Today's Daf Yomi
February 19, 2022 | ืืดื ืืืืจ ืืณ ืชืฉืคืดื
-
This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Chagigah 10
Todayโs daf is sponsored by Rena Strauss in gratitude to Rabbanit Michelle Farber for enhancing my learning and in honor of completing Moed Katan.ย
One who switches from learning halakha to learning Torah or possibly also to learning Mishna or leaves the Talmud of Israel for the Talmud of Babylonia is considered a person who โhas no peaceโ based on a translation of a verse in Zecharia 8:10. The Mishna categorizes certain mitzvot into ones that have no basis in verses in the Torah (annulling vows), ones that have a loose basis (Shabbat, Chagigah, and me’ila) and ones that are firmly based in the Torah. First, the Gemara brings a braita that disagrees regarding annulments of vows. Several verses are brought to show the foundation in the Torah. Then Shmuel also brings a verse and Rava raises questions against all the tanaim’s verses but not against Shmuel. The Gemara then analyzes why Shabbat, Chagigah and me’ila all appear in the second category.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (ืืฃ-ืืืื-ืื ืฉืื): Play in new window | Download
ืืืื ืก ืืื ืืจืฆืื ืืืืืขืืช ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืก ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืืฉืช ืืื ืืื ืืืฉืช ืืฉืจืื
with a rape, in which case it is not prohibited for the woman to return to her husband. There, it is referring to a woman who had relations willfully, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. And if you wish, say that this and that are both dealing with a rape, and it is still not difficult. Here, where the transgression cannot be rectified, it is referring to one who raped the wife of a priest, as it is forbidden for a priest to have relations with his wife once she has intercourse with any other man, even unwillingly. There, it is referring to one who raped the wife of an Israelite, in which case there is no prohibition against her returning to her husband.
ืืืืืฆื ืืืื ืืื ืฉืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืฉืืืฆื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืงืจื ืฉืื ืืื ืื ืฉืืื
Since the Gemara mentioned a Torah scholar who abandons the study of Torah, it cites a relevant verse: โNeither was there any peace to him that went out or came in due to the adversaryโ (Zechariah 8:10). Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, i.e., Mishna and Gemara, even for the study of the Torah itself, he will no longer have peace. The verses of the Torah are often obscure and it is difficult to learn halakha directly from them without the aid of the interpretations of the Talmud.
ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืื ืืคืืจืฉ ืืชืืืื ืืืฉื ื ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืคืืื ืืชืืืื ืืชืืืื:
And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves the study of Talmud to learn Mishna. Whereas the reasoning of the Talmud is relatively clear, the Mishna cites legal rulings without explaining their reasoning. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: The verse applies even to one who leaves the study of one Talmud for the other Talmud, i.e., who leaves off his study of the Jerusalem Talmud to begin the Babylonian Talmud, as he will encounter difficulties with the new style of learning.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืชืจ ื ืืจืื ืคืืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื
MISHNA: Incidental to the Festival peace-offering, the mishna describes the nature of various areas of Torah study. The halakhot of the dissolution of vows, when one requests from a Sage to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition.
ืืืืืช ืฉืืช ืืืืืืช ืืืืขืืืืช ืืจื ืื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืื ืืฉืขืจื ืฉืื ืืงืจื ืืืขื ืืืืืืช ืืจืืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืืขืืืืืช ืืืืจืืช ืืืืืืืช ืืขืจืืืช ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืืื ืื ืืืคื ืชืืจื:
The halakhot of Shabbat, Festival peace-offerings, and misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. The details of monetary law, sacrificial rites, ritual purity and impurity, and the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden all have something to support them, i.e., there is ample basis in the Torah for these halakhot, and these are the essential parts of Torah.
ืืืณ ืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืื ืืคืืื ืื ืืคืืื ืฉืชื ืคืขืืื ืืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืกืืจ ืืืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืชืจ
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakhot of the dissolution of vows have something to support them, as it is stated: โWhen a man shall clearly utter a vowโ (Leviticus 27:2), and: โWhen either man or woman shall clearly utter a vowโ (Numbers 6:2), i.e., the words โclearly utterโ appear twice. One clear utterance is for prohibition, i.e., when one states his intention to accept the vow, and one clear utterance is for dissolution, when he provides the Sage with a reason why the vow should no longer apply. This is an allusion in the Torah to the annulment of vows.
ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืืฉืจ ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืคื ืืืคื ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืืจืชื ืื
Rabbi Yehoshua likewise says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: โWherefore I swore in My wrathโ (Psalms 95:11), meaning: In my wrath I swore, and I retracted. This is the basis for the dissolution of vows, in which the one who uttered the vow tells the Sage that he regrets it, as he did so in a moment of anger.
ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืื ื ืืื ืืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืงืืืื ืืฉืืืจ ืืฉืคืื ืฆืืงื
Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: โWhoever is of a willing heart, let him bring itโ (Exodus 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. แธคananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshuaโs brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: โI have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe your righteous ordinancesโ (Psalms 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืชื ืืืจื ืืื ืืืื ืขืืืคื ืืืืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืื ืืื ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืคืืจืื ืืืจ ืืืฉืืืื ืืืืช ืืื ืคืืจืื
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I had been there, sitting with those Sages, I would have said to them: My source is better than yours, as it is stated: โHe shall not nullify his wordโ (Numbers 30:3), from which it may be inferred: He himself cannot nullify his word; however, others, i.e., a Sage, may nullify it for him by dissolving his vow. Rava said: For all of the suggested sources for the dissolution of vows there is a possible refutation, except for that of Shmuel, for which there is no refutation.
ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืืจืคืื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืืจืคืื ืืขืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืจ ืฉืื ื ืืชื ื ื ืืืจืืช ืืื ืืืคืืื
Rava elaborates. As, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps the phrase: โClearly utterโ should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said an alternative interpretation in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two people who are arguing whether or not someone who passed before them is a nazirite, each of them declaring that if he is correct he himself will become a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Actually, neither of them is a nazirite, as naziriteship is effected only by means of a clear utterance and neither party is certain they will be a nazirite at the time of their utterance. He derives this halakha from this phrase: โClearly utter.โ
ืื ืืืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืืคื ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืื ืืืจื ื ืื ืื ืืืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืืื ืืืคืืงื ืืืฉืืืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืฆืื ืืฉืคืชืื ืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื ืืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืื ืืืฆืื ืืฉืคืชืื
Similarly, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, perhaps this is what the verse is saying: In my wrath I swore and I do not take it back, despite the fact that it was stated in a moment of anger. If it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, perhaps the phrase โa willing heartโ comes to exclude the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: If one decided in his heart but did not verbalize a vow, it is insufficient, as he must verbally express it. And therefore this phrase teaches us that even though he did not verbally express the vow he is still obligated to fulfill it.
ืื ืืืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืื ืืจื ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืื ืื ืฉื ืฉืืขืื ืืงืืื ืืช ืืืฆืื ืฉื ืืืจ ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืงืืืื ืืฉืืืจ ืืฉืคืื ืฆืืงื
Finally, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi แธคananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshuaโs brother, perhaps the phrase โand fulfilled itโ should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel, who said that Rav said a different interpretation of this verse. As Rav Giddel said that Rav said: From where is it derived that although one is already obligated to fulfill all mitzvot one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva, and this is not considered an oath taken in vain? As it is stated: โI have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe Your righteous ordinancesโ (Psalms 119:106).
ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืคืืจืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืชืืื ืจื ื ืืื ืืจ ืืฆืืง ืืืื ื ืืืืจื ืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืื ืคืืคืืชื ืืจืืคืชื ืืืื ืฆื ื ืืงืจื:
Rav concludes. However, for Shmuelโs source there is no refutation. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak who said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One spicy pepper is better than a basketful of squash, as the single pepper has more flavor than all the squash combined.
ืืืืืช ืฉืืช: ืืืืชื ืืชืืื ืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืจืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืื ืืืืคืจ ืืืื ืืฉืืช ืืืื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืขืคืจื ืคืืืจ ืขืืื
ยง The mishna stated that the halakhot of Shabbat are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But the halakhot of Shabbat are written, i.e., the prohibition against performing labor is explicit in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba. As Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat only because he needs its dirt and not for the hole itself is exempt from liability for that act, as this is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law.
ืืืื ืืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืฉืืื ื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืคื ืคืืืจ ืขืืื
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Abba issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who performs on Shabbat a labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of the action, is exempt from liability for it.
