Resources for Chagigah 4
1. The גמרא asks why we need a פּסוק to tell us that a woman is פּטור from ראייה when ראייה is a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא? See the טורי אבן on דף ב ע"א, ד"ה ועוד נ"ל who asks on the גמרא’s question that there is also a לאו of ולא יראו פּני ריקם and women are obligated in all לא תעשהs. If so, we need a פּסוק to tell us that women don’t even have the לאו! He answers that it must be that since women are פּטור from the מצוות ראיה, they are also פּטור from the לאו of ולא יראו פּני ריקם. See the יד דוד on our סוגיא who explains this more clearly: the לאו of ולא יראו פּני ריקם says when you have to come on the שלש רגלים, don’t come empty handed. However, if there is no מצוה to come at all then the לאו of ולא יראו פּני ריקם wouldn’t apply any more than it would on any other day of the year where you happen to come to the עזרה.
2. The גמרא asks why we need a פּסוק to exclude a טומטום who is a ספק. The words of the גמרא are “מי איצטריך קרא למעוטי ספיקא”. See רש"י who explains the גמרא’s question to mean “why would you think to be מחייב someone מספק”? See the מאירי here who says that this is a proof to the famous שיטה of the רמב"ם that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא is only a דין דרבנן. See תוספות in ד"ה אלא טומטום who gives a different explanation of the gemar’s question than רש"י. He says that the גמרא was asking that since a טומטום is a ספק, you wouldn’t have brought a קרבן anyway as it you might be bringing חולין לעזרה. According to Tosfos you could still hold ספק דאורייתא לחומרא is a דין דאוירייתא. However, see the טורי אבן in ד"ה איצטריך who asks that תוספות’s explanation just helps with the חיוב קרבן, but it does not explain how we would know there is no חיוב of ראיית פּנים בעזרה.
3. The גמרא says that a קטן שהגיע לחינוך is only חייב in ראייה מדרבנן. The פּסוק of כל זכורך is really coming to exclude people who have smelly professions like a tanner. There is a surprising רמב"ם in הלכות חגיגה פּרק ב הל' ב who says that a tanner and people with similar professions are חייב in ראייה. They just need to clean themselves off before being עולה. This seems to be in a direct סתירה to our גמרא. See the מהר"י קורקוס who explains that the רמב"ם understood the גמרא to just be excluding tanners when they have a דין of a tanner, i.e. when they smell. However, once they are clean there is no reason to exclude them. However, the simple reading of the רמב"ם doesn’t seem that way as the רמב"ם presents only the היתר, that even a tanner is allowed to go up if he cleans himself off. Moreover, the רמב"ם in the next halacha says a child is חייב בראייה as the פּסוק says כל זכורך! This is the explanation that our גמרא rejected and said was just דרבנן! The מהר"י קוקוס explains this away as well by saying that the רמב"ם really means it’s דרבנן but was just using the לשון הגמרא. See the מרומי שדה on the משנה who points out a third place where the רמב"ם seem to be against our גמרא. The רמב"ם says in הל' א that a טוטום is פּטור because he is a ספק. But our גמרא says the פּסוק comes to exclude a טומטום שביציו מבחוץ which is not a ספק but פּטור anyway?! He answers that the רמב"ם in all three cases is לשיטתו. The רמב"ם paskened that כל זכורך actually comes to be מרבה that קטנים must be brought to ירושלים by their father and that this is a דין דאורייתא. (Perhaps his reasoning was like the כסף משנה suggests that the רמב"ם understood from the words אחרים אומרים that the רבנן must have disagreed.) Since he paskened that כל זכורך refers to the father and not to “זכורך דכל ישראל”, then the פּסוק can’t be excluding a טומטום שביציו מבחוץ nor a tanner since it is only referring to the father.
---------------------------
Rav Asher Millman - Marei Mekomos Halacha, Dappim 4-5
Rav Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rav Mordechai Papoff - English Topics Choveres
Rav Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder