Did the Mishna Berurah Run Out of Ink?

Mishna Berurah – An Oblique Reference

“Mishna Berurah” is an enormously popular work on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim written by Rabbi Yisrael Meir of Radin (otherwise known by the title of his other famous book, “Chafetz Chaim”).

One of the appealing characteristics of the work is its clarity. This post will address a puzzling exception to this rule.

Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 61:6 (see also 61:7) –

ויאריך בדלי”ת של אחד שיעור שיחשוב שהקב”ה יחיד בעולמו ומושל בד’ רוחות העולם. ולא יאריך יותר מכשיעור זה.

One should prolong enunciating the letter Dalet of the word “Echad” long enough to consider G-d’s unity and rule over the four corners of the world. One should not prolong more than this amount of time.

The Mishna Berurah (subsection 19 ad loc.) adds –

(ולא יאריך יותר,) עפמ”ג בשם הפר”ח

“One should not prolong more than this amount of time”: See the Pri Megadim in the name of the Pri Chadash.

That is all; end quote; period. But what does the Pri Megadim tell us? Not even a hint in the ‘Sha’ar Hatziyun’! The Mishna Berurah mysteriously leaves it to the reader to check it up.

Not so generous, but OK. So let us do so.

Pri Megadim (‘Eshel Avraham’, subsection 5) –

(ולא יאריך יותר מכשיעור זה,) כתב הפר”ח בגמרא משמע שאין צריך אבל אין איסור, ובפרק הרואה דרבי עקיבא היה מאריך באחד, וי”ל, יעו”ש.

The Pri Chadash (subsection 6) writes that the Gemara (Berachos 13b) in fact deems protraction superfluous but does not disallow doing so. Elsewhere (ibidem 61a) too, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Akiva prolonged “Echad” more than usual. This last proof can be contested, however, see there.

The question arises: Why does the Mishna Berurah conceal his meaning?

The plain meaning of the Shulchan Aruch is a prohibition against prolonging the pronunciation of the letter Dalet. The Pri Megadim cited above almost certainly intends to disagree, noting his understanding to wit the Gemara does not intend any prohibition at all. The language of the Pri Chadash himself implies the same. Why send the poor reader to look this up? Is this most basic dispute not relevant enough?

The Pri Megadim was quite available, so it beggars belief to say the Mishna Berura was unable to quote or at least summarize it.

Maybe the obscuration is because his ruling is contrary to Shulchan Aruch, but the Mishna Berurah is usually unshy about his disagreements.

Conceivably the Mishna Berurah has not decided one way or another; he simply refers to Pri Megadim allowing the reader to decide the Halacha for himself. Is this Mishna Berura’s modus operandi? I personally don’t think so.

Can any of our readers weigh in on this?

These questions are highly relevant to publishers of Mishna Berura (and like works). Should the publisher quote the Pri Megadim in full even if he generally does not do so? In other words, is the Pri Megadim meant to stay hidden, (like the Mekoshesh)?

P. S., It would be exciting to check up the Gemaros inside, but this is not directly relevant to the point at hand.