Hallel and the Challil

This post is a bit long and involved, but if you stick with it I think it's followable:

The Mishna in Erchin on 10a says that there are 12 days that during the time of the shiras haleviim (when the leviim sang in the bais hamikdash) they would also play the chalil (a certain musical instrument). The 12 days were:

1. the day of the shechitas korban pesach
2. the day of pesach sheni
3. the first day of pesach
4. the first day of shavuos
5. the 8 days of succos

Rashi on the mishna makes a somewhat perplexing statement that on the days of the shechitas korban pesach we say hallel. Where is there any mention of hallel in the mishna?

The Griz in Hilchos Korban Pesach writes that Rashi here is following the Yerushalmi that compares chalil to hallel. That is, any time the chalil is used hallel is recited.

Rashi, though, makes another interesting comment. The pashtus would've been that any time the chalil is used, individuals in their davening would say hallel. Rashi, however, says that the hallel is sung by the leviim in the mikdash instead of the shir shel yom. This Rashi needs to be explained.

Before we get into this issue, let's discuss precisely what Rashi is saying. Rashi in the beginning of Perek HaChalil says explicitly that the chalil was used at shacharis in the bais hamikdash. If so, Rashi here is saying that while they banged the chalil during shacharis, the leviim sang the hallel instead of the shir shel yom.

It's fascinating because the in Meseches Sukkah 55 says that on sukkos the tehillim of hu"mbi (an acronym) were recited. Rashi says this recitation took place during mussaf. The turei even in Rosh Hashana 30b says that Rashi must be saying this because at Shacharis the regular shir shel yom is recited. The Avnei Nezer 24:1 points out that the turei even in mistaken! Rashi says explicitly in Erchin that on sukkos the hallel replaces the shir shel yom. Even more interesting, I saw in the chasam sofer (Beitzah Daf 5) that on these days we really don't know what the leviim said in the Bais Hamikdash so one shouldn't say Hayom Yom... shebo hayu haleviim omrim.. because that would be dover shekarim!

Getting back now to our main issue, why does Rashi learn that hallel replaced the shir shel yom and was sung by the leviim? If you look at the gemara on the mishna, the gemara clearly says that these days corresponded to days where yechidim said hallel in their davening... but that the leviim said hallel as the shir shel yom seems to be from out of nowhere!?

Now, if you take a look at the gemara in Erchin, you will see that the gemara actually says that there were 18 days that full hallel was said. First of all, the gemara adds the days of chanuka. Rashi explains that although on Chanuka full hallel is said, still the chalil isn't beaten because chanuka has no korban mussaf. You may ask, if the chalil is beaten at shacharis, who cares if there is no korban mussaf. The Chikrei Lev says that, for whatever reason, korban mussaf and the challil are related. I thought to answer with what I saw in the Igros HaGrid, that without a Korban Mussaf there is no kedushas hayom. If that's the case then the chiddush may be that since chanuka has no kedushas hayom, so there is no challil.

All this answers for chanuka, but what about for the two days of shechitas korban pesach? On those days we do bang the challil, but the gemara doesn't mention that we say hallel on those days. Why not?

Tosafos answer that really on those days we do say hallel, but that is only in the times of the bais hamikdash. That is why the gemara doesn't mention those days.

Tosafos is therefore saying that in truth there is an obligation of hallel on these days of the shechitas hapesach. We will return to this shitah a little later.

There is another machlokes rishonim regarding chatzi hallel that I believe is very relevant. Tosafos there in Erchin (d"h Shemoneh Asar) says that any time one doesn't say a full hallel there is no chiyuv at all to say the hallel. Rather, it is only a minhag. This is explicit with regards to Rosh Chodesh in the gemara in Taanis 28b. The Ramban however (Shabbos dafei HaRif 11b see Ran there) argues that the minhag is only on Rosh Chodesh. On the second days of Pesach, however, there is a bona fide chiyuv to say a chatzi hallel. So the Ramban argues that there could be a chiyuv of chatzi hallel.

In a similar fashion, the Griz in Chanuka 3:4 points out that by the hallel by korban pesach the "third group" often didn't finish saying the whole hallel (see Pesachim 64b). The Griz asks, how is there a chiyuv of less than full hallel? The Griz asks the same question by the hallel of the seder and the hallel on nissim (see there). He answers based on a Rav Hai Gaon that there are two dinim in hallel. There is krias hallel, in which the whole hallel is recited, and there is a din of shiras hallel (where you just sing praise to God) in which it's a chiyuv, but you need not say the whole thing.

This distinction of the Griz may work in the Ramban as well. The chiyuv on the second days of Pesach is a chiyuv of shiras hallel and not krias hallel. Thus, the entire thing need not be recited.

Now, if we were to view the gemara in Erchin through the eyes of the Ramban, when the gemara says that there are 18 days when one must finish hallel, it probably means as opposed to the other days where there is only a chiyuv of chatzi hallel (or shiras hallel as the Griz may say).
If so, on the days of korban pesach there is no chiyuv of full hallel (in contrast to Tosafos) , only a chiyuv of shiras hallel. This is, as the Griz pointed out, explicit from Pesachim 64b that by korban pesach the third group never finished reciting the full hallel. The question of Tosafos would now swing back on the Ramban. If there is no chiyuv of full hallel on the days of korban pesach why is there banging of the chalil on those days?? (Remember Tosafos answered that there really is a chiyuv of full hallel on the days of korban pesach and the gemara only omitted it because it only applied during the bais hamikdash. We are suggesting that the Ramban disputes that based on Pesachim 64b.)

This is where Rashi steps in. Rashi in Taanis on 28b is mashma that he agrees with the Ramban's position that there is a chiyuv of chatzi hallel. Rashi here then is now stepping up and answering the question on the Ramban. If there is no chiyuv for a full hallel on days of korban pesach, why do we bang the challil? The answer is that the chiyuv of the challil is not dependent on the individuals recitation of full hallel during davening. Rather, the chiyuv depends upon the recitation of the leviim over the korbanos. The gemara in Pesachim 64b says explicitly that the leviim said hallel while the korban pesach was brought. This is the chiyuv of shiras hallel of the Griz. That chiyuv is mechayiv challil because the challil accompanies the leviim when they sing hallel in the mikdash.

The gemara in Erchin, however, was merely listing the days where individuals say full hallel in their davening. This does not apply on the days of korban pesach. However, on all days where this does apply there is a general rule that the leviim also sing the hallel on the korban tamid. Thus, on those days the challil bangs during the korban tamid.

The rule therefore is that the challil is used with a korban that the leviim say hallel on. When is this? Any time the individual says full hallel and additionally by the korban pesach as the gemara says in Pesachim 64b.

Hallel

On the Yom Tov of Pesach we only recite full Hallel on the first days. After that we recite only a chatzi hallel. On Succos this is not the case. Rather, on Succos we recite a full hallel the entire Yom Tov.

Why the distinction?

There are two reasons given for this. The gemara in Erchin on 10a/b says that on Succos there is a different korban every day. Therefore each day is like an independant Yom Tov and deserves its own full Hallel.

The Midrash gives a different reason. The Midrash asks why don't we say a full hallel on the 7th day of Pesach? After all, weren't the Jews saved at the Yam Suf?

The Midrash answers with the Pasuk of Binfol Oyvecha Al Tismach... Maasei Yadi Tovim Bayam V'Atem Omrim Shira? In other words, we don't say hallel on the downfall of Hashem's creations.

Rav Aharon Kotler explains the necessity for two separate reasons. There are in fact two separate michayvim for hallel. One mechayev is Yom Tov. Since Pesach is all one Yom Tov there is no need for a full hallel every day. Succos, on the other hand, is a new Yom Tov every day because of the different Parei HaChag, the different korbanos of each day.

The other mechayev of hallel is nes. We say hallel any day that a miracle occured to Klal Yisroel. Thus, the midrash asks, even if the 7th day of Pesach is not a Yom Tov independantly, perhaps the nes of the Yam Suf should be mechayev hallel? To which the midrash responds that this is not the case because this nes also represents the downfall of God's creations.

