Chagigah 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

However,

once he has performed all of them

[since he performs all of them],

they become

like

[like an ox]

that gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, and thereby became forewarned with regard to all

animals.

That is to say: Although one who gores the same species three times does not become forewarned with regard to all species, but only with regard to the species that he gored, since we attribute his goring to the nature of the species that he gored,

nevertheless, if he gored three separate species, he becomes forewarned with regard to goring all species. We do not say conversely that each and every goring was caused by the particular species that he gored, and that he is not generally forewarned with regard to goring at all. Rather, we say: This ox is one that gores all animals, and its tendency to gore caused all three gorings.

Therefore, even in the case of one who performs three different acts of madness, although each act could be attributed to a cause unrelated to madness, we do not say so. Rather, we say: Since he performed three strange acts, he is certainly insane, and his insanity is the cause of all three acts of madness.

Rav Pappa said: Had Rav Huna heard that which was taught

[had Rav Huna known of the beraita that says]:

Who is insane? —

One who destroys everything that is given to him —

he would have retracted!

He would have retracted what he had said, that all the signs must be present in him, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

They raised a dilemma:

whether

when Rav Huna would retract

Rav Huna retracted only

from what he said concerning “one who tears his garment”

[whether he retracted only from his statement that tearing one’s garment alone is insufficient to establish that one is insane], since

it is similar to this

because one who tears his garment is similar to one who destroys everything that is given to him, and the beraita says that the latter is insane.

Or perhaps, he retracted from all of them

[he retracted entirely and said that each of the three signs is sufficient to establish that one is insane].

That is to say: Is one to learn from the beraita only that one who tears his garment is insane even if he has none of the other signs, since we have learned that one who destroys what is given to him [which is similar to one who tears his garment] is presumed insane?

Or perhaps we should say: Since we have learned from this beraita that one who tears his garment, mentioned in the previous beraita, is sufficiently indicative of insanity, it follows that the other acts mentioned in the beraita likewise have the status of tearing one’s garment, and each one individually is sufficient to establish that one is insane.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone is obligated in appearing at the Temple, except for a deaf-mute,

a tumtum and an androgynos,

and women:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “All your males shall appear.”

And from the word

“males,”

we learn here

to exclude women,

who are not obligated to appear.

Since it is stated:

“Your males,”

with the additional final letter kaf, we learn

to exclude

also the

tumtum and the

the

androgynos,

who are not obligated to appear, like women.

Since it is stated:

“All your males,”

and the word “all” serves as an amplification, we learn

to include minors

in the obligation to appear, as the Gemara explains below.

The Master said: “Males,” to exclude women:

And we ask:

This

exemption of women from the mitzva of appearing—

why do I need a verse

[why is a special exposition necessary for this]?

Granted,

the mitzva of appearing

is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and with regard to every positive, time-bound mitzva

it is established that

women are exempt,

and consequently they are exempt from appearing.

And we answer:

It was necessary

for a verse to exempt women from appearing!

For

it might enter your mind to say: Let us derive

by means of a

“appearance”–“appearance”

analogy from the mitzva of

the assembly: Just as there,

with regard to the assembly,

women are obligated,

although it is a positive, time-bound mitzva,

so too here,

with regard to the mitzva of appearing,

women are obligated.

Therefore,

it teaches us

“males,” to say that women are exempt from the mitzva of appearing.

The Master said: “Your males,” to exclude a tumtum and an androgynos.

And we ask:

Granted, with regard to an androgynos, it was necessary

for a verse to exclude him, because

it might enter your mind to say

that since an androgynos has both a male aspect and a female aspect [similar to one who is half a slave and half free. Later authorities],

since he possesses a male aspect, he should be obligated

in appearing on account of his male aspect.

It teaches us

that the verse

establishes him as a distinct created being

[see the Tosafot for an additional explanation in the notes], and because he is a distinct created being, the Torah excluded him from the mitzva of appearing.

But as for a tumtum,

it is

uncertain

whether he is a man or a woman, and since he is a case of uncertainty—

was a verse needed to exclude a case of uncertainty

from an obligation?! Even without the verse that exempts him, he would be exempt, for what basis is there to say that a person whose obligation is uncertain should be obligated?!

He said,

explaining,

Abaye:

The verse did not come to exclude an ordinary tumtum, whose status is uncertain, but rather to exclude

a

tumtum

whose testicles

protrude

externally.

Such a person is certainly male, except that a membrane of skin covers the organ. He would be obligated if the verse had not excluded him through the words “your males,” by which the Torah exempted him from appearing.

The Master said: “All your males”—

to include minors.

And we challenge this:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna: Everyone is obligated in appearing

except for a deaf-mute, an insane person, and a minor?!

Abaye said: This is not difficult,

for

here,

the beraita that obligates minors in appearing, is speaking

of a minor who has reached the age of training.

Here,

our Mishna, which exempts minors from appearing, is speaking

of a minor who has not reached the age of training.

But we are still surprised:

A minor who has reached the age of training

is obligated only

by rabbinic law,

so how are we to explain that the Torah said “all your males” to include a minor who has reached the age of training?

And we answer:

Indeed,

a minor, who is obligated only by rabbinic law, was not in need of being included by the verse.

And the verse

of “all your males” is

merely an allusion

to the law!

And we explain:

But if so—

since you say that the verse does not come to include minors, and serves only as an allusion—

the verse

of “all your males”

for what purpose did it come

[what does it come to include]?

It comes for that

of

Aḥerim

[Rabbi Meir, who is called “Aḥerim”].

As it was taught: Aḥerim say:

There are craftsmen, such as:

One who gathers

[one who collects dog excrement by hand in order to tan hides with it],

one who refines copper

[in a place where copper is mined from the earth],

and a tanner

[one who tans hides].

Since a foul odor emanates from them, they are

exempt from appearing.

Because it is stated: “All” your males.

This teaches that only

one who is able to ascend

together

with all your males

is obligated to appear;

these are excluded, because they are unfit to ascend with all your males,

since a foul odor emanates from them.

We learned in the Mishna: Everyone is obligated in appearing except for a deaf-mute, an insane person, and a minor,

women and

unfreed slaves:

And we explain:

Granted, women

have as the reason for their exemption

what we said,

as it is written, “males.”

But slaves—

from where do we derive

that they are exempt?

Rav Huna said:

For

the verse says:

“All your males shall appear

before the Master,”

[the definite article in “the Master” indicates the known and unique Master],

the Lord.

And we learn:

One who has only one master,

the Holy One, blessed be He, is obligated to appear;

this one

the slave

is excluded, because he has another master,

the master who acquired him.

And we ask:

This

—slaves—

why do I need a verse

to exempt them?

Granted,

there is the principle that

every mitzva in which a woman is obligated

is one in which

a slave is also obligated.

But

every mitzva in which a woman is not obligated, a slave is not obligated.

Since

he derived

the law of a slave through a

“to her”–“to her” analogy from a woman,

and just as a woman is exempt from appearing, so too a slave is exempt from it. Why, then, do we need a special derivation to exempt a slave from the mitzva of appearing?!

He said,

explaining,

Ravina: It is necessary—

our Mishna and the verse cited by Rav Huna—

only for one who is half slave and half free,

to teach that he too is exempt from appearing, despite the fact that he possesses an aspect of freedom that would obligate him.

Ravina continues and says:

This is also precise

that our Mishna is speaking of a slave who is half free:

From

the fact that it teaches

in our Mishna: Everyone is obligated in appearing except

for women and “unfreed slaves.”

And one may discuss this:

What

does “slaves”

“who are not freed” mean?

If you say

slaves

who are not freed at all,

that cannot be so. Why would the tanna state “slaves who are not freed”?

Let him simply teach: “slaves”!

Rather, is it not

the meaning of “who are not freed”—

who are not completely freed; and who are they?

One who is half slave and half free.

And we conclude:

Infer from this

that our Mishna is indeed speaking of one who is half slave and half free, and that a special derivation is needed to exempt the free aspect within him from appearing.

We learned in the Mishna among those exempt from appearing:

the lame, the blind, the sick, and the elderly:

The Sages taught: “Feet”

excludes those who use wooden legs,

who do not walk with their feet.

Alternatively: “Feet”

excludes the lame, the sick, the blind, the elderly, and

one

who is unable to ascend on his feet.

And the Gemara explains:

"And one who cannot ascend on foot" -

What does this come to include? [

What does he come to include, in addition to those mentioned, who likewise cannot ascend on foot? ]