Q&A: Answering Amen after One's Own Blessing
Answering Amen after One's Own Blessing
Question
I was asked in the following language: "A case occurred with a Torah reader who received an aliyah to the Torah, and before he began reading he answered Amen after his own blessing (by mistake). Does he have to recite the blessing again because this counts as an interruption, or not?
[The basis of the question is that it is explained in the Mishnah Berurah, siman 215, se'if katan 1, that one who answers Amen after his own blessing in a blessing over a commandment recites the blessing again because it is an interruption. And it is also explained in siman 140 that if one goes up to the Torah and recites the blessing, then interrupts before they begin reading, this is considered an interruption and he recites the blessing again. See there. If so, seemingly the same should apply here, or perhaps there is room to distinguish.]
We would be very grateful if his honor would rule for us on this, since I did not find it stated explicitly in this exact case, and several people have said this way and that way, and may it be His will."
And I answered,
First, it is appropriate to cite the words of the Shulchan Arukh regarding responding in general. There Maran wrote (104:8): "After he finishes the eighteen blessings, before 'My God, guard my tongue,' he may respond to Kaddish, Kedushah, and Barekhu." However, it is explained in the Shulchan Arukh (122:1) that this is only after he has said "May the words of my mouth be acceptable," and this is its wording: "If he wants to interrupt and answer Kaddish and Kedushah between the Amidah and 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable,' he may not interrupt, for 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable' is part of the prayer; but between 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable' and the other supplications, it is permissible." And the Rema commented: "And this is specifically in places where the custom is to say 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable' immediately after the prayer. But in places where the custom is to say supplications before 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable,' one also interrupts for Kaddish and Kedushah. And in these places the custom is to interrupt in 'My God, guard my tongue' before 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable,' and therefore they also interrupt for Kedushah and Kaddish and Barekhu (his own words according to the explanation of Rashba brought by the Beit Yosef)." Based on this the Mishnah Berurah wrote (104, se'if katan 30): "After he finishes—that is, he also said 'May the words of my mouth be acceptable' before 'My God, guard my tongue,' for otherwise it is forbidden to interrupt as written in siman 122, and this is what the Rema alluded to when he wrote: 'see below, siman 122.'"
In your question we find a major dispute. Many noted that he should not respond now to Kedushah, so that he will be able to return to the blessing of the years, because according to their view, if he answers Kedushah, it is as though he uprooted his feet, since Kedushah is not part of the Amidah (Sho'el U'Meshiv, first edition, 3:169; Responsa Shevet HaLevi 3:11, 5:23, 10:17). And some explained that the reason he should not answer Kedushah now is that since his law is now to return to the blessing of the years, we therefore view him as currently standing in the blessing of the years. And in that place—the blessing of the years—he is forbidden to answer Kedushah. Therefore, when he is in 'My God, guard my tongue,' he should not answer Kedushah in a case where he erred in the blessing of the years (Emek Berakhah, Prayer 1; Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky in the book Da'at Noteh p. 301 in the name of the Chazon Ish; and Rabbi Nissim Karelitz in the book Chut Shani, Prayer, p. 201). See also the book Si'ach Mordechai (siman 1, end of ch. 2) on this.
The main practical difference between the reasons is in a case where he erred and answered Kedushah. According to the reason of Sho'el U'Meshiv, he must now return to the beginning of the prayer. But according to the reason of the Chazon Ish—that he is considered as standing in the blessing of the years—his status is like one who spoke by mistake in the middle of the Amidah, which does not invalidate it after the fact, and according to this reason, in the book Chut Shani (ibid.), even if he answered Kedushah, he must now return to the blessing of the years (and not to the beginning of the Amidah). It is also written that he should not answer in Responsa Yabia Omer (5, Orah Hayyim 13, sec. 3), see there.
However, we find another approach: that he may answer Kedushah there, on condition that he has already said "May the words of my mouth be acceptable" (as is customary, before 'My God, guard my tongue'). Afterward he returns to the blessing of the years. This is what Responsa Igrot Moshe wrote (Orah Hayyim 3:56): since he has not diverted his mind from the supplications, it is not considered as though he uprooted his feet. So too wrote Responsa Matat Yado (2:15) and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Halikhot Shlomo (Prayer 8:39), and this is the wording of Halikhot Shlomo: "If he erred regarding saying 'Give dew and rain,' or forgot 'May there rise and come,' and he is in the middle of 'My God, guard my tongue,' he may answer Kaddish and Kedushah." In our case, he would then return to the blessing of the years. According to their view, then, he may answer, and if he answered he certainly does not return to the beginning of the prayer. But since we saw above that some disagree, they therefore noted that passive omission is preferable, and ideally he should remain silent.
However, if he did answer, he returns to the blessing of the years (and not to the beginning), and this also seems implied in Responsa Yagel Yaakov (22). See also Responsa Eretz Tzvi (1:23) and the book Mevaser Tov (Blessings, vol. 1, siman 7).
And I saw that Rabbi A. Zakai wrote in the book Prayer and Its Laws (vol. 1, 21:40): "If he erred and said 'Bless us' and remembered in the middle of 'My God, guard my tongue,' and meanwhile the prayer leader reached Kaddish or Kedushah, even though generally one may answer Kaddish and Kedushah in the middle of 'My God, guard my tongue,' since the main prayer has ended, nevertheless in this case one should rule that he should not answer Kaddish or Kedushah. For if he answers, it turns out that he has revealed his intention that he has completely finished his prayer, since in the middle of the prayer one may not answer Kaddish and Kedushah. If so, he would have to return to the beginning of the prayer because of the request for dew and rain. Therefore passive omission is preferable: he should remain silent and direct his attention to the Kedushah or Kaddish recited by the prayer leader, and afterward return to 'Bless us.'" See also Responsa Mishneh Halakhot (6:26).
As we wrote at the outset, the book Piskei Teshuvot on the Mishnah Berurah also ruled this way (104, sec. 16): "Passive omission is preferable, and therefore when one gets into such a situation it is preferable that he remain silent and listen, like one standing in the middle of the Amidah. But even if he answered verbally, he does not return to the beginning of the prayer but to the blessing in which he erred"—that is, he must return to the blessing of the years.
The practical conclusion: one who forgot—or erred in the blessing of the years—and is in 'My God, guard my tongue,' should not answer Kedushah; rather he should remain silent (and focus on the prayer leader). If he did answer, he returns to the blessing of the years (and not to the beginning of the prayer).
I would be very glad for his honor's comments on my words.
Answer
I did not understand the connection between the opening question and the discussion afterward about someone who erred in the blessing of the years.
In the first question, it seems to me from simple reasoning that one who answers Amen after his own blessing is not considered to have made an interruption. True, they wrote that it is unbecoming, but I do not know why the Pri Megadim and the Mishnah Berurah see this as an interruption. This is a statement of the same kind as the subject at hand, which is not an interruption, and it makes no difference whether it is unnecessary or even unbecoming. Incidentally, the blessings over Torah study themselves, in my opinion, are not blessings over a commandment but blessings of praise, and there is much evidence for this (although, as is known, there is a dispute about it), but this is not the place to elaborate. And when one goes up to the Torah, the wording of the two blessings clearly indicates that these are blessings of praise. By simple reasoning, it seems that with a blessing of praise there is less issue of interruption than with blessings over commandments, which are recited immediately before performing them.
As for the second question, I do not know how to decide between the positions and the reasonings. But by simple reasoning it does not seem to me that if he interrupted, he is considered like one standing in the blessing of the years, where one does not answer Kedushah. This whole interruption is the interruption in 'My God, guard my tongue,' and afterward he returns to the blessing of the years. Either way, it seems obvious that because of the doubt he should not answer.
Discussion on Answer
Yes, I understood by implication that this was the question. I just didn't understand what connection it had to the opening question.
Now I was thinking regarding a blessing in vain, that seemingly there is room to discuss this in light of the well-known Ritva in Hullin (115?) who discusses whether there is an obligation "to save blessings"—for example, if someone recited a blessing and now does not want to eat, is he required to eat in order to save a blessing that was unnecessary. His conclusion is that there is no obligation to eat, and seemingly there is no obligation to save blessings. That is, there is a prohibition against reciting an unnecessary blessing, but there is no prohibition against bringing upon oneself an additional obligation of blessings if, at the time he originally recited the blessing, he acted properly and only afterward the problem arose.
As I recall, from the plain wording it sounds as though in his opinion this is not an unnecessary blessing at all, so one cannot infer from his words that there is no obligation to save a blessing. On the contrary, it seems that if it were an unnecessary blessing, there would indeed be an obligation to save it.
Still, with regard to our case this needs discussion, because if he answers Kedushah he is obligating himself in blessings מחדש, and that seemingly has no permission in any event. On the other hand, if he acted properly and answered Kedushah, then Jewish law put him into a renewed obligation of blessings, and it is not considered unnecessary blessings. This is preferable to someone who places himself into unavoidable circumstances, because here Jewish law is what placed him into this bind. The assumption is that strictly speaking one should answer Kedushah, and the whole reason not to answer is only in order to save from an unnecessary blessing. At the moment, it seems to me that there is no need to be concerned about this.
Regarding what you wrote, that answering Amen after one's own blessing is not an interruption, this is indeed stated by Meiri in Magen Avot, topic 1. Still, one can understand the words of the Pri Megadim: that what they said—that it is not an interruption after the fact—is specifically with things needed for the matter, like "mix feed for my ox" and the like. But it is not stated that anything of the same kind as the matter at hand is not an interruption. And even the Taz, cited there in Sha'ar HaTziyun, who says that answering Amen after another's blessing is not an interruption, his argument is not that it is of the same kind as the matter at hand, since even if he answers a blessing unrelated to his own blessing it is not an interruption, as can be seen from the source of the ruling. (Incidentally, I don't know whether this makes a difference to you, but the source of the Pri Megadim's words is the Halakhot Gedolot.)
Regarding what you wrote about a blessing of praise, the Mishnah Berurah in siman 140 se'if katan 6 (and that also seems to be the Shulchan Arukh there) explains not like you, but rather that if he interrupted with words, he recites the blessing again.
Regarding what you wrote about saving a blessing, it seems clear to me that the Ritva's statement in Hullin 106b refers specifically to the blessing over washing the hands, because once he sanctified his hands he performed an act of commandment, and with that the matter is complete.
My sincere apologies, this is the question I was asked:
"We were uncertain about someone who forgot dew and rain also in the blessing 'Hear our voice,' and he is already standing in the middle of 'My God, guard my tongue,' while the prayer leader is at Kedushah, and he answers 'Holy' and 'Blessed is the glory' with the congregation—does this count as though he already finished the Amidah and he must return to the beginning of the prayer, and perhaps because of this he should not answer Kedushah, so as not to cause a blessing in vain? Or perhaps since he is forbidden to answer other Amens during all the blessings, it is properly considered like the middle of the prayer, and he only returns to 'Bless us'?"