Siddur Brackets & Mysteries

When To Skip, How To Choose, & A Rosh Chodesh Secret

March, 2023

Rabbi Moshe Taub

It is well-known that Rav Chaim Kanievsky, zt”l, had an
intense, highly structured schedule of daily learning, what he
termed his “chovos.” This arrangement enabled him to
complete kol haTorah kulah once every year—even though he
saw hundreds of visitors and replied to hundreds of letters
during the week.
In Rav Chaim’s biography, a decades-old rumor was finally
confirmed. During the years in which there were two Adars,
there was some breathing room in his learning schedule, and
that was when he composed his sefarim.
Remarkably, whenever Rav Chaim had to sit shivah, whether
for his wife or his parents, Hakadosh Baruch Hu assured that
these dark times always fell during a leap year so that shivah
never encroached on his chovos.
This should serve as an inspiration to us, similar to the
halachah that one should not learn any Torah on Tishah B’Av
that is unrelated to mourning. Just because one does not react
to Torah study with such extreme joy, this halachah has great
aspirational value, reminding such people what Torah study
should feel like. Likewise, at our own level, the same is true for
how we perceive a double Adar, aware that it is an opportunity
for spiritual growth.
I would like to use this “extra” period of time to discuss
rabbinical issues that are not commonly examined.
In past leap years, I have shared the many interesting
questions rabbanim often receive about this extra month, such
as when to observe a yahrtzeit or a birthday, and in which
month Zayin Adar should be commemorated.
This year, each Adar has its own Rosh Chodesh, and it would
be interesting to take a look at some of the mysteries related to
the siddur since rabbanim are often asked about them.

The Missing ‘Melech’
Recently, at shalosh seudos, I challenged my shul members
with a riddle: “What is a difference between the Yaaleh V’yavo
we say in Shemoneh Esrei and the one we say in bentching?”
Some predictable responses were given—for example, the
fact that Yaaleh V’yavo is recited standing and the other sitting.
Then I gave the answer I had in mind, as well as the story
behind the question.
That Erev Shabbos, the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar I,
someone approached me after davening to ask why the word
“Melech” at the end of Yaaleh V’yavo is often in brackets, and
why this occurs only in some siddurim.
Odder still, some of the siddurim that place this word in
brackets add a comment: “Some say to say this word on Rosh
Hashanah.”
What is this about?
Chazal state, and the Shulchan Aruch rules, that since in the
third brachah of bentching we must make mention of Malchus
David, we therefore should not mention Malchus Shamayim as
we can’t risk drawing any equivalence between the kingship of
Hashem and that of a human being. This explains why in
bentching we say “Avinu Ro’einu” (our Father, our Shepherd)
and not “Avinu Malkeinu,” so that we do not mention Hashem’s
kingship once the rulership of David is cited (siman 188:3; see
Brachos 58).
The Rema adds that this concern in bentching extends to the
mention of Malchus Hashem at the end of Yaaleh V’yavo, so
that the word “Melech” is omitted in the passage “Ki Kel Melech
chanun v’rachum atah.” The Rema adds, however, that he
doesn’t see many who observe this practice.
A number of reasons are offered for why many people are
not careful to omit the word “Melech” from bentching. The Chofetz Chaim supports this omission, but he explains at the
same time that since Yaaleh V’yavo is considered its own
separate tefillah, somewhat distinct from Birchas Hamazon, the
concern about equating Malchus Shamayim with Malchus David
is mitigated enough that we do not have to correct people.
Others, such as the Kaf Hachaim, actually show support for
the common practice of including the word “Melech.” Omitting
it would give the appearance of reversing the praise that one
has already offered in Shemoneh Esrei, chalilah.
As for Rosh Hashanah, the Mateh Ephraim states that even
those who follow the Rema and omit this word from bentching
should include it on this day, because on Rosh Hashanah we
celebrate Hashem’s malchus, and there is no fear that anyone
will make a comparison to human sovereignty.
Segulah Secret
Speaking of siddurim and Rosh Chodesh, I was curious for
the longest time about another oddity found in many siddurim.
At the end of Hallel, many siddurim recommend that a verse
be repeated: “V’Avraham zakein ba bayamim v’Hashem beirach
es Avraham bakol, and Avraham was aged, advanced in days,
and Hashem blessed him in all ways” (Bereishis 24:1).
ArtScroll states, “On Rosh Chodesh many people recite the
following verse after Hallel.” Its Hebrew siddur adds some
context, stating, “This is a segulah for arichas yamim.”
Where does this come from, and why is it specific to Rosh
Chodesh?
For many years I could not find the answer to this mystery.
Recently, someone gave me a wonderful gift—the Mesivta
edition of the siddur, which provides some sources for this
minhag but makes it clear that they are rooted in Kabbalah.

