Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 57

1) INCREASING THE HONOR OF HASHEM

AGADAH: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which relates that Shimon ha'Amsuni (or, according to others, Nechemyah ha'Amsuni) used to expound every word "Es" that appears in the Torah as a Ribuy, adding something to the Halachah of the verse in which the word "Es" appears. When he arrived at the word "Es" in the verse, "Es Hashem Elokecha Tira" -- "You shall fear Hashem your G-d" (Devarim 6:13), he did not expound the word "Es." His students asked him, "Rebbi! What will be now with all of the words 'Es' that you heretofore expounded?" He replied, "Just like I received reward for expounding (Derishah), so, too, I received reward for ceasing to expound (Perishah)."

The Beraisa continues and says that the word "Es" in the verse was not expounded until Rebbi Akiva came and taught that the word "Es" in the verse, "Es Hashem Elokecha Tira," is a Ribuy to teach that one must fear Talmidei Chachamim.

From Shimon ha'Amsuni's statement, "k'Shem she'Kibalti" -- "*just like* I received," it is evident that he was giving equal importance to his refraining from expounding the word "Es" as he gave to his expounding of the word "Es." In what way was his refraining from expounding "Es" equal in importance to expounding it?

The MAHARSHA explains that every Derashah of every word "Es" that he had made was for the sake of increasing the honor of Hashem ("Marbeh Kevod Shamayim"). His aim was to show how even the smallest word in the Torah has great meaning and importance and is not extra. His motive for refraining from the Derashah of "Es" in the verse of "Es Hashem Elokecha Tira" was the same: to increase the honor of Hashem. Since there is nothing else in the world that deserves the same Yir'ah that one must have for Hashem, refraining from adding something else was a way of showing the tremendous degree of Yir'as Hashem that a person must have, thus increasing the honor of Hashem.

In this light, the Maharsha explains the view of Rebbi Akiva as well. While he agrees that no creation in the world deserves the same degree of Yir'ah as Hashem, there is, however, a certain type of Yir'ah that is another way of showing honor to Hashem. When one honors a Talmid Chacham, the honor is being given to the Torah knowledge which he has attained. Giving such honor is a form of giving honor to Hashem.

(The RASHBA says that even though Shimon ha'Amsuni agrees to Rebbi Akiva on this point, nevertheless the magnitude and degree of Yir'ah is still not the same, and therefore we cannot derive the obligation to have Yir'ah for Talmidei Chachamim from the verse of Yir'as Shamayim.)

QUESTION: Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan argue whether the Tziporei Metzora become Asur b'Hana'ah while they are still alive, or only after their Shechitah. The Gemara says that their Machlokes is a Machlokes among Tana'im.

It appears from the Gemara that if we derive the Isur Hana'ah of the Tziporei Metzora from Eglah Arufah, then the Isur should begin during the life of the bird. How, though, can this be reconciled with the beginning of the Sugya? The Gemara asked from where do we learn that Tziporei Metzora are Asur b'Hana'ah, and it cited Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael to prove that Eglah Arufah is Asur b'Hana'ah. The Gemara then goes on to discuss the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding when this Isur Hana'ah begins. It seems from the Gemara that everyone agrees with the initial Derashah of Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael, deriving the Isur Hana'ah from Eglah Arufah. How, then, can the Gemara cite it as a proof to one Amora over the other?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA offers two explanations. First, he says that there is a Machlokes Tana'im regarding the extent to which we compare Tziporei Metzora to Eglah Arufah. Everyone agrees with the initial comparison, that we derive the Isur Hana'ah from Eglah Arufah. However, Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael maintains that we compare it totally, even with regard to the time at which the Isur Hana'ah takes effect. Other Tana'im argue and maintain that the time of the Isur is not learned from Eglah Arufah (see next Insight).

(b) In his second explanation, the Rashba says that the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is this point itself: what did Tana d'Vei Rebbi Yishmael mean to say? Did he mean to compare Tziporei Metzora with Eglah Arufah only with regard to the presence of an Isur Hana'ah, or even with regard to the time at which the Isur takes effect?

QUESTION: The Gemara asks from which point in time do the Tziporei Metzora become Asur b'Hana'ah. Rebbi Yochanan says that they become Asur from the moment of Shechitah, because it is the act of Shechitah that makes them prohibited in Hana'ah. Reish Lakish says that they become Asur from the moment that they are purchased for the purpose of being offered, as is the case with the calf used for the Eglah Arufah.

Reish Lakish's reasoning is clear. Since we learn the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora from Eglah Arufah, we also learn that the Isur begins while the birds are alive, just as the Isur Hana'ah of Eglah Arufah begins while the calf is alive.

Rebbi Yochanan's reasoning, however, seems difficult to understand. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the Isur begins only at the moment of Shechitah. The reason that he gives is that "it is the Shechitah that prohibits the bird." It seems that Rebbi Yochanan is merely repeating his opinion without giving any clear explanation for it! What is Rebbi Yochanan's reason?

ANSWER: In order to understand Rebbi Yochanan's opinion, we must examine further the Derashah of Reish Lakish. We find that the Eglah Arufah is Asur b'Hana'ah from the time of "Horadah," when it is brought down to the valley. Even though the "Arifah" procedure (or any other act) has not yet been performed on the body of the animal, we classify the animal as an Eglah Arufah right away, from the time it is brought down to the valley. RASHI explains that since the "Horadah" is a cause for the eventual status of "Arufah," the animal can already be labeled as an Eglah Arufah from that time.

What act, though, in the procedure of the Tziporei Metzora, is comparable to the act of "Horadah" in the procedure of the Eglah Arufah? Reish Lakish maintains that since the purchase of the birds will ultimately lead to the Shechitah, it is from the time of the purchase that they can already be labeled as Tziporei Metzora, and thus they are Asur b'Hana'ah from that moment.

Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand, maintains that the purchase of the birds is too far removed from the act of Shechitah to be considered a cause of the Shechitah and to enable the birds to be labeled -- from the moment of the purchase -- as Tziporei Metzora. Rather, only when the actual Shechitah has been done to them do they attain the title of Tziporei Metzora.

This is the meaning of Rebbi Yochanan's statement that "it is the act of Shechitah that prohibits them." The only way to give the title of Tziporei Metzora to the birds is through Shechitah, because no other act is being done to them which can give them that title. (A. Kronengold)

57b

QUESTION: The Gemara searches for a case in which an Isur Hana'ah takes effect during the life of the animal and continues even after the Mitzvah has been done with that animal (see Rashi, who calls it an "Isur Olam," an everlasting Isur). Why does the Gemara not cite the case of Eglah Arufah, which is the source for the Isur Hana'ah of Tziporei Metzora? The Isur Hana'ah of Eglah Arufah begins while the animal is alive and it remains in effect even after the act of "Arifah" is done to the animal!

ANSWER: The RASHBA answers that the real cause of the Isur of an Eglah Arufah is not related to anything that happened to the animal while it was alive. Rather, it is the act of "Arifah" that causes the animal to become Asur. The only reason the Isur takes effect before the "Arifah" is because the "Horadah" (bringing the Eglah down to the valley) is the first step in the "Arifah" process (see previous Insight), and thus the Isur takes effect from that point.

The Gemara, though, is searching for a case in which the animal becomes Asur due to a circumstance that occurs while it is alive. The cause of the Isur must be an independent occurrence and not an act that is a preliminary step to the death of the animal. Hence, the Isurim of "Rove'a" and "Nirva" are Isurim that come about as a result of an event that occurs while the animal is alive. The actual Isur of Arayos is what creates the Isur Hana'ah of the animal, and not the ultimate Sekilah of the animal in Beis Din.