New York – On Pesach night, some have the custom to recite the Hallel in Shul at night, and some do not. The issue is actually a debate between the Mechaber and the Ramah in Chapter 487:4 of the Orech Chaim section of Shulchan Aruch.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
This is a famous debate that most people certainly know. There is another debate, however, that fewer people are aware of. What is the halacha if someone’s personal minhag is not to recite the Hallel, but he happens to be in a place where the Hallel is recited? What should he do then?
This issue is a debate between Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l on one side and the Brisker Rav zatzal and ibl”t Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky Shlita on the other side. Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe OC Vol. II #94 writes that if someone finds himself in a shul that recites Hallel it is preferable to recite the Hallel and not act differently so as to avoid Machlokes. Although, ideally he should do so without a blessing, if it will be radily apparent that he is not reciting a blessing – then he should even recite a blessing rather than appear to act differently!
Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, however, is of the opinion that it is preferable to leave the shul earlier rather than recite the Hallel earlier and fulfill the opinion of the Ramah. His opinion is cited in Kovetz Hilchos Pesach 18:4 by Rabbi Daniel Kleinman. Rav Kamenetsky advises that it is preferable to sneak out of shul undetected. If this is not possible, he advises to recite Tehillim instead – also in a manner that is not detected.
What is Rav Kamenetsky’s rationale?
The main obligation for the recitation of Hallel is to do so at the Pesach Seder. If oen recites it at Maariv – then one has already fulfilled the obligation. When he does so later at the Seder itself – he is no longer fulfilling the Mitzvah of Hallel. The Gemorah in P’sachim 85b explains that the essential Hallilah – expression of joy during the actuall eating of the Korban Pesach involved the splitting of the Hallel. Some of it is said before one eats, then one partakes of the Korban Pesach, and then – ultimately – one finishes the Hallel. This break-up, according to the Gemorah, is the ultimate expression of joy and happiness. If this is the case, explains Rabbi Kleinman, then it is preferable not to fulfill the Mitzvah earlier.
This is also the opinion of the Vilna Gaon who cites a proof from the Tosefta in Psachim 10:5 which indicates that it is recited in shul only when the people do not have someone to recite it for them at home.
So what should a good Litvish family do if they are davening in a Nusach Sefard shul that recites the Hallel? Should they follow the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein zatzal or the other opinion?
The answer, however, is quite clear. One should follow the opinion of the Rav of the shul where one is davening. If the Rav announces that one should recite it anyway – then that is what should be done.
There is a famous story that backs up this notion. It is cited in the book HaGaon HaChasid MiVilna (pp. 253-254) which originally appeared in Yashar’s biography of the Chofetz Chaim.
It was late on a Friday afternoon in Vilna. Reb Chaim, the tailor of Vilna, was in a bind. It seems a question had arisen on the kashrus of the chicken being cooked in his kitchen. He quickly dispatched one of his children to pose the question to the Vilna Gaon.
The hour was late. Normally, the Vilna Gaon did not serve in the capacity of rav. But here, on account of the lateness of the hour, the Vilna Gaon made an exception. Upon examining the chicken in question, the Vilna Gaon could come up with only one answer: The chicken, unfortunately, was treif.
Meanwhile, unbeknownst to our tailor, his wife Malka had dispatched another one of their sons to see the great Rabbi Shmuel, the official rav of Vilna, who ruled leniently. The chicken, in his opinion, was permitted.
Both children excitedly rushed into the tailor’s home to report the responses. Not knowing what to do, Rav Chaim quickly ran to Rabbi Shmuel’s house and explained to him that the Vilna Gaon had forbidden the chicken. Rav Shmuel, the mara d’asra of Vilna, remained firm in his ruling permitting the chicken. He instructed the tailor to prepare the chicken, and he and the Vilna Gaon would come that Friday evening and taste of it.
Rav Shmuel went to the home of the Vilna Gaon and said, “My Master and Rabbi, I am nothing but like dust under your feet. However, I was accepted as the mara d’asra here in Vilna by its residents for halachic rulings. Since I ruled in this matter and I did so in the proper manner with the proper research, the halachah is in accordance with me. I ask of you to come with me to the house of the tailor, and we shall both partake of the chicken so that the residents of Vilna will understand the full authority of the rav, and that there will be no one who argues or criticizes.”
The Vilna Gaon agreed. They both entered Reb Chaim’s home and sat to eat. All of a sudden, before they had a chance to taste of the chicken, a piece of cheilev (unkosher fat) fell from the candle above.
We see from here the authority of a rav in his community or shul. If the Vilna Gaon was willing to sit and eat something that he had deemed to be unkosher, that says a lot. How many people in our times would be willing to do that?
We further find that Rav Hamnuna placed a ban upon a student who ruled in accordance with Rav Shimon in regard to muktzah in one particular city. The Gemara (Shabbos 19b) objects that the halachah is actually like Rav Shimon in this case! The Gemara answers that the city under discussion was one where Rav Hamnuna was the outstanding Torah luminary. Clearly, undermining the authority of a rabbi in his community or shul is a very serious matter.
The halachah is further quantified in the ruling of the Rema in Yoreh Deah (245:22). He discusses when and where it would be permissible to conduct a chuppah ceremony in the domain of another rav. He concludes: “However, one should not rule in forbidden and permitted matters or to lecture in a manner that shows authority in the city of his friend.”
It would seem that the Rema’s ruling applies not only where there is a rav of the whole community, but also to the modern-day application of synagogue and shul rabbis.
The Rivash rules on a similar case (Vol. I, No. 271) and states that no other rabbi may rule outside his domain against the opinion of the local rav. What is fascinating is that the Rivash’s response deals with a spiritual issue and not a halachic matter. Nonetheless, the Rivash is quite clear that even in outside matters, the authority of the rav should not be undermined. The Rivash’s ruling is part of normative halachah. The Chasam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat, No. 41) quotes the Rivash authoritatively.
This idea is also seen from the words of Rashi in his explanation to Chulin 53b. He writes, “It is unseemly [“lav orach ara’a”] to permit something in a place where the other rav forbade it.”
There are numerous other passages in the Talmud where this issue is brought to light. For those who wish to research further, see Shabbos 130a, Eiruvin 94a, Pesachim 30a, and Yevamos 14a.
The bottom line of all this? The rabbi of a shul or community has a s’yata d’Shmaya in his rulings. It is unseemly and against the Torah to undermine his opinion. This is true even if one happens to have the erudition of the Vilna Gaon. Certainly it is true in our own times.
Bottom line? Follow the Rav’s opinion – if he says the halacha is to recite Hallel in shul – do it.
With all due respect, the question is whether the rav of the shul should follow reb Moshe or reb shmuel. The answer is obvious.
there are a few fundamental ideas wrong with this writers argument. Firstly we are obviously discussing a person who davens ashkenaz davening in a sefard shul. Why should he ask the sefard rov’s opinion if he should follow that minhag. Also it is not quite clear if leaving a shul early would constitute going against the rov. As an aside I don’t understand this author’s paralel from the vilna goan to Rav Shmuel’s ruling. The goan was discussing if one should say hallel by maariv, and was not addressing this discussion. In addition, from the allowance of saying hallel without a brocha would show that the ikar mitzvah is at night when he says it without a brocha he is just saying pesukim in hallel.
The “real” question is what should a good chasidish family do when davening in a nusach Ashkenaz shul that does not say hallel. The answwer of course is obvious. Raise a ruckus and try to strongarm them to change their minhag.
I was not planning to post on Chol Hamoed but this calls for a response. I am away for Pesach at a retreat led by Rabbi Naftali Citron of the Carlebach shul. This facility has had Pesach retreats for 20 years, but this is the first time Rabbi Citron has led it. The Carlebach shul davens Nusach Sfard and it is Rabbi Citron’s minhag to recite Hallel in shul on seder night. But rather than insist that people follow his minhag, he asked the people who have been attending Pesach here on the past what was the minhag, and once he determined it was not to recite Hallel, that was what we followed. We need more rabbis like Rabbi Citron who are resopectful of minhagim. Enough time was left before the seder so that those whose minhag is to recite Hallel were able to do so. And thank you, Rabbi Hoffman, for reminding us of the importance of respect for rabbinic authority. Moed tov.
Since both (saying Hallel and not saying Hallel) are valid halachic practices, respecting another’s halacha or minhag is a great way to show achdus (unity).