{"id":10373,"date":"2006-12-07T22:34:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-07T22:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_roshhashanah39\/"},"modified":"2015-10-22T10:01:58","modified_gmt":"2015-10-22T15:01:58","slug":"masechet_roshhashanah39","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_roshhashanah39\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Rosh Hashanah 3a-9b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, and the Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rosh Hashanah 3a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em>\u00a0examines the background of one of the Canaanite<\/a> kings who attacked the Children of Israel during the exodus<\/a> from Egypt. The passage in Bamidbar<\/a> 33:40<\/a> describes how the Canaanite king of Arad<\/a> heard of the approach of the Children of Israel and waged a war against them, taking captives. The Gemara asks what it was that he heard that made him feel this was a moment in which Bnei Yisrael<\/a><\/em> were vulnerable. \u00a0Our daf<\/em> goes on to explain that it was the sudden absence of the ananei ha-kavod<\/a><\/em> (the clouds of glory that had accompanied them on their desert journeys up to that point) after Aharon<\/a> ha-Kohen<\/a>‘s death (see Bamidbar 33:38-39<\/a>) that gave him the sense that it was an opportune time to attack. \u00a0(Tosafot<\/a> point out that the discussion is not about the passage in Bamidbar 21:1<\/a>, since that pasuk<\/em> – verse – clearly indicates what the king heard.)c<\/p>\n

In an attempt to clarify the identity of the king of Arad, whose exploits seem to be similar to those attributed to other kings, the Gemara claims that he had a number of names. One suggestion is that his true name was Sichon<\/a>; he was called Canaan because that was the name of his kingdom, and the nickname Arad stems from his sharing attributes with the arod<\/em> – the wild donkey of the desert.<\/p>\n

From a variety of sources it appears that the arod<\/em> is one of two types of wild donkeys – equus hemionus<\/a><\/em>, the Asian wild ass, or equus asinus<\/a><\/em>. Some argue that the arod<\/em> must have been the African donkey, which apparently existed in the land of Israel at that time. These animals are similar in their body structure and lifestyle to horses, and they live in dry areas and in the desert. With the domestication of almost all donkeys, few species now exist in the wild.<\/p>\n

\n

Rosh Hashanah 4a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the course of a discussion about the Persian<\/a> king Koresh<\/a>, who was known to have brought sacrifices to God together with prayers on behalf of himself and his children (see Ezra<\/a> 6:10<\/a>), the Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em>\u00a0quotes a baraita<\/a><\/em> that teaches the virtues of giving tzedakah<\/a><\/em>, even with an ulterior motive. According to the baraita<\/em>, a person who donates a sum of money so that his children will be healthy or so that he will merit a share in the World to Come<\/a> is considered to be a tzaddik<\/a> gamur<\/em> – a completely righteous person.<\/p>\n

As can be imagined, the commentaries question why the title of tzaddik gamur<\/em> is applied to such a person. It would seem more logical to offer that honor to a person who gave charity for altruistic reasons. Moreover, the well-known Mishna<\/a> in Pirkei Avot<\/a> <\/em>(1:3) teaches that a person should serve the Creator like a servant who does not expect any reward from his master.<\/p>\n

A simple approach to this can be found in Rabbeinu Chananel<\/a>, who offers an alternative reading of the Gemara. According to Rabbeinu Chananel, the baraita<\/em> does not say that the individual is a tzaddik gamur<\/em>, but rather that the donation is tzedakah gemura<\/em> – it is considered a legitimate contribution and, that is to say, his desire for reward does not negate the value of his act.<\/p>\n

Rashi<\/a> adds the words im ragil bekakh<\/em> – if he makes a habit of such donations. According to this approach, one who regularly gives tzedakah<\/em> and makes receiving a reward a condition for his contributions may still be called a tzaddik gamur<\/em>, as long as he pays no attention to whether or not he actually receives the reward. The Maharal<\/a> explains that we must take into account the person’s intention when making the donation. A person who sees his donation mainly as an “investment,” on which he expects a return, cannot be considered a tzaddik gamur<\/em>. If he gives the tzedakah<\/em> for the sake of Heaven and simply hopes and prays that it will play a role in making him deserving of reward, such a person can be considered a tzaddik gamur<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Ran<\/a> suggests in his derashot<\/a><\/em> that we must distinguish between a tzaddik<\/em> and a hasid<\/em>, a pious person. Someone who gives charity – even with ulterior motives – has done what he is obligated to do and is considered righteous. To be considered pious – which is the level expected by the Mishnah in Pirkei Avot<\/em> – a person must be pure of mind and intention.<\/p>\n

\n

Rosh Hashanah 5a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our daf <\/em>opens with a discussion of the obligation of linah<\/em> – staying over in Jerusalem<\/a> even after having sacrificed the obligatory korbanot<\/a><\/em> associated with the three pilgrimage holidays of Pesach<\/a><\/em>, Shavu’ot<\/a> <\/em>and Sukkot<\/a><\/em>. Regarding the holiday of Passover, the Torah<\/a> (Devarim<\/a> 16:7<\/a>) commands that the korban Pesach<\/a><\/em> must be eaten in the place chosen by God and that “in the morning you can turn and go to you tent.” This passage is understood by the Sifre<\/a><\/em> as commanding people who come to the Temple<\/a> to stay overnight, leaving only the next morning. This obligation is explained by the Sefat Emet<\/a> as stemming from a desire to show that a visit to the Temple is not simply a brief stopover, but is rather a significant, overnight stay.<\/p>\n

How long does one need to remain in Jerusalem in order to fulfill the obligation of linah<\/em>? We find three main positions on this question:<\/p>\n