(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Pesachim 117



(a) According to Rabah, only Merchavyah is one word - Haleluyah, Kesyah and Yedidyah are two.

(b) We do not know what Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yochanan holds by Merchavyah - Haleluyah, Kesyah and Yedidyah according to him too, are two words.

(c) According to Rav, Kesyah and Yedidyah are one word - which means that the suffix of 'yah' may not be written on another line and that it has no sanctity.

(d) The Gemara proves from the testimony of Rav (that Rebbi Chiya wrote 'Halelu' on one line, and 'Kah' on the other) - that Kah is a Holy word.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets 'Haleluyah' - as 'Praise Him with many praises'.

(b) He lists ten expressions of praise in Tehilim (Nitzu'ach, Nigun, Maskil, Mizmor, Shir, Ashrei, Tehilah, Tefilah, Hoda'ah and Halelu-Kah).

(c) The greatest of them all, he says, is Halelu-Kah, since it incorporates the Name of Hashem and His praise. This clashes with what his previous statement, which does not consider Haleluyah to be a Name of Hashem.

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, it was the prophets in Yisrael who composed Hallel - to be recited on every Yom-Tov, and whenever they are delivered from a calamity.

(b) Rebbi Meir explains the Pasuk in Tehilim "Kalu Tefilos David ben Yishai" to mean 'Kol Eilu Tefilos David ben Yishai' - to teach us that David himself said all the prayers (though not necessarily the praises) in Hallel.

(c) Rebbi Yossi preferred the explanation of his son Rebbi Elazar (who attributed Hallel to Moshe and the B'nei Yisrael after they were saved by the Yam-Suf) to that of his contemporaries (who attributed it to David Hamelech) - firstly, because it is unlikely that Yisrael would have Shechted their Pesachim and taken their Lulavim year after year, without reciting Hallel, and secondly, because how can David ha'Melech have composed Hallel at a time when the image of Michah was publicly being worshipped?

(d) It have made no sense to compose Hallel at a time when the image of Michah was being publicly worshipped - because of the phrase "Kemohem Yihyu Oseihem" (those who make them will be like them) which is written in Hallel itself.

(a) According to Rebbi Eliezer, all the praises of Hashem said by David Hamelech in Tehilim are personal; according to Rebbi Yehoshua, they are said in the name of Klal Yisrael. The Chachamim make a compromise: those chapters that are written in the singular, they explain, are personal, whereas those that are in the plural, are said in the name of Klal Yisrael.

(b) "le'David Mizmor" implies that the Shechinah rested on David Hamelech before he sang Shirah, and "Mizmor le'David", the reverse.

(c) We learn from here - that the Shechinah only rests on a person through Simchah shel Mitzvah, not through laziness, sadness, laughter, lightheadedness or time-wasting.

(d) Whether we attribute Hallel to Yehoshua, Devorah and Barak, Chizkiyah, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah or to Mordechai and Esther - Hashem replied "Lema'ni Lema'ni E'eseh" ('for My sake, for My sake I will do it') - Yeshayah.

(a) According to Rav Chisda, Haleluyah marks the *end* of a chapter; according to Rabah bar Rav Huna, it marks the *beginning*. Their dispute however, is restricted to where there is *one* Haleluyah between one chapter and the next; where there are *two*, both agree that the first Haleluyah refers to the former chapter, and the second, to the other.

(b) In the Tehilim of Rav Chanin bar Rav, 'Haleluyah' was always marked as the middle of the chapter - because he was uncertain whether it marked the beginning of the second chapter or the end of the first.

(c) There are three paragraphs where even Rav Chisda agrees, that the Haleluyah that follows is the first word in the following chapter and not the last word in the previous one. The most famous of these is undoubtedly Kapitel 145, ('Tehilah le'David') which ends with the Pasuk "Tehilas Hashem ... Le'olam Va'ed". The next word is "Haleluyah (Halleli Nafshi es Hashem").




(a) Initially, we try to explain that the Beraisa in Beis Shamai, which states the final words of Magid "Eim ha'Banim Semeichah" holds that Haleluyah is the *first* word in the next chapter, and the Beraisa which states the final phrase as "be'Tzeis Yisrael", holds that it is the *last* word in the current one.

(b) Rav Chisda (according to whom 'Haleluyah' is the end of the paragraph) explains that the first Beraisa holds 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Ch'lal' (and had the Tana said 'until be'Tzeis Yisrael' - like the second Tana - we would have thought that 'be'Tzeis Yisrael' is part of the first Berachah.

(c) This explanation however, is extremely difficult - because if he holds that Haleluyah is the end of the chapter and 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Ch'lal', then why did the Tana not say 'until Haleluyah'!