On a less profound level, many note that pasuk about
Avraham Avinu is the only pasuk in Tanach that associates old
age with blessing.
However, it doesn’t draw a parallel to Rosh Chodesh.
It is here that more mysterious elements enter. Mishnas
Chasidim (Rosh Chodesh, perek 2) explains that this pasuk is an
allusion to a particular malach. The siddur of the Baal HaTanya
even says that one should think of this malach as stating the
verse. This is because we typically do not say aloud the names
of certain malachim, as we see in the special added tefillos
found in Avinu Malkeinu and during tekias shofar (see Arizal,
Shaar Hamitzvos, Shemos; Sefer Chasidim #205 and 469, and
Mor U’ketziah on Tur, siman 299; see also Siddur Rabbeinu
Hazakein, pp. 480-481).
There are many other siddur bracket mysteries—for
example, why we say “Adir Adireinu” only in Kedushah on some
Yom Tov days; the significance of the bracketed words in the
Friday-night Kiddush; and whether we say “Re’eh nah
v’anyeinu” in Shemoneh Esrei or leave out the word “nah.”

ast week we discussed the tradition of using the leap year’s
extra Adar to delve into Torah matters that are often given little
attention. We began by addressing certain siddur “mysteries,”
focusing on those that relate to the month of Adar and/or Rosh
Chodesh.
This week I will share some more siddur imponderables.
At the Chasan’s Tisch
Never assume.
This is an important guideline by which all of us should
abide, and it is one that is even more critical for a rav.
Here’s an example that many of you may have witnessed
without even realizing it.
At a chasan’s tisch, the mesader kiddushin asks who the
eidim will be for the tena’im and for the kesubah. A mesader
will not simply assume that the baalei simchah know that the
eidim cannot be related either to each other or to the chasan
and kallah. Indeed, I have been a mesader at weddings where
even the fact that the eidim must be shomrei Torah came as a
surprise!
Once the witnesses are selected, one would assume that the
mesader is ready to have the documents signed. But this is not
necessarily true.
Although it is rare, there are times when one of the eidim
will not know how to write his name in Hebrew or will struggle
with it. This might be the case for several reasons; perhaps the
eid has dyslexia, or perhaps he is a baal teshuvah who never
learned to write Hebrew properly. A glaring lack of skill at this
time can be mortifying, especially when a photographer is
hanging over the eid’s shoulder.
More common are those occasions when the names of an
eid is misspelled—for example, the name “Nesanel” may be

written with a sin instead of a tav—potentially ruining the
kesubah. I have learned the hard way never to assume, and I
therefore always ask the eidim to sit next to me first, out of
earshot of the others. I hand them my pen and a scrap of paper
and quietly request that they jot down how they would sign
their names on the kesubah.
I’ve had eidim put down their practiced signatures in florid
English script, as though they are signing a bank check. Others
have simply written the English transliteration of their Hebrew
names. The most common error that arises is when an eid
writes his Hebrew name correctly but follows it with his
mother’s name instead of his father’s.
It is very helpful not to assume that everyone knows what to
do and to correct the problem in a quiet way, protecting the
dignity of the eidim and preventing a kibbud from becoming a
bad memory.
At a Shivah House
An assumption can be equally dangerous when a rav sees
someone approaching the amud for the first time. This often
happens during the week of shivah. Those who have always
avoided davening at the amud are now thrown into the
spotlight, and it may cause them great anxiety.
Every rav develops his own shivah protocol, including how
often to visit the shivah house and what to speak about
between Minchah and Maariv and after Shacharis at a shivah
minyan. Between Minchah and Maariv, I usually discuss the
minhag of learning mishnayos (Maseches Mikva’os). In the
morning, I talk about matters related to the aveilim themselves,
sidestepping the problem of discussing Torah while the aveilim
are in the room.
I often choose to speak about issues related to a new
shaliach tzibbur. Not only does this aid the aveil, but many

