Daf Yomi - Chagigah 15 - REPENTANCE IS ALWAYS ACCEPTED

The Gemora records various incidents where Rabbi Meir discussed Torah subjects with Acheir, his teacher. When Rabbi Meir questioned why Acheir would not repent, Acheir responded that he had already heard from behind the barrier in heaven, “Return O wayward sons, except for Acheir.”

The commentators ask: Isn’t it true that there is nothing that stands in the way of repentance?

It is brought in the sefer Zichron Eliezer from Rabbi Shlomo from Sassav as follows: The heavenly voice that calls out has the capabilities to inspire all who hear it towards repentance except for Acheir. He can hear the voice, but he will not become motivated because of it. If he would have decided to repent by himself, it would have been accepted.

A parable is given: A son was constantly rebelling against his father and the father’s rebuke was not resulting in any positive change at all. It came to a point, where the father simply gave up and informed his son, “From now on, I will not be reprimanding you anymore – you are on your own.” If the son would reflect upon the words of his father in a serious manner, he would become brokenhearted that his father has become so disgusted with him that he will not even be admonishing him; this will propel him to regret his past actions and beg his father for forgiveness, which he knows will be accepted.

The Shalah explains in a very similar manner: The Gemora Pesachim (86b) states: One should listen to everything that the host tells him except to leave. Even if the Holy One, Blessed is He notifies a person that he will not be assisting him any longer and it is as if he is being chased out of this world, it is incumbent upon that person to gird himself and harness all of his strength to repent and ask forgiveness; if he accomplishes this, there is no doubt that his repentance will be accepted.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 15 - POMEGRANATES

The Gemora states: Rabbah bar Shila met Eliyahu the Prophet and asked him what HaShem was doing at that moment. Eliyahu responded that HaShem was repeating words of Torah from the mouths of all the sages except for Rabbi Meir because Rabbi Meir had studied Torah from Acheir. Rabbah bar Shila wondered about this, because Rabbi Meir was akin to one who ate the inner part of a pomegranate and discarded the rind. Eliyahu responded that now HaShem was declaring, Meir my son says thus.

The commentators ask: What novelty did Rabbah bar Shila state thtat wasn’t known before? Why did the parable with the pomegranate result in Hashem repeating statements from Rabbi Meir?

The Gemora in Chagigah (27) states: The transgressors of Israel are full of mitzvos like a pomegranate.

A question is posed: Generally, transgressions are considered to be the most offensive kind of sin. Why, then, are transgressors deemed so worthy by the Gemora?

Kollel Iyun Hadaf cites from Rabbi Shimon Maryles, the Yoruslaver Rebbe in Toras Shimon as follows: The Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 84:19) says that after Reuven repented for his sin, Hash-m promised him, "No one has ever sinned before me and repented [like you did]. My son, in reward for introducing Teshuvah to the world, I promise that your descendant will introduce Teshuvah as well." The Midrash identifies that descendant as the prophet Hoshea, who issued a prophecy which begins with the words, "Return o' Israel to Hash-m your G-d!" (Hoshea 14:2).

The Midrash's assertion that Reuven was the first person to do Teshuvah is difficult to understand. The very first man, Adam ha'Rishon, as well as his son, Kayin, engaged in Teshuvah long before Reuven! Apparently, the intention of the Midrash is as follows: Reuven was the first to introduce Teshuvah as a necessary prelude to the performance of a Mitzvah (in his case, returning to rescue Yosef from the pit). The importance of doing Teshuvah prior to performing a Mitzvah is derived from the Tikunei Zohar (Tikun 6), which states that any Mitzvah performed without an adequate blend of "fear and love" of Hash-m does not succeed in rising heavenward, for these two qualities serve as the "wings" of the Mitzvah. This is hinted to in the verse, "They shall raise you up in their palms, lest you knock your foot against a stone" (Tehilim 91:12) -- the "palms" allude to the qualities of fear and love of Hash-m aroused through Teshuvah which protect one's performance of a Mitzvah from the dangers of the Yetzer ha'Ra, often symbolized by a stone.

Thus, when a person performs a Mitzvah it is necessary that other elements be present -- besides the actual execution of the Mitzvah -- in order for the Mitzvah to be credited to that person in Shamayim. Those elements include fear of Hash-m, love of Hash-m, and doing complete Teshuvah before performing the Mitzvah, so that the Mitzvah is performed with the utmost sincerity. When a Mitzvah is performed in that manner, it acquires wings, so to speak, to fly up to Shamayim.

A perpetual transgressor (or "Posh'ei Yisrael") invests none of these elements into the few Mitzvos which he manages to carry out in this world. As a result, his Mitzvos have no means with which to fly heavenward, and instead they settle and accumulate around him, convincing him that he is "full of Mitzvos like a pomegranate." In contrast, the Tzadik -- whose Mitzvos, borne by the thrust of his fear of Hash-m, love of Hash-m, and his Teshuvah, soar immediately heavenward, always appears to himself as bereft of Mitzvos because all of his Mitzvos go straight to Shamayim.

This is also the meaning of the verse (Devarim 30:2), "And you shall return to Hash-m your G-d" -- that is, when you first do Teshuvah, you may "[then] heed His voice" -- proceed with the performance of His Mitzvos, "according to all which I command you this day," so that the Mitzvos can rise heavenward.

This is also the intention of the prayer we recite each morning, "May He place in our hearts love of Him and fear of Him, and [may those two qualities give us the ability] to do His will and serve Him with a perfect heart." It is the love and fear of Hash-m, aroused through Teshuvah, which elevates one's actions.

This idea explains the Mishnah in Avos (4:21-22): "Rebbi Yakov says: This world is like an anteroom before the World to Come; prepare yourself in the anteroom, so that you might enter the banquet hall." The Mishnah continues, "He would also say: Better one hour of Teshuvah and good deeds in this world than the entire life of the World to Come, and better one hour of contentment in the World to Come than all the life of this world." The connection between these two statements of Rebbi Yakov may be explained as follows: How should one prepare himself in the anteroom of this world for the reward of the World to Come? One should prepare himself in this world by doing Teshuvah before every Mitzvah that he does, so that those Mitzvos will rise heavenward on the strength of the fear and love that is aroused through his Teshuvah.

In this sense, it may be said that Rebbi Yakov was actually offering a defense for his grandfather, Elisha ben Avuyah (Kidushin 39b), the Tana who became a heretic and thereafter was referred to as "Acher." The Gemara (Chagigah 15a) attributes Acher's persistence in maintaining his rebellious lifestyle to a voice he once heard echoing from behind the heavenly curtain, which said, "Return, all you wayward children, except for Acher!" One might ask that, granted, the heavenly voice rejected the possibility of Acher repenting for the sins which he had already committed, but what prevented him, in the event that he did feel remorse, from accumulating a new store of Mitzvos that would count in his favor for the future? In answer to this question, Rebbi Yakov offers his insight: "Better one hour of Teshuvah and good deeds in this world than the entire life of the World to Come" -- for without the spiritual advantage of Teshuvah, all of the Mitzvos one does in this world have little effect. This might have been Acher's reasoning which caused him to despair of ever correcting his ways.

Based on this, perhaps we can say that this was the meaning behind Rabbah bar Shila’s statement. Rabbi Meir understood Acher’s flaws but he viewed him as a pomegranate. Acher’s sins were all around him, but Rabbi Meir took the rind from the pomegranate and discarded it, demonstrating that Acher’s mitzvos were worthless and he should not consider himself righteous because of those deeds.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 15 - Highlights

Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Chananiah was standing on a step in the Temple Mount and Ben Zoma saw him but did not stand before him. Rabbi Yehoshua queried Ben Zoma as to where he was coming from and where he was headed. Ben Zoma responded that he was gazing into matters regarding creation and he observed that there was only a space of three fingers between the upper waters and the lower waters. This is because it is said, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters, and this means that the Divine Presence hovered like a dove hovers over its young but does not touch them. Rabbi Yehoshua told his disciples that Ben Zoma was still considered to be on the outside. The reason for this is because the verse that Ben Zoma quoted was said on the first day of creation, whereas the separation of the waters did not occur until the second day of creation. Rav Acha bar Yaakov posited that the separation of the waters was like a hair’s breath. The Chachamim maintain that the separation is like the separation between boards that are used for the construction of a bridge. Mar Zutra, and others say that it was Rav Assi, maintains that the separation was like the separation of two garments that are spread on top of each other. Some say that the separation of the waters is akin to two cups where one is stuck inside the other. (15a)

