Resources for Chagigah 6
1. The משנה says that ב"ה says the time to be מחנך a child in עליה לרגל is when he can walk from ירושלים to the עזרה. The גמרא asks, “and who brought him to ירושלים?” and answers his mother brought him to ירושלים since she is מחוייבת בשמחה. See תוספות on דף ב: ד"ה ומי who understands our גמרא to be saying that for a child to be חייב in חינוך, it is not enough for the child to be able to walk from ירושלים to the עזרה. Rather, the child must be able to walk from his hometown to ירושלים, similar to an adult who is only פּטור if he can’t walk from his home city to ירושלים. See the חזון איש in או"ח סימן קכ"ט who understands that according to תוספות, if someone happened to bring their child to ירושלים, even though the child can only walk from ירושלים to the עזרה, he would still be חייב to be עולה since that’s exactly what our גמרא asked and answered (“and who brought the child to ירושלים?; the mother brought him”). However, if you learn like the other ראשונים who say the שיעור to be מחנך a child in עליה לרגל is when they can walk from ירושלים to the עזרה, then even if someone brought the child right up to the עזרה there would still be no חיוב of חינוך.
2. בית שמאי says that one should spend more money on an עולה because it goes completely לגבוה. The גמרא says that בית הלל disagrees because אדרבה, the שלמים has two אכילות. See the טורי אבן who understands that ב"ה isnt suggesting that it makes שלמים better, just that it makes it equal. There is a fascinating piece by רב יוסף ענגל in בית האוצר מערכה ב כלל ב and in מערכה א' כלל כ"ז who understands the מחלוקת בית שמאי ובית הלל here is לשיטתם in all of ש"ס. He brings the אריז"ל who says that ב"ש is מצד הדין and ב"ה is מצד החסד which is why ב"ש are generally more מחמיר than ב"ה. This also applies to the מחלוקתים in ש"ס between רבי אלעזר ורבי יהושע since ר"א was a תלמיד of ב"ש and ר"י was a תלמיד of ב"ה. As such, ב"ש holds by the קרבן חגיגה that something that is totally לגבוה and spiritual is the better קרבן, whereas ב"ה holds that something that involves עולם הזה as well is the better קרבן. Another incredible example is where ר"א ור"י argue about when the world was created. רבי אלעזר says the world was created in תשרי and ר' יהושע says in ניסן. See תוספות in ר"ה דף כ"ז ד"ה כמאן who quotes ר"ת who said that they are both correct: ר"א was talking about when the world was עולה במחשבה and ר' יהושע was talking about when it was created in מעשה. This works well with the known מדרש that the world was עלה במחשבה to be created with דין but in reality was created with חסד. Therefore, ר"א who is מצד הדין focused on when the world was עלה במחשבה and ר' יהושע focused on when it actually was created in ניסן. He has numerous other examples but one that occurred to me was the מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה on ברכות דף נ"א where ב"ש says that when making קידוש you make the ברכה of קידוש היום first and then על הגפן on the wine since the קדושת היום causes the wine to be drunk, whereas ב"ה says you make the ברכה on the wine first since the wine cause the קידוש היום to be said. It seems there again that ב"ש is focused on the spiritual and ב"ה emphasizes our actions in עולם הזה.
3. The גמרא says that ר' ישמעאל holds that the כללות of the תרי"ג מצוות were given at הר סיני but not the פּרטות, whereas רבי עקיבא holds both the כללות and פּרטות were given at הר סיני and were just repeated at אוהל מועד and ערבות מואב. The גמרא proves from this that ר' ישמעאל must have held the עולה brought at הר סיני was not the קרבן תמיד since it can’t be that the קרבן תמיד was first brought wihtout הפשט וניתוח and only got it later. See תוספות in ד"ה מי איכא who asks why that wouldn’t also be an issue if it was an עולת ראיה? He answers that since הפשט וניתוח is written explicitly by the פּסוק of the קרבן תמיד, it is only an issue for קרבן תמיד. The answer of תוספות is not so clear. There is a yesdosdik חזון איש in או"ח סימן קכ"ה who explains that even ר' ישמעאל agrees that some מצוות had their details given over at הר סיני (like שמיטה and משפּטים), just not all. If we see a mitzvah’s details being spoken about at אוהל מועד and not before, then we know only it’s כללים were given at הר סיני. Therefore, since הפשט וניתוח is discussed explicitly by אוהל מועד, we know it’s details were not given to כלל ישראל at סיני. The תהילה ליונה suggests that this is what תוספות meant! In other words, תוספות was saying that since הפשט וניתוח was explicit in the פּסוק by אוהל מועד we know it couldn’t have been given earlier at סיני, as opposed to the עולת ראייה where הפשט וניתוח wasn’t discussed at אוהל מועד, it is possible it’s details were given at סיני.
Meforshim Overview - Rav Azriel Katz
Shakla Vetarya - Rav Yaakov Blumenfeld
Points to Ponder - Rav Yechiel Grunhaus
Halacha Marei Mekomos Dappim 6 & 7 - Rav Asher Millman