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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 20, 2022 | 讬状讟 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

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

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

Chagigah 11

This week’s learning is sponsored by Sivya Twersky in loving memory of her father Harav Pesach Zachariah Halevi ben Harav Reuven Halevi (Rabbi Pesach Levovitz) on his 10th yahrzeit that was on the 5th of Adar. 鈥淗e was a lifelong Daf Yomi learner, a community rabbi for 57 years, an international Rabbinic leader, responsible for generations of Jewish souls. He was the patriarch of his family, he would be proud and somewhat bemused by both the female and male Daf Yomi learners amongst his children and grandchildren as well as the leadership role that his granddaughter, Shoshana Baker, has taken in the Hadran movement. May his neshama have an aliya in the zechut of their learning.鈥

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Tuvia Hausdorff in loving memory of Moshe Aharon ben Eliezer Aryeh, Tuvia Levi ben David Meir, Tziona bat Sudia and Menucha bat Moshe Yechezkel.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Susie Handelman in loving memory of her grandfather, Shmuel Ben Meir HaCohen (Katzin) Z”l. 鈥淗e was a talmid hacham who immigrated to the US from Kovno in 1900 and died in 1936 before I was born. He would be in awe to know he has a granddaughter living in Jerusalem studying Talmud! May he hear from above and take pleasure from the sweet sounds of Rabanit Michelle and her students studying today’s daf.鈥

The Gemara finishes up the previous discussion regarding meila – what aspect of it is “like a mountain hanging by a hair”? A braita lists negaim and ohalot as also being in the category of few verses and many halakhot. Is that really so? The Mishna had listed several things that had verses to clearly rely upon in the Torah. This seem to imply that while they were more firmly based in the Torah than the previous sections, they still were not explicitly written in the Torah. The Gemara then questions each item on the list as they seem to be halakhot that were explicitly mentioned in the Torah. To answer the question, examples for each topic are brought that were not explicitly written in the Torah. The second chapter deals with topics that one needs to be cautious when teaching to others and should therefore limit the amount of students that one teaches it to. Topics include the forbidden sexual relationships, creation of the world, and maase merkava (in Ezekiel). One should also not delve into what is above, below, before and after. Where are these laws derived from?

讘讙讝讘专 讛诪住讜专讜转 诇讜 讗讘谞讬 讘谞讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞讛 讘专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪谞讞讛

Rather, we are dealing with the treasurer of the Temple, to whom the consecrated building stones were transferred for safekeeping. The reason for the exemption is that anywhere that the stone is resting, it is considered to be resting within his domain. Consequently, he is not liable for picking up the stone or beam, as he is permitted to carry it. However, he does not have permission to give it to someone else, and therefore when he hands it over to someone else he has misused consecrated property. If so, this halakha is also perfectly logical and should not be considered like mountains suspended by a hair.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讘谞讗讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 转讞转讬讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讻讚讬 砖谞讜讬讬 砖谞讬讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 讚专 讜诪讛 诇讬 诇讗 讚专 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, the comparison of these halakhot to mountains suspended by a hair is based on the latter clause of that same mishna: If he built the stone into his house, he has not misused consecrated property until he dwells under it an amount of time that is worth a peruta. Since he has changed the stone by incorporating it into his house, what difference is there to me if he dwelt there, and what difference is there to me if he did not dwell there? Apparently, this is the halakha considered like mountains suspended by a hair.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讻讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻讬 讗专讜讘讛 讗讬 讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this claim. And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it is stated in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As Rav said: This mishna is referring to a case where he placed the stone over a window, but he did not make any adjustment to the stone itself. If he dwelt in the house, yes, he has misused consecrated property, as he derived benefit from it. If he did not dwell in it, no, he has not misused consecrated property, as he gained no benefit from the stone.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚专讘讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讜爪讬讗 诪注讜转 讛拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛转诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讜讝讬 讚讛拽讚砖 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, the reason is actually in accordance with the aforementioned opinion of Rava, who holds that the innovative element of this halakha involves a case where the homeowner remembered, which caused the agent to misuse consecrated property. And with regard to that which posed a difficulty for you, i.e., that the halakha here should be just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, the two cases are not identical. There, in the case that Rava mentioned, the agent knew that he also had consecrated coins and therefore he should have examined carefully whether this money was consecrated. Here, did the agent know that there was a possibility that the money was consecrated? This is why this halakha is like mountains suspended by a hair.

诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 转谞讗 谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讛诇讜转 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽专讗 诪专讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽专讗 诪专讜讘讛 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪讜注讟讜转 讗讛诇讜转 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转

搂 The mishna explained that those matters that are like mountains suspended by a hair have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The halakhot of leprosy and the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents in which a corpse lies have little in the Torah and their halakhot are numerous. The Gemara asks: With regard to leprosy, is there little about their halakhot in the Torah? Leprosy is something about which there are numerous details stated in the Torah (see Leviticus, chapters 13鈥14). Rav Pappa said that this is what the mishna is saying: Leprosy has numerous details in the Torah but relatively few halakhot. In contrast, the case of ritual impurity imparted by tents has little in the Torah but numerous halakhot.

讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讗讬 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬诇转讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 注讬讬谉 讘拽专讗讬 讜讗讬 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬诇转讗 讘讗讛诇讜转 注讬讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference whether there are numerous or few references to a particular halakha in the Torah? The Gemara answers: If you are uncertain about a matter with regard to the halakhot of leprosy, delve into the verses, as it is treated extensively there. And if you are uncertain about a matter with regard to the halakhot of the ritual impurity imparted by tents, delve into the Mishna, as these halakhot are not sufficiently explicated in the Torah.

讚讬谞讬谉 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚专讘讬

搂 The mishna taught that monetary law is one of those matters that have something to support them in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Monetary laws are written in the Torah; why does the mishna merely say it has something to support it? The Gemara answers: This is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 诪诪讜谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞驻砖 诪诪砖 谞讗诪专讛 谞转讬谞讛 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 谞转讬谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: 鈥淏ut if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life鈥 (Exodus 21:23). This verse is referring to a payment of money. Do you say money, or perhaps it is solely an actual life that is demanded? The term giving is stated below: 鈥淵ou shall give life for life,鈥 and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: 鈥淎nd he shall give as the judges determine鈥 (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, the giving is in the form of money, so too here, it is referring to a payment of money. Although this halakha is not explicit in the Torah, the verses lend support to it.

注讘讜讚讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讜诇讻转 讛讚诐 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐

搂 The mishna stated that the halakhot of sacrificial rites have something to support them. The Gemara asks: Sacrificial rites are written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state that sacrificial rites have merely something to support them only with regard to the rite of carrying the blood to the altar. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall offer the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5); this is referring to collecting the blood, which is the stage before carrying the blood to the altar.

讜讗驻拽讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讛讜诇讻讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讜讗诪专 诪专 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖

And the Merciful One expressed collecting the blood in the language of carrying, i.e., by means of the term offer. As it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:13). And the Master said that this term, 鈥渙ffer,鈥 is not referring to sacrificing on the altar, as that is expressed by the phrase: 鈥淢ake it smoke upon the altar.鈥 Rather, this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp next to the altar, from where it is placed on the altar itself.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 转驻拽讛 诪讻诇诇 拽讘诇讛

Evidently, the Torah is referring to collecting the blood with the same terminology it used when referring to carrying. That is to say that carrying should not be excluded from the category of collecting. In other words, all the halakhot that pertain to collecting the blood of offerings, e.g., that it must be performed by a priest with his right hand, apply equally to carrying the blood.

讟讛专讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇砖讬注讜专 诪拽讜讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讞抓 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐 讘诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗转 讻诇 讘砖专讜 诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讘专讜诐 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

搂 The mishna further taught that the halakhot of ritual purity have something to support them. The Gemara again asks: But ritual purity is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: The observation that the halakhot of ritual purity merely have something to support them is necessary only for the minimum measure of a ritual bath, which is not written explicitly in the Torah. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). This means in the water of a ritual bath. And it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall wash all his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it must contain water in which his whole body can enter. And how much water is this? One cubit by one cubit with a height of three cubits. And the Sages estimated that the measure for ritual bath water is forty se鈥檃.

讟诪讗讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诐

搂 The mishna stated that the halakhot of ritual impurity also have something to support them. Once again the Gemara asks: Ritual impurity is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is necessary only with regard to the size of a lentil-bulk from a creeping animal, which is not written. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with creeping animals: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31).

讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐

One might have thought that only someone who touches an entire, whole creeping animal becomes ritually impure. The verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them falls, when they are dead, it shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). 鈥淥f them鈥 indicates that this halakha applies even if one comes into contact with a part of them. One might have thought that even some of them suffices to impart impurity. The verse states: 鈥淭hem,鈥 i.e., all of them. This conclusion apparently contradicts the first ruling.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讘诪拽爪转讜 砖讛讜讗 讻讻讜诇讜 砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻注讚砖讛 砖讻谉 讞讜诪讟 转讞诇转讜 讘讻注讚砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛

How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? One does not become impure until he touches some of it that is like the whole, i.e., a significant amount. And the Sages estimated this measure as the size of a lentil-bulk. The reason is that in its early stages, the 岣met, the smallest of these creeping animals, is the size of a lentil-bulk. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The size of a lentil-bulk is that of a lizard鈥檚 tail, which is considered a part that is like the whole. The tail of a lizard can be cut off easily, and as it continues to twitch even after it has been cut off, it has the appearance of life. Consequently, it is fitting to label it as a part that is like the whole.

