By Rabbi Gil Student

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.