We learned earlier that Acheir entered into Pardes, i.e. heaven, by using the Name of HaShem, and this resulted in Acheir cutting off saplings, i.e. he adopted false theological beliefs. Regarding Acheir it is said, let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh. Acheir saw that Matatron, an angel, was granted permission once a day to sit in heaven and record the merits of the Jewish People. Acheir was bewildered by this sight, because there is a tradition that in heaven there is no sitting, contention, no back, as the angels are all one-dimensional, and no fatigue. Acheir thus declared, “Perhaps there are two entities, heaven forbid!” Matatron was subsequently removed from his position and he was struck with sixty lightning rods. Matatron was told, “When you saw Acheir you should have risen.” Matatron was then given permission to erase the merits that Acheir had accrued. A Heavenly Voice then announced, “Return O wayward sons, except for Acheir. When Acheir heard this proclamation, he declared, “Since I have been banished form the World to Come, I may as well derive pleasure from this world.” Acheir then strayed to the ways of bad society, and he requested from a harlot to engage in promiscuity. The harlot asked him, “Are you not Elisha Ben Avuyah, whose name has spread throughout the land?” Acheir proceeded to pluck a radish on Shabbos, in violation of the Torah, so the harlot decaled, “He is Acheir,” i.e. he has been transformed into another person. (15a)

The Gemara records various incidents where Rabbi Meir discussed Torah subjects with Acheir, his teacher. When Rabbi Meir questioned why Acheir would not repent, Acheir responded that he had already heard from behind the barrier in heaven, “Return O wayward sons, except for Acheir.” (15a)

When Acheir died, heaven did not wish to judge him because he had engaged in Torah, yet he was not granted entry to the World to Come because he had sinned. Rabbi Meir then said, “Better that heaven judge Acheir and ultimately he will be granted entry into the World to Come. When will I die I will cause smoke to rise from his grave?” When Rabbi Meir died, smoke rose from the grave of Acheir. (15b)

The Gemara wonders how Rabbi Meir was allowed to learn Torah from Acheir, as it is said, for the lips of the Kohen shall safeguard knowledge, and people should seek teaching from his mouth; for he is an agent of HaShem, Master of Legions. This verse is understood as follows: if the master is akin to an angel of G-d, then one should seek Torah from his mouth, but if the master is not like an angel of G-d, then one should not seek Torah from his mouth. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir merely learned from Acheir’s teachings but not from his devious acts. Alternatively, one who is grown can study from a teacher who is not akin to an angel of G-d, but one who is young should not study from such a teacher. In the west they said that Rabbi Meir ate the outer part of the date but discarded the inner pit. (15b)

Rabbah bar Shila met Eliyahu the Prophet and asked him what HaShem was doing at that moment. Eliyahu responded that HaShem was repeating words of Torah from the mouths of all the sages except for Rabbi Meir because Rabbi Meir had studied Torah from Acheir. Rabbah bar Shila wondered about this, because Rabbi Meir was akin to one who ate the inner part of a pomegranate and discarded the rind. Eliyahu responded that now HaShem was declaring, Meir my son says thus. (15b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 14 - OUR LEADERS ARE THE EYES OF THE NATION

Our Gemora cites a compelling statement from Rav Dimi. He said, "Yeshayahu cursed Klal Yisrael with eighteen curses. Yet, he was not satisfied until he pronounced, "The youngster will behave insolently against the elder, and the base against the honorable." Yeshayahu uttered eighteen terrible curses, each one grave and serious with awesome ramifications. That was not sufficient. He wanted to deliver the final blow, the blow that would have the greatest effect. What was that curse that would outdo all the others, that would devastate Klal Yisrael's chance for survival? It was the one that pronounced an end to the authority of the zekeinim, elders, and talmidei chachamim, Torah scholars. We cannot survive without their leadership.

Why is this? Why is Klal Yisrael so unique that it cannot exist without the institution of elders?

Rabbi A. Leib Scheinbaum in his Peninim al Hatorah explains: Rabbi Akiva compares us to a bird. Just as a bird cannot fly without its wings, so, too is Klal Yisrael helpless without its elders. A bird uses its wings to go higher and to remain airborne. Otherwise, it will fall to the ground, a helpless broken bird. Without its leadership, Klal Yisrael will not only not go forward; it will actually fall and cease to exist. A generation's greatest disgrace is demonstrated when the people do not show respect to their gedolim, leaders. How shameful is it when people refer to gedolei haTorah in the most pedestrian terms? The arrogance of the common Jew, his self-declared scholarship, provokes chutzpah towards our leaders. One cannot accept leadership from another if he is filled with himself.

The Satmar Rebbe, zl, once set forth criteria for a gadol to be accepted. He must first be a talmid chacham, totally proficient in all areas of Torah erudition. Secondly, he must be a yarei Shomayim, G-d fearing person, who will not adapt his psak, halachic decision, as a result of outside pressures or personal vested interests. Third, he must have special, common sense. He must possess an acute ability to understand and deal with all people. He should be able to ferret out those who would undermine the Torah way of life. A gadol is the embodiment of Torah; he reflects it in his total demeanor. To respect a gadol is to respect the Torah. To deny a Torah leader the respect he deserves is to challenge the Torah itself.

One of the distinguished laymen who heard the Satmar Rav's comments questioned him regarding a certain rav who fit the criteria, yet whose views regarding Orthodoxy were in contradiction to the Satmar Rav's. The Rav responded that indeed the gadol in question truly "fit the bill," but was deficient in one area. He was not "meshamesh," did not serve in such a capacity that he understood how to deal with the incursions against Torah Judaism. Only certain rabbonim, such as those who served in a number of the larger communities in Hungary, in which they were compelled to fight a holy war to preserve the sanctity of Torah and mitzvos from those who would do anything to impugn and destroy the Torah way of life, were able to impart lessons based upon their own life's experience. The Satmar Rav was an individual who, in addition to being a brilliant talmid chacham and pikeach, had absorbed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge from his rebbeim, who themselves were the gedolei Yisrael of the previous generation.

It is written [Devarim 1:13]: Provide for yourselves distinguished men, who are wise, understanding, and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads. (1:13)

In a play on the word "and I will appoint them," the Midrash changes the "sin" to a "shin", transforming the word to "and I shall hold them guilty". The Midrash is teaching us the importance of listening to our spiritual leaders. If they lead properly and the common people still do not respond with respect, the people are liable. They cite an interesting analogy. Once a snake was sliding along its path, when the tail began complaining to the head, "Why are you always in the front with me dragging along behind? I want to lead, while you follow in the rear."

The head responded, "Very well. We will switch positions, and you will lead. Since the tail has no eyes, we can well understand what happened. The snake fell into a pit, then it was singed by fire. Finally it was scratched by a thorn bush into which it had run. The fate suffered by the snake was to be expected, given the fact that the tail had guided it.

Similarly, when the common Jew attempts to usurp the spiritual leadership of Klal Yisrael, we are beset with bruises -- and in many instances -- serious injury. Our Torah leaders are the "eyes" of the nation. They lead because they have vision. They have the necessary perspective to guide the people on the correct and safe path.

Even the best leader will succeed only if he has the respect and approbation of the people he is to lead. One earns this respect by virtue of his character and scholarship. At times, however, the people themselves are not worthy of their leadership, not recognizing the leaders' virtue and capabilities.

Rabbi Scheinbaum continues : Horav Yeruchem Levovitz, zl, explains that when the youth lose respect for their elders -- when they wrest the reins of leadership away from those whose wisdom is tempered by life's experiences, from a leadership whose counsel is inspired by the Torah giants of a previous era -- Klal Yisrael is as good as dead. This is not life! Indeed, such a circumstance represents the greatest curse. A nation whose leadership is not "mekabel," will not accept advice from their elders, who are obsessed with their arrogance and sheer chutzpah; who denigrate the authority of their elders and render decisions based upon their own brash ideas, and shaped by their own vested interests, is not living a Torah life. Such a generation does not truly live.

Horav Chaim Shmuelevitz, zl, explains that the Jewish people are unlike other nations, in that they cannot survive without the institution of "zekeinim," elders. While other nations manage to survive without the leadership of sages or elders, our uniqueness renders our elders an essential prerequisite for our existence, rather than a mere luxury. It is Rabbi Akiva who says, "Yisrael is likened to a bird. Just as a bird cannot fly away without its wings, so, too, is Yisrael helpless without its elders." Rav Chaim explains that a bird without its wings is in a worse situation than an animal who never had wings. It remains a helpless, pitiful creature, victimized by any creature bigger and more powerful than it. Klal Yisrael without elders is just like that bird. It cannot survive. Undermining the power of our elders is tantamount to striking a powerful blow to the core of the life force of the Jewish People.

Horav Yechezkel Abramski, zl, put the idea into perspective with the following illustration: Imagine sitting at a distance of one hundred yards from a given point and asking a group of people if they are able to see a picture at this distance. One person will say he can only see thirty yards, while another will see forty yards, and yet another will see up to seventy yards. Suddenly, someone comes along with incredible eyesight who can see up to one hundred yards! Indeed, if all of the other people would get together, they could nevertheless not see as well as he, because the sight is limited. Having them all get together is to no avail because the eyesight of the individuals is still deficient.

The same idea applies to our Torah leaders: They see what others cannot; their vision extends beyond the grasp of the average person. Thus, if an entire group gets together to express their opinion in opposition of one gadol, their position carries no weight, because they cannot see what he sees. Their vision is stinted; their perspective is myopic. This is the reason that our Torah leaders are referred to as "einei ha'am," the eyes of the nation.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 14 - Highlights

Shmuel told Chiya bar Rav, “son of the lion! Let me relate to you a good matter that your father said. Every day angels are created from the River of Dinor and they sing HaShem’s praises and they disappear. This is based on a verse that states, they are new every morning, great is Your faithfulness.” This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani who said in the name of Rabbi Yonasan that every utterance of HaShem cerates a new angel, as it is said, by the word of HaShem the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. (14a)

One verse states, His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like clean wool. Yet, another verse states, His crowns hold mounds of statutes written in raven-black flame. The first verse refers to HaShem as old when He is so to speak at ease, because an old man epitomizes being at ease, whereas the second verse refers to HaShem in battle, because a young man epitomizes battle. (14a)

One verse states, His throne was of fiery flames, which implies that HaShem has one throne, whereas a second verse states, as thrones were set up, and the One of Ancient Days sat, which implies that HaShem has two thrones. The resolution to this discrepancy is that the second verse that was quoted refers to the throne of HaShem and the throne of Dovid HaMelech. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whereas Rabbi Yose HaGlili maintains that to suggest that HaShem has a human sitting next to Him on a throne would render the Divine Presence profane. Rather, Rabbi Yose HaGlili maintains that one throne is for justice and one throne is for charity. Rabbi Akiva accepted this interpretation. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azaryah rebuked Rabbi Akiva for expounding on Agaddic matters and Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azaryah maintains that one throne is for sitting and one throne is for a footstool. (14a)

Rav Katina taught that even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, there were still people of truth, as it is said, when a man will grasp his relative, a member of his father’s house, [saying,] ‘You have a garment! Become a benefactor for us.’ The word garment is interpreted to refer to matters of Torah which people would cover up like a garment. People were lax in Torah study and when asked a question they would feign ignorance and pretend that they had not heard the question. When they would discover someone who was knowledgeable in Torah, they would grasp him and ask him to be their leader, i.e. to teach them Torah. It is said further in that verse, and let this stumbling block be under your hand. This stumbling block refers to Torah, which are matters that students do not pay close attention to until they have been corrected several times. It is said further, he shall raise up an oath that day saying: I will not be a ruler, and in my house there is no bread and no garment; do not install me as a chief of the people. The word ‘raise up’ refers to an oath. The words ‘I will not be a ruler’ means I did not become one of those who locked themselves up in the study hall, i.e. I was not diligent in my Torah study. The words ‘and in my house there is no bread and no garment’ means that I do not have a knowledge of Scripture, Mishnah or Talmud. When the person would respond, ‘I am not accustomed to locking myself up in the study hall,’ he meant that he never knew the answer to the question. This statement that even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall there were still people of truth is contradicted from Rava’s statement that Jerusalem was only destroyed because people of truth had disappeared from it. The Gemara answers that Rav Katina was speaking regarding words of Torah, as regarding words of Torah people were honest in that they were not knowledgeable. Rava’s statement, however, was regarding business matters, as in this respect, people of truth had disappeared from Jerusalem. (14a-14b)

Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai was once riding on a donkey and Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach was riding behind him, and Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach requested that Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai teach him one chapter regarding the Heavenly Chariot. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai responded, “Did I not teach you that one cannot expound the matter of the Heavenly Chariot to an individual unless he is wise and can understand on his own?” Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach requested of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that he allow him to relate one teaching that he had learned from Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai. Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai agreed, and Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai descended from his donkey, wrapped his face and sat on a stone under an olive tree. When Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach questioned Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai regarding his behavior, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai responded, “is it possible that you are expounding on matters regarding the Heavenly Chariot, and the Divine Presence is amongst us and the angels are escorting us, and I will remain riding on the donkey?” Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach immediately began to expound on matters regarding the Heavenly Chariot and a fire descended from heaven and scorched all the trees in the field. All the trees then sang praise to HaShem. An angel from the fire declared that what Rabbi Elazar Ben Arach had expounded on was precisely the matters regarding the Heavenly Chariot. (14b)

Shabbos in the Daf

The Gemara states that Rav Katina taught that even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, there were still people of truth, as it is said, when a man will grasp his relative, a member of his father’s house, [saying,] ‘You have a garment! Become a benefactor for us.’ The word garment is interpreted to refer to matters of Torah which people would cover up like a garment. People were lax in Torah study and when asked a question they would feign ignorance and pretend that they had not heard the question. When they would discover someone who was knowledgeable in Torah, they would grasp him and ask him to be their leader, i.e. to teach them Torah. It is noteworthy that Shabbos is the sign of truth, and the Mishnah (Demai 4:1) states that even an am haaretz, one who is not scrupulous in separating tithes, has the fear of Shabbos upon him. Thus, we can adapt the statement of our Gemara to be referring to Shabbos, as even one who stumbles during the week in falsehood, heaven forbid, will state the truth on Shabbos.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 13 - TEACHING TORAH TO AN IDOLATER

Rabbi Ami said: One is forbidden from teaching Torah to a non-Jew. This is derived from the verse [Tehillim 147: 19 – 20]: He declared His word unto Yaakov, His statutes and ordinances unto Israel. He has not done so with any nation; and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.

Tosfos asks: The Gemora in Sanhedrin (59a) states explicitly that a non-Jew who studies Torah is liable for death; accordingly, one should be forbidden to teach him Torah because he is transgressing the prohibition against placing a stumbling block in front of a blind man? The idolater cannot study Torah, so the Jew should not be able to teach him Torah, why is this new verse necessary?

Tosfos states: The gentile is permitted to study the seven Noahide laws as the Gemora Sanhedrin (ibid) states: Rabbi Meir said: A gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a Kohen Gadol and the Gemora explains that this is referring to the seven laws which are incumbent upon him to adhere to. A Jew has an obligation to teach him these halachos.

Tosfos answers: Our Gemora is referring to a case where the idolater has another idolater who is willing to teach him Torah and therefore there would be no prohibition (based on the Gemora in Sanhedrin) of teaching him Torah; our Gemora teaches us that nevertheless, a Jew is forbidden from teaching a non-Jew Torah.

The Meor Veshemesh (Parshas Chukas) writes that it is permitted to teach the Written Law to an idolater as we find that Moshe wrote the Torah in seventy languages. The prohibition of teaching Torah to a gentile applies only to the Oral Law.

The Divrei Chaim (Chanukah) rules similarly: The Torah was written on the stones and the nations of the world copied it over. The Medrash states that the Holy One, Blessed is He did not protest and allowed them to study the Written Law. It is forbidden to teach them even one word of the Oral Law.

There are many commentators who disagree with this vehemently and they maintain that it is evident from many sources that it is even forbidden to teach the Written Law to a non-Jew.

In the sefer, Beis Pinchas (I P. 169) from Rabbi Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz, he writes that all are in agreement that it is forbidden to teach even the Written Law to a non-Jew; the aforementioned commentators are merely stating that we are not obligated to protest and prevent a non-Jew from studying the Written Law. This is derived from the Medrash which stated that Hashem allowed the idolaters to copy over the Written Law. It is incumbent on us, however, to ensure that the gentiles do not study the Oral Law.

This explanation is seemingly inconsistent with a ruling issued by Reb Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe (Y”D II: 132): He states that it is forbidden to directly teach Torah to a gentile; however, if he happens to be in the room when one is teaching Torah to other Jews, the teacher is permitted to continue teaching Torah since it is not his intention to teach the gentile.

If there is an obligation to ensure that the gentile does not study the Oral Law, it should follow that one would be compelled to cease his discourse and wait for the non-Jew to leave before continuing with the teaching of Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 13 - Highlights

There is a rakiya above the heads of the chayos as is stated in a verse in Yechezkel. Until this point one can discuss, but one cannot discuss any further. In the Book of Ben Sira it is written that one should not expound on matters that are concealed from him, one should not investigate what is covered from him. One can only contemplate matters of which he has been granted permission, because one has no dealing with hidden matters. (13a)

When Nevuchadnezzar king of Babylon declared, ‘I will ascend over the tops of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High,’ a heavenly voice responded: ‘wicked one, son of the wicked one, descendant of Nimrod the wicked one, who in his reign caused the entire world to rebel. Man’s years are seventy years. From the earth till the rakiya is a distance of five hundred years. The thickness of the rakiya is five hundred years. The distance between each rakiya is five hundred years. Above all the rakiyos are the holy chayos. The feet of the chayos alone correspond to the measurements mentioned above. The karsulim of the chayos correspond to all of the above mentioned measurements. Corresponding to all of those measurements are the thighs of the chayos. The thighbone (which is near the thigh) of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned chayos. The thigh of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The body of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The neck of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The head of the chayos corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The horns of the chayos correspond to all of the above mentioned measurements. Above all of the previously mentioned measurements is the Heavenly Throne. The feet of the Heavenly Throne correspond to all of the above mentioned measurements. The Heavenly Throne itself corresponds to all of the above mentioned measurements. The living and existing G-d is sitting upon the Heavenly Throne, and you dare declare, ‘I will ascend over the tops of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High?’ But to the nether-world have you been lowered, to the bottom of the pit!’ (13a)

We learned in the Mishna that we do not expound upon the discussion of the Heavenly Chariot to an individual. The Gemara qualifies this ruling to mean that we do give over the main ideas of the Heavenly Chariot discussion. This ruling is further qualified to mean that we only give over the main ideas to the head of the court and to one who takes the matter seriously. Alternatively, we only give over these matters to the head of a court who takes the matter seriously. (13a)

Rabbi Yochanan sought to teach Rabbi Elazar regarding the Heavenly Chariot. Rabbi Elazar responded that he was not old enough. When Rabbi Elazar became old enough, Rabbi Yochanan died. Rabbi Assi told Rabbi Elazar that he would teach Rabbi Elazar regarding the Heavenly Chariot. Rabbi Elazar responded, “had I merited, I would have learned it from Rabbi Yochanan your teacher.” (13a)

The angels that are called chashmal are thus called because chashmal is an acrostic for the words chayos eish mimalelos, i.e. fire emanates from their speech. Alternatively, the word chashmal can be interpreted to mean that at times they are chashos, i.e. silent, and at times they are mimalelos, i.e. speaking. When Hashem talks they are silent, and when HaShem is not talking they speak. (13b)

Everything that Yechezkel saw was also seen by Yeshaya. Yechezkel was akin to a villager who saw the king whereas Yeshaya was akin to one who lives in the city and sees the king. (13b)

The king of the wild animals is the lion, the king of the animals is the ox and the king of the birds is the eagle. Man is exalted above all those, and HaShem is exalted above all of them and above the entire world. (13b)

One verse in Yechezkel mentions the ox, whereas another verse substitutes the cherub for the ox. The reason for this discrepancy is because Yechezkel prayed to HaShem that the ox should be transformed to a cherub. Yechezkel posited, “Master of the world! Should the prosecutor, i.e. the ox who was worshipped by the Jewish People when they fashioned the Golden Calf in the Wilderness, become a defense attorney?” (13b)

Yeshaya lived in the time when the Bais HaMikdash was standing, so he saw the angels with six wings, whereas Yechezkel lived immediately prior to the destruction of the Bais HaMikdash, so he only saw the angels with four wings. Rav Chananel maintains that the wings with which the angels sing HaShem’s praises were diminished, whereas the Chachamim maintain that the wings that cover the angels’ feet were diminished. (13b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 12 - CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE WORLD, CREATION OF DARKNESS AND THE BLESSING ON THE MANNA

* Adam HaRishon initially stood from the ground until the heavens. Upon sinning, HaShem placed His hand on Adam and diminished his stature.

The Chasam Sofer (Chulin) asks: One Gemora says that the circumference of the world is equivalent to a person’s journey around the world for five hundred years; yet the Rambam in his introduction to Mishnayos Seder Zeraim states that the world is precisely twenty-four thousand milin. How can these two different measurements be reconciled?

The Chasam Sofer goes to great lengths, with extraordinary calculations, illustrating how every word of Chazal is precise and accurate.

UPDATE: Please see the comments (click 'comments' below this post) where we present the Chasam Sofer's explanation.

NEWER UPDATE - Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld from Kollel Iyun HaDaf responds:

THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
daf@dafyomi.co.il

1. Ramban's source is Pesachim 94a. That same Gemara rejects that figure based on the Beraisa of Chagigah 13a that you quoted.

Note that it also presents the Beraisa which contradicts this value, giving a size for the world of 3600 x 400 x 4 Mil. Considering that the average person does 40 Mil/day (ibid.) and can walk approximately 300 days/year (without Shabbos and Yom Tov), this figure is pretty consistent with the 500 year walk of Chagigah 12a and 13a.

2. Tosfos ibid DH Kol points out that the other two Midrashim (the 500 years and one "Yishuv") about the size of the Earth are contradictory (even putting aside the 24,000 Mil figure). However, the figure Rashi offers there (DH Tachas) seems to reconcile the two Midrashim.

3. Regarding the scientific figure, if you look at the Gemara in Pesachim you will find it is discussing just a single hemisphere. (The hemisphere opposite Israel was not considered a habitable or inhabited region - see Rosh Hashanah 20b and Ba'al ha'Me'or). If so, the figure of 24,000 Mil is pretty compatible with the scientific figure.

4. As for answering the Gemara's (unanswered) question from the larger 500 year figure, apparently it includes much more than the Earth itself (about 31 million miles). Perhaps it includes the entire "Goldilocks zone", as it is called in which the distance from the sun is neither too little nor too much to support life.

Of course, this is what I would say to explain the Gemara about 500 years in its literal sense - the way Tosfos understands it and the way the Gemara seems to want us to understand it in the Sugya in Pesachim. However, there certainly are much deeper lessons cloaked in the Agadah. For instance, it might have to do not with physical distance, but with philosophical "distance" measered in terms of years of contemplation until it is fully understood. Nevuchadnezar the Rasha thought he knew everything and the Gemara (Chagigah 13a) is reprimanding him that he knew nothing.

This would of course vindicate Rava's 24,000 Mil figure of physical distance, in Pesachim.

Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf

You can write to them at at daf@dafyomi.co.il or visit them at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Fax(US):(206) 202-0323; Fax(Isr): (02) 591-6024; Tel(Isr): (02) 651-5004

* Ten items were created on the first day of creation; tohu and vohu were two of them. The Gemora states that tohu is a green line, which surrounds the entire world and darkness emerges from it.

Reb Yaakov Emden comments that it is evident from this Gemora that ‘darkness’ is something physical, not merely an absence of light.

There can be a distinction between the darkness in the night, which may be only an absence of sunlight and the darkness which was created during the Six Days of Creation. The darkness of the ninth plague was also not the regular darkness, but rather, one of a miracle.

Rabbi Sinclair regarding the plague of darkness: The Torah describes the plague of darkness thus: "And there was darkness on the land of Egypt and the darkness removed the light." When the Torah tells us the "the darkness removed the light" it means that darkness is not the absence of light, it means that darkness is a creation just as much as light is a creation. In the normal course of events, G-d allows light to push away the darkness. In the ninth plague, He chose to reverse nature's polarity and it was the darkness that removed the light.

Rabbi Winston cites the Vilna Gaon: G-d said to Moshe, "Stretch out your hand towards Heaven, so that darkness will come over Egypt, a darkness which can be felt (vayamaish)." (Shemos 10:21)

What is a "darkness which can be felt"?

Why do we ask such a question? Because to us, darkness is merely that absence of light, the result, for example, of when the sun leaves our part of the world for another. However, the truth is that it is not so simple, as the Vilna Gaon (Gra) indicates: "There are some who say that light is an independent creation, and that darkness is an independent creation, not like those who say that darkness is just an absence of light. In truth, it is not like this, but rather, darkness is in fact an independent creation that is pushed away by light, and that's the way The Holy One, Blessed is He, made nature. Therefore, here (in this plague), G-d changed nature, because it says, 'a darkness which can be felt,' which means that the darkness 'pushed' away the light, and not the light, the darkness (the root of the word 'vayamaish' is from 'and he [Yehoshua] didn't move (yamish) from his tent (Shemos 33:11)'." (Kol Eliyahu, Bo 53)

In other words, says the Gra, the posuk means "a darkness that can move light." A sefer called HaK'sav v'HaKabbalah on Parashas Bereishis also quotes the Gra saying that darkness is in fact an independent creation. However, the Radak seems to hold that darkness is the result of an absence of light.

The Talmud, which treats darkness as an "object," seems to provide support for the Gra's opinion: This is what it means to say: G-d called to the light and commanded it in the mitzvos of the day, and G-d called to the darkness and commanded it in the mitzvos of the night (Pesachim 2a) As well, the Talmud states that: We must mention the "trait" of night during the day blessings, and the "trait" of day during the evening blessings, to counter the heretics who claim that He who made the day did not also make the night. (Brochos 11b)

If darkness is only the absence of light, then how could the heretics think such a thing? We would only be dealing with one creation, the creation of light, and the lack of its presence. (Nevertheless, the Bach on theTur considers darkness to only be an absence of light, though there are so many proofs to support the Gra.)


* The Gemora stated that there are various heavens and each one of them have different functions. In shechakim there are mills that grind manna to the righteous.

The Bnei Yisoschar quotes the Rama Mipano that in the World to come by the feast of the Livyasan, a jar of manna that was hidden in the times of Yoshiyahu will be taken out and the righteous will recite the blessing, “He who brought out the bread from the heavens” before eating the manna. Sefer Chasidim (1640) and the Zohar in Parshas Beshalach concur.

There are those that disagree and state that there is no blessing recited on eating manna because the purpose of a blessing is to separate the favorable portions of the food away from the parts which have an adverse effect; the manna that fell in the Wilderness was purely spiritual and it did not require any separation. Perhaps the Rama Mipano was only referring to the manna in the future.

Sefer Gan Raveh posits that perhaps the blessing of “mezonos” should be recited on the manna because the Torah records that it had a taste of dough mixed with honey.

Birkas Aharon writes that the Gemora Brochos (35a) rules that it is forbidden to derive pleasure from anything in this world without reciting a blessing beforehand. The manna, he says, was not from this world, and therefore did not require a blessing. (Sedeh Tzofim)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 12 - Highlights (Click the 'click more' link for more - like usual)

Adam HaRishon initially stood from the ground until the heavens, as it is said, from the day that HaShem created man on earth. Upon sinning, HaShem placed His hand on Adam and diminished his stature as it is said, back and front You have restricted me, and You have laid Your hand upon me. Alternatively, Adam HaRishon’s body filled the entire world, which means that when he lay down, his head was in the east and his feet were in the west. Yet, these are not contradictory statements, as they all define one measurement. (12a)

Ten items were created on the first day of creation, and they are the heaven, the earth, desolation, astonishment, light, darkness, wind, water, the measurement of day and the measurement of night. These are all derived from verses in the beginning of Bereishis. (12a)

Initially, when HaShem created the primordial light, Adam HaRishon was capable of seeing from one end of the world to the other. When HaShem saw that the Generation of the Great Flood and the Generation of Dispersion would act corruptly, HaShem concealed the great light from them and this light was hidden away for the righteous in the future. (12a)

The world was created with ten ideas, which were wisdom, intellect, knowledge, strength, rebuke, might, righteousness, judgment, kindness, and compassion. These are all derived from various verses throughout Scripture. (12a)

When HaShem created the world, the world began to expand like two unraveling balls of warp thread, until HaShem rebuked the world and it ceased to expand. Furthermore, when HaShem created the sea, it began to expand until HaShem rebuked it and the sea dried up. (12a)

Bais Shammai maintains that the heavens were created first and then the earth and Bais Hillel maintains that the earth was created first and then the heavens. Bais Hillel asked Bais Shammai, “would a person first build the upper story of a house and then the main floor?” Bais Shammai countered, “Would a man fashion a footstool and then the seat upon which it rests?” The Chachamim, however, maintain that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously. (12a)

The heavens are called shamayim because the word is an acrostic for the words sham mayim, there is water. Alternatively, the word shamayim is an acrostic for the words eish and mayim, fire and water, as HaShem mixed fire and water together to create the heavens. (12a)

The verse first states that the heavens were created and then the earth was created. Yet, regarding their description, the Torah commences with the earth. This is compared to a king of flesh and blood who instructs his servants to arise early and in the morning the king finds women and men waiting. The king will certainly praise those who are not accustomed to rising early. Similarly, since HaShem called the heavens first, the earth is not accustomed to rising early. Additionally, the actions of the earth are more deliberate, whereas the actions of the heavens are with haste. Yet, the earth arose simultaneously with the heavens, so Scripture commenced with the description of the earth. (12b)

Rabbi Yose taught, woe to people who see and do not know what they see, and they stand, yet they do not know what they stand on. The earth stands on pillars, and the pillars stand on the water. The water stands on the mountains and the mountains stand with the wind. The wind stands in a stormy wind, and the stormy wind is suspended on the arm of HaShem. The Chachamim maintain that the earth stands on twelve pillars, and some say that the earth stands on seven pillars. Rabbi Elazar Ben Shamua maintains that the world stands on one pillar, and that is the righteous person. (12b)

Rabbi Yehudah maintains that there are two heavens and Reish Lakish maintains that there are seven heavens, and they are vilon, rakiya, shechakim, zevul, meon, mechon, and aravos. Vilon has no function except that it enters its sheath in the morning and the light is visible, and in the evening it leaves its sheath and spreads itself out before the light, causing the world to become dark. The sun, moon and stars are fixed inside the vilon. In shechakim there are mills that grind manna to the righteous. In zevul is Jerusalem and the Bais HaMikdash, and an altar is built and Michael the archangel offers daily sacrifices on that altar. In meon are groups of angels who sing their songs at night and are silent during the day in deference to the Jewish People. (12b)

One who toils in Torah study in this world which is akin to night, HaShem will extend over him a thread of kindness in the World to Come which is akin to day. One who interrupts his Torah study and engages in idle chatter is fed hot coals. (12b)

In mechon is storehouses of snow, storehouses of hail, an attic full of bad dew and water that ruin the fruits and an inner room of stormy winds and a cave of vapor, and their doors are made of fire. Initially, these chambers were in heaven and Dovid prayed that they should be brought down to earth. (12b)

In aravos there is righteousness and judgment and charity and treasures of life, peace and blessing. In aravos there is also the souls of the righteous, spirits and souls that will be resurrected in the future and the dew with which HaShem will resurrect the dead. (12b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 11 - AVERAGE AMAH

The Gemora had stated: A person must immerse himself in an amount of water that is sufficient for his entire body to enter the water at one time. The Gemora states that the ritual bath must contain at least three cubic amos of water since a person’s average height is three amos and his width is one amah. The Chachamim concluded that this measurement is equivalent to forty se’ah.

The Chasam Sofer comments: Every person has his individual measurement of an amah (from his elbow (correction from my Uncle Shloime and others) to the tip of his middle finger). The height of each and every person (excluding his head) is equivalent to three of his personal amos and not the size of the average amah. The Chasam Sofer said that he can attest to this for he personally investigated this and confirmed it many times.

The measurement of a mikvah follows the average amah (three cubic amos) and not the amah of each unique individual.

The Bach (Y”D 120) states that Biblically, one can immerse himself in a mikvah that contains water sufficient for his entire body to enter at one time even if there isn’t forty se’ah; the Chachamim decreed that the mikvah must contain forty se’ah.

The Chasam Sofer asks: Even if the Bach is correct regarding the measurement of water required for a person to immerse himself in; he is also referring to the immersion of new utensils, where the Torah requires its immersion in a mikvah fit for a niddah to immerse in. It is evident that the Biblical amount of water needed for a valid mikvah is measured according to the average person (niddah) and not according to each individual, for otherwise, to whom is the Torah referring to when it states that the water needed for the immersion of utensils should be water sufficient for a niddah. He concludes that the words of the Bach are extremely perplexing.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 11 - OVERWHELMING DESIRE

The Gemora had stated: A person has a powerful desire for an illicit relationship whether the object of his desire is in front of him or not. It is because of this that it is forbidden to teach three students the secret details regarding the laws of illicit relationships; we are concerned that when one student is conversing back and forth with his teacher, the other two students will talk among themselves and will not learn the halacha that their teacher is saying; subsequently they might eventually permit an illicit relationship.

The Rambam in Hilchos Issurei Biyah (22:20) writes: Therefore, it is incumbent on each and every person to acclimatize himself to increased levels of sanctity and pure thoughts at all times in order to refrain from sinning in these matters, where there is an overwhelming physical urge to sin.

Reb Moshe Feinstein (Y”D III: 80) cited this Gemora and Rambam as proof to his ruling regarding a Beis Yaakov in Baltimore, that they cannot build their new school adjacent to a Yeshiva for boys. He states that we must be vigilant in these areas for otherwise, it can result in the spiritual destruction of this world.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 11 - Highlights

The Gemora cites a braisa: The laws of negaim (tzaraas) and oholos (corpse tumah transmitted by means of a roof) have few Scriptural allusions, but many halachos.

The Gemora asks: Aren’t there many Scriptural passages regarding negaim?

Rav Papa answers: The braisa meant to say the opposite; the laws of negaim have many Scriptural allusions, but relatively few halachos.

The Gemora asks: What difference does this make?

The Gemora answers: If one is uncertain regarding a law pertaining to negaim, he should look in Scripture; if one is uncertain regarding a law pertaining to oholos, he should look in the Mishna. (11a)

The Mishna had stated: Monetary laws have Scriptural support and are regarded as fundamentals of the Torah.

The Gemora asks: Monetary laws are explicitly mentioned in the Torah; why does the Mishna state that there is merely Scriptural support?

The Gemora answers: The Mishna is referring to cases similar to the following halacha from Rebbe: Even though it is written (regarding a man who intended to hit another man and mistakenly killed a woman): And you shall award a life for a life; nevertheless, the punishment is not life, but rather monetary compensation. (11a)

The Mishna had stated: The laws of purity and contamination have Scriptural support and are regarded as fundamentals of the Torah.

The Gemora asks: Aren’t there many Scriptural passages regarding these laws?

The Gemora answers: The Mishna is referring to the amount of water needed for a mikvah (forty se’ah), which is not explicitly stated in the Torah. The Torah states that a person must immerse himself in an amount of water that is sufficient for his entire body to enter the water at one time. The Gemora states that the ritual bath must contain at least three cubic amos of water since a person’s average height is three amos and his width is one amah. The Chachamim concluded that this measurement is equivalent to forty se’ah. (11a)

The Mishna had stated: Monetary law, the laws regarding sacrificial offerings, the laws of purity and contamination and the laws concerning illicit relations all have Scriptural support and are regarded as fundamentals of the Torah.

The Gemora asks: Are only these halachos fundamentals of the Torah and not the other halachos mentioned before?

The Gemora answers: Rather, let us say that both these and those halachos are fundamentals of the Torah. (11b)

WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU,
HAKOL CHAYAVIN

The Mishna states: We do not expound the laws of illicit relationships among three people, nor do we discuss the Account of Creation among two people and we do not expound Maaseh Merkavah (Account of the Chariot) even by one person, unless he is a wise man and can understand these matters by himself.

The Mishna continues: Whoever analyzes the following four things, it would have been better if he never entered this world: What is above and below (the Heavenly angels), what is before and after (beyond the universe). Whoever is not concerned for the honor of his Creator, it would have been better if he never entered this world. (11b)

The Mishna had stated: We do not expound Maaseh Merkavah (Account of the Chariot) even by one person, unless he is a wise man and can understand these matters by himself.

The Gemora asks an apparent contradiction in the ruling of the Mishna: If a person has the ability to expound on Maaseh Merkavah himself, he obviously is a scholar, and yet the Mishna states that he is prohibited from studying this himself; however, the Mishna concludes that if he is a wise man and can understand these matters by himself, he may expound by himself.

The Gemora answers and explains the Mishna in the following manner: We do not expound the laws of illicit relationships to three other people, nor do we discuss the Account of Creation to two other people and we do not expound Maaseh Merkavah to one other person, unless he is a wise man and can understand these matters by himself. (11b)

The Gemora discusses the Scriptural source for the Mishna’s halacha that we do not expound the laws of illicit relationships to three other people.

Rav Ashi explained the Mishna’s ruling as follows: We do not expound upon the secret details regarding the laws of illicit relationships (forbidden unions that are not stated explicitly in Scripture) to three other people. The reason for this is because we are concerned that when one student is conversing back and forth with his teacher, the other two students will talk among themselves and will not learn the halacha that their teacher is saying; subsequently they might eventually permit an illicit relationship.

The Gemora asks: Why don’t we apply this ruling (prohibition against teaching three students) to all areas of Torah study?

The Gemora answers: Stealing and illicit relationships are two transgressions that one especially desires.

The Gemora asks: If so, the halacha should apply by the laws of stealing, as well?

The Gemora answers: A person has a powerful desire for an illicit relationship whether the object of his desire is in front of him or not; a person only has a desire to steal when the opportunity is in front of him. (11b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 10 - LITTLE MEIR (SHAPIRO) CHILD PRODIGY

TO THE MOUNTAINS,I LIFT MY EYES,LIKE HILLEL AND NOT SHAMAI

Rabbi Meir Shapiro, the founder of the Daf Hayomi, was known as a child prodigy. His sharpness allowed him to grasp even the deepest concepts quickly.

It is related that the Vishnitzer Rebbe once sought to observe Reb Meir when he was merely nine years old. Little Meir recited for the Rebbe the entire first section of Yoreh Deah by heart. Meir was not only capable of reciting the words verbatim, but he also was able to explain the rulings in a manner similar to a Torah scholar.

Once during a Shabbos meal, Meir was asked to explain an enigmatic passage that is sung in the Shabbos zemiros. The zemiros state: To the mountains, I lift my eyes, like Hillel and not Shamai. Meir was asked, “What is the juxtaposition of these two seemingly unrelated ideas and what is their correlation to Shabbos?”

The little genius did not have to think long before responding. The Gemora in Chagigah (10a) states: The laws of Shabbos are like mountains hanging on a hair, as they have few Scriptural allusions, but many halachos. The Gemora explains that the Torah only prohibits one to perform a meleches machasheves, a calculated labor, on Shabbos. Rashi explains that the Torah juxtaposes the laws of prohibited labors on Shabbos to the construction of the Tabernacle. Regarding the construction of the Tabernacle it is said meleches machasheves, calculated labor. Since the guidelines are not written by Shabbos, they are compared to mountains hanging on a hair.

The Gemora in Menochos (40a) cites a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel whether one is permitted to wear a garment of tzitzis that contains shatnez (wool and linen mixed together). Rashi explains: Beis Hillel maintains that the linen garment is subject to the mitzva of tzitzis because the Torah juxtaposes the mitzva of tzitzis to the commandment against wearing shatnez. Beis Shamai disagrees because he does not expound juxtapositions.

This then is the meaning of the verse: To the mountains, I lift my eyes; the halachos of Shabbos are compared to a mountain hanging on a hair. Like Hillel and not Shamai; for Beis Shamai does not expound juxtapositions and therefore he cannot derive the principle of meleches machasheves by Shabbos because this is written by the Mishkan and not by Shabbos.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 10 - TAKING A VOW THROUGH WRITING

Shmuel states that one who resolves to make a vow must express the vow with his lips; otherwise, it is meaningless.

The Noda b’Yehudah (Y”D I: 66) inquires if an oath that was written down but not expressed would be valid as an oath. His underlying question is: Do we regard his written word as an expression of his lips?

This should be dependent on a dispute between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam regarding the validity of testimony from a written document. The Rambam maintains that testimony must be from the mouth of the witnesses and a document will not be Biblically acceptable for testimony. Rabbeinu Tam disagrees and holds that one who is physically capable of testifying may testify through the means of a document.

He concludes, however, that even the Rambam would agree that writing is considered testimony and yet, a written document cannot be accepted by Beis Din. The logic for this is as follows: An act of writing can constitute speech, but only during the time that it is being written. Beis Din will only accept an oral testimony when they hear it directly; hearsay is disqualified. Witnesses who signed a document are testifying, but Beis Din is not present at that time. If they would sign in front of Beis Din, that would be considered valid testimony.

With this principle, you can answer what would seemingly be a contradiction in the Rambam. He rules in Hilchos Eidus (3:7) that testimony must be from the mouth of the witnesses and a document will not be Biblically acceptable for testimony; yet later in Perek 9:11, he writes that one is required to testify with his mouth or at least that he is fitting to testify with his mouth. This would imply that if he is fitting to testify with his mouth, he would be permitted to testify through the means of a document. According to the Noda b’Yehudah’s explanation, it can be said that the Rambam allows witnesses to testify through the means of a document, but only if they sign the document when Beis Din is present.

Accordingly, we can say that an oath taken through writing will be binding.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 10 - Highlights

The Mishna states: The laws concerning the release from vows float in the air and they do not have Scriptural support (there are methods for annulling a vow, however, their actual source cannot be found in Scripture, and rather it is an oral tradition).

The laws of Shabbos, Chagigah and me’ilah (illegal or improper use of consecrated objects) are like mountains hanging on a hair, for they have few Scriptural allusions, but many halachos.

Monetary law, the laws regarding sacrificial offerings, the laws of purity and contamination and the laws concerning illicit relations all have Scriptural support and are regarded as fundamentals of the Torah. (10a)

The Gemora cites several Scriptural sources from Tannaim and Amoraim for the concept regarding the release of vows.

Rabbi Yitzchak cites a source: It is written [Shmos 35:5]: All who had a willing heart brought. (This verse implies that only one who vowed to donate and whose heart remained willing would still be obligated to donate for the construction of the Tabernacle; otherwise, his vow would not be binding.)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: If I had been there, I would have cited a superior source: It is written [Bamidbar 30:3]: He shall not profane his word. It can be inferred that the one who made the vow cannot profane his vow, but others can annul the vow for him. (10a)

Rava analyzes the sources and reveals the flaw in each one. Rava said: To all the above sayings I have objections, except to Shmuel, to whom it cannot be objected. (10a)

Rava said: I have an objection for Rabbi Yitzchak’s source: Perhaps the verse, All who had a willing heart brought is coming to exclude this instance from Shmuel’s general ruling regarding vows. Shmuel states that one who decides to make a vow must express the vow with his lips; otherwise, it is meaningless. This verse teaches us that when one is donating to the Tabernacle, it is not necessary to utter the vow with his lips; rather a decision to donate is sufficient.

Rava states his objection to the other sources and concludes that he does not have an objection to Shmuel’s source.

Rava said, and others say that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: Ravina said: This is as people say, it is better to have one sharp pepper than a full basket of melons. (10a)

The Mishna had stated: The laws of Shabbos are like mountains hanging on a hair, for they have few Scriptural allusions, but many halachos.

The Gemora asks: There are many warnings against violating the Shabbos written in the Torah; why does the Mishna state that there are few Scriptural allusions?

The Gemora answers: The Mishna’s statement is necessary for Rabbi Abba’s halacha. Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbos and only needs the earth (not the hole), he is not liable for this activity. (The principle which this ruling is based upon is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.)

The Gemora explains that this is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that one who performs a melachah shein tzricha legufa, an act of labor not for its defined purpose, is exempt.

The Gemora states that even Rabbi Yehudah (who argues with Rabbi Shimon) would agree that the digger is exempt because he is performing an act of destruction (ruining his house) and not a constructive act.

The Gemora asks: Where is there a Scriptural allusion for this distinction?

The Gemora answers: The Torah only prohibits one to perform a meleches machasheves, a calculated labor, on Shabbos. The Torah juxtaposes the laws of prohibited labors on Shabbos to the construction of the Tabernacle. Regarding the construction of the Tabernacle it is said meleches machasheves, calculated labor. Since the guidelines are not written by Shabbos, it is compared to mountains hanging on a hair. (10a – 10b)

The Mishna had stated: The laws of Chagigah are like mountains hanging on a hair, for they have few Scriptural allusions, but many halachos.

The Gemora asks: Isn’t it written explicitly [Vayikra 23:41]: And you shall celebrate it as a festival for Hashem; the Gemora above derived from the term celebrate and festival (chag) that one is obligated to bring a chagigah offering on the festival?

The Gemora answers: It is still not explicit that this is the correct interpretation; perhaps the verse means that there should be a celebration during the festival and not that there is an obligation for a chagigah offering.

The Gemora cites proofs that the word festival (chag) must be referring to a chagigah offering and then rejects the proofs.

The Gemora concludes that we derive through a gezeira shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics - it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) that the term festival (chag) in this verse is referring to a chagigah offering.

The Gemora asks: Why does the Mishna state that the Chagigah is compared to mountains hanging on a hair if the halacha is derived through a gezeira shavah?

The Gemora answers: We usually do not learn Biblical laws from the words of the Prophets. (10b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 9 - ONE HUNDRED AND ONE TIMES

HaRav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg in Nesivos Chaim, The Torah Way of Life explains our Gemora.

Let us analyze the meaning of the prophet Malachi's enigmatic proclamation about the future. For seemingly, Malachi's prophesy (Malachi 3:18) is stating the obvious, "Then you will return and will see the difference between the righteous and the wicked, between the one who serves G-d and the one who does not serve Him." In the future when we return from our golus, the difference between the righteous and the wicked will become clear, as well as the difference between those who are servants of Hashem and those who are not.

Obviously, a tzaddik serves Hashem and a rosho does not. Why, then, does the Prophet further qualify the definitions? In fact, this is the question that Bar Hei Hei asked of Hillel, "[Is it not true that] the one who is a tzaddik is the one who serves G-d. The one who is a rosho is the one who does not serve Him?"

Actually there is a fine distinction between the two. Malachi declares that in the future, the very slight difference between those who are tzaddikim and those who serve Hashem will become apparent. Likewise, the difference between those people who are wicked and those people who do not serve Hashem will become obvious. Now, however, in the darkness of golus, our perception is clouded and distorted.

Hillel, the great Torah leader of his generation, understood the Novi's message. Hillel clarifies the prophecy and gives this remarkable answer: "Those who serve Him and those who do not are both completely righteous and [but] there is no comparing one who reviews his learning one hundred times to one who reviews his learning one-hundred-and-one times."

Bar Hei Hei responded to Hillel, "And because of one time, he is called, `one who does not serve Him'?"

Hillel answered, "Yes! Go and learn from market where they hire out donkeys. [A trip of] ten parsas costs a zuz and [a trip of] eleven parsas costs two zuz."

Remarkably, but fair enough, the final haul of one more parsa doubles the cost! The haul of the first ten parsa'os is not so difficult and therefore costs only one zuz. The haul of one single parsa is certainly not worth another zuz by itself. However, with eleven together, the effort that is needed after the first ten to haul that last eleventh parsa, doubles the price -- a whole zuz more. The eleventh parsa costs the same as the ten previous ones! This combined, final effort adds a whole new dimension to the strain required to complete the journey, and this new dimension is what doubles the price for that one last parsa.

Hillel's illustration helps us understand how one may be a called a tzaddik and still not be considered a servant of Hashem. Learning one hundred times is not enough. There has to be an element of extra effort.

The one-hundred-and-one times, the resolve and stamina to make that one extra time is, so to speak, as difficult as splitting the Red Sea! At that time, HaKodosh Boruch Hu commanded the waters to split. The waters of the Yam Suf were obligated to change their nature. Similarly, to go beyond the norm, even an extraordinary norm of one hundred times and even only one more time, requires changing one's nature. The effort of that one extra time produces the transformation, which reflects the true greatness of "those who serve Hashem."

A true servant has only the welfare of the one he serves in mind. Either his personal concerns do not exist at all, or they become secondary. The first hundred times we learn something, we have many logical reasons for doing so. We want deeper understanding and clarity. We wish to engrave what we have learned in our memory and feel satisfaction at the achievement. But what is the justification for the one last time? Only servitude! Bearing the yoke! The yoke only comes when there is difficulty, not when things are easy. A person will not change his nature under sheltered and ideal conditions.

When things are easy for us, we all succeed.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 9 - STORY FROM REB MOSHE and FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Rabbi Frand, by the Siyum HaShas, told over the following story involving Rav Moshe and HaRav Michel Feinstein. Reb Moshe once called Reb Michel.

Reb Moshe told his nephew, "We need to make a lechayim. I'm making a Siyum on Shas."

Reb Michel replied, "Uncle, if you make a lechayim every time you finish Shas, you'll be a shikker (a drunk)."

Reb Moshe protested, "No, this is special. It's the second time."

Reb Michel wondered, "Uncle, you've finished Shas many more than two times. What do you mean the second time?"

Reb Moshe explained, "I mean this is the second time that I'm fulfilling [Rebbe Meir's statement in the Talmud that], `One who learns something one hundred times is not comparable to one who learns it one hundred and one times.' "

By that time, Rav Moshe had learned the entire Talmud two hundred and two times! He was said to have learned it dozens of times more by the time he passed away.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
The Gemora cites a proverb that people would say: Poverty is so fitting for the Jew, like a red strap on a white horse.

The Gaon of Vilna, used to explain this in the following manner. A horse is saddled up when it goes out; in the stable everything is removed. So too, the Jewish people should wear their poverty when they go out in order not to arouse the envy of the gentiles. Within the privacy of one's house, however, wealth is good.

Update: Please view comments - some nice additions from some of our friends. Thanks

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 9 - Highlights

(One is obligated to bring a shalmei chagigah offering on the first day of every festival.) The Mishna states: One who did not offer the korban on the first day of the festival may bring it on any day during the festival, including Shmini Atzeres (the last day of Sukkos). If the entire festival passed and the korban was not brought, he is not responsible to bring it any longer. It is written regarding this [Koheles 1:15]: A crooked thing cannot be straightened, and a lack cannot be counted.

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasye interprets this verse differently: A crooked thing cannot be straightened is referring to one who engaged in relations with a woman whom cohabitation is forbidden and produced a mamzer (an illegitimate child born from a union prohibited under penalty of death or kares) through her. He continues: The verse cannot be referring to one who steals because the thief is able to straighten the matter by returning the stolen object.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai states: “Crooked” is only if he was straight initially and then became crooked. Who is this? A torah scholar who abandoned the Torah. (9a)

The Gemora cites the source (for the halacha that the shalmei chagigah can be brought on Shmini Atzeres): Rabbi Yochanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is derived through a gezeira shavah (one of the thirteen principles of Biblical hermeneutics - it links two similar words from dissimilar verses in the Torah) from the seventh day of Pesach, which the Torah refers to as Atzeres.

A Tanna derives this halacha from a different Scriptural verse. (9a)

The Gemora presents a dispute regarding this compensation: Rabbi Yochanan says: Every day of the festival is regarded as a substitute for the first day (the obligation is to bring the shalmei chagigah on the first day; the other days are opportunities to make reparation for the fact that the korban wasn’t offered on the designated day). Rabbi Oshaya disagrees: Every day of the festival can be regarded as a substitute for any of the ther days.

The Gemora asks: What is the practical difference between the two opinions?

The Gemora answers: One who was lame on the first day of the festival (thus exempting him from the bringing of the korban) and he became healed on the second day would be a difference between them. Rabbi Yochanan would maintain that he does not have an obligation to bring the korban on the second day since the second day is merely a substitute for the first day: if he wasn’t eligible on the first day, he is not eligible on the second day either. Rabbi Oshaya would hold that he is obligated to bring the korban on the second day because each day is independent of the other. (9a)

The Mishna had stated: If the entire festival passed and the korban was not brought, he is not responsible to bring it any longer. It is written regarding this [Koheles 1:15]: A crooked thing cannot be straightened, and a lack cannot be counted.

Bar Hei Hei said to Hillel: If the verse is referring to one who failed to perform a mitzva, “cannot be counted” is an incorrect expression; it should have written, “cannot be filled?”

He interprets the verse differently: It is referring to a case where one’s friends invited him to perform a mitzva together with them and he refused to be counted with them.

The Gemora cites a braisa which supports this interpretation: A crooked thing cannot be straightened is referring to one who did not recite krias shema in the morning, or did not recite krias shema in the evening, or one who failed to recite the morning prayers or the evening prayers. And a lack cannot be counted is referring to a case where one’s friends invited him to perform a mitzva together with them and he refused to be counted with them. (9b)

Bar Hei Hei asked of Hillel: It is written [Malachi 3:18]: You will return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between one that serves G-d and one that does not serve Him. Is it not true that the one who is righteous is the one who serves G-d; the one who is wicked is the one who does not serve Him?

Hillel answered him: Those who serve Him and those who do not are both completely righteous, nevertheless, there is no comparing one who reviews his learning one hundred times to one who reviews his learning one hundred and one times. (8a)

Bar Hei Hei responded to Hillel: Just because he didn’t review that one extra time, he is referred to as one that does not serve Him?

