Chagigah 3a — the Talmud in English

And even though he is exempt from the appearance-offering,

he is

obligated in rejoicing.

And one who neither hears nor speaks, and an imbecile and a minor—

are exempt even from rejoicing, since

they are

exempt from all

the

mitzvot stated in the Torah.

And the Gemara explains:

What is different with regard to

the mitzva of

appearance, that they are exempt—

a deaf-mute who speaks but does not hear, and one who hears but does not speak—

and what is different with regard to rejoicing, that they are obligated?

Because

with regard to appearance, it was derived—

we learned by means of a gzera shava—

“appearance, appearance.”

“Appearance” stated concerning the mitzva of appearance,

from

“appearance” stated concerning the mitzva of

the assembly-offering.

It is written in the Book of Devarim [31:10], in the section of the mitzva of the assembly-offering:

“At the end of seven years, at the appointed time of the year of release, on the festival of Sukkot. When all Israel come to appear before Hashem your God, at the place that He will choose, you shall read this Torah before all Israel, in their ears.” [

The king would read Devarim in the Temple courtyard.]

“Gather the people: the men, the women, and the children, and your stranger who is within your gates, so that they may hear, and so that they may learn, and fear Hashem your God, and observe to perform all the words of this Torah.”

“And their children who did not know shall hear and learn to fear Hashem your God, all the days that you live upon the land to which you are crossing the Jordan, there, to inherit it.”

For it is written: “Gather the people, the men, the women, and the children.”

And it is written

in the same matter:

“When all Israel come to appear.”

This is the expression of appearance in the mitzva of the assembly-offering.

Likewise, concerning the mitzva of appearance too, the expression of appearance is written: “All your males shall appear.”

And from the gzera shava we learn: Just as in the mitzva of the assembly-offering one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are exempt [as it explains below], so too concerning appearance they are exempt.

And we explain it:

And there

concerning the assembly-offering—

from where do we know

that they are exempt?

Because

it is written

in the mitzva of the assembly-offering:

“So that they may hear and so that they may learn.”

And it was taught in a beraita: “So that they may hear”—

to exclude

the deaf-mute who

speaks but does not hear.

“And so that they may learn”—

to exclude

the mute who

hears but does not speak,

who cannot learn, since he does not speak [this is how we initially understand the matter].

And we raise a difficulty concerning the exclusion of the mute from the mitzva of the assembly-offering because he is not included in “so that they may learn”:

Does this mean,

is the tanna intending to say

that because he does not speak,

because the mute does not speak, this causes him to

not learn,

that he cannot learn?!

But there were those two mutes who were in Rabbi’s neighborhood,

two mutes who were in Rabbi’s neighborhood, and they were

the sons of his daughter

[the sons of his daughter]

of Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgoda; and some say,

and there are those who say that they were

the sons of his sister

[the sons of his sister]

of Rabbi Yohanan

ben Gudgoda—

for whenever Rabbi entered the house of study, they would enter and sit before him

[every time Rabbi entered the house of study, the mutes would enter and sit before Rabbi],

and they would nod with their heads, and their lips would move

[when Rabbi would make his statements heard, they would nod their heads and their lips would move],

and Rabbi would plead for mercy concerning them, and they were healed

[Rabbi requested mercy for them, and they were healed from their muteness and began to speak]—

and it was found,

and it was found when they began to speak,

that they had learned

[that they were well versed], despite their muteness, in

halakha

[Mishna, Rashi]

and Sifra, and Sifrei, and the entire Talmud.

It follows that even the mute can learn; and if so, how is the mute excluded by “so that they may learn”?

He said

explaining

Mar Zutra

the exclusion of the mute by “so that they may learn”:

Read in it: “so that they may teach

[others].” And the mute cannot teach others.

Rav Ashi said,

to establish the matter according to the words of Mar Zutra:

Certainly, “so that they may learn

others

is its meaning!”

