Sources:
It is well known what Maran the Shulchan Aruch ruled in Orach Chaim, siman 582: “During the Ten Days of Repentance, one says HaMelech HaKadosh, etc.; and if he erred or is uncertain, etc., he returns to the beginning.” End quote. In Eshel Avraham of Butchatch there, siman 582 (s.v. sham, and s.v. hameharher), he wrote a novel distinction: if, while saying, “Mi kamocha Av haRachaman zocher yetzurav b’rachamim l’chayim,” he thought that he would later say “HaMelech HaKadosh,” and when he reached Birkat HaShanim he was uncertain whether he had said HaMelech HaKadosh or HaKel HaKadosh, we say that he presumably said HaMelech HaKadosh, since he resolved, near in time to the blessing of Atah Kadosh, to say HaMelech HaKadosh; see there. However, Maran Malka zt”l, in the responsa Yabia Omer, vol. 7, Orach Chaim, siman 51, section 3, differed with him. The proof for this is as follows (with somewhat greater explanation): an ordinary person who says “Mi kamocha Av haRachaman” naturally has in mind that shortly he will say “HaMelech HaKadosh.” If so, we would have to establish the above ruling of Maran the Shulchan Aruch—that one who is uncertain whether he said HaMelech HaKadosh returns to the beginning—as referring only to a case where he also forgot “Mi kamocha,” or where he said “Mi kamocha” without thinking at all about what follows. It is very forced to say that the Shulchan Aruch refers only to these situations, for his words were stated anonymously and generally.
Nevertheless, it may still be said that all this applies only where he thought to say “HaMelech HaKadosh” while still in the blessing of Mechayeh HaMetim, as commonly occurs when reciting Mi kamocha. But if he had already reached the blessing of Ve’Atah Kadosh and there thought about saying HaMelech HaKadosh, perhaps the Shulchan Aruch was not discussing this case and would indeed agree that if he subsequently became uncertain whether he said HaMelech HaKadosh, he need not repeat, since he was in that very blessing. Yet we find that Maran the Chida, in Al Birkei Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 422, se’if katan 3, cited Mahar”i Molcho zt”l in a handwritten responsum, siman 75, who wrote concerning Ya’aleh VeYavo on Rosh Chodesh that one who remembered during the blessing of Retzeh that it was Rosh Chodesh, and after completing his prayer was uncertain whether he had said Ya’aleh VeYavo, repeats the prayer. Although he remembered during Retzeh that it was Rosh Chodesh, we say that he immediately forgot again, followed his habitual wording, and did not say Ya’aleh VeYavo. End quote. Maran the Chida ruled accordingly in his work Kesher Godel, siman 21, section 8. Although the Taz and many other great and distinguished authorities disagree with this, Maran Moreinu HaRav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, in the above-cited responsa Yabia Omer, section 2, decided in accordance with the view of the Birkei Yosef. So too, regarding HaMelech HaKadosh, although he was already in the blessing of Atah Kadosh and resolved to say HaMelech HaKadosh, we say that he immediately forgot again and followed his habitual wording. Although one could distinguish between Ya’aleh VeYavo, which is a significant insertion—and thus he should have remembered whether he said it—and HaMelech HaKadosh, the poskim did not make such a distinction here, for this distinction is relevant to several other laws as well, and this is not the place to elaborate.
However, there remains room to distinguish between the blessing of Ve’Atah Kadosh in general and the actual words “Baruch Atah Hashem.” If, while saying “Baruch Atah Hashem,” the thought entered his mind that he must say “HaMelech HaKadosh,” and afterward he did not remember what occurred, it may be argued that since his thought was immediately before its implementation, it is not likely that he became distracted. Although there is no proof for this, there is a basis for it in Sanhedrin 40b concerning warning: if one gives the warning before the interval of toch kedei dibbur, it is possible that the person became distracted; whereas when the warning is given within toch kedei dibbur, there is no concern of distraction. On the other hand, we see that he later became uncertain and does not remember whether he said HaMelech HaKadosh or HaKel HaKadosh; thus, like one awakening from sleep, he has undermined the presumption of his initial intention, and it may rightly be said that he followed his habitual wording.
Perhaps the view of the Rambam may be combined here. He ruled concerning berachot over food that if one said “Baruch Atah Hashem” intending to say “Shehakol Nihyeh BiDevaro,” but said “Borei Pri HaGafen,” he has fulfilled his obligation, because what is determinative is what he intended when saying Hashem’s Name, rather than what he actually uttered. However, one may distinguish: there, the intention was for one blessing and the speech was for an entirely different blessing, and in such a case we follow the intention. Regarding HaMelech HaKadosh, however, it is the very same blessing, only it has two versions, and Chazal were particular to require one who does not say the correct version during the Ten Days of Repentance to repeat it. Therefore, for this matter, perhaps his intention is ineffective.
In conclusion, although there are reasons to distinguish between the present case, in which the questioner intended to say “HaMelech HaKadosh” in the midst of saying “Baruch Atah Hashem,” and a case where this thought arose at the beginning of Atah Kadosh, these arguments are not conclusive. Ultimately, the tenor of the responsa Yabia Omer indicates that there are no distinctions in all this; rather, as long as he does not remember, we say that he followed his habitual wording. In any case, this does not leave the realm of doubt concerning blessings: if he is within the Amidah, he cannot continue reciting further blessings while uncertain, and he must return to the beginning.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
