Talmud - Pesahim 117b פסחים קי״ז ב׳

What, is it not the case that the mishna and the baraita disagree concerning the following matter: According to the one who says that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children,” he maintains that the subsequent halleluya is the start of a chapter. And the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” maintains that halleluya is the end of the previous chapter. The mishna and the baraita disagree only with regard to when the word halleluya should be recited, at this point in the seder or when hallel is resumed after the meal.

The Gemara rejects this contention: This is no proof, as Rav Ḥisda explains the difference between the mishna and the baraita in accordance with his reasoning, that everyone maintains that halleluya marks the end of a chapter. However, the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” spoke well, as he cites the beginning of the next verse. And the one who said that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children” means until and including, i.e., one finishes the entire verse including the word halleluya.

The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna say: Until halleluya. And if you say that we would not know which halleluya he meant, let the tanna say: The halleluya of “A joyful mother of children.” The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult for the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.

Likewise, Rabba bar Rav Huna explains the difference between the mishna and the baraita in accordance with his reasoning, that everyone agrees that halleluya signifies the start of a chapter. The one who said that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children” spoke well, and the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” maintains that the term means until and not including, as one does not conclude with the word halleluya after “A joyful mother of children.”

The Gemara asks a similar question with regard to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna: If so, let the tanna say: Until halleluya. And if you say that we would not know which halleluya he meant, let the tanna say: The halleluya of “When Israel came forth.” The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult for Rabba bar Rav Huna’s opinion.

And the mishna stated that one concludes this section of hallel with a blessing that refers to redemption. With regard to the dispute over how to conclude the blessing, Rava said: For the recitation of Shema and hallel on Passover, the wording of the final blessing is: Who redeemed Israel, in the past tense, whereas the seventh blessing of the weekday Amida prayer concludes with: Who redeems Israel, in the present tense. What is the reason for this difference? Prayer is a supplication for mercy and therefore one mentions and requests the anticipated redemption in his prayers.

Likewise, Rabbi Zeira said: The formula of kiddush is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us, in the past tense. In contrast, the formula in the Amida prayer is: Sanctify us with Your mitzvot, in the future tense. What is the reason for this difference? Prayer is a supplication for mercy, and one submits a request for the future.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And one must mention the exodus from Egypt in the kiddush of Shabbat day, despite the fact that Shabbat is not directly connected to the Exodus. The proof is that here, with regard to Passover, it is written: “That you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life” (Deuteronomy 16:3); and it is written there, with regard to Shabbat: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). By means of a verbal analogy of the word “day,” these verses teach that one must also recall the Exodus on Shabbat.

The Gemara discusses the formulas of other prayers. Rabba bar Sheila said: The prayer that describes the future restoration of the kingship of Israel concludes with: He Who causes the horn of salvation to flourish, while the blessing recited after the haftara, the portion read from the Prophets, concludes with: Shield of David.

Incidentally, the Gemara cites the promise God issued to David through Nathan the Prophet: “And I will make you a great name, like the names of the great ones in the earth” (II Samuel 7:9). Rav Yosef teaches: This is the meaning of the phrase “like the names of the great ones,” that Jews will say: Shield of David, just as they say: Shield of Avraham.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said with regard to God’s blessing of Avraham: “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2). “And I will make of you a great nation”; this is fulfilled in the opening of the first blessing of the Amida, as Jews say: God of Abraham. “And I will bless you”; this is fulfilled when they say: God of Isaac, as it is a blessing for a father when the name of his son is eternalized. “And I will make your name great”; this is fulfilled when they say: God of Jacob.

One might have thought that Jews should conclude the first blessing of the Amida prayer with the names of all the forefathers; therefore the verse states: “And you will be a blessing” i.e., with you, Avraham, they will conclude the blessing, and they will not conclude with a mention of all of the forefathers. This is why the first blessing of the Amida prayer ends: Shield of Avraham.

Rava said: I found the Elders of Pumbedita sitting and saying: On Shabbat, both in prayer and in kiddush, one recites: Who sanctifies Shabbat. On a Festival, both in prayer and in kiddush one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. And I said to them: On the contrary, in prayer, both on Shabbat and on a Festival, one should recite: Who sanctifies Israel. However, in the kiddush of Shabbat one should recite: Who sanctifies Shabbat, whereas in the kiddush of a Festival one should recite: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.

Rava further said to the Elders of Pumbedita: And I can say my reason and your reason. Your reason is that since Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, both in prayers and in kiddush one should recite: Who sanctifies Shabbat. It is not necessary for Israel to sanctify Shabbat, as it is permanently sanctified by God. Conversely, with regard to a Festival, as it is Israel who establishes it, as the Sages add extra days to certain months and establish years by intercalating them, one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. This is Rava’s explanation of the reason for the ruling of the Elders of Pumbedita.

Rava continues: My reason is that in the case of prayer, which is in public, one recites: Who sanctifies Israel, in honor of the community. Conversely, for kiddush, which is recited by an individual alone on Shabbat, one says: Who sanctifies Shabbat, as Israel does not sanctify Shabbat. On a Festival one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. In this case, Israel is mentioned, as its Sages sanctify the Festivals.

The Gemara rejects Rava’s reason: And that is not so. Is there not also the prayer recited by a person who is alone; and is there not also kiddush in public? The above distinction is rendered meaningless in practice. But Rava maintains: Follow the main practice of each mitzva. Prayer is primarily a communal activity, whereas kiddush is fundamentally the obligation of each individual.

The Gemara reports: Ulla bar Rav descended to lead the prayer service before Rava. He said the formula in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and Rava did not say anything to him. Apparently, Rava retracted his opinion and accepted the formula of the Elders of Pumbedita. Likewise, the Gemara relates: Rav Natan, father of Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, descended to lead the prayer service before Rav Pappa and recited the liturgy in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and Rav Pappa praised him for his correct recitation.

Ravina said: I happened to come to Sura before Mareimar, and the prayer leader descended before him and recited the liturgy in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and everyone tried to silence him, as they had never heard that version of the prayer before. Mareimar said to them: Leave him, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita. And the people in attendance listened to him and no longer tried to silence the prayer leader, but allowed him to complete the prayer.

MISHNA: They poured for the leader of the seder the third cup of wine, and he recites the blessing over his food, Grace After Meals. Next, they pour him the fourth cup. He completes hallel over it, as he already recited the first part of hallel before the meal. And he also recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over the fourth cup. During the period between these cups, i.e., the first three cups established by the Sages, if one wishes to drink more he may drink; however, between the third cup and the fourth cup one should not drink.

GEMARA: Ran Ḥanan said to Rava: Since the mishna states that Grace After Meals must be recited over the third cup, learn from it that Grace After Meals requires a cup of wine. Rava said to him: This is no proof, for although the Sages instituted the drinking of four cups in the manner of freedom, once the four cups are in place, with each and every one of them we will perform a mitzva, despite the fact that they were not originally instituted for this purpose. After the Sages instituted these four cups, they attached a special mitzva to each one. However, this does not prove that there is an obligation to recite Grace After Meals over a cup of wine during the rest of the year.

We learned in the mishna that they pour the leader of the seder the fourth cup and he completes hallel over it, and he recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over that cup.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Pesachim 117b examines rabbinic debate over where to stop reciting Hallel during the Seder and whether halleluya begins or ends a psalm.