308 —הלל בקרבן פסח, שני תבשילין, ותקיעת שופר בראש השנה שחל בשבת

B"H, 8 MarCheshvan 5708.

To the honorable Haraha"g vavac"h iy"a chov"b etc. Mehorashi. Shalom u'Vrachah!

In response to your letter from Erev Rosh Chodesh Sivan regarding reciting Hallel during the slaughtering of the Pesach offering:

Before I comment on what seems correct to me regarding what you wrote in your letter, I want to emphasize again what I already wrote in my previous letter—perhaps without sufficient emphasis: In this matter we find explicitly in the Tosefta on this topic, as well as in Tosafot and Rambam, that it was the Leviim who recited Hallel. Now some wish to introduce a dispute and claim that Rashi disagrees with these authorities and holds that all Israel recited Hallel. On this I wrote that the basis for saying Rashi disagrees is found so far only in Rashi’s wording in Pesachim and Sukkah and Tosafot’s wording in Sukkah; but this basis is not at all compelling or sufficient to establish a new dispute or strange opinion. Moreover, even within Rashi’s own words it is more reasonable to say that this is not his intent, as I have already written.

You write in your letter that regarding Rashi on Pesachim it is reasonable to say he did not mean to explain that Israelites also recited Hallel; but regarding Rashi on Sukkah it is difficult to say so. But consider: According to this, in Pesachim—which is where this law belongs—Rashi does not clarify this point; but in Sukkah—where the Mishnah only mentions how many blasts were sounded during the slaughtering of the Pesach and thus only needs to tell us that three groups recited Hallel three times—Rashi would explain whether Israelites said it? As I have already written, Tosafot’s wording in Sukkah can also be explained. And even if you say it is a forced explanation, it is much more forced to say that Rashi (in an indirect way and not at its place—in Sukkah according to your words) disagrees with an explicit Tosefta on site without any source indicating so.

You further write there is a "Talmud Aruch" which almost explicitly says Israelites recited it—but one must necessarily explain that statement according to Tosafot and Rambam; so too for Rashi.

Regarding your proof from our sages’ statement (Pesachim 95b and 117b): "Is it possible Israelites slaughter their Pesach offerings and take their lulavim without Hallel?" you infer that since this is not an avodah (Temple service), it must be a unique law and Israelites are those who recite it as with lulav. Apparently your proof has two points: (a) Since it's not an avodah it's unrelated to Leviim; (b) Just as with lulav Israelites recite Hallel, so too with Pesach. But one could say: (a) Since it's a law concerning a korban (offering), here applies the law of Leviim—note also Rashi's comment (95b s.v. efshar): since it's a mitzvah matter it requires Hallel; apparently his intent is that beyond joy there is a mitzvah here—the offering itself. This needs further analysis. (b) Who are those who recite? One could say it's teaching two cases: With lulav each individual says Hallel; with Pesach—the Leviim do so. This fits with the nature of each mitzvah: Taking lulav is a bodily mitzvah performed by each person individually—so each says Hallel; whereas slaughtering Pesach is done by one person as an agent for others (Kiddushin 41b), so also Hallel is said by Leviim who are given over from Israel for service. See also Maaseh Nissim by Rabbi Avraham Maimon Siman 1 cited in Perush Sefer HaMitzvos LeRasag by Rabbi Perla Mitzvah 59-60—and note I'm not intending here to connect this with the debate about whether Kohanim are agents of G‑d or of Israel.

By way of aside: According to those who hold as above—that "is it possible Israelites slaughter...etc."—then someone who did not obtain a lulav until after prayer must say Hallel again! See Shut Tzafnat Paneach II and Sefer Chukat HaPesach—not presently available to me.

Note also from descriptions of Korban Pesach order brought in Seder HaDorot (year 4535) which writes Kohanim said Hallel; but another version cited by Yaavetz says even owners of offerings said it. The Sefer Shevet Yehudah—from which these were copied—is not available for comparison.

Regarding two cooked dishes nowadays:

You objected that I suspected you had not studied Mishnah or Yerushalmi—but what can I do when you wrote in your first letter: "It’s obvious they stopped after destruction...and Yerushalmi gives no indication they took two dishes nowadays nor any such implication." In your second letter you yourself write: From there (Yerushalmi) it implies they brought two dishes nowadays... Moreover, even in your second letter I do not know what you mean—for after discussing at length how Yerushalmi brings a beraita stating "in boundaries they require two dishes," you conclude: "It seems Yerushalmi added this onto Mishnah which deals only with nowadays...so they said beraita applies also outside Jerusalem," while actually Yerushalmi’s version of Mishnah omits mention of needing two dishes—so beraita comes simply to inform us thus. Therefore there’s no place for such a beraita in Bavli—and thus one cannot say its intent was both outside Jerusalem and only nowadays—they brought two dishes; we have yet heard nothing about such a custom at all! See Tosafot s.v. Terum Bechorot 22b and other disputes between Bavli/Yerushalmi over Mishnah versions.

If there’s any proof from this beraita about when Mishnah was stated—it would rather indicate both Mishnah and beraita were stated while Temple stood since it says "and outside Jerusalem" without adding "and nowadays everywhere." But no absolute proof exists since nowadays follows all-the-more-so from outside Jerusalem then—and didn’t need specification.

On the essence: (a) Clearly outside Jerusalem they did not bring actual Korban Pesach—so when Mishnah says "in Mikdash they brought..." refers only to Jerusalem while Temple stood. (b) Clearly after destruction everywhere—including outside Jerusalem—they brought two cooked dishes as explained explicitly by Yerushalmi—and no one disputes this in Bavli! My point was simply that our anonymous Mishnah explains law for all times/places/people—and when Mishnah says bring two cooked dishes that's law everywhere/everyone except as specified later "in Mikdash they brought...", whereas you claim Mishnah speaks only about Jerusalem nowadays versus elsewhere now—and skips law for outside Jerusalem/Eretz Yisrael/Chutz LaAretz while Temple stood—even though their law matches today! Now let me address your questions on my explanation:

(a) You ask: Is it possible Mishnah discusses exceptions/minorities first then adds "in Mikdash...etc."? I don’t understand—for my explanation actually has first part covering all times/places/people except pure/healthy ones present in Jerusalem then who joined Korban Pesach group (though still needs clarification if those present but unable to bring actual offering must have symbolic dish—but plain reading implies either two dishes or actual offering). Even if you claim Mishnah refers only to Temple era—it still fits since most Jews lived abroad then—see Shekalim chapter 3.

(b) You ask: Where do we find Jerusalem alone called Mikdash? See Shekalim chapter 1 mishnah 3: On fifteenth day tables set up—in commentary Megillah 29b explains tables = money changers etc.—on twenty-fifth day set up in Mikdash; see Yerushalmi Pesachim end chapter five where sitting means literally sitting—not just being present—so cannot be inside actual Mikdash but rather Har HaBayit/Jerusalem itself; Bavli Sotah 40b says even now Har HaBayit considered ordinary ground like rest of Har HaBayit per Rashi there; Keilim chapter one mishnah eight refers only rabbinically—not biblically—as holy ground.

The same applies here—and see Rambam's commentary beginning chapter four Rosh Hashanah: "Mikdash refers to entire Jerusalem." His intent is literal—that city called Mikdash—not its laws matching Beit HaMikdash itself! See also Tiferet Yisrael beginning chapter four Rosh Hashanah.

Your assertion that debate between Rashi/Rambam on definition of Mikdash applies here—I long thought otherwise due to difficulties raised by commentators on both views—that debate applies only where Mishnah doesn’t clarify itself; thus mishnayot Maaser Sheni chapter three mishnah four/Eruvin end chapter ten etc.—not relevant here since our tanna clarifies his words: In Mikdash they brought etc.—meaning wherever possible actual offering was brought; likewise tables set up wherever possible—which clarifies meaning of “Mikdash.”

You wrote “the Paschal lambs were eaten throughout city—not just Mikdash”—but unclear if eating them inside Mikdash forbidden at all; statement “they went out and roasted their lambs” refers simply to most people eating at home—but eating inside Mikdash permitted since offering—not ordinary meat; only inside Sanctuary proper requires special verse permitting eating there because generally one does not eat before one's master—Zevachim 63a. Unclear whether those eating inside courtyard received just lamb or also lettuce etc.—there are arguments among commentators whether everyone agrees or disagrees about bringing other foods too—or perhaps everyone agrees either way.

This explains why according to Yerushalmi’s version our mishnah doesn’t state “and even actual lamb was brought”—but enough said here.

Regarding shofar blowing on Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah falling on Shabbat—you write you don’t see anywhere in Shulchan Aruch HaRav stating we refrain due to weekday-like activity (“uvda d’chol”). But see his words there (Orach Chaim 588:4): “Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah falling on Shabbat—we do not blow shofar even though blowing…is permitted on Yom Tov…because of weekday-like activity (‘uvda d’chol’)…and why don’t we override such a minor prohibition…as we do every other year…?” The surprise here is he explains we refrain due specifically to weekday-like activity—and Rabba’s decree comes merely to reinforce this prohibition so it won’t be overridden! By contrast Tosafot (Sukkah 43a/end ch. four RH)—according to Magen Avraham/Machatzit Hashekel—even he holds we refrain because there are two rabbinic prohibitions—but main reason remains Rabba’s decree—as plain reading suggests throughout Gemara/Rishonim/Acharonim.

I hope you will not take offense at my comments—and wish you success “ketivah vachatimah tovah.”

Summary

The Rebbe carefully analyzes sources regarding who recited Hallel during Korban Pesach, clarifies halachic details about bringing two cooked dishes after the destruction outside Jerusalem, and explains why shofar isn’t blown when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat according to Halacha—all emphasizing precision in Torah study.