Showing posts with label Chagiga. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chagiga. Show all posts

Thursday, April 19, 2007

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!

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

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!

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

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 - 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!

Monday, April 16, 2007

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!

Sunday, April 15, 2007

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!

Friday, April 13, 2007

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 7 - SPIRITUAL ASCENT TO YERUSHALAYIM

by Reb Ben

The Gemara cites a verse in Shir HaShirim that states mah yafu peomayich baneolim bas nadiv, how lovely are your steps in sandals, O daughter of the noble? The Gemara explains that this verse refers to the lovely steps of the Jewish People when they ascended to Jerusalem for the festival. Rabbeinu Bachye in Parashas Mishpatim cites a Medrash that states that when the Torah instructs the Jewish People to ascend three times a year to Jerusalem, it is said shalosh peamim and shalosh regalim, which literally mean three times. In Yeshaya it is said tirmisenah ragel raglei ani paamei dalim, it is trampled underfoot: the feet of the poor, the soles of the meek. From the verse in Shir HaShirim we derive a law that one is only allowed to ascend to Jerusalem for the three times a year pilgrimage by foot and one is forbidden to ascend in any other manner. This law is derived from the fact that Scripture uses the words peomayich and neolim, which allude to one walking as opposed to traveling on an animal or in a wagon.

It is noteworthy that the Sfas Emes explains that the concept of neilas hachag, the traditional festive meal that is eaten at the end of the three festivals, is based on this verse in Shir HaShirim. The word baneolim alludes to the lock, i.e. the safeguarding of the festival. Perhaps we can extend this idea further, based on what the Sfas Emes writes elsewhere that the word regel alludes to the physical and what a person performs by rote. On a festival, however, one should take the physical acts that he is engaged in and he should make a manul, i.e. a lock to it. When one is ascending in a physical sense to Jerusalem, he should essentially trample the regel, i.e. he should negate the physical and capture the spirituality of the festival. One should trample the feet of the poor, i.e. the poor in knowledge, who until now was starving for a spiritual ascent. One should trample the soles of the meek, i.e. the one who until now was not courageous enough to ascend the spiritual ladder should cast away his physical existence and conduct himself on a spiritual plane. This was the focus of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, as one “rose” above the physicality of this world and acquired spiritual gains on the festivals.


SHABBOS IN THE DAF

The Gemara states that one cannot ascend for the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the three festivals half-way. The Tamara interprets the words half-way to mean that those who are engaged in work that cause them to emit foul odors are exempt from ascending to Jerusalem. This ruling teaches us a powerful lesson. Prior to entering into the Holy Shabbos, one should take care to remove any vestige of contamination or defilement that may have attached itself to him during the week, because one cannot appear before HaShem when in a state of contamination and defilement. Shabbos is a day of purity and holiness, and we must prepare ourselves appropriately so that we can bask in the light of the Divine Presence.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 7 - Highlights

The Mishnah states that the following items have no set amount: Peah, which means leaving over a corner of the field for the poor, Bikkurim, which is bringing some of the first fruits to Jerusalem, the rayon, which the Gemara will explain, acts of loving-kindness, and Torah study. (7a)

Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the rayon refers to being seen in the Courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash, whereas Reish Lakish maintains that the rayon refers to being seen with a sacrifice. (7a)

The Jewish People are commanded to ascend to Jerusalem three times a year, on Pesach, Shavuos and Sukkos. They cannot appear half-way, which the Gemara will explain further. (7a)

One verse states that one should refrain from entering his friend’s house, which the Gemara interprets to mean that one should refrain from offering a chatas and asham offering. A second verse states that one should arrive at HaShem’s house with olos, which refers to one who should bring olos and shelamim offerings. (7a)

Rav Yosef understood that when the Baraisa states that one should not appear on the festival half-way, this means that if he has ten sons, he should not have five sons appear in the Bais HaMikdash today and five sons appear tomorrow. Abaye disputes this thesis, because the father cannot allow for five of his sons to fulfill the mitzvah zealously and for five of the sons to be lazy. Rather, the Baraisa refers to a teaching that was learned earlier (4a) that those who have foul odors, such as one who works with excrement from a dog for the purpose of tanning hides, one who smelts copper, and a tanner, are exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. These people are deemed to be appearing half-way, because they would have to form their own minority group. (7b)

The Mishnah states that olos that are brought on Chol HaMoed are brought from Chullin, and shelamim offerings are brought from Maaser. Regarding the first day of Pesach, Bais Shammai maintains that the offerings are brought from Chullin and Bais Hillel maintains that they are brought from Maaser. 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. (7b)


Bais Shammai maintains that one can bring a shelamim offering on the festival because eating from the shelamim is deemed to be a necessity on the festival, but one cannot perform semichah, leaning on the animal. The reason for this prohibition is because leaning on the animal is deemed to be a shevus, a rabbinic injunction, and one cannot violate a rabbinical injunction on the festival. Bais Shammai further maintains that one cannot even offer an olah on the festival, whereas Bais Hillel maintains that one can offer shelamim and olos on the festival and one can perform semichah on the animal. Bais Hillel reasons that since one can offer the animals on the festival, the Chachamim did not institute a prohibition regarding performing semichah. (7b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 6 - WHICH KORBAN IS SUPERIOR?


