Halachah: And this is the Halachah.

Qualification: Some texts conclude - that is confined to in town, but someone who is travelling, is permitted ...

Source: As is implied above (on Daf 3:) regarding (the episode concerning) Rebbi Yossi.

Implied Question: And what we learned in the first Perek of Nidah (8:) that 'The whole year round one should Daven the full Amidah, except for on Motza'ei Yom Kipur'.

Answer: That is in order not to trouble the community, following the fast.

Alternative Opinion: Others however, maintain that one Davens the full Amidah, seeing as one needs to insert Havdalah in 'Chonen ha'Da'as'.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask (there too) 'Let us include it in Havinenu?'

Answer: It is not comparable, since there the whole year round one Davens the full Amidah; We cannot therefore ask 'Include it in Havineinu?' as this would mean changing the Minhag of the whole year.

Answer: (cont.): Whereas here, where the whole year round, one Davens 'Havineinu', the Gemara is justified in asking why we need to change the Minhag of the whole year, on account of 'Atah Chonantanu', why not include it in 'Havineinu'.

Source: As the Gemara will say later (Daf 31.) 'One may request one's needs in Shome'a Tefilah'.

Qualification: Specifically one's needs - such as where one has a sick person in the house, or where one's field needs water, as this is similar to 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Qualification (cont.): But mentioning an occasion. Havdalah or other praises, is forbidden, as that is not similar to 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Halachah: It seems that anyone who says 'Baruch Atah Hash-m, Shome'a Tefilah', after concluding words of supplication 'sitting down', is despicable ...

Halachah (cont.): As the Gemara says in Megilah (18.) 'Beyond that (the B'rachos that Chazal fixed) it is forbidden to speak the praises of Hash-m (i.e. to add B'rachos over and above those).

Halachah (cont.): And even to repeat the Amidah a second time is forbidden, as this too, appears like adding to the B'rachos.

Implied Question: And as for that what we learned above (on Daf 21.) 'Would that a person would Daven all day long!'

Answer: That speaks specifically about someone who is not sure whether he has already Davened or not; But with regard to somebody who has, we established earlier, he is obligated to stop even in the middle of a B'rachah - like the opinion of Shmuel in Perek Mi she'Meiso (Ibid.)

Implied Question: And the fact that the Shali'ach Tzibur repeats the Amidah ...

Answer: Is only to render the community Yotzei their obligation.

Implied Question: And the reason that we then Daven the silent Amidah ...

Answer: Is in order to enable the Chazen to prepare his Tefilah ...

Source: 'As the Gemara says in the last Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (34:).

Clarification: In which case, he definitely needs to go back.

Halachah: If however, he has not yet taken three steps back, he does not need to start again, nor even to go back to Birchas ha'Shanim.

Proof: And so is implied in the Yerushalmi in 'Ein Omdin' - which states that 'Somebody who failed to ask for rain in Birchas ha'Shanim, must go back. And where does he go back to? Rebbi Shimon in the name of Rebbi Yochanan says that on Rosh Chodesh, someone who has taken three steps back must start again; If not, he goes back to Avodah.

Proof (cont.): So too in our case - if he has taken three steps back, he must start again; If not, he goes back to 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Conclusion: This clearly indicates that if he has not taken three steps back, he only needs to go back as far as 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Machlokes: However, the Yerushalmi argues with our Gemara regarding Gevuros Geshamim, since, according to our Gemara, one is required to go back to the beginning of the Amidah; and not to insert it in Shome'a Tefilah.

Machlokes (cont.): Whereas the Yerushalmi says that someone who did not ask for rain in Birchas ha'Shanim, insert it in 'Shome'a Tefilah'.

Machlokes (cont.): And similarly, someone who did not mention 'Gevuros Geshamim' by Techi'as ha'Meisim, menions it in Shome'a Tefilah ...

Reason: Because, if She'eilah, which is said when it is urgently needed, one says it in Shome'a Tefilah, how much more so, Hazkarah, which is said when it is not!

Conclusion: So we see that it explicitly says there that one inserts Gevuros Geshamim in Shome'a Tefilah.

Refutation: It may well be however, that our Gemara simply did not bother to mention (that one inserts it in Shome'a Tefilah) due to the Kal va'Chomer, as the Yerushalmi explains.

