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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 13, 2022 | 讬状讘 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 4

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored anonymously in honor of Rabbi Raymond Harari. 鈥淗e has been teaching women Gemara for over 42 years (way before it was fashionable). May he be blessed with good health so that he may continue to inspire his students with the love of learning Talmud and Torah鈥.

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Heather Stone for the refuah shleima of Robert Stone, Yehuda Leib ben Naftali HaLevi and Chaya.

From where do we derive the exemptions for women, a tumtum, an androgynous, and slaves from the mitzva of 鈥渟eeing鈥 God on the holidays? Why is a drasha needed to exclude each of them? That same verse is also explained to include children. How does that work with our Mishna that said children were excluded? From where is it derived that those who are sick, lame, blind, and elderly are also exempt? A braita states that an impure person and one who is uncircumcised is also exempt. From where is this derived? A list is brought of several verses that caused certain rabbis to cry when they read them 鈥 why?

讻诪讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 讞诪讜专 讜讙诪诇 讜谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬 讝讛讜 砖讜讟讛 讝讛 讛诪讗讘讚 讻诇 诪讛 砖谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

like the actions of a forewarned ox that gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel. Since this ox gored three different animals on three separate occasions, it is considered predisposed to gore and becomes forewarned for every type of animal. Likewise, if someone performs three different deranged actions, it is assumed that there is no logical reason for his behavior and he is classified as an imbecile. Rav Pappa said: If Rav Huna had heard that which is taught in a baraita: Who is an imbecile? This is one who destroys whatever is given to him, he would have retracted his statement that one is an imbecile only if he performs three deranged actions.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪诪拽专注 讻住讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讛讜讛 讛讚专 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement: When Rav Pappa claims that Rav Huna would have retracted his statement, would he have retracted only from the case of one who tears his garments, as this person is similar to one who destroys whatever is given to him? Or perhaps he would have retracted his opinion with regard to all of the signs of an imbecile? The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved, as no answer was found.

讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讻讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讝讻讜专讱 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛拽讟谞讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: And a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hree occasions in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17), had the verse simply said 鈥渕ales,鈥 this would serve to exclude women from this mitzva. By specifying 鈥測our males,鈥 it comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite as well. Furthermore, when the verse adds 鈥渁ll your males,鈥 this serves to include male minors.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讻讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诪讻讚讬 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

The Master said in the baraita: 鈥淢ales鈥 comes to exclude women. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? After all, the obligation of appearance on a Festival is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and women are exempt from any positive, time-bound mitzva.

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 专讗讬讬讛 专讗讬讬讛 诪讛拽讛诇 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say: Let us derive by means of a verbal analogy between the term: Appearance, which appears here, and the term: Appearance, stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly (Deuteronomy 31:11), which is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. Just as there, women are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, so too here, women are obligated in the mitzva of appearance on the Festival. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that women are exempt.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讻讜专讱 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘砖诇诪讗 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 爪讚 讝讻专讜转 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗

The Master said in the baraita: 鈥淵our males鈥 comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. The Gemara asks: Granted, the exclusion of a hermaphrodite was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since he possesses an aspect of masculinity, i.e., he has a male sexual organ, he should be obligated like a male. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a hermaphrodite is a being unto itself, which is neither male nor female.

讗诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 诪讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住驻讬拽讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讘讬爪讬讜 诪讘讞讜抓

However, as the status of a tumtum, who lacks external sexual organs, is a halakhic uncertainty, is a verse necessary to exclude an uncertainty? Abaye said: It is referring to a case when the testicles of a tumtum are on the outside, although his penis is not visible. The verse teaches that this tumtum is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, despite the fact that he is certainly male.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜讛转谞谉 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Master said in the baraita: 鈥淎ll your males鈥 comes to include minors. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: All are obligated to appear, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that obligates minors is referring to a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot. There, the mishna is referring to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training in mitzvot, and therefore he is exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara asks: The obligation of a minor who has reached the age of training is one that applies by rabbinic law. How then can the baraita derive this halakha from a verse? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the verse is a mere support for this rabbinic obligation.

讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪拽诪抓 讜讛诪爪专祝 谞讞砖转 讜讛讘讜专住讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 诪讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 注诐 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇注诇讜转 注诐 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱

The Gemara asks: Rather, for what purpose does the verse: 鈥淎ll your males,鈥 come? It comes to teach that which A岣rim taught. As it is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say that a scrimper, one who gathers dog feces to give them to tanners for the purpose of tanning hides; and a melder of copper, who purifies copper from dross; and a tanner of hides, are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as their occupation inflicts upon them a particularly unpleasant odor. This is because it is stated: 鈥淎ll your males,鈥 which indicates that only one who is able to ascend with all your males is obligated, excluding those who are not suited to ascend with all your males, as people avoid their company.

谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讗讚讜谉 讛壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讚讜谉 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讚讜谉 讗讞专

搂 The mishna taught that women and slaves who are not emancipated are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara asks: Granted, women are exempt, as we said earlier that this is derived from the phrase: 鈥淵our males.鈥 However, with regard to slaves, from where do we derive that they are exempt? Rav Huna said that the verse states: 鈥淏efore the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). This indicates that one who has only one Master is obligated, which excludes this slave, who has another master.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诪讻讚讬 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 讚讙诪专 “诇讛” “诇讛” 诪讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to teach this halakha? After all, with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is obligated, a slave is also obligated in that mitzva; and with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is not obligated, a slave is not obligated in it either. The reason for this principle is that it is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the phrase: 鈥淭o her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), written with regard to a designated maidservant, and the phrase: 鈥淭o her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:3), written with regard to a divorced woman.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 诪讗讬 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 讻诇诇 诇讬转谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 住转诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 诇讙诪专讬 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina said: This verse is necessary only to teach the exemption of one who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara notes that the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Women and slaves who are not emancipated. What is the purpose of specifying: Who are not emancipated? If we say that this means that they are not emancipated at all, let it simply teach: Slaves, without any further description. Rather, is it not the case that the mishna is referring to slaves who are not entirely emancipated? And who are these slaves? One who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is correct.

讜讛讞讬讙专 讜讛住讜诪讗 讜讞讜诇讛 讜讛讝拽谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讙诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇讘注诇讬 拽讘讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 专讙诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇讞讬讙专 讜诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇住讜诪讗 讜诇讝拽谉 讜诇砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讘专讙诇讬讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗转讜讬讬

The mishna further taught: And the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the old are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Sages taught: 鈥淭imes [regalim]鈥 (Exodus 23:14) alludes to the use of one鈥檚 feet [raglayim], and therefore it excludes people with artificial legs. Although they are able to walk, they are exempt from traveling, as they do not have feet. Alternatively, the term regalim comes to exclude the lame, the sick, the blind, the old, and one who is unable to ascend on his own feet. The Gemara asks: The last category of one who is unable to ascend on his feet, comes to add what? The baraita already taught that the lame and the sick are exempt. Rava said: It comes to add

诪驻谞拽讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讘讗讜 诇专讗讜转 驻谞讬 诪讬 讘拽砖 讝讗转 诪讬讚讻诐 专诪讜住 讞爪专讬

a delicate man, who cannot walk without shoes. As it is written: 鈥淲hen you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?鈥 (Isaiah 1:12). Entering the Temple with shoes is described by the prophet as trampling, and therefore one who cannot enter barefoot is exempt from the mitzva of appearance.

转谞讗 讛注专诇 讜讛讟诪讗 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讟诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗转 砖诪讛 讜讛讘讗转诐 砖诪讛 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛

It is taught: The uncircumcised and the ritually impure are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara comments: Granted, a ritually impure person is exempt, as it is written: 鈥淎nd there you shall come鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:5), followed by: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6). The juxtaposition of these verses teaches: Anyone included in the mitzva of coming, i.e., anyone who may enter the Temple, is also included in the obligation of bringing offerings; and anyone not included in the mitzva of coming is not included in the obligation of bringing either. Since it is prohibited for a person who is ritually impure to enter the Temple, he is also exempt from the obligation to bring a burnt-offering of appearance.

讗诇讗 注专诇 诪谞诇谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚诪专讘讬 诇注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注专诇

However, with regard to the uncircumcised, from where do we derive that he is exempt? The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who amplifies the halakha so that the uncircumcised is included in the same category as the ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says, with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] of the seed of Aaron that is a leper or has an issue; he shall not eat of the sacred things鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), the double use of the term: 鈥淚sh,鈥 comes to include the uncircumcised. Like the ritually impure, the uncircumcised may neither eat sacrificial meat nor bring offerings to the Temple.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗转 砖诪讛 讜讛讘讗转诐 砖诪讛 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛

The Sages taught: A ritually impure person is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is written: 鈥淎nd there shall you come,鈥 鈥渁nd there you shall bring.鈥 Anyone included in coming is also included in the obligation of bringing offerings; and anyone not included in coming is not included in the obligation of bringing either.

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

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Dehavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree times a year all your males shall appear [yera鈥檈] before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). Since there are no vowels in the text, this can be read as: All your males will see [yireh] the Lord God. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to be seen: Just as one comes to see with both his eyes, so too the obligation to be seen applies only to one who comes with both his eyes. Therefore, one who is blind in one eye is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讬专讗讛 讬专讗讛 讘讻讬 讗诪专 注讘讚 砖专讘讜 诪爪驻讛 诇讜 诇专讗讜转讜 讬转专讞拽 诪诪谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讘讜讗讜 诇专讗讜转 驻谞讬 诪讬 讘拽砖 讝讗转 诪讬讚讻诐 专诪讜住 讞爪专讬

The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna reached this verse, which can be read as: 鈥淲ill see鈥 [yireh] and 鈥渟hall appear鈥 [yera鈥檈], he cried. He said: Can it happen to a slave whose master expects to see him, that the master will eventually distance himself from him and not want him anymore? As it is written: 鈥淲hen you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?鈥 (Isaiah 1:12).

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜讝讘讞转 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗讻诇转 砖诐 注讘讚 砖专讘讜 诪爪驻讛 诇讗讻讜诇 注诇 砖诇讞谞讜 讬转专讞拽 诪诪谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 专讜讘 讝讘讞讬讻诐 讬讗诪专 讛壮

Similarly, when Rav Huna reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice peace-offerings, and you shall eat there鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:7). Can it happen to a slave whose master expects him to eat at his table, that his master will eventually distance himself from him? As it is written: 鈥淭o what purpose is the multitude of your offerings to Me? says the Lord鈥 (Isaiah 1:11).

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜诇讗 讬讻诇讜 讗讞讬讜 诇注谞讜转 讗转讜 讻讬 谞讘讛诇讜 诪驻谞讬讜 讜诪讛 转讜讻讞讛 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讻讱 转讜讻讞讛 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 诇诪讛 讛专讙讝转谞讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讗讜转讬 讜诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讛爪讚讬拽 讛讬讛 诪转讬讬专讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗谞讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

The Gemara similarly relates: When Rabbi Elazar reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淎nd his brethren could not answer him, for they were affrighted at his presence鈥 (Genesis 45:3). He said, in explanation of his emotional reaction: If the rebuke of a man of flesh and blood was such that the brothers were unable to respond, when it comes to the rebuke of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so. When Rabbi Elazar reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淎nd Samuel said to Saul: Why have you disquieted me, to bring me up鈥 (I聽Samuel 28:15). He said: If Samuel the righteous was afraid of judgment when he was raised by necromancy, as he thought he was being summoned for a Divine judgment, all the more so that we should be afraid.

砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讗诪专 讛讗砖讛 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 讗诇讛讬诐 专讗讬转讬 注讜诇讬诐 注讜诇讬诐 转专讬 诪砖诪注 讞讚 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗讝诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗转讬讬讛 诇诪砖讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 诇讚讬谞讗 诪转讘注讬谞讗 拽讜诐 讘讛讚讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讻转讘转 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪转讬讛

The Gemara asks: In the case of Samuel, what is it that he feared? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the woman said to Saul, I see a godlike being coming up [olim] out of the earth鈥 (I聽Samuel 28:13). Olim,鈥 in the plural form, indicates that there were two of them. One of them was Samuel, but the other, who was he? The Gemara explains that Samuel went and brought Moses with him. He said to Moses: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I was summoned for judgment by God; stand with me and testify on my behalf that there is nothing that you wrote in the Torah that I did not fulfill.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讬转谉 讘注驻专 驻讬讛讜 讗讜诇讬 讬砖 转拽讜讛 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讗讜诇讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讘拽砖讜 爪讚拽 讘拽砖讜 注谞讜讛 讗讜诇讬 转住转专讜 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 讛壮 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讗讜诇讬 专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 砖谞讗讜 专注 讜讗讛讘讜 讟讜讘 讜讛爪讬讙讜 讘砖注专 诪砖驻讟 讗讜诇讬 讬讞谞谉 讛壮 [讗诇讛讬] 爪讘讗讜转 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讗讜诇讬

When Rabbi Ami reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淟et him put his mouth in the dust, perhaps there may be hope鈥 (Lamentations 3:29). He said: A sinner suffers through all this punishment and only perhaps there may be hope? When Rabbi Ami reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淪eek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you shall be hidden on the day of the Lord鈥檚 anger鈥(Zephaniah 2:3). He said: All of this is expected of each individual, and only perhaps God鈥檚 anger may be hidden? Likewise, when Rabbi Asi reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淗ate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate; perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious鈥 (Amos 5:15). He said: All of this, and only perhaps?

专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜讬砖 谞住驻讛 讘诇讗 诪砖驻讟 讗诪专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗讝讬诇 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 砖讻讬讞 讙讘讬讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诇讜讞讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 诪专讬诐 诪讙讚诇讗 砖讬注专 谞砖讬讬讗 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 诪专讬诐 诪讙讚诇讗 讚专讚拽讬

When Rav Yosef reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淏ut there are those swept away without justice鈥 (Proverbs 13:23). He said: Is there one who goes before his time and dies for no reason? The Gemara answers: Yes, like this incident of Rav Beivai bar Abaye, who would be frequented by the company of the Angel of Death and would see how people died at the hands of this angel. The Angel of Death said to his agent: Go and bring me, i.e., kill, Miriam the raiser, i.e., braider, of women鈥檚 hair. He went, but instead brought him Miriam, the raiser of babies.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪专讬诐 诪讙讚诇讗 砖讬注专 谞砖讬讬讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讬转讬转讛 诇讬讛讜讬 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讬讻诇转 诇讛 讛讜转 谞拽讬讟讗 诪转讗专讗 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讜转 拽讗 砖讙专讗

The Angel of Death said to him: I told you to bring Miriam, the raiser of women鈥檚 hair. His agent said to him: If so, return her to life. He said to him: Since you have already brought her, let her be counted toward the number of deceased people. Apparently, this woman died unintentionally. Rav Beivai asked the agent: But as her time to die had not yet arrived, how were you able to kill her? The agent responded that he had the opportunity, as she was holding a shovel in her hand and with it she was lighting

  • 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: 2-6- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

Masechet Chagiga discusses the mitzvah of Aliya L鈥橰egel, going up to the Temple in Jerusalem during the 3 festivals of...
WhatsApp Image 2022-02-09 at 09.02.04

Introduction to Chagigah

https://youtu.be/74Te41XwXKI  

Chagigah 4

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 4

讻诪讬 砖谞讙讞 砖讜专 讞诪讜专 讜讙诪诇 讜谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 诇讻诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬 讝讛讜 砖讜讟讛 讝讛 讛诪讗讘讚 讻诇 诪讛 砖谞讜转谞讬诐 诇讜 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛

like the actions of a forewarned ox that gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel. Since this ox gored three different animals on three separate occasions, it is considered predisposed to gore and becomes forewarned for every type of animal. Likewise, if someone performs three different deranged actions, it is assumed that there is no logical reason for his behavior and he is classified as an imbecile. Rav Pappa said: If Rav Huna had heard that which is taught in a baraita: Who is an imbecile? This is one who destroys whatever is given to him, he would have retracted his statement that one is an imbecile only if he performs three deranged actions.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪诪拽专注 讻住讜转讜 讛讜讗 讚讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讚诪讬讗 诇讛讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讛讜讛 讛讚专 转讬拽讜

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement: When Rav Pappa claims that Rav Huna would have retracted his statement, would he have retracted only from the case of one who tears his garments, as this person is similar to one who destroys whatever is given to him? Or perhaps he would have retracted his opinion with regard to all of the signs of an imbecile? The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved, as no answer was found.

讜讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讝讻讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讝讻讜专讱 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛拽讟谞讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: And a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hree occasions in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17), had the verse simply said 鈥渕ales,鈥 this would serve to exclude women from this mitzva. By specifying 鈥測our males,鈥 it comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite as well. Furthermore, when the verse adds 鈥渁ll your males,鈥 this serves to include male minors.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讻讜专 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛谞砖讬诐 讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诪讻讚讬 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

The Master said in the baraita: 鈥淢ales鈥 comes to exclude women. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? After all, the obligation of appearance on a Festival is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and women are exempt from any positive, time-bound mitzva.

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 专讗讬讬讛 专讗讬讬讛 诪讛拽讛诇 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say: Let us derive by means of a verbal analogy between the term: Appearance, which appears here, and the term: Appearance, stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly (Deuteronomy 31:11), which is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. Just as there, women are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, so too here, women are obligated in the mitzva of appearance on the Festival. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that women are exempt.

讗诪专 诪专 讝讻讜专讱 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 讜讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讘砖诇诪讗 讗谞讚专讜讙讬谞讜住 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 爪讚 讝讻专讜转 诇讬讞讬讬讘 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讘专讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讛讜讗

The Master said in the baraita: 鈥淵our males鈥 comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. The Gemara asks: Granted, the exclusion of a hermaphrodite was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since he possesses an aspect of masculinity, i.e., he has a male sexual organ, he should be obligated like a male. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a hermaphrodite is a being unto itself, which is neither male nor female.

讗诇讗 讟讜诪讟讜诐 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 诪讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 住驻讬拽讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻砖讘讬爪讬讜 诪讘讞讜抓

However, as the status of a tumtum, who lacks external sexual organs, is a halakhic uncertainty, is a verse necessary to exclude an uncertainty? Abaye said: It is referring to a case when the testicles of a tumtum are on the outside, although his penis is not visible. The verse teaches that this tumtum is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, despite the fact that he is certainly male.

讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛拽讟谞讬诐 讜讛转谞谉 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讻讗谉 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜拽专讗 讗住诪讻转讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Master said in the baraita: 鈥淎ll your males鈥 comes to include minors. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: All are obligated to appear, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that obligates minors is referring to a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot. There, the mishna is referring to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training in mitzvot, and therefore he is exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara asks: The obligation of a minor who has reached the age of training is one that applies by rabbinic law. How then can the baraita derive this halakha from a verse? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the verse is a mere support for this rabbinic obligation.

讜讗诇讗 拽专讗 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛诪拽诪抓 讜讛诪爪专祝 谞讞砖转 讜讛讘讜专住讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 诪讬 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 注诐 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谞谉 专讗讜讬讬谉 诇注诇讜转 注诐 讻诇 讝讻讜专讱

The Gemara asks: Rather, for what purpose does the verse: 鈥淎ll your males,鈥 come? It comes to teach that which A岣rim taught. As it is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say that a scrimper, one who gathers dog feces to give them to tanners for the purpose of tanning hides; and a melder of copper, who purifies copper from dross; and a tanner of hides, are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as their occupation inflicts upon them a particularly unpleasant odor. This is because it is stated: 鈥淎ll your males,鈥 which indicates that only one who is able to ascend with all your males is obligated, excluding those who are not suited to ascend with all your males, as people avoid their company.

谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 谞砖讬诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 驻谞讬 讛讗讚讜谉 讛壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讚讜谉 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讚讜谉 讗讞专

搂 The mishna taught that women and slaves who are not emancipated are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara asks: Granted, women are exempt, as we said earlier that this is derived from the phrase: 鈥淵our males.鈥 However, with regard to slaves, from where do we derive that they are exempt? Rav Huna said that the verse states: 鈥淏efore the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). This indicates that one who has only one Master is obligated, which excludes this slave, who has another master.

讛讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诪讻讚讬 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 讻诇 诪爪讜讛 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 讚讙诪专 “诇讛” “诇讛” 诪讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to teach this halakha? After all, with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is obligated, a slave is also obligated in that mitzva; and with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is not obligated, a slave is not obligated in it either. The reason for this principle is that it is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the phrase: 鈥淭o her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), written with regard to a designated maidservant, and the phrase: 鈥淭o her鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:3), written with regard to a divorced woman.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞砖讬诐 讜注讘讚讬诐 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 诪讗讬 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 讻诇诇 诇讬转谞讬 注讘讚讬诐 住转诪讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谞谉 诪砖讜讞专专讬谉 诇讙诪专讬 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina said: This verse is necessary only to teach the exemption of one who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara notes that the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Women and slaves who are not emancipated. What is the purpose of specifying: Who are not emancipated? If we say that this means that they are not emancipated at all, let it simply teach: Slaves, without any further description. Rather, is it not the case that the mishna is referring to slaves who are not entirely emancipated? And who are these slaves? One who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is correct.

讜讛讞讬讙专 讜讛住讜诪讗 讜讞讜诇讛 讜讛讝拽谉 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 专讙诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇讘注诇讬 拽讘讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 专讙诇讬诐 驻专讟 诇讞讬讙专 讜诇讞讜诇讛 讜诇住讜诪讗 讜诇讝拽谉 讜诇砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讘专讙诇讬讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讘专讙诇讬讜 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗转讜讬讬

The mishna further taught: And the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the old are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Sages taught: 鈥淭imes [regalim]鈥 (Exodus 23:14) alludes to the use of one鈥檚 feet [raglayim], and therefore it excludes people with artificial legs. Although they are able to walk, they are exempt from traveling, as they do not have feet. Alternatively, the term regalim comes to exclude the lame, the sick, the blind, the old, and one who is unable to ascend on his own feet. The Gemara asks: The last category of one who is unable to ascend on his feet, comes to add what? The baraita already taught that the lame and the sick are exempt. Rava said: It comes to add

诪驻谞拽讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讘讗讜 诇专讗讜转 驻谞讬 诪讬 讘拽砖 讝讗转 诪讬讚讻诐 专诪讜住 讞爪专讬

a delicate man, who cannot walk without shoes. As it is written: 鈥淲hen you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?鈥 (Isaiah 1:12). Entering the Temple with shoes is described by the prophet as trampling, and therefore one who cannot enter barefoot is exempt from the mitzva of appearance.

转谞讗 讛注专诇 讜讛讟诪讗 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 讟诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗转 砖诪讛 讜讛讘讗转诐 砖诪讛 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛

It is taught: The uncircumcised and the ritually impure are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara comments: Granted, a ritually impure person is exempt, as it is written: 鈥淎nd there you shall come鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:5), followed by: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6). The juxtaposition of these verses teaches: Anyone included in the mitzva of coming, i.e., anyone who may enter the Temple, is also included in the obligation of bringing offerings; and anyone not included in the mitzva of coming is not included in the obligation of bringing either. Since it is prohibited for a person who is ritually impure to enter the Temple, he is also exempt from the obligation to bring a burnt-offering of appearance.