注专讬讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗

搂 The mishna further taught that the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden have something to support them. The Gemara asks: The halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden are written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is necessary only

诇讘转讜 诪讗谞讜住转讜 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗

with regard to his daughter born from the woman he raped, which is not written explicitly in the Torah. It is forbidden for this man to have sexual relations with this daughter, despite the fact that she is not the daughter of his wife, as he did not marry her mother.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛

As Rava said: Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to me that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term they [hena], an unusual form of this word, written in one context, and the same term, they, written elsewhere. As it is written: 鈥淭he nakedness of a woman and her daughter鈥ou shall not take鈥hey [hena] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus聽18:17). And it is written: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for they [hena] are your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus聽18:10). This indicates that every daughter, even from the rape of a woman who is not one鈥檚 wife, is forbidden, just like one鈥檚 daughter from his wife.

讗转讬讗 讝讬诪讛 讝讬诪讛

Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression is derived from a verbal analogy between: 鈥淚t is lewdness [zima]鈥 (Leviticus聽18:17), which is written with regard to a woman and her daughter, and the same term 鈥渓ewdness鈥 that appears elsewhere, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness [zima]: They shall be burnt with fire, both he and they鈥 (Leviticus聽20:14).

讛谉 讛谉 讙讜驻讬 转讜专讛 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讛谞讱 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛谉 讜讛谉 讙讜驻讬 转讜专讛

搂 The mishna taught: These [hen hen] are the essential parts of the Torah. The Gemara asks: These, the topics mentioned in the mishna, which are not written explicitly but for which there is ample basis in the Torah, yes, they are the essential parts of Torah, whereas those other categories listed in the mishna that are written explicitly, no, they are not essential? Rather, one must say that both these and those [hen vehen] are the essential parts of the Torah. Every part of the Torah is essential, whether or not it is written explicitly.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪专讻讘讛 讘讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讞讻诐 讜诪讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜

MISHNA: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three or more individuals; nor may one expound the act of Creation and the secrets of the beginning of the world before two or more individuals; nor may one expound by oneself the Design of the Divine Chariot, a mystical teaching with regard to the ways God conducts the world, unless he is wise and understands most matters on his own.

讻诇 讛诪住转讻诇 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 专转讜讬 诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜诪讛 诇讗讞讜专 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讞住 注诇 讻讘讜讚 拽讜谞讜 专转讜讬 诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐

The mishna continues in the same vein: Whoever looks at four matters, it would have been better for him had he never entered the world: Anyone who reflects upon what is above the firmament and what is below the earth, what was before Creation, and what will be after the end of the world. And anyone who has no concern for the honor of his Maker, who inquires into and deals with matters not permitted to him, deserves to have never come to the world.

讙诪壮 讗诪专转 讘专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪专讻讘讛 讘讬讞讬讚 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讞讻诐 讜诪讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: You said in the first clause of the mishna: Nor may one expound the Design of the Divine Chariot by oneself, which indicates that the topic may not be learned at all, and yet you subsequently said: Unless he is wise and understands most things on his own, which indicates that an individual is permitted to study the Design of the Divine Chariot.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 诇砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 诇砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪专讻讘讛 诇讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讞讻诐 讜诪讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜

The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three students, nor the act of Creation before two, nor may one teach the Divine Chariot to one, unless that student was wise and understands on his own.

讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗诇 讻诇 砖讗专 讘砖专讜 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 转专讬 砖讗专 讘砖专讜 讞讚 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转拽专讘讜 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜讛

搂 The Gemara continues to clarify the mishna, which reads: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three individuals. What is the reason for this? If we say it is because it is written: 鈥淣one of you [ish, ish] shall approach any near of kin to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6). Ish, ish, literally means: Man, man. It is understood as an allusion to the number of students permitted to study the topic. This is as it is explained immediately: 鈥淢an, man鈥 equals two; 鈥渁ny near of kin to him鈥 is one; and the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not approach to uncover their nakedness,鈥 which indicates that one may not expound the halakhot of forbidden sexual relations in the presence of three individuals.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽诇诇 讗诇讛讬讜 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬转谉 诪讝专注讜 诇诪讜诇讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

They ask: If that is so, then what of this verse: 鈥淎ny man [ish, ish] who curses his God鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), or 鈥淎ny man [ish, ish] who gives of his seed to the Molekh (Leviticus 20:2), which is a form of idol worship? In both cases the double expression implies the number two. So too there, will you say that it is prohibited to teach these halakhot before two individuals?

