Chagigah 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

,And although he is exempt from appearing,

he is

nevertheless obligated in rejoicing.

And one who can neither hear nor speak, and a שוטה and a minor—

are exempt even from rejoicing, since they are

they

exempt from all

the

mitzvot stated in the Torah.

The Gemara explains:

What is different with regard to

the mitzva of

appearing, that they are exempt,

one who can speak but cannot hear and one who can hear but cannot speak,

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

Because

with regard to appearing, it is derived

we learned by means of a גזירה שוה

“appearing, appearing.”

“Appearing” stated with regard to the mitzva of appearing

from

“appearing” stated with regard to the mitzva of

Hakhel.

It is written in Deuteronomy 31:10, in the section concerning the mitzva of Hakhel:

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

The king would read Deuteronomy in the Temple courtyard.

“Gather together 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 the Lord your God, and observe to perform all the words of this Torah.”

“And their children, who have not known, shall hear and learn to fear the Lord your God all the days that you live upon the land that you cross the Jordan to possess.”

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

And it is written

in the same context:

“When all Israel comes to appear.”

This is the language of appearing in the mitzva of Hakhel.

Likewise, with regard to the mitzva of appearing, the language of appearing is written: “All your males shall appear.”

And from the גזירה שוה we learn: Just as with regard to the mitzva of Hakhel, one who can speak but cannot hear and one who can hear but cannot speak are exempt [as the Gemara will explain], so too with regard to appearing they are exempt.

And we explain it:

And there

with regard to Hakhel—

from where do we know

that they are exempt?

Because

it is written

with regard to the mitzva of Hakhel:

“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

one who can

speak but cannot hear.

“And so that they may learn”—

to exclude

one who is

able to hear but cannot speak,

who cannot learn since he cannot speak [this is the initial understanding of the explanation].

And we challenge the exclusion of one who cannot speak from the mitzva of Hakhel on the grounds that he is not included in “so that they may learn”:

Does this mean

that the tanna intends to say

that because he does not speak,

because this person cannot speak, that causes him

not to learn,

that he is unable to learn?

But there were those two mute men who lived in Rabbi’s neighborhood.

There were two mute men who lived in Rabbi’s neighborhood, and they were

the sons of his daughter

[the sons of his daughter]

of Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada; and some say

that they were

the sons of his sister

[the sons of his sister]

of Rabbi Yohanan

ben Gudgada—

For whenever Rabbi would enter the beit-midrash, they would enter and sit before him,

[whenever Rabbi entered the beit-midrash, the mute men would enter and sit before Rabbi],

and they would nod their heads and move their lips.

[When Rabbi would teach his words, they would nod their heads and their lips would move],

and Rabbi prayed for mercy on their behalf, and they were healed

[Rabbi prayed for mercy on their behalf, and they were healed of their muteness and began to speak]—

And it was discovered

that when they began to speak,

they had mastered

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

halakha

[Mishnayot, Rashi],

the Sifra, the Sifrei, and the entire Talmud.

Thus, one who cannot speak is also able to learn; and if so, how is he excluded from “so that they may learn”?

Rabbi

explained

Mar Zutra

the exclusion of one who cannot speak from “so that they may learn”:

Read it as: “So that they may learn”

[to others]. And one who cannot speak is unable to teach others.

Rav Ashi said,

to establish Mar Zutra’s explanation as necessary:

“So that they may learn”

to others

is certainly its meaning!

Thus, even without the challenge from the incident involving those mute men, we must explain the exclusion of one who cannot speak as Mar Zutra did: it is derived from “so that they may learn,” which is read as “so that they may learn to others,” and not from “so that they may learn themselves,” since mute people can indeed learn by themselves!

Because

if it enters your mind

to explain the exclusion of one who cannot speak as being due to

“so that they may learn

themselves,”

and since he does not speak, he does not learn

[since one who cannot speak is unable to learn]—

you could challenge this:

But

surely one who can speak but cannot hear,

since he does not hear,

does not learn!

[he is unable to learn].

And certainly, when the Torah said “so that they may hear,” excluding him from the mitzva of Hakhel, it was for this reason: he is unable to learn.

It follows that the phrase “so that they may hear” excludes everyone who is unable to learn, since this is the essential reason for excluding one who can speak but cannot hear.

If so, the Torah did not need to say “so that they may learn” as well in order to exclude one who cannot speak, who is unable to learn.

For according to your words,

this

person who cannot speak—since, according to you, he is unable to learn—has already

from “so that they may hear”

[which is equivalent to “so that they may learn”]

emerged

as exempt.

Rather, certainly,

one who cannot speak but can hear is indeed able to learn. Therefore, he is not included in the exclusion of “so that they may hear,” which excludes anyone unable to learn.

