Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mitzvah of Lulav extends all day.

(b) Our Mishnah obligates interrupting one's meal to Bensch Lulav - but how can that be, when the Mishnah in Shabbos specifically rules that someone who began eating (or performing other occupations that are forbidden, before having Davened Minchah) before Minchah, does not need to interrupt his meal in order to Daven Minchah?

(c) Rav Safra differentiates between whether there is time to take Lulav after the termination of the meal or not. According to Rava, this is not necessary however - because it could well be that, even though one does *not* need to interrupt one's meal for Minchah, which is only *mi'de'Rabbanan*, one *does* need to do so for Lulav, which is *mi'd'Oraysa*.

(d) Rava therefore changes the Kashya to a contradiction in our Mishnah itself: First, the Tana obligates one to interrupt one's meal in order to Bensch Lulav - then he writes that someone who did not take Lulav in the morning, should do so in the afternoon, implying that he does *not* need to interrupt his meal.

(a) That is no contradiction, asks Rebbi Zeira? Perhaps the Tana first informs us that one is obligated to interrupt one's meal, and then goes on to say that someone who failed to do so, has until nightfall to fulfill the Mitzvah.

(b) Rebbi Zeira therefore reinstates the original version of the Kashya. He dispenses with Rava's problem (that whereas Tefilas Minchah is de'Rabbanan, Lulav is d'Oraysa) - by establishing our Mishnah by the *second* day of Yom- Tov, which, like Minchah, is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c) Indeed, this *must* be so, he says - because if the Mishnah was referring to the *first* day of Yom-Tov, how could the Tana speak about someone who comes in from a journey, something which is forbidden on Yom- Tov?

(d) On this Kashya that Rav Safra answers that - whereas the Mishnah in Shabbos speaks when there *will still be time* to Daven Minchah after his meal, our Mishnah speaks when there will not.

(a) In the times of the Mishnah - the Chazen used to recite Hallel on behalf of the entire community.

(b) After each phrase, the community would respond 'Halelukah'.

(c) If a slave, a woman or a child was reading Hallel on someone's behalf - he would have to repeat Hallel after them, word for word.

(d) He would deserve to be cursed - because it would mean that he had never taken the trouble to learn how to read (It is obvious that the Tana is not talking about a person who never had the opportunity to learn - a rare event in those days).

(a) Whether or not, to repeat the latter Pesukim of Hallel, and whether or not, to recite a Berachah (which one, we shall see later) depend upon local Minhag.

(b) The reason for the Minhag to repeat the latter part of Hallel - is because all the Pesukim (starting from "Hodu") prior to "Odecha" are inherently double; so Chazal decided, for the sake of uniformity, to double all the rest of Hallel (from "Odecha" until the end) too.

(a) A small son can Bensch for his father, a slave for his master, and a woman for her husband - provided they ate enough to be satisfied (a Shiur Birchas ha'Mazon d'Oraysa - even though their personal Chiyuv to Bensch is [or might only be] mi'de'Rabbanan), and the father, the master and the husband, ate only a k'Zayis (according to Rebbi Meir) or a k'Beitzah (according to Rebbi Yehudah), a Shiur de'Rabbanan.

(b) '*be'Emes* Amru' used by the Tana of the Beraisa - means that it is an undisputed Halachah.

6)

(a) In Rava's time, everyone used to recite the whole Hallel together with the Chazen. However, to serve as a reminder of certain principles and Halachos, they introduced six irregularities in the recital of Hallel. They were reminded, when the Chazen said ...

1. ... 'Halelukah', and the congregation repeated it after him - of the Mitzvah to respond 'Halelukah' at the beginning of Hallel.
2. ... 'Halelu Avdei Hashem', and they said 'Halelukah' - that if a grown-up was reading Hallel for a community or for an individual, it was a Mitzvah to respond 'Halelukah' after each phrase.
3. ... 'Hodu la'Hashem Ki Tov ... ', and they repeated it after him - of the Minhag to repeat the first phrase of each paragraph (and not to say 'Halelukah').
4. ... 'Ana Hashem Hoshi'a Na', and they repeated it after him - that someone on whose behalf a child etc. was reading Hallel, would have to repeat each word after the child.
5. ... 'Ana Hashem Hatzlichah Na', and they repeated it after him - that parts of Hallel may be repeated.
6. ... 'Baruch ha'Ba', and they continued 'be'Shem Hashem' - that 'Shome'a ke'Oneh' (one can be Yotze with the reading of someone else, even without answering 'Amen').

(b) Although all of the proofs are sound - the sources are arbitrary, and could be switched.

(a) The Pasuk in Melachim, which describes how King Yoshiyahu read from the Sefer Torah that Chilkiyah ha'Kohen found, is seemingly strange - inasmuch as it was not the King who read from the Sefer Torah, but Shafan the scribe.

(b) Bar Kapara therefore learns from there - the principle 'Shome'a ke'Oneh' (so it was as if King Yoshiyahu had actually read it himself).

(c) Yoshiyahu cannot have repeated what Shafan the Sofer read - because then the Navi would not have written "Ya'an Rach Levavecha va'Tikana Lifnei Hashem *be'Sham'acha*" (which implies 've'Lo be'Kor'achah' - that he heard it, but did not read it).

(a) Rava warned against taking a breath between "Baruch ha'Ba" and "be'Shem Hashem ... " - because then it is not clear that the Name of Hashem belongs with the first two words.

(b) He gave similar instructions - with regard to saying 'Yehei Shemei Rabah', and then taking a breath before continuing 'Mevarach'.

(c) Rav Safra overruled both sets of instructions - on the grounds that as long as one intends to complete the phrase, the breath in between makes no difference.