Hallel on Rosh Chodesh

The Talmud (Erechin 10B) explains that while Rosh Chodesh is called a moed still Hallel is not recited on Rosh Chodesh since there is no prohibition of work on Rosh Chodesh. However, the custom has developed to say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, though some verses are skipped to indicate that it is just a custom. This custom existed at least from the time of the Talmud. The Talmud (Ta'anit 28b) records that Rav was visiting Bavel and he saw the people reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh. Rav wanted to stop the congregation from reciting Hallel, but when he saw that they skipped verses (the so called "half" Hallel), he said it was ok because he realized that they were only reciting Hallel as a custom.

Why did the custom develop to recite the "half" Hallel on Rosh Chodesh? Many reasons have been suggested. Rav Zevin (1956, p.146) quotes the Emek Halacha that the custom developed since there were some customs to limit working on Rosh Chodesh. Arukh Hashulchan (422:6) suggests that the reason is that the re-appearance of the moon signals the Jewish people's survival. Rav Schachter (1994, p. 194) quotes that R. Moshe Soloveitchik suggested that in the Bet ha-Mikdash, they used to say a full Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, and hence afterwards there developed a custom to say a partial Hallel. The simplest explanation is mentioned by Shinan (1999, p. 198) that Rosh Chodesh was/is considered a festive day, and the people wanted to mark the day by reciting Hallel.

The Talmud (Ta'anit 28b) did not record which verses were skipped, and different customs have developed as to which verses to skip. Today, I believe the universal custom is to skip the first ten verses in Tehillim chapters 115 and 116. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 3:8) writes that his custom was also to skip chapter 117 (two verses) and the first four verses of chapter 118. The Maggid Mishnah (Spain, 14th century) in his comments on the Rambam, writes that the Rambam's custom was also the custom in Spain in his days.

Why were the first ten verses in Tehillim chapters 115 and 116 chosen to be skipped? This is not clear, especially since in one case the verses we skip 115:8-10 are connected to 115:11, which we recite. Monk (1978, p. 87) quotes from the Eliyahu Rabbah that these verses are similar to other verses from the same chapter that we do recite. Monk also quotes R. S. R. Hirsch that the verses skipped are cries from troubles. A variation on this is that maybe the skipped verses are considered "sadder." For example, 115:2 records that that the nations of the world will ask where is our G-d? Also, 116:3 records that the person is in the throes of death.

There are at least five opinions as to whether Hallel should be recited with a blessing on Rosh Chodesh. One, (Rambam, Laws of Hanukkah 3:7), is that the congregation recites Hallel without reciting any blessings, and the individual who prays alone does not recite Hallel at all.

Two (second opinion in the Tur, 422, Machzor Vitry quoted in Tosafot Berakhot 14a, Yamim? and probably the second opinion in Shulchan Arukh, 422:2) both the congregation and the individual recite Hallel without any blessings. 

Three, (first opinion in Tur Orah Chayyim 422) the congregation recites Hallel with a blessing, but the individual does not recite Hallel at all. 

Four, (Rif, Maggid Mishnah in his comments on the Rambam) the blessing is said when reciting Hallel with the congregation, but if praying alone, then a person recited Hallel without a blessing. 

Five, (Rabbenu Tam, Tosafot Berakhot 14a, Yamim), both the individual and the congregation recite Hallel with a blessing. 

There are two separate arguments here. The first argument is whether a person recites a blessing on a custom (opinions three, four and five) or no (opinions one and two). The second argument concerns the nature of Hallel. Opinions one, three and four view Hallel as a communal prayer, and hence the real or even only obligation is on the congregation and not the individual. However, opinions two and five, who are Ashkenazim, make no distinction between the congregation and the individual.

The Maggid Mishnah writes that the fourth approach was the custom in Spain his time (14th century). R. Yosef Caro (1488, Spain-1575, Israel) in his work the Bet Yosef (422) quotes the Maggid Mishnah's opinion, and my guess is that this was his practice at least until he came to the land of Israel (in 1536). In the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 422:2) he adds that in Israel, the practice was to recite Hallel without a blessing on Rosh Chodesh when praying with a congregation, and it seems (the word sh-af) that the custom was also that an individual when praying alone would recite Hallel without a blessing. Apparently, when he wrote the Bet Yosef in Turkey, he did not know that the prevalent practice in Israel (Sefat?) was not to make the blessing by Hallel when praying with a congregation on Rosh Chodesh since he only mentioned this information about Israel in the Shulchan Arukh and not in the Bet Yosef. This has become the prevalent opinion amongst Sefardim in Israel, though I was told by two people that Sefardim from North Africa recite a blessing by Hallel on Rosh Chodesh.

A proof that the custom amongst Sefardim was to recite Hallel with a blessing when reciting Hallel together as a congregation on Rosh Chodesh is that the Shulchan Arukh 487:4 rules that one should recite Hallel with a blessing on the night of Pesach, and this is at best a custom, as it was not mentioned in the Talmud unlike Rosh Chodesh, see Bet Yosef 473, be-inyan. 

Another example is by the lighting of the Hanukkah menorah in synagogue that the Shulchan Arukh (Orah Chayyim 671:7) records that one recites a blessing on this lighting even though it is a custom, apparently from the time of the Geonim. The Sharei Teshuvah (671:10) notes the incongruity between the Shulchan Arukh’s views on not reciting a blessing by Hallel on Rosh Chodesh and the reciting of blessings when lighting Hanukkah candles in the synagogue. Also see Mishnah Berurah, 671:44.

The Rama (422:2) in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh quotes opinion five to recite Hallel with a blessing whether one is reciting Hallel with the congregation or by himself. He writes that this was the custom in his time (16th century) amongst Ashkenazim, and this has remained the Ashkenazi practice even amongst Ashkenazim who pray according to nusach Sefard.

With regard to the blessing at the end of Hallel, the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:11, Talmud Sukkah 38a) seems to write that some people had the custom to recite the blessing on Hallel and some people did not have the custom. The Talmud (Sukkah 39a) quotes Abbaye that this comment in the Mishnah is only in reference to the blessing at the end of the Hallel, but before reciting the Hallel there is a commandment (by the full Hallel) to recite a blessing. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 3:10) quotes this dictum, that the blessing afterwards is dependent on the custom of the place, but my understanding is that today whenever a blessing on Hallel is said beforehand, then a blessing is also recited after reciting Hallel.

A final question is whether the individual should recite the blessing after he hears the chazzan recite the blessing. The Bach (on the Tur, 422) writes that the individual should recite the blessing. However, R. Zevin (1956, p.146) quotes from the Ba'al ha-Tanya that the congregation should just say amen to the chazzan's blessing (both by the beginning and ending blessings) and not recite the blessings themselves. The Arukh Hashulchan (422:8) writes that this was also his practice since a person should not say extra blessings when there is an argument as to whether the blessings are necessary. Rav Schachter (1994, p.175) quotes Rav Soloveitchik that a person should recite the blessings before the chazzan recites the blessing, just as the Mishnah Berurah (619:3) suggests by the scheyanu on Yom Kippur. My impression is that most people follow the Bach and recite the first blessing of Hallel after the chazzan has already said the blessing.       

Bibliography:

Monk, Eliyahu, 1978, World of Prayers, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Schachter, Hershel, 1994, Nefesh Harav, New York: Flatbush Beth Hamedrosh

Shinan, Avigdor, 1999, Siddur Avi Chai, Jerusalem: Yediot Achronot and Sifri Hemed.

Zevin, Sholom Yosef (1888-1978), first published 1944, seventh edition 1956, Moadim be-hlakhah, Jerusalem.

Shemot 30:1-10 (Tetsavveh) – The barriers arise

The instructions concerning the building of the mishkan/ ohel moed begin in chapter 25, and appear to end with the concluding sentences 29:43-46. However, after these verses, 30:1-10 record the instructions for building the incense altar that was placed in the same room of the mishkan as the menorah and the table, whose instructions were recorded in 25:23-40. Why were the instructions regarding the incense altar not recorded in conjunction with the menorah and the table in chapter 25?

Ibn Ezra (long comments on 25:22, copied by Hizkuni on 30:1) suggests that the incense altar had to be recorded after the instructions regarding the outer altar, which are recorded in 27:1-9, since 30:9 records that one cannot offer an olah sacrifice on the incense altar. Yet, this reason would only explain why the incense altar was not recorded in chapter 25, but still then it should have been recorded in chapter 27 after the instructions concerning the outer altar were recorded and not in chapter 30.

Ramban (on 30:1, see also Seforno on 30:1) notes that the conclusion of the instructions for building the mishkan (29:45,46) records that the mishkan was for G-d to “dwell” amongst the people, which implies that anything that is recorded afterwards, like the incense altar, did not contribute to that goal.  Yet, why then have the incense altar altogether? He suggests it was to protect the people from plagues, see Bemidbar 17:11-13. Apparently, the idea was that the glory of G-d was in the inner room of the mishkan, and the glory of G-d would kill the people if they sinned, but the incense from the incense altar could protect the people.

Cassuto (1967, p. 390) explains that the instructions for building the incense altar are recorded separately since 30:7-10 record the rituals to be performed with the incense altar as opposed to the other items for which there are just descriptions and short references to their functions. However, 30:1-6 record the instructions for building the incense altar and these verses could have been recorded in chapter 25 in conjunction with the instructions to build the menorah and the table.

My guess is to follow the Ramban's idea that the incense altar did not contribute to G-d's "dwelling" amongst the people but to offer a different rationale for the altar. I think the incense altar was a form of a barrier between the people and the aron. How did it function as a barrier?

One, it was placed right before the curtain to the inner room of the mishkan, the room with the aron, which means that it would stop one from walking into the room with the aron, 30:6. Two, its height (two amot) was half an amah higher than the aron, 25:10 and 30:2. Three, the point of the incense that arose from the altar was not its smell but that the smoke of the incense formed a type of barrier. This idea is most evident on Yom Kippur when the high priest had to make an incense cloud that would allow him to enter the inner room of the mishkan, see Vayikra 16:13, and 30:10 refers to this act. Note that even when G-d's presence is symbolized as being in a cloud, as for example in Devarim 31:15, the idea is that the cloud is a barrier from a person directly "seeing" G-d. After discussing this idea in my synagogue, Oded Walk noted that when Aharon walked with the incense to stop the plague in Bemidbar 17, the Torah describes the incense as being a barrier between the living and the dead, Bemidbar 17:13.

Why was there a need for a barrier in the mishkan? I think it illuminates one of the basic ideas regarding man's relationship with G-d. The building of the mishkan increased the connection between G-d and the Jewish people, and all the items recorded from 25:1-29:46 were to show or increase the connection between G-d and man. Yet, even with this connection, there is a limit how close a person can get to G-d. This is the basic paradox of religion, man is to be connected with G-d but man can never really approach G-d, and hence the incense altar was included in the mishkan as a reminder of the barrier between man and G-d.For other examples of this idea, see our discussions on 20:19-23, "Establishing boundaries after the Decalogue," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/02/shemot-2019-23-yitro-establishing.html

An additional reason for why the incense altar was included in the mishkan as a barrier could relate to the question of the chronological order of the narrative. The Midrash Tanchuma Teruma 8, followed by Rashi (see his comments on 30:16 and 31:18, and N. Leibowitz, 1976a, pp. 459-470), argues that the instructions to build the mishkan only occurred after the sin of the golden calf. On the other hand, the Ramban (on 25:1), argues that the instructions were told to Moshe before the sin of the golden calf.

I prefer the Ramban’s approach since once Moshe was told to go on Mount Sinai to receive the tablets, 24:13, then there had to be a place to store the tablets. Also, from the fact that the instructions for the mishkan were recorded before the sin of the golden calf shows that the mishkan was not due to the sin of the golden calf. Yet, this does not imply that the entire mishkan had to be built, and maybe there is a third possible way to understand the flow of the narrative.

Maybe chapters 25-29 were told to Moshe before the sin of the golden calf, while 30:1-10 (also 30:11-38? chapter 31?) was told to Moshe after the sin of the golden calf. The idea would be that before the sin of the golden calf there was a minimization of the barriers between G-d and mankind, while afterwards the relationship was changed. This meant more barriers, which necessitated the incense altar being added to the mishkan. This means that according to this idea had the sin of the golden calf not occurred, the mishkan would have been built but there would have been no incense altar. (For other possible consequences of the sin of the golden calf, see our discussion on 34:10 "The restoration?") With this idea, 30:1-10 was recorded together with the rest of the instructions to the mishkan, but the instructions in 30:1-10 (also 30:11-38?) were recorded as a separate unit at the end to indicate that they were only due to the sin of the golden calf.

For a discussion concerning the remainder of chapter 30, see our discussions below on 30:17-38, "More barriers?" http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/03/shemot-3017-38-ki-tissa-more-barriers.html