When in Doubt Regarding "Ve-Tein Tal U-Matar"

 

Translated by David Silverberg 

     The Yerushalmi (Ta'anit 1:1) addresses a situation where one cannot remember whether or not he recited "ve-tein tal u-matar" (the prayer inserted in the ninth berakha of Shemoneh Esrei during the winter months): 

 

"If one prayed and does not know what he inserted: Rabbi Yochanan said, until thirty days [from when the new insertion is recited], [he must assume he recited] that which he is accustomed [i.e., the former text]; from that point on, [he can assume he recited] what he is supposed to recite [i.e., the new insertion]."

 

Thus, one who finds himself in such a situation within thirty days of when he began reciting "ve-tein tal u-matar" must assume that he mistakenly recited the incorrect text - "ve-tein berakha."  Since he is still accustomed to the previous insertion, we assume he negligently forgot to recite "ve-tein tal u-matar."  After thirty days, he has already developed the habit of reciting the new insertion, and may therefore assume that he recited the appropriate insertion.

 

     The Maharam of Rothenburg drastically expanded this halakha.  The Tashbetz (Tashbetz Katan, 225) and the Tur (OC 114) cite the Maharam's practice to sit down each year on Shemini Atzeret (the day we begin reciting "mashiv ha-ru'ach u-morid ha-geshem) and recite ninety times, "atah gibor le-olam...mashiv ha-ru'ach u-morid ha-geshem."  Since, as we have seen, after thirty days one can rightfully assume that his mouth has been trained to recite the new text, the same effect can be achieved by repeating the new formula ninety times - the number of times the text is recited over the course of a thirty-day period. 

 

The Maharam cited as his source a Gemara in Bava Kama (24) regarding the responsibilities of an owner for the misbehavior of his ox.  An ox that gores three times - called a "shor mu'ad" - renders more stringent penalty upon its owner than does a first- or second-time offender.  The Gemara cites the view of Rabbi Meir, that although the classic case in the Torah of a "shor mu'ad" involves an ox that gores thrice over the course of three days, the ox becomes a "shor mu'ad" if it kills three times in the same day, as well.  Rabbi Meir reasons that if three killings spread out over a three-day period characterize the ox as hostile and aggressive by nature, then we certainly say so about an ox who embarks upon a bloody rampage in which he kills thrice in the same day.  Similarly, reasons the Maharam, if one can train his mouth to habitually utter the new insertion by reciting it ninety times over the course of thirty days, then certainly he can develop the habit by reciting it ninety times in a single sitting.  Thus, if one did sit down and recite the new insertion - be it "mashiv ha-ru'ach," "ve-tein tal u-matar," etc. - ninety times, then whenever a doubt arises subsequently, he may assume that he inserted the proper text and need not repeat the Shemoneh Esrei out of doubt.

 

     Rabbenu Peretz (cited by the glosses to the Tashbetz Katan and in the Tur, quoted above) takes issue with this custom of the Maharam, noting first and foremost his observation of the older generation of rabbis in France who never had such a practice.  Regarding the ox, contends Rabbenu Peretz, the halakha requires a determination that the ox is accustomed the goring.  In our case, by contrast, "the issue is dependent upon the development of his mouth's habit, when his mouth has been accustomed as part of his prayer, when he begins the prayer properly," from the beginning of Shemoneh Esrei.  This routine cannot be acquired without reciting the new insertion in context, within the Shemoneh Esrei, ninety times; reciting merely the isolated phrase does not suffice.

 

     A careful reading of Rabbenu Peretz [the reader is encouraged to read the passage in its original source] reveals two different arguments against the Maharam's practice.  First, one must distinguish between the development of habit of speech and the determination of the hostile nature of an ox.  Secondly, repeating a small excerpt from Shemoneh Esrei does not acquire one the habitual recitation of the new insert when reciting the entire Shemoneh Esrei.

 

     The halakhic underpinnings of this dispute between the Maharam and Rabbenu Peretz may be explained through a careful analysis of the Maharam's source - the halakha concerning the ox.

