ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
CHAGIGAH 6 (25 Nisan) - dedicated by Sandy and Les Wiesel in memory of Les's father, Menachem Yehuda ben Avigdor Yosef Wiesel, who perished in the Holocaust.
(a) Beis Shamai in our Mishnah requires a Katan to be able to ride on his father's shoulders from Yerushalayim until the Har ha'Bayis. Despite the fact his mother is not Chayav Re'iyah (and a child who cannot walk holding his father's hand, still needs his mother), the Katan got to Yerushalayim - with his mother, who had to go to Yerushalayim (if not for the Mitzvah of Re'iyah) to perform the Mitzvah of Simchah together with her husband.
(b) We know that she is obligated to do so - from the Pasuk in Re'eh "v'Samachta Ata u'Veisecha".
(c) The problem Rebbi had with Beis Shamai from the Pasuk in Shmuel, which describes how Chanah did not take Shmuel to the Mishkan in Shilo until he was weaned was - why did she not bring him in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Re'iyah (which he became Chayav as soon as he could ride on his father's shoulder's - certainly before he turned two)?
(d) We counter this by asking that (even according to Beis Hillel) Chanah herself should have gone to Shilo in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah; and we answer solve both problems with one stroke - by pointing to some sort of ailment that Shmuel suffered, that deterred Chanah from taking him We counter this by asking that (even according to Beis Hillel) even according to Beis Hillel, Chanah should have had to go to Shilo in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah on such a long journey (from Ramot to Shilo).
(a) Resh Lakish asks whether, according to Beis Shamai, a Katan who is lame is Chayav Re'iyah. He did not ask the same She'eilah according to Beis Hillel - because it is obvious that if the Katan cannot hold his father's hand and walk up to the Har ha'Bayis (the criterion according to Beis Hillel), he is not Chayav.
(b) According to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - Resh Lakish added the She'eilah whether a Katan who is blind is Chayav to go up to Yerushalayim or not (seeing as a Gadol who is blind is not Chayav).
(c) He must have been referring to a Katan whose lameness and blindness can be cured before he becomes a Gadol - because otherwise, seeing as a Gadol would be Patur, it is obvious that the Katan is Patur, too.
(d) Abaye rules - that wherever a Gadol is Chayav mid'Oraisa (i.e. where his blindness and lameness are curable, a blind Katan according to everyone) or a lame Katan (according to Beis Shamai) is Chayav.
(a) According to Beis Shamai, the Olas Re'iyah must be more expensive than the Shalmei Chagigah for two reasons. One of them is because it goes entirely to Hash-m; the other - because on Shavu'os, the Torah obligates (with regard to the Korban Musaf) more Olos than Shelamim (seven lambs, one bull and two rams, against two lambs).
(b) According to Beis Hillel, the Shalmei Chagigah is the more expensive of the two. They too have two reasons. One, because unlike the Olos Re'iyah, the Shalmei Chagigah were brought before Matan Torah - when Yisrael were standing at Har Sinai during the days preceding Matan Torah.
(c) Beis Hillel's second reason is - because, by the Chanukas ha'Nesi'im, they brought more Shelamim than Olos (see Maftir Pashas Naso).
(a) Beis Hillel (who disagree with Beis Shamai) ...
1. ... consider the Chagigah (a Shelamim) more significant than the Re'iyah (an Olah) - because, on the contrary, a Shelamim has the advantage of being eaten by the owner as well as by Hash-m ('Two eatings are better than one').
2. ... prefer to learn from the Shelamim of the Nesi'im, rather than from the Olos of Shavu'os (like Beis Shamai) - because it is better to learn a Korban Yachid from a Korban Yachid, rather than from a Korban Tzibur.
(b) Beis Shamai, on the other hand ...
1. ... reject Beis Hillel's proof from the fact that the Shalmei Chagigah was brought before Matan Torah (and not the Olos Re'iyah) - because, in their opinion, the Olos that were brought before Matan Torah, were Olos Re'iyah (brought in honor of Shavu'os, in which case, both of them were brought before Matan Torah).
2. ... prefer to learn from the Olos of Shavu'os than from the Shelamim of the Nesi'im - because both the Olos Re'iyah and the Olos of Shavu'os are annual Korbanos, whereas the Shelamim of the Nesi'im occurred only once.
(c) Beis Shamai maintain that the Olah that was brought at Sinai was an Olas Re'iyah (as we just explained). According to Beis Hillel - the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai was the Korban Tamid.
(d) Abaye lists ...
1. ... Beis Shamai, Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Elazar - as the Tana'im who hold the Olah that Yisrael brought in the desert was an Olas Re'iyah; whereas ...
2. ... Beis Hillel, Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yosi hold - that it was the Korban Tamid (as we shall now see).
(a) When Rebbi Yishmael says 'Klalos Ne'emru b'Sinai u'Peratos b'Ohel Mo'ed' - he means that many Mitzvos were given generally at Har Sinai, although their details were only given later, after the Mishkan was erected. Take for instance, the Avodas ha'Korbanos, where at Har Sinai, the Torah only wrote "v'Zavachta Alav es Olosecha v'es Shelamecha", whereas the details of how to sprinkle its blood, the need to strip the animal and cut it up (Hefshet and Nitu'ach) or to being its innards on the Mizbe'ach, were only specified later.
(b) This proves that the Olah that they brought at Sinai was an Olas Re'iyah (and not the Korban Tamid [like Beis Shamai]) - because it would be illogical to say that they brought a Korban Tamid then without Hefshet and Nitu'ach, the same Korban Tamid which would later require it.
(c) According to Rebbi Akiva, both the Klalos and the Peratos were said three times - at Sinai (even though the Torah does not make a point of specifying the Peratos there) - by the Ohel Mo'ed (the Mishkan) and at Arvos Mo'av (when the entire Torah was repeated).
(d) When the Tana Kama of the Beraisa (who follows the opinion of Beis Hillel) quoted the Pasuk in Pinchas "Olas Tamid ha'Asuyah b'Har Sinai" - Rebbi Elazar responded that it may have been discussed at Har Sinai, but it was not brought there.
(a) Rebbi Akiva maintains that they began bringing the Tamid at Har Sinai and never stopped. The Pasuk "ha'Zevachim u'Minchah Hikravtem Li ba'Midbar Arba'im Shanah Beis Yisrael?" - refers to the majority of Yisrael, who served the Egel ha'Zahav and who were therefore disqualified from bringing it. It was nevertheless brought by the tribe of Levi, who were not guilty.
(b) In any case, we see that Rebbi Akiva too, holds like Beis Hillel. Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili, the third Tana in Abaye's second list, refers to three Mitzvos that come into effect when going up to Yerushalayim on Yom Tov- the Olas Re'iyah, the Shalmei Chagigah and the Shalmei Simchah.
(c) Each of the three has a specialty that the other two do not. The Olas Re'iyah is given totally to Hash-m (though this seems to concur with the opinion of Beis Shamai in 3b.); whereas the Chagigah was brought before Matan Torah, implying that the Olas Re'iyah was not - a proof that the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai must have been the Korban Tamid (like Beis Hillel).
(d) The specialty enjoyed by the Shalmei Simchah - is that it applies to women as well as to men (which the other two do not).
(a) We learned earlier that Rebbi Yishmael must concur with Beis Shamai, because if the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai was the Korban Tamid, it would be inconceivable that at Sinai they did not make Hefshet and Nitu'ach, and later they did! We refute this proof however, from another statement of Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili - who specifically says that the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai (the Olas Tamid as we just proved) did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach (repudiating the logic that we applied above in 5b.)
(b) We finally remove Rebbi Yishmael from the list of those who hold like Beis Shamai - by which we gain being able to say that he holds like Beis Hillel (like whom the Halachah is generally established).
(a) Rav Chisda finds the Pasuk in Yisro "va'Yishlach es Na'arei Bnei Yisrael va'Ya'alu Olos, va'Yizbechu Zevachim la'Hashem Parim" ambiguous. He is unsure whether to place the comma after Olos (as we did - concurring with the accepted tradition), in which case the Olos will have been (not bulls, but sheep), or not, in which case "Parim" will cover the Olos too.
(b) When we ask 'le'Mai Nafka Minah', we mean to ask - what difference it makes, seeing as that event is over and will never recur.
(c) According to Mar Zutra however, the She'eilah is of Halachic significance, because we need to know how to read the Pasuk in Shul (as we just explained). Rav Acha Brei d'Rava explains - that we need to know which Korban it was, so that, should someone undertake to bring the equivalent Korban Olah that they brought at Har Sinai, he will know what he has to bring.
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos v'Ibayos').