Ask A Question about the Daf

Chagigah 2

1) THE MEANING OF "RE'IYAH"

QUESTION: The Mishnah says that "everyone is obligated in Re'iyah" except for the exceptions that it lists. RASHI explains that "Re'iyah" means to appear in the Azarah during the festival.

However, the end of the Mishnah uses the word "Re'iyah" to refer to the Korban that is brought upon coming to the Azarah during the festival (the Olas Re'iyah). Why, then, does Rashi explain that the word "Re'iyah" in the beginning of the Mishnah refers to something different -- to the obligation to appear in the Azarah during the festival? Rashi should have explained that it refers to the obligation to bring a Korban Re'iyah on the festival! (TOSFOS DH ha'Kol)

ANSWER: The Mishnah continues and says that a Katan is not obligated in the Mitzvah of Re'iyah if he is not able to go from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis riding on his father's shoulders (according to Beis Shamai) or holding his father's hand (according to Beis Hillel). This implies that if he is able to walk (or ride, according to Beis Shamai), then even a Katan is obligated in Re'iyah. However, RASHI (DH Beis Shamai) says that only an adult is required to bring a *Korban* Re'iyah. That is, there is no Mitzvah of Chinuch to have the child bring a Korban Re'iyah, since mid'Oraisa the Katan is not obligated to bring such a Korban and cannot sanctify an animal to be brought as such a Korban. Therefore any animal he brings for a Korban Re'iyah would constitute bringing a non-sanctified animal into the Azarah.)

That is why Rashi explains that the Mishnah's statement, "Everyone is obligated in Re'iyah," refers to the Mitzvah of appearing in the Azarah. Hence, when the Mishnah continues and says that a Katan who is old enough to go from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis is obligated, it means that he is obligated to *appear in the Azarah* -- but not to bring a Korban. (This also appears to be the intention of Tosfos, end of DH Eizheu, when he explains what Rashi means to say. See also TUREI EVEN, 6a DH Eizehu.)

TOSFOS (DH Eizehu) argues with Rashi and says that a Katan is obligated to bring even a Korban Re'iyah because of Chinuch. (He actually brings a Korban Nedavah, and he brings it the following day, on Chol ha'Mo'ed, and not on Yom Tov itself. In addition, he does not perform Semichah with the animal, since a Katan cannot do Semichah.)

Tosfos is consistent with his opinion earlier (in DH ha'Kol Chayavin), where he says that when the Mishnah mentions "Re'iyah," it means not just going to the Azarah, but bringing the Korban as well. Thus, when the words of the Mishnah later imply that a Katan old enough to walk is obligated, it is referring to the obligation to bring a Korban, and that is why Tosfos says that a Katan must bring a Korban for Chinuch.

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that according to Beis Shamai, a Katan is exempt from Re'iyah if he is not old enough to ride on his father's shoulders "from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis." According to Beis Hillel, a Katan is exempt if he is not old enough to hold his father's hand and walk "from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis." RASHI explains that if the child cannot walk by himself, then he is exempt because had he been a Gadol (an adult) and not able to walk, he would have been exempt, and thus he is exempt as a child in that state.

RASHI (DH u'Mi sh'Eino) explains that a Gadol is exempt from the Mitzvah of going to the Azarah on the festival if he cannot walk "from Yerushalayim to the *Azarah*." Rashi does not say "to Har ha'Bayis" as the Mishnah says, but rather he says "to the *Azarah*." Rashi is certainly correct -- "Aliyah l'Regel" does not mean going only to Har ha'Bayis. One must go into the Azarah in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, because the Azarah is considered "before Hashem" (Shemos 23:17), while Har ha'Bayis is not considered "before Hashem" (Chagigah 7a).

Why, then, does the Mishnah say that the Katan must be able to go from Yerushalayim to *Har ha'Bayis*? Since the Mitzvah is to go to the Azarah, the Mishnah should say that the Katan must be able to walk from Yerushalayim to the *Azarah* and not just to Har ha'Bayis in order to be obligated! (TOSFOS YOM TOV)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV answers that the difficult part of the trip is the climb from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis, which was a steep incline that had no stairs. Once one came to Har ha'Bayis, there were stairs leading to the Azarah (as the Mishnah describes in Midos), and from there it was an easy walk to the Azarah. If the child could make it to Har ha'Bayis, then he certainly could make it to the Azarah.

(b) RASHI later (4b, DH Mefanki) says that in order to be obligated in Re'iyah, a person must be able to walk up Har ha'Bayis without shoes, since it is prohibited to go into Har ha'Bayis while wearing shoes (Berachos 54a). Accordingly, perhaps the Mishnah says that one must be able to walk to "Har ha'Bayis" in order to remind us of the unique Halachah that applies to all of Har ha'Bayis and affects the age of Aliyah l'Regel. It is emphasizing that a Katan is obligated only if he can walk with his father *without* shoes to the Azarah, since the Azarah is atop Har ha'Bayis, upon which shoes may not trod.

According to Beis Shamai (who maintains that even before the Katan can walk he is obligated in Re'iyah, as long as he can ride on his father's shoulders), the Mishnah mentions Har ha'Bayis to say that the Katan is obligated only if his *father* is able to go without shoes while carrying him from Yerushalayim on his shoulders. (Even though another person could take the child up Har ha'Bayis if the father cannot, no one else is obligated to do so since the obligation of Chinuch rests solely on the father's shoulders, and it is not the *child's* obligation to go up, as Rashi implies.) (M. Kornfeld)

(c) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:10) writes that according to the YERUSHALMI, it seems that the distance one must be able to walk in order to be obligated in Re'iyah is not a relative figure, but a set distance, no matter where the person is leaving from.If so, he suggests, since the Azarah can be extended to all parts of Har ha'Bayis (but not more, as the Rambam there implies), the distance that one must be able to walk was established to be from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis. Walking this distance reflects the maturity of the child, and shows whether he has reached the point at which he begins to be obligated in this Mitzvah. (However, the Or Same'ach points out that our Gemara (6a) seems to argue with this understanding of the Mishnah.)

The Mishnah a few lines later lists "slaves who are not free" among those who are *exempt* from Re'iyah. Ravina infers from those words that the Mishnah is referring to a person who is half-slave and half-free, and that is why it adds the extra words "slaves *who are not free*."

How can the words of the Mishnah teach at the same time that a half-slave is obligated in Re'iyah, and that a half-slave is exempt from Re'iyah?

The Gemara answers that one statement of the Mishnah was said according to the Mishnah Rishonah, the earlier ruling which stated that a half-slave must serve his master for one day, and serve himself the next day, in an alternating fashion. The other statement of the Mishnah was said according to the Mishnah Acharonah, the later ruling which changes the first ruling and states that the master is obligated to free his half-slave. Which parts of the Mishnah refer to the earlier and later rulings, respectively?

(a) RASHI, TOSFOS, and most other Rishonim say that when the words in the middle of the Mishnah state that a half-slave is exempt, they are following the Mishnah *Rishonah*, which ruled that a half-slave remains a slave (albeit only half of the time). A half-slave is exempt according to the Mishnah Rishonah since he retains the status of a slave.

The words at the beginning of the Mishnah, which teach that a half-slave is obligated in Re'iyah, are following the Mishnah *Acharonah*, which states that the master is obligated to free his half-slave. Consequently, he is considered to be free now and thus he is obligated in Re'iyah. Even though the Gemara in Gitin (42b) does not answer its question of whether a half- slave (according to the Mishnah Acharonah) is considered the legal property of the master (and may eat Terumah if the master is a Kohen) or not, that question applies only insofar as a Kinyan is concerned. The legal ownership of the half-slave does not affect the Halachah here, which depends on whether or not the person has any other master over him other than Hashem. As far as the obligation of Re'iyah is concerned, this half-slave is considered *not* to have any other master over him, since the master cannot tell him what to do since he is obligated to give him his contract of release.

According to this explanation, the order of the Mishnah is not chronologically correct order. The *beginning* of the Mishnah is stating the Halachah according to the Mishnah *Acharonah*, while the *later* part of the Mishnah is stating the Halachah of the Mishnah Rishonah.

(b) The RAMBAM explains that the beginning of the Mishnah is following the Mishnah *Rishonah*, and according to the Mishnah Rishonah, a half-slave is *obligated* in Re'iyah, since the master is *not* obligated to set him free (the reasoning behind this will be explained shortly). The second part of the Mishnah is following the Mishnah Acharonah. Since, according to the Mishnah Acharonah, the master is required to free the half-slave, the half-slave is *not* obligated in Re'iyah.

What is the logic behind this? Why is there more reason to obligate the half- slave in Re'iyah if the master does *not* have to free him?

1. The KESEF MISHNAH (Hilchos Korban Pesach 2:13) explains that the Mishnah Rishonah maintains that since the half-slave must remain with that status (and the master is not required to free him), a compromise was made by the Rabanan so that the days are split between serving the master and serving himself. As a result of this compromise, every other day the servant serves himself and is considered a completely free man and is not subjugated to his master at all.

In contrast, according to the Mishnah Acharonah which requires the master to free his half-slave, there is no reason to make a compromise. Since he is going to be freed, he retains the status of a slave until he is freed. Thus, before he is actually freed, there is no time at which he is not subjugated to his master, and that is why he is exempt from the Mitzvah of Re'iyah (and Korban Pesach).

2. Although the answer of the Kesef Mishnah explains the rulings of the Rambam in the Mishnah Torah (Hilchos Korban Pesach loc. cit., and Hilchos Chagigah 2:1), the wording of the Rambam in PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS (Pesachim 8:1) seems to conflict with this view. The Rambam writes there that according to the Mishnah Acharonah (which requires the master to free his half-slave), since the Rabanan do not permit him to remain a half-slave and thus his freedom is imminent, they do not let him eat the Korban Pesach or bring the Korban Re'iyah until he is freed completely.

It seems from the words of the Rambam there that the reason the half-slave is not obligated to bring a Korban is because the master must free him. According to the previous approach, though, the half-slave's exemption has nothing to do with the fact that the master has to free him, but rather he is exempt because he retains the official status of a slave.

The KESEF MISHNAH (loc. cit.) suggests that according to the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos, perhaps a different line of reasoning is involved: In truth, a half-slave is *obligated* mid'Oraisa to bring the Korban Re'iyah, because the half of himself which is not a slave has no other master other than Hashem. However, the Rabanan decreed that he is exempt and that he may not bring the Korban (which they have the prerogative to do since it is "Shev v'Al Ta'aseh") in order to provide an incentive for him to seek his freedom. (According to this explanation, it is the slave that has to be encouraged to be freed. The slave prefers to be a slave and have someone take care of all of his needs. Therefore, the Rabanan gave the slave an incentive to seek his freedom by decreeing that he may not bring his Korban Re'iyah or Korban Pesach until he becomes completely free. On the other hand, the Rabanan did not force the master to free the slave, because the slave is able to force the master to free him by bringing him to Beis Din whenever he wants.)

3. RAV AVRAHAM BEN HA'RAMBAM (cited by the Kesef Mishnah) suggests an answer which not only explains the logic behind the Rambam's understanding of the Gemara, but which also reconciles the Rambam's explanation in Perush ha'Mishnayos with his explanation in Mishnah Torah: In truth, a half-slave is exempt mid'Oraisa from Re'iyah and from Korban Pesach. Thus, even when the master is obligated to free him (the Mishnah Acharonah), he is exempt, since he is still a slave.

However, according to the Mishnah Rishonah which rules that a half-slave remains so indefinitely, since his state is a permanent one, the Rabanan instituted that he may bring the Korban Re'iyah and Korban Pesach.

This answer seems very problematic, for how could the Rabanan give him a rabbinical obligation to bring a Korban, when he is exempt mid'Oraisa! We are not allowed to be stringent at the expense of bringing non-sanctified animals into the Azarah! (LECHEM MISHNAH, Hilchos Chagigah 2:1)

The Lechem Mishnah explains that Rav Avraham means that the Rabanan were Mafkir the side owned by the master (through the authority of "Hefker Beis Din Havi Hefker") in order to obligate the person in the Mitzvah, but they were not Mafkir the master's partial ownership of him with regard to his obligation to serve his master. Thus, he is still required to obey his master on his master's day, and to do whatever he tells him to do. In that respect, he is still a slave. The Rabanan made him free with regard to bringing Korbanos that require him to be free.

2b