Today's Daf Yomi
February 20, 2022 | י״ט באדר א׳ תשפ״ב
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
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. “He 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.”
This week’s 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’s daf is sponsored by Susie Handelman in loving memory of her grandfather, Shmuel Ben Meir HaCohen (Katzin) Z”l. “He 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.”
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?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
בגזבר המסורות לו אבני בנין עסקינן דכל היכא דמנחה ברשותא דידיה מנחה
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.
אלא מסיפא בנאה בתוך ביתו הרי זה לא מעל עד שידור תחתיה בשוה פרוטה מכדי שנויי שנייה מה לי דר ומה לי לא דר היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה
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.
ומאי קושיא דלמא לכדרב דאמר רב כגון שהניחה על פי ארובה אי דר ביה אין לא דר ביה לא
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.
אלא לעולם כדרבא ודקא קשיא לך מידי דהוה אמוציא מעות הקדש לחולין התם מידע ידע דאיכא זוזי דהקדש איבעיא ליה לעיוני הכא מי ידע היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה:
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.
מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות: תנא נגעים ואהלות מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות נגעים מקרא מועט נגעים מקרא מרובה הוא אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר נגעים מקרא מרובה והלכות מועטות אהלות מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות
§ 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 13–14). 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.
ומאי נפקא מינה אי מסתפקא לך מילתא בנגעים עיין בקראי ואי מסתפקא לך מילתא באהלות עיין במתניתין:
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.
דינין: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא לכדרבי
§ 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.
דתניא רבי אומר נפש תחת נפש ממון אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא נפש ממש נאמרה נתינה למטה ונאמרה נתינה למעלה מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון:
The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “But if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life” (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: “You shall give life for life,” and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: “And he shall give as the judges determine” (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.
עבודות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא להולכת הדם דתניא והקריבו זו קבלת הדם
§ 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: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer the blood” (Leviticus 1:5); this is referring to collecting the blood, which is the stage before carrying the blood to the altar.
ואפקה רחמנא בלשון הולכה דכתיב והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש
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: “And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13). And the Master said that this term, “offer,” is not referring to sacrificing on the altar, as that is expressed by the phrase: “Make it smoke upon the altar.” Rather, this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp next to the altar, from where it is placed on the altar itself.
למימרא דהולכה לא תפקה מכלל קבלה:
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.
טהרות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא לשיעור מקוה דלא כתיבא דתניא ורחץ את בשרו במים במי מקוה את כל בשרו מים שכל גופו עולה בהן וכמה הן אמה על אמה ברום שלש אמות ושיערו חכמים מי מקוה ארבעים סאה:
§ 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: “And he shall bathe his flesh in water” (Leviticus 14:9). This means in the water of a ritual bath. And it is stated: “And he shall wash all his flesh in water” (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’a.
טמאות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא לכעדשה מן השרץ דלא כתיבא דתניא בהם
§ 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: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:31).
יכול בכולן תלמוד לומר מהם יכול במקצתן תלמוד לומר בהם
One might have thought that only someone who touches an entire, whole creeping animal becomes ritually impure. The verse states: “And upon whatever any of them falls, when they are dead, it shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). “Of them” 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: “Them,” i.e., all of them. This conclusion apparently contradicts the first ruling.
הא כיצד עד שיגיע במקצתו שהוא ככולו שיערו חכמים בכעדשה שכן חומט תחלתו בכעדשה רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר כזנב הלטאה:
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 ḥomet, 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’s 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.
עריות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא
§ 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
לבתו מאנוסתו דלא כתיבא
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.
דאמר רבא אמר לי רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא הנה הנה
As Rava said: Rabbi Yitzḥak 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: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter…you shall not take…they [hena] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). And it is written: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for they [hena] are your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10). This indicates that every daughter, even from the rape of a woman who is not one’s wife, is forbidden, just like one’s daughter from his wife.
אתיא זימה זימה:
Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression is derived from a verbal analogy between: “It is lewdness [zima]” (Leviticus 18:17), which is written with regard to a woman and her daughter, and the same term “lewdness” that appears elsewhere, as it is stated: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness [zima]: They shall be burnt with fire, both he and they” (Leviticus 20:14).
הן הן גופי תורה: הני אין הנך לא אלא אימא הן והן גופי תורה:
§ 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.
הדרן עלך הכל חייבין
We shall return to you, [chapter of] “All of obligated…”
אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים ולא במרכבה ביחיד אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו
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.
כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים רתוי לו כאילו לא בא לעולם מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור וכל שלא חס על כבוד קונו רתוי לו שלא בא לעולם:
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.
גמ׳ אמרת ברישא ולא במרכבה ביחיד והדר אמרת אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו
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.
הכי קאמר אין דורשין בעריות לשלשה ולא במעשה בראשית לשנים ולא במרכבה ליחיד אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו:
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.
אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה: מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו איש איש תרי שאר בשרו חד ואמר רחמנא לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה
§ 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: “None of you [ish, ish] shall approach any near of kin to uncover their nakedness” (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: “Man, man” equals two; “any near of kin to him” is one; and the Merciful One states: “You shall not approach to uncover their nakedness,” which indicates that one may not expound the halakhot of forbidden sexual relations in the presence of three individuals.
אלא מעתה דכתיב איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו איש איש אשר יתן מזרעו למולך הכי נמי
They ask: If that is so, then what of this verse: “Any man [ish, ish] who curses his God” (Leviticus 24:15), or “Any 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?
אלא הנהו מיבעי ליה לרבות את הגוים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם ועל עבודה זרה כישראל
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.
האי נמי מיבעי ליה לרבות את הגוים שמוזהרין על העריות כישראל
But if so, this mention of “man, man” 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.
אלא מדכתיב ושמרתם את משמרתי ושמרתם תרי משמרתי חד ואמר רחמנא לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות
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: “And you shall observe My charge” (Leviticus 18:30), which is explained as follows: “And you shall observe [ushmartem],” in the plural, indicates at least two; “My charge” is one; and the Merciful One states at the conclusion of this verse: “That you do not perform any of these abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30), indicating that this topic may not be taught to three.
אלא מעתה דכתיב ושמרתם את השבת ושמרתם את המצות ושמרתם את משמרת הקדש הכי נמי
The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then what of that which is written: “And you shall observe the Shabbat” (Exodus 31:14), and “And you shall observe the festival of matzot” (Exodus 12:17), and “And you shall observe the charge of the sacred things” (Numbers 18:5); so too, will you say that none of these subjects may be taught to three?
אלא אמר רב אשי מאי אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה אין דורשין בסתרי עריות בשלשה
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.
מאי טעמא סברא הוא בי תרי כי יתבי קמי רבייהו חד שקיל וטרי בהדי רביה ואידך מצלי אודניה לגמרא תלתא חד שקיל וטרי בהדי רביה והנך תרי שקלו וטרו בהדי הדדי ולא ידעי מאי קאמר רבייהו ואתו למישרי איסורא בעריות
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.
אי הכי כל התורה נמי
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the entire Torah should likewise be taught only to two individuals, to prevent similar errors.
עריות שאני דאמר מר גזל ועריות נפשו מחמדתן ומתאוה להם
The Gemara answers: The halakha of forbidden sexual relations is different, for the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relations are sins that one’s 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.
אי הכי גזל נמי עריות בין בפניו בין שלא בפניו נפיש יצריה גזל בפניו נפיש יצריה שלא בפניו לא נפיש יצריה:
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.
ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן כי שאל נא לימים ראשונים יחיד שואל ואין שנים שואלין
§ It is taught in the mishna: “Nor the act of Creation before two.” The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught that the verse states: “For ask now of the days past, which were before you” (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., “the days past,” but two may not ask, which indicates that one may teach such matters to only one student.
יכול ישאל אדם קודם שנברא העולם תלמוד לומר למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ
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: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth,” but not earlier.
יכול לא ישאל אדם מששת ימי בראשית תלמוד לומר לימים ראשונים אשר היו לפניך
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: “For ask now of the days past, which were before you,” indicating that one may inquire about the days preceding the creation of man.
יכול ישאל אדם מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור תלמוד לומר ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים מלמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים אתה שואל ואין אתה שואל מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור
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: “From one end of the heavens to the other” (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 Sami Groff in honor of Shoshana Keats Jaskoll and Chochmat Nashim.
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 11
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
בגזבר המסורות לו אבני בנין עסקינן דכל היכא דמנחה ברשותא דידיה מנחה
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.
אלא מסיפא בנאה בתוך ביתו הרי זה לא מעל עד שידור תחתיה בשוה פרוטה מכדי שנויי שנייה מה לי דר ומה לי לא דר היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה
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.
ומאי קושיא דלמא לכדרב דאמר רב כגון שהניחה על פי ארובה אי דר ביה אין לא דר ביה לא
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.
אלא לעולם כדרבא ודקא קשיא לך מידי דהוה אמוציא מעות הקדש לחולין התם מידע ידע דאיכא זוזי דהקדש איבעיא ליה לעיוני הכא מי ידע היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה:
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.
מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות: תנא נגעים ואהלות מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות נגעים מקרא מועט נגעים מקרא מרובה הוא אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר נגעים מקרא מרובה והלכות מועטות אהלות מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות
§ 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 13–14). 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.
ומאי נפקא מינה אי מסתפקא לך מילתא בנגעים עיין בקראי ואי מסתפקא לך מילתא באהלות עיין במתניתין:
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.
דינין: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא לכדרבי
§ 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.
דתניא רבי אומר נפש תחת נפש ממון אתה אומר ממון או אינו אלא נפש ממש נאמרה נתינה למטה ונאמרה נתינה למעלה מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון:
The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “But if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life” (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: “You shall give life for life,” and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: “And he shall give as the judges determine” (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.
עבודות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא להולכת הדם דתניא והקריבו זו קבלת הדם
§ 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: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer the blood” (Leviticus 1:5); this is referring to collecting the blood, which is the stage before carrying the blood to the altar.
ואפקה רחמנא בלשון הולכה דכתיב והקריב הכהן את הכל והקטיר המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש
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: “And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13). And the Master said that this term, “offer,” is not referring to sacrificing on the altar, as that is expressed by the phrase: “Make it smoke upon the altar.” Rather, this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp next to the altar, from where it is placed on the altar itself.
למימרא דהולכה לא תפקה מכלל קבלה:
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.
טהרות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא לשיעור מקוה דלא כתיבא דתניא ורחץ את בשרו במים במי מקוה את כל בשרו מים שכל גופו עולה בהן וכמה הן אמה על אמה ברום שלש אמות ושיערו חכמים מי מקוה ארבעים סאה:
§ 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: “And he shall bathe his flesh in water” (Leviticus 14:9). This means in the water of a ritual bath. And it is stated: “And he shall wash all his flesh in water” (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’a.
טמאות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא אלא לכעדשה מן השרץ דלא כתיבא דתניא בהם
§ 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: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:31).
יכול בכולן תלמוד לומר מהם יכול במקצתן תלמוד לומר בהם
One might have thought that only someone who touches an entire, whole creeping animal becomes ritually impure. The verse states: “And upon whatever any of them falls, when they are dead, it shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). “Of them” 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: “Them,” i.e., all of them. This conclusion apparently contradicts the first ruling.
הא כיצד עד שיגיע במקצתו שהוא ככולו שיערו חכמים בכעדשה שכן חומט תחלתו בכעדשה רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר כזנב הלטאה:
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 ḥomet, 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’s 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.
עריות: מיכתב כתיבן לא נצרכא
§ 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
לבתו מאנוסתו דלא כתיבא
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.
דאמר רבא אמר לי רבי יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא הנה הנה
As Rava said: Rabbi Yitzḥak 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: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter…you shall not take…they [hena] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). And it is written: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for they [hena] are your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10). This indicates that every daughter, even from the rape of a woman who is not one’s wife, is forbidden, just like one’s daughter from his wife.
אתיא זימה זימה:
Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression is derived from a verbal analogy between: “It is lewdness [zima]” (Leviticus 18:17), which is written with regard to a woman and her daughter, and the same term “lewdness” that appears elsewhere, as it is stated: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness [zima]: They shall be burnt with fire, both he and they” (Leviticus 20:14).
הן הן גופי תורה: הני אין הנך לא אלא אימא הן והן גופי תורה:
§ 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.
הדרן עלך הכל חייבין
We shall return to you, [chapter of] “All of obligated…”
אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים ולא במרכבה ביחיד אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו
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.
כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים רתוי לו כאילו לא בא לעולם מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור וכל שלא חס על כבוד קונו רתוי לו שלא בא לעולם:
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.
גמ׳ אמרת ברישא ולא במרכבה ביחיד והדר אמרת אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו
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.
הכי קאמר אין דורשין בעריות לשלשה ולא במעשה בראשית לשנים ולא במרכבה ליחיד אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין מדעתו:
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.
אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה: מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו איש איש תרי שאר בשרו חד ואמר רחמנא לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה
§ 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: “None of you [ish, ish] shall approach any near of kin to uncover their nakedness” (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: “Man, man” equals two; “any near of kin to him” is one; and the Merciful One states: “You shall not approach to uncover their nakedness,” which indicates that one may not expound the halakhot of forbidden sexual relations in the presence of three individuals.
אלא מעתה דכתיב איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו איש איש אשר יתן מזרעו למולך הכי נמי
They ask: If that is so, then what of this verse: “Any man [ish, ish] who curses his God” (Leviticus 24:15), or “Any 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?
אלא הנהו מיבעי ליה לרבות את הגוים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם ועל עבודה זרה כישראל
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.
האי נמי מיבעי ליה לרבות את הגוים שמוזהרין על העריות כישראל
But if so, this mention of “man, man” 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.
אלא מדכתיב ושמרתם את משמרתי ושמרתם תרי משמרתי חד ואמר רחמנא לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות
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: “And you shall observe My charge” (Leviticus 18:30), which is explained as follows: “And you shall observe [ushmartem],” in the plural, indicates at least two; “My charge” is one; and the Merciful One states at the conclusion of this verse: “That you do not perform any of these abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30), indicating that this topic may not be taught to three.
אלא מעתה דכתיב ושמרתם את השבת ושמרתם את המצות ושמרתם את משמרת הקדש הכי נמי
The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then what of that which is written: “And you shall observe the Shabbat” (Exodus 31:14), and “And you shall observe the festival of matzot” (Exodus 12:17), and “And you shall observe the charge of the sacred things” (Numbers 18:5); so too, will you say that none of these subjects may be taught to three?
אלא אמר רב אשי מאי אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה אין דורשין בסתרי עריות בשלשה
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.
מאי טעמא סברא הוא בי תרי כי יתבי קמי רבייהו חד שקיל וטרי בהדי רביה ואידך מצלי אודניה לגמרא תלתא חד שקיל וטרי בהדי רביה והנך תרי שקלו וטרו בהדי הדדי ולא ידעי מאי קאמר רבייהו ואתו למישרי איסורא בעריות
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.
אי הכי כל התורה נמי
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the entire Torah should likewise be taught only to two individuals, to prevent similar errors.
עריות שאני דאמר מר גזל ועריות נפשו מחמדתן ומתאוה להם
The Gemara answers: The halakha of forbidden sexual relations is different, for the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relations are sins that one’s 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.
אי הכי גזל נמי עריות בין בפניו בין שלא בפניו נפיש יצריה גזל בפניו נפיש יצריה שלא בפניו לא נפיש יצריה:
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.
ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן כי שאל נא לימים ראשונים יחיד שואל ואין שנים שואלין
§ It is taught in the mishna: “Nor the act of Creation before two.” The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught that the verse states: “For ask now of the days past, which were before you” (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., “the days past,” but two may not ask, which indicates that one may teach such matters to only one student.
יכול ישאל אדם קודם שנברא העולם תלמוד לומר למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ
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: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth,” but not earlier.
יכול לא ישאל אדם מששת ימי בראשית תלמוד לומר לימים ראשונים אשר היו לפניך
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: “For ask now of the days past, which were before you,” indicating that one may inquire about the days preceding the creation of man.
יכול ישאל אדם מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור תלמוד לומר ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים מלמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים אתה שואל ואין אתה שואל מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור
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: “From one end of the heavens to the other” (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.
