Subscribe
Daily Daf Dose
The Mishna had stated: Which minor is exempt from the mitzva of re’iyah (they are not included even in the Rabbinical mitzva on the parents to train them)?
Beis Shamai says: A minor who cannot ride on the shoulders of his father and ascend from Yerushalayim to the Temple Mount is excluded.
Beis Hillel maintains: A minor who cannot hold onto his father’s hand and ascend from Yerushalayim to the Temple Mount is excluded.
Rabbi Zeira asks: Who brought this minor from his house to Yerushalayim (if he was capable of being away from his mother during the journey from his house to Yerushalayim, he is probably capable of ascending to the Temple Mount by riding on the shoulders of his father or walking while holding his hand)?
Abaye answers: The mother brought the minor until Yerushalayim. The mother came to Yerushalayim because she is included in the mitzva of simcha (rejoicing during the festival). (6a)
Rabbi Shimon presented the following inquiry: What would be the halacha regarding a lame minor according to Beis Shamai (He cannot walk to The Beis Hamikdosh, so Beis Hillel would certainly exempt him from the mitzva.), and what would the halacha be regarding a blind minor according to both opinions? Is the father obligated to bring them to the Beis Hamikdosh with him?
The Gemora explains the case: If we are referring to a case where the lame child or the blind one cannot be healed; it is obvious that there is no obligation, for even an adult in such a situation has no obligation. Rabbi Shimon’s inquiry must be referring to a case where they can be healed before they become an adult.
Abaye rules: Wherever an adult would have an obligation to fulfill the mitzva, there is also an obligation to train the minor; wherever the adult would be exempt from the obligation (if he was lame or blind), there is no obligation to train the minor, as well. (6a)
The Mishna had stated: Beis Shamai said: The olas re’iyah offering (which the pilgrim is obligated to bring upon entering the Beis Hamikdosh during the festival) must be worth at least two silver maos and the shalmei chagigah sacrifice (a peace offering, which the pilgrim must also bring during the festival) must be worth at least one silver ma’ah. Beis Hillel disagrees: The olas re’iyah offering must be worth at least one silver ma’ah and the shalmei chagigah must be worth at least two silver maos.
The Gemora cites a braisa, which elaborates on their respective opinions: Beis Shamai maintains that the minimum requirement is greater for the olas re’iyah because it is an offering which is completely burned on the altar, whereas a shalmei chagigah is not (the Kohanim and the owner eat various portions from the korban). Furthermore, we find during Shavuos that there are more olos offered than shelamim (indicating that olos are more important). Beis Hillel holds that the minimum requirement is greater for the shalmei chagigah because we find in the Torah that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. Furthermore, we find that the Nesiim (the prince of each tribe) brought more shelamim offerings than olos.
The Gemora proceeds to analyze why each opinion does not hold of the other’s logic. (6a)
In the course of the discussion, it emerges that there is a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding the olah which was offered in the Wilderness (before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai); Beis Hillel maintains that this was the olah of the tamid (a communal korban brought twice daily – and therefore it has no bearing on the olah offered during the festival), and Beis Shamai holds that this was an olas re’iyah.
Abaye notes that this is actually a matter which other Tannaim have argued about, as well.
Abaye illustrates how it is evident that Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Yishmael hold that the olah which was offered in the Wilderness was in fact an olas re’iyah (following Beis Shamai’s opinion), and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosi Hagelili maintain that it was the olah of the tamid. (6a – 6b)
The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Yosi Hagelili said: There are three mitzvos that a Jewish person is obligated to perform when he ascends to Yerushalayim during the festival: The olas re’iyah, shalmei chagigah and the shalmei simchah (a peace offering brought for the purpose of eating the meat in Yerushalayim during the festival). There is an element found in the olas re’iyah that is not found in the other two, namely, that it is an offering which is completely burned on the altar. There is an element found in the shalmei chagigah that is not found in the other two, namely, that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. There is an element found in the shalmei simchah that is not found in the other two, namely, that this is a korban which men and women are both obligated to participate in. (6b)
Beis Shamai says: A minor who cannot ride on the shoulders of his father and ascend from Yerushalayim to the Temple Mount is excluded.