And necessarily, the exclusion of one who cannot speak from “so that they may learn”—

is because it is read as

“so that they may learn

to others”

is its meaning.

As Mar Zutra explained.

Rabbi Tanḥum said: One who cannot hear

even

with one ear

alone [but can speak], he too is

exempt from appearing.

As it is stated

with regard to the mitzva of Hakhel: “You shall read this Torah before all Israel”

in their ears,

which is phrased in the plural and implies two ears. From here it is possible to learn that one who cannot hear with both ears is not included in the mitzva of Hakhel.

Thus, we derive the law of appearing from Hakhel by means of a גזירה שוה.

And we challenge this:

But

surely

this phrase, “in their ears,” is needed for this: in the ears of all Israel!

That is, 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 matter is derived from “before all Israel”!

That is, since Scripture says, “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, teaching as Rabbi Tanḥum said!

But we still challenge this: “In their ears” is not superfluous for Rabbi Tanḥum’s exposition. For

if it were derived only from “before all Israel,”

alone,

I would have thought: even if they do not hear,

[I would have said: the Torah requires only that the Torah be read before all Israel, even if they do not hear], and therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in their ears,” meaning that they must hear,

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

And we answer:

That matter

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, teaching 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 appearing, as it is stated:

“Three

pilgrimage festivals

you shall celebrate for Me in the year,” which implies one who has two legs.

And we challenge this:

But “pilgrimage festivals” is needed to exclude those with wooden legs

[people whose lower legs were amputated, who hollowed out a place in a piece of wood into which they inserted the ends of their lower legs and relied on crutches for movement].

And we answer:

That matter

the exclusion of those with wooden legs

is derived from

“three”

times

“in the year shall all your males appear,”

it emerges!

For “times” is interpreted as “legs” [as the Gemara proceeds to explain], implying that only a person who has legs is obligated in appearing. In this way, those with wooden legs are excluded, leaving “legs” superfluous for Rabbi Tanḥum’s exposition.

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

“Times” means only legs.

And similarly it says: “The foot

[an expression of trampling, Metzudot]

of the poor shall trample it, the footsteps of the needy.”

[The foot of the poor and the footsteps of the needy shall trample it, Metzudot].

And it says,

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

“How beautiful are your footsteps in sandals,

[How very beautiful are your feet when they are inside sandals fitted 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 footsteps in sandals, daughter of a nobleman”?

This is the meaning of the verse:

“How beautiful are your footsteps in sandals”—

how beautiful are the feet of Israel when they ascend on pilgrimage.

“Daughter of a nobleman”

refers to the Israelite nation, which is

the daughter of Abraham our forefather, who was called “noble,”

because his heart generously moved him to recognize his Creator [Rashi].

The proof that Abraham was called “noble” is that all converts who voluntarily entered beneath 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 voluntarily accept upon themselves the yoke of the mitzvot from among the nations]

have gathered,”

and they are

“the people of the God of Abraham.”

[Malbim]

But is it only

“the God of Abraham”

and

not the God of Isaac and Jacob?!

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

when speaking of converts, Scripture mentions Abraham.

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

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

What is the meaning of that which is written,

“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 “the pit was empty,” do I not know

on my own

that there was no water in it?

Why then did Scripture need to say that there was no water in it? Rather, Scripture comes to teach that there was only

no water in it;

the pit was empty only of water,

but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

Nevertheless, Joseph was not harmed [Maharsha].

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasमा, 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 beit-midrash today?

They said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasma:

We are your disciples, and we drink from your waters!

It would not be proper for us to speak before you [Rashi].

He said to them,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Even so, the beit-midrash cannot be without a new teaching!

They said to me:

Whose Shabbat was it?

Was it Rabban Gamaliel’s or Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s—Rabban Gamaliel lectured on three Shabbatot, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah lectured on one [Berakhot 28a]?

They said to him:

This Shabbat

was

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s.

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

And what was the subject of the aggada today?

They said to him: On the section of Hakhel!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to them:

And what did

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah expound concerning it?

They said to him, he expounded as follows: It is written:

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

But

if the men come

in order

to learn,

and the

women come

in order

to hear

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

why do the children come?

Rather,

[Jerusalem Talmud]

in order to give reward to those who bring them.

Rabbi Yehoshua objected to them:

You had a precious pearl in your hands

[this wonderful exposition]

and you sought to deprive me of it,

evading the matter at first instead of telling me?!

They added and said to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma to Rabbi Yehoshua:

He further expounded

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya on that Shabbat: It is written:

“You have affirmed the Lord”

[praised Him, Rashi]

“today, and the Lord has affirmed you today.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: You have made Me one distinct entity in the world,

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

and I will make you one distinct entity in the world.

You have made Me one distinct entity in the world, as it is written: “Hear, Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.”

And I will make you one distinct entity in the world,