Morid Ha Tal

Is it the Ashkenazic custom to include this during the amidah? Why or why not?

Brian

Saying Morid HaTal is certainly not an Ashkenazic custom, at least not for the last 700 years.
The Tashbetz Katan Siman 101 does report that his Rebbi, Maharam of Rothenburg, announced Morid HaTal on the 1st day of Pesach because in Eretz Yisroel they said Morid HaTal when they did not say Mashiv HaRuach Umorid HaGeshem. But from the fact that he reported that the Maharam did so on the 1st day of Pesach leads one to conclude that he did not say it all summer.
In the Oberland congregation in Jerusalem, which follows the Minhag of Pressburg and Vienna, they do not say Morid HaTal, following the ruling of Rav Wosner of Bnei Brak and Rav Scheinberg of Jerusalem.
Why we do say it in our shul is something I cannot really understand.

MPerlman

If one's Minhag is not to say Morid HaTal (like most Ashkenazim), when in Eretz Yisroel, must one recite Morid HaTal? Is this considered Minhag HaMakom?

Daniel

Must he say Morid HaTal, with a Patach under the Tes, or with a Komatz? When it comes to Morid HaGeshem, there is a Mesorah. For Morid HaTal there is no Mesorah, since it wasn't done. Is it then up to the discretion of the Shatz how he wants to pronounce it?

Michael wrote: Old Minhag Ashkenaz was based on Nusach Eretz Yisroel. Later a lot of Nusach Bovel was adopted. Minhag Eretz Yisroel was to say Morid Hatal, and since everyone in Eretz Yisroel now says Morid Hatal therefore there is logic that those who are Noheg Minhag Ashkenaz won't be the only ones clinging to Minhag Bovel not to say Morid Hatal. That is the reason we say Morid Hatal in KAYJ. In Chutz Lo'oretz definitely one should not change the minhag and should not say Morid Hatal.

Michael FRBSH

Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Elazar bar Yehuda z"l of Worms, the author of the Rokeach, is clear that the second Brocho of the Amidah does not contain the letter Tes. Therefore, our Mesorah is not to say Morid HaTal anywhere. How can we go against that Mesorah?

Michael wrote:

MPerlman wrote: Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Elazar bar Yehuda z"l of Worms, the author of the Rokeach, is clear that the second Brocho of the Amidah does not contain the letter Tes. Therefore, our Mesorah is not to say Morid HaTal anywhere. How can we go against that Mesorah?

The Rokeach was definitely talking only about the Minhag practiced then, which was Minhag Bovel, and did not include Morid Hatal.

Michael FRBSH

I think it is a little presumptuous to make that assumption. When the Rokeach wants to make mention of Minhag Bovel, he does so (see Siman 86 regarding Kiddush). In the instance that we are discussing it is a matter of the presence of specific letters in the Bracha and it is well known that when the Rokeach talks about the presence of specific letters or a specific number of words in a Bracha, he is transmitting the ancient text from the time of the Sages of the Mishnah, from which he warns us not to add or omit, lest our prayers not be accepted on High.
Therefore, he is certainly not definitely talking about the Minhag practised in his temporal era, but rather our time-honoured, age-old, Minhag Ashkenaz.

In this case, it is impossible to say that the text transmitted to us by Chazal doesn't allow for Morid Hatal, since the Gemara says that tal and ruach are both optional hazkoros. The Rokeach is presumably talking about the mandatory text of the second bracha, without regard to any optional additions. Reciting Morid Hatal is no more in conflict with the sod than reciting a Mechaye Piyyut that contains the letter tes.

Melech wrote: In this case, it is impossible to say that the text transmitted to us by Chazal doesn't allow for Morid Hatal, since the Gemara says that tal and ruach are both optional hazkoros. The Rokeach is presumably talking about the mandatory text of the second bracha, without regard to any optional additions. Reciting Morid Hatal is no more in conflict with the sod than reciting a Mechaye Pityyut that contains the letter tes.

I am not sure "impossible" is the correct description. The Gemara in Taanis 3b says that if you say "Mashiv HaRuach" during the summer season, you do not return to the beginning. Additionally, if you say "Maavir HaRuach Umafriach HaTal", you do not return to the beginning. I believe that it is to this that you are referring.
However, the Rokeach, not in his Siddur, but in his sefer of HaLacha, a sefer that was widely known for generations, unlike the commentary on the Siddur that I like to study, which was in manuscript until recently, in the sefer of Halacha he only quotes the beginning of that Halacha concerning saying Mashiv HaRuach, but does not include the section on "Mafriach HaTal". A possible deduction is that he holds that one may not say "Mafriach HaTal". See Sefer Rokeach, Hilchos Tefillah, siman 322.

לא זכיתי להבין - we have the Mitzvo of "Al Titoush", and since in the last 800 years at least we didn't say Mourid Hatal, there is no reason to start saying because everyone else says. We don't change our Masoures and prayers because there is one Sephardi with a diferent Nusach (there is no conection to Minhag Eretz Isro'el, because our rabbis paskened not to say it according to minhag Bovel).


Breuer writes that there is no diference between Tal & Geshem. They both are changed to Komaetz just in a case of a strong pause. (like Etnachto or Souf posuk.) The mistake comes from the fact that some Madpisim wrote: (Shmous 16-13) "uvabouker hoyso shichvas hatol" in zokef koton. but the correct pronunciation is: "Hatal". This mistake was the result of confusion with next Posuk: "vta'al shichvas hatol" there we write Komatz because it's an Etnachto.

I have long maintained that if you hold we should be m'naked the hazkoroh base on how it would be pronounced if the bracha were set with trop, the proper framework of analysis is ta'amaei emes and not taaamei כא. My strong suspicion is that both geshem and tal would wind up with a kamatz in that case.