ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafSukah 38
SUKA 36-56 (End of Maseches) have been dedicated by the wife and daughters
of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of
Queens N.Y. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will
long be remembered.
(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
(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
(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-
(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
(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
(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.
(b) Although all of the proofs are sound - the sources are arbitrary, and
could be switched.
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
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
(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