Rabbi Zeira asks: Who brought this minor from his house to Yerushalayim (if he was capable of being away from his mother during the journey from his house to Yerushalayim, he is probably capable of ascending to the Temple Mount by riding on the shoulders of his father or walking while holding his hand)?

 

Abaye answers: The mother brought the minor until Yerushalayim. The mother came to Yerushalayim because she is included in the mitzvah of simchah (rejoicing during the festival). (6a)

 

Rebbe objected on behalf of Beis Hillel to the view of Beis Shammai: It is written: But Chanah didn’t ascend (to Shiloh for the festival), for she said to her husband: Until the child will be weaned, then I will bring him up. Now Shmuel (Chanah’s son) was already able to ride on his father’s shoulders!

 

His (Rebbe’s) father said to him: But according to your own reasoning, there is a difficulty: Wasn’t Chanah herself obligated in simchah (so why didn’t she go)? The explanation, therefore, must be that Chanah saw that Shmuel was exceptionally delicate, and she feared that the exhaustion from the journey might unduly harm Shmuel. (6a)

 

Rabbi Shimon presented the following inquiry: What would be the halachah regarding a lame minor according to Beis Shammai (He cannot walk to The Beis Hamikdosh, so Beis Hillel would certainly exempt him from the mitzvah.), and what would the halachah be regarding a blind minor according to both opinions? Is the father obligated to bring them to the Beis Hamikdosh with him?

 

The Gemora explains the case: If we are referring to a case where the lame child or the blind one cannot be healed; it is obvious that there is no obligation, for even an adult in such a situation has no obligation. Rabbi Shimon’s inquiry must be referring to a case where they can be healed before they become an adult.

 

Abaye rules: Wherever an adult would have an obligation to fulfill the mitzvah, there is also an obligation to train the minor; wherever the adult would be exempt from the obligation (if he was lame or blind), there is no obligation to train the minor, as well. (6a)

 

The Mishna had stated: Beis Shammai said: The olas re’iyah offering (which the pilgrim is obligated to bring upon entering the Beis Hamikdosh during the festival) must be worth at least two silver maos and the shalmei chagigah sacrifice (a peace offering, which the pilgrim must also bring during the festival) must be worth at least one silver ma’ah. Beis Hillel disagrees: The olas re’iyah offering must be worth at least one silver ma’ah and the shalmei chagigah must be worth at least two silver maos.

 

The Gemora cites a braisa, which elaborates on their respective opinions: Beis Shammai maintains that the minimum requirement is greater for the olas re’iyahbecause it is an offering which is completely burned on the altar, whereas a shalmei chagigah is not (the Kohanim and the owner eat various portions from the korban). Furthermore, we find during Shavuos that there are more olos offered than shelamim (indicating that olos are more important). Beis Hillel holds that the minimum requirement is greater for the shalmei chagigah because we find in the Torah that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. Furthermore, we find that the Nesiim (the prince of each tribe) brought more shelamim offerings than olos.

 

The Gemora proceeds to analyze why each opinion does not hold of the other’s logic.

 

Beis Hillel does not agree to Beis Shammai because they can say as follows: As for your saying that the olah offering is more important because it is entirely offered to the Most High; on the contrary, the shalmei chagigah is more important, because in it there are two consumptions (for it is consumed by the altar and by man). And as for your saying that we should learn by analogy from Shavuos, I contend that we should form an analogy between the offering of an individual (shalmei chagigah or olas re’iyah) from the offering of an individual (of the Nesi’im), but we should not form an analogy between the offering of an individual (shalmei chagigah or olas re’iyah) and an offering of the community (the sacrifices offered on Shavuos).

 

Beis Shammai does not agree with Beis Hillel, for they can say as follows: As for your saying that the shalmei chagigah is more important because this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai, I can contend that the olas re’iyah was also offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. And as for your saying that we should learn by analogy from the Nesi’im, I contend that we have to form an analogy between something that will be practiced for generations (shalmei chagigah or olas re’iyah) from something else that will be practiced for generations (the sacrifices offered on Shavuos), but we should not form an analogy between something that will be practiced for generations (shalmei chagigah or olas re’iyah) from something that will be practiced for generations (the offerings of the Nesi’im).

 

The Gemora asks: Now, according to Beis Hillel, why is the shalmei chagigah singled out as being offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai? It is because it is written: And they sacrificed shelamim. Surely the olas re’iyah must also have been offered up then, for behold, it is written: And they offered up olos?

 

The Gemora answers: Beis Hillel are of the opinion that the olah offering which the Israelites offered in the Wilderness was the olah of the tamid (and not the olas re’iyah).

