Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz

So that's why we're allowed to do it.

Magnev Ram says that in tefillah, you're allowed to mention different parts of a pasuk.

If you say, I suspect that's what people assume when they make songs also, that it's that if a person is singing with a certain kavanah, that it's a kind of a tefillah.

I don't know, I don't know.

But, okay, in fact, in the Chuvos Rav Pa'alim, he says, that's why by Kiddush Levana we say the Pasuk, which is the middle of a Pasuk, because we're saying it, In fact, on the other hand, the Yachnu Boaz in the Mishnah is saying,

points out that who says a Pasuk means a whole Pasuk?

Maybe a Pasuk means a significant enough portion of a Pasuk that it's an independent phrase.

So maybe if there's an Asnachta, that's enough to make it an entire Pasuk.

And therefore, by Kiddush during the day, we say Alken Beirech, which is the first part of the Pasuk following the Asnachta.

So it's not considered to be...

a pasuk that was split.

So bottom line is, you know, and there's also discussion about a pasuk that was split by Ezekiel Katan.

Okay, so bottom line is that it is a halacha, but it's not quoted in the poskim, and even the way it's quoted in the gemara, there is wiggle room when it's low efshar.

So the fact that it's, you know...

a little more frequently violated, is not like the most surprising thing.

It's like, should we be better about it?

Maybe, maybe.

When the new Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel was here a little while ago, he said that someone had

had asked, how come, even in the most Haredi weddings, they have sitting by the chuppah, the men on one side, the women on the other side, no mechitza, no mechitza at the chuppah.

So they asked Rav Eliashev, shouldn't we insist that there be a mechitza at the chuppah?