Siman - Chagigah Daf 11
- The difference between hilchos negaim and hilchos ohalos
It was taught in a Baraisa: נגעים ואהלות מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות – The laws of negaim and ohalos have few pesukim but many halachos. When the Gemara challenges this, given that נגעים have many pesukim, Rav Pappa explained the Baraisa to mean:מועטות נגעים מקרא מרובה והלכות – The laws of negaim have many pesukim but the halachos are relatively few, אהלות מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות – whereas the laws of ohalos have few pesukim, and many halachos. What is the nafka minah? It is to teach that if one has a safek in hilchos negaim עיין בקראי – one should look into the pesukim, whereas if one has a safek about ohalos, עיין במתניתין – one should look into the Mishnayos, where they are discussed at length.
- נפש תחת נפש - ממון
The Mishnah on Daf 10a stated: הדינין...יש להן על מה שיסמכו – Monetary law have pesukim upon which to support them, which implies that they are not explicitly written. When the Gemara here challenges this, given that monetary law is explicitly written in the Torah, it answers that the Mishnah’s statement is referring to cases such as Rebbe’s, for it was taught in a Baraisa: Rebbe says that the parshah where two men are fighting and one tries hitting the other, and unintentionally strikes and kills a woman, the passuk states "נפש תחת נפש" – a life for a life, and the passuk means to say it refers to ממון – monetary compensation. Rebbe explains, נתינה למטה ונאמרה נתינה למעלה נאמרה– It is stated “giving” in this passuk, and it is stated “giving” in the previous passuk, referring to the case where a woman was struck and miscarried. Just as in that case, the נתינה is referring to monetary compensation for the fetus, so too here, in our passuk, it is referring to monetary compensation. Since this halachah is not explicit, the Mishnah refers to it as having support.
- אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה
The opening Mishnah of the second perek states: אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה – The laws of arayos, illicit relations, should not be expounded among three people. The Gemara seeks an explanation for this, and after rejecting several sources, it brings Rav Ashi, who explains that the Mishnah is referring to סתרי עריות – the hidden details of arayos, which are not explicit. Rashi brings the example of having relations with בתו מאנוסתו – his daughter from the woman he forced. When two students sit before their Rebbe and one discusses a point with the Rebbe, the other student typically listens in. But when there are three students, and one discusses a point with his Rebbe, the other two talk among each other, and will miss the point, and possibly one day, will permit that which is forbidden. When the Gemara suggests that this should be a concern for the entire Torah, it answers that arayos are different, for it was said: גזל ועריות נפשו מחמדתן ומתאוה להם – Theft and arayos are sins that people covet and desire. A person is more inclined to be led astray by them. The reason that it is only with arayos that teaching three is prohibited, and not with the halachos of theft, is that with arayos a person’s yetzer hora is strong whether the object of his desire is in front of him or not, whereas with theft, it is only strong when the object is in front of him.
