A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
Does fulfilling the mitzvah (מצוה) of Hallel require actively repeating words, answering amen or Halleluyah, or is silent listening sufficient? The shiur analyzes the Mishna's takanos—answering Halleluyah at paragraph breaks, repeating the rashei prakim, and responding word-for-word to a katan—and struggles with apparent contradictions in Rashi (רש"י) and the Rambam (רמב"ם) about whether shomeya k'oneh (listening is like responding) works without any verbal response at all.
This shiur examines the mechanics of fulfilling the mitzvah (מצוה) of Hallel through the principle of shomeya k'oneh (one who hears is considered as if he answered). Rabbi Zweig opens by analyzing a Mishna in Sukkah 38b that details the takanos (rabbinic enactments) governing the recitation of Hallel. The Mishna teaches that when the chazzan says "Halleluyah," the congregation answers "Halleluyah." When he says "Hallelu avdei Hashem (ה׳)," they do not answer "Halleluyah" because this indicates the start of a new paragraph. Rashi (רש"י) explains that from this we learn the takana that one must answer "Halleluyah" at the beginning and end of each paragraph. The shiur then turns to a more puzzling takana: when a katan (minor) is reading Hallel, the adult must repeat every single word after him, word for word. Rabbi Zweig struggles to understand what kind of takana this is. If the adult is obligated in Hallel mi-de'orayta or mi-derabbanan, why would repeating the words after a katan help? The Gemara (גמרא) elsewhere teaches that a katan who is not yet bar chiyuv cannot be motzi (fulfill the obligation of) an adult. Yet here Rashi seems to present this word-for-word repetition as a special rabbinic enactment. Rabbi Zweig raises the possibility that there are two ways to read this takana: either (1) without the takana, you would not be yotzei at all by hearing from a katan, and the Rabbanan were mesakein that you can be yotzei if you repeat every word; or (2) you would actually be yotzei even without repeating, but the Rabbanan required repetition as a chumra or for pedagogical reasons. The latter seems difficult—why institute a takana to do something that would already work?
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 38b
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.