ืืคืืื ืชืืื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืชื ืืชืงื ืืื ืืงืืงื ืืื
The Gemara offers an alternative possibility. This ruling can be explained even if you say that Rabbi Abba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that one is liable for a labor that is not necessary for its own sake. There, in other cases, Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable because his purpose is creative. Here, where one is digging the hole for the dirt, the purpose is destructive, as the action damages the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that in this case he is exempt.
ืืื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
The Gemara returns to the mishna. What then does the mishna mean by the phrase: Like mountains suspended by a hair?
ืืืืืช ืืืฉืืช ืืกืจื ืชืืจื ืืืืืืช ืืืฉืืช ืื ืืชืืื:
The Gemara answers: The Torah prohibited only planned, creative labor on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. And limitation of the prohibition against creative labor is not written anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the halakhot of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืืืืช: ืืืืชื ืืชืืื ืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืื ืจื ืคืคื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืืชื ืืืชื ืื ืืืณ ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืจืืื ื
ยง The mishna taught that the halakhot of Festival peace-offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where is it derived that this verse: โAnd you shall celebrate it as a Festival [veแธฅagotem] to the Lordโ (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is simply saying: Celebrate a Festival.
ืืื ืืขืชื ืืืชืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืืื ื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืชืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืืชืื ืืืืืจ ืืฉื ืื ืืชื ืชืชื ืืืืื ื ืืืืื ืืขืืืืช
Abaye responded: However, if that is so, consider that it is written: โLet My people go, that they may hold a feast [veyaแธฅogu] to Me in the wildernessโ (Exodus 5:1). So too, the meaning of this verse is that they will merely celebrate a Festival, and not bring an offering. And if you would say that is indeed so, that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, but isnโt it written: โAnd Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our Godโ (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.
ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืืื ืืฉืชื ืืืืื ืืื ืงืืื ืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืชืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืขื ืืงืจ ืืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืืื ืืื ืชืจืื ืืืื ืืืช ืืื
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: Slaughter animals so that you can eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: โThe fat of My Festival feast [แธฅagi] shall not remain all night until the morningโ (Exodus 23:18). And if it enters your mind to say that it is referring to a regular Festival feast and not an offering, does a Festival feast have forbidden fats?
ืืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืืื
The Gemara asks: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states in the Torah: The fats of gift offerings that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. If so, the phrase โMy Festival feastโ is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.
ืืื ืืขืชื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืขื ืืืงืจ ืืชืื
The Gemara answers: However, if that is so, this verse indicates that it is only those fats that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. It may be inferred from here that fats which are brought throughout the year may remain all night. But it is written about burnt-offerings: โOn its firewood upon the altar all night into the morningโ (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.
ืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืฉื ืืชื ืจืืื ื ืืื ืืืื
The Gemara further asks: Perhaps if this halakha was derived from that verse, I would say that verse serves as the source of a positive mitzva. Therefore, the Merciful One writes this verse: โShall not remain all night,โ as a prohibition as well.
ืืืื ืืชื ืงืจื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ืชืืื ืืขืจื ืืืื ืืจืืฉืื ืืืงืจ ืืืืื ืืขืืืจ ืขืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืืื ืืขืฉื
The Gemara responds. With regard to the prohibition against leaving over an offering on a Festival, another verse was written: โNeither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morningโ (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse: โShall not remain all nightโ comes to teach that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.
ืืื ืืชืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืืชืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชืื ืืชื ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืชื ืื ืืืืืจ ืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืฃ ืืื ืืืืื
Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering comes from a verbal analogy between the term โwildernessโ stated here and the term: โwildernessโ stated elsewhere. It is written here: โThey shall make an offering to Me in the wildernessโ (Exodusย 5:1), and it is written there: โDid you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?โ (Amos 5:25). Just as there it is referring to actual animal offerings, so too here, it is referring to animal offerings, not merely the celebration of a Festival.
ืืืื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื ืืืจื ืชืืจื ืืืืจื ืงืืื ืื ืืืคืื ื:
The Gemara asks: And in light of this verbal analogy, in what way is this halakha like mountains suspended by a hair? The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new halakhot, as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a halakha derived from the Torah itself.
ืืขืืืืช: ืืืืชื ืืชืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืจ ืืื ืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืืชื ื ืืฉืืื ืฉืขืฉื ืฉืืืืืชื ืืขื ืืืืช ืืขื ืื ืขืฉื ืฉืืืืืชื ืฉืืื ืืขื
ยง The mishna taught that the details of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14โ16). Rami bar แธคama said: This statement is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Meโila 20a): With regard to an agent who performs his agency, e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, the homeowner has misused consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his agency, but in some way acted on his own account, the agent has misused consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.