Lomdus of Selichos

In the previous post we discussed the source of B"H"B. Interestingly Selichos during Chodesh Elul differ from B"HB in that there is a kaddish with tiskabel after the selcihos of Chodesh Elul.
Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe 3rd Chelek of Orach Chaim Siman 81 proves from selichos in chodesh elul that really all "tsibbur things" should get a kaddish tiskabel. He suggests some reasons there as to why on B"HB this isn't the case. I'll let you check there for the details.
I once heard in the name of Rav Soloveitchik a different explanation of the kaddish tiskabel. He held that selichos is really a form of tefillah. There are actually two forms of tefillah. Shemoneh Esrai is a "formal" tefillah. Our feet are together, there is a standard nusach, we start with shevach then bakasha, etc. We end this tefillah with a kaddish tiskabel, asking Hashem to accept our tefillos.

The second kind of tefillah is learnt out of the following Rambam:

א מצות עשה מן התורה, לזעוק ולהריע בחצוצרות על כל צרה שתבוא על הציבור, שנאמר "על הצר הצורר אתכם--והרעותם, בחצוצרות" (במדבר י,ט)--כלומר כל דבר שיצר לכם כגון בצורת ודבר וארבה וכיוצא בהן, זעקו עליהן והריעו

From here we learn the tefillah of zeaka - to cry out to Hashem in an es tzarah. This tefillah is informal. Our feet our not together nor is the nusach as "standard". Rather, we "scream out" to our Father in Heaven to help us.

[I would add to this that the formal tefillah is relating to Hashem more as a King, whereas the informal zeakah relates to Him as a Father.]

Selichos represents this second, more informal, type of tefillah. It is for this reason that it too ends with a kaddish tiskabel.

Interesting to note that the Rambam implies that tachanun after shemoneh esrai becomes a part of the Shemoneh Esrai and merges with it. As the Rambam states at the end of Perek 5 of Tefillah:

יג] השתחוויה כיצד: אחר שמגביה ראשו מכריעה חמישית, יושב לארץ, ונופל על פניו ארצה, ומתחנן בכל התחנונים שירצה.
טו כריעה האמורה בכל מקום, על ברכיים; קידה, על אפיים; השתחוויה--זו פישוט ידיים ורגליים, עד שנמצא מוטל על פניו על הארץ.
טז [יד] כשהוא עושה נפילת פנים אחר תפילה, יש מי שהוא עושה קידה, ויש מי שהוא עושה השתחוויה; ואסור לעשות השתחוויה על האבנים אלא במקדש, כמו שביארנו בהלכות עבודה זרה. ואין אדם חשוב רשאי ליפול על פניו, אלא אם כן הוא יודע בעצמו שהוא צדיק כיהושוע; אבל מטה הוא פניו מעט, ואינו כובש אותם בקרקע. ומותר לאדם להתפלל במקום זה, ולנפול על פניו במקום אחר.

We also find by selichos that tachanun immediately follows it. This would seem to be yet another connection between the two.

This explanation of kaddish tiskabel would seem to go against Rav Moshe's idea that all tzibbur activities require that kaddish. Rather, it is only a din in tefillah and selichos has such a din.

B"H"B

Many congregations said selichos today as the last Monday of Behab. The source of saying selichos on Behab comes from a gemara in Kiddushin 81a that after the regalim we need a kapparah because of the socializing between the men and the women. Because of this (see Tosafos there) a minhag developed to fast on the Monday, Thursday, and Monday after the regalim. However, this couldn't be done in the actual months of tishrei and nissan because one doesn't fast in those months. Therefore Behab is the first M, Th, M after Rosh Chodesh. These halachos are found in Shulchan Aruch in Siman 566 and 492.

Cheresh, Shoteh, V'Katan in Shlichus

The Gemara in Baba Metziah 72a says that there is zchiya for a katan. That means that a gadol can be zocheh in something on behalf of a katan. The gemara says that the reason for this is "asi lichlal shlichus", meaning when the katan grows up he will become eligible to be a shliach.

Rashi in Baba Basra 156b says that this halacha is only midrabbanan. On a d'orayssa level there is no way a katan can have zchiya.

Rav Chaim in stencils, however, brings a Raavad that this zchiya is even on a d'orayssa level. Rav Chaim asks from the fact that most rishonim hold zchiya works m'taam shlichus (that the mizakeh is actually acting as a shliach of the zocheh). If so the katan is actually having the m'zakeh act as a shliach for him. This, however, is not possible because there is no shlichus for a katan. So, the question is, how can the Raavad say that a katan can have zchiya on a d'orayssa level?

Rav Chaim brings a Rambam in Mechira 29:11 as follows:

יא] ייראה לי שקטן שקנה קרקע, ונתן דמים, והחזיק--תעמוד בידו, אף על פי שאין ממכרו בקרקע כלום: שהקטן כמי שאינו לפנינו הוא; וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו, ואין חבין לו אלא בפניו.

Here the Rambam is saying a remarkable idea. If a katan acquires a field we say zachin l'adam shelo b'fanav and the kinyan works. The problem is that zchiya would usually mean that a gadol would do the maaseh for the katan and the zchiya would be that the gadol acts as a shliach for the katan. Here, the katan is doing the maaseh. So what is the zchiya for?

Rav Chaim learns from here that zchiya can also mean that we are mezakeh daas to the katan. This is not a zchiya of shlichus. Rather, it is as though impart daas to the katan where he doesn't actually have it. Since acquiring property is a good thing, we act as if the katan had daas and we allow him to acquire the property.

Rav Chaim says that this is also the pshat in Kesuvos on 11a where it says we use zchiya to allow a katan to go into the mikveh to be migayer. Again, isn't the katan doing the maaseh? Rav Chaim says the same idea, the zchiya here is only on the daas and is not working through shlichus at all. (See Tosafos there in Kesuvos who also deals with Rav Chaim's questions.)

With this idea, Rav Chaim explains the Raavad as follows:
The Raavad in Gerushin 6:9 says the only reason a katan cannot have a shliach is because the katan has no daas. Therefore, by zchiya we can be mezakeh the daas to the katan. Once he has daas we can then act as a shliach for him, even on a d'orayssa level. Rashi, on the other hand, in Baba Metzia 72a says that a katan is totally mufka from shlichus, from the pasuk of ish - prat l'koton. If so, a katan cannot have a shliach act for him in any circumstance, and the zchiya cannot possibly work on a d'orayssa level.

What about the other way around? Can a katan be zocheh for a gadol?
This is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos in Gittin on 64b. Rashi says this can only happen on a d'rabbanan level. Tosafos argue and say the zchiya is even midorayssa. Tosafos there ask, how can this be? Isn't zchiya mitaam shlichus and a katan cannot be a shliach? Tosafos answer that the only reason a katan cannot be a shliach is because they have no daas. But, again, since a katan eventually will have daas its not a problem. This may be following the Raavad that we are mizakeh the daas to the katan. Rashi may argue that ktanim are totally mufka from shlichus, and nothing can be done to help. (Rav Chaim in zchiya and matana 4:6 discusses this Rashi as well.)

To sum up we basically have two mehalchim in why a Cheresh, Shoteh, V'Katan are not in the parsha of shlichus. One pshat is because they have no daas. The second is that they are mufka from shlichus from a gezairas hakasuv. The nafka minah is, in cases where you can "give" them daas can they be in the parsha of shlichus.

[More maareh mekomos on this topic: See Gemara Gittin 23a, Birchas Avraham on that Gemara, Kobetz Biurim Os 16. See also Kobetz Hearos Siman 5: 12, 13 that discusses a very similar issue regarding bnei krisus]

Sources of Halacha

The Rambam in his introduction to Mishna Torah explains that the purpose of his writing the Mishna Torah was to codify the halachos of the Torah She'baal Peh. He thus went through all the sugyos in Shas Bavli and Yerushalmi and determined the final halacha in each case and recorded it. The Bais Yosef in his introduction explains how he codified the halacha. He first determined the opinions of the Rambam, the Rif, and the Rosh. He then followed a majority to determine the halacha. Of course, this approach of the Beis Yosef favors the Sefardim (for two of the three he relied upon were Sefardi) and, thus, we have the hagahos of the Rema on the Shulchan Aruch.

The Rif and the Rosh, like the Rambam, essentially wrote seforim that recorded the maskanos of the sugyas hashas. Thus, "halacha" really should be nothing more than the maskanos of the gemara. This approach would end up completely ignoring sources in Sifrei Kabbalah, like the Zohar.

In fact, the Chasam Sofer in Orach Chaim at the end of Siman 51 writes that anyone who mixes Kabbalah into Psak Halacha, it is a forbidden mixture (like shaatnez or kilayim). This would seem to be consistent with what we wrote above.

In reality, however, this does not seem to be the case. Both the Bais Yosef and the Magen Avraham are filled with citations of the Zohar, despite the fact that they are both sifrei halacha. How do we reconcile this fact with the statement of the Chasam Sofer?

This issue is dealt with by the Shevet HaLevi in Chelek Alef Siman Bais. He essentially says that even the Chasam Sofer would admit that kabbalah can make its way into halacha, and the Chasam Sofer's statement is only to be applied in limited situations. You can check yourself for the details of his answer.

Finally, the Mishna Berurah in Siman 25:42 quotes the Knesses HaGedolah on this issue. Here is a rough translation:

The Knesses HaGedolah writes that in terms of the rules of psak: any time the baalei kabbalah and Zohar argue on the Gemara and the Poskim we follow the Gemara and the Poskim. However, if the Baalei Kabbalah are machmir one should be machmir as well. And if the issue isn't mentioned in the Gemara and the Poskim even though it is mentioned in Kabbalah we cannot force someone to be noheg like that. And a din that is not mentioned the opposite way in Shas one should follow Kabbalah. And also, in a place where the Poskim argue one can use the words of Kabbalah to be machria.

Aseh V'lo Saaseh

In this post, Chaim B. tackles the question of the Maharatz Chiyus (posed here) by discussing a situation where we have one mitzvah that is both a lav and an aseh. He writes as follows:

Kiddushin 34 gives examples of mitzvos aseh which are not zman gerama which women therefore are obligated to perform: hashavas aveidah, ma’akah, shiluach hakan. Tosfos asks why it is relevant whether these mitzvos are zman gerama or not - since each of these mitzvos also is linked to a lav which women are obligated in, women have to perform the action associated with the mitzvah irrespective of the aseh.Tosfos answers by devising cases where the aseh applies without the lav. The Ramban, however, offers a more fundemental argument. In these cases the lav does not function as an independent issur, but is the Torah’s way of strengthening the mitzvas aseh – if the aseh does not apply, the lav which goes hand in hand with it does not apply either.The debate between Tosfos and Ramban seems to be how to understand intersecting lavim/mitzvos – do we treat each factor independently, or do the aseh and lav merge together and function as one unit either based on the criteria of the aseh (in these cases) or the lav (perhaps in other cases).

A commenter, Anon1 makes the following comment on this Ramban:

I remember when R'Mayer Twersky explained this machlokes rishonim -- he gave two mehalchim -- one focusing on whether the aseh and the lav were concurrent or not and the other focusing on the mechanics of aseh docheh lo taaseh (hutrah vs. dechuyah).

First, I'm not sure what Anon1 means by explaining this Ramban as having to do with aseh docheh lo saaseh. There is a separate issue also mentioned by Chaim B. in this post as follows:

why can’t women, who are not obligated in the aseh of Yom Tov because it is zman gerama, use this oil for hadlakas neiros – since they are only obligated in the lav of Yom Tov, we should invoke aseh doche lo ta’aseh?
Tofos answers that since the lav of Yom Tov is conjoined to an aseh, it indicates (is a siman) that this lav is stronger than other lavim and cannot be pushed off by an aseh.

This issue is obviously relevant to aseh docheh lo saseh. The issue is if you have a mitzvah that is both an aseh shehazman grama and a lav, do we say the rule of ein aseh docheh lo saaseh v'aseh for women. Clearly, that issue may be related to how the rules of aseh docheh lo saaseh work.

The first issue is a different one altogether. That issue is whether women are chayav at all in a mitzvas aseh shehazman gerama that also has a lav associated with it. Meaning, even though they are clearly patur from the aseh part, are they still chayav in the lav aspect.

I looked at the Ramban and my understanding was that the Ramban was saying that it depends on how we phrase the lav. In a case like maakeh for example, how do we understand the lav? Is the lav:

Do not refrain from putting up a maakeh.

Or is it:

Do not refrain from performing the mitzvah of maakeh.

The Ramban says that it all depends on how the lav is written in the Torah. In the cases above (maakeh, hashavas aveidah, etc.) we read the lav in the latter sense. The lav is to not refrain from the mitzvah. Therefore, if the aseh is zman gerama and, thus, there is no mitzvah, there is no lav either by extension.
In my understanding of the Ramban I did not think the Ramban was making a general rule by all mitzvos that have an aseh and a lav. Rather, the Ramban would analyze each case differently to determine how exactly the lav is phrased.