Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 18, 2019 | 讟状讜 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 2

What are the similarities and differences between one who makes a vow to give the monetary value of a person to the Beit Hamikdash and one who says “the value of this person is upon me”? Which types of people are included in the category of those whose neder or arakhin work or the value of whom can be vowed in each way? The gemara goes through all the places in the mishna where the terms “hakol” appears and explans in each case what case that word comes to include.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜谞注专讻讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜谞讬讚专讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐

MISHNA: Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3鈥7) for the age and sex of the person valuated. And similarly, everyone is valuated, and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay. Likewise, everyone vows to donate to the Temple treasury the assessment of a person, based on his market value to be sold as a slave, and is thereby obligated to pay; and everyone is the object of a vow if others vowed to donate his assessment. This includes priests, Levites and Israelites, women, and Canaanite slaves.

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜谞讬讚专讬谉 讜诪注专讬讻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞注专讻讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 谞注专讱 讗诇讗 讛讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 讜谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转

A tumtum, whose sexual organs are concealed, and a hermaphrodite [androginos], vow, and are the object of a vow, and take vows of valuation, but they are not valuated. Consequently, if one says, with regard to a tumtum: The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me to donate to the Temple treasury, he is not obligated to pay anything, as only a definite male or a definite female are valuated.

讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 谞讬讚专讬谉 讜谞注专讻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜诇讗 诪注专讬讻讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讚注转

A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are the object of a vow and are valuated, but neither vow to donate the assessment of a person nor take a vow of valuation, because they lack the presumed mental competence to make a commitment.

讙诪壮 讛讻诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讜驻诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna鈥檚 statement: Everyone [hakol] takes vows of valuation? When a principle is stated in a mishna, it serves to include a particular case that it does not mention explicitly in its halakha. Which case is included by the broad statement here? The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches it to add a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood [mufla samukh le鈥檌sh], i.e., during the year before a minor reaches majority.

谞注专讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉

The Gemara similarly asks: What is added by the statement: And everyone is valuated? The Gemara answers: The mishna serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils, who have no market value.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻转讬讘 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉

The Gemara explains why this addition is necessary: It might enter your mind to say that as it is written in the verse: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), which juxtaposes one who is valuated to one who is the object of a vow, anyone who is included in the category of assessments, i.e., if he vows to pay his assessment he must pay it to the Temple, is also included in the category of valuations. But anyone who is not included in the category of assessments is not included in the category of valuations. Since these people, a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils, are not subject to assessment, as they have no market value, perhaps they are also not subject to valuation.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞驻砖转 讻诇 讚讛讜

Therefore, the mishna teaches us that these too are subject to valuation, as the same verse also states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 indicating anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.

谞讜讚专讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讚专讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the mishna鈥檚 statement: Everyone vows to donate the assessment of a person? The Gemara answers: Actually, this statement is not necessary, but it is mentioned because the continuation: And everyone is the object of a vow, was necessary.

谞讬讚专讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara inquires: What, then, is added by the clause: And everyone is the object of a vow? If one were to suggest that this serves to add a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, that cannot be correct, as they are explicitly taught in the mishna itself. And if one were to suggest that it serves to add a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, they too are explicitly taught in the mishna.

讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞讻专讬 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讜转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

And if you say that this clause serves to add the halakha that a child who is less than a month old, who is not subject to valuation, is nevertheless subject to assessment, this too is explicitly taught in a mishna (5a). And if one were to say that it serves to add a gentile, that is also explicitly taught in a mishna (5b). The Gemara answers: Actually, the phrase: And everyone is the object of a vow, is mentioned in the mishna in order to add a child who is less than a month old, and the mishna teaches this halakha in general terms and then explains it in detail later.

讛讻诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讜专砖 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara inquires about similar general expressions that appear in other mishnayot. What is added by the mishna (Mena岣t 93a): Everyone who brings an offering places hands on the head of the animal? The Gemara answers: This clause serves to add that an heir places hands on the offering of the deceased, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that an heir does not place his hands on an offering he inherited.