讗诇讗 讛谞讛讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇 讘专讻转 讛砖诐 讜注诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: Rather, those instances of the double expression: Man, man, are required for him, the tanna, in order to include gentiles, who are commanded with regard to blessing, a euphemism for cursing, God, and with regard to idol worship just as Jews are commanded.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

But if so, this mention of 鈥渕an, man鈥 in the case of forbidden relations is also required for him to include gentiles, who are commanded with regard to forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转讬 讜砖诪专转诐 转专讬 诪砖诪专转讬 讞讚 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘诇转讬 注砖讜转 诪讞拽讜转 讛转讜注讘讜转

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation, and suggests that the prohibition against teaching three is derived from the following verse stated with regard to forbidden sexual relations: 鈥淎nd you shall observe My charge鈥 (Leviticus 18:30), which is explained as follows: 鈥淎nd you shall observe [ushmartem],鈥 in the plural, indicates at least two; 鈥淢y charge鈥 is one; and the Merciful One states at the conclusion of this verse: 鈥淭hat you do not perform any of these abominable customs鈥 (Leviticus 18:30), indicating that this topic may not be taught to three.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜转 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转 讛拽讚砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then what of that which is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe the Shabbat鈥 (Exodus 31:14), and 鈥淎nd you shall observe the festival of matzot (Exodus 12:17), and 鈥淎nd you shall observe the charge of the sacred things鈥 (Numbers 18:5); so too, will you say that none of these subjects may be taught to three?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘住转专讬 注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said: These scriptural allusions are all unacceptable. What is the meaning of: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three? It means: One may not expound the concealed laws of forbidden sexual relations before three. The prohibition against teaching before three applies to halakhot of forbidden sexual relations that are not explicitly stated in the Torah but are derived by expounding the verses or through analogy.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讘讬 转专讬 讻讬 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬 专讘讬讬讛讜 讞讚 砖拽讬诇 讜讟专讬 讘讛讚讬 专讘讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诪爪诇讬 讗讜讚谞讬讛 诇讙诪专讗 转诇转讗 讞讚 砖拽讬诇 讜讟专讬 讘讛讚讬 专讘讬讛 讜讛谞讱 转专讬 砖拽诇讜 讜讟专讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬讬讛讜 讜讗转讜 诇诪讬砖专讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注专讬讜转

What is the reason? It is due not to a biblical allusion, but rather it is based on logical reasoning: When two students sit before their teacher, one of them is typically involved in a discussion of halakha with his teacher, while the other lends his ear to listen to the teaching. However, if there are three students, one of them is involved in a discussion with his teacher while the other two are engaged in a discussion with one another, and they do not know what their teacher is saying, and may come to render permitted a forbidden relation by following their own reasoning rather than the explanation provided by their teacher.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the entire Torah should likewise be taught only to two individuals, to prevent similar errors.

注专讬讜转 砖讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讙讝诇 讜注专讬讜转 谞驻砖讜 诪讞诪讚转谉 讜诪转讗讜讛 诇讛诐

The Gemara answers: The halakha of forbidden sexual relations is different, for the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relations are sins that one鈥檚 soul covets and lusts after. Therefore, we are concerned that one who has not properly studied these matters with his teacher will rule leniently for himself.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讝诇 谞诪讬 注专讬讜转 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 谞驻讬砖 讬爪专讬讛 讙讝诇 讘驻谞讬讜 谞驻讬砖 讬爪专讬讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讬爪专讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, robbery should also not be taught to more than two, for this very reason. The Gemara responds: There is a difference between the lust for forbidden sexual relations and the lust for robbery. In the case of those with whom relations are forbidden, his evil inclination is strong whether or not the objects of desire are before him. With regard to robbery, however, if the object presents a direct temptation before him his inclination is strong, but when it is not before him his inclination is not strong, and we are therefore less concerned.

讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 讘砖谞讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 砖讗诇 谞讗 诇讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讞讬讚 砖讜讗诇 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 砖讜讗诇讬谉

搂 It is taught in the mishna: 鈥淣or the act of Creation before two.鈥 The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught that the verse states: 鈥淔or ask now of the days past, which were before you鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:32); since this verse is stated in the singular, it teaches that an individual may ask questions with regard to Creation, i.e., 鈥渢he days past,鈥 but two may not ask, which indicates that one may teach such matters to only one student.

讬讻讜诇 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诪谉 讛讬讜诐 讗砖专 讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 讛讗专抓

One might have thought that a person may ask questions with regard to matters preceding the creation of the world. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淪ince the day that God created man upon the earth,鈥 but not earlier.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 诪砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讱

One might have thought that a person may not ask questions with regard to matters that occurred during the six days of Creation before the creation of man. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or ask now of the days past, which were before you,鈥 indicating that one may inquire about the days preceding the creation of man.

讬讻讜诇 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜诪讛 诇讗讞讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇诪拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讜注讚 拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 诪诇诪拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讜注讚 拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讗转讛 砖讜讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讗转讛 砖讜讗诇 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讗讞讜专

One might have thought that a person may ask questions with regard to what is above, what is below, what was before, and what is after the world. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淔rom one end of the heavens to the other鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:32), which is explained as follows: With regard to that which is from one end of the heavens to the other, within the boundaries of the world, you may ask, but you may not ask what is above, what is below, what was before, or what is after.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Chagigah: 7-13- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 sacrifices that must be brought when coming to Jerusalem for the Festival...

