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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Arakhin 2
מַתְנִי׳ הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין, וְנֶעֱרָכִין, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין — כֹּהֲנִים, לֹוִים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים.
MISHNA: Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3–7) 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.
טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין וּמַעֲרִיכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָכִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶעֱרָךְ אֶלָּא הַזָּכָר וַדַּאי וּנְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית.
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.
חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן נִידָּרִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נוֹדְרִין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ ״הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מוּפְלָא סָמוּךְ לְאִישׁ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna’s 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’ish], i.e., during the year before a minor reaches majority.
״נֶעֱרָכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.
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.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ כְּתִיב, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּדָמִים — יֶשְׁנוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדָמִים — אֵינוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין.
The Gemara explains why this addition is necessary: It might enter your mind to say that as it is written in the verse: “A vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (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.
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״נְפָשֹׁת״, כָּל דְּהוּ.
Therefore, the mishna teaches us that these too are subject to valuation, as the same verse also states: “Persons [nefashot],” indicating anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.
״נוֹדְרִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? נִידָּרִין אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara further asks: What is added by the mishna’s 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.
״נִידָּרִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! וְאִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן — בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ!
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.
אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! וְאִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי נָכְרִי, בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! לְעוֹלָם לְאֵתוֹיֵי פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, וְתָנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.
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.
״הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ The Gemara inquires about similar general expressions that appear in other mishnayot. What is added by the mishna (Menaḥot 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.
״הַכֹּל מְמִירִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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’s 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.
דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר.
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’s 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן אָבִיו, וְיָלֵיף תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִסּוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ — מָה סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, אַף תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? With regard to placing of hands, he expounds the term: “His offering” (Leviticus 3:2), as teaching that one places his hands only on his own offering, but not on his father’s 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.
וְרַבָּנַן, הָמֵר יָמִיר — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ, וְיָלְפִינַן סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ: מָה תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימֵר, אַף סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ.
And from where do the Rabbis derive their opinion? The verse states: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (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.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן גּוֹי, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן חֲבֵירוֹ, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה.
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: “His offering,” 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 “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on the offering of a gentile. Another instance of “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on the offering of another person. The third instance of “his offering” 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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה לֵית לֵיהּ, וְאִי נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ,
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 “his offering,” 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,
גּוֹי וַחֲבֵירוֹ מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי, אִיַּיתַּרִי לְהוּ תְּרֵי: חַד ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן אָבִיו, וְאִידָּךְ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה.
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 “his offering” in the verse. This leaves two mentions of “his offering” for Rabbi Yehuda. One he expounds to teach that he places hands on “his offering,” but not on his father’s 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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״הָמֵר יָמִיר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה, דְּתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל הָעִנְיָן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹן זָכָר, מַה סּוֹפֵינוּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir]”? 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: “And if he shall substitute [hamer yamir],” using a doubled form.
וְרַבָּנַן? מִ״וְּאִם״, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״וְאִם״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
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 “and” in the phrase: “And if he shall substitute” (Leviticus 27:10). But Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the extra “and” in the term “and if” at all.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּסוּכָּה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ חַיָּיב בְּסוּכָּה.
§ 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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּלוּלָב״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ חַיָּיב בְּלוּלָב.
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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְעַטֵּף, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְעַטֵּף — חַיָּיב בְּצִיצִית.
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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְפִילִּין״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִלִּין, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִלִּין — אָבִיו לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ תְּפִלִּין.
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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּרְאִיָּיה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין.
§ The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Ḥagiga 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.
וּלְרָבִינָא דְּאָמַר: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חִיגֵּר בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְפַּשֵּׁט בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי.
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.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּן תַּשְׁלוּמִין זֶה לָזֶה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּן תַּשְׁלוּמִין לָרִאשׁוֹן — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?
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 Ḥagiga 2a serve to add?
לְאֵיתוֹיֵי סוּמָא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו, וּדְלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא, יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: סוּמָא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִרְאֶה״ ״יֵרָאֶה״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבָּא לִרְאוֹת כָּךְ בָּא לֵירָאוֹת, מַה לִּרְאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו — אַף לֵירָאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו.
As it is taught in a baraita that Yoḥanan 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: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear [yera’eh] before the Lord God” (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’eh, 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’s 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 Ḥagiga 2a, according to Ravina.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ דְּרָבִינָא — לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן בְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.
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.
דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
As we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 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.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: תִּיקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִּיקַּנְתֶּם? לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, יִבָּטֵל? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״!
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’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “For so said the Lord that created the heavens…Who formed the earth and made it, He established it. He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)?
אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָּמָיו, וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי.
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’s 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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִינּוּךְ, דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּטָן מִלִּתְקוֹעַ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
§ 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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה״, ״הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי
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
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menahot 32: Elijah the Prophet and the Halitzah Shoe
February 12, 2026 | כ״ה בשבט תשפ״ו
Gittin 72: If He Dies before He Wakes, There’s a Get for Her to Take (not really)
July 27, 2023 | ט׳ באב תשפ״ג
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
Arakhin 2
מַתְנִי׳ הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין, וְנֶעֱרָכִין, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין — כֹּהֲנִים, לֹוִים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים.
MISHNA: Everyone takes vows of valuation and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3–7) 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.
טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, נוֹדְרִין וְנִידָּרִין וּמַעֲרִיכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נֶעֱרָכִין, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶעֱרָךְ אֶלָּא הַזָּכָר וַדַּאי וּנְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית.
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.
חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן נִידָּרִין וְנֶעֱרָכִין, אֲבָל לֹא נוֹדְרִין וְלֹא מַעֲרִיכִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ ״הַכֹּל מַעֲרִיכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מוּפְלָא סָמוּךְ לְאִישׁ.
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna’s 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’ish], i.e., during the year before a minor reaches majority.
״נֶעֱרָכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי מְנוָּּול וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.
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.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״נֶדֶר בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ כְּתִיב, כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּדָמִים — יֶשְׁנוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדָמִים — אֵינוֹ בַּעֲרָכִין.
The Gemara explains why this addition is necessary: It might enter your mind to say that as it is written in the verse: “A vow of persons to the Lord, according to your valuation” (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.
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״נְפָשֹׁת״, כָּל דְּהוּ.
Therefore, the mishna teaches us that these too are subject to valuation, as the same verse also states: “Persons [nefashot],” indicating anyone who has any amount of life [nefesh] is subject to valuation.
״נוֹדְרִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? נִידָּרִין אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara further asks: What is added by the mishna’s 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.
״נִידָּרִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! וְאִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן — בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ!
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.
אִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! וְאִי לְאֵתוֹיֵי נָכְרִי, בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לְהוּ! לְעוֹלָם לְאֵתוֹיֵי פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ, וְתָנֵי וַהֲדַר מְפָרֵשׁ.
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.
״הַכֹּל סוֹמְכִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
§ The Gemara inquires about similar general expressions that appear in other mishnayot. What is added by the mishna (Menaḥot 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.
״הַכֹּל מְמִירִין״ — לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי יוֹרֵשׁ, וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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’s 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.
דְּתַנְיָא: יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר.
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’s 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן אָבִיו, וְיָלֵיף תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִסּוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ — מָה סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ, אַף תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵימֵר.
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? With regard to placing of hands, he expounds the term: “His offering” (Leviticus 3:2), as teaching that one places his hands only on his own offering, but not on his father’s 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.
וְרַבָּנַן, הָמֵר יָמִיר — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ, וְיָלְפִינַן סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִתְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ: מָה תְּחִלַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יוֹרֵשׁ מֵימֵר, אַף סוֹף הֶקְדֵּשׁ — יוֹרֵשׁ סוֹמֵךְ.
And from where do the Rabbis derive their opinion? The verse states: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (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.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן גּוֹי, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן חֲבֵירוֹ, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה.
The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: “His offering,” 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 “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on the offering of a gentile. Another instance of “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on the offering of another person. The third instance of “his offering” 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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה לֵית לֵיהּ, וְאִי נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ,
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 “his offering,” 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,
גּוֹי וַחֲבֵירוֹ מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי, אִיַּיתַּרִי לְהוּ תְּרֵי: חַד ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ וְלֹא קׇרְבַּן אָבִיו, וְאִידָּךְ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה.
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 “his offering” in the verse. This leaves two mentions of “his offering” for Rabbi Yehuda. One he expounds to teach that he places hands on “his offering,” but not on his father’s 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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״הָמֵר יָמִיר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה, דְּתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁכׇּל הָעִנְיָן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹן זָכָר, מַה סּוֹפֵינוּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir]”? 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: “And if he shall substitute [hamer yamir],” using a doubled form.
וְרַבָּנַן? מִ״וְּאִם״, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״וְאִם״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
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 “and” in the phrase: “And if he shall substitute” (Leviticus 27:10). But Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the extra “and” in the term “and if” at all.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּסוּכָּה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ חַיָּיב בְּסוּכָּה.
§ 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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּלוּלָב״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ חַיָּיב בְּלוּלָב.
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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְעַטֵּף, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְעַטֵּף — חַיָּיב בְּצִיצִית.
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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְפִילִּין״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִלִּין, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִלִּין — אָבִיו לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ תְּפִלִּין.
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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּרְאִיָּיה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין.
§ The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the statement of the mishna (Ḥagiga 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.
וּלְרָבִינָא דְּאָמַר: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חִיגֵּר בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְפַּשֵּׁט בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי.
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.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּן תַּשְׁלוּמִין זֶה לָזֶה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּן תַּשְׁלוּמִין לָרִאשׁוֹן — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?
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 Ḥagiga 2a serve to add?
לְאֵיתוֹיֵי סוּמָא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו, וּדְלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא, יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: סוּמָא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִרְאֶה״ ״יֵרָאֶה״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבָּא לִרְאוֹת כָּךְ בָּא לֵירָאוֹת, מַה לִּרְאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו — אַף לֵירָאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו.
As it is taught in a baraita that Yoḥanan 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: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear [yera’eh] before the Lord God” (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’eh, 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’s 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 Ḥagiga 2a, according to Ravina.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ דְּרָבִינָא — לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן בְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.
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.
דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
As we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 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.
אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: תִּיקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִּיקַּנְתֶּם? לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, יִבָּטֵל? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״!
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’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “For so said the Lord that created the heavens…Who formed the earth and made it, He established it. He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)?
אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָּמָיו, וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי.
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’s 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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִינּוּךְ, דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּטָן מִלִּתְקוֹעַ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
§ 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.
״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה״, ״הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי
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
Follow