Thus, even without the difficulty from the incident involving those mutes, we are compelled to explain the exclusion of the mute according to the words of Mar Zutra: that it is from “so that they may learn,” and read in it, “so that they may teach others,” and not from “so that they may learn themselves.” For the mutes can indeed learn by themselves!

Because

if it should enter your mind

to explain the exclusion of the mute on account of

“so that they may learn

themselves,”

and since he does not speak, he does not learn

[since the mute does not speak, he cannot learn]—

it would be difficult for you:

and

for certainly the deaf-mute who speaks but does not hear,

since he did not hear—

he does not learn!

[he cannot learn].

And certainly, when the Torah said, “so that they may hear,” to exclude him from the mitzva of the assembly-offering, it is for this reason: that he cannot learn.

It follows that included in the exclusion “so that they may hear” is everyone who cannot learn, for this is the fundamental reason for excluding the deaf-mute who speaks but does not hear.

And if so, the Torah did not need to repeat and say “so that they may learn,” in order to exclude the mute who cannot learn.

For according to your words,

this

mute—since in your view he cannot learn—is already

from “so that they may hear”

[which is like “so that they may learn”]

excluded,

for he is exempt?!

Rather, certainly,

the mute who hears but does not speak can indeed learn. Therefore he is not included in the exclusion of “so that they may hear,” which excludes everyone who cannot learn.

And necessarily, the exclusion of the mute from “so that they may learn” —

is because it is read in it

“so that they may learn

others,”

is its meaning.

And as Mar Zutra explained.

Rabbi Tanḥum said: A deaf-mute

who does not hear even

with one ear

alone [but does speak], he too is

exempt from the appearance-offering.

As it is stated

in the mitzva of the assembly-offering: “You shall read this Torah before all Israel

in their ears,”

which is an expression in the plural and implies two ears. From here we learn that one who has no ability to hear with both his ears is not included in the mitzva of the assembly-offering.

Thus, we derive the appearance-offering from the assembly-offering by means of a gzera shava.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

behold,

this “in their ears” is needed for it: in the ears of all Israel?!

That is to say: Behold, the plural expression “their ears” refers to the ears of all Israel, and not to the two ears of each individual [Turei Even]?!

And we answer:

That is derived from “before all Israel”!

That is to say: Since Scripture said, “You shall read this Torah before all Israel,” everything is already stated, and the Torah did not need to add “in their ears.” Necessarily, the Torah’s intention is the two ears of each individual. And this teaches as Rabbi Tanḥum!

And we continue to raise a difficulty: “In their ears” is not superfluous for Rabbi Tanḥum’s exposition. For

if only from “before all Israel”

alone,

I might have said: Even though they do not hear

[I would say: The Torah required only that the Torah be read before all Israel, even if they do not hear]; and therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in their ears,” and it is when they hear,

but “in their ears” refers to the ears of the many Israelites, and not to the two ears of each individual?!

And we answer:

That—

that Israel must hear—

is derived from “so that they may hear.”

The Torah therefore did not need to add “in their ears.” Thus “in their ears” is superfluous for Rabbi Tanḥum’s exposition, that each Israelite must have two ears with which to hear.

Rabbi Tanḥum said: A lame person,

even

in one leg,

he is

exempt from the appearance-offering, as it is stated: “Three

legs

times

a year shall you celebrate for Me,” the meaning of which is one who has two legs.

And we raise a difficulty:

But “legs” is needed for this: to exclude those with wooden legs

[one whose lower legs were amputated, who makes inside a piece of wood a place into which to insert the end of his lower leg, and relies on crutches in his movement].

And we answer:

That—

the exclusion of “to exclude those with wooden legs”—is

from “three

times

a year shall every male of yours appear”

derived!

For “times” is interpreted as “legs” [as it explains below], and it implies: Only a person who has legs is obligated in the appearance-offering. In this way those with wooden legs are excluded, and “legs” remains superfluous for Rabbi Tanḥum’s exposition.

For “times” is interpreted as “feet” [as the Gemara explains below], implying that only a person who has feet is obligated in appearing. Those who use wooden legs are thereby excluded, leaving “feet” available for Rabbi Tanhum’s exposition.