Chagigah 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 11

讘讙讝讘专 讛诪住讜专讜转 诇讜 讗讘谞讬 讘谞讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪谞讞讛 讘专砖讜转讗 讚讬讚讬讛 诪谞讞讛

Rather, we are dealing with the treasurer of the Temple, to whom the consecrated building stones were transferred for safekeeping. The reason for the exemption is that anywhere that the stone is resting, it is considered to be resting within his domain. Consequently, he is not liable for picking up the stone or beam, as he is permitted to carry it. However, he does not have permission to give it to someone else, and therefore when he hands it over to someone else he has misused consecrated property. If so, this halakha is also perfectly logical and should not be considered like mountains suspended by a hair.

讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 讘谞讗讛 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 诪注诇 注讚 砖讬讚讜专 转讞转讬讛 讘砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讻讚讬 砖谞讜讬讬 砖谞讬讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 讚专 讜诪讛 诇讬 诇讗 讚专 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, the comparison of these halakhot to mountains suspended by a hair is based on the latter clause of that same mishna: If he built the stone into his house, he has not misused consecrated property until he dwells under it an amount of time that is worth a peruta. Since he has changed the stone by incorporating it into his house, what difference is there to me if he dwelt there, and what difference is there to me if he did not dwell there? Apparently, this is the halakha considered like mountains suspended by a hair.

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讻讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛谞讬讞讛 注诇 驻讬 讗专讜讘讛 讗讬 讚专 讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this claim. And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it is stated in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As Rav said: This mishna is referring to a case where he placed the stone over a window, but he did not make any adjustment to the stone itself. If he dwelt in the house, yes, he has misused consecrated property, as he derived benefit from it. If he did not dwell in it, no, he has not misused consecrated property, as he gained no benefit from the stone.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚专讘讗 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讜爪讬讗 诪注讜转 讛拽讚砖 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讛转诐 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讜讝讬 讚讛拽讚砖 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讚注 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讛专专讬谉 讛转诇讜讬讬谉 讘砖注专讛

Rather, the reason is actually in accordance with the aforementioned opinion of Rava, who holds that the innovative element of this halakha involves a case where the homeowner remembered, which caused the agent to misuse consecrated property. And with regard to that which posed a difficulty for you, i.e., that the halakha here should be just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, the two cases are not identical. There, in the case that Rava mentioned, the agent knew that he also had consecrated coins and therefore he should have examined carefully whether this money was consecrated. Here, did the agent know that there was a possibility that the money was consecrated? This is why this halakha is like mountains suspended by a hair.

诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 转谞讗 谞讙注讬诐 讜讗讛诇讜转 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽专讗 诪专讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞讙注讬诐 诪拽专讗 诪专讜讘讛 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪讜注讟讜转 讗讛诇讜转 诪拽专讗 诪讜注讟 讜讛诇讻讜转 诪专讜讘讜转

搂 The mishna explained that those matters that are like mountains suspended by a hair have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The halakhot of leprosy and the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents in which a corpse lies have little in the Torah and their halakhot are numerous. The Gemara asks: With regard to leprosy, is there little about their halakhot in the Torah? Leprosy is something about which there are numerous details stated in the Torah (see Leviticus, chapters 13鈥14). Rav Pappa said that this is what the mishna is saying: Leprosy has numerous details in the Torah but relatively few halakhot. In contrast, the case of ritual impurity imparted by tents has little in the Torah but numerous halakhot.

讜诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讗讬 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬诇转讗 讘谞讙注讬诐 注讬讬谉 讘拽专讗讬 讜讗讬 诪住转驻拽讗 诇讱 诪讬诇转讗 讘讗讛诇讜转 注讬讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉

The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference whether there are numerous or few references to a particular halakha in the Torah? The Gemara answers: If you are uncertain about a matter with regard to the halakhot of leprosy, delve into the verses, as it is treated extensively there. And if you are uncertain about a matter with regard to the halakhot of the ritual impurity imparted by tents, delve into the Mishna, as these halakhot are not sufficiently explicated in the Torah.

讚讬谞讬谉 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻讚专讘讬

搂 The mishna taught that monetary law is one of those matters that have something to support them in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Monetary laws are written in the Torah; why does the mishna merely say it has something to support it? The Gemara answers: This is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 诪诪讜谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讜谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 谞驻砖 诪诪砖 谞讗诪专讛 谞转讬谞讛 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 谞转讬谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪诪讜谉

The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: 鈥淏ut if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life鈥 (Exodus 21:23). This verse is referring to a payment of money. Do you say money, or perhaps it is solely an actual life that is demanded? The term giving is stated below: 鈥淵ou shall give life for life,鈥 and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: 鈥淎nd he shall give as the judges determine鈥 (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, the giving is in the form of money, so too here, it is referring to a payment of money. Although this halakha is not explicit in the Torah, the verses lend support to it.

