When I celebrate my completion of a minor tractate (e.g. Masechet Derech Eretz or Kutim or Gerim), should I say Hadran and/or Kaddish at my Siyyum (party)?

  • 3
    Ta Shma': judaism.stackexchange.com/q/17970/5
    – Seth J
    Commented Aug 14, 2012 at 16:47
  • 2
    @SethJ This is definitely a formal unit. I imagine it would parallel the rules of a completing a tractate of Mishnayot.
    – Double AA
    Commented Aug 14, 2012 at 18:32
  • 2
    I didn't call it a dupe. I think it's more a Kal VaHomer (from my question to this one) if you follow the answer(s) that you do make a proper Siyum.
    – Seth J
    Commented Aug 14, 2012 at 18:55
  • 1
    @SethJ It isn't so much of a kal vachomer, since some of them are only one chapter (Avadim); the answer there in the name of R' Moshe Feinstein was that you have to feel accomplished
    – b a
    Commented Aug 14, 2012 at 23:53

1 Answer 1


Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz answers that one may make a full "Siyum" on all "Masechtos Ketanos", except for Maseches Derech Eretz (he quotes the Sefer Yoma Tava, Sha'ar 1, Page 23).

For the exception of Maseches Derech Eretz, he notes the Maharsham to OC 551:10 (image below), which states clearly in the name of the Peri Megadim (Mishbetzos Zahav) and Bach that it is not considered Torah for certain other Halachos:

enter image description here

This ruling (that one may make a Siyum on a Masechta Ketanah, although he doesn't mention the exception of Derech Eretz) is also stated clearly by the Alei Tamar in his intro to Bava Kama, as well as in Pesachim Perek 10 (text quoted here).

This article also confirms that a classic "siyum" may be made on these Masechtos, in the name of Rav Ovadiah in Yabia Omer 1:26:10, but I haven't looked that up.

  • What's special about Derech Eretz?
    – Heshy
    Commented Jan 28, 2019 at 18:31
  • @Heshy no idea - I would suggest looking up the source he quotes. Commented Jan 28, 2019 at 18:32
  • @Heshy The source for excluding DE comes from Pri Megadim (§102 MZ n. 4) who bases his opinion on Bach (ibid., cf. gloss to Ber. 20b). IMHO, Bach understands DE not to have same status as other tractates which are primarily of legalistic nature, ergo: fundamentals of Torah.
    – Oliver
    Commented Jan 29, 2019 at 15:51
  • @oliver thanks! I'll edit in the Maharsham that he quotes there. Commented Jan 29, 2019 at 16:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .