Observation: It seems that the year before the Molad actually occurred six hours before Tuesday, so that when adding 5/21/589, the following Molad would occur on Sunday.

Question: Seeing as last year the Molad occurred on Tuesday, how could Rebbi make eight full months, thereby delaying Rosh ha'Shanah until Thursday, seeing as the Molad then preceded it by two days ...

Question (cont.): Whereas earlier, the Gemara concluded that one only makes eight full months when that year is a leap-year, so that it precedes it by only one day ...

Refuted Answer: And if you want to explain that last year the Molad occurred on Tuesday after eighteen hours, and the new moon was not actually seen until wednesday - in which case the Molad preceded Rosh ha'Shanah by only one day ...

Refutation #1: The Kashya then remains - that if one adds 5/21/589 on to eighteen hours of Tuesday, The Molad this year will occur only after fifteen hours on Monday, whereas Rosh ha'Shanah fell on Sunday - so how did the Molad occur 'in its time'?

Refutation #2: Also according to what Tosfos explained above - that it is not considered Makdim if it does not occur before the last eighteen hours of the day, and it is therefore possible that last year the Molad occurred on Tuesday at six hours, and the B'nei Bavel did not see it until Wednesday ...

Refutation #2 (cont.): Nevertheless, if one adds 5/21/589 to six hours on Tuesday, the current Molad will occur at three hours on Tuesday, which is not 'in its time'?

Answer: Perhaps 'It was seen in its time' is La'av Davka, and on the day after Rosh ha'Shanah it is also called 'its time' ...

Reason: Because on account of a delay of one day of the Molad from Rosh ha'Shanah, it doesn't really matter, since people do not notice it.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, when the Molad occurs a day after Rosh ha'Shanah it is as if it occurred on the same day.

Clarifying the Text: Some have the text 'Beis ha'Pagris' - with a 'Samech'; others, 'Beis ha'Pegarim' - with a Mem' ...

Support #1: And that is how it is written in the Tosefta (Perek 1).

Support #2: And a Pasuk in Yirmiyaah (31:30) "ha'Eimek ha'Pegrim".

Clarification: This goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that there are only seven 'Teki'os', since he reckons 'Tarak' as one Teki'ah (See Avodah Berurah).

Clarification (cont.): And when the Gemara says in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos, Daf 35b) that 'They would blow on Erev Shabbos six Teki'os in order to stop the people from working', according to Rebbi Yehudah that was really two Teki'os ...

Reason: Seeing as he considers 'Tarak' as one Teki'ah ...

Clarification (concl.): And it mentions six according to the Rabbanan, who count 'Tarak' as three Teki'os.

Clarification: The Gemara concludes that this goes according to Rebbi Yehudah, who says that 'Karak' is one Teki'ah.) ...

Clarification (cont.): And so too according to the Rabbanan is it forbidden to interrupt between the Teki'os.,

Halachah #1: And from here Tosfos' Rebbe learns that one may not interrupt between Shevarim and Teru'ah ...

Reason: Because based on a doubt as to whether 'sighing and wailing (i.e. the sounds conveyed by Shevarim and Teru'ah, respectively ) are emitted together (without a break) - we blow them together mi'Safek, after Teki'ah ...

Halachah #1 (cont.): Consequently, interrupting between them is prohibitted.

Halachah #2: And (Consequently) if by the Teru'ah, one is an Oneis and is unable to blow it immediately due to a shortage of breath or for any other reason, one should go back to the Shevarim (And Rebbi submitted to this ruling - See Avodah Berurah).

Halachah #3: From the above it seems that one may not interrupt between Teki'ah and Teru'ah ...

Implied Question: And although the Gemara says in Shabbos (Ibid.) that one does interrupt the Teki'os - when it rules that 'The first Teki'ah was to stop the people in the fields from working, whilst the second was to stop work in the town and its shops ...

Answer:

Question: The Tana does not include Erev Pesach, which would bring the total up to nineteen ...

Answer: Because it is only recited in the Beis-ha' Mikdash.

Authentic Explanation: And on other days one does nt say it at all ...

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain that on other days one does not complete it but one does 'skip' (read Half-Hallel) ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara asks 'Rosh Chodesh that is called "Mo'ed" why not recite it?' - implying that on Rosh Chodesh, he holds, one does not recite it at all.

Proof #1: Similarly, when the Gemara asks 'Why is it that, on Sukkos we do recite it and on Pesach, we don't?' - it implies that on (Rosh Chodesh and on) Pesach we don't say it either.

Proof #2: And so it implies in Maseches Ta'anis (Daf 28b), when it relates how 'Rav arrived in Bavel and he saw that they recited Hallel on Rosh Chodesh' he wanted to stop them, but when he heard them 'skip', he said that they were merely practicing the Minhag of their fathers' ...

Proof #2: Implying that initially, Rav thought that they would not recite it all.

Conclusion: In that case, the fact that we recite it is merely a Minhag and not an obligation like the eighteen days.

Halachah: Nevertheless, says Rabeinu Tam, we are obligated to recite a B'rachah over it ...

Proof #1: And this too, is implied in the fact that 'he wanted to stop them' - because he saw them reciting a B'rachah over it ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Otherwise, as soon as he realized that they did not recite a B'rachah before it, he should have understood that it was not obligatory ...

Proof #1 (cont.): Only a Minhag - [a clear proof that they did recite a B'rachah].

Proof #2: And this is further implied by the Gemara at the beginning of the secnd Perek of B'rachos (Daf 14b) when Rava ruled that on the eighteen days on which a Yachid concludes Hallel - 'between the Perakim one may interrupt, but not in the middle of a Perek ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Whereas on the days that he does not one may interrupt even in the middle of a Perek'...

Proof #2 (cont.): And what interruption is there if one did not recite a B'rachah?

Proof #3: Moreover, one may even interrupt for something that is voluntary - and the She'eilah in the Gemara concerned interrupting for someone whom one fears of honors?

Implied Question: Nor can one compare it to the Sugya in Lulav va'Aravah (Sukkah, Daf 44b) which states that 'One does not recite a B'rachah over a Minhag' ...

Answer: Since that refers to Tiltul (moving)regarding the Aravah, whereas over the Minhag of reciting, it is fitting to recite a B'rachah (See Avodah Berurah).

Implied Question: And when the Bereaisa says there in the fourth Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 28b) that 'A Yachid should not begin, and that if he does, he should finish' ...

Implied Question: Meaning that a Yachid does not need to begin, but that if he did, he should finish - implying 'skipping', which a Tzibur is obligated ...

Answer #1: That is merely because of the Minhag.

Question: Thatt poses a Kashya however, on Rav, who wanted to stop them - whereas the current Beraisa holds that a Tzibur is Chayav to recite it, and even a Yachid,

Answer #2: The Rach however, interprets 'Yachid Lo Yaschil' with regard to the B'rachah, and that if he began with a B'rachah, he concludes.

Ruling: Nevertheless, one should adopt the opinion of Rabeinu Tam, that it is correct for a Yachid to recite a B'rachah even Lechatchilah ...

Reason: Because, granted one is not Chayav to recite Hallel in the first place, once one decides to recite it, it is not considered a B'rachah le'Vatalah ...

Precedent: Just as the B'rachah that women recite over the Lulav is not considered le'Vatalah

Reason: Because even though they are Patur, they are nevertheless permitted to take it, and it is not therefore a B'rachah le'Vatalah (P'sak).

Inference: The Gemara does not ask why they (the angels) do not recite Shirah - implying that they do in fact recite Shirah.

Ramification: Therefore, said the Ri, on Rosh ha'Shanah and Yom Kipur one should not skip 've'ha'Chayos Yeshor'ru u'Keruvin Yefa'aru'.

Clarification: The Gemara in Pesachim (Daf 53b) explains - 'Three for the opening of the gates, nine for the Tamid shel Shachar - since the Levi'im would recite Shirah when the Nesachim were being poured ...

Clarification (cont.): And it comprised three paragraphs - by each of which they blew Teki'ah, Teru'ah, Teki'ah.

No Source: Rashi explains that the reason for this is not given.

Clarification: 'Not less than two flutes and not more than twelve' - corresponding to the twelve days (during theb year) on which they played the flute.

Clarification: Every day, when they sang Shirah - two lyres, nine harps and one pair of cymbals, making twelve.

Clarification (cont.): And as for the two trumpets the Kohanim blew them and not the Levi'im.

Proof: So the Mishnah says in the last Perek of Tamid (Daf 33a) - 'And two Kohamim stood on the 'Table of the Chalavim', two trumpets in hand'.

Implied Question: And by the same token it does not bother to mention there the harps and the flutes ...

Answer: since they were were played by the Levi'im and not the Kohanim.

Question: The Mishnah states there that 'ben Arza (a Levi) struck the cymbals?

Answer: The Tana mentions one of them.

Explanation: Rashi explains 'On copper vessels similar to them' (See Avodah Berurah, quoting the Cheishek Sh'lomoh).

Question: This Pasuk however, is written in connection with Sh'lomoh - in Melachim (1, 7) it says "Nechoshes Memorat", and in Divrei ha'Yamim (2, 4) "Nechoshes Maruk" ...

Question (cont.): So how can the Gemara say 'And on them David said'?

Answer: The Ri therefore amends the text to read 'And on them the Pasuk says "Nechoshes Memorat" "Nechoshes Maruk"

Text #1: Rashi reads this with a 'Samech'.

Text #2: But the Ri reads it 'Hardavlim', with a 'Mem'.

Proof: And that is how it appears in Bereishis Rabah 'Ardavlin be'Ir u'Medinah Nehefchah' - 'Ardavlin is like 'Hardavlin' - species of instruments.

Clarification: And the 'Mem' is interchangeable with a 'Nun'.

Conclusion: 'Hardavlim' is the Targum of "Ugav" (See Avodah Berurah).

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains (Shovels) with which they shoveled the ashes'.

Refutation: But surely what they played was a musical instrument?

Authentic Explanation: It therefore seems that there were two Magripos - one for the ashes, the other, for the Shir.