Beis Hillel holds that the minimum requirement is greater for the shalmei chagigah than it is for the olas re’iyah. 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 Aruch Hashulchan (199:3) wonders if this applies specifically to the amount that one should spend on this particular korban or perhaps it is broader than that and the halacha would be that the shalmei chagigah must be superior to the olas re’iyah in all facets.

He cites a Gemora below (8b) that states: If a person has many dependents, but a minimal amount of money, he can bring many shelamim and a few olos, but if he has an abundance of money and few dependents, he may bring more olos than shelamim. This would indicate that the olas re’iyah may be superior in general; Beis Hillel is only particular that the shelamim should be worth at least two silver maos.

It would appear from the Aruch Hashulchan that he holds that one must spend more on the shalmei chagigah than he does for the olas re’iyah.

The Zecher L’Chagigah inquires: What is the halacha if one can only afford to purchase one korban; which would take precedence? He states that this would be dependent on the dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.


Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 6 - CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

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.

Although the verses describing this offering are written after the giving of the Torah, the Gemora in Shabbos (88a) states that they were actually brought beforehand. The Torah does not always write in the chronological order that the events transpired in.

Pinchas Chalk discusses this at length.

http://torahdownunder.org/5765/mishpatim5765.html

The parsha (Mishpatim) is split into three sections. The first part of the parshah, from the beginning of of the parsha until perek 23, passuk 19, discusses the laws that were given after Har Sinai. From possuk 20 until the end of perek 23, the Torah describes various berachos that Hashem will give to the Benei Yisroel [if they keep the Aseret haDibrot (Daas Zekeinim mi'Baalei HaTosafos)].

Then, from the beginning of perek 24, the pessukim continues with the description of Matan Torah.

Hashem said to Moshe, "Go up to Hashem, you and Aharon and Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of the Benei Yisroel and you should bow down from a distance." And Moshe alone drew close to Hashem and they did not draw near and the people did not go up with him. And Moshe came and he spoke to the people all the words of Hashem and all of the laws. And all of the people answered with one voice and they said, "All of the words that Hashem has spoken we will do."

And Moshe wrote all of the words of Hashem and he got up early in the morning and he built a mizbeach (alter) at the foot of the mountain and twelve pillars (alters made from single stones) for the twelve tribes of Yisroel. And he sent the lads (this refers to the bechorot - firstborn (Rashi)) of the Benei Yisroel and they brought olot (burnt sacrifices)[on the mizbeach and on the matzevot (pillars) that Moshe had built. And they slaughtered peace offerings (shelamim) to Hashem - cows.

And he took the sefer habris (the book of the covenant) and he read it in the ears of the people and they said:
'כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר ה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע' - 'Everything that Hashem has spoken we will do and we will listen [to]."

When did this Parsha occur?
It is not at all obvious when these events happened. The Ramban says that all of these events took place after Matan Torah. According to the Ramban immediately after Matan Torah, on the 6th of Sivan, Hashem said to Moshe the pessukim at the end of Parshat Yitro, all of the halachot that form the first half of Parshat Mishpatim and also the passuk of עֲלֵה אֶל-ה - "Go up to Hashem." On the next day Moshe went up to the top of Har Sinai for fourty days and nights.

Rashi explains that the pessukim beginning עֲלֵה אֶל-ה - "Go up to Hashem" were actually said before Matan Torah on the 4th of Sivan. Both Rashi and the Ramban agree, however, that from passuk 12 and onwards is talking about what happened after Matan Torah:

And Hashem said to Moshe, "Come up the mountain to me and remain there and I will give to you the Tablets of stone and the Torah and the Mitzva that I have written to instruct them." And Moshe got up and Yehoshua his assistant and Moshe went up to the mountain of Hashem. He said to the elders, "Stay here until we return to you. Look, Aharon and Chur are with you, whoever has a need for litigation should go to them." Moshe went up to the mountain and the cloud covered the mountain.