Beis Hillel maintains: A minor who cannot hold onto his father’s hand and ascend from Yerushalayim to the Temple Mount is excluded.
Rabbi Zeira asks: Who brought this minor from his house to Yerushalayim (if he was capable of being away from his mother during the journey from his house to Yerushalayim, he is probably capable of ascending to the Temple Mount by riding on the shoulders of his father or walking while holding his hand)?
Abaye answers: The mother brought the minor until Yerushalayim. The mother came to Yerushalayim because she is included in the mitzva of simcha (rejoicing during the festival). (6a)
Rabbi Shimon presented the following inquiry: What would be the halacha regarding a lame minor according to Beis Shamai (He cannot walk to The Beis Hamikdosh, so Beis Hillel would certainly exempt him from the mitzva.), and what would the halacha be regarding a blind minor according to both opinions? Is the father obligated to bring them to the Beis Hamikdosh with him?
The Gemora explains the case: If we are referring to a case where the lame child or the blind one cannot be healed; it is obvious that there is no obligation, for even an adult in such a situation has no obligation. Rabbi Shimon’s inquiry must be referring to a case where they can be healed before they become an adult.
Abaye rules: Wherever an adult would have an obligation to fulfill the mitzva, there is also an obligation to train the minor; wherever the adult would be exempt from the obligation (if he was lame or blind), there is no obligation to train the minor, as well. (6a)
The Mishna had stated: Beis Shamai said: The olas re’iyah offering (which the pilgrim is obligated to bring upon entering the Beis Hamikdosh during the festival) must be worth at least two silver maos and the shalmei chagigah sacrifice (a peace offering, which the pilgrim must also bring during the festival) must be worth at least one silver ma’ah. Beis Hillel disagrees: The olas re’iyah offering must be worth at least one silver ma’ah and the shalmei chagigah must be worth at least two silver maos.
The Gemora cites a braisa, which elaborates on their respective opinions: Beis Shamai maintains that the minimum requirement is greater for the olas re’iyah because it is an offering which is completely burned on the altar, whereas a shalmei chagigah is not (the Kohanim and the owner eat various portions from the korban). Furthermore, we find during Shavuos that there are more olos offered than shelamim (indicating that olos are more important). Beis Hillel holds that the minimum requirement is greater for the shalmei chagigah because we find in the Torah that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. Furthermore, we find that the Nesiim (the prince of each tribe) brought more shelamim offerings than olos.
The Gemora proceeds to analyze why each opinion does not hold of the other’s logic. (6a)
In the course of the discussion, it emerges that there is a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding the olah which was offered in the Wilderness (before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai); Beis Hillel maintains that this was the olah of the tamid (a communal korban brought twice daily – and therefore it has no bearing on the olah offered during the festival), and Beis Shamai holds that this was an olas re’iyah.
Abaye notes that this is actually a matter which other Tannaim have argued about, as well.
Abaye illustrates how it is evident that Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Yishmael hold that the olah which was offered in the Wilderness was in fact an olas re’iyah (following Beis Shamai’s opinion), and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosi Hagelili maintain that it was the olah of the tamid. (6a – 6b)
The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Yosi Hagelili said: There are three mitzvos that a Jewish person is obligated to perform when he ascends to Yerushalayim during the festival: The olas re’iyah, shalmei chagigah and the shalmei simchah (a peace offering brought for the purpose of eating the meat in Yerushalayim during the festival). There is an element found in the olas re’iyah that is not found in the other two, namely, that it is an offering which is completely burned on the altar. There is an element found in the shalmei chagigah that is not found in the other two, namely, that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. There is an element found in the shalmei simchah that is not found in the other two, namely, that this is a korban which men and women are both obligated to participate in. (6b)
0 comments:
Post a Comment