The Daf Yomi Beit Midrash edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focuses on Masechet Chagiga, dedicated in memory of Chacham Raful Mohedded ben Garaz and Marie Mohedded bat Jamile. May their souls find rest in Gan Eden. This session is dedicated by Dr. Isaac and Lily Mohedded, who are blessed with long life. Today’s daf is being studied l'ilui nishmat Avraham ben Ester and Ezra ben Tune Mazal, whose memories we honor. We begin today's daf on Heh Amud Bet, right at the bottom of the daf.
In our learning, we encounter a machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the obligation of a katan. The Mishnah states that a katan is chayav in the mitzvah of Re'iyah due to chinuch, meaning that the father is obligated to bring him. However, if the child is too young, the Mishnah exempts him. The question arises: what constitutes a katan that would be exempt? The machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel provides insight into this question.
Beit Shammai asserts that a katan is considered too young if he cannot ride on his father's shoulders from Yerushalayim to the Azara. In contrast, Beit Hillel states that he is exempt if he cannot walk while holding his father's hand from Yerushalayim to the Azara. This distinction indicates that Beit Shammai believes the obligation begins at a younger age, as a child can ride on his father's shoulders at just one year old, whereas he cannot walk until an older age.
The Gemara raises a critical question: "Eizuhu katan? Kol she'eino yachol lirkov al ketefo shel aviv." This aligns with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Rabbi Zeira challenges this by asking how such a young child could have arrived in Yerushalayim. The implication is that if the child can only ride on his father's shoulders, how did he get there in the first place? The Gemara answers that his mother brought him, as she is obligated in the mitzvah of Simcha and must be present in Yerushalayim for the holiday.
According to Rashi, the mother is required to go to Yerushalayim to celebrate the holiday with her husband. The Gemara concludes that the mother, while not obligated to attend for the mitzvah of Re'iyah, is still required to be there for Simcha. Thus, the Gemara clarifies that the child is indeed brought to Yerushalayim by his mother, who is fulfilling her own obligation.
From this point onward, the Gemara discusses the implications of a katan who can walk and hold his father's hand. If he is capable of doing so, he is chayav; if not, he is patur. Rabbi continues to explore this topic, questioning how the child, who is so small, could have arrived in Yerushalayim without assistance. The Gemara explains that the mother is responsible for bringing him up to that point.
Rabbi then poses a question regarding the case of Chanah, who did not go up to the Mishkan Shiloh after giving birth to Shmuel. Chanah claims she will wait until he is weaned, indicating that he was likely not able to walk. According to Beit Hillel, she is exempt from bringing him because he is too young. However, according to Beit Shammai, it raises the question of how Chanah could have refrained from going when Shmuel could still ride on his father's shoulders.
The Gemara argues that Chanah did not go up because she was concerned about Shmuel's health. She feared that the journey would weaken him, thus exempting her from the obligation due to his condition. This leads to a discussion about the exemption of a choleh and those who attend to him. The Gemara emphasizes that anyone caring for a choleh is also patur from the obligation.
Next, the Turei Even raises a question regarding the nature of Chanah's obligation. If she could have brought Shmuel to Yerushalayim, why did she not do so? The Turei Even suggests that the proximity to Shiloh meant that Elkanah could carry Shmuel without needing Chanah's assistance. This implies that Chanah was not obligated to bring him to Yerushalayim, as they were close enough to the Mishkan.
The discussion continues with Rabbi Shimon questioning whether a lame katan is chayav in Re'iyah according to Beit Shammai. The Gemara explores whether a katan who is blind is also exempt. The inquiry leads to a deeper examination of the purpose of chinuch and whether it applies to those who are permanently disabled.
Abaye concludes that whenever a gadol would be chayav in a mitzvah de'oraita, a katan should also be trained in that mitzvah midrabbanan. Conversely, if a gadol is patur, then a katan is also patur. This establishes a clear framework for understanding the obligations of a katan based on the potential for future chiyuv.
The Gemara further investigates the distinction between a katan who is chiger but can heal and one who is permanently disabled. The conclusion is that the obligation to train applies to those who have the potential to become chayav in the future.
Returning to the Mishnah, the Gemara discusses the financial obligations associated with the olat re'iyah and chagigah. Both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel offer differing views on the required expenditure for these offerings. Beit Shammai states that the olat re'iyah costs two kessef, while the chagigah costs one ma'ah. In contrast, Beit Hillel argues that the chagigah costs two kessef and the olat re'iyah costs one ma'ah.
The Gemara provides reasoning for each position. Beit Shammai argues that the olat re'iyah, being entirely for Hashem, holds greater significance than the chagigah, which is partially consumed by the owners. Furthermore, they cite the precedence of the olat on Shavuot, where the Torah emphasizes the importance of the olat over the shelamim.
Beit Hillel counters that the chagigah has historical precedence, as it was brought before the giving of the Torah. They reference the verse that indicates the Israelites brought shelamim before Matan Torah, asserting that this demonstrates the importance of the chagigah. The Gemara continues to explore the nuances of these arguments, providing various proofs and counter-proofs from the text.
As the discussion unfolds, the Gemara highlights the significance of these offerings and the implications of their respective costs. Ultimately, the debate reflects broader themes of obligation, devotion, and the relationship between the Jewish people and their service to Hashem.