(d) Rabah bar Rav Huna (who holds that 'Haleluyah' is the beginning of the next paragraph) explains that the second Beraisa holds 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Ch'lal'. Consequently, the Tana could not have said until "Eim ha'Banim Semeichah". However, exactly the same Kashya as we asked on Rav Chisda applies here, too. Why did the Tana not say 'until Haleluyah'?

(a) The Berachah of Ge'ulah after the Shema and after the Hagadah is 'Ga'al Yisrael' (in the *past* tense), that of Tefilah, 'Go'eil Yisrael', (in the *present*) and not 'Ga'al Yisrael - because we are praying for the future, and the past tense is inappropriate).

(b) The same answer applies here as we answered in the previous question - 'Kideshanu' is the past tense, and has no place in Tefilah. It is however, appropriate in Kidush, where we thank Hashem for what He did in the past.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Asisi Lecha Shem Gadol Keshem ha'Gedolim Asher ba'Aretz" - that in some way, David is considered the fourth of the Avos, and so we say one of the Berachos of the Haftarah ends 'Magen David' (just like 'Magen Avraham' concludes the first Berachah of Tefilah.

(d) We conclude the Berachah in Tefilah 'Matzmi'ach Keren Yeshu'ah' - because it is a prayer for mercy and is more suitable in Tefilah than 'Magen David'. Alternatively, having already concluded one Berachah 'Magen Avraham', we cannot conclude another in the same way - because we do not conclude *two* Berachos in similar fashion.

(a) We learn from the Gezeirah Shavah "Lema'an *Tizkor* es Yom Tzeischa me'Eretz Mitzrayim" and "Zachor es Yom ha'Shabbos le'Kadesho" - that one should mention Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in Kidush (according to the Rashbam this also extends to the Berachah of 'Mekadesh Yisrael' in Tefilah, though this is not the prevalent Minhag). And we learn Kidush on Yom-Tov from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Shabbos.

(b) We learn from ...

  1. ... "ve'E'escha le'Goy Gadol" - to say 'Elokei Avraham'.
  2. ... "va'Avarechecha" - to say 'Elokei Yitzchak'.
  3. ... "va'Agadlah Shemecha" - to say 'Elokei Ya'akov'.
  4. ... "ve'Heyeh Berachah" - that the Berachah concludes 'Magen *Avraham*' (exclusively).
(a) According to the Elders of Pumbedisa, one concludes the Berachah ...
1. ... on Shabbos - 'Mekadesh ha'Shabbos', both in Kidush and in Tefilah - because Shabbos is fixed (by Hashem).
2. ... on Yom-Tov - 'Mekadesh Yisrael ve'ha'Zemanim' - because it is Yisrael who (due to the fact that it is *they* who determine whether Rosh Chodesh is on the thirtieth of the month or on the thirty-first).
(b) Rava maintains that the Berachah of Tefilah - both on Shabbos and on Yom-Tov, concludes 'Mekadesh Yisrael' - in deference to Yisrael; whereas Kidush, which is recited privately, he agrees with the Elders of Pumbedisa.

(c) The Gemara rules like the Sabi de'Pumbedisa - because it is possible to Daven privately (even though it may not be the ideal thing to do), and to recite Kidush publicly.

(d) Rava justifies his opinion because, he says, we go after the norm. which is Tefilah be'Rabim, and Kidush be'Yachid.

(a) Over ...
1. ... the third Kos at the Seder - one recites Birchas ha'Mazon.
2. ... the fourth Kos - one recites Hallel. (Note: Regarding the *fifth* Kos, see Rosh, Si'man 33.)
(b) One may not drink between the third and fourth Kosos - because one may become drunk and be unable to recite Hallel. (c) One may however, drink between ...
1. ... the second and third Kos - because wine drunk during the meal does not cause drunkenness.
2. ... the first and second Kos - for the same reason (it is only wine after the meal that causes drunkenness). Note: according to others, the reason for the prohibition of drinking between the third and fourth cups is so that the taste of the Matzah remains in one's mouth (see Tosfos DH 'Revi'i'. The Rosh in Sim'an 33, quotes Rav Yosef Tuv Ileim, who forbids drinking wine even *after* the fourth Kos - in spite of the indications from both the Bavli and the Yerushalmi that it is permitted. The reason for this, says the Maharam me'Rottenberg, is on account of the Tosefta, which obligates everyone to remain awake throughout the night to learn the Hilchos Pesach, and to relate the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt. Drinking wine causes drunkenness, and makes this difficult. Yet they instituted the fourth Kos, despite this Tosefta, because of the himt in the Pasuk - "ve'Lakachti Eschem" - the fourth of the expressions of redemption.)
11) Although it appears from our Mishnah that Birchas ha'Mazon requires a Kos, it may well be that it doesn't; nevertheless, Chazal fixed the third Kos over Birchas ha'Mazon, in order to perform a Mitzvah by each Kos (Kidush, Hagadah, Birchas ha'Mazon and Hallel).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,