For it was taught in a beraita: “Times”:

“Times” means only legs.

And so it says: “The foot of

[an expression of treading, Metzudot]

the feet of the poor, the steps of the needy, shall trample it” [

the feet of the poor and the steps of the needy shall trample it, Metzudot].

And it says,

you learn further that “times” means only legs, from what is stated:

“How beautiful are your steps in sandals

[How very beautiful are your feet when they are within sandals fitted tightly to them, neither exceeding nor lacking, Metzudot]

daughter of a nobleman.”

Rava expounded: What is the meaning of that which is written, “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, daughter of a nobleman”—

this is the meaning of the verse:

“How beautiful are your steps in sandals”—

how beautiful are the feet of Israel when they go up for the pilgrimage.

“Daughter of a nobleman”—

the Israelite nation, which is

the daughter of Abraham our father, who was called “nobleman”,

because his heart volunteered to recognize his Creator [Rashi].

And the proof that Abraham was called “nobleman” is that all converts who willingly volunteered to enter under the wings of the Divine Presence are called by his name. [Etz Yosef]

As it is stated:

“The nobles of the peoples

[the converts who volunteer from among the peoples to accept upon themselves the yoke of the mitzvot]

have gathered,”

and they are

“the people of the God of Abraham.”

[Malbim]

But is only

the God of Abraham

He, and

not the God of Isaac and Jacob?!

Rather, “the God of Abraham,” who was the first of the converts,

and therefore, when it speaks of converts, it mentions Abraham.

And now the Gemara brings another exposition in the name of Rav Tanḥum:

Rav Kahana said: Rav Natan bar Manyumi expounded in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum:

What is the meaning of that which is written,

“And they took him [Joseph] and cast him into the pit,

and the pit was empty; there was no water in it”?

And is it not the case that

from the implication of what is stated, “and the pit was empty,” do I not know

of my own accord

that there was no water in it?!

And why did Scripture need to say that there was no water in it? Rather, Scripture came to teach that only

water was not in it,

that the pit was empty only of water,

but snakes and scorpions were in it.

And nevertheless Joseph was not harmed [Maharsha].

The Sages taught: An incident occurred with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasama, who went to greet Rabbi Yehoshua in Peki’in,

since it was a festival, and a person is obligated to honor his teacher by greeting him [Rashi].

He said to them

Rabbi Yehoshua:

What new teaching was there in the house of study today?

They said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasama:

We are your students! And from your waters we drink!

And it is not proper for us to speak before you [Rashi].

He said to them,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Even so, there cannot be a house of study without a new teaching!

They said to me:

Whose Shabbat was it?

Was it Rabban Gamliel’s or Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s, since Rabban Gamliel would expound on three Shabbatot, while Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would expound on one [Berakhot 28a]?

They said to him: This

Shabbat

—

belonged to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

And what was the homily about today?

They said to him: About the section of the assembly-offering!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

And what did

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya expound concerning it?

They said to him, this is what he expounded: It is written:

“Gather the people, the men, the women, and the children.”

And behold,

if the men come

in order

to learn,

and the

women come

in order

to hear

the mitzvot so that they will know to perform them [Maharsha],

why do the children come? [

Rather,

Jerusalem Talmud]

in order to give reward to those who bring them.

Rabbi Yehoshua reproached them:

A precious pearl was in your hands

[this wonderful exposition]

and you sought to make me lose it,

you initially evaded telling it to me?!

They added and said Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Broka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasמה to Rabbi Yehoshua:

And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah also expounded

on that Shabbat: It is written:

“You have declared the Lord today”

[praised Him, Rashi]

“and the Lord has declared you today.”

The Holy One, blessed is He, said to Israel: You have made Me a single unit in the world,

one praise, a special praise, saying, “There is none like You”; therefore We chose You as God [Rashi],

and I will make you a single unit in the world.

You have made Me a single unit in the world, as it is written: “Hear, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

And I will make you a single unit in the world,