Refutation (cont.): And when it says that one goes back to the beginning, it speaks about someone who did not remember until he had taken three steps back.

Rejection of Refutation: That is not however, correct, since we establish that ruling where he remembered before 'Shome'a Tefilah', due to the Pircha from She'eilah.

Yerushalmi #1: The Yerushalmi rules that if, in the season of 'Tal' (i.e. in summer) someone mentions 'Geshem', he must go back.

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): And the Gemara asks there from a Beraisa 'By Tal and by Ruchos the Chachamim did not obligate one to mention it?

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): What the Gemara means to ask is that, just as if one dd not mention 'Tal' at all, it would not matter, whereas if he wanted to mention it, he would be permitted to do so, so too, if he was in the middle of 'Tal' and he mistakenly mentioned Geshem, it shouldn't matter either, since it cannot be worse than not mentioning 'Tal' at all?

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): And he answers that one cannot compare someone who Davens and curses to one who does not curse.

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): In other words, someone who is standing in 'Tal' and mentions Geshem (which is a sign of curse (in the summer), is not comparable to someone who mentions neither 'Tal' nor 'Geshem' (who is at least not cursing).

Conclusion: And this is indeed the Halachah - that if in the season of 'Tal', someone mentions 'Geshem', he must go back, whereas if he mentioned neither, he does not need to.

Yerushalmi #2: Then the Yerushalmi states that if in the season of 'Geshem' someone mentions 'Tal', he does not need to go back.

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): And it queries this from our Sugya, from the B'eraisa which requires someone who failed to mention Gevuros Geshamim to go back.

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): And it answers that one speaks where he mentioned, and one where he did not ...

Explanation: i.e. 'Where he did not ... ' - mention either Tal or Matar (which explains why he has to go back); 'Where he did' - mention both 'Tal' and 'Matar'.

Refutation: This is not correct however - since it is obvious that if he mentioned them both, he does need to go back?

Amended Explanation: What the Yerushalmi must therefore mean is that 'Where he did mention it must refer to 'Tal', and where he did not, to both 'Tal and Geshem'.

Amended Explanation (cont.): Whereas if he mentioned (just) 'Tal' on its own, even if the rain season, does not need to go back.

Consequently: That is why there are some people who always insert 'Tal' since they are used to saying it. Consequently, if in winter, they omitted 'Mashiv ha'Ru'ach', they do not need to repeat the Amidah (Since he did recite 'Tal').

Clarification: The B'hag rules that this speaks specifically by an individual who is Davening on his own; But if he is Davening with the Tzibur, he does not go back, since he is Yotzei with the repetition of the Shatz.

Clarification (cont.): He must then be careful however, to hear from the Shatz every letter of the Amidah

Clarification (cont.): And this speaks even if he is a Baki (familiar with the text) ...

Source: As we say in the fourth Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (34:) 'Just as the Shatz is Motzi someone who is not a Baki, so too, is he Motzi a Baki.

Implied Question: Even though we say there that 'Raban Gamliel exempts the people in the fields, because they are Oneis and busy, but not those who are in town?

Answer: That pertains to someone who failed to Daven, but as for somebody who did, we do not consider him as if he did not Daven at all.

Extension of Ruling: And the same applies to anyone who has to repeat the Amidah; if he subsequently hears it from the Shatz from beginning to end, he is Yotzei.

Alternative Opinion: The Rav Rabeinu Meir however, rules that it is only someone who forgot to mention Rosh Chodesh, whereas if he forgot an entire B'rachah, he is obligated to go back, and cannot be Yotzei with hearing it from the Shatz (See also Tosfos, Rosh ha'Shanah 34: DH 'Kach').

Halachah: The Rif rules like the Ika de'Amri, that someone who is accustomed to recite Tachanunim, and who has not yet taken three steps back, does not need to repeat the Amidah.

Halachah (cont.): But if he is not accustomed to recite Tachanunim, must start the Amidah again, even if he has not taken three steps back.

Halachah (cont.): Whereas once he has taken three steps back, he must repeat the Amidah, even if he is accustomed to reciting Tachanunim (such as 'Elokai, N'tzor Leshoni ... ').

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that if one is able to say Tachanunim, the Tefilah is valid, even if it is a burden on him.

Reason: Because the criterion is the ability to say Tachanunim exclusively.