Hillel answered him: Yes! Go and learn from the market where they hire out donkey drivers. A trip of ten parsahs costs one zuz and one of eleven parsahs costs two zuzim. (9b)

The prophet Eliyahu said: The Holy One, Blessed is He looked at all of the good conditions that might be beneficial to the Jewish people, and concluded that only poverty would be fitting for them.

The Gemora cites a proverb that people would say: Poverty is so fitting for the Jew, like a red strap on a white horse. (9b)

The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasye said: A crooked thing cannot be straightened is referring to one who engaged in relations with a woman whom cohabitation is forbidden and produced a mamzer through her.

The Gemora asks from a braisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasye said: One who cohabits with a married woman, resulting in the fact that she is now prohibited to her husband, is expelled from this world (he descends to Gehinom) and goes away.

It is evident from this braisa that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasye considered the illicit union itself as a crooked thing that cannot be straightened even if a mamzer is not born; why does he say in our Mishna that it is regarded as a crooked thing that cannot be straightened only if they produced a mamzer?

The Gemora answers: It is considered a crooked thing that cannot be straightened by a married woman (even if a mamzer is not born) because she becomes forbidden to her husband.

An alternative answer: The Mishna is referring to a case where the woman did not consent (and she will not be forbidden to her husband). It is only regarded as a crooked thing that cannot be straightened if a mamzer is born. The braisa is referring to a case where she was a willing partner (and she will be forbidden to her husband).

The Gemora offers a third answer: The braisa is referring to a case where the woman was the wife of a Kohen and will be forbidden to her husband even if she was violated against her will. (9b – 10a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 8 - BLOWING EXTRA

The Shaagas Aryeh (103) rules: It is permitted for one to blow shofar for no apparent reason on Rosh Hashanah.

The Meishiv Davar (1:36) disagrees and states that there is a Rabbinic decree against blowing a shofar on Yom Tov; the positive commandment of blowing the shofar overrides the Rabbinic injunction. Once a person has fulfilled the mitzva, there is no reason to blow anymore and it would be prohibited for him to sound the shofar.

However, he proves from our Gemora, that as long as has not had a lapse in concentration regarding the mitzva and he still intends to perform the mitzva, he may do so.

Our Gemora states: One who designated ten animals for his shalmei chagigah, he is permitted to offer them all as korbanos and they override the prohibition against bringing vow offerings on Yom Tov. The Yerushalmi states that it is allowed even if he originally designated one animal and afterwards decided to bring another one; as long as his intention is for the shalmei chagigah, it is permitted.

Therefore, he concludes, that one may blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah as many times as he wants, provided that his intention is for the fulfillment of the mitzva.

It is said over that the Maharil Diskin used to listen to thousands of shofar blasts on Rosh Hashanah; for he wanted to be certain that he had fulfilled the mitzva properly. He was extremely particular that the shofar blast should be of one continuous tone.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 8 - FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Can one fulfill his obligation of matonos l’evyonim (charity to the poor) on Purim with maaser money? Do we say that since it is a mandatory obligation, it may only come from unconsecrated property? (Teshuvos Maharil 56, Shalah P. 260, Magen Avraham 694)

One who has difficulty eating animal meat because of health reasons or due to kashrus considerations; will he fulfill the mitzvas simcha on Yom Tov by eating chicken or fish? (Rambam Chagigah 2:10, Tosfos Beitzah 8b, Moadei Hashem P. 132)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 8 - Highlights

The braisa had stated: Beis Hillel maintains that the shalmei chagigah may be brought with maaser sheini (he may use maaser sheini money to purchase to purchase the shelamim).

The Gemora asks: If the shalmei chagigah is a mandatory offering, it may only come from unconsecrated property; why should one be permitted to use maaser sheini money to purchase the shalmei chagigah?

Ula answers: Ula answers: Beis Hillel permits using maaser sheini money when the money will be used to supplement the purchase of the shalmei chagigah, but he may not use maaser sheini money if the money will be used towards the entire purchase of the shalmei chagigah. (This is a special dispensation limited to the shalmei chagigah and is not applicable to the olas re’iyah, which one must purchase in its entirety using unconsecrated money.)

The Amoraim disagree in the explanation of this halacha.

Chizkiyah maintains that this halacha applies only when he is purchasing several korbanos for the shalmei chagigah (he needs to feed many people); as long as he purchases one of the animals using unconsecrated money, he may purchase the other animals entirely with maaser sheini money. If he is purchasing one korban, he may not use maaser sheini money at all; it must be purchased in its entirety with unconsecrated money.

Rabbi Yochanan disagrees: This halacha applies when he is purchasing one korban; he is permitted to use maaser sheini money when the money will be used to supplement the purchase of the shalmei chagigah, however, he is never permitted to purchase an entire animal for a shalmei chagigah, using only maaser sheini money.

The Gemora presents braisos supporting each of the two opinions. (8a)


The Gemora cites a braisa which indicates that Beis Hillel holds that one cannot use a maaser beheima on the first day of the festival.

Rav Ashi explains the reason for this: This is because we are concerned that one might come to separate maaser beheima on the festival and this is prohibited because of the red dye that is applied on the tenth animal (as it passes through the opening). (8a)

The Mishna had stated: An Israelite fulfills his obligation of joy on the festival by bringing vowed and donated offerings and maaser from an animal. A Kohen, however, fulfills his obligation by eating from the chatas and asham offerings offered by an Israelite on the festival, from the firstborn animal offerings and from the chest and the thigh that is taken from the shelamim of the pilgrims. A Kohen cannot fulfill his obligation of joy on the festival with a bird chatas and with a minchah offering.

The Gemora cites a braisa which provides the Scriptural source for these halachos: It is written [Devarim 16:14]: You shall rejoice on your festival. The Chachamim derived from here that an Israelite may fulfill his obligation of joy on the festival by bringing vowed and donated offerings and maaser from an animal. A Kohen fulfills his obligation by eating from the chatas and asham offerings offered by an Israelite on the festival, from the firstborn animal offerings and from the chest and the thigh that is taken from the shelamim of the pilgrims. The verse, You shall rejoice on your festival teaches us that one cannot fulfill his obligation with a bird offering or a minchah offering because the meat is required to be from a korban which a shalmei chagigah can be brought from, and one cannot bring a bird or minchah for a shalmei chagigah.

Rav Ashi explains the source for this halacha differently. The verse states: You shall rejoice. We derive from there that one can fulfill his obligation with the meat of an animal which are satisfying and result in enjoyment; the meat from a bird and the flour from the minchah do not generate joy and therefore are excluded. (8a - 8b)

The Mishna states: A person who has many dependents to feed and not so much money, he should bring many shelamim that can be eaten and less olos that cannot be eaten.

A person who has a lot of money and not so many dependents to feed, he should bring many olos that cannot be eaten and less shelamim that can be eaten.

A person who does not have a lot of money and not so many dependents to feed, the Mishna stated previously: 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.

A person who has a lot of money and many dependents to feed, it is written [Devarim 16:17]: Everyone according to what he can give, according to the blessing that Hashem, your G-d, gives you. (8b)

The Mishna had stated: A person who has many dependents to feed and not so much money, he should bring many shelamim that can be eaten and less olos that cannot be eaten.

The Gemora asks: If he doesn’t have much money, how can he afford to purchase many shelamim?

Rav Chisda answers: He may use some maaser sheini money to supplement the purchase of a large bull.

Rav Sheishes asked Rav Chisda: There is seemingly another option, as well; he may purchase a few animals and as long as he purchases one of the animals using unconsecrated money, he may purchase the other animals entirely with maaser sheini money?

The Gemora asks on Rav Sheishes: How can you permit both options of supplementing, when Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiyah only allow one of the methods?

The Gemora concludes: Rav Sheishes argues with both of them and allows both methods.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states that the first eating of the shalmei chagigah must come completely from unconsecrated monies. It is evident that one of the methods of supplementing is prohibited; this is contrary to the opinion of Rav Sheishes who allows both methods?

The Gemora answers: The braisa could mean that the first shalmei chagigah must contain the minimum required amount of unconsecrated money (two silver maos), and this would not be inconsistent with the viewpoint of Rav Sheishes. (8b)

Ula said in the name of Rish Lakish: One who designated ten animals for his shalmei chagigah and he brought five of them on the first day of the festival, he may bring the remaining five on the second day of the festival. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees and states: Once he interrupted the bringing of these korbanos, he cannot bring them on a different day (he would be transgressing the prohibition of, “Do not add,” by adding a second day to the mitzva).

Rabbi Abba explains that they are not arguing; they are discussing two different cases. Rish Lakish is discussing a case where there was not enough time in the day to bring these korbanos or there were not enough people to eat them; it would then be permitted to bring them on the next day since the next day is regarded as a substitute for the first day. Rabbi Yochanan is referring to a case where there was enough time in the day to bring these korbanos and there were enough people to eat them and nevertheless, he delayed and wants to bring them on the next day; this is prohibited since the second day is not regarded as a substitute day and would be subject to the prohibition of “Do not add.” (8b)

Read more!