Chagigah 2

הכל חייבין בראייה חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן וטומטום ואנדרוגינוס ונשים ועבדים שאינם משוחררים החיגר והסומא והחולה והזקן ומי שאינו יכול לעלות ברגליו

MISHNA: All are obligated on the three pilgrim Festivals in the mitzva of appearance, i.e., to appear in the Temple as well as to sacrifice an offering, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor; and a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite, and women, and slaves who are not emancipated; and the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the old, and one who is unable to ascend to Jerusalem on his own legs.

איזהו קטן כל שאינו יכול לרכוב על כתפיו של אביו ולעלות מירושלים להר הבית דברי בית שמאי ובית הלל אומרים כל שאינו יכול לאחוז בידו של אביו ולעלות מירושלים להר הבית שנאמר שלש רגלים

Who has the status of a minor with regard to this halakha? Any child who is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and ascend from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: Any child who is unable to hold his father’s hand and ascend on foot from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is stated: “Three times [regalim]” (Exodus 23:14). Since the term for feet is raglayim, Beit Hillel infer from here that the obligation to ascend involves the use of one’s legs.

בית שמאי אומרים הראייה שתי כסף והחגיגה מעה כסף ובית הלל אומרים הראייה מעה כסף והחגיגה שתי כסף:

Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance brought on a pilgrim Festival must be worth at least two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering must be worth at least one silver ma’a coin. And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth at least one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering at least two silver coins.

גמ׳ הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין ולרבינא דאמר מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין פטור מן הראייה הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי חיגר ביום ראשון ונתפשט ביום שני

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: When the mishna states that all are obligated in the mitzva of appearance in the Temple, the term: All, comes to add what in the mishna’s ruling? The Gemara answers: It serves to add one who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said: One who is half-slave half-freeman is exempt from the appearance in the Temple, the term: All, comes to add what? The Gemara answers: It comes to add one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was unable to travel, and was healed on the second day of the Festival. This man is obligated to appear before the end of the Festival.

הניחא למאן דאמר כולן תשלומין זה לזה אלא למאן דאמר כולן תשלומין דראשון הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי סומא באחת מעיניו

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that all seven days of the Festival redress one another, i.e., the obligation to appear applies equally on all days of the Festival. Consequently, one who was unable to travel on the first day may do so on the second day. However, according to the one who said that the main obligation is on the first day and all the remaining days merely redress the first day, and therefore one who was exempt from appearing on the first day of the Festival remains exempt throughout the rest of the Festival, the term: All, comes to add what? The Gemara answers: It comes to add one who is blind in one of his eyes.

ודלא כי האי תנא דתניא יוחנן בן דהבאי אומר משום רבי יהודה סומא באחת מעיניו פטור מן הראייה שנאמר יראה יראה כדרך שבא לראות כך בא ליראות מה לראות בשתי עיניו אף ליראות בשתי עיניו

The Gemara notes: And this is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Yoḥanan ben Dehavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: “Three occasions in the year all your males will appear [yera’e] before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). Since there are no vowels in the text, this can be read as: All your males will see [yireh] the Lord God. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both one’s eyes, so too the obligation to be seen applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes. Therefore, one who is blind in one eye is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance in the Temple.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם כדאמרי מעיקרא ודקא קשיא לך הא דרבינא לא קשיא כאן כמשנה ראשונה כאן כמשנה אחרונה דתנן מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד דברי בית הלל

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it comes to include one who is half-slave and half-freeman. And as for that which poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ravina, it is not difficult: Here it is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna, whereas there, Ravina’s statement, is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 88a): One who is half-slave half-freeman serves his master one day and works for himself one day. This is the statement of Beit Hillel.

אמרו להם בית שמאי

Beit Shammai said to them:

תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם לישא שפחה אינו יכול בת חורין אינו יכול

You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but his own situation you have not remedied. How so? He is unable to marry a maidservant, as half of him is already free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is likewise unable to marry a free woman, as half of him is still a slave.

ליבטיל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה שנאמר לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב לו שטר על חצי דמיו וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי:

And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the betterment of the world we force his master to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a bill to his master accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to him. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be set free.

חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן כו׳: קתני חרש דומיא דשוטה וקטן מה שוטה וקטן דלאו בני דעה אף חרש דלאו בר דעה הוא וקא משמע לן כדתנן חרש שדיברו חכמים בכל מקום שאינו שומע ואינו מדבר הא מדבר ואינו שומע שומע ואינו מדבר חייב

§ The mishna taught: Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. The Gemara notes: By listing these three cases together the mishna is teaching that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor: Just as an imbecile and a minor are among those who are not of sound mind, so too the deaf-mute [ḥeresh] mentioned here is one who is not of sound mind. And this teaches us as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 1:2): The ḥeresh, whom the Sages discussed everywhere, is one who does not hear and does not speak, and therefore his mind is not lucid. It can be inferred from this that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are obligated in mitzvot like any other person.

תנינא להא דתנו רבנן המדבר ואינו שומע זהו חרש שומע ואינו מדבר זהו אלם זה וזה הרי הן כפקחין לכל דבריהם

The Gemara notes: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in the Tosefta (Terumot 1:2): One who speaks but does not hear, this is a deaf person. One who hears but does not speak, this is a mute. Both this one and that one are in the same legal category as those who can see and hear with regard to all matters. This shows that the ḥeresh exempted by the Sages is one who neither hears nor speaks.

וממאי דמדבר ואינו שומע זהו חרש שומע ואינו מדבר זהו אלם דכתיב ואני כחרש לא אשמע וכאלם לא יפתח פיו ואיבעית אימא כדאמרי אינשי אישתקיל מילוליה:

The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that one who speaks but does not hear is a deaf person, and one who hears but does not speak is a mute? As it is written: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not; and I am as a dumb man [illem] who does not open his mouth” (Psalms 38:14). If you wish, say instead that this is as people say: His speech has been taken [Ishtakeil Milulei]; the term illem is an acronym for this phrase.

מדבר ואינו שומע שומע ואינו מדבר חייב: והתניא מדבר ואינו שומע שומע ואינו מדבר פטור

The Tosefta taught that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are obligated in mitzvot. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are exempt?

אמר רבינא ואיתימא רבא חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני הכל חייבין בראייה ובשמחה חוץ מחרש המדבר ואינו שומע שומע ואינו מדבר שפטור מן הראייה ואף על פי שפטור מן הראייה חייב בשמחה ואת שאינו לא שומע ולא מדבר ושוטה וקטן פטור אף מן השמחה הואיל ופטורים מכל מצות האמורות בתורה

Ravina said, and some say it was Rava who said: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All are obligated in the mitzvot of appearance in the Temple and rejoicing during the pilgrim Festival by eating the sacrificial meat, except for a deaf person who speaks but does not hear and a mute person who hears but does not speak, each of whom is exempt from the mitzva of appearance. And even though he is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, he is obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing. But one who does not hear and does not speak, and an imbecile and a minor, each of these is exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, as they are not of sound mind.

תניא נמי הכי הכל חייבין בראייה ובשמחה חוץ מחרש המדבר ואינו שומע שומע ואינו מדבר שפטורין מן הראייה ואף על פי שפטור מן הראייה

That opinion is also taught in a baraita: All are obligated in the mitzva of appearance and in rejoicing, except for a deaf person who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak, as they are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. And even though they are exempt from the mitzva of appearance,