Siman - Chagigah Daf 6
- Is there a chiyuv to be mechanech a lame or blind child in the mitzvah of re’iyah?
Rebbe Shimon asked: קטן חיגר לדברי בית שמאי וסומא לדבריהם מהו – In a case of a katan who is lame, according to Beis Shammai, who hold that chinuch for the mitzvah of re’iyah begins once a child is able to ride on his father’s shoulders to the Beis Hamikdash, and a katan who is lame is indeed able to do so, and a case of a katan who is blind, who can walk to the Beis Hamikdash by holding his father’s hand, according to both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, what is the halachah regarding the father’s chiyuv to bring his son to the Beis Hamikdash? The Gemara clarifies that it is not a question in the case when the lame child will never walk nor when the blind child will ever see. Since an adult in such a case would not be chayav, certainly the katan would not be chayav. The question is only בחיגר שיכול להתפשט וסומא שיכול להתפתח – with a lame child that can be healed and a blind child whose vision can be restored. Abaye answered, כל היכא דגדול מיחייב מדאורייתא קטן נמי מחנכין ליה מדרבנן – Wherever an adult would be chayav mid’Oraysa, there is a chiyuv to be mechanech a koton mid’Rabbanon, and wherever an adult would not be chayav mid’Oraysa, there is no chiyuv to be mechanech the child mid’Rabbanon. Therefore, since an adult with these disabilities would not be chayav to go up to the Beis Hamikdash, one would be not be chayav to be mechanech the child to go up, even though the child will eventually be healed before becoming an adult.
- The minimum shiurim for the olas-re’iyah and chagigah
The Gemara analyzes the machlokes between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the minimum values of the olas-re’iyah and the shalmei chagigah. It was taught in a Baraisa: Beis Shammai say that the re’iyah must be worth at least two silver maos, and the shalmei chagigah must be worth at least one silver ma’ah. The minimum shiur for the re’iyah is greater שהראייה עולה כולה לגבוה מה שאין כן בחגיגה – because the olas-re’iyah is offered up completely to Hashem, which is not the case of the chagigah, and furthermore, we find by the korbanos on Atzeres (Shavuos) שריבה בהן הכתוב בעולות יותר מבשלמים – that the Torah included more olos than shelamim. But Beis Hillel say that the minimum shiur for the chagigah is greater than the olas-re’iyah שחגיגה ישנה לפני הדיבור מה שאין כן בראייה – for the chagigah was brought before Hashem spoke at Har Sinai, which was not so regarding the re’iyah. Rashi brings the passuk from Mishpatim, where the youths brought shelamim, which chronologically occurred before the Aseres HaDibros. Furthermore, regarding the korbanos brought by the nesiim, שריבה בהן הכתוב בשלמים יותר מבעולות – that the Torah included more shelamim than olos. The Gemara explains how each side refutes the other’s view.
- Why Rebbe Yishmael holds that the olah in the wilderness was an olas-re’iyah, not a tamid
The Gemara explains that Beis Hillel hold that the olas brought before Hashem spoke at Har Sinai, were olas tamid. Abaye said that Beis Shammai, Rebbe Elazar and Rebbe Yishmael all hold that it was an olas-re’iyah. Regarding Rebbe Yishmael, it was taught in a Baraisa: Rebbe Yishmael holds כללות נאמרו בסיני ופרטות באהל מועד – The general principles of the mitzvos were given at Har Sinai, whereas the details of the mitzvos were taught at the Ohel Moed, but Rebbe Akiva says: כללות ופרטות נאמרו בסיני ונשנו באהל מועד ונשתלשו בערבת מואב – The general principles and details of the mitzvos were said at Har Sinai, were repeated in the Ohel Moed and reviewed a third time in Arvos Moav. According to Rebbe Yishmael, it is not tenable that if the olah was a tamid, that it was commanded by Hashem for all generations originally without הפשט וניתוח – skinning and dismemberment, and only later required הפשט וניתוח which were taught at the Ohel Moed.