ืืื ืขืฉื ืฉืืืืืชื ืืืื ืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืชืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
The Gemara explains: And when he performed his agency, why is the owner considered to have misused consecrated property? And is it possible that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? Since this halakha is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. This is what the mishna was referring to when it said that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ืงืืฉืื ืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืขืืื ืืืืคื ืืื ืืื ืืชืจืืื ืื ืืชื ืฉืืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืืืชื ืืฃ ืืื ืฉืืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืืืชื
Rava said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps the transgression of misuse of consecrated property is different, as it is derived through a verbal analogy from the parallel term โsinโ (Leviticus 5:6) and โsinโ (Numbers 18:9), from the case of teruma: Just as there, with regard to teruma, the legal status of a personโs agent is like that of himself, and therefore the agent may separate teruma on behalf of the owner of the produce, so too here, with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of a personโs agent is like that of himself, which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable.
ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืืชื ืื ื ืืืจ ืืขื ืืืืช ืืื ื ืืืจ ืฉืืื ืฉืืื ืืขื ืฉืืื ืขื ืื ืืื ืงื ืขืืื ืืืื ื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
Rather, Rava said: The mishnaโs statement with regard to mountains is necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, the homeowner remembered that it was a consecrated item and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, what did the poor agent do? He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. This is what the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืืื ืงืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืฆืื ืืขืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืืืืื
Rav Ashi said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps this is just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable.
ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืืชื ื ื ืื ืืื ืื ืงืืจื ืฉื ืืงืืฉ ืืจื ืื ืื ืืขื ื ืชื ื ืืืืืจื ืืื ืืขื ืืืืืจื ืื ืืขื ืืืื ืืืฉืงื ืฉืงืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืื ื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
Rather, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Meโila 19b): If one picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he gave it to another, he has misused consecrated property and the other person has not misused consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: Since he picked it up, what difference is there to me if he keeps it, and what difference is there to me if he gives it to another? What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, this is the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืื ืงืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืฉืืืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืื
The Gemara raises a difficulty. What is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself.
-
This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Chagigah 10
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ืืืื ืก ืืื ืืจืฆืื ืืืืืขืืช ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืก ืืื ืงืฉืื ืืื ืืืฉืช ืืื ืืื ืืืฉืช ืืฉืจืื
with a rape, in which case it is not prohibited for the woman to return to her husband. There, it is referring to a woman who had relations willfully, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. And if you wish, say that this and that are both dealing with a rape, and it is still not difficult. Here, where the transgression cannot be rectified, it is referring to one who raped the wife of a priest, as it is forbidden for a priest to have relations with his wife once she has intercourse with any other man, even unwillingly. There, it is referring to one who raped the wife of an Israelite, in which case there is no prohibition against her returning to her husband.
ืืืืืฆื ืืืื ืืื ืฉืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืฉืืืฆื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืงืจื ืฉืื ืืื ืื ืฉืืื
Since the Gemara mentioned a Torah scholar who abandons the study of Torah, it cites a relevant verse: โNeither was there any peace to him that went out or came in due to the adversaryโ (Zechariah 8:10). Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, i.e., Mishna and Gemara, even for the study of the Torah itself, he will no longer have peace. The verses of the Torah are often obscure and it is difficult to learn halakha directly from them without the aid of the interpretations of the Talmud.
ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืื ืืคืืจืฉ ืืชืืืื ืืืฉื ื ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืืืจ ืืคืืื ืืชืืืื ืืชืืืื:
And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves the study of Talmud to learn Mishna. Whereas the reasoning of the Talmud is relatively clear, the Mishna cites legal rulings without explaining their reasoning. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: The verse applies even to one who leaves the study of one Talmud for the other Talmud, i.e., who leaves off his study of the Jerusalem Talmud to begin the Babylonian Talmud, as he will encounter difficulties with the new style of learning.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืืชืจ ื ืืจืื ืคืืจืืื ืืืืืจ ืืืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื
MISHNA: Incidental to the Festival peace-offering, the mishna describes the nature of various areas of Torah study. The halakhot of the dissolution of vows, when one requests from a Sage to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition.
