Hashkiveinu

The Talmud states that one who is reciting nighttime kr’iat shma at the very end of its time period should not say Hashkiveinu. The Rashba and the Rosh quote an opinion that this does not refer to the b’rakhah itself, which still must be said, but only the actual words referring to “lying down”, which are no longer applicable at that time. This implies that while those words are incongrous, the b’rakhah itself is an integral part of the structure.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter (B’Ikvei haTzon, 4) explains this position as consistent with that of Rabbeinu Yonah, (2b in dapei haRif) explaining the statement of the Talmud that Hashkiveinu is not considered to be an interruption between geulah and the amidah because the Rabbis instituted its inclusion as a “long geulah”. Rabbein Yonah explains that Hashkiveinu is of a topic with redemption, because it respresents a prayer said by the Jews during the time of the exodus, when they prayed that the plague would not reach their houses. Since it was said at the same time as the redemption, it is as if it shares a theme.

Thus, continues R. Schachter, as Yehiyu L’ratzon, etc, and Hashem S’fatai Tiftach are categorized by the Talmud together with Hashkiveinu, they share a status: all three are integrated parts of the prayer/geulah, not merely permitted interruptions. This would have several ramifications, including whether chazarat ha-shatz should include Yehiyu L’ratzon and Hashem S’fatai Tiftach pronounced out loud (As Rav Soloveitchik insisted; see Shulchan Arukh O.C. 123, and Biur HaGra, 13); whether omitting these phrases invalidates the amidah (see Biur Halakhah to O.C. 111); and whether the viduy of Yom Kippur should be recited before or after Yehiyu L’ratzon (see Arukh HaShulchan, O.C. 607:3). [The Einayim L’Mishpat (Berakhot 4b) adds another ramification: one who errs in the amidah, in a manner that requires going back to the beginning; whether or not Hashem S’fatai need be repeated as well. If it is an introductory supplication, the original recitation should suffice; if it is part of the amidah, it would need to be repeated as well. He identifies this issue as a dispute between the Ritva (Ta’anit 3b) and R. Sa’adiah Gaon in his siddur.]

However, R. Schachter proceeds to note that the Rosh disagrees with the opinion that he cites, as does the Mishnah Berurah (235:32), and that the Kehilot Ya’akov [of the author of the Mishkenot Ya’akov] attributes this to the understanding that Hashkiveinu is actually not part of the theme, but that the recitation is permitted because as an institution of the Rabbis, it is not deemed an interruption.