 

The Gemora explains that Beis Shammai is of the opinion that the olah offering that the Israelites offered in the Wilderness was the olas re’iyah. (6a)

 

In the course of the discussion, it emerges that there is a dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding the olah which was offered in the Wilderness (before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai); Beis Hillel maintains that this was the olah of the tamid (a communal korban brought twice daily – and therefore it has no bearing on the olah offered during the festival), and Beis Shammai holds that this was an olas re’iyah.

 

Abaye notes that this is actually a matter which other Tannaim have argued about, as well.

 

Abaye illustrates how it is evident that Beis Shammai, Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Yishmael hold that the olah which was offered in the Wilderness was in fact an olas re’iyah (following Beis Shammai’s opinion), and Beis Hillel, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosi Hagelili maintain that it was the olah of the tamid.

 

We know Beis Shammai’s opinion from the discussion above. Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion is known from the following braisa: Rabbi Yishmael says that the general rules were taught at Mount Sinai, but the full details were only taught in the Mishkan, while Rabbi Akiva says that the general rules and the details were taught at Mount Sinai, repeated in the Mishkan, and repeated again in the plains of Moav before entering Eretz Yisroel. Now, if it should enter your mind that the olah which was offered in the Wilderness was the tamid offering, can there be such a thing that the tamid (initially) did not require skinning and slicing (into pieces), and later it did require skinning and slicing (for these laws were not taught until the Mishkan was built, which was many months after Sinai)?

Rabbi Elozar’s opinion is known from the following braisa: The olah of the tamid that was offered at Mount Sinai. Rabbi Elozar said: The process of its offering was instructed at Sinai, but it was not actually offered up (for the tamid was not offered then; rather, it was the olas re’iyah). Rabbi Akiva said: It was offered up and was never discontinued. But how am I to explain the verse: Did you bring to Me sacrifices and Minchah offerings in the Wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel? The tribe of Levi, who were not guilty of idol worship, offered them (the tamid) up (in the Wilderness).

 

We know Beis Hillel’s opinion from the discussion above. We know Rabbi Akiva’s opinion from the braisa cited above.

 

We know Rabbi Yosi HaGelili’s opinion from the following braisa: Rabbi Yosi Hagelili said: There are three mitzvos that a Jewish person is obligated to perform when he ascends to Yerushalayim during the festival: The olas re’iyah,  shalmei chagigah and the shalmei simchahh (a peace offering brought for the purpose of eating the meat in Yerushalayim during the festival). There is an element found in the olas re’iyah that is not found in the other two, namely, that it is an offering which is completely burned on the altar. There is an element found in the shalmei chagigah that is not found in the other two, namely, that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai. There is an element found in the shalmei simchahh that is not found in the other two, namely, that this is a korban which men and women are both obligated to participate in.

 

The Gemora asks: Why did you represent Rabbi Yishmael as agreeing with Beis Shammai? It is because you argued as follows: If it should enter your mind that the olah which was offered in the Wilderness was the tamid offering, can there be such a thing that the tamid (initially) did not require skinning and slicing (into pieces), and later it did require skinning and slicing (for these laws were not taught until the Mishkan was built, which was many months after Sinai)? But behold Rabbi Yosi HaGelili said explicitly that the olah offering which the Israelites offered in the Wilderness was the tamid, and yet he held that at first it did not require skinning and slicing (into pieces), and later it did require skinning and slicing; for it was taught in a braisa: Rabbi Yosi HaGelili says that the olah brought by Bnei Yisroel in the Wilderness (before the Mishkan was established) did not need to be skinned and sliced, as this only applied from the time that the Tent of Meeting was erected and onwards?

 

The Gemora answers: Delete Rabbi Yishmael from here. (6a – 6b)

 

Rav Chisda inquired: Does the verse mean: And he sent the young men of the Children of Israel, who brought up burnt-offerings, which consisted of lambs; and they slaughtered feast shelamim offerings to Hashem, namely of bulls; or does the word ‘bulls’ refer to both the olah and the shelamim offerings?

 

The Gemora asks: What difference does it make?

 

Mar Zutra said: In regard to the cantillation notes. Rav Acha, the son of Rava, said: In regard to one who says: I vow to offer an olah offering like the olah offering which the Israelites offered in the Wilderness. What must he offer? Were they oxen or lambs?

 

The Gemora lets the inquiry stand (unresolved). (6b)

 

INSIGHTS TO THE DAF

WHICH KORBAN IS SUPERIOR?

 

Beis Hillel holds that the minimum requirement is greater for the shalmei chagigah than it is for the olas re’iyah. The olas re’iyah offering must be worth at least one silver ma’ah and the shalmei chagigah must be worth at least two silver maos.

 

The Aruch Hashulchan (199:3) wonders if this applies specifically to the amount that one should spend on this particular korban or perhaps it is broader than that and the halachah would be that the shalmei chagigah must be superior to the olas re’iyah in all facets.

 

He cites a Gemora below (8b) that states: If a person has many dependents, but a minimal amount of money, he can bring many shelamim and a few olos, but if he has an abundance of money and few dependents, he may bring more olos than shelamim. This would indicate that the olas re’iyah may be superior in general; Beis Hillel is only particular that the shelamim should be worth at least two silver maos.

 

It would appear from the Aruch Hashulchan that he holds that one must spend more on the shalmei chagigah than he does for the olas re’iyah.

 

The Zecher L’Chagigah inquires: What is the halachah if one can only afford to purchase one korban; which would take precedence? He states that this would be dependent on the dispute between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel.

 

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Beis Hillel holds that the minimum requirement is greater for the shalmei chagigah because we find in the Torah that this sacrifice was offered even before Hashem’s Words were spoken at Sinai.

 

Although the verses describing this offering are written after the giving of the Torah, the Gemora in Shabbos (88a) states that they were actually brought beforehand. The Torah does not always write in the chronological order that the events transpired in.

 

Pinchas Chalk discusses this at length.

 

The parsha (Mishpatim) is split into three sections. The first part of the parshah, from the beginning of of the parsha until perek 23, passuk 19, discusses the laws that were given after Har Sinai. From possuk 20 until the end of perek 23, the Torah describes various berachos that Hashem will give to the Benei Yisroel [if they keep the Aseret haDibrot (Daas Zekeinim mi’Baalei HaTosafos)].

Then, from the beginning of perek 24, the pessukim continues with the description of Matan Torah.

 

Hashem said to Moshe, “Go up to Hashem, you and Aharon and Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of the Benei Yisroel and you should bow down from a distance.” And Moshe alone drew close to Hashem and they did not draw near and the people did not go up with him. And Moshe came and he spoke to the people all the words of Hashem and all of the laws. And all of the people answered with one voice and they said, “All of the words that Hashem has spoken we will do.”

And Moshe wrote all of the words of Hashem and he got up early in the morning and he built a mizbeach (alter) at the foot of the mountain and twelve pillars (alters made from single stones) for the twelve tribes of Yisroel. And he sent the lads (this refers to the bechorot – firstborn (Rashi)) of the Benei Yisroel and they broughtolot (burnt sacrifices)[on the mizbeach and on the matzevot (pillars) that Moshe had built. And they slaughtered peace offerings (shelamim) to Hashem – cows.

And he took the sefer habris (the book of the covenant) and he read it in the ears of the people and they said: ‘Everything that Hashem has spoken we will do and we will listen [to].”

When did this Parsha occur? It is not at all obvious when these events happened. The Ramban says that all of these events took place after Matan Torah. According to the Ramban immediately after Matan Torah, on the 6th of Sivan, Hashem said to Moshe the pessukim at the end of Parshat Yitro, all of the halachot that form the first half of Parshat Mishpatim and also the passuk of  ????? ???-? – “Go up to Hashem.” On the next day Moshe went up to the top of Har Sinai for fourty days and nights.

 

Rashi explains that the pessukim beginning  – “Go up to Hashem” were actually said before Matan Torah on the 4th of Sivan. Both Rashi and the Ramban agree, however, that from passuk 12 and onwards is talking about what happened after Matan Torah: And Hashem said to Moshe, “Come up the mountain to me and remain there and I will give to you the Tablets of stone and the Torah and the Mitzvah that I have written to instruct them.” And Moshe got up and Yehoshua his assistant and Moshe went up to the mountain of Hashem. He said to the elders, “Stay here until we return to you. Look, Aharon and Chur are with you, whoever has a need for litigation should go to them.” Moshe went up to the mountain and the cloud covered the mountain.

These pessukim describe Moshe’s ascent to Har Sinai for fourty days and nights and are obviously referring to what happened after Matan Torah. Why then does Rashi explain that the beginning of the perek is referring to what happened before Matan Torah? Why does he not explain simply like the Ramban that the whole perek is written in chronological order?

 

Why Rashi explains that the Parsha is not in chronological order

There are many explanations and considerations regarding Rashi’s peshat:

 

The Maharal points out that the machloket between Rashi and the Ramban is in fact a machloket in the mechilta that the Ramban quotes and that the mechilta says initially like Rashi. Rabbi Yehudah who argues in the mechilta and who says like the Ramban is a da’as yochid – an individual who argues against many. (In halachahh if one individual argues against many the halachahh is like the majority. The general principles of deciding who the halachah is like are not binding with regards to derush (Rabbi Moshe Aharon Stern z”l), nevertheless the majority explanation still carries more weight.)

The gemara says that the benei yisrael entered into a bris (covenant) with Hashem through milah, dam (blood) and tevillah. Rashi is of the opinion that all of these must have been performed before Matan Torah, therefore he explains that these pessukim that describe the korbanot (whose dam was the dam bris) brought by thebechorot (first born) must have occurred before Matan Torah. According to the Ramban the dam bris was brought after Matan Torah.

The He’emek Davar asks on the Ramban from the gemara says in Masechet Shabbat (88a) that Moshe built a mizbeach on the fifth of Sivan. According to Rashi this fits perfectly into the pessukim. The parshah starts on the 4th of Sivan, then on the next day which is the fifth, ???????????? ?????????, ???????? ????????? ?????? ?????. – “Moshe got up early and built a mizbeach at the foot of the mountain.” According to the Ramban there is no mention in the Torah that Moshe built amizbeach before Matan Torah! (see He’emek Davar for a further discussion of this point.)

– The He’emek Davar asks another question on the Ramban from the gemara in Masechet Chagigah (6a) that says that the Korban Chagigah (the korban shelamimthat is brought on the sholosh regalim) and the Korban Tamid (the daily olah that was brought in the morning and in the evening) were brought ???? ??????. Rashi there explains that this means that they were brought before the Aseret Hadibrot were given. According to the Ramban these korbanot were brought after Matan Torah?

The Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim, 225:5) asks the same question and explains (see the sefer Shaarei Aharon) that according to the Ramban when the gemara says that these korbanot were brought ???? ??????, it does not mean that they were brought before Matan Torah, rather it means that they were brought even before the primary instruction to bring them daily at the beginning of Parshas Tzav.

All this explains why Rashi explained that the pessukim are not in chronological order, but why did the Torah put the pessukim in this order?

The Maharal explains intriguingly as follows:

“The reason that these pessukim were not written in order before Matan Torah is because all of this was the bris (the covenant) on the Torah that they would accept the next day. Because all of these actions related to the Torah, scripture ordered it in the place that is fitting for it, for they did these deeds concerning the acceptance of the Torah. and if it was possible to perform these actions and to accept the Torah simultaeneously they would have done that and because this is impossible they peformed the actions first. Nevertheless the pessukim are stated in their place after Matan Torah.”

The Maharal requires clarification. Tentatively we can explain as follows:

 

1) The first part of Mishpatim as well as the last pessukim in Parshas Yisro are all a continuation of Kabbalat Ha’Torah and ma’amad Har Sinai. Although it is written afterwards, the account of the bris is at least juxtaposed to Matan Torah.

2) There is a difference between writing something and between the event actually occuring. That means that when you write something you may order the events differently than the order in which they occurred in order to convey the inner meaning of the events. (The stress in the Maharal is on the word ketivah: “Umah shelonichtav kodem matan torah”, “si’der osoi ha’kosuv bi’mekomo haro’u lo”, “u’mikol mokom ha’kosuv ne’emar bi’mekomo“) The Torah is a written document and the Torah wishes to emphases the close unity between the bris, which is the bond of love between Hashem and Klal Yisrael, and between the mitzvos that we were commanded at ma’amad Har Sinai which give concrete expression to that love.

3) The fact that the bris occurred physically before Matan Torah does not obligate the Torah to write the bris beforehand. The bris and Kabbalat ha’Torah are one and should have occurred together, however in olam hazeh we have time constraints so incidentally the events were sequential.

DAILY MASHAL

The unity of kabbalat hatorah and the bris on the Torah is made clear by writing the bris after Matan Torah. The Torah is not a history book, rather the Torah relays the inner content of events that transpired which affected klal yisrael and which continue to affect klal yisrael. The Torah here is telling you, “This is the bris of the Torah! This is the emotional core of the love between Hashem and klal yisrael which is made permanent by our observance of the mitzvot.” As the medrash says “Araissa v’Yisrael v’Kudsha Brich Hu chad hu” – “The Torah and Yisrael and Hashem are all one” (Zohar, Acharei Mos). This point is made clearer by relating thebris after the mitzvot given at Sinai. After we have something concrete to understand and we gain a tephisa (a grasp) of the Torah, then the Torah says, “And this is the bris that is the inner life of that instruction!”

May we become one with our friends and with the Torah and through this become closer to Hashem.