Clarification: 'Yachid' is La'av Davka, but Rabah refers even to a Tzibur as 'Yachid', seeing as not all of Yisrael is assembled, as they were when they Shechted the Korban Pesach on the fourteenth of Nisan.

Clarification (cont.): And so too, is 'Gomer' - since we definitely Pasken that on the days that a 'Yachid' does not complete Hallel, there is no obligation to say it at all, even be'Dilug' (with skipping paragraphs).

Proof #1: For so it is implied in Erchin (10:) where, after reckoning the twenty-one days on which Yisrael complete Hallel, the Gemara asks 'Let one say it on Rosh ha'Shanah and Yom Kipur?', implying that on other Yamim-Tovim, such as Rosh Chodesh, it is obvious that on other Yamim-Tovim one doesn't recite it, seeing as it does reckon more than twenty-one days.

Proof #2: And also because when asking on Rosh ha'Shanah, the Gemara does not use the word 'Gomer'. If it had, it would have implied that on other Yamim-Tovim-such as Rosh Chodesh, although one doesn't finish it,one does read it (with Dilug).

Conclusion: But now (that it doesn't),it implies that one doesn't read it at all.

Proof #3: And so it also appears from the Gemara in the last Perek in Ta'anis (Daf 28:) where the Gemara relates how when Rav arrived in Bavel, he saw that they were reading Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Thinking that they intended to finish it (Gomer), he was about to stop them, when he noticed that they were reading it be'Dilug; So he concluded that they were merely adhering to the Minhag of their fathers.

Conclusion #1: So we see that on the days that one does not read the whole Hallel, there is no obligation to read it at all.

Conclusion #2: And the fact that we tend to recite it is no more than a Minhag

Ruling: It is written in Machzor Vitri that since it (reading be'Dilug) is only a Minhag, one does not recite a B'rachah over it ...

Proof: As the Gemara says in 'Lulav va'Aravah' (44:) 'One doesnotrecite a B'rachah over something that is merely a Minhag.

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam however, said that there is no proof from there, since if just holding something certainly does not warrant a B'rachah, performing a proper Mitzvah does.

Refutation (cont.): As we see from Yom-Tov Sheini (shel Galuyos), over which we recite a B'rachah, despite the fact that it is only a Minhag.

Proof #1: Our Sugya too, implies that one recites a B'rachah, since otherwise, how will the concept of 'Hafsakah' (breaking in the middle) apply.

Proof #2: Another proof lies in the episode with Rav who arrived in Bavel ... Had they not recited Hallel with a B'rachah, why did he not realize that that itwas only a Minhag until they skipped some paragraphs?

Conclusion: We must therefore conclude that they did recite the B'rachah, since a Minhag does require a B'rachah, which explains why Rav did not realize that it was only a Minhag after they skipped.

Question: Why did he not take note as to whether they recited the B'rachah 'Lik'ros' or 'Lig'mor'.

Answer: There would have been no point in doing so, seeing as people are generally not fussy to conclude 'Lig'mor when skipping and 'Lik'rם when reciting whole Hallel.

Our Minhag:: And the reason that we recite 'Lik'ros when we are Medaleg, and 'Lig'mor when concluding it. is in order to avoid making an error

Conclusion: That explains why Rav could not have realized from the B'rachah, until they actually skipped parts of Hallel,

Another Opinion: There are some who want to say that an individual who recites Hallel on a day that one does not complete it does not recite a B'rachah.

Refutation: The Count from Coucy however, maintains that since he wants to obligate himself, he recites a B'rachah, and it is not considered a B'rachah le'Vatalah.

Proof #1: Much like women, who recite a B'rachah over a Lulav and Teki'as Shofar, even though they are not Chayav.

Minhag: On Seider-night, some have the Minhag to recite the B'rachah over Hallel twice, initially, they recite 'Lik'ros', and then, after the Se'udah, after 'Sh'foch', they recite 'Lig'mor'.

Proof: And he brings a proof from a Yerushalmi (Perek 1, Halachah 5, 10:) with reference to the Halachah 'All B'rachos begin with "Baruch" except for a B'rachah that follow another B'rachah and B'rachos over fruit and over Mitzvos'.

Proof (cont.): The Yerushalmi then queries that from 'Ge'ulah' (i.e.the B'rachah of ' ... asher Ge'alanu' (following Hallel on Seider night), which follows another B'rachah (of Hallel), yet it begins with 'Baruch'?

Proof (cont.): And the Gemara answers that if one heard it (Hallel) in Shul, one is Yotzei.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara then asks from the end (i.e. 'Yehal'lucha') which does not follow another B'rachah, seeing as the Se'udah interrupts between them, yet it does not begin with 'Baruch'? To which it replies that there are two B'rachos, one in the future and one in the past ...

Proof (cont.): 'One in the future': refers to 'Lig'mor' that one recites after eating, to which 'Yehal'lucha; is 'next to'. 'One in the past: refers to 'the B'rachah ('Lik'ros') that one recites before eating.

Proof (cont.): So we see that one recites two B'rachos.

Refutation: However, this explanation (in the Yerushalmi) does not fit well.

Reason: Since it seems that 'Sofah' (the end) refers to ' ... asher Ge'alanu' (and not to' Yehal'lucha')?

Conclusion: And to be sure it does, as Tosfos will now proceed toexplain.

Question: In any event, it is implied in the Yerushalmi that they recited two B'rachos, one at the beginning and one at the end.

Question (cont.): Rabeinu Yehudah however, maintains that this is extremely difficult, seeing as, having recited a B'rachah before the meal, why does one then interrupt by eating in the middle?

Question (cont.): We see that on the days that a Yachid does not complete Hallel, once he recites a B'rachah, as he does in this case, he is not permitted to interrupt except to greet someone out of Kavod.

Question (cont.): Because had he not recited a B'rachah, why would he not be permitted to interrupt in the middle, even not out of Kavod, seeing as he is not interrupting a B'rachah?

New Explanation: It therefore seems that, when the Yerusshalmi asks 'How about Ge'ulah', implying that recites a B'rachah over it at the beginning, it is speaking about a person who goes through the Seider in one go, in which case he does interrupt, since he does not need to eat.

New Explanation (cont.): but we, who interrupt in order to eat, do not recite a B'rachah at all, not at the beginning and not at the end.

New Explanation (cont.): And when the Yerushalmi asks 'How about end?', it is referring to '... asher Ge'alanu', which concludes with a B'rachah.

New Explanation (cont.): And it answers that 'There are two' - i.e. two Ge'ulos, one pertaining to the future (with reference to 'Yagi'einu' [the second half of ' ... asher Ge'alanu']) which is also slightly long, and it alsocontains something about the past ' ... asher Ge'alanu' (with reference to Ge'ulas Mitzrayim), which explains as to why it concludes with 'Baruch'.

Implied Question: As for the question regarding 'Yehal'lucha', which, according to Tosfos' current explanation is not a B'rachah ha'Semuchah la'Chavertah, yet it does not begin with 'Baruch' ...

Answer: One can attribute this to the fact that it is merely a praise. Consequently, even though it is a little long, the Chachamim instituted a B'rachah at its conclusion but not at its opening, like they did with regard to 'Elokai, Neshamah ... '.

Halachah: It is also implied in the Yerushalmi, that it was their Minhag to recite Hallel in Shul and then to drink all four cups of wine at home, without saying anything in between ...

Source: Because the Yerushalmi asks what the din will be if one drank all four cups in one go (i.e.one after the other without reciting Hallel or the Seider in between).

Proof (cont.): And it cites Rebbi Yochanan, who rules that if one hears Hallel in Shul, one is Yotzei.

Precedent: And so it is implied in the Tosefta (in Perek Arvei Pesachim) which says that someone who did not know and who entered Shul ... .

Conclusion: Now we can also understand as to why ' ... asher Ge'alanu' begins with 'Baruch' ...

Reason: Because, since one is Yotzei if one recites Hallel in Shul, itis no longer a B'rachah ha'Semuchah la'Chavertah'.

Clarification: This Lashon implies that it is speaking about a private Ta'anis that an individual took upon himself which explains why one is permitted to taste ...

Clarification (cont): Because on a Ta'anis that is written in the Pasuk, it is forbidden.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that he is then obligated to spit it out, since what one benefits from merely tasting is not considered a Ha'na'ah.

Halachah: This explains why someone who spits out food does not need to recite a B'rachah.

Conclusion: And this is the Halachah.

Conclusion (cont.): But where he met him by chance, he is permitted to greet him.

Question: Why do we not give the reason as -because it is written first in the Torah?

Answer: Because what the Tana means to ask is why it precedes even Parshas Tzitzis, which is the first of all the Parshiyos to be written in the Torah?

Answer (cont.): We must therefore say that we do not really care about the order in which they are written ...

Reason: On account of the Principle that 'There is no chronological order in the Torah'.

Conclusion: That being the case, we ought to have given precedence to "Vehayah", since it is written in the plural.

Inference: This seems to go according to Rebbi Shimon in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos 43.), who defines Tzitzis as a Mitzvas Asei that is time-bound.

Precedent: And so it specifically says in Kidushin (33:) 'Tzitzis is a Mitzvas Asei which is time-bound'.

Question: According to the opinion in Menachos (41a) that 'Tzitzis is an obligation on the garment, which requires Tzitzis even if it lying in a box', how can it possibly be considered time-bound?

Answer: If it is a garment that is designated specifically for night-wear,it is Patur.

Precedent: And so is says in the Yerushalmi in Kidushin - 'Rebbi Shimon said to them, 'Don't you agree with me that Tzitzis is a Mitzvas Asei she'ha'Zeman G'rama, seeing as a night garment is Patur from Tzitzis?'

Precedent (cont.): 'The reason of the Rabbanan, said Rebbi Ila, is 'because a garment that is designated for both day and night use is Chayav.

Explanation #1: From here it seems that one may put on Tefilin between Ge'ulah and Tefilah, and the same applies to a Talis.

Case in Point: And so we find that Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rebbi Yehudah sent for his Talis and the Shali'ach delayed, and by the time the latter returned, he had already finished K'ri'as Sh'ma and the B'rachos. He then put on the Talis and .Davened the Amidah - and he proved this from the current case of Rav.

Reservation: It is however, possible to differentiate between Tefilin and a Talis, seeing as the Ikar K'ri'as Shma and Tefilah are connected with Tefilin, as we will say shortly 'That (is someone Davens without them) it is as if he issued false testimony ...

Reservation (cont.): Against the Master who commanded him (to put on Tefilin), as he is reading "they should be frontlets between one's eyes and a sign on one's arms" yet he himself is not doing it!

Reservation (cont.): Tzitzis on the other hand, one is only obligated to put on if one has a Talis, but not not if one does not. Consequently, one is permitted to recite the Sh'ma without them, in which case reciting a B'rachah between Ge'ulah and Tefilah would constitute an interription. Explanation #

Explanation #2: R. Moshe from Coucy however, maintains that we do not even have a proof from for Tefilin either, since it is possible that Rav put on Tefilin without a B'rachah, and that after the Amidah, he felt them and recited a B'rachah over them, as that would suffice.

Proof: By the same token as one is permitted to put on one's Talis when one's hands are dirty, and then, after washing them, one feels the Talis and recites the B'rachah.

Question: Is K'ri'as Sh'ma not included among the Mitzvos that are said in the Torah?

Answer: Had the Tana not specifically mentioned K'ri'asSh'ma, we would have thought that he is only Patur from Mitzvos that do not have a fixed time, but K'ri'as Sh'ma that has a fixed time that passes, he is not.

Implied Question: The Gemara might just as well have said 'an Olah without Nesachim, seeing as an Olah requires Nesachim no less than a Minchah.

Answer: And the reason that it mentions Minchah is because the Pasuk says "Olah u'Minchah".