These pessukim describe Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai for fourty days and nights and are obviously referring to what happened after Matan Torah. Why then does Rashi explain that the beginning of the perek is referring to what happened before Matan Torah? Why does he not explain simply like the Ramban that the whole perek is written in chronological order?

Why Rashi explains that the Parsha is not in chronological order

There are many explanations and considerations regarding Rashi's peshat:

- The Maharal points out that the machloket between Rashi and the Ramban is in fact a machloket in the mechilta that the Ramban quotes and that the mechilta says initially like Rashi. Rabbi Yehudah who argues in the mechilta and who says like the Ramban is a da'as yochid - an individual who argues against many. (In halachah if one individual argues against many the halachah is like the majority. The general principles of deciding who the halacha is like are not binding with regards to derush (Rabbi Moshe Aharon Stern z"l), nevertheless the majority explanation still carries more weight.)

- The gemara says that the benei yisrael entered into a bris (covenant) with Hashem through milah, dam (blood) and tevillah. Rashi is of the opinion that all of these must have been performed before Matan Torah, therefore he explains that these pessukim that describe the korbanot (whose dam was the dam bris) brought by the bechorot (first born) must have occurred before Matan Torah. According to the Ramban the dam bris was brought after Matan Torah.

- The He'emek Davar asks on the Ramban from the gemara says in Masechet Shabbat (88a) that Moshe built a mizbeach on the fifth of Sivan. According to Rashi this fits perfectly into the pessukim. The parshah starts on the 4th of Sivan, then on the next day which is the fifth, וַיַּשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ תַּחַת הָהָר. - "Moshe got up early and built a mizbeach at the foot of the mountain." According to the Ramban there is no mention in the Torah that Moshe built a mizbeach before Matan Torah! (see He'emek Davar for a further discussion of this point.)

- The He'emek Davar asks another question on the Ramban from the gemara in Masechet Chagigah (6a) that says that the Korban Chagigah (the korban shelamim that is brought on the sholosh regalim) and the Korban Tamid (the daily olah that was brought in the morning and in the evening) were brought לפני הדיבור. Rashi there explains that this means that they were brought before the Aseret Hadibrot were given. According to the Ramban these korbanot were brought after Matan Torah?

The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim, 225:5) asks the same question and explains (see the sefer Shaarei Aharon) that according to the Ramban when the gemara says that these korbanot were brought לפני הדיבור, it does not mean that they were brought before Matan Torah, rather it means that they were brought even before the primary instruction to bring them daily at the beginning of Parshas Tzav.

All this explains why Rashi explained that the pessukim are not in chronological order, but why did the Torah put the pessukim in this order?

The Maharal explains intriguingly as follows:

"The reason that these pessukim were not written in order before Matan Torah is because all of this was the bris (the covenant) on the Torah that they would accept the next day. Because all of these actions related to the Torah, scripture ordered it in the place that is fitting for it, for they did these deeds concerning the acceptance of the Torah. and if it was possible to perform these actions and to accept the Torah simultaeneously they would have done that and because this is impossible they peformed the actions first. Nevertheless the pessukim are stated in their place after Matan Torah."

The Maharal requires clarification. Tentatively we can explain as follows:

1) The first part of Mishpatim as well as the last pessukim in Parshas Yisro are all a continuation of Kabbalat Ha'Torah and ma'amad Har Sinai. Although it is written afterwards, the account of the bris is at least juxtaposed to Matan Torah,

2) There is a difference between writing something and between the event actually occuring. That means that when you write something you may order the events differently than the order in which they occurred in order to convey the inner meaning of the events. (The stress in the Maharal is on the word ketivah: "Umah shelo nichtav kodem matan torah", "si'der osoi ha'kosuv bi'mekomo haro'u lo", "u'mikol mokom ha'kosuv ne'emar bi'mekomo") The Torah is a written document and the Torah wishes to emphases the close unity between the bris, which is the bond of love between Hashem and Klal Yisrael, and betwen the mitzvos that we were commanded at ma'amad Har Sinai which give concrete expression to that love.

3) The fact that the bris occurred physically before Matan Torah does not obligate the Torah to write the bris beforehand. The bris and Kabbalat ha'Torah are one and should have occurred together, however in olam hazeh we have time constraints so incidentally the events were sequential.

