Daf Ditty Pesachim 117:‫ַבֲּﬠָשׂ ָרה ַמֲאָמרוֹת ֶשׁל ֶשַׁבח‬

"R. Nahman's messianism entails an act of tikkun, and this is the general
meaning of 'ha-tikkun ha-kelali'. This name aptly describes R. Nahman's
approach in general, since he perceived his mission as the tikkun of man...and
the tikkun of his community, as well as that of the whole Jewish people from
all their sins; both their wordly sins, which were first and foremost sexual,
and the numerous doctrinal sins of his generation that had ravaged traditional
Jewish structures ("the Enlightenment"). But above all, he was concerned
with the tikkun of the original sin..."

Yehudah Liebes1

1
That is why we have the duty to praise ... Him who performed for our ancestors and for us all these
miracles: He brought us from slavery to liberty, from wretchedness to joy, from mourning to festivity,
from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption: so, let us say before Him,
Hallelujah.

2
The Gemara comments: This opinion disputes that of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of the word hallelujah? It means praise Him
[hallelujah] with many praises [hillulim]. According to this opinion, the ya at the end of the word
is a superlative, not a divine name.

The Gemara adds: This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees with another ruling that
he himself issued, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The book of Psalms is said by means of
ten expressions of praise: By nitzuaḥ, niggun, maskil, mizmor, shir, ashrei, tehilla, tefilla,
hoda’a, and hallelujah. He continues: The greatest of them all is hallelujah, as it includes God’s
name and praise at one time. This statement indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi considers
hallelujah to be a combination of two words, one of which is the name of God.

3
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The song in the Torah, i.e., the Song at the Sea (Exodus
15:1–19), Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they ascended from the sea. The
Gemara asks: And who said this hallel mentioned in the mishna, Psalms 113–118? The Gemara
answers: The Prophets among them established this hallel for the Jewish people, that they
should recite it on every appropriate occasion; and for every trouble, may it not come upon
them, they recite the supplications included in hallel. When they are redeemed, they recite it
over their redemption, as hallel includes expressions of gratitude for the redemption.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: All the praises stated in the book of
Psalms were recited by David, as it is stated: “The prayers of David, son of Yishai, are ended
[kalu]” (Psalms 72:20). Do not read kalu; rather, read kol elu, all of these, which indicates that
the entire book of Psalms consists of the prayers of King David.

The Gemara clarifies: According to those who dispute Rabbi Meir’s claim that the entire book of
Psalms was composed by King David, who recited this hallel? Rabbi Yosei says: My son Elazar
says that Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they ascended from the sea. And his
colleagues dispute him, saying that it was recited by King David. And the statement of my
son, Elazar, appears more accurate than their statement. The reason is as follows: Is it possible
that the Jewish people slaughtered their Paschal lambs and took and waved their lulavim all
those generations without reciting a song? Rather, the Jews must have recited a song each year.
Since it is the custom to sing hallel nowadays, it is evidently an ancient institution.

4
 THE ESSENCE OF "HALLEL"
The Gemara says that the Nevi'im (prophets) instituted that the Jewish people should recite Hallel
for each "Perek" ("time period") at which they were saved, and for each "Tzarah" ("trouble") from
which they were saved. What is the difference between the Hallel of a "Perek" and the Hallel of a
"Tzarah"?

The RASHBAM (116b, DH Al Kol Perek) explains that "Perek" refers to the times that are set in
the Jewish calendar by the Torah -- in particular, Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukos. "Tzarah" refers to
times not established by the Torah, but that were added later in history after a miraculous salvation
occurred, such as Chanukah.

The Rashbam does not distinguish between the two occasions on which Hallel is said for salvation
from a "Tzarah" -- the Hallel said at the actual moment of the miraculous salvation by those who
were saved, and the Hallel said each subsequent year in commemoration of the salvation.
Apparently, both of those forms of Hallel are the same. The only difference is that when it is a
highly significant miracle, it is commemorated in subsequent years, and when it is a less significant
miracle, the miracle is celebrated only the year that it occurred.

BRISKER RAV (Hilchos Chanukah 3) cites RABEINU YERUCHAM who explains that
"Perek" refers to any set time during the year at which there is a special enactment to recite Hallel
(the three festivals, and Chanukah). "Tzarah," on the other hand, refers to the actual moment of
salvation at which the Jewish people should sing Hallel to thank Hashem for their deliverance. The
source for the recitation of Hallel at the moment of salvation can be found in the BEHAG. He
writes that part of the decree of the Nevi'im was for the Jews to say Hallel spontaneously whenever
they, as a group, are saved from imminent peril.

The Brisker Rav points out that these two types of Hallel differ not only in when they are recited,
but in the nature of their obligation to be recited.

1. The Hallel established for specific calendar days is obligatory. The spontaneous Hallel,
however, is optional. One is allowed, but not obligated, to say Hallel with a blessing at such an
occasion.
2. RABEINU YONAH in Berachos says that when the Jewish people want to sing spontaneous
praises to Hashem in response to a miraculous delivery from danger, they need not recite the entire
Hallel. Even when they have said a blessing over Hallel, they are permitted to say as many or as
few passages as they wish. They may even interrupt in the middle. In contrast, the Hallel of a
"Perek" must be recited in the order of its paragraphs, and a blessing may be said only when the
entire Hallel is recited.

The Brisker Rav explains that these differences are based on a more fundamental disparity in the
underlying essence of the two types of Hallel. The "Perek" Hallel is recited as an obligation of
"Keri'ah" -- to read the Hallel. Its goal is to arouse one's love for Hashem through the remembrance
of a miracle which He performed at a certain time in the past. In contrast, the Hallel of "Tzarah"

5
is said as a form of praise to Hashem, or "Shirah." It is an expression of the immense love for
Hashem that one feels at a time of miraculous salvation. In short, one Hallel is an emotional display
of one's love and appreciation towards Hashem, while the other is a means to develop one's love
for Hashem.

This explanation helps to answer the Rashbam's question on Rashi in this Sugya. The Beraisa
quotes one opinion, that Hallel was initiated by Moshe and the Jews at the Sea. Another opinion
says that it was said by Yehoshua and Yisrael when they conquered Eretz Yisrael. A number of
other opinions are given. At the end, the Beraisa quotes the Chachamim who say that Hallel was
instituted by the Nevi'im to be read at each "Perek" and each "Tzarah" from which the Jewish
people were saved.

Rashi explains that all of the opinions mentioned prior to that of the Chachamim do not argue, but
rather they add to each other. The Beraisa means that Hallel was also (and not only) said at those
different times. The Rashbam asks that the wording of the Beraisa clearly implies that the
Chachamim argue. If the previous opinions agree that Hallel was said whenever the Jewish people
were saved, then they do not argue with the opinion of the Chachamim.

Perhaps Rashi understands the Beraisa based on the ideas expressed by the Brisker Rav. That is,
according to the first opinions in the Beraisa, there is no general institution to say Hallel after
Hashem saves the Jewish people. Only when the Navi instructs the Jews to say Hallel after a
miracle occurs may they then say Hallel (with a blessing). On the other hand, the Chachamim
maintain that there is a general institution to recite Hallel (as the BEHAG says). Accordingly, the
Nevi'im established that whenever the Jewish people, as a nation, are saved by a miracle, they may
say Hallel, even without specific dispensation from the Nevi'im.

Maharsha notes that there are clearly many chapters in Tehillim which are reflections of personal
experiences which Dovid overcame.2

How does R’ Yehoshua explain that these were written corresponding to the community at large?
Similarly, there are many chapters which are written in plural form. How are we to understand the
view that these were composed in response to the private affairs of Dovid HaMelech? We must

2
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20117.pdf

6
say that when we say “all the songs of Tehillim were written...” for either Dovid himself or for the
community, the word “all” cannot be understood literally.

Certainly, the chapters which are explicitly aimed at Dovid’s personal situations were written as
his personal songs. Those chapters which are clearly responses to communal situations which the
nation faced are obviously to be understood in that vein.

The argument between R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua is only in reference to the chapters which
contain no indication of their subject matter. This is where R’ Yehoshua holds that Dovid wrote
them corresponding to himself, even when they are written in the plural form. Iyun Yaakov
explains that being that Dovid HaMelech was the king, it was appropriate for him to express his
experiences in the plural, as he represented the nation as a whole due to his position as king. On
the other hand, R’ Yehoshua is of the opinion that these undetermined chapters were written in
regard to the nation at large, even when the chapter may have been written in the singular form.

This is because the nation shares a common bond, and they are accurately described as a single
entity. The Chachamim argue, and they hold that any chapter of Tehillim which is written in the
plural was composed corresponding to the community, while the ones which are written in singular
reflect a personal event in the life of Dovid HaMelech.

This is the rule, unless there is some explicit indication that the subject of the particular chapter is
based upon the reverse.

The Source and Reason for Hallel

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:3

Hallel is recited on numerous occasions: on holidays and Rosh Chodesh, during the sacrifice of a
korban pesach (Pesachim 64a), during the wine libations of regular sacrifices (Arakhin 11a), and
when Jerusalem or the Temple was expanded (Shavuot 14b). What is the source for Hallel, and
can differences be drawn between its various forms?

The gemara in Arakhin derives the obligation of singing Hallel while offering holiday sacrifices
from several different verses. It is unquestionable that this form of Hallel is de-oraita (of biblical
authority). The Rambam, however, rules that saying Hallel on holidays outside the context of
sacrifices is only a rabbinic obligation. Support for this position may be found in a gemara
in Berakhot (14a), which explores the issue of interrupting the performance of different mitzvot
by talking. The gemara wonders whether an interruption (hefsek) would invalidate the recitation
Hallel and megilla - EACH OF WHICH IS ONLY A MITZVA DE-RABANAN. Furthermore, as
the psalms that comprise the Hallel were authored by King David, it would be difficult to envision
them as de-oraita. The Rambam asserts this position in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Chanuka 3:6), and
in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot (shoresh 1) he contests the Behag's ruling that Hallel is indeed de-oraita.

3
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/source-and-reason-hallel

7
In truth, the issue he raises - that Hallel cannot be de-oraita since King David authored these texts
– can be easily resolved. As the Ramban notes (in his hasagot to the Rambam's Sefer ha-Mitzvot),
it is quite possible that the concept of saying Hallel is a mitzva de-oraita, while the precise texts
and timing of the mitzva were instituted by the sages. After all, the Rambam follows this strategy
regarding the mitzva of prayer, which he believes to be de-oraita in origin (ironically, against the
position of the Ramban), but concedes that the precise liturgy and timing were added only later by
the sages. With regard to Hallel, however, the Rambam refuses to apply this reasoning and views
the entire mitzva as purely rabbinic.

The Ramban defends the position of the Behag that Hallel is de-oraita. However, he lacks any
direct verse obligating the recitation of Hallel. The only direct reference to such a practice is found
in a verse in Yeshayahu which predicts the victory over Sancheiriv by declaring, "The song [after
the victory] will be equivalent to the type sung on a night sanctified as a holiday [presumably a
reference to yom tov]." In fact, the gemara in Arakhin employs this verse to distinguish between
days on which Hallel is recited and days which do not require Hallel because they have no sanctity
(such as Rosh Chodesh, which features no prohibition of work and hence does require a complete
Hallel) or no status as a "festival" (such as Shabbat). In fact, the Ra'avad (in his hasagot to the
Rambam, Hilkhot Chanuka 3:6) cites this verse in suggesting that Hallel is not a standard de-
rabanan and should be classified instead under the category of "divrei sofrim" (mitzvot which have
a reference in Tanakh). The Ramban, however, cites no verse in the Torah to serve as the basis for
the Biblical obligation of reciting Hallel.

The Ramban therefore claims that Hallel might indeed be a "halakha le-moshe mi-Sinai" - a mitzva
which has de-oraita status even though no specific verse refers to it. Subsequently, the Ramban
generates a source for Hallel. Every festival obligates us in the mitzva of simcha (rejoicing), based
on the verse, "Ve-samachta be-chagecha, You shall rejoice in your festival" (Devarim 16:14).
Generally, this simcha is actualized through sacrificial offerings, meat and wine, and, according to
the Rambam, any other personal enjoyment (see Hilkhot Yom Tov, ch. 6). According to the
Ramban, an additional expression of simcha is the recitation of Hallel. After all, the gemara
in Arakhin (11a) had already determined that Hallel is the epitome of an "avoda" (service) which
causes joy. If so, it stands to reason that this expression of joy should be incorporated into every
Yom Tov.

We should note that the gemara in Arakhin that the Ramban adopts as his source merely establishes
Hallel as a form of AVODA which causes joy. Hence, when sacrifices are offered on a festival,
Hallel is required (as stated above). The Ramban extrapolates from here that all forms of Hallel -
even those recited outside the Temple and the context of sacrifices – constitute an expression of
joy and are obligatory on festivals. This is not necessarily the implication of the gemara.

Another possible source appears in the gemara in Pesachim (117a), which suggests that Moshe
and the Jewish people actually recited Hallel (in addition to the "Song of the Sea") when they
crossed the Red Sea. This would support the Ramban's contention that Hallel traces back to Moshe
Rabbeinu. An additional gemara which supports the Ramban's position is found in Ta'anit (28b),
claiming that Hallel on Rosh Chodesh (on which there is no prohibition of labor) is only of rabbinic
origin. This would imply that other forms of Hallel - namely, its recitation on sacred days of
festivals - may be viewed as de-oraita.

8
There is another form of Hallel that might have earlier roots, even according to the Rambam. The
gemara in Pesachim (117a) claims that during the Exodus, the prophets instituted the practice of
reciting Hallel any time a grave danger facing the Jewish People was relieved. Thus, during the
performance of a miracle (perhaps only a national one), we have an obligation to recite Hallel. In
fact, the Brisker Rov claimed that the annual Hallel recited Pesach night stems from this
requirement. Since the mitzva of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim (recounting the Exodus) requires us to
envision ourselves as if we are currently departing Egypt, we actually relive a miracle and must
therefore recite Hallel.

The Brisker Rov assigns a different nature to the Hallel recitation of Pesach night. Whereas
normally the mitzva entails READING (keri'a), in this instance it has the quality of song or poetry
– "shira." Women would therefore be obligated in this specific Hallel, even though they might not
be obligated in classic Hallel, as it is a time-bound mitzva. Since this special Hallel involves a
direct and immediate response to the miracle, we would apply the principle of "af hein hayu be-
oto ha-nes," they too were part of the same miracle (see Tosafot Sukka 38a s.v. mi). No blessing
would be recited (see the Ran in his comments to Arvei Pesachim), and an interruption might be
tolerated (as we actually allow during Hallel on Pesach night). Clearly, this form of Hallel would
constitute a mitzva de-oraita. Whether the sages can legislate this type of Hallel beyond the
immediate moment in which the miracle was performed is itself debatable and would greatly
impact the status of Hallel on Chanuka, which is neither a festival (as defined by the Torah) nor
sanctified by a prohibition on labor yet obligates one to recite Hallel because of the miracle that
occurred.

Hallel on Pesach Night

Rav Michael Rosensweig writes:4

I. HOW MANY HALLELS?

The recitation of Hallel as part of the Seder structure is a phenomenon that is both
intriguing and problematic. Several issues connected with this obligation require
clarification. First, it is important to establish the relationship between this Hallel and the
obligation to recite Hallel every Yom Tov, including Pesach, as part of tefilla. Beyond the question
of redundancy, there is the issue of inconsistency with the conditions that normally define this
obligation. Several halakhic authorities, for example, note that aside from Pesach, Hallel is not
said at night, nor is it ever recited without standing.

Two distinct lists enumerating the occasions when Hallel is said further contribute to the
confusion surrounding the status of Hallel on the Seder night. In Arakhin 10a, the following
instances of reading Hallel are delineated:

4
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/hallel-pesach-night

9
For R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehotzadak: There are eighteen days on which
an individual completes the Hallel: the eight days of the Feast [of Sukkot], the eight days of
Chanuka, the first festival day of Pesach, and the festival day of Shavuot. In the exile, [an
individual completes the Hallel] on twenty-one days…

Hallel on Pesach night is conspicuously missing from this list.

In Masechet Soferim, however, another report expands the list of obligatory Hallels to
include Pesach night. We are informed as follows (20:9):

And one must recite a blessing before [the reading] and read it with a melody. For R. Shimon b.
Yehotzadak taught: There are eighteen days and one night on which an individual completes
the Hallel: the eight days of the Feast [of Sukkot], the eight days of Chanuka, the festival day of
Shavuot, and the first festival day of Pesach, and its night. In the exile, [an individual completes
the Hallel] on twenty-one days and one night. The best manner of performing the mitzva is to read
the Hallel on the two nights of the festival celebrated in the exile, to recite a blessing over it, and
to read it with a melody, to fulfill that which is stated: "Let us exalt His name together." When he
reads it in his home, he is not required to recite a blessing, for he already recited a blessing with
the congregation.

It is important not only to resolve the discrepancy between these lists, but to consider the
possibility that they relate to different kinds of obligations.

Moreover, the relationship between Hallel during the Seder and during the tefilla on the
night of Pesach is ambiguous. Massekhet Soferim implies a dual, yet linked, obligation. This is
reflected in the lack of an independent berakha.

Some interpretations of Yerushalmi Berakhot (1:5), however, view the readings of Hallel in the
synagogue and at the Seder as mutually exclusive.[1] As is well known, there are many
communities that do not include Hallel in the evening tefilla of Pesach at all. Other halakhists
affirm both recitations but distinguish between them by requiring separate berakhot for each.[2]
Thus, a full range of positions emerges, each requiring explanation. The special treatment
accorded Hallel on this night according to Massekhet Soferim – "The best manner of performing
the mitzva … and to read it with a melody, to fulfill that which is stated: 'Let us exalt His name
together'" – also demands our attention.

In addition to the precise relationship between the respective Hallels of the Seder and the
synagogue, there is considerable discussion in the halakhic sources regarding the possible dual
character of Hallel at the Seder itself. The fact that the normally integrated Hallel is divided into
two distinct sections on this night engenders a halakhic difficulty, as one must contend with the
problem of hefsek (interruption). This is particularly the case if there is only one blessing recited
at the very beginning of the Hallel. Moreover, according to one analysis, the
Tosefta (Menachot 6:6) specifically targets the demand for an integrated, unfragmented Hallel,
when it declares: "The blessing, the Hallel, and the praise are hindrances to one another."[3] How,
then, can the fragmentation be justified in the context of the Seder? The issue transcends the
particular difficulty posed by hefsek, as it provokes a more fundamental question: even if the

10
anomaly can be rationalized, why was this unusual Hallel intentionally designed in such an
anomalous manner? In analyzing the purpose and form of this Hallel, we should also note that the
two halves of Hallel during the Seder are integrated with two distinct cups of wine, the second and
fourth of the four cups. This association suggests a representation of two
different Hallels corresponding to the two cups.

In brief, several basic issues emerge from a simple scrutiny of the halakhic sources and
even from our own practice: Are there one, two, or three Hallels on this unusual night? What
distinct motifs do they convey? What relationship exists between these and the routine Hallel that
accompanies every Yom Tov?

II. COMPARISON TO REGULAR HALLEL

An examination of the Rishonim who deal with this topic reveals several points of debate
as to whether the Hallel of the Seder conforms with the standard Hallel. Those who question and
resolve the discrepancies that appear to distinguish this Hallel are obviously motivated by a desire
to demonstrate its relatively conventional character, initial impressions notwithstanding. Others
accent the idiosyncratic features of the Seder's Hallel that reflect its distinctive character. Several
issues exemplify these perspectives.

Shibbolei ha-Leket records the view that the apparently unusual introduction to this
blessing-less Hallel – "Therefore, it is our duty to thank, praise, pay tribute, glorify, exalt, acclaim,
bless, esteem, and honor the One who did all these miracles for our fathers and for us… And we,
therefore, sing before Him a new song…" – is merely a substitute for the blessing, "to complete
the Hallel." This view seeks to cast this Hallel in the universal mode. In sharp contrast, Shibbolei
ha-Leket himself dismisses this view. He notes that the themes signified by this introduction do
not correspond with the short blessing that normally introduces Hallel. Alternatively, he posits that
this section really consists of an introduction to the entire Haggada, in lieu of an Al ha-Nissim-type
declaration. Obviously, this identification has important implications of its own, as we shall see in
the course of our analysis.

Several debates revolve around the status and significance of the concluding passage
of Hallel during the Seder. The Gemara records R. Yehuda's view that identifies Hallel's
conclusion, "Yehalelukha Ha-Shem E-lokenu," as Birkat ha-
Shir (Pesachim 118a). Rashbam perceives this selection as consistent with the standard
conclusion of Hallel. Tosafot, on the other hand, project two different views, each of which
underscores the uniqueness of Hallel in the Seder. One position establishes this section as a
necessary conclusion to Hallel only on this night. The other opinion declares that the Birkat ha-
Shir is standard, but it is necessary for the Gemara to emphasize that it is an important component
even in this peculiar night-time Hallel. Thus, even as a standard component is affirmed, the
unusual character of the performance is highlighted.[4]

R. Yochanan argues that the proper text for Birkat ha-Shir is "Nishmat kol chai."
Rashbam perceives this view, in contrast with that of R. Yehuda, as constituting an important
qualitative departure from the conventional Hallel. Shibbolei ha-Leket, on the other hand, depicts
R. Yochanan's innovation in less dramatic, quantitative terms. He argues that a more compelling

11
and dramatic redemption should evoke a more intensive rhapsodic praise. The other textual
candidates for Birkat ha-Shir also cited in the Gemara suggest other important themes that may set
the Hallel of the Seder apart from the regular Yom Tov Hallel, as we shall discuss later.

Ramban and Ran cite the doctrines of some Geonim that both "Asher ge'alanu" and
"Yehalelukha," the respective conclusions of the two halves of Hallel on this night, do not relate
to the standard Hallel at all.[5] They link the primary function and theme of these blessings to the
second and fourth cups respectively. On this basis, they justify the term Birkat ha-Shir and the
double formulation of the Mishna, "Over the fourth cup, he concludes the Hallel and recites Birkat
ha-Shir" (Pesachim 117b). In the process, they subordinate Hallel, or at least its concluding
flourish, to the mitzva of the four cups, thereby differentiating it further from the standard Hallel.

In sharp contrast, Ramban vehemently rejects this approach, particularly with respect to Birkat ha-
Shir, which he perceives as conforming fully with the norms of Hallel. Indeed, he argues that in
this context we are exposed to Hallel par excellence. Furthermore, he notes that the theme of
redemption is conspicuously absent in the Birkat ha-Shir, making it an unlikely candidate for the
function ascribed to it by the Geonim. Underlying these various exchanges is one common theme:
the attempt to define the function and status of the Hallel in the Seder vis-a-vis the standard Hallel.

III. PARTITIONING HALLEL

Though this theme involves several issues, it is most dramatically reflected in the debate
regarding the need for one or more blessings for this singular Hallel.

The primary source for investigating this problem is an extremely ambiguous passage
in Yerushalmi Berakhot (1:5). As the present context does not allow for a full analysis of the text
and its various interpretations, a brief survey of the basic positions and their potential implications
will have to suffice.

Tosafot (Berakhot 14a, s.v. yamim) present two opinions. One view asserts the need for
distinct blessings – "to read the Hallel" and "to complete the Hallel." Attributing the requirement
for two blessings to the interruption of the meal appears to simply beg the question, since the
decision to divide this Hallel would still demand explanation. Thus, it is likely that the two
blessings reflect independent motifs of Hallel.[6]

The second position cited by Tosafot expresses the opposite view. No blessings are
attached to this Hallel, but only because it is disrupted. According to this formulation, there are no
grounds to suspect that this Hallel does not conform to the requirements of the standard Hallel.
Even in its fragmented state, this Hallel fundamentally represents an integrated entity that, in
principle, would have been introduced by the standard blessing if not for the technical
consideration of hefsek.

A third perspective, attributed to R. Tzemach Gaon, superficially approximates the view

of Tosafot, but differs in one critical aspect.[7] He too rules that no blessing accompanies Hallel of
the Seder because of the hefsek between the two sections. However, R. Tzemach's formulation
conceives that the very fact that Hallel is partitioned is characteristic of its absolute uniqueness. In

12
his view, the lack of a blessing is not due to the technical inability to link a blessing with the second
half of a disrupted Hallel but results from the fact that this Hallel has been demonstrated by virtue
of its partition to constitute a totally different type of Hallel obligation, one that does not conform
to the standard Hallel, and therefore does not generate the requirement of a preceding blessing.

While it is not evident if, according to R. Tzemach, the partitioned Hallel of the Seder consists of
a single theme or two distinct themes, it is apparent that the fragmentation of the
standard Hallel transforms its fundamental character. The unification and balance of diverse
themes is evidently an important dimension of the essential make-up of the standard Hallel.[8]
This concept is indicated not only by one interpretation of the Tosefta that demands the unification
of various strands of Hallel – the blessing, the Hallel, and the praise – but by the very text of the
blessing that conventionally introduces Hallel, "to complete the Hallel." Indeed, the
Gemara (Arakhin 10b) formulates the obligation to recite Hallel by using the verb ligmor, "to
complete."[9] Thus, while R. Tzemach's view coincides with Tosafot's second approach on a
practical level, it actually approximates Tosafot's first perspective conceptually.

A fourth formulation, also designed to justify the view that no blessing is recited, further
explicates the uniqueness of Hallel in the context of the Seder. The position of R. Hai Gaon
ambitiously, if ambiguously, seeks to crystallize the singular character of the Seder's Hallel by
distinguishing between Hallel that is "read" and Hallel that is "sung." This distinction can be
interpreted in various ways.[10] Several of the possible approaches to comprehending this
distinction may also underlie the opinions of those who believe in the uniqueness of Hallel at the
Seder.

In contrast to the standard Hallel of all Yamim Tovim, which flows from and further accents
the unique sanctity of the particular mo'ed as a special calendar day,[11] Hallel on Pesach,
particularly at the Seder, relates specifically to the theme of redemption as a concrete
event. The Maggid Mishneh (Hilkhot Chanuka 3:6), for example, understands that the Gemara's
reference to Hallel's being recited on "every epoch" and "over every trouble that should befall us"
reflects two independent factors obligating Hallel, one of which is by rabbinic law, while the other
is by received tradition.[12] Along these lines, it is possible to suggest that the Hallel of song
represents the reaction to the experience of salvation from crisis, while the Hallel of reading relates
to the calendar obligation of "every epoch." Possibly, the significance of Hallel this night during
the tefilla (and by extension also at the Seder) is related to the event rather than the calendar day.
Furthermore, there may be a special sanctity to the night of Pesach, by virtue of the events of that
night, which does not have a parallel in other Yamim Tovim. In this sense, "ke-leil hitkadesh chag,"
"as in the night when a holy solemnity is kept" (Yeshaya 30:29), focuses exclusively on Pesach
night. The different lists projected by Arakhin and Massekhet Soferim may be attributed to these
different obligating factors of Hallel.[13]

Perhaps there is an added Pesach dimension, as well. Indeed, a personal sense of salvation,
and therefore a dimension of personal thanksgiving, pervades this evening, and by extension
this Hallel. At the very least, these elements flow from an evaluation of the past. Thus,
the Hallel of reading is primarily an intellectual exercise that strives to formulate a proper response
of appreciation to distant events and fosters contemplation of the significance of miracles and
Divine intervention for Jewish life. A proper balance of themes and motifs and a proper ordering

13
of various perspectives are critical to this enterprise. Hallel of song, in contrast, constitutes a
spontaneous and emotional reaction to personal salvation. It is possible for this Hallel to be
partitioned, since the delicate balance of an intellectually oriented appreciation is not attainable or
necessarily desirable in this context. Focusing on different extremes is a more natural and
appropriate response for an experiential Hallel.

Based on the theme of "Each individual is obligated to think of himself (lir'ot) as one of
those who came out of Egypt," or Rambam's even more experiential and demonstrative
formulation – "to act out the experience (lehar'ot) as if he came out of Egypt," one might even
perceive the obligation of thanksgiving by means of this Hallel in present terms.[14] As a personal
experience and emotional reaction to the redemption from Egypt, Hallel on this night certainly
consists of song, not the more intellectual and ritually-oriented reading. In any case, whether one
focuses on the event of redemption, the special significance of Pesach night, or the personal
response of thanksgiving (past or present), or the primacy of song, the uniqueness of Hallel on this
night is compelling.

IV. HALLEL AS A MEDIUM OF SIPPUR

It is possible to take this a step further. There is abundant evidence that the Hallel of the
Seder constitutes a fulfillment of the mitzva of retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt and
may be subordinate to it. As such, it is truly specialized and unique in a manner that transcends
our previous analysis, justifying many of its anomalies.[15] Both Rambam (aseh no. 157)
and Sefer ha-Chinukh (no. 21) formulate the obligation of Hallel in terms of retelling the story of
the exodus from Egypt. Rambam informs us as follows:

In this injunction, we are commanded to recite the story of the exodus from Egypt, with all the
eloquence at our command, on the eve of the fifteenth of Nisan. He is to be commended who
expands this theme, enlarging on the iniquity of the Egyptians and the sufferings which they
inflicted upon us, and on the way in which the Lord wrought his vengeance upon them, and
offering Him thanks (exalted be He) for all the good that He has bestowed upon us.

Interestingly, Ran quotes that R. Hai Gaon, in developing the distinction between Hallel of
song and Hallel of reading, notes the suitability of the introduction of the Hallel during the Seder
– "Therefore, it is our duty to thank." This passage precisely links Hallel and the mitzva of
retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt.[16] The idea also proposed by R. Hai, that Birkat ha-
Shir and the "Asher ge'alanu" blessing are primarily blessings on the second and fourth cups, also
integrates well into the overall scheme of Hallel as a dimension of the mitzva of retelling the story
of the exodus from Egypt, which includes the four cups as a central component. Indeed, R. Hai
comments that these two blessings alone really focus on the unique themes of the evening, since
the first and third cups (Kiddush and Birkat ha-Mazon) have a more conventional function. That
the concluding sections of both segments of Hallel on this evening accomplish this significant
function is probably no coincidence if the Hallel itself is a vehicle for retelling the story of the
exodus from Egypt.[17]

14
 The link between Hallel and retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt is reinforced by
several other positions taken by various Rishonim. Rashi explains that matza is depicted as "bread
over which many things are recited," because one recites the Haggada and Hallel over it.[18] The
connection between matza and Hallel, as well as the association with the Haggada, points to a
common theme. As previously alluded to, Shibbolei ha-Leket asserts that the introduction
to Hallel, "Therefore, it is our duty," stands in place of Al ha-Nisim, and constitutes the blessing
over the entire Haggada. In the same vein, he identifies the "Asher ge'alanu" blessing, the
conclusion of the first part of Hallel, as a critical juncture in the Haggada itself, as it completes the
cycle of "commencing with shame and concluding with praise."[19]

V. THE FOCUS ON THE EXODUS

If Hallel during the Seder functions as a vehicle of retelling the story of the exodus from
Egypt, we might further amplify and appreciate its singular character both vis-a-vis the
standard Hallel, and in terms of its fragmentation during the Seder itself.

Retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt both sets the tone for and captures the unique
essence of Pesach night's particular sanctity.[20] This orientation dictates that one refrain from
excessive universalization and even intellectualization of the exodus experience, lest the unique
aspects of that experience lose their centrality. Indeed, some characterize the saying of Ma
Nishtana, which of course accents precisely the distinctive features of the night, as a central
component of the Haggada.

Applying this consideration to Hallel during the Seder illuminates the specific quality of
this Hallel and justifies its differentiation from the standard Hallel obligations. As we noted
previously, the conventional Hallel is structured to encompass and balance a range of responses
and motifs – past and present; universal and particular; praise and thanksgiving. Hallel of the
Seder, cast in the mold of retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt, consciously eschews this
approach. The partition of Hallel is perhaps designed to de-emphasize the universal message, at
least initially, so that the exodus from Egypt can receive its proper attention as the exclusive focus
of this part of the evening.

Against this background, the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai regarding the
scope of the first Hallel takes on new significance. The Mishna (Pesachim 116b) records: "How
far does one recite it? Beit Shammai maintain: Until 'As a joyous mother of children.' Beit Hillel
say: Until 'the flint into a fountain of waters.'" The Talmud Yerushalmi (Pesachim 10:5) elaborates
their positions as follows:

Beit Shammai said to them: Did Israel [already] leave Egypt that he should mention the exodus
from Egypt?
Beit Hillel said to them: Even if you wait until the cock's crowing, they would still not have reached
half of the redemption. How then do we mention the redemption, when they were not yet
redeemed? Surely, they only left in the middle of the day, as it is stated: "And it came to pass on
that selfsame day, etc." Rather, since he started the mitzva, we say to him, "Finish."

15
 Both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel demand that the Hallel prior to the meal relate directly
and exclusively to the experience of the exodus from Egypt. The extent to which there should be
a temporal correspondence between the actual events and their commemoration and reenactment
is a matter of dispute between them. Thus, Beit Shammai argue that only the first chapter
of Hallel is appropriate, as it refers obliquely to the liberation of the Jews from bondage – "Give
praise, O servants of God," and not the servants of Pharaoh – which had already occurred by the
beginning of the evening. Since the exodus did not take place until the next day, the emotional-
spiritual response to that miracle is not yet appropriate. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, suggest a
more flexible commemoration, inasmuch as the destiny of the people of Israel had already begun
to unfold. They refuse to lock the commemoration into so strict a timetable, since the entire drama
of the exodus from Egypt constitutes a single process.[21] In any case, even Beit Hillel concede
that the first segment of Hallel functions as a specific means of celebrating the event of the exodus
from Egypt. This presents a striking contrast to the standard, unfragmented Hallel, in which the
exodus from Egypt is merely one motif, and in which it is nothing more than an example of the
kind of miracle that generates the obligation of thanksgiving.

The Mishna registers a further point of contention between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva:

R. Tarfon used to say, "who redeemed us and redeemed our fathers from Egypt," but he did not
conclude with a blessing.
R. Akiva said: "So may the Lord our God and the God of our fathers suffer us to reach other
seasons and festivals which come towards us for peace, rejoicing in the rebuilding of Your city
and glad in Your service, and there we will partake of the sacrifices and the Paschal offerings …
Blessed are You, O Lord, who have redeemed Israel."

In light of this analysis, one can now view the disagreement between R. Akiva and R.
Tarfon in a manner that transcends the laws of blessings. R. Tarfon considers any references to the
broader significance of the exodus from Egypt during this stage of commemoration to be a
distraction that undermines the integrity of the mitzva of sippur yetziat Mitzrayim/Hallel. This
mitzva obligates us to scrutinize every detail of that momentous event and to accent its uniqueness.
R. Akiva moderates this view somewhat. As long as the focus remains on the particular event,
examining the broader implications of that event is not inconsistent with this single-minded
orientation. Indeed, if applications are developed not by watering down the uniqueness of the event
to its lowest common denominator in order to more effectively universalize it, but instead by
maintaining the spotlight on the singularity of the experience, such an effort immeasurably
enhances our appreciation of, and identification with, the exodus from Egypt.

Even within the position of R. Akiva, the propriety of references outside of Pesach proper
is a matter of controversy. Shibbolei he-Leket cites one interpretation that identifies moadim u-
regalim acherim ("other seasons and festivals") as future Pesachs. Another view acknowledges
that the allusion is to other Yamim Tovim, but suggests that we are concerned that the observance
of other holidays might impact upon the time-table of the future redemption. A third position
accepts that other Yamim Tovim are the subject of the conclusion of this blessing.[22]

16
VI. PAST AND FUTURE IN HALLEL

An examination of the language used with respect to the first Hallel of the Seder further
confirms the focus on a past event. The contrast not only to the standard Hallel, but to the second
half of Hallel recited during the latter part of the Seder structure, is striking. The Talmud
Yerushalmi (Berakhot 1:5) indicates that the conclusion of the first section of Hallel, "Asher
ge'alanu," signifies a past event, while the conclusion of the second segment of Hallel,
"Yehalelukha," relates to the present and the future.[23] It is incumbent upon us to explain the
sharp differences in focus and direction that apparently differentiate the two parts of Hallel.

The Gemara in Pesachim (116a) indicates that the standard Hallel really begins from the
section of "Lo lanu" ("Not to us"). This suggests that the second half of the Hallel may represent
a transition from the retelling of the story of the exodus from Egypt to the standard Hallel, or at
least from a particularistic to a universal perspective of the retelling of the story of the exodus.
Indeed, the basic thrust of the second half of Hallel is general praise and thanksgiving, rather than
the exodus specifically. In this context, even references to the exodus from Egypt can be viewed
as nothing more than examples of broader manifestations. The present and future dominate these
sections.

Moreover, an examination of the conclusion of this Hallel, "Yehalelukha," reveals no references

to redemption or the exodus from Egypt. If this section constitutes an obligation only on this night,
as some Rishonim believe, its non-Pesach orientation is especially puzzling. Ramban's critique of
the Geonic view that Birkat ha-Shir is primarily a blessing on the fourth cup of wine, on the basis
that there is no reference to redemption, is particularly compelling. Why assign so much
significance to something apparently unrelated to the specific celebration at hand? In a similar
vein, we should attempt to comprehend some of the other choice candidates for Birkat ha-Shir. R.
Yochanan proposes "Nishmat kol chai"; R. Tarfon suggests the Great Hallel (Tehillim 136); others
offer "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." Each of these accents not only universal, but
daily motifs of thanksgiving that do not even accent the miraculous. What message is being
transmitted by the selection of one of these as the final word of Hallel during the Seder?[24]

VII. TWO STAGES OF HALLEL

Perhaps, however, the answer is to be found in the very contrast between the two
stages. Hallel, indeed the Seder, was partitioned intentionally in order to accent two critical if
opposite themes, and in a manner that would safeguard the integrity of each by not blurring their
respective motifs. The proper progression ensures that the retelling of the story of the exodus from
Egypt attains its desired goal. Thus, the first part of the Seder spotlights the exodus from Egypt
almost exclusively in an effort to pay full tribute to the magnitude of that event. A premature rush
to subject it to parallels, or to attempt to extract its long-term implications for Jewish life, is
deliberately frustrated, as it would have trivialized this singular occurrence and reduced its ultimate
impact. Once an intensive reenactment and analysis of the exodus from Egypt has been achieved,
the second part of Hallel legitimately shifts our attention to the significance of the event on our
daily lives as individuals striving to develop a spiritual persona.

17
 At this second stage, the emphasis is no longer on retelling the story of the exodus from
Egypt, but on enhancing the daily obligation of remembering the exodus by exploiting the unique
opportunity afforded by the previous intensively particularistic retelling. The response to
Ramban's critique of the Geonic view of Birkat ha-Shir, and the significance of the other
suggestions in the Gemara in terms of what constitutes a proper Birkat ha-Shir, derive from this
perspective. It is precisely their mundane and non-redemptive character that qualifies these various
texts as the conclusion of the second Hallel.

This second Hallel, though it has its roots in the past and is directed by the perspective
gleaned from the first Hallel, looks to the present and future. Ironically, it is Ramban, in various
places in his commentary to the Torah, who projects the transcendent significance of the exodus
from Egypt to daily life as the ultimate source for belief in Divine providence and intensive
involvement in human affairs.[25]

By the time we reach the later stages of the Seder, an important transition has been
completed, as the primary preoccupation with Ma Nishtana gives way not only to a consideration
of other miraculous manifestations, but to daily life and concern with even such mundane matters
as livelihood,[26] as well as the ongoing struggle to attain spiritual growth.

As the past, present and future converge with their respective integrity
intact, Hallel concludes appropriately with a simple, yet comprehensive theme:

May all Your creatures praise You, O Lord our God, together with Your pious and righteous ones
who do Your will; and may all Your people, the house of Israel, give joyful thanks, and bless, and
praise… For it is good to give You thanks, and to Your name it is fitting to sing a melody, for from
everlasting to everlasting You are God.5

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Tosafot, Berakhot 14a, s.v. Yamim.

[2] See Tosafot, op. cit. Rashba also disentangles them, but on the basis of the argument of lo pelug, rather than distinctive
obligating factors.
We should also note that even if the two are interconnected, the link may be an artificial one. It is possible that Hallel at the Seder
simply assumes a double function, although each function is independent.
[3] This is the reading of Chiddushei ha-Griz al ha-Rambam, Hilkhot Chanuka 3:6. However, one could certainly take issue with
this interpretation of the Tosefta. The various commentaries to the Tosefta itself offer alternatives, but this is not the place to discuss
them.
[4] It remains to be seen whether the differences reflected in these sources reflect additional elements or an entirely different
orientation toward the obligation. The impact of saying "Yehalelukha" on the argument over the need for a blessing prior to Hallel is
itself a matter of interest. Rosh (Pesachim 10:32) argues that the conclusion of "Yehalelukha" implies that there is no prior blessing.
Ran, however, comes to the exact opposite conclusion on the basis of a comparison with standard Hallel.
[5] Chiddushei ha-Ramban, Pesachim 117a.
[6]It remains to be determined if the uniqueness of this configuration is precisely in the separation of what is normally a fully
integrated whole into independent motifs, or whether the partition of Hallel establishes two entirely different concepts of Hallel that
cannot be apprehended by adding together the sum of its parts. It is also possible that one Hallel corresponds to the

5
Translation of Hebrew passages by Rav David Strauss

18
standard Hallel and the other half represents a special Seder obligation. It would then be necessary to identify each segment with
its appropriate motif.
[7]See Ramban, Mordekhai and others. See also Chiddushei ha-Griz al ha-Rambam, op. cit.
[8]The balance between the complementary, yet divergent, components of thanksgiving and praise, for example, is one critical
aspect of this equation. The significance of other themes – universal and particular thanksgiving and appreciation ("Praise God, all
you nations … for His love for us is great") – for instance, is also altered when isolated and unbalanced by certain other values. For
an analysis of some of the components that generate the obligation of song and Hallel, see Emek Berakha, pp. 124-125. This theme
of balance as a critical component in Hallel requires elaboration that the present essay does not permit.
[9] This is also implied strongly in Rambam's formulation in Hilkhot Chanuka, where the condition of completing the Hallel also
dictates whether a blessing will be recited. In other words, the quality of the obligation is directly linked to its scope or
comprehensiveness.
[10] R. Velvel, op. cit., initially alludes to the function of Hallel as part of the procedure of the Paschal offering to explain R.
Hai Gaon. This view echoes in Ramban's discussion of this issue, as well. However, it appears that the Rishonim understood the
theme of Hallel of song more expansively. Ultimately, R. Velvel also opts for a broader interpretation.
[11]The specific relationship between the theme of joy and the bringing of distinctive sacrifices needs clarification. A simple
reading of the exchanges in Arakhin 10a-10b regarding Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur's exclusion from the list and Pesach's
restriction to one day accents the issue. The discussion among the Rishonim – Ramban, Behag, Ramban, etc. – whether or
not Hallel constitutes a biblical obligation and should be enumerated among the 613 mitzvot is relevant to establishing the precise
criteria.
[12] R. Velvel develops this theme, as well. One should also note the famous view of Chatam Sofer that Hallel on Chanuka, as the
only Hallel relating directly to a miracle, constitutes a biblical obligation, though Chanuka itself is only by rabbinic decree.
Rashbam suggests that the reference to "every trouble that should befall us" relates to Chanuka.
[13] Several elements of this approach have strong roots in the positions of Ramban and Ran on this topic. They demand one
blessing for both sections of Hallel, while minimizing the significance of the interruption. They perceive the content and theme of
this Hallel to be routine. They dismiss the notion that the concluding passage of this Hallel implies its fundamental uniqueness. At
the same time, they acknowledge that this Hallel is generated by and commemorates either the significance of the night, or the
mitzva of the Paschal offering, or the redemption as an event, rather than just Pesach as a Yom Tov. It is they who distinguish
between the lists of Arakhin and Massekhet Soferim on this basis.
[14] The idea that one is supposed to project the experience of the exodus from Egypt into the present is, of course, a major theme
of the entire Seder, as is well-documented. In addition to Rambam's formulation of "as if he came out of Egypt," Maharam
Chalawa's comments on "va-anakhnu hotzi mi-sham," and Emek Berakha's explanation of the use of the terms "we, therefore, sing
before Him a new song," further accent this theme. Rambam's use of "to act out the experience" (lehar'ot), instead of "to think of
himself" (lir'ot), relates to the obligation to behave demonstratively in pursuing this goal. It may have a didactic rather than a
substantive-experiential intent.
[15] That Hallel is inserted into the mitzva of retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt is evident. That it is not just there as the
most propitious time to accomplish the independent mitzva of Hallel, or as a result of the experiences generated by the retelling,
but also as a vehicle of the narration itself, is the point being advanced here. A similar discussion regarding the mitzva of eating
matza during the Seder should highlight the differences between these various options, but this is the subject for another shiur.
[16] Rambam's position is more complicated, as he conveys mixed signals on this matter. The Mishna (166b) connects R. Gamliel's
famous statement, "Whoever has not mentioned these three things, etc." and the mitzva of retelling the story of the exodus from
Egypt to the "Therefore" passage which then introduces Hallel. Rambam, however, subtly rewrites the Mishna. In Hilkhot Chametz
u-Matza (7:6), he connects the "Therefore" of R. Gamliel to reclining and the obligation of the four cups and omits Hallel altogether
in that context. Later (8:5), he introduces Hallel as an independent obligation with the disconnected word "And he says." It is
almost as if Rambam intentionally sought to disentangle Hallel from the rest of the retelling of the story of the exodus. His
substitution of reclining and the four cups, on the other hand, reflects the natural inclination to view "Therefore" as linked to the
retelling of the story of the exodus. In his Haggada, Rambam quotes the Mishna as is.
[17] In this connection, it should be noted that Rambam and Ran cite two views of the two conclusions: "Yehalelukha" and "Asher
ge'alanu" represent one theme, and thus, "Yehalelukha" is not a berakha ha-semukha le-chaverta (adjacent blessing) to its opening
blessing, but to "Asher ge'alanu"; or whether they represent diverse themes, though neither is connected to its opening blessing
either. If so, it is important to try to understand the different message conveyed by each.
[18] Pesachim 36a, s.v. onin alav devarim harbe.
[19] It stands to reason that Shibbolei ha-Leket views the second section of the Hallel as unrelated to the retelling of the story of
the exodus from Egypt. The content of these two Hallels suggest this possibility, since the first half focuses on the exodus. Only
with respect to the first section of the Hallel does he stress the need to recite it "with song, with joy, and with melody." There are
other indications of this, as well. Some Rishonim, including Maharam mi-Rotenberg (Hagahot Maimoniyot), insist that one should
raise the wine cup already during the recitation of "Therefore" and maintain that pose until after the first half of the Hallel is
completed. The principle that underlies this performance is that there is no song without wine. The theme of song symbolized by
the holding of the wine cup only extends to the completion of the first section of Hallel. R. Hai, on the other hand, with his stress
on the roles of Birkat ha-Shir, as well as "Asher ge'alanu," probably believes the entire Hallel consists of a kiyyum of sippur yetziat
Mitzrayim. Rashi's language (Pesachim 36a), "Gomrin et ha-Hallel," also reflects this view. Other Rishonim stress only the first
section of Hallel pertaining directly to the exodus as linked to lechem oni.

19
Ramban cites on view the Talmud Yerushalmi, according to which the blessing "ligmor et ha-Hallel" applies only to the first section
of Hallel. The second segment of Hallel is not preceded by a blessing at all, though it concludes with Birkat ha-Shir. Perhaps this
view conceives the first part of Hallel as standard Hallel, while the second section is uniquely related to the Seder.
[20] It can be demonstrated that the retelling of the story of the exodus from Egypt, in addition to constituting an independent
mitzva, has a transforming effect on other independent mitzvot of this night, including matza, maror, Kiddush, and Birkat ha-
Mazon. This is consistent with the parallel to Kiddush alluded to by Rambam in his introductory remarks to the Seder (Hilkhot
Chametz 7:1).
[21] See Emek Berakha, p. 125, who explains the debate in a different manner. He relates it to the issue whether one may react
with song once a miraculous event is destined to occur (on the basis of prophecy, or in this case, historical hindsight), or is the
actual experience a critical prerequisite for this halakhic obligation. Alternatively, it is possible to see the debate as revolving
around the degree to which the different phases of the liberation from Egypt are necessarily interconnected; or, whether the Seder
is really a reenactment of the events or merely a commemoration. Several other issues are related to these themes.
[22] It is possible that Rambam also minimizes R. Akiva's ruling. He seems to emphasize that this expanded reference to the
celebration of other holidays is appropriate only in our time. Perhaps it is linked to our anguish at not presently having the capacity
to celebrate Pesach or any Yom Tov properly in the absence of the Temple. Thus, this dimension, acutely felt on Pesach due to the
role of the Paschal offering, etc., is applied to other Yamim Tovim, as well.
[23] Tosafot (Pesachim 116b s.v. ve-nomar) notes that the feminine usage – shira chadasha, used in the introduction to the first
section of Hallel – refers to the past, while the masculine usage – shir chadash, found in R. Akiva's conclusion of the "Asher
ge'alanu" blessing – relates to the aspiration for the ultimate redemption of the future. This is consistent with the analysis presented
above. See, also, the Gemara's distinction between "who redeemed Israel" and "who redeems Israel" (Pesachim 117b).
[24] Other anomalies abound, such as the very phenomenon of a Hallel (and retelling the story or remembering the exodus from
Egypt) which may extend beyond midnight according to some halakhists, though retelling the story of the exodus from Egypt may
be limited by that time frame. The halakha that one may not drink wine between the third and fourth cups, or after the fourth cup
according to some Rishonim, because of concern for interference with the second Hallel and the late retelling of the story of the
exodus also requires explanation. Why do these considerations not apply to the earlier retelling of the story of the exodus
or Hallel? While the Yerushalmi and some Rishonim relate to these questions, there remains an apparent pattern that points to a
characteristic difference between the two Hallels and, for that matter, between the earlier and later retelling/remembrance of the
exodus from Egypt. The implication is that freedom, the demonstrative theme associated with drinking the four cups, is inconsistent
with these later manifestations, while it integrates well with the earlier performances.
[25] Ramban's explanation of the verse: "I am the Lord your God who took you out of the land of Egypt," and his celebrated
formulation in the end of Parashat Bo regarding the frequent references to the exodus in connection with other mitzvot, exemplify
this approach.
[26] According to the Gemara, therein lies the significance of the Great Hallel as a candidate for Birkat ha-Shir.

How does Hallel connect to Passover?

RABBI DAVID SILBER WRITES:6

The Mishnah connects Hallel with two holidays in the Jewish calendar: Pesach and Sukkot. It
seems that the primary association is actually with Sukkot, a Temple-based holiday on which the
full Hallel is recited every day. In contrast, the complete Hallel is recited only on the first of the
seven days of Pesach, in conjunction with the slaughtering and eating of the Passover sacrifice.
Nonetheless, the connection between Pesach and Hallel runs deep.

The psalms of Hallel are closely related to the song that the Israelites sang at the Sea of Reeds, a
prayer of thanksgiving that both describes the personal experience of redemption and promotes
worship at a central site where the glory and kingship of God can be proclaimed in public. As
noted, the Song at the Sea concludes with a reference to the Temple, which can be accessed only
by an act of “crossing over” from wasteland to the Promised Land:

…Till Your people crossed over, O LORD, till the people you made Yours crossed over. You’ll
bring them, you’ll plant them, on the mount of Your estate, a firm place for Your dwelling You

6
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hallel-at-the-seder/

20
wrought, o LORD, the sanctum, O Sovereign, Your hands firmly founded. The LORD shall be king
for all time! ( Exod. 15:16-18 )

This is precisely the form of thanksgiving that is expressed in the six psalms that comprise Hallel,
and especially in the last four. The division of the Hallel at the seder into one unit of two psalms
recited with Maggid, and one unit of four recited later in the evening, is a division suggested
inherently by the text. The first two psalms relate to the Exodus itself, whereas the next four reflect
the experience of leaving Egypt and journeying toward a holy site, the Mikdash.

From Egypt to the Temple

It is clear that the recitation of Hallel is appropriate for Sukkot, which is the
quintessential Temple holiday, because the Temple theme is so central to these psalms. However,
the precise narrative arc traced in the Hallel passages is actually more reflective of the Passover
experience: Hallel highlights the movement from Egypt to the Temple, and the movement
from human bondage to service of God is what the Passover story is all about. Indeed, in the Torah,
the concept of constructing sacred space marks both the culmination of the Exodus story (in the
context of the Song at the Sea) and the conclusion of the book of Exodus as a whole.

But the Rabbis chose to end the seder with Hallel for another reason as well. The Hallel we recite
at the seder and in holiday prayers is called “the Egyptian Hallel” not only because of the explicit
reference to Israel leaving Egypt in Psalm 114 , but also because the historical Exodus story and
the experience of personal redemption are predominant motifs throughout the passages.

In the biblical text itself, the Israelites do not pray to God in response to their suffering at the hands
of the Egyptians. The Israelites “groan” when their labor is intensified and “cry out” when they
cannot bear the oppression ( Exod. 2:23 ), and God responds to these cries of pain (2:23-25); but
they are not expressions of prayer.

Lack of voice and personal agency is a fundamental feature of slavery that precludes prayer.
Remarkably, by the end of the story, the People of Israel are able to sing–to tell of their
experiences, to express their gratitude, to articulate their hopes–which is the ultimate mark of
freedom.

21
Rabbi Seth Goren writes:7

Each of us has a name

given by God
and given by our parents

Each of us has a name

given by our stature and our smile
and given by what we wear

Each of us has a name

given by the mountains
and given by our walls

One of the best known compositions by the Israeli poet Zelda, “Each of Us Has a Name” calls our
attention to the many literal and metaphorical names — Moses, Moshe Rabbeinu, Moishe, etc. —
that define each of us and reflect who we are, how we’re seen and what we do.

On today’s daf, a conversation about Hallel (the psalms of praise recited at the seder) gives way
to a discussion of names. Here’s how it happens: Rav and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi begin an
argument over the meaning of the word halleluyah. Is it really two words — hallelu(“praise”)
and yah (“God”) — as Rav argues? Or one word meaning “praise God with many praises,” as
Rabbi Yehoshua asserts?

As is its wont, the Gemara finds a problem. Elsewhere, the Gemara notes, Rabbi Yehoshua seemed
to think that halleluyah is in fact two words! So why does he now say it’s only one?

This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees with another ruling that he himself
issued, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

The Book of Psalms is said by means of ten expressions of praise:

By nitzuah (glorification), niggun(tune), maskil (didactic
psalm), mizmor (hymn), shir (song), ashrei (an expression of
happiness), tehilla (praise), tefilla(intercession or pleading), hoda’a (confession), and
halleluyah.

He continues: The greatest of them all is halleluyah, as it includes God’s name and praise at
one time. (None of these other words includes the name of God.)

This second teaching of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi collects all ten different Hebrew words for
praising God found in the Book of Psalms. It is clear from his remarks that here he thinks the word
halleluyah is derived from two words.

7 Myjewishlearning.com

22
In his commentary on this passage, the Hasidic master Rabbi Nachman of Braslov notes that these
ten words each connect to a different type of psalm, and that reciting all ten types together has
enormous power to affect repentance. In fact, he famously gathered a collection of ten
representative psalms (one of each type) called the Tikkun Haklali and encouraged his followers
to recite it daily — to this day, many people around the world do.

This isn’t the only place rabbinic texts gather up a bounty of synonyms for a significant concept,
and then explore the different nuances between those synonyms. A similar enumeration, this one
cataloging ten words for “happiness”, is found in Avot d’Rabbi Natan, a minor tractate of wisdom
and commentary composed sometime during the second half of the first millennium C.E.:

There are ten words for happiness, and they

are: sasson (joy), simcha (happiness), gila (rejoicing), rina (songfulness), ditza(amusement), t
zahala (exuberance), aliza (felicity), hedva(delight), tiferet (splendor), alitza (cheer).

The passage goes on to list ten names for idol worship, ten names for prophets, and ten names of
God, among others. This last set receives additional attention in Exodus Rabbah, which details
when each of these names is appropriately invoked. For example, “Elohim” implies judgment,
“Tz’va’ot” implies waging war against the wicked, and "YHVH," God’s four letter proper name,
implies mercy.

So what’s in a name? Our names are many, and ever-changing. Each different name by which we
are called impacts us: how we see ourselves, how others see us, how we feel and how we are
remembered.

Zelda concludes her poem as follows:

Each of us has a name

given by our celebrations
and given by our work

Each of us has a name

given by the seasons
and given by our blindness

Each of us has a name

given by the sea
and given by
our death.

Tikkun Kelali of Rebbe Nachman8

8
https://www.breslov.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Ten-Melodies-of-Awakening-Print-Version-7-11.pdf

23
The Tikkun HaKlali consists of the following ten Psalms said in this order: 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137,
and 150. Each recital is preceded by a paragraph expressing one's desire to bind himself to the Tzadikim of all
generations, especially Rebbe Nachman, and several verses which are customarily recited before any saying of
Psalms. The recital of the ten Psalms is followed by a prayer composed by Reb Noson, the Rebbe's foremost
disciple, asking God for forgiveness from sin.

History
Rebbe Nachman first revealed the existence of a rectification for involuntary nocturnal emissions
in 1805. At that time, he stated that any ten Psalms would serve as a rectification, since they
correspond to the ten expressions of song and praise on which the Book of Psalms is based.
These ten types of song are:
Ashrei, Beracha, Maskil, Nitzuach, Shir, Niggun, Mizmor, Tefilla, Hoda’ah, and Halleluyah.
In that lesson, Rebbe Nachman explained how some of these expressions stand in direct opposition
to the kelipah (forces of evil), and therefore have the power to extract the wasted seed from the
realm of unholiness.
Rebbe Nachman's main teaching on Tikkun HaKlali was given on Shavuot 5566 (May 23, 1806).
Yet he did not reveal the specific ten Psalms of the Tikkun HaKlali until April 1810. At that time,
Rebbe Nachman revealed the specific ten Psalms to two of his closest disciples, Rabbi Aharon of
Breslov and Rabbi Naftali of Nemirov, making them witnesses for an unprecedented vow:
"Bear witness to my words: When my days are over and I leave this world, I will still intercede for
anyone who comes to my grave, says these ten Psalms, and gives a penny to charity. No matter
how great his sins, I will do everything in my power, spanning the length and breadth of the
creation to cleanse and protect him.

"I am very positive in everything I say. But I am most positive in regard to the great benefit of
these ten Psalms.
"These are the ten Psalms: 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150.

"This is the General Remedy. There is a specific remedy for each sin, but this is the general remedy.
"Go out and spread the teaching of the ten Psalms to all men.

"It may seem like an easy thing to say ten Psalms. But it will actually be very difficult in practice."
In the accompanying lesson, in which he enumerated and discussed the allusions of the specific
ten Psalms, Rebbe Nachman asserted:
Know that the ten Psalms which a person must recite on the very same day as he has an impure
experience, God forbid, are: 16, 32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150.

These ten Psalms are a very great remedy for this problem. One who is worthy of saying them on
the same day need have no more fear whatsoever of the terrible blemish caused by an impure
emission, because it has indubitably been corrected by this remedy without any doubt.

Our daf (Pesachim 117a; Yerushalmi, Sukkah 3:10) states that there are ten types of songs in
Tehillim, the Book of Psalms: Ashrei, Brachah, Maskil, Nitzuach, Shir, Niggun, Mizmor, Tefillah,
Hodaah, and Halleluyah. The holy tzaddik (righteous person) Rebbe Nachman of Breslov revealed

24
that the recitation of the ten specific psalms he identified, each representing one of these categories,
would act as an effective tikkun (remedy, repair, or rectification) for all sins, especially sexual
immorality. Their recitation would help in a process of teshuvah (repentance), leading to an
awareness of the Divine Presence, which sends blessings to this world but is hidden through
transgressions in thought and action. Rebbe Nachman famously said, “If you believe it is possible
to destroy, believe it is possible to repair.” (Likutey Moharan II, 112.)

Tikkun HaKlali (Complete or General Remedy) provides a way for us to move ahead with our
lives despite our spiritual stumbling. In 1805, Rebbe Nachman taught us to say at least ten psalms
(Kitzur Likutey Moharan I, 205). “Any ten psalms you say have great power to fix. See yourself
and what you are going through in the words of the psalms. Apply all the expressions of praise
and thanks in the psalms to your personal situation. Say them as thanks to God for all the love and
kindness He has shown you all your life.” In 1806, Rebbe Nachman provided the background to
Tikkun HaKlali in a lengthy lesson (Likutey Moharan I, 29). He taught, “The way of the Complete
Remedy is to first work to uplift and enhance the mind and intellect so as to draw cleansing from
there to rectify one’s failures.”

In April 1810, Rebbe Nachman revealed the specific ten psalms of this tikkun to two of his closest
disciples, Rabbi Aharon of Breslov and Rabbi Naftali of Nemirov, by making them witnesses to
the following vow: “Bear witness to my words. When my days are over and I leave this world, I
will still intercede for anyone who comes to my grave, says these ten psalms, and gives a penny to
charity. No matter how great his sins, I will do everything in my power, spanning the length and
breadth of the creation, to cleanse and protect him. I am very positive in everything I say. But I
am most positive in regard to the great benefit of these ten psalms. These are the ten psalms: 16,
32, 41, 42, 59, 77, 90, 105, 137, 150. This is the General Remedy (Tikkun HaKlali).

There is a specific remedy for each transgression, but this is the general remedy. Go out and spread
the teaching of the ten psalms to all men. It may seem like an easy thing to say ten psalms. But it
will actually be very difficult in practice” (Rebbe Nachman’s Wisdom #141).9

Sources

Kitzur Likutey Moharan I, 73:

A person who wishes to return to God in repentance should make it a practice to recite psalms, as
psalms are most efficacious for repentance. The explanation for this is that many impediments to
repentance exist. Some people have no awakening to repentance at all, and even those who do
have such an awakening may encounter any number of barriers. Many people find the gate to
repentance closed before them while other people may not know how to reach the gate that is
appropriate for them, the one through which they must pass in order to return to God. There are
also many other barriers that impede a person from repentance, such that he could squander his
entire life and die without repenting, God forbid. However, an awakening may be achieved by
reciting psalms. Psalms will also help us reach the gate corresponding to our soul and to hold this
gate open until we merit returning to God in perfect repentance.
9
Lessons related to Tikkun HaKlali were given at that time and can be found in Likutey Moharan I, 205, and II, 92.

25
Kitzur Likutey Moharan II, 101:

Every day say at least ten psalms. Any ten psalms you say have great power to fix. See yourself
and what you are going through in the words of the psalms. Apply all the expressions of praise
and thanks in the psalms to your personal situation. Say them as thanks to God for all the love and
kindness He has shown you all your life.

Kitzur Likutey Moharan II, 125:

Rebbe Nachman was once speaking with someone about reciting psalms. The Rebbe said that the
most important thing about saying psalms is for a person to say them about himself and to find
himself in each and every psalm. The man to whom the Rebbe was speaking asked him how to do
this. The Rebbe said that just as King David, in certain psalms, beseeched God to save him from
battles, so a person must apply the psalms to himself in terms of his own personal battle against
the evil inclination and its cohorts. And a person should do the same with all the other various
situations and expressions found in the psalms. The man then asked Rebbe Nachman how he could
express his own inner feelings on those verses in psalms where King David praises himself, such
as “Guard my soul because I am devout” (Psalm 86:2), and the like. The Rebbe responded that a
person must apply also these verses to himself. For a person must judge himself favorably and find
in himself some merit and good point, such that in relation to this good point, he is indeed
“devout.”

Kitzur Likutey Moharan I, 205:

The Remedy for a Nocturnal Emission. The remedy for a nocturnal emission, may God save us, is
to recite ten chapters of psalms on the same day that it occurred, God forbid, since the recitation
of psalms has the power to extract the seminal drop from the impure force that captured it. A
person should have in mind at the time he is saying the psalms that the word TeHiLIM (Psalms)
has the numerical value of 485, which is the same as the numerical value of the two Divine Names,
EL ELoHIM, when the constituent letters of each name are fully written out like this: ALePh
LaMeD ALePh LaMeD HeI YOD MeM.

The Ten Psalms to be recited are:

Psalm 16, “A sweet song of David”.

Psalm 32, “A song of David to teach”.
Psalm 41, “Happy is he who is wise enough to care for the poor”.
Psalm 42, “As a deer long”.
Psalm 59, “For the conductor: ‘Do not destroy’”.
Psalm 77, “For the conductor: On the sufferings”.
Psalm 90, “A prayer of Moses”.
Psalm 105, “Give thanks to God, call out in His Name”.
Psalm 137, “By the rivers of Babylon”; and
Psalm 150, “Halleluyah! Praise God in His Sanctuary.”

26
These Ten Psalms are an extremely great remedy and rectification for this nocturnal emission, and
a person who merits reciting these psalms on the same day that his emission occurred has nothing
more to fear whatsoever from this terrible blemish, since undoubtedly it has been rectified through
this.

Tikkun ha-Berit and Depression

Eli Talberg writes:10

Rabbi Nachman considered the state of sadness and depression as the main internal enemy of a
man. Man's control over his imagination is weakened in this state. The uncontrolled fancies,
combined with a feeling of suppression by external conditions, give rise to an acute sense of the
lack of positive emotions, which can get out in a form of pollution at the physical level or even
drive a man to sexual crimes. Happiness, even if artificially induced, can withstand the depression,
and thus to keep away sexual problems. Here are the words of Rabbi Nachman. “However, a man
must strengthen himself in joy at all times, and not let anything depress him, no matter what
happens. If he is strong in his resolve, he will not be afraid at all, and will not dwell upon such
(sexual) thoughts. He will travel in his simple way with joy, and he will overcome everything in
peace.” (“Rabbi Nachman's Stories. Two Palaces”). “His main teaching was that a person not be
afraid or terrified by this (pollution). One should not think about it at all. One should be like a
mighty warrior, standing up against one's desires, utterly fearless, and not thinking of them at all.”
(ibid.). “[Rabbi Nachman] laughed at Chasidim and God-fearing men who were terrified
whenever they had an untoward thought, lest they experience a nocturnal pollution. However, the
fear itself can often bring that which they wished to avoid” (ibid.).

“[Rabbi Nachman] told his followers that whenever they experienced a nocturnal emission, they
should immediately immerse in a mikvah. As a result of this nocturnal pollution, whatever
[damage] was done, was done. However, before a permanent impression is made, one should
immerse and purify oneself. [Rabbi Nachman] warned that one should not be frightened by this at
all. Fear, worry, and depression are very harmful as far as this is concerned.

This is especially true now that he has revealed the Ten Psalms that have the specific power to
rectify this sin.

Rabbi Nachman investigated the Ten Psalms just for remedy of the above problem. “But even in
this case (when the pollution occurred), saying the Ten Psalms will do much to remedy the spiritual
damage. Many great Tzadikim sought this remedy and worked hard to find it. Some never had any
idea at all of the true remedy. Others began to perceive it, only to be taken from the world before
they could grasp it completely. This is entirely new and is a wonderful and awesome remedy.”
(“Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom,” 141).

10
https://algart.net/en/tikkun_ha_berit/tikun_ha_brit.html

27
Then, Rabbi Nachman discovered the universal significance of this list of Psalms. “The Ten
Psalms should be recited in the order that they appear in the Bible. The Rebbe also said, ‘This is
the Tikkun HaKlali — the general remedy. There is a specific remedy for each sin, but this is the
general remedy” (ibid.). In the same conversation Rabbi Nahman talks about these Ten Psalms.
“Ten Psalms correspond to the ten types of song.” Here he hints at the ending of the fairy tale “The
Seven Beggars,” where it is figuratively told about the healing of Shechinah with ten melodies,
and a personage of the tale symbolizing the Mashiach says, “I could then heal her through the ten
types of melody. I thus heal her.” Rabbi Kaplan comments, “The ten types of songs are included
into the Song on the Red Sea, which, according to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 91, b), Moshe will sing
in the Messianic age. Therefore, the song literally begins, ‘Then Moshe will sing’ (Exodus 15:1).
The Mashiach (Messiah) is an aspect of Moshe, and when he comes, he will sing this song which
includes all ten songs, and the Shechinah will be healed.” Confirming the words of Rabbi Kaplan,
we can give the Midrash, which Maharal from Prague gives, “will sing” (in Hebrew: “yashir”) can
be read as “yud” (numeric value: “10”) and “shir “(“songs”). This means that the Song on the Sea
includes all kinds of pleasures existing in the world.

Thus, the method of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov is simple. You need to excite the sense of joy
(with the help of Tikkun HaKlali or any other means), and “with joy you can become another
person” (“Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom,” 43), and that “other person” will be much purer both in
soul and in body.

28
Reb Nosson’s tefillah

29
Master of the World, Primal Cause and Driver of everything, You are above and transcendent
above everything and there is nothing higher than You, for thought cannot have any grasp of You
whatsoever. And for You, silence is a more of a praise and loftier than any blessing or worship.
You I seek, You I request, that You breach an opening for a paved channel from You down through
all the worlds, down to my spot in the web where I am standing, as it is revealed to You, who know
the hidden things. And through this path and channel shine Your light on me, to bring me back in
complete ''teshuvah''/return before Your presence in truth, in accord with Your will, in reality, in
accord with the will of the Choicest of all Your creatures, so that I should not entertain in my
thinking, any extraneous thought or any confusion that is contrary to Your will, but only cleave to
clear, lucid, and holy thoughts in Your service, in truth, in perception of You and in Your Torah.
Incline my heart unto Your testimonies [the Torah] and give me a pure heart to serve You in truth.
And take me out from the ocean's abyss unto great light very speedily and soon; the salvation of
Hashem [instantaneous] as the blink of an eye, to illuminate all the days of my life in the Ohr
Hachayim/Your influx of light to all life, while I am on the face of the Earth. And make me
privileged to renew my youth, the days which transpired in darkness, to bring them back into
sanctity. And let my going from this world be like my coming — faultless. And let me privilege to
gaze upon Hashem's Blissfulness and visit His Temple-chamber; it all proclaims, "Kavod/His
Presence!" Amen, netzach selah va`ed/forever and ever.

30