A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
When the shaliach tzibbur says "Hallelujah" and the congregation responds, when do they recite the bracha? Tosafos (תוספות) asks whether making the bracha before responding would constitute a hefsek (interruption) or prevent proper aniyah (responsiveness). The shiur explores four possible approaches, ultimately examining whether the chazzan's Hallelujah is actually part of the tzibbur's own recitation.
This shiur analyzes a complex Tosafos (תוספות) on Sukkah 38a concerning the proper procedure for reciting Hallel in a responsive format. The Gemara (גמרא) establishes that when Hallel is recited, the shaliach tzibbur says "Hallelujah," the congregation remains silent, then they respond "Hallelujah," and he remains silent while they complete their response. Both Rashi (רש"י) and Tosafos agree on this basic procedure, though they may differ slightly in their formulations. Tosafos raises a fundamental question: When does the congregation make the bracha over Hallel? The problem is that every mitzvah (מצוה) requires a bracha before its performance, yet here the congregation must respond immediately to the chazzan's "Hallelujah." If they make the bracha after he says "Hallelujah" but before they respond, there would appear to be a hefsek (interruption) between his statement and their response, undermining the responsive nature of the recitation.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Sukkah 38a
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
When an animal damages crops, the Torah prescribes a unique payment formula based on multiplying the damaged area by sixty. Does this formula redefine the actual loss, or does it merely create a payment mechanism that still acknowledges the full damage sustained? The Gemara explores whether someone who ate in doubt should pay the higher-quality amount, examining how the principle of motzi me-chaveiro alav haraya applies when payments fall within the range of actual loss.
What makes testimony valid when different witnesses testify to different parts of the same event? The Gemara debates whether the principle of "davar v'lo chatzi davar" (complete testimony, not partial) disqualifies witnesses who testify separately to theft and slaughter. Rashi's approach reveals that the issue is not merely combining elements, but whether each witness's statement is independently meaningful.
Why is a ganav who sells a stolen animal on Shabbos exempt from the fourfold/fivefold payment? The shiur analyzes whether this exemption stems from kam lei b'derabbah or from the absence of a valid mechira. The Rashba's principle that matana resembles mechira when it is "nishtarish b'chet" is explored, along with the Rambam's position on hekdesh and the distinction between giving to bedek habayis versus mizbe'ach.
When a ganav shechts a stolen animal l'avodah zarah, why isn't he patur from payment since it's already isur hana'ah? The shiur explores the fundamental machloket Rashi-Tosafot on whether the isur derives from the act of shechita or from the din shechita itself. The Gemara's application of davar garem be'mamon ke'mamon domi extends the analysis to when borrowed animals become niskal.