讛讻诇 诪诪讬专讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讜专砖 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the mishna (Temura 2a): Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal? The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna serves to add that an heir substitutes a non-sacred animal for his father鈥檚 consecrated animal, i.e., the non-sacred animal also becomes sanctified. And this mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he maintains that an heir cannot substitute a non-sacred animal for the consecrated animal he inherited.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

The Gemara cites the source for these two opinions of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: An heir places hands on his father鈥檚 offering, and an heir can effect substitution for an offering inherited from his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands and an heir cannot effect substitution.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讬诇讬祝 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讗祝 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? With regard to placing of hands, he expounds the term: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), as teaching that one places his hands only on his own offering, but not on his father鈥檚 offering. And with regard to the ruling that an heir cannot effect substitution, Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha of the initial stage of consecration, i.e., substitution, in which a previously non-sacred animal is consecrated, from the final stage of consecration, the act of placing hands, which is performed upon an already-consecrated animal immediately before it is slaughtered: Just as with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place hands, so too, with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.

讜专讘谞谉 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 讗祝 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱

And from where do the Rabbis derive their opinion? The verse states: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of hamer yamir serving to include the heir as one capable of effecting substitution. And the Rabbis derive the final stage of consecration, i.e., the placing of hands, from the initial stage of consecration, i.e., substitution: Just as with regard to the initial stage of consecration an heir can effect substitution, so too, with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir can place hands.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讘谞讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讙讜讬 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讞讘讬专讜 拽专讘谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘专讬谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: 鈥淗is offering,鈥 from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that an heir does not place his hands? The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term, which appears three times (Leviticus 3:2, 7, 12). One instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on the offering of a gentile. Another instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on the offering of another person. The third instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘专讬谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one of the mentions serves to include all owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands. Rather, one of the owners places his hands on the offering on behalf of the entire group. Consequently, he is left with one spare mention of 鈥渉is offering,鈥 from which he derives that an heir does not place his hands. The Gemara adds: Alternatively, one can say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering,

讙讜讬 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讞讚 拽专讗 谞驻拽讬 讗讬讬转专讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 讞讚 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘专讬谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

but he maintains that the exclusion of a gentile and the exclusion of the offering of another person from the requirement of placing hands are derived from the same one mention of 鈥渉is offering鈥 in the verse. This leaves two mentions of 鈥渉is offering鈥 for Rabbi Yehuda. One he expounds to teach that he places hands on 鈥渉is offering,鈥 but not on his father鈥檚 offering that he inherited, and the other mention remains to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讛注谞讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讝讻专 诪讛 住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讛诪专 讬诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir]鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it to include a woman among those who can effect substitution. As it is taught in a baraita: Since the entire matter of substitution is stated in the Torah only in the masculine form, what is the reason that we ultimately come to include a woman? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he shall substitute [hamer yamir],鈥 using a doubled form.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讜讗诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they learn that a woman can perform substitution? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the extra 鈥渁nd鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淎nd if he shall substitute鈥 (Leviticus 27:10). But Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the extra 鈥渁nd鈥 in the term 鈥渁nd if鈥 at all.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜 讚转谞谉 拽讟谉 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讘住讜讻讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the following baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor who does not need his mother when he awakes in the middle of the night. As we learned in a mishna (Sukka 28a): A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诇讜诇讘 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇谞注谞注 讚转谞谉 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇谞注谞注 讞讬讬讘 讘诇讜诇讘

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the ruling of the following baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of lulav? The Gemara answers: This clause serves to add a minor who knows how to wave the lulav. As we learned in a mishna (Sukka 42a): A minor who knows how to wave the lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulav.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇讛转注讟祝 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇讛转注讟祝 讞讬讬讘 讘爪讬爪讬转

The Gemara continues to ask similar questions: What is added by the statement of a baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes? The Gemara explains that this serves to add a minor who knows how to wrap himself in a garment. As it is taught in a baraita: A minor who knows how to wrap himself in a garment is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇砖诪讜专 转驻诇讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇砖诪讜专 转驻诇讬谉 讗讘讬讜 诇讜拽讞 诇讜 转驻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of a baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries? The Gemara answers that it serves to add a minor who knows how to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries by maintaining a state of bodily cleanliness. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a minor who knows how to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries in a state of cleanliness, his father purchases phylacteries for him.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘专讗讬讬讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

搂 The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the statement of the mishna (岣giga 2a): Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to appear in the Temple and to sacrifice an offering on the three pilgrimage Festivals. The Gemara answers: The mishna serves to add one who is a half-slave half-freeman, e.g., a Canaanite slave who was owned jointly, and only one of his owners freed him.

讜诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讬讙专 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜谞转驻砖讟 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬

The Gemara explains: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said: One who is half-slave half-freeman is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple, that clause serves to add one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was unable to travel, and was therefore exempt at the time, but who was healed on the second day of the Festival. This man is obligated to appear in the Temple before the end of the Festival.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that all seven days of a Festival rectify one another, i.e., the obligation to appear applies equally to all days of the Festival, not just the first. Consequently, one who was exempt on the first day is nevertheless obligated on the second day. But according to the one who says that the main obligation is on the first day and that all the remaining days merely rectify the first day, a person who was lame on the first day of the Festival remains exempt throughout the rest of the Festival. If so, what does the statement of the mishna in 岣giga 2a serve to add?

诇讗讬转讜讬讬 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 讜讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗

The Gemara answers: It serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes, and teaches that he is obligated to appear in the Temple, whereas one who is entirely blind is exempt. The Gemara notes: And this ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Yehuda.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讚讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬专讗讛 讬专讗讛 讻讚专讱 砖讘讗 诇专讗讜转 讻讱 讘讗 诇讬专讗讜转 诪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜 讗祝 诇讬专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Yo岣nan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree times in the year all your males shall appear [yera鈥檈h] before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh, meaning: Shall see, instead of yera鈥檈h, meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one鈥檚 eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes. This is one possible explanation for what is added by the general statement of the mishna in 岣giga 2a, according to Ravina.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讗谉 讘诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, that statement serves to include one who is half-slave and half-freeman. And with regard to what was difficult for you according to the opinion of Ravina, that he exempts such a person from the obligation of appearance, it is not difficult: Here the ruling is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna, whereas there it is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

As we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 88a): One who is half-slave and half-freeman serves his master one day, as he is half a slave, and works for himself one day, since he is half free. This is the statement of Beit Hillel.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讬拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转讬拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛

Beit Shammai said to them: You have thereby remedied the situation of his master, who fully derives benefit from all his rights to the slave, but you have not remedied his own situation. How so? He cannot marry a maidservant, as half of him is free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also unable to marry a free woman, as half of him is still a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle, i.e., refrain from marrying, but isn鈥檛 it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: 鈥淔or so said the Lord that created the heavens鈥ho formed the earth and made it, He established it. He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18)?

讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 砖讟专 注诇 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

Rather, for the betterment of the world, i.e., so that the slave will be able to engage in procreation, the court forces his master to make him a freeman by emancipating the half that he owns. And the slave writes a bill to his master accepting responsibility to pay half his value to him over time, as currently he has no property with which to redeem himself. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be emancipated. The ruling of the mishna that a half-slave must appear in the Temple is in accordance with this opinion, which holds that the master must free him. Ravina鈥檚 statement that he is not obligated to appear in the Temple is in accordance with the initial mishna, according to which Beit Hillel held that the master is not forced to free the half-slave.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 诪诇转拽讜注 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the baraita: Everyone is obligated to sound the shofar? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor who reached the age of training in mitzvot. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 32b): One need not prevent minors from sounding the shofar on the festival of Rosh HaShana, despite the fact that they are not obligated in mitzvot.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to the ruling of the baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of reading the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, and the statement of the mishna (Megilla 19b): Everyone is fit to read the Megilla, these serve to add

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 2

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 讜谞注专讻讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜谞讬讚专讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 讜讬砖专讗诇讬诐 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐

MISHNA: Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3鈥7) for the age and sex of the person valuated. And similarly, everyone is valuated, and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay. Likewise, everyone vows to donate to the Temple treasury the assessment of a person, based on his market value to be sold as a slave, and is thereby obligated to pay; and everyone is the object of a vow if others vowed to donate his assessment. This includes priests, Levites and Israelites, women, and Canaanite slaves.

讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜谞讬讚专讬谉 讜诪注专讬讻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞注专讻讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 谞注专讱 讗诇讗 讛讝讻专 讜讚讗讬 讜谞拽讘讛 讜讚讗讬转

A tumtum, whose sexual organs are concealed, and a hermaphrodite [androginos], vow, and are the object of a vow, and take vows of valuation, but they are not valuated. Consequently, if one says, with regard to a tumtum: The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me to donate to the Temple treasury, he is not obligated to pay anything, as only a definite male or a definite female are valuated.

讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 谞讬讚专讬谉 讜谞注专讻讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞讜讚专讬谉 讜诇讗 诪注专讬讻讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讚注转

A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor are the object of a vow and are valuated, but neither vow to donate the assessment of a person nor take a vow of valuation, because they lack the presumed mental competence to make a commitment.

讙诪壮 讛讻诇 诪注专讬讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讜驻诇讗 住诪讜讱 诇讗讬砖

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna鈥檚 statement: Everyone [hakol] takes vows of valuation? When a principle is stated in a mishna, it serves to include a particular case that it does not mention explicitly in its halakha. Which case is included by the broad statement here? The Gemara answers: The mishna teaches it to add a discriminating minor on the brink of adulthood [mufla samukh le鈥檌sh], i.e., during the year before a minor reaches majority.

谞注专讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉

The Gemara similarly asks: What is added by the statement: And everyone is valuated? The Gemara answers: The mishna serves to add a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils, who have no market value.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讚专 讘注专讻讱 讻转讬讘 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讬砖谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讘注专讻讬谉

The Gemara explains why this addition is necessary: It might enter your mind to say that as it is written in the verse: 鈥淎 vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:2), which juxtaposes one who is valuated to one who is the object of a vow, anyone who is included in the category of assessments, i.e., if he vows to pay his assessment he must pay it to the Temple, is also included in the category of valuations. But anyone who is not included in the category of assessments is not included in the category of valuations. Since these people, a repulsive man and one afflicted with boils, are not subject to assessment, as they have no market value, perhaps they are also not subject to valuation.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞驻砖转 讻诇 讚讛讜

Therefore, the mishna teaches us that these too are subject to valuation, as the same verse also states: 鈥淧ersons [nefashot],鈥 indicating anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.

谞讜讚专讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 谞讬讚专讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the mishna鈥檚 statement: Everyone vows to donate the assessment of a person? The Gemara answers: Actually, this statement is not necessary, but it is mentioned because the continuation: And everyone is the object of a vow, was necessary.

谞讬讚专讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜

The Gemara inquires: What, then, is added by the clause: And everyone is the object of a vow? If one were to suggest that this serves to add a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, that cannot be correct, as they are explicitly taught in the mishna itself. And if one were to suggest that it serves to add a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, they too are explicitly taught in the mishna.

讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 讜讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 谞讻专讬 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 诇讛讜 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗转讜讬讬 驻讞讜转 诪讘谉 讞讜讚砖 讜转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

And if you say that this clause serves to add the halakha that a child who is less than a month old, who is not subject to valuation, is nevertheless subject to assessment, this too is explicitly taught in a mishna (5a). And if one were to say that it serves to add a gentile, that is also explicitly taught in a mishna (5b). The Gemara answers: Actually, the phrase: And everyone is the object of a vow, is mentioned in the mishna in order to add a child who is less than a month old, and the mishna teaches this halakha in general terms and then explains it in detail later.

讛讻诇 住讜诪讻讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讜专砖 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The Gemara inquires about similar general expressions that appear in other mishnayot. What is added by the mishna (Mena岣t 93a): Everyone who brings an offering places hands on the head of the animal? The Gemara answers: This clause serves to add that an heir places hands on the offering of the deceased, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that an heir does not place his hands on an offering he inherited.

讛讻诇 诪诪讬专讬谉 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讬讜专砖 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of the mishna (Temura 2a): Everyone substitutes a non-sacred animal for a consecrated animal? The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna serves to add that an heir substitutes a non-sacred animal for his father鈥檚 consecrated animal, i.e., the non-sacred animal also becomes sanctified. And this mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as he maintains that an heir cannot substitute a non-sacred animal for the consecrated animal he inherited.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

The Gemara cites the source for these two opinions of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: An heir places hands on his father鈥檚 offering, and an heir can effect substitution for an offering inherited from his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands and an heir cannot effect substitution.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讬诇讬祝 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 住讜诪讱 讗祝 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? With regard to placing of hands, he expounds the term: 鈥淗is offering鈥 (Leviticus 3:2), as teaching that one places his hands only on his own offering, but not on his father鈥檚 offering. And with regard to the ruling that an heir cannot effect substitution, Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha of the initial stage of consecration, i.e., substitution, in which a previously non-sacred animal is consecrated, from the final stage of consecration, the act of placing hands, which is performed upon an already-consecrated animal immediately before it is slaughtered: Just as with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place hands, so too, with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.

讜专讘谞谉 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜专砖 讜讬诇驻讬谞谉 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 诪转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 诪讛 转讞诇转 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 诪讬诪专 讗祝 住讜祝 讛拽讚砖 讬讜专砖 住讜诪讱

And from where do the Rabbis derive their opinion? The verse states: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of hamer yamir serving to include the heir as one capable of effecting substitution. And the Rabbis derive the final stage of consecration, i.e., the placing of hands, from the initial stage of consecration, i.e., substitution: Just as with regard to the initial stage of consecration an heir can effect substitution, so too, with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir can place hands.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 拽专讘谞讜 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讙讜讬 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讞讘讬专讜 拽专讘谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘专讬谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: 鈥淗is offering,鈥 from which Rabbi Yehuda derives that an heir does not place his hands? The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term, which appears three times (Leviticus 3:2, 7, 12). One instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on the offering of a gentile. Another instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 teaches that one places hands only on one鈥檚 own offering, but not on the offering of another person. The third instance of 鈥渉is offering鈥 serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘专讬谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this claim? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one of the mentions serves to include all owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands. Rather, one of the owners places his hands on the offering on behalf of the entire group. Consequently, he is left with one spare mention of 鈥渉is offering,鈥 from which he derives that an heir does not place his hands. The Gemara adds: Alternatively, one can say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering,

讙讜讬 讜讞讘讬专讜 诪讞讚 拽专讗 谞驻拽讬 讗讬讬转专讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 讞讚 拽专讘谞讜 讜诇讗 拽专讘谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬讚讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讘注诇讬 讞讜讘专讬谉 诇住诪讬讻讛

but he maintains that the exclusion of a gentile and the exclusion of the offering of another person from the requirement of placing hands are derived from the same one mention of 鈥渉is offering鈥 in the verse. This leaves two mentions of 鈥渉is offering鈥 for Rabbi Yehuda. One he expounds to teach that he places hands on 鈥渉is offering,鈥 but not on his father鈥檚 offering that he inherited, and the other mention remains to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讛诪专 讬诪讬专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇驻讬 砖讻诇 讛注谞讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讝讻专 诪讛 住讜驻讬谞讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讛诪专 讬诪讬专

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: 鈥淚f he shall substitute [hamer yamir]鈥? The Gemara answers: He requires it to include a woman among those who can effect substitution. As it is taught in a baraita: Since the entire matter of substitution is stated in the Torah only in the masculine form, what is the reason that we ultimately come to include a woman? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if he shall substitute [hamer yamir],鈥 using a doubled form.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讜讗诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讚专讬砖

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they learn that a woman can perform substitution? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the extra 鈥渁nd鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淎nd if he shall substitute鈥 (Leviticus 27:10). But Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the extra 鈥渁nd鈥 in the term 鈥渁nd if鈥 at all.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘住讜讻讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜 讚转谞谉 拽讟谉 砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讗诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讘住讜讻讛

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the following baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor who does not need his mother when he awakes in the middle of the night. As we learned in a mishna (Sukka 28a): A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诇讜诇讘 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇谞注谞注 讚转谞谉 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇谞注谞注 讞讬讬讘 讘诇讜诇讘

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the ruling of the following baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of lulav? The Gemara answers: This clause serves to add a minor who knows how to wave the lulav. As we learned in a mishna (Sukka 42a): A minor who knows how to wave the lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulav.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘爪讬爪讬转 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇讛转注讟祝 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇讛转注讟祝 讞讬讬讘 讘爪讬爪讬转

The Gemara continues to ask similar questions: What is added by the statement of a baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes? The Gemara explains that this serves to add a minor who knows how to wrap himself in a garment. As it is taught in a baraita: A minor who knows how to wrap himself in a garment is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转驻讬诇讬谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇砖诪讜专 转驻诇讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 拽讟谉 讛讬讜讚注 诇砖诪讜专 转驻诇讬谉 讗讘讬讜 诇讜拽讞 诇讜 转驻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of a baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries? The Gemara answers that it serves to add a minor who knows how to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries by maintaining a state of bodily cleanliness. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a minor who knows how to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries in a state of cleanliness, his father purchases phylacteries for him.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘专讗讬讬讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

搂 The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the statement of the mishna (岣giga 2a): Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to appear in the Temple and to sacrifice an offering on the three pilgrimage Festivals. The Gemara answers: The mishna serves to add one who is a half-slave half-freeman, e.g., a Canaanite slave who was owned jointly, and only one of his owners freed him.

讜诇专讘讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讞讬讙专 讘讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜谞转驻砖讟 讘讬讜诐 砖谞讬

The Gemara explains: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said: One who is half-slave half-freeman is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple, that clause serves to add one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was unable to travel, and was therefore exempt at the time, but who was healed on the second day of the Festival. This man is obligated to appear in the Temple before the end of the Festival.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇专讗砖讜谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that all seven days of a Festival rectify one another, i.e., the obligation to appear applies equally to all days of the Festival, not just the first. Consequently, one who was exempt on the first day is nevertheless obligated on the second day. But according to the one who says that the main obligation is on the first day and that all the remaining days merely rectify the first day, a person who was lame on the first day of the Festival remains exempt throughout the rest of the Festival. If so, what does the statement of the mishna in 岣giga 2a serve to add?

诇讗讬转讜讬讬 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 讜讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗

The Gemara answers: It serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes, and teaches that he is obligated to appear in the Temple, whereas one who is entirely blind is exempt. The Gemara notes: And this ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, Rabbi Yehuda.

讚转谞讬讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讚讛讘讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讜诪讗 讘讗讞转 诪注讬谞讬讜 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬专讗讛 讬专讗讛 讻讚专讱 砖讘讗 诇专讗讜转 讻讱 讘讗 诇讬专讗讜转 诪讛 诇专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜 讗祝 诇讬专讗讜转 讘砖转讬 注讬谞讬讜

As it is taught in a baraita that Yo岣nan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree times in the year all your males shall appear [yera鈥檈h] before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh, meaning: Shall see, instead of yera鈥檈h, meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one鈥檚 eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes. This is one possible explanation for what is added by the general statement of the mishna in 岣giga 2a, according to Ravina.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讗谉 讘诪砖谞讛 讗讞专讜谞讛

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, that statement serves to include one who is half-slave and half-freeman. And with regard to what was difficult for you according to the opinion of Ravina, that he exempts such a person from the obligation of appearance, it is not difficult: Here the ruling is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna, whereas there it is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

As we learned in a mishna (Pesa岣m 88a): One who is half-slave and half-freeman serves his master one day, as he is half a slave, and works for himself one day, since he is half free. This is the statement of Beit Hillel.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 转讬拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转讬拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛

Beit Shammai said to them: You have thereby remedied the situation of his master, who fully derives benefit from all his rights to the slave, but you have not remedied his own situation. How so? He cannot marry a maidservant, as half of him is free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also unable to marry a free woman, as half of him is still a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle, i.e., refrain from marrying, but isn鈥檛 it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: 鈥淔or so said the Lord that created the heavens鈥ho formed the earth and made it, He established it. He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18)?

讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 砖讟专 注诇 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬

Rather, for the betterment of the world, i.e., so that the slave will be able to engage in procreation, the court forces his master to make him a freeman by emancipating the half that he owns. And the slave writes a bill to his master accepting responsibility to pay half his value to him over time, as currently he has no property with which to redeem himself. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be emancipated. The ruling of the mishna that a half-slave must appear in the Temple is in accordance with this opinion, which holds that the master must free him. Ravina鈥檚 statement that he is not obligated to appear in the Temple is in accordance with the initial mishna, according to which Beit Hillel held that the master is not forced to free the half-slave.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘转拽讬注转 砖讜驻专 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 诪诇转拽讜注 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

搂 The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the baraita: Everyone is obligated to sound the shofar? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor who reached the age of training in mitzvot. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 32b): One need not prevent minors from sounding the shofar on the festival of Rosh HaShana, despite the fact that they are not obligated in mitzvot.

讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to the ruling of the baraita: Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of reading the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, and the statement of the mishna (Megilla 19b): Everyone is fit to read the Megilla, these serve to add

Scroll To Top