 

     The law demanding stricter penalty upon the owner of an ox after three instances of goring may be understood in two ways.  The triple offense may simply disclose the true character of the ox.  An ox that has killed three times has demonstrated that he is by nature belligerent.  Alternatively, the three offenses may mark the establishment of a pattern; now that the ox has developed the habit of killing, we can expect similar behavior in the future.

 

     The critical difference between these two perspectives involves our retrospective assessment of the ox's condition prior to the third goring.  According to the first view, now that the ox has gored three times we retroactively classify the ox as aggressive and hostile even before the third incident.  The ox has always been violent; we just did not know it until it killed three times.  The second perspective, however, maintains that only after the third goring does the ox develop the habit of killing.

 

     Rav Shimon Shkop zt"l (Bava Kama, chapter 33) suggested that herein lies the dispute between the Maharam and Rabbenu Peretz.  Rabbenu Peretz presumably adopts the first approach, that the three incidents of goring bring out the ox's true colors and inform us that it had been unduly aggressive all the while.  Therefore, Rabbenu Peretz rejects any comparison between this area of halakha and the development of habitual recitation.  The ox's killings REVEAL his true nature; the recitation of the "ve-tein tal u-matar" is meant to ESTABLISH a pattern of behavior from here on in. (A similar explanation for Rabbenu Peretz's position is implied by the Mahari Abuhav, cited by the Bet Yosef.)

 

     The Maharam, by contrast, evidently views the triple goring as the establishment of a mode of behavior, not the manifestation of a preexisting tendency.  It can therefore legitimately serve as a model for other cases where a pattern is to be established, such as regarding "ve-tein tal u-matar" and the like.

 

     Working within the opinion of the Maharam, the Taz calls into question the Maharam's equation between a thirty-day period and a ninety-time repetition.  A thirty-day period requires the recitation of "mashiv ha-ru'ach" more than ninety times!  After all, there is an extra mussaf recited every Shabbat and Yom Tov.  How, then, could the Maharam require the repetition of "mashiv ha-ru'ach" on Shemini Atzeret only ninety times?  He answers simply, that since in general every day features three tefillot, the thirty-day period can be translated into ninety recitations.  Thus, suggests the Taz, the converse would also be true.  An individual may assume to have established his routine after thirty days even if during the interim he missed a prayer or forgot to recite "mashiv ha-ru'ach" and never repeated Shemoneh Esrei.

 

     The Taz then proceeds to pose a far more powerful challenge to the Maharam's position.  As explained, the Maharam based his contention upon the Gemara's comment that just as we consider the ox inherently hostile when it gores three times over a three day period, so does it attain this status after three incidents within the same day.  However, this is the position of Rabbi Meir.  We follow the position of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that an ox attains the status of "shor mu'ad" only when it gores three times over the course of three days!  How, then, could the Maharam have derived his position from an opinion not accepted as normative halakha?  The Taz thus concludes, "Based on what I have asked, I don't know how one can rely on Rabbi Meir's position in this regard."

 

     One answer may be provided by the Bach, who addresses Rabbenu Peretz's aforementioned objection to the Maharam's practice.  Recall that Rabbenu Peretz challenged the comparison the Maharam draws between the recitation of "mashiv ha-ru'ach" and the rendering of an ox as inherently hostile.  The Bach defends the position of the Maharam, claiming that the Maharam never intended to base himself on the Gemara regarding the ox; he merely introduced that Gemara as an example or additional manifestation of the principle he posits.  If so, then we can answer the Taz's question, as well.

 

     The Magen Avraham, however, who also asked the Taz's question, attempts a more ambitious answer:

 

"There [regarding the ox] we say [according to Rabbi Yehuda, who requires a three-day period] that on that day the ox was merely overcome by some abnormality... In our case, however, if one is considered to be accustomed when he recites them over the course of a lengthy period, then certainly this is so if he recites them in immediate succession… Even though we do not follow Rabbi Meir's position with regard to the ox, in this respect we accept his view."