注讘讜讚讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讛讜诇讻转 讛讚诐 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐

搂 The mishna stated that the halakhot of sacrificial rites have something to support them. The Gemara asks: Sacrificial rites are written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state that sacrificial rites have merely something to support them only with regard to the rite of carrying the blood to the altar. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall offer the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5); this is referring to collecting the blood, which is the stage before carrying the blood to the altar.

讜讗驻拽讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 讛讜诇讻讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛诪讝讘讞讛 讜讗诪专 诪专 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖

And the Merciful One expressed collecting the blood in the language of carrying, i.e., by means of the term offer. As it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:13). And the Master said that this term, 鈥渙ffer,鈥 is not referring to sacrificing on the altar, as that is expressed by the phrase: 鈥淢ake it smoke upon the altar.鈥 Rather, this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp next to the altar, from where it is placed on the altar itself.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讛讜诇讻讛 诇讗 转驻拽讛 诪讻诇诇 拽讘诇讛

Evidently, the Torah is referring to collecting the blood with the same terminology it used when referring to carrying. That is to say that carrying should not be excluded from the category of collecting. In other words, all the halakhot that pertain to collecting the blood of offerings, e.g., that it must be performed by a priest with his right hand, apply equally to carrying the blood.

讟讛专讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇砖讬注讜专 诪拽讜讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讞抓 讗转 讘砖专讜 讘诪讬诐 讘诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗转 讻诇 讘砖专讜 诪讬诐 砖讻诇 讙讜驻讜 注讜诇讛 讘讛谉 讜讻诪讛 讛谉 讗诪讛 注诇 讗诪讛 讘专讜诐 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讬 诪拽讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛

搂 The mishna further taught that the halakhot of ritual purity have something to support them. The Gemara again asks: But ritual purity is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: The observation that the halakhot of ritual purity merely have something to support them is necessary only for the minimum measure of a ritual bath, which is not written explicitly in the Torah. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd he shall bathe his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 14:9). This means in the water of a ritual bath. And it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall wash all his flesh in water鈥 (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it must contain water in which his whole body can enter. And how much water is this? One cubit by one cubit with a height of three cubits. And the Sages estimated that the measure for ritual bath water is forty se鈥檃.

讟诪讗讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讻注讚砖讛 诪谉 讛砖专抓 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诐

搂 The mishna stated that the halakhot of ritual impurity also have something to support them. Once again the Gemara asks: Ritual impurity is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is necessary only with regard to the size of a lentil-bulk from a creeping animal, which is not written. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with creeping animals: 鈥淲hoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:31).

讬讻讜诇 讘讻讜诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛诐 讬讻讜诇 讘诪拽爪转谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讛诐

One might have thought that only someone who touches an entire, whole creeping animal becomes ritually impure. The verse states: 鈥淎nd upon whatever any of them falls, when they are dead, it shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:32). 鈥淥f them鈥 indicates that this halakha applies even if one comes into contact with a part of them. One might have thought that even some of them suffices to impart impurity. The verse states: 鈥淭hem,鈥 i.e., all of them. This conclusion apparently contradicts the first ruling.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 讘诪拽爪转讜 砖讛讜讗 讻讻讜诇讜 砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讘讻注讚砖讛 砖讻谉 讞讜诪讟 转讞诇转讜 讘讻注讚砖讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讝谞讘 讛诇讟讗讛

How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? One does not become impure until he touches some of it that is like the whole, i.e., a significant amount. And the Sages estimated this measure as the size of a lentil-bulk. The reason is that in its early stages, the 岣met, the smallest of these creeping animals, is the size of a lentil-bulk. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The size of a lentil-bulk is that of a lizard鈥檚 tail, which is considered a part that is like the whole. The tail of a lizard can be cut off easily, and as it continues to twitch even after it has been cut off, it has the appearance of life. Consequently, it is fitting to label it as a part that is like the whole.

注专讬讜转 诪讬讻转讘 讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗

搂 The mishna further taught that the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden have something to support them. The Gemara asks: The halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden are written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is necessary only

诇讘转讜 诪讗谞讜住转讜 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘讗

with regard to his daughter born from the woman he raped, which is not written explicitly in the Torah. It is forbidden for this man to have sexual relations with this daughter, despite the fact that she is not the daughter of his wife, as he did not marry her mother.

讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 讗转讬讗 讛谞讛 讛谞讛

As Rava said: Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Avdimi said to me that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term they [hena], an unusual form of this word, written in one context, and the same term, they, written elsewhere. As it is written: 鈥淭he nakedness of a woman and her daughter鈥ou shall not take鈥hey [hena] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (Leviticus聽18:17). And it is written: 鈥淭he nakedness of your son鈥檚 daughter, or of your daughter鈥檚 daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for they [hena] are your own nakedness鈥 (Leviticus聽18:10). This indicates that every daughter, even from the rape of a woman who is not one鈥檚 wife, is forbidden, just like one鈥檚 daughter from his wife.

讗转讬讗 讝讬诪讛 讝讬诪讛

Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression is derived from a verbal analogy between: 鈥淚t is lewdness [zima]鈥 (Leviticus聽18:17), which is written with regard to a woman and her daughter, and the same term 鈥渓ewdness鈥 that appears elsewhere, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness [zima]: They shall be burnt with fire, both he and they鈥 (Leviticus聽20:14).

讛谉 讛谉 讙讜驻讬 转讜专讛 讛谞讬 讗讬谉 讛谞讱 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛谉 讜讛谉 讙讜驻讬 转讜专讛

搂 The mishna taught: These [hen hen] are the essential parts of the Torah. The Gemara asks: These, the topics mentioned in the mishna, which are not written explicitly but for which there is ample basis in the Torah, yes, they are the essential parts of Torah, whereas those other categories listed in the mishna that are written explicitly, no, they are not essential? Rather, one must say that both these and those [hen vehen] are the essential parts of the Torah. Every part of the Torah is essential, whether or not it is written explicitly.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 讘砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪专讻讘讛 讘讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讞讻诐 讜诪讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜

MISHNA: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three or more individuals; nor may one expound the act of Creation and the secrets of the beginning of the world before two or more individuals; nor may one expound by oneself the Design of the Divine Chariot, a mystical teaching with regard to the ways God conducts the world, unless he is wise and understands most matters on his own.

讻诇 讛诪住转讻诇 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 专转讜讬 诇讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜诪讛 诇讗讞讜专 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讞住 注诇 讻讘讜讚 拽讜谞讜 专转讜讬 诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐

The mishna continues in the same vein: Whoever looks at four matters, it would have been better for him had he never entered the world: Anyone who reflects upon what is above the firmament and what is below the earth, what was before Creation, and what will be after the end of the world. And anyone who has no concern for the honor of his Maker, who inquires into and deals with matters not permitted to him, deserves to have never come to the world.

讙诪壮 讗诪专转 讘专讬砖讗 讜诇讗 讘诪专讻讘讛 讘讬讞讬讚 讜讛讚专 讗诪专转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讞讻诐 讜诪讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: You said in the first clause of the mishna: Nor may one expound the Design of the Divine Chariot by oneself, which indicates that the topic may not be learned at all, and yet you subsequently said: Unless he is wise and understands most things on his own, which indicates that an individual is permitted to study the Design of the Divine Chariot.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 诇砖诇砖讛 讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 诇砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘诪专讻讘讛 诇讬讞讬讚 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛讬讛 讞讻诐 讜诪讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜

The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three students, nor the act of Creation before two, nor may one teach the Divine Chariot to one, unless that student was wise and understands on his own.

讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗诇 讻诇 砖讗专 讘砖专讜 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 转专讬 砖讗专 讘砖专讜 讞讚 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转拽专讘讜 诇讙诇讜转 注专讜讛

搂 The Gemara continues to clarify the mishna, which reads: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three individuals. What is the reason for this? If we say it is because it is written: 鈥淣one of you [ish, ish] shall approach any near of kin to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6). Ish, ish, literally means: Man, man. It is understood as an allusion to the number of students permitted to study the topic. This is as it is explained immediately: 鈥淢an, man鈥 equals two; 鈥渁ny near of kin to him鈥 is one; and the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not approach to uncover their nakedness,鈥 which indicates that one may not expound the halakhot of forbidden sexual relations in the presence of three individuals.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讻讬 讬拽诇诇 讗诇讛讬讜 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬转谉 诪讝专注讜 诇诪讜诇讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

They ask: If that is so, then what of this verse: 鈥淎ny man [ish, ish] who curses his God鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), or 鈥淎ny man [ish, ish] who gives of his seed to the Molekh (Leviticus 20:2), which is a form of idol worship? In both cases the double expression implies the number two. So too there, will you say that it is prohibited to teach these halakhot before two individuals?

讗诇讗 讛谞讛讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇 讘专讻转 讛砖诐 讜注诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讻讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: Rather, those instances of the double expression: Man, man, are required for him, the tanna, in order to include gentiles, who are commanded with regard to blessing, a euphemism for cursing, God, and with regard to idol worship just as Jews are commanded.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬诐 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

But if so, this mention of 鈥渕an, man鈥 in the case of forbidden relations is also required for him to include gentiles, who are commanded with regard to forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转讬 讜砖诪专转诐 转专讬 诪砖诪专转讬 讞讚 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘诇转讬 注砖讜转 诪讞拽讜转 讛转讜注讘讜转

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation, and suggests that the prohibition against teaching three is derived from the following verse stated with regard to forbidden sexual relations: 鈥淎nd you shall observe My charge鈥 (Leviticus 18:30), which is explained as follows: 鈥淎nd you shall observe [ushmartem],鈥 in the plural, indicates at least two; 鈥淢y charge鈥 is one; and the Merciful One states at the conclusion of this verse: 鈥淭hat you do not perform any of these abominable customs鈥 (Leviticus 18:30), indicating that this topic may not be taught to three.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 讛诪爪讜转 讜砖诪专转诐 讗转 诪砖诪专转 讛拽讚砖 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then what of that which is written: 鈥淎nd you shall observe the Shabbat鈥 (Exodus 31:14), and 鈥淎nd you shall observe the festival of matzot (Exodus 12:17), and 鈥淎nd you shall observe the charge of the sacred things鈥 (Numbers 18:5); so too, will you say that none of these subjects may be taught to three?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 讚讜专砖讬谉 讘住转专讬 注专讬讜转 讘砖诇砖讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said: These scriptural allusions are all unacceptable. What is the meaning of: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three? It means: One may not expound the concealed laws of forbidden sexual relations before three. The prohibition against teaching before three applies to halakhot of forbidden sexual relations that are not explicitly stated in the Torah but are derived by expounding the verses or through analogy.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讘讬 转专讬 讻讬 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬 专讘讬讬讛讜 讞讚 砖拽讬诇 讜讟专讬 讘讛讚讬 专讘讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诪爪诇讬 讗讜讚谞讬讛 诇讙诪专讗 转诇转讗 讞讚 砖拽讬诇 讜讟专讬 讘讛讚讬 专讘讬讛 讜讛谞讱 转专讬 砖拽诇讜 讜讟专讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬讬讛讜 讜讗转讜 诇诪讬砖专讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注专讬讜转

What is the reason? It is due not to a biblical allusion, but rather it is based on logical reasoning: When two students sit before their teacher, one of them is typically involved in a discussion of halakha with his teacher, while the other lends his ear to listen to the teaching. However, if there are three students, one of them is involved in a discussion with his teacher while the other two are engaged in a discussion with one another, and they do not know what their teacher is saying, and may come to render permitted a forbidden relation by following their own reasoning rather than the explanation provided by their teacher.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the entire Torah should likewise be taught only to two individuals, to prevent similar errors.

注专讬讜转 砖讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 诪专 讙讝诇 讜注专讬讜转 谞驻砖讜 诪讞诪讚转谉 讜诪转讗讜讛 诇讛诐

The Gemara answers: The halakha of forbidden sexual relations is different, for the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relations are sins that one鈥檚 soul covets and lusts after. Therefore, we are concerned that one who has not properly studied these matters with his teacher will rule leniently for himself.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讙讝诇 谞诪讬 注专讬讜转 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 谞驻讬砖 讬爪专讬讛 讙讝诇 讘驻谞讬讜 谞驻讬砖 讬爪专讬讛 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诇讗 谞驻讬砖 讬爪专讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, robbery should also not be taught to more than two, for this very reason. The Gemara responds: There is a difference between the lust for forbidden sexual relations and the lust for robbery. In the case of those with whom relations are forbidden, his evil inclination is strong whether or not the objects of desire are before him. With regard to robbery, however, if the object presents a direct temptation before him his inclination is strong, but when it is not before him his inclination is not strong, and we are therefore less concerned.

讜诇讗 讘诪注砖讛 讘专讗砖讬转 讘砖谞讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 砖讗诇 谞讗 诇讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讬讞讬讚 砖讜讗诇 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 砖讜讗诇讬谉

搂 It is taught in the mishna: 鈥淣or the act of Creation before two.鈥 The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught that the verse states: 鈥淔or ask now of the days past, which were before you鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:32); since this verse is stated in the singular, it teaches that an individual may ask questions with regard to Creation, i.e., 鈥渢he days past,鈥 but two may not ask, which indicates that one may teach such matters to only one student.

讬讻讜诇 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诪谉 讛讬讜诐 讗砖专 讘专讗 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 讛讗专抓

One might have thought that a person may ask questions with regard to matters preceding the creation of the world. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淪ince the day that God created man upon the earth,鈥 but not earlier.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 诪砖砖转 讬诪讬 讘专讗砖讬转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讬诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讗砖专 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讱

One might have thought that a person may not ask questions with regard to matters that occurred during the six days of Creation before the creation of man. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or ask now of the days past, which were before you,鈥 indicating that one may inquire about the days preceding the creation of man.

讬讻讜诇 讬砖讗诇 讗讚诐 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜诪讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜诪讛 诇讗讞讜专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇诪拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讜注讚 拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 诪诇诪拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讜注讚 拽爪讛 讛砖诪讬诐 讗转讛 砖讜讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讗转讛 砖讜讗诇 诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇诪讟讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讗讞讜专

One might have thought that a person may ask questions with regard to what is above, what is below, what was before, and what is after the world. Therefore, the same verse states: 鈥淔rom one end of the heavens to the other鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:32), which is explained as follows: With regard to that which is from one end of the heavens to the other, within the boundaries of the world, you may ask, but you may not ask what is above, what is below, what was before, or what is after.

Scroll To Top