Previous daf

1)

(a) Beis Shamai in our Mishnah requires a Katan to be able to ride on his father's shoulders from Yerushalayim until the Har ha'Bayis - the Katan got to Yerushalayim with his mother who had to go, if not for the Mitzvah of Re'iyah, for the Mitzvah of Simchah, which she is Chayav together with her husband).

(b) We know that a woman is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah together with her husband - from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Samachta Ata u'Veisecha".

(c) The Pasuk in Shmuel describes how Chanah did not take Shmuel to the Mishkan until he was weaned. According to Beis Shamai, asks Rebbi, why did she did not bring him in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Re'iyah (which he became Chayav as soon as he could ride on his father's shoulder's - certainly before he turned two)?

(d) We counter this by asking that (even according to Beis Hillel) Chanah herself should have gone to Shiloh in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Simchah, and answer both Kashyos with one stroke - it appears that Shmuel suffered from a certain weakness, and that is what deterred Chanah from taking him on such a long journey (from Ramot to Shiloh).

(a) Resh Lakish asks whether, according to Beis Shamai, a Katan who is lame is Chayav Re'iyah. He did not ask the same She'eilah according to Beis Hillel - because it is obvious that if the Katan cannot hold his father's hand and walk up to the Har ha'Bayis (the criterion according to Beis Hillel), he is not Chayav.

(b) According to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - Resh Lakish added the She'eilah whether a *Katan* who is blind is Chayav to go up to Yerushalayim or not (seeing as a *Gadol* who is blind is not Chayav).

(c) A blind or lame grown-up who is Patur from Re'iyah - even if he is curable.

(d) A blind Katan according to everyone) or a lame Katan (according to Beis Shamai) ...

1. ... who is *not* curable - is certainly Patur from Re'iyah.
2. ... who *is* (and who stands to be cured before he becomes a Gadol -Resh Lakish's She'eilah) - is nevertheless Patur, seeing as a Gadol would be Patur in his situation.

(a) The Olas Re'iyah, according to Beis Shamai, must be worth more than the Shalmei Chagigah for two reasons; *one* of them, because it goes entirely to Hashem - the *other*, because, on Shavu'os, the Torah obligates (with regard to the Korban Musaf) more Olos than Shelamim (seven lambs, one bull and two rams, against two lambs).

(b) According to Beis Hillel, it is the Shalmei Chagigah that costs more than the Olas Re'iyah. He too, has two reasons: one, because they, unlike the Olos Re'iyah, were brought before Matan Torah - when Yisrael were standing at Har Sinai during the days preceding Matan Torah.

(c) Beis Hillel's second reason is - because, by the Chanukas ha'Nesi'im, they brought more Shelamim than Olos (see Maftir Pashas Naso).

(a) Beis Hillel ...

1. ... (disagree with Beis Shamai and) consider the Chagigah (a Shelamim) more significant than the Re'iyah (an Olah) - because, on the contrary, a Shelamim has the advantage of being eaten by the owner as well as by Hashem ('two eatings are better than one').
2. ... prefer to learn from the Shelamim of the Nesi'im, rather than from the Olos of Shavu'os (like Beis Shamai) - because it is better to learn a Korban Yachid from a Korban Yachid, rather than from a Korban Tzibur.

(b) Beis Shamai, on the other hand ...

1. ... reject Beis Hillel's proof from the fact that the Shalmei Chagigah was brought before Matan Torah (and not the Olos Re'iyah) - because, in their opinion, the Olos that were brought before Matan Torah, were Olos Re'iyah (in which case, both of them were brought before Matan Torah). (Note: Both Korbanos, were brought in *honor* of Yom-Tov*, but they were not brought *on* Yom-Tov.)
2. ... prefer to learn from the Olos of Shavu'os than from the Shelamim of the Nesi'im - because both the Olos Re'iyah and the Olos of Shavu'os are annual Korbanos, whereas the Shelamim of the Nesi'im occurred only once.

(c) Beis Shamai maintain that the Olah that was brought at Sinai was an Olas Re'iyah (hence their counter argument in 1. of the previous answer). According to Beis Hillel - the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai was a Korban Tamid.

5)

(a) When Rebbi Yishmael says 'K'lalos Ne'emru be'Sinai u'P'ratos be'Ohel Mo'ed' - he means that many Mitzvos were given generally at Har Sinai, although their details were only given later after the Mishkan was erected. Take for instance, the Avodas ha'Korbanos, where at Har Sinai, the Torah only wrote "ve'Zavachta Alav es Olosecha ve'es Shelamecha", whereas the details of how to sprinkle its blood, the need to strip the animal and cut it up (Hefshet and Nitu'ach) or to being its innards on the Mizbei'ach, were only specified later.

(b) This proves that the Olah that they brought at Sinai was an Olas Re'iyah (like Beis Shamai) - because it is illogical to say that they would have brought a Korban Tamid then *without* Hefshet and Nitu'ach, the same Korban Tamid which would later *require* it.

(c) According to Rebbi Akiva, both the K'lalos and the P'ratos were said three times - at Sinai (even though the Torah does not make a point of specifying the P'ratos there) by the Ohel Mo'ed (the Mishkan) and at Arvos Mo'av (when the entire Torah was repeated).

(d) Rebbi Elazar too, is included in Abaye's list of those who learn like Beis Shamai. When the Tana Kama of the Beraisa (who follows the opinion of Beis Hillel) quoted the Pasuk in Pinchas "Olas Tamid ha'Asuyah be'Har Sinai" - he responded that it may have been *discussed* at Har Sinai, but it was not *brought* there.

(a) Rebbi Akiva maintains that they began bringing the Tamid at Har Sinai and never stopped. The Pasuk "ha'Zevachim u'Minchah Hikravtem Li ba'Midbar Arba'im Shanah Beis Yisrael?" - refers to the majority of Yisrael, who served the Eigel ha'Zahav and who were therefore disqualified from bringing it. It was nevertheless brought by the tribe of Levi, who were not guilty.

(b) In any case, we see that Rebbi Akiva too, holds like Beis Hillel. The third Tana included in Abaye's list of those who concur with them is Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who lists three Mitzvos that come into effect when going up to Yerushalayim on Yom-Tov - the Olas Re'iyah, the Shalmei Chagigah and the Shalmei Simchah.

(c) Each of the three has a specialty that the other two do not. The Olas Re'iyah is given totally to Hashem (though this seems to follow the thinking of Beis Shamai in 3b.); whereas the Chagigah was brought before Matan Torah, implying that the Olas Re'iyah was *not* - proving that the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai must have been the Korban Tamid (like Beis Hillel).

(d) The specialty enjoyed by the Shalmei Simchah - is that it applies to women as well as to men (which the other two do not).

(a) We learned earlier that Rebbi Yishmael must concur with Beis Shamai, because if the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai was the Korban Tamid, how is it possible to bring the Tamid (which would later require Hefshet and Nitu'ach) at Sinai without it? We refute this proof however, from another statement of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - who specifically says that the Olah that they brought at Har Sinai (the Olas Tamid as we just proved) did not require Hefshet and Nitu'ach (repudiating the logic that we applied above in 5b.)

(b) We finally remove Rebbi Yishmael from the list of those who hold like Beis Shamai - by which we gain having to say that he does not hold like Beis Hillel (like whom the Halachah is generally established).

(a) Rav Chisda finds the Pasuk in Yisro "va'Yishlach es Na'arei B'nei Yisrael va'Ya'alu Olos, va'Yizbechu Zevachim la'Hashem Parim" ambiguous - he is unsure whether to place a comma after Olos (as we did - concurring with the accepted tradition), in which case the Olos will have been different animals than the Shelamim (i.e. from the sheep family); or not, in which case they will have been bulls, too.

(b) It makes little difference to us, seeing as that event is over and done with and will never recur. According to Mar Zutra however, the She'eilah is of Halachic significance, because we need to know how to read the Pasuk in Shul (as we just explained). According to Rav Acha Brei de'Rava - we need to know which Korban it was, so that, should someone undertake to bring the equivalent Korban Olah that they brought at Har Sinai, he will know what he has to bring. Note: When the Gemara is faced with unanswerable problems like this one, it always answers that the difference lies with regard to the laws of Nedarim.