Main Question: But Kidush ha'Yom is d'Oraysa? ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Perek Mi she'Meyso (Kesuos, Daf 20b & 21a) 'Women are Chayav to recite Kidush min ha'Torah?'

Question: And when the Gemara at the beginning of Nazir (Daf 3b) implies that it is de'Rabanan ...

Answer: It refers to wine, which is mi'de'Rabanan ...

Source: Since on the D'rashah 'To forbid the wine of a Mitzvah like wine that is voluntary; what is that, wine of Kidush and Havdalah! the Gemara asks 'Was he foresworn from Har Sinai (to drink it?

Source (cont.): Wine is mi'de'Rabanan, but Kidush itself is d'Oraysa ...

Main Question (cont): Yet at the beginning of 'Arvei Pesachim' (Daf 100a & 100b) Rebbi Yossi rules that one does not need to interrupt (one's meal), and the Gemara Paskens there like Rebbi Yossi regarding Erev Shabbos, and like Rebi Yehudah, regarding Erev Pesach?

Answer #1: Kidush ha'Yom is different - inasmuch as one can recite it in the day just as in the night, in which case the concern of negligence is less applicable.

Answwer #2: Moreover, since one is busy with Se'udas Shabbos, one is less likely to be lax in reciting Kidush.

Question: The Gemara could just as well have have answered that both speak where there is still time, only because the time extends the whole day, there is more reason to suspect that he might come to be negligent ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Shabbos (Daf 10a) regarding Minchah - 'Since it has a fixed time, he is nervous and will not come to be negligent; whereas regarding Ma'ariv - where the time extends the whole night, he will not be nervous and will come to be negligent.

Refuted Answer: Nor can we say that the reason there is because night-time is the time that one sleeps, and we are therefore more afraid ...

Refutaion: Because then the Gemara there ought to have said so.

Answer: Bccause Tefilah requires time and one therefore tends to be more lax than by the Mitzvah of Lulav, which one fulfils by merely picking it up.

Question: The Gemara at the end of Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (B'rachos, Daf 30 & 30b) says that 'If someone rises early to go on a journey, on brings him a Shofar to blow or a Lulav to shake - and that is speaking on Yom-Tov?

Answer #1: There where there is no room for error, there is nothing to worry about - and the case there is where he is traveling within the T'chum to a place where the Chacham has arrived.

Answer #2: Moreover, the Tana there says that 'He rose to go on a journey' - which means that he is traveling from his house to greet the Chacham and he shakes Lulav before setting out ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas here it says 'Someone who arrives from a journey' , and when he enters his house he shakes the Lulav' - implying tat he came home from a long distance.

Inference: It implies here that a woman is Patur from Hallel on Sukos and also on Shavu'os ...

Reason: This is because it is a Mitzvah that is time-bound ...

Implied Question: Even though in Perek Arvei Pesachim (Daf 108a) it implies that they are Chayav Hallel on Pesach night

Source: Since they are Chayav to drink the four cups, which the Chachamim presumably only instituted in order to recite over them Hallel and Hagadah?

Answer: Hallel on Pesach (night) is different in that it said to commemorate the miracle, of which they (the women) were part ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas (Hallel) here was not instituted on account of the miracle.

Explanation #1: Since he didn't learn; and even if he did, 'a curse will fall upon him' because he despised his Creator - by appointing Sheluchim such as these (Rashi).

Refutation: However, he ought to have said this on 'Ishto u'Vanav Mevorchin lo' cited in thr Gemara ...

Reason: Since the Mishnah is speaking where he did not learn, where they are reading to him and he repeats what they say ...

Explanation #2: And he despises his Creator in that they, who are not B'nei Chiyuva, are the ones to read out to him, that is why the Tana curses him.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Since if a Gadol would read out to him, even if he would not repeat after him, but merely say 'Halelukah' ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Since he would be Yotzei with hearing alone - the Tana would not have said 'And a curse will fall upon him'.

Conclusion: Since an Eved and a woman are not Chayv to recite Hallel, seeing as it is a Mitzvas Asei that is time-bound (It seems that this sentence belongs at the end of (c) - See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Implied Question: This is not directly connected to our Mishnah ...

Answer: And the Gemara cites it here by the way, due to 'Tavo lo Me'eirah' ...

Implied Question (cont.): Because it is not speaking here about where he is reading it with him ...

Proof: Since the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 20b & 21a) tries to extrapolate from here that 'Women are Chayav to Bensch mi'd'Oraysa ...

Proof (cont.): Seeing as they can render others Yotzei their obligation.

Conclusion: And in answer to the question 'Do you also want to say that a Katan in Chayav mi'd'Oraysa?', the Gemara answers that it speaks where the man ate a Shi'ur de;Rabanan and she is Motzi him de'Rabanan.

Implied Question: The Tosefta (B'rachos 5:18) states, in connection with Birchas ha'Mazon that 'A woman, an Eved and a Katan cannot render Yotzei a group with their obligation .

Answer: We can establish that where they ate a Shi'ur d'Oraysa.

Refuted Inference: One cannot however, infer from here that women are not Chayav d'Oraysa; perhaps they are ...

Refutation: And the reason that they cannot render them Yotzei is because they cannot combine for Mezuman, as the Mishnah, in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu, Daf 45a) rules - 'Ein Motzi'os ...

Implied Answer: Even though a man can be Motzi them ...

Answer #1: A man is different, since he is more Chashuv.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since it is a group of people, it is degrading for them ...

Precedent: Just as we find by Megilah - where women are Chayav, yet the B'hag explains that they cannot be Motzi a congregation their Chiyuv regarding Megilah.

Clarification: In Rava's town, since they were all expert in Hallel, they would recite it together with the Shatz, just as we do nowadays, and did not rely on him at all, as Rashi explains.

Clarification (cont.): Only they had the Minhag to change in the places that the Gemara is about to list - for the experts and the non-experts to learn from it the practical Halachos, and what the Din is if a Gadol or a Katan reads for him.

Clarification (conclusion): And the reason that we do not do so nowadays is - the Gemara refers to it as a Minhag, and it is not customary, it is not the Minhag.

Clarification: The Shatz; the congregation answer after him 'Halelukah', and he remains silent until they have finished answering.

Problem: The Gemara however, does not explain how they recite the B'rachah, which also the congregation is obligated to recite before they begin.

Resolution: Perhaps they all recite it together ...

Resolution: And although the congregation remains silent until the Shatz has said 'Halelukah', it doesn't matter.

Implied Question: We already know this from the Mishnah ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the Gemara enumerates all the Halachos that one can glean from the Minhag.

Clarification: Rashi extrapolates from here that at the beginning of each chapter one needs to answer with the beginning of that chapter, and it will not suffice to answer 'Halelukah'.

Inference: Rashi implies that at the beginning of the chapter one needs to answer with the opening phrase of that chapter and no more, and that, everywhere else, one answers 'Halelukah', until the conclusion of Hallel - and so he wrote specifically in the Mishnah.

Question #1: It is not what the Gemara implies however, at the end of Perek K'shem (Sotah, Daf 30b & 31a) ...

Source: Where it cites a Beraisa - 'How did Yisrael say the Shirah? Like a grown-up who reads out Hallel, and they answered after him (Moshe) the opening phrases of the respective chapters' ...

Source (cont.): Implying that from the beginning of the chapter up to the end they answered the opening phrase of the first chapter after each section until the end ...

Question #2: And likewise the second chapter, one answers with the opening phrase of the second chapter, and so after each section until the end, and so it is with every chapter, i.e. ...

Explanation #1: "Halelukah", "be'Tzeis Yisrael mi'Mitzrayim", "Lo lanu Hash-m Lo lanu", "Ahavti ki Yishma Hash-m", "Halelu s Hash-m Kol Goyim" & "Hodu la'Hashem ki Tov".

Explanation #2: Perhaps from the beginning of Hallel up to "Hodu" is one chapter.

Proof: Seeing as the Gemara does not give a sign in 'the Minhag of Hallel' until "Hodu", and it ought to have done so by the first Perek that follows the beginning of Hallel.

Implied Question: And the Minhag nowadays that the Shatz says three "Yomru Na's" and the congregation answer on each one "Hodu", a Minhag that the Gemara does not mention ...

Conclusion: One is nevertheless Yotzei these Pesukim, due to 'Shome'a ke'Oneh'.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara says in Megilah (Daf 22a) that 'One is only permitted to split a Pasuk into two for children ...

Answer: It is different here, since they were said by two different people ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in 'Arvei Pesachim' (Daf 119a).

Clarification: Someone who does not know how to read or how to answer, is Yotzei if he hears and listens carefully, even though he does not answer (Amen).

Clarification (cont.): And likewise, people who are Davenning with a Minyan, and the Shatz reaches 'Kedushah' or 'Yehei Sh'mei Rabah Mevarach', should stop Davenning and listen - and it is considered as if they would have answered. And when the Shatz concludes Kedushah, they resume their Tefilos.

Support: And so Rebbi Yehuda'i Ga'on writes in his Halachos Gedolos, as Rashi explained.

Introduction to Question: But the Gemara in Perek Mi she'Meiso (B'rachos, Daf 21b) states that 'If one is able to begin the Amidah an to finish it before the Shatz reaches Kedushah, then he should Daven, otherwise, not.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And some say the same there, with regard to 'Modim'.

Question: Why is this necessary? Let him Daven S'tam, and when the Shatz reaches that point, let him be silent (and just listen)?

Question (concl.): It seems that if he would, listening would be considered a Hefsek in his Tefilah?

Answer: It may well be however that, even though 'Shome'a ke'Oneh' applies here, actually answering is preferable and is considered a greater Mitzvah.

Question: At the end of 'Mitzvas Chalitzah' (Yevamos, Daf 106b & 107a) Abaye says that 'The person who reads out the wording in the Chalitzah, should not read to the woman "Lo" by itself and "Avah Yabmi" by itself - since this implies 'He wants to perform Yibum with me', but rather "Lo Avah Yabmi" in one go ...

Question (cont.): Nor should he read out to the man "Lo" by itself and "Chafatzti Lekachtah" by itself, since that implies 'I want to take her', but "Lo Chafatzti Lekachtah" in one go.

Question (concl.): Whereas Rava maintains 'A small break doesn't matter'?

Answer: After hearing it here from Rav Safra, he accepted it.