Resources for Chagigah daf 10
1. The גמרא says that one should not be פּורש מש"ס לש"ס. See רש"י who says it refers to going from ירושלמי to בבלי since בבלי is very deep and difficult to comprehend. However, see the תוספות רי"ד who says it refers to going from בבלי to ירושלמי since the בבלי explains more and this person wants to make things easier for himself by learning ירושלמי which explains less. See the מרומי שדה here who explains (similar to our תוספות) that one shouldn’t jump from בבלי to ירושלמי nor from ירושלמי to בבלי since they have two completely different דרכים, and if you jump from one before you have fully mastered the other, you will not get either one clear. The ספר מגדים חדשים asks an interesting historical question: ר' יוחנן is the one who said not to be פּורש מש"ס לש"ס. But ר' יוחנן himself wasn’t around for two ש"ס s?! While he is the one who complied the ירושלמי, the בבלי wasn’t complied until many years later in the time of רבינא ורב אשי, so which second ש"ס was ר' יוחנן referring to? He answers that there must have been an earlier form of בבלי that just wasn’t officially put together in it’s final form till the time of רבינא ורב אשי. There is also an opinion that ר' יוחנן lived till he was 400 years old.
2. The גמרא says that we would have thought that וחגותם means “חגא”. See רש"י who explains that חגא refers to having extra שמחה. However, תוספות in ד"ה חוגו חגא says it refers to actual dancing. There is an amazing העמק דבר in דברים ט"ז פּסוק ט"ו who says that the simple meaning of the word וחגותם refers to dancing. Therefore, although the גמרא’s מסקנא is that חגותם does not mean dancing, we still have the כלל of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פּשוטו. As such, הלכה למעשה, there is a מצוה on every יו"ט to engage in ריקודים! See also the פּרי צדיק in מאמרי סוכות אות י"ז who says a similar idea. See the כתב והקבלה who disagrees with this idea based on the following question: dancing is explicitly prohibited on יו"ט (it’s a משנה in ביצה), so how could we suggest that the תורה is מחייב us to dance on יו"ט?! After all, as the ט"ז notes in many places, the חכמים never forbade anything that the תורה expressly allowed.
3. The גמרא says that if an שליח is asked to be מועל by the בעל (where presumably both the שליח and בעל are שוגג) and the שליח performs his task, the בעל was מעל and not the שליח. The גמרא asks why this would be true since typically we say אין שליח לדבר עברה? See תוספות in קידושין דף מ"ב: ד"ה אמאי מעל who asks why wouldn’t the בעל be מועל in this case? After all the reason we normally say אין שליח לדבר עברה is because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין. However, by מעילה, one is by definition a שוגג (the דין מעילה is only בשוגג), so how can you argue that you didn’t expect him to listen to you if he was a שוגג?! He answers that it must be that the שליח was a מזיד and only the בעל was a שוגג. However, see the ריטב"א there who disagrees with that אוקימתא and says that דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין is just a general reason given as to why we say אין שליח לדבר עברה. However, it is a דין דאורייתא learned from דרשות and not limited by the סברא of אין שליח לדבר עברה. Moreover, if the שליח is a שוגג then it’s פּשוט there is no שליחות since it is a שליחות בטעות as we assume the שליח wouldn’t have sinned if he knew it was wrong. See the מאירי there in קידושין who says that the fact that one is חייב a קרבן מעילה shows that the תורה views this as somewhat of an עברה since the person should have been more careful. Therefore, דברי הרב דברי התלמיד still applies.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya