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.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