4) The unity of kabbalat hatorah and the bris on the Torah is made clear by writing the bris after Matan Torah. The Torah is not a history book, rather the Torah relays the inner content of events that transpired which affected klal yisrael and which continue to affect klal yisrael. The Torah here is telling you, "This is the bris of the Torah! This is the emotional core of the love between Hashem and klal yisrael which is made permanent by our observance of the mitzvot." As the medrash says "Araissa v'Yisrael v'Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu" - "The Torah and Yisrael and Hashem are all one" (Zohar, Acharei Mos). This point is made clearer by relating the bris after the mitzvot given at Sinai. After we have something concrete to understand and we gain a tephisa (a grasp) of the Torah, then the Torah says, "And this is the bris that is the inner life of that instruction!"

May we become one with our friends and with the Torah and through this become closer to Hashem.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 6 - Highlights

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)

Read more!

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 5 - HASHEM WEEPS FOR ONE WHO IS NOT CAPABLE OF STUDYING TORAH, YET HE DOES

The Gemora cites a braisa: Hashem cries for three types of people every day: One who has the ability to study Torah, but does not; one who is unable to study Torah, but does; a community leader who acts haughtily toward his congregation.

The Maharsha asks: Why does Hashem cry for someone who is not capable of studying Torah, and yet he does; isn’t this a cause for happiness?

He answers: The person himself is the cause for him not being able to study Torah; he gets involved in matters that prevent him from studying Torah. This is the reason Hashem is crying.

It is difficult to understand this explanation, for it would seem that this is identical to the first type of person; one who has the capability to study Torah, but does not?

An alternative answer to the original question: The Taz (O”C 47:1) explains the blessing we recite on the Torah: We are commanded to delve and probe into the depths of Torah. This involves exerting oneself to the maximum until one can reach a correct and final conclusion.

The Sanz-Kloizenberger Rebbe explains our Gemora: One who is incapable of toiling into the depths of Torah and attain accurate conclusions because he has not yet mastered the entire Torah, and yet he continuously strives for novel approaches and new ideas without the proper foundation; this is what Hashem is crying about. One must initially engross himself in the entire breadth of Torah until he becomes proficient in its entirety; only then should he embark on saying chidushim.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 5 - OUR COUNSEL VS. THEIR WISDOM

When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania was about to die, the rabbis asked him: What will become of us from the heretics?

He replied: It is written [Yirmiyah 49:7]: The counsel has vanished from the children, their wisdom has spoiled. The interpretation of this verse is as follows: When the counsel has vanished from the Jewish people, the wisdom of their adversaries will sour.

The Satmar Rebbe in Divrei Yoel (Beshalach P. 425) explains an otherwise seemingly unexplainable Medrash with this Gemora.

The Medrash states: If Moshe would have crossed the Jordan River (into Eretz Yisroel), Haman would have done correctly; now that he didn’t cross over, this is why Haman was hung.

He explains: When Klal Yisroel’s wisdom has decreased and we are incapable of overcoming the other nations, their wisdom is diminished, as well.

If Moshe would have entered into Eretz Yisroel, he would have lived forever and his wisdom would have prevailed over Haman’s; now that Moshe is not in our midst and we have lost his counsel, Haman was hung on the tree.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Chagigah 5 - Highlights

Rabbi Yosef cried when he came to the verse [Mishlei 13: 23]: There is one who succumbs without justice. He said: Is there anyone who leaves this world before his time? He answered: Yes! It is like the story told over by Rav Bibi ben Abaye, who was often visited by the Angel of Death. The Angel of Death told his agent to bring him the soul of Miriam the hair braider and instead, was brought the soul of Miriam, the caretaker of young children. The Angel of Death told his agent: I told you to bring me Miriam the hair braider. The agent replied: If so, I will return her. The Angel of Death said: Since you already brought her, then let her be included in the number.

Rav Bibi asked the Angel of Death: How were you able to take her?

The Angel replied: She was holding a poker in her hand and inserted it into the oven to clean it out. As she was removing the poker from the oven, she mistakenly placed it on top of her foot. She burnt herself, resulting in the fact that her mazal became weakened, thus allowing me to take her.

Rav Bibi asked the Angel: Do you have permission to do such things?

The Angel answered him: Yes I do, as it is written [Mishlei 13: 23]: There is one who succumbs without justice.

Rav Bibi objected: But doesn’t it also say [Koheles 1:4]: A generation goes and a generation comes, indicating that each generation has its set time before the new one replaces it?

The Angel replied: I let these souls roam along with me until their generation is completed and then I bring them to Dumah (the Angel appointed to watch the dead).

Rav Bibi asked him: What do you do with the person’s uncompleted years?

The Angel answered: If there is a young Torah scholar who is a tolerant person, I add those years to his life and they are a replacement for the deceased. (4b – 5a)

Rabbi Yochanan used to cry when he came to the following verse [Iyov 15:15]: Behold, He cannot have any faith even in His holy ones. He explained: If Hashem does not have faith in those that are holy, then whom will He have faith in?

The Gemora records an incident related to this. Rabbi Yochanan was once traveling on the road when he saw a person gathering figs. He would gather the unripe ones, while leaving the ripe ones.

Rabbi Yochanan inquired of him: Aren’t the ripe ones better?

He answered: I need these figs for my trip and the unripe ones will last; the ripe ones will spoil before the trip is completed.

Rabbi Yochanan exclaimed: This is the meaning of the verse: Behold, He cannot have any faith even in His holy ones (the young Torah scholars can be taken away before they surrender to sin).

The Gemora asks: There was a student who lived in Rabbi Alexandri’s neighborhood, who died very young. Rabbi Alexandri proclaimed: If he would have conducted himself in a more upright path, he could have lived longer. According to Rabbi Yochanan, perhaps he was virtuous and nevertheless died young?

The Gemora answers: It was known to Rabbi Alexandri that this student revolted against his teachers. (5a)

Rabbi Yochanan used to cry when he came to the following verse [Koheles 12:14]: For Hashem shall bring every action which man does into the judgment, even concerning every hidden matter. Is there a remedy for a servant whose master weighs his unintentional mistakes as well as his intentional ones?

The Gemora asks: What does the verse mean when it states: every hidden matter?

Rav answers: The verse is referring to one who kills a louse in front of his friend and his friend is disgusted by it. Shmuel said: It is referring to one who spits in front of his friend and his friend is disgusted by it.

The Gemora asks: What is the meaning of the conclusion of the verse, which states: whether good or bad (indicating that punishment will be administered for one who performs a good deed)?

They answered in Rabbi Yannai’s school: This is referring to one who gives charity to a poor man in public and causes him great embarrassment. It once happened with Rabbi Yannai that he witnessed a man giving charity to a poor man in public and rebuked him by saying that it would have been preferable for him not to have given him charity at all, thus avoiding embarrassing him.

They offered another answer in Rabbi Shila’s school: The verse is referring to a man who gives charity to a woman in a secluded place since this will result in people suspecting the woman of acting immorally.

Rava answers: The verse is referring to a husband who sends uncut meat (did not have the prohibited portions cut from it) to his wife on Erev Shabbos (she might forget to remove those portions in her haste to prepare for Shabbos). (5a)

The Gemora relates an incident: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania was standing in the Caesar’s palace. A heretic who stood by signaled him with his hand that the Jewish people are a nation from whom God has turned away His face. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania signaled him with his hand that His hand is still stretched over us.

The Caesar asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania: Do you understand what the heretic signaled you with his hand?

He replied: Yes, he signaled me that the Jewish people are a nation from whom God has turned away His face and I responded by signaling him that His hand is still stretched over us.

They asked the heretic: What did you signal him with your hand? And he asked him: What did he show you?

He replied: I signaled him that the Jewish people are a nation from whom God has turned away His face.

They asked him: What did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania reply?

He answered: I do not know.

They said: A man that does not understand what is being signaled to him, should he be signaling in front of the king? They removed the heretic and killed him.

When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania was about to die, the rabbis asked him: What will become of us from the heretics?

He replied: It is written [Yirmiyah 49:7]: The counsel has vanished from the children, their wisdom has spoiled. The interpretation of this verse is as follows: When the counsel has vanished from the Jewish people, the wisdom of their adversaries will sour. (5b)

Rabbi Illa was once ascending the steps of the house of Rabbah bar Shila when he heard a young child reading the following verse [Amos 4:13]: For behold, He forms mountains, and creates winds; He recounts to a person what were his words. He exclaimed: Is there a remedy for a slave whose master tells him all of his words spoken?

The Gemora asks: What is meant by what were his words?

Rav answers: Even a superfluous conversation between a man and his own wife (prior to engaging in marital relations) is mentioned to him at the time of his death.

The Gemora asks from the following incident: Rav Kahana hid under the bed of Rav and heard while Rav was talking and joking with his wife and then engaged in marital relations with her. Rav Kahana said (from under the bed): It's as if Rav's mouth has not tasted food (his lightheadedness indicated that he was doing this for his own pleasure similar to a starving man eating). Rav said to him, Kahana, get out! It is not proper for you to be here!

It is evident from this incident that it is proper to engage in conversation and laugh with one’s wife before having relations.

The Gemora answers: Rav needed to appease her first and only then, it is not regarded as superfluous. (5b)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Hashem cries for three types of people every day: One who has the ability to study Torah, but does not; one who is unable to study Torah, but does; a community leader who acts haughtily toward his congregation. (5b)

Read more!