[Avodah] Kaddish (was: Shabbas he mi lezok)

[Zev Sero]

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:

>> RZS: Kaddish derabanan must also be preceded by mikra, which is why
>> we say the mishna "R Chananya ben Akashya", which ends with a pasuk.
> 
>      Is there a makor for this requirement?  I was taught that the
> reason for saying the mishna is that kaddish d'rabbanan is only said
> after aggadah (and for which, too, I would welcome a source).

Thanks for making me look this up.  See Magen Avraham 54:3.  Kaddish
must be preceded by pesukim, *or* by an aggada that explains a pasuk.
So the pasuk doesn't have to come at the very end of the piece;
R Chananya ben Akashya would have worked just as well had the pasuk
come before the drasha instead of after.  Yishtabach is tafel to the
pesukim for which it is the after-bracha, but if there's an
interruption after Yishtabach then more pesukim must be said before
kaddish.  The kaddish immediately after tefillah doesn't need a pasuk
either, though it seems to me that "yiheyu leratzon" should count.


>  In many shuls, a kaddish d'rabbanan is said after the b'raisa
> d'Rabbi Yishma'el, without korbanos, even though it ends with no
> pasuk (and, for that matter, contains no aggadah).

This indeed requires explanation.  SA Harav 54:4, in a parenthetical
comment at the very end, says that the tefilah of "yehi ratzon" is
enough to justify the kaddish, but see Shaar Hakolel 3:27, who
points out that in Pri Etz Chayim and Mishnat Chassidim the "yehi
ratzon" does not appear, but the kaddish does anyway, because it's
at a boundary between the four parts of the tefillah.


 
>>> RRW: Aleinu and Shir Hakavod do not fit into any of the above

>> RZS: They're both followed immediately by a pasuk ("Vehaya Hashem
>> lemelech" and "Mi yemalel") precisely for this reason.
 
> Aleinu does not require the adding of "Vehaya," since it already ends
> with the pasuk "Hashem yimloch l'olam va'ed."

True.


> Shir Hakavod is also followed by the pasuk "L'cha Hashem hag'dulah,"
> so that "Mi y'mallel" is not needed to justify kaddish.

In this case, I meant the pair of pesukim.  I recall reading somewhere,
perhaps even on this list, that these pesukim date much later than the
original Shir Hakavod.  It was my own assumption that they were added in
order to justify a kaddish after them.   The same cannot be said about
Alenu, however, since "Hashem yimloch" is an integral part of the
original nusach, so "Vehaya Hashem lemelech" must have been added for
a different reason.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas