Siman 490, Se'if 4 · Why only half Hallel, according to the Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 7)

Shulchan Aruch, Siman 490, se'if 4
"On all the days of Chol HaMoed and on the last two days of Yom Tov, we recite Hallel with omissions, just as on Rosh Chodesh."
(Shulchan Aruch)

Why only half Hallel, according to the Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 7)

"We recite Hallel with omissions, because on the seventh day the Egyptians drowned."
(Mishnah Berurah)

• The essential reason: on the seventh day of Pesach the Egyptians drowned in the sea, and for that reason we do not say a complete song of praise on that day.
• The Midrash the Mishnah Berurah is drawing on: the Mishnah Berurah abbreviates and quotes only the end of the story. In its original context it is said on the verse "and the one did not come near the other all the night," that the ministering angels wished to sing praise before the Holy One, blessed be He.

"The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and you are singing praise before Me?"
(Midrash, cited in the Mishnah Berurah)

• From there to Chol HaMoed: since on the seventh day of Pesach we do not say complete Hallel, we do not say it on Chol HaMoed either, so that Chol HaMoed should not outrank the final Yom Tov. The seventh day is an actual Yom Tov and Chol HaMoed is not, and it would make no sense for Chol HaMoed specifically to have complete Hallel while the Yom Tov itself is a step down.

The Gemara's reason: the difference in the korbanos

• On Sukkos we say complete Hallel: because each and every day differs in its korbanos, thirteen bulls, twelve bulls, and so on. Each day is different from the one before it, so each has a joy of its own, and complete Hallel is said on it.
• On Pesach there is no complete Hallel: the Torah says "seven days," and all the days of Pesach bring the identical korban; they are not differentiated in their offerings. Therefore, once the first day is over and Chol HaMoed begins, there is no complete Hallel.
• The uniqueness of the first day: on the first Yom Tov itself we do say Hallel, and even on the night of the Seder Hallel is recited in shul at night, because that day is unique on account of the exodus from Egypt.
• Two different reasons: the Mishnah Berurah took the reason of the Midrash, while the Gemara gave a different reason.

The question from "Az Yashir Moshe"

If the Holy One, blessed be He, said that one does not sing praise over the drowning of the Egyptians, how did Moshe Rabbeinu and Klal Yisrael sing the Song at the Sea? The verse says explicitly, "Then Moshe and the children of Israel sang." There are some twenty answers to this question, and even more; here are a few of them.

1. One answer, by way of a parable: a parable told by Rav Yitzchak Blazer. In one city there was a Jewish informer, a moser, who caused enormous trouble for Jews, and eventually his time came and he died. In his own city there was great rejoicing that they were rid of him, but in a neighboring city, where he had never lived and had never harmed anyone, they were also celebrating. The rav said to them: the people of his city are rejoicing because they were freed from their troubles, but you, to whom he did nothing at all, what business do you have rejoicing that a Jew has died? So too the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the ministering angels: Klal Yisrael, who suffered at the hands of the Egyptians and were even pursued by them, have a stake in this, and they sing. But the angels have no part in the story at all, so what have they to rejoice about?
2. Another answer, a precision in the wording: the words are "the work of My hands is drowning in the sea," that is, while they are drowning right now, when the outcome is not yet settled and they could still be saved. At that moment one does not sing. But Moshe Rabbeinu sang the song after the event was finished and the wicked had already perished, and then singing is in place. This is also read into the wording "Then he sang."
3. Another answer: the Song at the Sea was said at night, and singing praise by day is a higher level. This point deserves further study.

A note on what the Mishnah Berurah left out

• What was omitted: the Mishnah Berurah left out the central part of the Midrash, the exchange between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the ministering angels, and quoted only the response.
• The consequence: from the wording as we have it one might conclude that one may never sing over the downfall of the wicked, even someone who suffered at their hands, and that is not accurate. The statement was addressed to angels, who have no stake in the matter.
• On the other hand: an explicit verse in Tehillim says, "When the wicked perish there is glad song." Someone who suffered, and whose people suffered, certainly should rejoice when the Holy One, blessed be He, wages war against the wicked and brings them to justice. Everything depends on what part the one singing has in the story.
• The comment of the Acharonim: most of the Acharonim wrote that the Mishnah Berurah should have brought the Gemara's reason as well, which is the straightforward reason, rather than following the Midrash exclusively.

Shabbos that falls during Chol HaMoed Pesach

Shulchan Aruch, Siman 490, se'if 9
"For Maariv, Shacharis and Minchah one davens in the usual manner for Shabbos, and says Ya'aleh V'yavo in the berachah of Avodah. At Mussaf he says the Mussaf order of Yom Tov, except that he mentions Shabbos and says: 'And You gave us this day of rest and this day of the Festival of Matzos,' and he concludes 'Who sanctifies the Shabbos and Israel and the festive seasons.' We read as haftarah 'Hayesah Alai.' And one does not mention Pesach in the berachos of the haftarah, neither in the middle nor in the conclusion."
(Shulchan Aruch)

• The regular tefillos: Maariv, Shacharis and Minchah are davened as on Shabbos, and one says Ya'aleh V'yavo in the berachah of Avodah, as on every day of Chol HaMoed.
• Mussaf: he says the Mussaf of Yom Tov, since on an ordinary Shabbos there is a Mussaf as well, except that within it he mentions Shabbos.

The wording "this day of rest" (yom hamanoach)

• The dispute: there is a version that reads "And You gave us this day of rest (yom hamanoach) and this day of the Festival of Matzos," there are those who do not say "yom hamanoach" but only "this day of the Festival of Matzos," and there are versions that read "this day of Shabbos."
• The view of Rabbeinu Tam: Tosafos records a dispute on the matter, and Rabbeinu Tam said that one should not say "yom hamanoach," because the Gemara says of Manoach that "Manoach was an am ha'aretz," and it is not fitting to call Shabbos by his name.
• The custom: Ashkenazim say "this day of Shabbos," and the siddurim note it in parentheses, "some say" and "some do not say." The Shulchan Aruch does not mention the issue and the Mishnah Berurah does not discuss it, because in his view Sefardim do say it.

The haftarah and its reason

• The haftarah: we read "The hand of Hashem was upon me," which, in the language of the Mishnah Berurah (s.k. 11), speaks of the resurrection of the dead.
• The content of the haftarah: this is the vision of the dry bones in Yechezkel. The prophet was brought into the valley, and behold it was full of bones; the spirit came and the bones stood on their feet, a scene resembling the resurrection of the dead.
• The connection to Pesach: on the face of it, the dry bones have nothing to do with Pesach. But there is a tradition, cited in the name of the Gaon, that the resurrection of the dead will take place in Nissan, and the war of Gog and Magog will take place in Tishrei. Therefore in Nissan we read the haftarah of the dry bones, and in Tishrei we read the haftarah of Gog and Magog.

The berachos of the haftarah: Pesach compared with Sukkos

• On Pesach: the one who receives maftir on Shabbos Chol HaMoed Pesach recites the ordinary Shabbos haftarah berachah and does not mention Pesach at all, neither in the middle nor in the conclusion; he concludes simply "Who sanctifies the Shabbos." Even though at Mussaf he davened the Mussaf of Yom Tov with Shabbos attached to it, in the haftarah the relationship is completely reversed.
• On Sukkos: on Shabbos Chol HaMoed Sukkos he mentions Sukkos in the middle of the berachah just as on the first day of Sukkos, and concludes "Who sanctifies the Shabbos and Israel and the festive seasons."

"One does not mention: on a Shabbos that falls during Chol HaMoed Pesach, since the haftarah comes only on account of Shabbos alone, for we do not read from the Prophets on the other days of Chol HaMoed. Therefore we recite the haftarah berachah as on all other Shabbosos of the year."
(Mishnah Berurah)

"Nor in the conclusion: meaning that he concludes only 'Who sanctifies the Shabbos.' And the Acharonim wrote that on Shabbos Chol HaMoed Sukkos he concludes 'Who sanctifies the Shabbos and Israel and the festive seasons,' and likewise he mentions Sukkos in the middle of the berachah just as on the first day of Sukkos."
(Mishnah Berurah, s.k. 16)

The underlying logic: what is it that generates the obligation

• What brings about the haftarah: on Chol HaMoed itself there is no haftarah. The one who gets the fourth aliyah on a Chol HaMoed morning does not read a haftarah at all (and even though the sefarim label that aliyah "maftir," it is not really maftir but simply a fourth aliyah). It emerges that on Shabbos Chol HaMoed the haftarah comes solely by force of Shabbos, and without Shabbos there would be no haftarah at all. Since Chol HaMoed sets no tone whatsoever in the haftarah, there is no room to mention Pesach in its berachah.
• Why Sukkos is different: on Sukkos too the haftarah comes by force of Shabbos, but the day itself has independent significance, since complete Hallel is said on it, and not because of Shabbos but because of Sukkos, for each day of Chol HaMoed Sukkos is an entity in its own right on account of the differing korbanos. Since the day carries weight, we mention it in the haftarah berachah. On Pesach, where only half Hallel is said, the day carries no such weight, and therefore we do not mention it.

In passing · What generates the obligation, and "pushed aside" versus "permitted"

1. An aliyah for someone who is not fasting

• Krias haTorah on a public fast: the reading on Tzom Gedaliah comes on account of the fast. Someone who is not fasting would seem to have no right to receive an aliyah, since the reading stems from the fast and not from the day itself.
• When the fast falls on Monday or Thursday: some poskim say that on such a day we read from the Torah in any case, and even if there were no fast there would be a reading. A large portion of the poskim say that what counts is the obligation to read, and since the obligation stems from Monday as well, even one who is not fasting may take an aliyah. Even this is debated, because the reading itself is the reading of a public fast.
• At Minchah: at Minchah of a fast day, the reading is not on account of the day but on account of the fast.
• Minchah of Yom Kippur: an interesting question is asked about a sick person who is not fasting on Yom Kippur on doctor's orders, whether he may receive an aliyah at Minchah. On the one hand, the reading comes on account of the fast. On the other hand, Yom Kippur itself is the day, and regarding this sick person one can say that of the five afflictions he observes four, he does not bathe, he does not wear leather shoes, and so on, and he has not forfeited a single obligation, since as far as the obligation to fast goes he is not obligated at all according to the doctor's ruling; it turns out that he is fulfilling all the obligations of Yom Kippur. A large portion of the poskim say that he may take an aliyah.
• The root of the doubt: it depends on whether we say that the fast is entirely permitted for him or merely pushed aside, and the Acharonim discuss this.

2. Is Shabbos "pushed aside" or "permitted" in the face of pikuach nefesh

• The case: a doctor is called to the hospital on Shabbos. He has a jeep, and his son has a scooter, and the speed and the travel time are exactly the same, except that the scooter burns half a liter of fuel and the jeep burns four. Must he take the scooter in order to minimize the fuel burned?
• Shabbos is pushed aside: if Shabbos is merely pushed aside before pikuach nefesh, then he is pushing it aside, and he must try to push it aside as little as possible and ride the scooter.
• Shabbos is permitted: if Shabbos is permitted in the face of pikuach nefesh, then at that moment there is no Shabbos for him at all, and he need make no calculations whatsoever. He gets into the jeep and drives, and does not have to stop and figure out whether there is a more economical way.
• Drawing the line: whatever is not part of the heter itself is not included in it. Smoking, for example, has nothing to do with the driving, unless without it he cannot drive at all; the entire discussion concerns the driving itself, which is needed to get to the hospital.
• Returning from a rescue: some say he is permitted to return, and the source is the Mishnah regarding those who go out to save lives and return to their place, for if they are called elsewhere, what will be? And there is an additional consideration: if we do not permit him to return, the doctor will calculate that he will be stuck for an entire Shabbos in a distant place, and he will not go at all and will find excuses; therefore some permit it.
• Back to the fast: in the case of the sick person who is not fasting as well, one must consider whether the fast is permitted for him or merely pushed aside, and there is no clear-cut ruling on this in this shiur. In any event, where there is actual pikuach nefesh there is no question at all; the discussion concerns a doctor saying that he will have problems later on, which is not immediate pikuach nefesh.

3. A bit of humor in the Gemara

Professor Lieberman was once asked whether there is anything humorous in the Gemara, and he answered that there certainly is: "Talmidei chachamim increase peace in the world."