(Said in Menin Shacharit Kahanah of Kolal Chazoa Shebak Parshath Vihai 2012)
In Perashtin [Bereshit Mat, 1] E. Jacob came to bless his sons, and according to what is explained in Gm [Pesachim no 1a] he was afraid beforehand that there might be something wrong in his bed, and they said to him, Hema Yisrael et al [Deuteronomy 6:4], and we are Israel our father, As explained in the midrash [Bar Tzach, 4], and below we will discuss from issue to issue on the same issue, until we return to the issue of Kash.
I was recently asked by a scholar who includes in the fence Shume Kaddish if we find a difference in the rulings on not considering the Kaddish itself as an offering, or a dilemma not considering the IZ as one who says the Kaddish, but as an Amen offering only the Kaddish.
And here are the first ones [brought in DM C. Nu in the name of Hagath Mordechai p. that he has the word of God and stands above the throne [Judges 3:20], and it was also brought up in the Hariel [customs] regarding Amen, let the heavens be great [brought up in Mishnab C. No. S67], and in the L.A. what is the importance of a thing in holiness , and Gabi Agalon, the very thing that came to say God's word to him, was already considered a holy thing.
It is indeed the opinion of the Graha in a rabbi act [C. 27] that it is permissible to sit in the Dezmerah verses until the Kaddish preceded by his blessing, and the Gerash Davlitsky pointed out in this [in the Graha's teachings printed in this book the Shalchan] with evidence that he also meant the blessing that he said and praised, as well as in the Mash'nav [Rish C. Ng] In the name of the arbitrators, it is explained that the main principle of the law is that it is permissible to sit in the praise, but the simplicity of the language of the act, Rabbi Dakal Kaddish, is generally acceptable for this matter.
And it seems that the Gra took from this a matter of sanctity for the purpose of standing in blessings is as simple as it is, every hand I consider a thing of sanctity for a matter that is obligated to say ten, and as explained in Gm. A thing in the Kedusha should not be in less than ten, this is because the Kaddish is not said in less than ten because it is part of the spread over the Shema as explained in the Rishonim, this should be in the middle [and A. Eshel Avraham C. Katsav Sabb], and it is explained in this that the model of the hearer is in general the Kaddish For a matter that is required to stand.
And here the reading of the 20th is a GAC of things in the sacred book that are not said in less than ten times, and the reader of the GAC needs to stand, (and on the other hand, the reading of the Megillah DKIL is also recited in the singular [i.e. Thos. Megillah 5 Aa], 55 Dekora sitting [Ibid. 21 11]), and on the other hand, we do not find in the Shu'a the opinion of Damhoyev to stand on the side of the judge [cited by C. Kamo S.D. and Mishnab and 28 ibid.], and the opinion of the Gara for Hedia [C. Kamo] that Dumtar Lishab In the reading of the Torah, this is how the opinion of the Gra must be understood in this, why in the reading of the Torah one can sit while on the other hand in Kaddish it means that one is obliged to stand.
And although I have seen someone who understood the intention of the Gra simply for a priest who is obligated to stand by God Almighty, and this is the intention of the Gra in the Kaddish Meshach, but surely the simplicity of the Gra's language means Dakai for all Kaddish.
And it seems that every word of praise is worthy of everyone for what he said, and a public messenger takes the many out of their duty, but the reading is a regulation established for the purpose of learning and knowledge, and the reader teaches the hearers, and in this only the reader himself who says the reading should stand, the listener, and A. In the words of Noam [Rish Barchot] regarding the opinion of the Graha that the RA is to take out in Kash, Iash, but a Kaddish that is considered for the Hagra who hears it as a season should comply with all the Kaddish.
And here is the opinion of the above-mentioned Maharil Dasgi to stand in the High Court of Israel only, and now in the 2012 [C. No. 67] opinions regarding the continuation of the Kaddish, and yet it seems to the Maharil that it is unlikely that the Dakdish he hears as a season just like If one hears the repetition of the Sha'tz, he is obliged to stand by the obligation of prayer, and even if he intends to leave with the intention of only hearing the repetition of the Sha'tz, the opinion of the Rama'a [ibid. , this is not required to stand but only in the name of the Lord who hears it himself, and apparently there is a barrier to hearing in the Kaddish, he hears it as a Kaddish, the Masha'k for the Maharil is only as an Amen, and most of all it is permissible to sit in the Kaddish just as it is permissible to sit in the reading of the Torah even for the Hagar , which is nothing more than a study of the Hagar, and the Lord Kaddish commanded the Shatz to say praise in plural, but only the reciter himself and the Shatz himself are obligated to stand, while the Shachak for the Hagar, although the reading of the Shatz is a way of learning Lev AA], but he hears Kaddish as a prayer.
Evidence must be brought that this is the opinion of the Gra Dakdish, he hears it as an answer, from the Mish in a rabbi act [Si Na] and if he comes to Almiya and the Shatz has already said some verses of Mitbarach and below he says Yathbarak 20 until he reaches the place where the Shatz says and is silent and hears a 20, and it is possible to learn from this DSL to the Hagara Degdar Kaddish he hears as a season, (and who is there a place to push and say dish a division between the pasak between Alamia Yatbarak Dahmir, ed. The GRA will be more severe in this break).
And the Ari's opinion [quoted in the Shear Hokunot Darush Kaddish page 16 ed.] that it is necessary to sit even in the Ishar, and it is explained there that the Hari did not agree to a verse for you from a Jerusalemite who believed that it was only the gloss of some sage and not from the words of the Jerusalemite, and it is possible that the Hari did not agree with my words A Jerusalemite that is not in front of us is a wording that some of the Ashkenazi scholars generally had a sal that is not a main (however, according to what is mentioned in his name at 20 there does not seem to be the designation, MM there is a TS there at 20 Decamere that this is how it was printed in Jerusalem) this is also a taste What the Ari's kil [brought in the Maga and the Bb there] regarding the matter of sleeping in the Lord's Day after midnight, A'ag Devirushalmi allegedly mires on every day of the Lord's Day, according to the Yerushalmi's opinion that was brought up in the puskims [Och C. Takpag S 2 Barma] is not before us, and on the other hand the Gra according to his method [in his commentary there] brought you a Jerusalemite.
And here there are those who brought evidence from the above-mentioned Ari who was sitting in the sanctity of Desidra to the Didan who could sit in the sanctity of Desdra, although among the former there was a disagreement as to whether the sanctity of a creator is said in less than ten or not, and the Rama [Och C. net sg] wrote that the custom is simplified that it is also said in the singular, while the Gra in his commentary [ibid. SKA] and in the words of Noam [Barachot 21b] has adopted that it is not said in less than ten times, and in the Mishnab he feels that those who are strict about saying it with reasons if it is said in the singular, but in the words of Noam [ibid.] Which is completely taken as this opinion 20 that in the singular the whole verse should not be said but only and say with holy awe, and also in contrast they praise and say Baruch, and nothing else.
(And what is practiced in some communities that are not said together, they have to rely on this for what it means later in the Mishnav where it is as if they say in the same matter, consider the Gach in the public, and as in the instructions and leadership of Harah Dolazin, and in the Mishnav [Si ' Kakah] Regarding the sanctity of prayer, a dish for saying with the public literally every verse, and I wrote about it in the Makoa, and it should be noted from the beginning that even verses of redemption must be said together with the public literally as in the Hagar'a [C. Teretz Skalat]).
And it is possible that the Gra'a saying that the creator is a holy thing that is not said in the singular, that is to say, from what the Foras on Shema should be taken out in the creator as the Rabbinical Law [Magila 13 1a] According to the words of those who say that there is no singular that says holiness, that in the creator they would say the blessing of the creator because of the holiness in which who are not allowed to say it in the singular, and it is possible to pretend that a public is needed for the distribution of the shema for everything that is not said in the singular, this is the same as the DIL that the Gra taught regarding everything that is said publicly about the shema [which requires ten according to their religion in the scroll] which is a matter of holiness that requires ten , and God bless him, and according to the above-mentioned Ran in commenting on this opinion regarding the sanctity of a creator, the reason that is spread over Shema excludes those who prayed in the singular only with the blessing of a creator, if they prayed with the blessing of great love, there is nothing that is not said in the singular in the blessing of a creator, there is holiness, And in the words of the Rabbi mentioned above, if there were ten people here who prayed individually, each by himself, and heard neither Kaddish nor holiness, then one of them stands and prays the Kaddish and his blessing, and begins with the creation because of holiness, and the tongue cuts through, meaning that he says half of the blessings, etc. To.
And here is the Hagra's Dekdusht Tuzvar not recited in the singular, apparently according to the above calculation we find the model of the verses of the holy verse that are not recited in the singular 55, so they cannot say them in a yeshiva.
And it must be pointed out from the words of the Gra in the commentary written by Rai, why the blessing of a creator is said in a Yeshiva Maha Datanan [Barchot 12b] Gabi Kash to know that God has a place to dwell in it, and according to the above account we find in the sacred verses that the creator is obliged to stand for migration. 1, and it should be said that the Gra Meiri are those who bless a creator's blessing in the singular, as in the simplicity of the law Deoskin in their craft and Korin Damiri in the singular (A.S. Shu'a [C. Ketsa Sabb] regarding the division between their time and our time in the matter of workers, and in simplicity they engage in their craft and Korin certainly Meiri in practice, and from this we learn from the Graha Meiri mainly the blessing of the creator which is also practiced in the singular), but whoever blesses the blessing of the creator in public who says holiness in it, AHN then stands, and she who gives the blessing of a creator is not like the rest of the blessing, but his standing while saying the holiness is for the sake of holiness alone, And not because of the blessing.
And here is according to what is explained in the Rishonim [Bran Megillah 13 and Tor Och C. 7th and more] the one who spreads over the Shema says Kaddish his blessing and the creator's blessing (with the blessing and as in the New Testament who says the creator's blessing because of the holiness SAA for saying in the singular) and the prayer's holiness (with blessings) Whereas the sanctity of Desdra in the Rabbin's opinion is not like the sanctity of a creator and it does not require a spread over the Shema but also the individual Umrah [as explained by Rabbi Yeruham Netiv 3 13 and 22 the Ritva and Meiri Megillah 23 EB], but the column 20 defors On Shema he says also and you are holy, [Vahbii in the Soud brought the Sefer Pardes and the Contribution of the Dashen 13. 8. 16 that also the holiness of the Desdra does not have a single person saying except in terms and also he brought from the Zohar, and in the Siddur of Rashi SA he brought an answer Rav Tzemach brings a phlogta whether the sanctity of Desdra is said in the singular or not, and according to the Rabbi's interpretation in the sense of what means the sanctity of a creator in the spread over the Shema, so they were divided in the controversy of the Rabbi and the column], it is found that the model of the sanctity of Desdra is in general something in the sanctity also for the purpose of standing.
And what the Ari sat down in the sanctity of Desdra, according to her opinion, did not rule out the words of the Jerusalemite quoted in the words of the sages of Ashkenaz, which must stand in the matter of sanctity, he sat down even in Ishar [and the same from Masaha 22].
The Hazu'a Masha'k that stood in the sacredness of Desdra was because of the insistence on the words of the Jerusalemite in the words of the sacredness.
And the Rambam apparently did not have the Jerusalemism that the Rabbi's and Ashkenazi sages had, the Rambam [Paz 17 of the 18th prayer] took Dathala to David to be recited in the yeshiva, for the purpose of first offering a minachah prayer, and it seems that because Dathala to David is said with Ashari As is the simple custom, and it is appropriate in the Gam' [Berakhot 4 EB] why was the Nu'an not recited as Ashri, and we were a praise to David that is said with Asheri, and it is reasonable for him that it is said before the prayer is because of Ha Damari' [name Lev EB] Dahsidim The first ones would stay for one hour and pray because blessed are the dwellers in your house, and after that they would praise Salah [Psalms Pad, 5], this is how the saying of Ashari and Tahala to David should be performed in the actual yeshiva.
[And whereas Dathan should comment on some of the last great ones [in the O.H. C. Kana] who took a sit-down in the Bahkenas, a mitzvah saying, Blessed are the dwellers of your house, when he came to read his friend, Daha Amidah, and there is no sit-down except for the language of hindrance [Megillah 21 1a] . His delay is reprehensible because he is delaying in Bahkans on purpose, and urges].
And here is the Rambam [PIB of the 10th prayer 22] wrote that on a day in which there is no addition, when the morning prayer is finished, one says Kaddish and takes out a Torah scroll and reads from it and returns it and says Kaddish, and then says Thala to David and the order of the day as they say every day and say Kaddish and all the people die. And the order of the day was a holy day, as explained in Rambam in 2005 [Va'ush 55 56], and from what he did not mention in the Amidah in the meantime, it is possible that the Jerusalemite was the judge, since he was only a Jerusalemite like ours and not the Jerusalemite that God is to the sages of Ashkenazi, and in truth In the Jerusalem Laws of the Maimonides (which he made as the Babylonian Talmud Laws of Rav Alphas), apparently we do not find so many changes between his formula and the Didan formula in favor of the formulas of the Ashkenazi sages.
And in the Rambam regarding Shacharit [name 17] 20 and 21, the order of prayers is like this, at dawn a person wakes up and blesses these blessings, and recites the Zimirot and blesses before them and after them, and then recites a sound and blesses before it and after it and skips the first blessing before which there is no one He says sanctity, and when he seals the Redeemer of Israel, he will immediately stand up so that he may be redeemed for prayer and pray standing as we said, and when he is finished he sits down and falls on his face and begs and raises his head and begs a little while he sits with words of supplications, and then he sings praises to David (seated) and begs as much as he can and dismisses his actions. And even if it's not Gersi', it is settled from the meaning of Dayin Kefida ACP in the sanctity of a creator for saying Ma'amed.
And the simple custom is to say the holy of creation and the holiness of the creator in the singular, as in the Ramadhan for the holiness of the creator, and as in the holy of holies there are some of the first who made light of it more than the holy of the creator for the purpose of saying it in the singular, for the sake of the custom The simple thing is to sit in your presence in holiness, because if they are said in the singular there is no law as a matter of holiness to require standing.
But the Chazoa who is known [and brought in Arhut Usher Aruch Tefilah p. Ked] stood in the sanctity of Desdra, and was brought in by the act of a man [H.B. p. Tzu] who said that he was unable to sit at that time, and we did not hear that he stood in the sanctity of a creator, and it is possible to say that the reason for this is the truth of most sides It should be made easier so that he does not have to comply with both, Hada Dashma is not something in the holy place, and afi' is a thing in the holy place. After all, there are some of the judges who did not rule that Yerushalmi, but in the case of a creator, there is an interest in sitting, as brought by the Maga [C. Net Skav] from the book of the Cana [ And I. Zohar Taruma Kalev 12, was brought in 28 SKK], and it was also brought in 28 there [SKI2], MashaK in Kedusha Dasdra the entire space when it stood, this only stood in Kedusha Dasdra.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 3942 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/3942
