When we daven mincha, we say the psalm we call "Ashrei" first. This seems to come from The shulchan aruch, O"C 93:2. This section requires that the amida be "samuch" to the psalm.

We say kaddish after the psalm. Why isn't this a hefsek? I was reading some of the related questions regarding kaddish in maariv. Amidst all the questions and answers was this which says that the kaddish is not a hefsek because its content echoes the geulah requirement.

[other resources: Answering "Brich hu" to the kaddish before shemone esrei at maariv and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/36259/1362 which posits that the kaddish allowed because maariv is optional]

If the smichut is not geulah based in mincha, how can we say kaddish there without its being a hefsek?

The Mishnah Brurah writes in 108:2 (13) that one davening a make-up amida should insert ashrei before the second one to ensure the proper smichut, but earlier, the mechaber wrote in 105 that the break between 2 prayers should be very short in order to maintain the right mindset. In the end of (13) it seems that the M"B says that 105 is a bediavad case and 108 is lechatchilah.

What is the general rule about smichut in mincha and how does kaddish fit in?

  • 1
    It's not a real smichus, that's why we get to stick in extra stuff like ki shem Hashem ekra etc. But +1 and hope you get a good answer.
    – user6591
    Jan 17, 2016 at 2:05
  • 1
    @user6591 I would like that but then I wonder why the mechaber equates them in 93:2. I would the also wonder how much of a hefsek is allowed is smichut isn't essential.
    – rosends
    Jan 17, 2016 at 2:16
  • Yeah, it's definitely something that can get a good answer. I think the idea I mentioned from the Magen Avraham is built upon a bit in the igros moshe. I'll see if I can find you that maareh makom.
    – user6591
    Jan 17, 2016 at 2:20
  • 1
    I had sent this maareh makom to someone else recently, I'm not sure if he directly addresses your issue but you may find something. See igros moshe orach chaim 5 page 82 first paragraph that starts on that page in the name of Magen Avraham begining of siman 111.
    – user6591
    Jan 17, 2016 at 2:25

1 Answer 1


I think the answer is in your words, and that your assumption that "the smichut is not geulah based in mincha" is not accurate.

It is true that the main and important smichut is in the morning prayers, but as the Shulchan Aruch says (92, 2):

לא יעמוד להתפלל אלא באימה והכנעה לא מתוך שחוק וקלות ראש ודברים בטלים ולא מתוך כעס אלא מתוך שמחה כגון דברי תנחומין של תורה סמוך לגאולת מצרים או סמוך לתהלה לדוד שכתוב בו רצון יראיו יעשה שומר ה' את כל אוהביו:

The main idea is to start the amida prayer out of joy such as geulat Mitsraim and ashrei (they are brought as examples for joy before the morning and mid-day prayers).

In the morning tefillah, specifically, there's a "stronger" halacha of joining the story of the Exodus to the amida prayer, so even kadish isn't allowed. But since kadish does eventually speak of geulah and future days of mashiach, it does not constitute a real hefsek, therefore for the rest of the prayers (mincha, mussaf, maariv, etc.) it's OK.

Edit: Finally found a source that speaks about this issue specifically, and brings a few opinions about it (if there's an issue of smichut in mincha or not).

  • the source seems to be saying that there is no smichut of geula and tefillah in mincha, not that there isn't any smichut in mincha. 92:2 gives examples of essential smichut, stating geula and ashrei as equivalent. The idea that kaddish continues the concept of geula is what allows its being said in maariv because that's the prayer which emplys the smichut of geula. Musaf has NO smichut so kaddish is allowed. But mincha HAS a smichut, just not geula.
    – rosends
    Jan 17, 2016 at 13:03
  • There's the idea of smichut of geulah specifically, and the idea of that the Shulchan Aruch states as starting the prayer out of joy. Those are two separate ideas and halachot. There are several poskim who try to understand when do we have to insert geulah before prayers (maybe only in the morning, maybe always, etc.), and that is what the last source I brought speaks of. However, there's the "standard" smichut of simple joy, which is always true, but kadish cannot be said to be a hefsek of joy.
    – Cauthon
    Jan 17, 2016 at 13:07
  • The text doesn't indicate a geulah of simple joy, but of דברי תנחומין של תורה . Is that your claim about kaddish?
    – rosends
    Jan 17, 2016 at 13:44
  • The Shulchan Aruch quoted is about joy: "מתוך שמחה". Then come the examples, "כגון דברי תנחומין של תורה", etc. But the subject is joy, and the rest are examples. This is not the same as the halacha of smichat geulah litfila.
    – Cauthon
    Jan 17, 2016 at 13:47
  • if kaddish were not a hefsek of the joy, then there would never need to be the answer that kaddish is no hefsek because it continues the concept of geula (judaism.stackexchange.com/a/61274/1362) and if geula is simply one of the examples of joy and kaddish is also joy, then there should be no problem of saying kaddish in shacharit.
    – rosends
    Jan 17, 2016 at 14:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .