295 —הבהרות על ההלל, שני תבשילין בסדר, ומנהגי ראש השנה

B"H, the Fast of the Seventh will be turned to joy, Brooklyn, NY.

Kavod Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a chov"b etc. Mehorash"y. Shalom u'Vrachah!

Certainly you know that I spent several months in Europe, and upon my return I found many matters that had accumulated during this time, in addition to regular work and especially the busy preparations for printing what was published last summer. All this caused a significant delay in responding to letters addressed to me (those not directly related to the actual work of Melach M'lachah Machaneh and Kehot). I ask your forgiveness for this.

First of all, I hereby express my blessing for a good inscription and sealing in the Book of Life to you and all yours, for all good things in abundance.

Now I will address your comments in your letter:

a) You point out what I wrote in Likutei HaHaggadah p. 5: "They read the Hallel – the Levites," saying this is not so simple because according to Rashi (Pesachim 64a; Sukkah 54b), it was Israel who read Hallel. What I wrote is from the text of Yaavetz's order of Korban Pesach; I did not add anything of my own except citing the source from Tosefta. As for the matter itself – Rambam already rules (Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:11) that it is the Levites who read Hallel, and so far I have not found any halachic authority who explicitly disagrees (see also further regarding Rashi's opinion). It is known that Rashi is an explainer rather than a decisor; his commentaries tend toward straightforward interpretation even if that is not how we rule (see Yad Malachi on Rashi's principles). Furthermore: what you brought from Rashi seems to follow Tosafot's superficial reading in Sukkah there and Minchat Chinuch mitzvah 90. But if you say that Rashi means to innovate that Israelites also recited Hallel, there are several difficulties: a) Why did he not explain by "they sounded" who were those sounding? b) He should have written "it refers to all groups," and the word "all" would be superfluous. c) Most importantly: this view contradicts what is stated in Tosefta as Tosafot notes there. Even if you say that since there was no wine here Israelites were also permitted this song (per Minchat Chinuch), it remains difficult why Rashi would disagree with Tosefta and what his source would be. We must reconcile words of earlier authorities even when they seem at odds with explicit statements by our sages—but only when it is clear that this was their view; otherwise not. In our case since Tosefta clearly contradicts this view, it seems to me that Rashi never intended such an opinion. Rather, Rashi's intent is simple: In the Mishnah (Pesachim there), it explains all procedures of Korban Pesach up until completion by the first group and concludes "as with the first group so with second and third—they read Hallel etc." Superficially one might think this refers only to groups two and three; if group one also read Hallel it should have been stated earlier. Therefore Rashi explains "it refers to all groups." This matches what he clarifies in Sukkah—that every group reads—since for that sugya it makes no difference whether Levites or Israelites are reading—as is obvious—and perhaps that's why "they read Hallel" isn't mentioned earlier regarding group one—because there are many details where Rabbi Yehuda disagrees. So Rashi speaks only about timing of reciting Hallel which applies also during offering by group one; that's what Mishnah addresses too—not about who actually reads just as he doesn't specify who sounds since Mishnah doesn't deal with that either. This resolves all previous points and more. Also Tosafot Sukkah (54a) may only be clarifying Rashi's wording so we don't mistakenly think every member of each group read; Tosafot does not present this as a question or challenge—unlike Minchat Chinuch's reading of Rav Ovadiah Bartenura.

b) You challenge what I wrote in Likutei HaHaggadah p. 7: "It is evident from Mishnah and Yerushalmi that even during Temple times they took two cooked dishes," writing "there is no such implication—it’s obvious these were instituted after destruction." First: It surprises me you'd think me mistaken enough to write—and publish—that something is evident where you say there's no implication at all—especially since I cited sources! Second: I wouldn't believe you'd write such without first reviewing—even briefly—the Mishnah and Yerushalmi on site. The wording of our Mishnah (Pesachim 114a): "They brought before him matzah, lettuce, charoset, and two cooked dishes... In the Temple they brought before him the body of the Pesach offering." Yerushalmi (Pesachim ch.10 end halacha 3): "In other places they require two cooked dishes—one as a remembrance etc."

The publication has been suspended temporarily due to preoccupation with preparing for print discourses by my father-in-law Admor shlita—Chassidic discourses.

To conclude with something related to Rosh Hashanah: In my father-in-law Admor’s library I found his book "HaMoadim BaHalacha," where he brings various discussions about why we do not blow shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat—a decree lest one carry it four cubits in public domain—and it's unfortunate he apparently missed a surprising innovation by Rabbeinu HaZaken (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 588:4): That refraining from blowing shofar then is because it's considered weekday activity—see there—and through this one can resolve Rambam’s lengthy wording (Hilchot Shofar 2:6).

With blessings for a good inscription and sealing,
M. Schneerson

Summary

This letter clarifies halachic sources regarding who recited Hallel during Korban Pesach, affirms two cooked dishes were required even during Temple times based on explicit Mishnah/Yerushalmi texts, and highlights an innovative reason from Rabbeinu HaZaken about refraining from shofar blowing on Shabbat Rosh Hashanah.