讗诇讗 注专诇 诪谞诇谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讚诪专讘讬 诇注专诇 讻讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注专诇

However, with regard to the uncircumcised, from where do we derive that he is exempt? The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who amplifies the halakha so that the uncircumcised is included in the same category as the ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Akiva says, with regard to the verse: 鈥淎ny man [ish ish] of the seed of Aaron that is a leper or has an issue; he shall not eat of the sacred things鈥 (Leviticus 22:4), the double use of the term: 鈥淚sh,鈥 comes to include the uncircumcised. Like the ritually impure, the uncircumcised may neither eat sacrificial meat nor bring offerings to the Temple.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讟诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛专讗讬讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘讗转 砖诪讛 讜讛讘讗转诐 砖诪讛 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讘讬讗讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讛讘讗讛

The Sages taught: A ritually impure person is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is written: 鈥淎nd there shall you come,鈥 鈥渁nd there you shall bring.鈥 Anyone included in coming is also included in the obligation of bringing offerings; and anyone not included in coming is not included in the obligation of bringing either.

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

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Dehavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree times a year all your males shall appear [yera鈥檈] before the Lord God鈥 (Exodus 23:17). Since there are no vowels in the text, this can be read as: All your males will see [yireh] the Lord God. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to be seen: Just as one comes to see with both his eyes, so too the obligation to be seen applies only to one who comes with both his eyes. Therefore, one who is blind in one eye is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讬专讗讛 讬专讗讛 讘讻讬 讗诪专 注讘讚 砖专讘讜 诪爪驻讛 诇讜 诇专讗讜转讜 讬转专讞拽 诪诪谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讘讜讗讜 诇专讗讜转 驻谞讬 诪讬 讘拽砖 讝讗转 诪讬讚讻诐 专诪讜住 讞爪专讬

The Gemara relates that when Rav Huna reached this verse, which can be read as: 鈥淲ill see鈥 [yireh] and 鈥渟hall appear鈥 [yera鈥檈], he cried. He said: Can it happen to a slave whose master expects to see him, that the master will eventually distance himself from him and not want him anymore? As it is written: 鈥淲hen you come to appear before Me, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?鈥 (Isaiah 1:12).

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜讝讘讞转 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗讻诇转 砖诐 注讘讚 砖专讘讜 诪爪驻讛 诇讗讻讜诇 注诇 砖诇讞谞讜 讬转专讞拽 诪诪谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讛 诇讬 专讜讘 讝讘讞讬讻诐 讬讗诪专 讛壮

Similarly, when Rav Huna reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice peace-offerings, and you shall eat there鈥 (Deuteronomy 27:7). Can it happen to a slave whose master expects him to eat at his table, that his master will eventually distance himself from him? As it is written: 鈥淭o what purpose is the multitude of your offerings to Me? says the Lord鈥 (Isaiah 1:11).

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜诇讗 讬讻诇讜 讗讞讬讜 诇注谞讜转 讗转讜 讻讬 谞讘讛诇讜 诪驻谞讬讜 讜诪讛 转讜讻讞讛 砖诇 讘砖专 讜讚诐 讻讱 转讜讻讞讛 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜讬讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 诇诪讛 讛专讙讝转谞讬 诇讛注诇讜转 讗讜转讬 讜诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讛爪讚讬拽 讛讬讛 诪转讬讬专讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗谞讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

The Gemara similarly relates: When Rabbi Elazar reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淎nd his brethren could not answer him, for they were affrighted at his presence鈥 (Genesis 45:3). He said, in explanation of his emotional reaction: If the rebuke of a man of flesh and blood was such that the brothers were unable to respond, when it comes to the rebuke of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so. When Rabbi Elazar reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淎nd Samuel said to Saul: Why have you disquieted me, to bring me up鈥 (I聽Samuel 28:15). He said: If Samuel the righteous was afraid of judgment when he was raised by necromancy, as he thought he was being summoned for a Divine judgment, all the more so that we should be afraid.

砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讗诪专 讛讗砖讛 讗诇 砖讗讜诇 讗诇讛讬诐 专讗讬转讬 注讜诇讬诐 注讜诇讬诐 转专讬 诪砖诪注 讞讚 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗讝诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗转讬讬讛 诇诪砖讛 讘讛讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讞住 讜砖诇讜诐 诇讚讬谞讗 诪转讘注讬谞讗 拽讜诐 讘讛讚讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讻转讘转 讘讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪转讬讛

The Gemara asks: In the case of Samuel, what is it that he feared? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the woman said to Saul, I see a godlike being coming up [olim] out of the earth鈥 (I聽Samuel 28:13). Olim,鈥 in the plural form, indicates that there were two of them. One of them was Samuel, but the other, who was he? The Gemara explains that Samuel went and brought Moses with him. He said to Moses: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I was summoned for judgment by God; stand with me and testify on my behalf that there is nothing that you wrote in the Torah that I did not fulfill.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讬转谉 讘注驻专 驻讬讛讜 讗讜诇讬 讬砖 转拽讜讛 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讗讜诇讬 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讘拽砖讜 爪讚拽 讘拽砖讜 注谞讜讛 讗讜诇讬 转住转专讜 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 讛壮 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讗讜诇讬 专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 砖谞讗讜 专注 讜讗讛讘讜 讟讜讘 讜讛爪讬讙讜 讘砖注专 诪砖驻讟 讗讜诇讬 讬讞谞谉 讛壮 [讗诇讛讬] 爪讘讗讜转 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讜讗讜诇讬

When Rabbi Ami reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淟et him put his mouth in the dust, perhaps there may be hope鈥 (Lamentations 3:29). He said: A sinner suffers through all this punishment and only perhaps there may be hope? When Rabbi Ami reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淪eek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you shall be hidden on the day of the Lord鈥檚 anger鈥(Zephaniah 2:3). He said: All of this is expected of each individual, and only perhaps God鈥檚 anger may be hidden? Likewise, when Rabbi Asi reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淗ate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate; perhaps the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious鈥 (Amos 5:15). He said: All of this, and only perhaps?

专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘讻讬 讜讬砖 谞住驻讛 讘诇讗 诪砖驻讟 讗诪专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗讝讬诇 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讗讬谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 砖讻讬讞 讙讘讬讛 诪诇讗讱 讛诪讜转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诇讜讞讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 诪专讬诐 诪讙讚诇讗 砖讬注专 谞砖讬讬讗 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 诪专讬诐 诪讙讚诇讗 讚专讚拽讬

When Rav Yosef reached this verse, he cried: 鈥淏ut there are those swept away without justice鈥 (Proverbs 13:23). He said: Is there one who goes before his time and dies for no reason? The Gemara answers: Yes, like this incident of Rav Beivai bar Abaye, who would be frequented by the company of the Angel of Death and would see how people died at the hands of this angel. The Angel of Death said to his agent: Go and bring me, i.e., kill, Miriam the raiser, i.e., braider, of women鈥檚 hair. He went, but instead brought him Miriam, the raiser of babies.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪专讬诐 诪讙讚诇讗 砖讬注专 谞砖讬讬讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讛讚专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讬转讬转讛 诇讬讛讜讬 诇诪谞讬讬谞讗 讗诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讬讻诇转 诇讛 讛讜转 谞拽讬讟讗 诪转讗专讗 讘讬讚讛 讜讛讜转 拽讗 砖讙专讗

The Angel of Death said to him: I told you to bring Miriam, the raiser of women鈥檚 hair. His agent said to him: If so, return her to life. He said to him: Since you have already brought her, let her be counted toward the number of deceased people. Apparently, this woman died unintentionally. Rav Beivai asked the agent: But as her time to die had not yet arrived, how were you able to kill her? The agent responded that he had the opportunity, as she was holding a shovel in her hand and with it she was lighting

Scroll To Top