ืืืืืช ืฉืืช ืืืืืืช ืืืืขืืืืช ืืจื ืื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืื ืืฉืขืจื ืฉืื ืืงืจื ืืืขื ืืืืืืช ืืจืืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืืขืืืืืช ืืืืจืืช ืืืืืืืช ืืขืจืืืช ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืืื ืื ืืืคื ืชืืจื:
The halakhot of Shabbat, Festival peace-offerings, and misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. The details of monetary law, sacrificial rites, ritual purity and impurity, and the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden all have something to support them, i.e., there is ample basis in the Torah for these halakhot, and these are the essential parts of Torah.
ืืืณ ืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืื ืืคืืื ืื ืืคืืื ืฉืชื ืคืขืืื ืืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืกืืจ ืืืืช ืืคืืื ืืืืชืจ
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakhot of the dissolution of vows have something to support them, as it is stated: โWhen a man shall clearly utter a vowโ (Leviticus 27:2), and: โWhen either man or woman shall clearly utter a vowโ (Numbers 6:2), i.e., the words โclearly utterโ appear twice. One clear utterance is for prohibition, i.e., when one states his intention to accept the vow, and one clear utterance is for dissolution, when he provides the Sage with a reason why the vow should no longer apply. This is an allusion in the Torah to the annulment of vows.
ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืืฉืจ ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืคื ืืืคื ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืืจืชื ืื
Rabbi Yehoshua likewise says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: โWherefore I swore in My wrathโ (Psalms 95:11), meaning: In my wrath I swore, and I retracted. This is the basis for the dissolution of vows, in which the one who uttered the vow tells the Sage that he regrets it, as he did so in a moment of anger.
ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืื ื ืืื ืืื ืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืืจ ืืฉ ืืื ืขื ืื ืฉืืกืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืงืืืื ืืฉืืืจ ืืฉืคืื ืฆืืงื
Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: โWhoever is of a willing heart, let him bring itโ (Exodus 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. แธคananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshuaโs brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: โI have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe your righteous ordinancesโ (Psalms 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืืืื ืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืชื ืืืจื ืืื ืืืื ืขืืืคื ืืืืืื ืฉื ืืืจ ืื ืืื ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืคืืจืื ืืืจ ืืืฉืืืื ืืืืช ืืื ืคืืจืื
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I had been there, sitting with those Sages, I would have said to them: My source is better than yours, as it is stated: โHe shall not nullify his wordโ (Numbers 30:3), from which it may be inferred: He himself cannot nullify his word; however, others, i.e., a Sage, may nullify it for him by dissolving his vow. Rava said: For all of the suggested sources for the dissolution of vows there is a possible refutation, except for that of Shmuel, for which there is no refutation.
ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืื ืืืจืื ืืืืื ืฉืืืจ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืืจืคืื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืืจืคืื ืืขืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืืจ ืฉืื ื ืืชื ื ื ืืืจืืช ืืื ืืืคืืื
Rava elaborates. As, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps the phrase: โClearly utterโ should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said an alternative interpretation in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two people who are arguing whether or not someone who passed before them is a nazirite, each of them declaring that if he is correct he himself will become a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Actually, neither of them is a nazirite, as naziriteship is effected only by means of a clear utterance and neither party is certain they will be a nazirite at the time of their utterance. He derives this halakha from this phrase: โClearly utter.โ
ืื ืืืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืืคื ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืื ืืืจื ื ืื ืื ืืืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืืื ืืืคืืงื ืืืฉืืืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืฆืจืื ืฉืืืฆืื ืืฉืคืชืื ืืื ืงื ืืฉืืข ืื ืืืฃ ืขื ืื ืืื ืืืฆืื ืืฉืคืชืื
Similarly, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, perhaps this is what the verse is saying: In my wrath I swore and I do not take it back, despite the fact that it was stated in a moment of anger. If it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, perhaps the phrase โa willing heartโ comes to exclude the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: If one decided in his heart but did not verbalize a vow, it is insufficient, as he must verbally express it. And therefore this phrase teaches us that even though he did not verbally express the vow he is still obligated to fulfill it.
ืื ืืืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืืฉืข ืืืื ืืจื ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืืจ ืจื ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืื ืื ืฉื ืฉืืขืื ืืงืืื ืืช ืืืฆืื ืฉื ืืืจ ื ืฉืืขืชื ืืืงืืืื ืืฉืืืจ ืืฉืคืื ืฆืืงื
Finally, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi แธคananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshuaโs brother, perhaps the phrase โand fulfilled itโ should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel, who said that Rav said a different interpretation of this verse. As Rav Giddel said that Rav said: From where is it derived that although one is already obligated to fulfill all mitzvot one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva, and this is not considered an oath taken in vain? As it is stated: โI have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe Your righteous ordinancesโ (Psalms 119:106).
ืืื ืืฉืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืคืืจืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืชืืื ืจื ื ืืื ืืจ ืืฆืืง ืืืื ื ืืืืจื ืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืื ืคืืคืืชื ืืจืืคืชื ืืืื ืฆื ื ืืงืจื:
Rav concludes. However, for Shmuelโs source there is no refutation. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak who said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One spicy pepper is better than a basketful of squash, as the single pepper has more flavor than all the squash combined.
ืืืืืช ืฉืืช: ืืืืชื ืืชืืื ืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืจืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืื ืืืืคืจ ืืืื ืืฉืืช ืืืื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืขืคืจื ืคืืืจ ืขืืื
ยง The mishna stated that the halakhot of Shabbat are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But the halakhot of Shabbat are written, i.e., the prohibition against performing labor is explicit in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba. As Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat only because he needs its dirt and not for the hole itself is exempt from liability for that act, as this is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law.
ืืืื ืืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืฉืืื ื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืคื ืคืืืจ ืขืืื
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Abba issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who performs on Shabbat a labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of the action, is exempt from liability for it.
ืืคืืื ืชืืื ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืชื ืืชืงื ืืื ืืงืืงื ืืื
The Gemara offers an alternative possibility. This ruling can be explained even if you say that Rabbi Abba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that one is liable for a labor that is not necessary for its own sake. There, in other cases, Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable because his purpose is creative. Here, where one is digging the hole for the dirt, the purpose is destructive, as the action damages the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that in this case he is exempt.
ืืื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
The Gemara returns to the mishna. What then does the mishna mean by the phrase: Like mountains suspended by a hair?
ืืืืืช ืืืฉืืช ืืกืจื ืชืืจื ืืืืืืช ืืืฉืืช ืื ืืชืืื:
The Gemara answers: The Torah prohibited only planned, creative labor on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. And limitation of the prohibition against creative labor is not written anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the halakhot of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืืืืช: ืืืืชื ืืชืืื ืื ืฆืจืืื ืืืืืืจ ืืื ืจื ืคืคื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืืชื ืืืชื ืื ืืืณ ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืจืืื ื
ยง The mishna taught that the halakhot of Festival peace-offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where is it derived that this verse: โAnd you shall celebrate it as a Festival [veแธฅagotem] to the Lordโ (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is simply saying: Celebrate a Festival.
ืืื ืืขืชื ืืืชืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืืื ื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืชืืื ืืื ื ืื ืืืืชืื ืืืืืจ ืืฉื ืื ืืชื ืชืชื ืืืืื ื ืืืืื ืืขืืืืช
Abaye responded: However, if that is so, consider that it is written: โLet My people go, that they may hold a feast [veyaแธฅogu] to Me in the wildernessโ (Exodus 5:1). So too, the meaning of this verse is that they will merely celebrate a Festival, and not bring an offering. And if you would say that is indeed so, that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, but isnโt it written: โAnd Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our Godโ (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.
ืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืืื ืืฉืชื ืืืืื ืืื ืงืืื ืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืชืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืขื ืืงืจ ืืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืืื ืืื ืชืจืื ืืืื ืืืช ืืื
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: Slaughter animals so that you can eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: โThe fat of My Festival feast [แธฅagi] shall not remain all night until the morningโ (Exodus 23:18). And if it enters your mind to say that it is referring to a regular Festival feast and not an offering, does a Festival feast have forbidden fats?
ืืืืื ืืื ืงืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืืื
The Gemara asks: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states in the Torah: The fats of gift offerings that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. If so, the phrase โMy Festival feastโ is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.
ืืื ืืขืชื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืขื ืืืงืจ ืืชืื
The Gemara answers: However, if that is so, this verse indicates that it is only those fats that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. It may be inferred from here that fats which are brought throughout the year may remain all night. But it is written about burnt-offerings: โOn its firewood upon the altar all night into the morningโ (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.
ืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืฉื ืืชื ืจืืื ื ืืื ืืืื
The Gemara further asks: Perhaps if this halakha was derived from that verse, I would say that verse serves as the source of a positive mitzva. Therefore, the Merciful One writes this verse: โShall not remain all night,โ as a prohibition as well.
ืืืื ืืชื ืงืจื ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ืชืืื ืืขืจื ืืืื ืืจืืฉืื ืืืงืจ ืืืืื ืืขืืืจ ืขืืื ืืฉื ื ืืืืื ืืขืฉื
The Gemara responds. With regard to the prohibition against leaving over an offering on a Festival, another verse was written: โNeither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morningโ (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse: โShall not remain all nightโ comes to teach that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.
ืืื ืืชืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืืชืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืจ ืืืชืื ืืชื ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืชื ืื ืืืืืจ ืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืฃ ืืื ืืืืื
Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering comes from a verbal analogy between the term โwildernessโ stated here and the term: โwildernessโ stated elsewhere. It is written here: โThey shall make an offering to Me in the wildernessโ (Exodusย 5:1), and it is written there: โDid you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?โ (Amos 5:25). Just as there it is referring to actual animal offerings, so too here, it is referring to animal offerings, not merely the celebration of a Festival.
ืืืื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื ืืืจื ืชืืจื ืืืืจื ืงืืื ืื ืืืคืื ื:
The Gemara asks: And in light of this verbal analogy, in what way is this halakha like mountains suspended by a hair? The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new halakhot, as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a halakha derived from the Torah itself.
ืืขืืืืช: ืืืืชื ืืชืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืจ ืืื ืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืืชื ื ืืฉืืื ืฉืขืฉื ืฉืืืืืชื ืืขื ืืืืช ืืขื ืื ืขืฉื ืฉืืืืืชื ืฉืืื ืืขื
ยง The mishna taught that the details of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14โ16). Rami bar แธคama said: This statement is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Meโila 20a): With regard to an agent who performs his agency, e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, the homeowner has misused consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his agency, but in some way acted on his own account, the agent has misused consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.
ืืื ืขืฉื ืฉืืืืืชื ืืืื ืืขื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืื ืืชืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
The Gemara explains: And when he performed his agency, why is the owner considered to have misused consecrated property? And is it possible that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? Since this halakha is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. This is what the mishna was referring to when it said that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ืงืืฉืื ืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืขืืื ืืืืคื ืืื ืืื ืืชืจืืื ืื ืืชื ืฉืืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืืืชื ืืฃ ืืื ืฉืืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืืืชื
Rava said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps the transgression of misuse of consecrated property is different, as it is derived through a verbal analogy from the parallel term โsinโ (Leviticus 5:6) and โsinโ (Numbers 18:9), from the case of teruma: Just as there, with regard to teruma, the legal status of a personโs agent is like that of himself, and therefore the agent may separate teruma on behalf of the owner of the produce, so too here, with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of a personโs agent is like that of himself, which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable.
ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืืชื ืื ื ืืืจ ืืขื ืืืืช ืืื ื ืืืจ ืฉืืื ืฉืืื ืืขื ืฉืืื ืขื ืื ืืื ืงื ืขืืื ืืืื ื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
Rather, Rava said: The mishnaโs statement with regard to mountains is necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, the homeowner remembered that it was a consecrated item and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, what did the poor agent do? He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. This is what the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืืื ืงืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืฆืื ืืขืืช ืืงืืฉ ืืืืืื
Rav Ashi said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps this is just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable.
ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืื ื ืฆืจืื ืืื ืืืืชื ื ื ืื ืืื ืื ืงืืจื ืฉื ืืงืืฉ ืืจื ืื ืื ืืขื ื ืชื ื ืืืืืจื ืืื ืืขื ืืืืืจื ืื ืืขื ืืืื ืืืฉืงื ืฉืงืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืื ื ืืืจืจืื ืืชืืืืื ืืฉืขืจื
Rather, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Meโila 19b): If one picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he gave it to another, he has misused consecrated property and the other person has not misused consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: Since he picked it up, what difference is there to me if he keeps it, and what difference is there to me if he gives it to another? What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, this is the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.
ืืืื ืงืืฉืื ืืืื ืืืฉืืืื ืืืืจ ืฉืืืื ืืื
The Gemara raises a difficulty. What is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself.