THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHAGIGAH 6 - generously dedicated by Mr. Martin Fogel of Carlsbad,
California. Tizkeh l'Mitzvos!
1) THE MOTHER'S OBLIGATION TO BE "MECHANECH" HER CHILD
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a child is obligated to come to the Beis
ha'Mikdash on the festival because of Chinuch only when he is old enough to
ride on his father's shoulders (Beis Shamai) or hold his father's hand and
walk (Beis Hillel) from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis. The Gemara asks that
the child should have to be much older -- he should have to be old enough to
get to Yerushalayim *from his hometown* holding his father's hand? The
Gemara answers that it is the mother who brings the child to Yerushalayim.
That is why the obligation of a child in Aliyah l'Regel is measured by
whether he can walk from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis holding his father's
hand, because until Yerushalayim he comes with his mother, who comes to
Yerushalayim for the Mitzvah of "Simchah.". (The age at which a child can go
with his mother is younger than the age at which he can go with just his
father. Hence, even if the child is not old enough to come to Yerushalayim
without his mother, if he can come with his mother and then walk from there
to Har ha'Bayis with his father alone he is obligated in Chinuch.)
Just as the mother brings the child to Yerushalayim, why does she not bring
him all the way to Har ha'Bayis in order to be Mechanech him in the Mitzvah
of Aliyah l'Regel? Even if he is too young to walk with his father, he
should still be obligated to go with his mother because of Chinuch, the same
way he came from his hometown to Yerushalayim with his mother!
It must be that the mother is not obligated to be Mechanech the child. Only
the father is obligated to be Mechanech the child. If the mother has no
obligation of Chinuch, then why do we rely on the fact that she will bring
him to Yerushalayim? Let his father be obligated in Chinuch only if *he* is
able to bring the child to Yerushalayim (since otherwise, the child is not
considered to be obligated in Aliyah l'Regel)!
(a) Many Rishonim (such as the TOSFOS YESHANIM in Yoma 82a) learn that there
is no obligation for the mother to be Mechanech her child. They base this
ruling on the Gemara in Nazir (29a), which quotes Reish Lakish who says that
a man may make his son into a Nazir in order to be Mechanech him, but a
woman may not make her son into a Nazir. The Gemara says that according to
Reish Lakish, the reason a mother may not make her child into a Nazir is
because she is not obligated in the Chinuch of her child.
However, the Gemara in Sukah (2b) describes how Hilni ha'Malkah sat with her
young children in a Sukah. The Gemara proves that the Sukah in which they
sat must have been valid, because her children were of the age of Chinuch
age at that time and therefore she was obligated to be Mechanech them in the
Mitzvah. According to these Rishonim, why did she have to make sure that
they sat in a valid Sukah, if a woman has no Mitzvah to be Mechanech her
children? (The Gemara in Sukah implies that she was being Mechanech them out
of her *obligation* to do so, and not just because she was conducting
herself within the letter of the law. See GILYON HA'SHAS there).
The Rishonim explain that if the children had a father who was not present
at the time, the mother is obligated to be Mechanech them on his behalf
(TERUMAS HA'DESHEN #94, based on TOSFOS in Eruvin 82a, DH Katan; this might
be the intention of TOSFOS YESHANIM in Yoma 82a -- see also Yevamos 71b,
"his father and *mother* were in jail"). The ME'IRI (Nazir 29a) states,
similarly, that if there is no father then the mother is obligated to be
Mechanech the children. Only when the father is alive and present does the
mother not have to be Mechanech the children.
In the case of our Gemara, though, the father is around, so the mother is
not obligated to bring the child to Har ha'Bayis. According to these
Rishonim, when the Gemara says that the mother takes the child to
Yerushalayim it does not mean that she takes him there for the sake of being
Mechanech him in the Mitzvah, but rather she takes him there simply because
she does not want to leave the child at home. The father must bring him to
the Har ha'Bayis to be Mechanech him since the son is now in Yerushalayim
and is able to walk from there with his father, even though he would not
have been able to walk from his home to Yerushalayim with his father.
(b) RASHI (2a, DH Eizehu Katan) writes that the Chachamim obligated the
child's *father and mother* to be Mechanech him in Mitzvos. MENACHEM MESHIV
to Daf 2a, citing YAD DAVID, writes that Rashi learned this from the Gemara
here that says that the mother brings the child to Yerushalayim, which
implies that the obligation of Chinuch is on the mother as well. The mother
is obligated to bring the child to Yerushalayim to be Mechanech him in the
Mitzvah of Simchah.
When the Gemara in Nazir (loc. cit.) says that a woman is not obligated in
the Chinuch of her child, it is only referring to Mitzvos that are not
obligatory (such as Nezirus). For such Mitzvos, the mother has no obligation
to be Mechanech her child. Alternatively, Rashi holds that Rebbi Yochanan
argues with Reish Lakish in Nazir regarding this point, and the Halachah
follows the view of Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Yochanan holds that a woman *is*
obligated in the Chinuch of her child.
Why, then, does she not have to bring him all the way to Har ha'Bayis?
Apparently, she is only obligated to be Mechanech her son in Mitzvos in
which she herself is obligated. Since she is not obligated in Aliyah
l'Regel, she does not have to be Mechanech him in that Mitzvah (MENACHEM
MESHIV, citing YAD DAVID).
However, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah and Kidushin says that a woman is *not*
obligated even in the Mitzvah of Simchah. When our Gemara says that she is
obligated in the Mitzvah of Simchah, it means that she must come to
Yerushalayim because her husband is obligated to be Mesame'ach his wife; it
is not the woman's obligation, but rather the husband's (as the TUREI EVEN
cites from the BA'AL HA'ME'OR in Kidushin). Why, then, should a woman be
obligated to be Mechanech her child even in the Mitzvah of Simchah by
bringing him to Yerushalayim? Furthermore, why was Hilni ha'Malkah
responsible to be Mechanech her children in the Mitzvah of Sukah, from which
she herself was exempt?
It must be that the woman *is* sometimes obligated in the Chinuch of her
child even though she herself is exempt from the Mitzvah. The Chachamim did
not obligate the woman to be Mechanech her child in a Mitzvah that she is
not *involved in* herself. If she *is* performing the Mitzvah, even though
she is not *obligated* to perform the Mitzvah, then she must be Mechanech
her child in the Mitzvah. Only if she has no obligation to perform the
Mitzvah *and* she is not involved in the Mitzvah at all is she exempt from
the Chinuch of her child.
In the case of the Mitzvah of Simchah, the woman is not obligated.
Nevertheless, she does come to Yerushalayim for her husband to be Mesame'ach
her. Therefore she is obligated to be Mechanech her child in the Mitzvah of
coming to Yerushalayim. Similarly, Hilni ha'Malkah performed the Mitzvah of
Sukah even though she was not obligated to do so. Therefore she was required
to be Mechanech her children in that Mitzvah. (M. Kornfeld)
2) DID THE JEWISH PEOPLE OFFER KORBANOS IN THE "MIDBAR"
QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Jewish people were ostracized in the
Midbar for having committed the sin of the Egel ha'Zahav. Rebbi Akiva cites
a verse (Amos 5:25) that shows that they did not bring Korbanos in the
Midbar because of their state of censure. Only the tribe of Levi, who did
not participate in the sin of the Egel ha'Zahav, brought the Korban Tamid.
However, the Gemara here contradicts a Gemara in Moed Katan (15b). The
Gemara in Moed Katan proves that a Menudah (a person in excommunication) is
permitted to send his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash with a Shali'ach. The
Gemara proves this from the fact that the Jewish people in the Midbar -- who
had the status of a Menudah -- sent their Korbanos to the Mizbe'ach.
How can the Gemara there say that they sent Korbanos when our Gemara here
says that they did *not* send Korbanos? Not only did they not send them, but
because of their state of censure, they were not even allowed to send them!
(MISHNEH L'MELECH, beginning of Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin)
(a) The TUREI EVEN answers based on the words of TOSFOS in Moed Katan (15b,
DH v'Shimshu). Tosfos questions what the source is for the Gemara's
assertion that the Jews brought Korbanos in the Midbar. He concludes that
"perhaps there is some indication from the verse" but he does not specify
what verse gives such an indication.
The TUREI EVEN says that the proof from the verse stems from the opinion of
Rebbi Yishmael, in Chulin (17a), who holds that the Jews were not allowed to
eat meat in the Midbar unless it was meat from a Korban. Since we know that
they ate meat, it must be that they also brought Korbanos!
The Turei Even continues and says that if that is the source that the Jewish
people brought Korbanos in the Midbar, then our Gemara works out fine. The
opinion in our Gemara is that of Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva is the one who
argues with Rebbi Yishmael and holds that they *were permitted* to eat meat
that was not from a Korban ("Basar Ta'avah"). Accordingly, he will argue
with the Gemara in Moed Katan that says that the Jews sent Korbanos in the
Midbar, since there is no source indicating that they did!
The RASHASH in Moed Katan asks that we find the Torah specifies other
Korbanos that the Jews brought in the Midbar, such as the Korban Pesach in
the second year. The Rashash says that perhaps the Korban Pesach that they
brought then was because of a special command from Hashem for that moment
("Hora'as Sha'ah"), and we cannot learn from there that they brought other
(b) A simple answer to our question may be suggested as follows. The Gemara
does not say that the tribe of Levi were the ones who *owned* the Korbanos
that were brought. Rather, they were the ones who *sacrificed* the Korbanos,
but the Korbanos were not necessarily the sole property of the Levi'im.
Perhaps our Gemara is saying that the Jewish people were not involved in the
actual service of *offering* the Korban since they were in a state of
censure. They were certainly permitted, though, to own a portion of a Korban
and to let the Kohanim and Leviyim offer it on the Mizbe'ach, and that is
what the Gemara in Moed Katan means when it says that the Jews sent their
Korbanos in the Midbar.
What role do regular Jews normally have in the service of offering Korbanos?
Only Kohanim and Levi'im are involved in the actual service! What, then, is
the verse teaching when it says that they did not offer their Korbanos
because they were in a state of censure? Even if they were not in a state of
censure, they could not offer their Korbanos, because that is the sole
domain of the Kohanim and Levi'im!
The answer is that the Yisraelim also have a role in the offering of the
Korbanos. The Yisraelim serve in the Ma'amados, which are groups of
Yisraelim who stand watch over the Korban. When the verse says that in the
Midbar, they were not involved at all in the service of the Korbanos, it
means that they did not take part in the Ma'amados, due to their state of
censure. They did own a portion of the Korbanos (and they did give money
towards the purchase of the Korban Tamid) though, and they were allowed to
have the Kohanim and Leviyim bring the Korbanos for them. Hence, the two
Gemaras do not contradict each other (based on the MITZPEH EISAN).