict approach.
His son, Rav Ya’akov (Ba’al Ha-Turim; 14th
cen., Spain) records the dispute between
Raavyah and the stricter authorities but rules
in accordance with his father, the Rif and
Rambam (Tur, Orach Chaim 582).
Rav Yosef Karo (16th cen., Israel), in his Beis
Yosef (ad loc.), concludes that because the
Rif, Rambam and Rosh all require repetition,
this is the ruling that we must follow. He then
codifies it unequivocally in the Shulchan
Aruch: during Aseres Yemei Teshuvah one
says Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh, and if a person
failed to make the change, he returns to the
beginning of the Amidah (Shulchan Aruch,
Orach Chaim 582:1).
The subsequent major halachic codes
follow this ruling. The discussion among
the Rishonim therefore does not change the
practical halachah. Someone who forgets
Ha-Melech Ha-Kadosh in the circumstances
described by the codes must repeat the
Amidah. But the rejected view helps us
understand how we reached this conclusion.