 

     In other words, we accept Rabbi Meir's assertion that if a pattern can be established over the course of an extended period, then it may certainly develop within a shorter time frame.  We reject not this principle itself but rather its application to the case of a goring ox.  If an ox gores thrice in a single day, we may assume that some temporary, peculiar rage overtook the animal and expressed itself in unconstrained behavior.  Three incidents in one day thus reveal nothing about the ox's general tendency.  Regarding the recitation of "ve-tein tal u-matar," by contrast, we may apply Rabbi Meir's thesis.  If one accustoms his tongue a certain way over the course of thirty days, then certainly this effect can be achieved by reciting the text ninety times all at once.  (Rav Kook offered a similar explanation.)

 

     Based on our previous discussion, we may take the Magen Avraham's discussion one step further.  As he posited, Rabbi Yehuda - whose position we adopt - may agree with Rabbi Meir on the fundamental issue that a pattern established over an extended period may all the more so be established within a shorter period.  Their argument revolves around our previous question regarding the process of becoming a "shor mu'ad."  Rabbi Meir maintains that after three instances of goring, the ox has developed a tendency of habitual hostility, which may potentially govern his behavior from here on in (the second understanding suggested above).  Therefore, it makes no difference whether these three incidents occur over the course of three days or in a single day; either way, the habit has been developed.  Rabbi Yehuda, however, contends that the three instances of goring reveal a previous condition of hostility.  Therefore, a single day of excessive goring cannot demonstrate any aggressive tendency - his behavior on that day may have resulted from some temporary mental disturbance.

 

     What about Rabbenu Peretz, who disputed the Maharam's comparison between the ox and "ve-tein tal u-matar"?  How would he understand the argument between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda?

 

     Perhaps we may explain Rabbenu Peretz's disagreement with the Maharam as follows:

 

     Rabbi Meir's position, that an ox can become a "shor umu'ad" even in a single day, makes two assumptions:

 

1)     The establishment of a pattern is more certain when the incidents occur in shorter proximity to one other.

2)     The ox develops a tendency to habitual violence over the course of three instances of goring; we consider him dangerous from here on in, rather than having demonstrated a preexisting condition (the second possibility raised above).

 

Rabbi Yehuda (the accepted position), who disputes Rabbi Meir' view, presumably rejects one of these two assumptions.  It would seem that the Maharam and Rabbenu Peretz argue precisely on this point - which of Rabbi Meir's assumptions is rejected.  Rabbenu Peretz maintains that Rabbi Yehuda objects to the first assumption (at least; he may object to the second, as well).  In his view, patterns are established only over extended periods, not within smaller timeframes.  Therefore, the fact that one develops a habit of recitation over the course of thirty days does not mean that one achieves the same effect through the same number of recitations in a single sitting.  The Maharam, as explained, feels that Rabbi Yehuda rejects Rabbi Meir's second assumption only.  A pattern established over longer periods may be established within shorter periods, as well.  However, this principle is of no relevance in the context of the goring ox, where a single day of multiple incidents of violence may very well be attributed to a temporary disorder.  The principle may, however, be applied to other areas of halakha requiring the establishment of a pattern.

 

     As far as the final halakha is concerned, we follow the opinion of the Maharam (Shulchan Aruch OC 114:9; M.B.).  However, so as to overcome the second problem raised by Rabbenu Peretz - that the ninety-time repetition does not establish a pattern within the context of an entire Shemoneh Esrei - one must begin one sentence before "ve-tein tal u-matar": "ve-et kol minei tevu'ata le-tova ve-tein tal u-matar."  Sefaradim, who recite an entirely different text for this berakha, should recite: "rofei cholei amo Yisrael; barekh aleinu..." (heard from Rav Mordechai Eliyahu).

 

     As noted above, one recites "mashiv ha-ru'ach" more than ninety times over the course of a month, since on Shabbat and Yom Tov we add a mussaf prayer.  The Chatam Sofer (Responsa, OC 20) thus suggests that the Yerushalmi, which posited that a pattern is established over the course of thirty-days, intended that one must recite the given text 101 times to develop habitual recitation (as "mashiv ha-ru'ach" is recited around 101 times in a month; see his responsum for the precise calculation).  He adds that the Yerushalmi bases itself on Chazal's well-known dictum, "One who reviews his studies 101 times is different from one who reviews the material only one hundred times."  Specifically 101 repetitions are required to establish permanent memory and habit.