Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chagigah, 6

1) THE MOTHER'S OBLIGATION TO BE "MECHANECH" HER CHILD

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that a child is obligated to come to the Beis ha'Mikdash on the festival because of Chinuch only when he is old enough to ride on his father's shoulders (Beis Shamai) or hold his father's hand and walk (Beis Hillel) from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis. The Gemara asks that the child should have to be much older -- he should have to be old enough to get to Yerushalayim *from his hometown* holding his father's hand? The Gemara answers that it is the mother who brings the child to Yerushalayim. That is why the obligation of a child in Aliyah l'Regel is measured by whether he can walk from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis holding his father's hand, because until Yerushalayim he comes with his mother, who comes to Yerushalayim for the Mitzvah of "Simchah.". (The age at which a child can go with his mother is younger than the age at which he can go with just his father. Hence, even if the child is not old enough to come to Yerushalayim without his mother, if he can come with his mother and then walk from there to Har ha'Bayis with his father alone he is obligated in Chinuch.)

Just as the mother brings the child to Yerushalayim, why does she not bring him all the way to Har ha'Bayis in order to be Mechanech him in the Mitzvah of Aliyah l'Regel? Even if he is too young to walk with his father, he should still be obligated to go with his mother because of Chinuch, the same way he came from his hometown to Yerushalayim with his mother!

It must be that the mother is not obligated to be Mechanech the child. Only the father is obligated to be Mechanech the child. If the mother has no obligation of Chinuch, then why do we rely on the fact that she will bring him to Yerushalayim? Let his father be obligated in Chinuch only if *he* is able to bring the child to Yerushalayim (since otherwise, the child is not considered to be obligated in Aliyah l'Regel)!

ANSWERS:

(a) Many Rishonim (such as the TOSFOS YESHANIM in Yoma 82a) learn that there is no obligation for the mother to be Mechanech her child. They base this ruling on the Gemara in Nazir (29a), which quotes Reish Lakish who says that a man may make his son into a Nazir in order to be Mechanech him, but a woman may not make her son into a Nazir. The Gemara says that according to Reish Lakish, the reason a mother may not make her child into a Nazir is because she is not obligated in the Chinuch of her child.

However, the Gemara in Sukah (2b) describes how Hilni ha'Malkah sat with her young children in a Sukah. The Gemara proves that the Sukah in which they sat must have been valid, because her children were of the age of Chinuch age at that time and therefore she was obligated to be Mechanech them in the Mitzvah. According to these Rishonim, why did she have to make sure that they sat in a valid Sukah, if a woman has no Mitzvah to be Mechanech her children? (The Gemara in Sukah implies that she was being Mechanech them out of her *obligation* to do so, and not just because she was conducting herself within the letter of the law. See GILYON HA'SHAS there).

The Rishonim explain that if the children had a father who was not present at the time, the mother is obligated to be Mechanech them on his behalf (TERUMAS HA'DESHEN #94, based on TOSFOS in Eruvin 82a, DH Katan; this might be the intention of TOSFOS YESHANIM in Yoma 82a -- see also Yevamos 71b, "his father and *mother* were in jail"). The ME'IRI (Nazir 29a) states, similarly, that if there is no father then the mother is obligated to be Mechanech the children. Only when the father is alive and present does the mother not have to be Mechanech the children.

In the case of our Gemara, though, the father is around, so the mother is not obligated to bring the child to Har ha'Bayis. According to these Rishonim, when the Gemara says that the mother takes the child to Yerushalayim it does not mean that she takes him there for the sake of being Mechanech him in the Mitzvah, but rather she takes him there simply because she does not want to leave the child at home. The father must bring him to the Har ha'Bayis to be Mechanech him since the son is now in Yerushalayim and is able to walk from there with his father, even though he would not have been able to walk from his home to Yerushalayim with his father.

(b) RASHI (2a, DH Eizehu Katan) writes that the Chachamim obligated the child's *father and mother* to be Mechanech him in Mitzvos. MENACHEM MESHIV to Daf 2a, citing YAD DAVID, writes that Rashi learned this from the Gemara here that says that the mother brings the child to Yerushalayim, which implies that the obligation of Chinuch is on the mother as well. The mother is obligated to bring the child to Yerushalayim to be Mechanech him in the Mitzvah of Simchah.

When the Gemara in Nazir (loc. cit.) says that a woman is not obligated in the Chinuch of her child, it is only referring to Mitzvos that are not obligatory (such as Nezirus). For such Mitzvos, the mother has no obligation to be Mechanech her child. Alternatively, Rashi holds that Rebbi Yochanan argues with Reish Lakish in Nazir regarding this point, and the Halachah follows the view of Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Yochanan holds that a woman *is* obligated in the Chinuch of her child.

Why, then, does she not have to bring him all the way to Har ha'Bayis? Apparently, she is only obligated to be Mechanech her son in Mitzvos in which she herself is obligated. Since she is not obligated in Aliyah l'Regel, she does not have to be Mechanech him in that Mitzvah (MENACHEM MESHIV, citing YAD DAVID).

However, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah and Kidushin says that a woman is *not* obligated even in the Mitzvah of Simchah. When our Gemara says that she is obligated in the Mitzvah of Simchah, it means that she must come to Yerushalayim because her husband is obligated to be Mesame'ach his wife; it is not the woman's obligation, but rather the husband's (as the TUREI EVEN cites from the BA'AL HA'ME'OR in Kidushin). Why, then, should a woman be obligated to be Mechanech her child even in the Mitzvah of Simchah by bringing him to Yerushalayim? Furthermore, why was Hilni ha'Malkah responsible to be Mechanech her children in the Mitzvah of Sukah, from which she herself was exempt?

It must be that the woman *is* sometimes obligated in the Chinuch of her child even though she herself is exempt from the Mitzvah. The Chachamim did not obligate the woman to be Mechanech her child in a Mitzvah that she is not *involved in* herself. If she *is* performing the Mitzvah, even though she is not *obligated* to perform the Mitzvah, then she must be Mechanech her child in the Mitzvah. Only if she has no obligation to perform the Mitzvah *and* she is not involved in the Mitzvah at all is she exempt from the Chinuch of her child.

In the case of the Mitzvah of Simchah, the woman is not obligated. Nevertheless, she does come to Yerushalayim for her husband to be Mesame'ach her. Therefore she is obligated to be Mechanech her child in the Mitzvah of coming to Yerushalayim. Similarly, Hilni ha'Malkah performed the Mitzvah of Sukah even though she was not obligated to do so. Therefore she was required to be Mechanech her children in that Mitzvah. (M. Kornfeld)

6b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that the Jewish people were ostracized in the Midbar for having committed the sin of the Egel ha'Zahav. Rebbi Akiva cites a verse (Amos 5:25) that shows that they did not bring Korbanos in the Midbar because of their state of censure. Only the tribe of Levi, who did not participate in the sin of the Egel ha'Zahav, brought the Korban Tamid.

However, the Gemara here contradicts a Gemara in Moed Katan (15b). The Gemara in Moed Katan proves that a Menudah (a person in excommunication) is permitted to send his Korbanos to the Beis ha'Mikdash with a Shali'ach. The Gemara proves this from the fact that the Jewish people in the Midbar -- who had the status of a Menudah -- sent their Korbanos to the Mizbe'ach.

How can the Gemara there say that they sent Korbanos when our Gemara here says that they did *not* send Korbanos? Not only did they not send them, but because of their state of censure, they were not even allowed to send them! (MISHNEH L'MELECH, beginning of Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TUREI EVEN answers based on the words of TOSFOS in Moed Katan (15b, DH v'Shimshu). Tosfos questions what the source is for the Gemara's assertion that the Jews brought Korbanos in the Midbar. He concludes that "perhaps there is some indication from the verse" but he does not specify what verse gives such an indication.

The TUREI EVEN says that the proof from the verse stems from the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael, in Chulin (17a), who holds that the Jews were not allowed to eat meat in the Midbar unless it was meat from a Korban. Since we know that they ate meat, it must be that they also brought Korbanos!

The Turei Even continues and says that if that is the source that the Jewish people brought Korbanos in the Midbar, then our Gemara works out fine. The opinion in our Gemara is that of Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Akiva is the one who argues with Rebbi Yishmael and holds that they *were permitted* to eat meat that was not from a Korban ("Basar Ta'avah"). Accordingly, he will argue with the Gemara in Moed Katan that says that the Jews sent Korbanos in the Midbar, since there is no source indicating that they did!

The RASHASH in Moed Katan asks that we find the Torah specifies other Korbanos that the Jews brought in the Midbar, such as the Korban Pesach in the second year. The Rashash says that perhaps the Korban Pesach that they brought then was because of a special command from Hashem for that moment ("Hora'as Sha'ah"), and we cannot learn from there that they brought other Korbanos.

(b) A simple answer to our question may be suggested as follows. The Gemara does not say that the tribe of Levi were the ones who *owned* the Korbanos that were brought. Rather, they were the ones who *sacrificed* the Korbanos, but the Korbanos were not necessarily the sole property of the Levi'im. Perhaps our Gemara is saying that the Jewish people were not involved in the actual service of *offering* the Korban since they were in a state of censure. They were certainly permitted, though, to own a portion of a Korban and to let the Kohanim and Leviyim offer it on the Mizbe'ach, and that is what the Gemara in Moed Katan means when it says that the Jews sent their Korbanos in the Midbar.

What role do regular Jews normally have in the service of offering Korbanos? Only Kohanim and Levi'im are involved in the actual service! What, then, is the verse teaching when it says that they did not offer their Korbanos because they were in a state of censure? Even if they were not in a state of censure, they could not offer their Korbanos, because that is the sole domain of the Kohanim and Levi'im!

The answer is that the Yisraelim also have a role in the offering of the Korbanos. The Yisraelim serve in the Ma'amados, which are groups of Yisraelim who stand watch over the Korban. When the verse says that in the Midbar, they were not involved at all in the service of the Korbanos, it means that they did not take part in the Ma'amados, due to their state of censure. They did own a portion of the Korbanos (and they did give money towards the purchase of the Korban Tamid) though, and they were allowed to have the Kohanim and Leviyim bring the Korbanos for them. Hence, the two Gemaras do not contradict each other (based on the MITZPEH EISAN).