others in the room may have their own shaliach tzibbur
questions answered.
The Shaliach Tzibbur
Here are the two questions with which I often open.
One of the uncertainties that first-time chazzanim encounter
is whether the opening words of Shemoneh Esrei—“Hashem
sefasei tiftach u’fi yagid tehilasecha” (Tehillim 51:17)—are to be
recited aloud at the beginning of Chazaras Hashatz, quietly, or
not at all. Although Chazal state that one must begin with these
words (Brachos 4b and 9b), it is unclear how central that is.
Before I moved to Queens, I never heard a chazzan say this
verse aloud. But in my current shul there are members and
previous rabbanim who studied under Rav Soloveitchik and said
he held that the verse must be recited aloud at the start of the
repetition.
This question has significant ramifications beyond an aveil
and a first-time chazzan.
The Shulchan Aruch rules that this verse must be said by the
chazzan (siman 111:2). However, many poskim assert that he
meant it should be said quietly (Magen Avraham, Ba’er Heiteiv,
and Shulchan Aruch Harav, inter alia). Others disagree with his
premise and argue that the chazzan need not say it at all.
The Chofetz Chaim wonders if this issue hinges upon
another. If one forgets to say this verse at the beginning of his
private Shemoneh Esrei, must he repeat the tefillah? If the verse
is part and parcel of the tefillah, it would mean that not only
must the chazzan say it, but so must the private mispallel.
In the end, he argues that both can be true. The chazzan
should say it, even if in a whisper; however, it is not an integral
part of Shemoneh Esrei, and one who forgets to say it does not
need to repeat Shemoneh Esrei (Biur Halachah, ad loc.).

Several years ago, I was researching the matter of davening
for Moshiach. I was astounded to find that Rav Moshe argues
that, aside from whatever is part of our mesorah, tefillos for
Moshiach must be avoided (Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, chelek 5
24:8; see page 84, second column, second paragraph). This
matter came up as he was discussing the opening and closing
verses of Shemoneh Esrei, “Hashem sefasai tiftach” and “Yehi
l’ratzon” (see there for how they are connected to Moshiach).
Arguing with the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Moshe says that one who
forgets the opening verse must repeat Shemoneh Esrei!
The Riddle of U’va L’Tzion
The second mystery I speak about in a beis aveil is one that I
know will be of interest to others in the room.
If one looks into most siddurim, he will find that three
pesukim are highlighted in U’va L’Tzion—“Kadosh,” “Baruch,”
and “Yimloch.” Chazal say that this tefillah, which we call
Kedushah d’Sidra, sustains the world (Sotah 49), and that is why
we say the first two pesukim out loud as a tzibbur, introduced
by the chazzan.
However, many new chazzanim—and some experiences
ones—are unsure whether the final line, “Yimloch,” should be
introduced and recited out loud. Walk into any shul and you will
notice that the first two are announced, but the third,
“Yimloch,” often is not. And yes, it is highlighted in most
siddurim.
Some chazzanim do have the minhag to introduce
“Yimloch,” so that it too is recited together (even though its
introduction consists of Aramaic words which we typically only
whisper), but most do not.
The explanation behind this siddur mystery is wrapped in
another enigma. We will explain this, along with a few other
siddur mysteries, in our final installment below.

av Dovid Kaplan, z”l, my rosh yeshivah in Nachalas Tzvi in
Toronto, was a true original. His consummate dedication to
Torah and mesorah was unmistakable and became ingrained in
every bachur in his yeshivah.
This passion came from his esteemed parents, the famed
Rav Baruch and Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan (née Eisen), who
developed the Bais Yaakov movement in America. In the famous
words of Rav Aharon Kotler, “If not for Rav Baruch and
Rebbetzin Vichna Kaplan, who started a large-scale Bais Yaakov
movement on these shores, there would be no true
appreciation for a ben Torah, for an aspiring talmid chacham,
for a life consecrated to Torah. There would be no willingness to
forgo material comfort for the sake of talmud Torah. There
would be no kollelim in America” (From A Living Mishnas Rav
Aharon).
The Brisker Rav himself had urged the Kaplans to move here
(The Brisker Rav, Vol. 1, p. 225).
Rav Dovid Kaplan was a captivating, often hilarious speaker
whose shmuessen were unforgettable. He once told a story of a
friend of his who went to visit an acquaintance in a prison in
New York. The prison had Daf Yomi shiurim and daily minyanim,
and after driving a long way to get there, his friend joined the
minyan for Shacharis.
Near the end of davening, he watched as one of the
prisoners headed to the back table to take off his tefillin. The so
he turned to this prisoner and said, “I understand why the
Shulchan Aruch warns us not to end davening or leave shul
before U’va L’Tzion [132:2] since many people are busy and are
rushing to get to work. But where are you going?”
My rosh yeshivah shared this memorable story to remind us
of the power of regilus—our tendency to err and do aveiros not

so much out of taivah as out of habit—and it also brings us back
to where we left off last week.
Over the past few weeks we have been discussing various
mysteries of the siddur, concluding last week with an
imponderable that contains many secrets. Many who daven
before the amud are unsure if the line “Hashem yimloch” in
U’va L’Tzion should be introduced and recited out loud just like
the two lines of Kedushah that precede it.
Most shuls do not introduce this line or say it aloud,
although it is highlighted in most siddurim.
For the answer to this issue, we have to dig a little deeper
and understand the importance of U’va L’Tzion (also called
Kedushah d’Sidra).
In the tochachah in Sefer Devarim, Hashem alerts us to the
reality of our present galus: “In the mornings you will say, ‘If it
were only still evening!’ and in the evenings you will say, ‘If it
were only still morning!’—because of what your heart will fear
and your eyes see” (28:67).
Chazal (Sotah 49) explain this pasuk as informing us that in
galus nothing will be static; each day will bring a novel
discomfort. The Gemara wonders how it is possible that a
continual progression of pain like this won’t consume the world.
It answers that the world would indeed be consumed if not for
two zechusim—the merit of answering, “Amein yehei Shemei
Rabbah” and our daily recital of U’va L’Tzion. Rashi explains that
this tefillah contains both the pesukim of Kedushah and the
targum, thereby enabling every single person, no matter how
busy he is, to learn a little bit of Torah each day.
Each morning we say the pesukim of Kedushah three
times—in birchas Krias Shema, during Chazaras Hashatz, and in
U’va L’Tzion. The Aruch Hashulchan (132:6) explains that this is
the reason the chazzan introduces each line of the Kedushah in
U’va L’Tzion, distinguishing it from the others.

But if you look into most siddurim, you will find that three
pesukim in this tefillah are highlighted: “Kadosh, kadosh,
kadosh,” “baruch kevod” and “yimloch.” So why do so many
people leave this last line of Kedushah out?
The Avudraham (R. Dovid Avudraham, d. circa 1350), the
most celebrated of our siddur commentators, points out a
greater anomaly. The third line of any Kedushah is always
“yimloch Hashem,” from Tehillim (146:10). Why, then, in U’va
L’Tzion, do we exchange this verse for the similar “yimloch
Hashem” that is in the Shiras Hayam in Beshalach (Shemos
15:18)?
This switch often goes unnoticed until it is pointed out, and
it is not the only one. The Rokeach (Vol. 2, p. 441) and the Kol
Bo (siman 8) observe that “yimloch” and even “Hashem
yimloch” are completely left out of the Kedushah we say in
birchas Krias Shema!
As for the switch in U’va L’Tzion, the Avudraham explains as
follows: The purpose of this tefillah is to recite pesukim with
their proper targum. However, the books of Kesuvim—which
contain the pasuk “yimloch Hashem” from Tehillim—do not
have a classic mesorah targum. We therefore exchanged it for a
verse with a similar theme.
Because this change had to be made, many suggest that it be
said quietly so as not to compare Toras Moshe to the rest of the
pesukim in Nevi’im and Kesuvim (see, for example, Ba’er Heiteiv,
siman 132:2).
There is another reason some people say this verse quietly.
Many poskim (but not all; see Arizal as brought in the Shaarei
Teshuvah) rule that the targum of Kedushah in Aramaic must be
said quietly. “Yimloch” is the only one that is introduced with
Aramaic statements, making it questionable whether the
chazzan should say them aloud so as to alert the tzibbur.

With or Without the Vav?
As Purim is drawing near, I’d like to conclude this mini-series
on the siddur with a mystery about which everyone has
wondered—do we say “al hanissim” or “v’al hanissim”?
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, not always is adding letters
or words in brackets in the siddur a way of fulfilling all views,
and this case is no exception.
For those who may think it makes little difference,
remember that a single letter in Hebrew can make all the
difference!
In siddurim going all the way back to Rav Amram Gaon (d.
875), through the Tur, and up to the Vilna Gaon (Maaseh Rav48), the vav is absent, and therefore, many argue that the original version should not be changed.
Others, such as Rav Zalman Henna (d. 1746; see Shaarei
Tefillah, siman 110) and the Aruch Hashulchan (siman 682),
urge us to add the vav, which generally signifies a connection to
what came previously.
To confuse matters even more, some say that the vav is only
needed in bentching but not in Shemoneh Esrei. In the latter, Al
Hanissim does indeed follow the words before it well, and it
also serves to conclude the hodaah (thanks) section. This is not
the case in bentching, however, where the brachah of hodaah
must still be said following Al Hanissim.
Although Rav Henna is a famed grammarian, other
medakdim, such as the Yaavetz (Bais Yaakov) and Rav Wolf
Haddenheim (Safah Berurah), argue that the vav should always
be omitted.
Is this a case where the stringency is to say the vav or to
omit it?
If you do not have a clear minhag, the only answer is to ask
your local rav! ●