Chagigah 4a — the Talmud in English

However,

since he performed all of them [since he does all of them],

[since he performs all of them],

they become ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

like [like an ox]

[like an ox]

an ox that gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel, and became forewarned concerning all

the animals.

That is: even though one that gores one species three times does not become forewarned concerning all the species, but only concerning that species which it gored, for we attribute its goring to the cause of the species that it gored,

nevertheless, if it gored three separate species, it becomes forewarned to gore all species. And we do not say, to the contrary, that each and every goring was because of that species which it gored, and it is not forewarned to gore at all; rather, we say: this ox is a gorer among all the animals, and its nature to gore caused all three gorings.

Therefore, even one who performs three kinds of acts of foolishness, and it is possible to attribute each act to a cause unrelated to foolishness, we do not say so. Rather, we say: since he performed three unusual acts, he is certainly a fool. And his foolishness is the cause that produces all three acts of foolishness.

Rav Pappa said: Had Rav Huna heard that which was taught [had Rav Huna known of the beraita that says]:

[had Rav Huna known of the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, that says]:

Who is a fool? —

One who destroys everything that is given to him —

he would have retracted!

He would have retracted what he used to say, that all of them must be present in him, as he proceeds to explain.

They raised a dilemma:

whether

when Rav Huna would retract

Rav Huna retracted only

from “tearing his garment” [whether he retracted only what he had said, that tearing his garment alone is insufficient to make him a fool], since

[whether he would retract only from what he said, that tearing one’s garment alone is insufficient to establish that one is insane], since

it resembles this [the one who tears his garment resembles one who destroys everything that is given to him, and the beraita says that he is a fool].

because one who tears his garment resembles one who destroys everything that people give him, and the beraita says that the latter is insane.

Or perhaps, he would retract from all of them

[he would retract altogether, and say that each of the three signs is sufficient to make him a fool].

That is: is one to learn from the beraita only that one who tears his garment is a fool even when he has none of the other signs, since we have learned that one who destroys what is given to him [which resembles one who tears his garment] is presumed to be a fool?

Or perhaps we should say: since we have learned from this beraita that one who tears his garment, mentioned in the earlier beraita, is sufficiently characterized thereby as a fool, it is reasonable that the other matters mentioned in the beraita likewise have the status of one who tears his garment, and each one alone is sufficient to make him a fool.

And we conclude:

teyku.

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

a tumtum and an androgyne

and women:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “Every male of yours shall appear.”

And from the word

“male,”

we learn from here

to exclude women,

who are not obligated in appearing.

Since it is said

“your male,”

with the addition of the final letter kaf, we learn

to exclude

also the

tumtum and

the

androgyne,

who are not obligated in appearing, like women.

Since it is said

“every” male of yours,

and the word “every” serves as an indication of inclusion, we learn

to include minors in appearing, and he explains it below.

in the pilgrimage appearance offering, as the Gemara will explain below.

The Master said: “Male” to exclude women:

And we object:

this —

the exemption of women from the mitzva of appearing —

why do I need a verse [what need is there for a special exposition for this]?!

[why is a special exposition necessary for this]?

Now,

after all, the mitzva of appearing

is a positive mitzva whose fulfillment is time-bound, and every positive mitzva whose fulfillment is time-bound

indeed

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 a gzera shava

“appearing, appearing,” from

the mitzva of

the assembly: just as there

at the assembly

women are obligated,

even though it is a positive mitzva whose fulfillment is time-bound,

so too here

in the mitzva of appearing

women are obligated.

Therefore

it teaches us “male,”

to say that women are exempt from the mitzva of appearing.

The Master said: “Your male” to exclude a tumtum and an androgyne.

And we object:

Granted, with regard to an androgyne, it was necessary

for a verse to exclude it, for

it might enter your mind to say,

since an androgyne has within it both a male aspect and a female aspect [like one half-slave and one half-free person. Later authorities],

since it has a male aspect, let it be obligated

in appearing because of its male aspect.

It teaches us

the verse

that it is a creature in its own right [see the Tosafot for an additional explanation], and because it is a creature in its own right, the Torah excluded it from the mitzva of appearing.

[see the additional explanation in the notes], and because he is a distinct creature, the Torah excluded him from the mitzva of appearing.

But a tumtum:

it is

a doubt

whether it is a man or a woman, and since it is a doubt —

does a verse need to be stated to exclude a doubt

from an obligation?! After all, even without the verse that exempts it, it would be exempt, for from where would one infer that a person whose obligation is doubtful should be obligated?!

He said,

explaining,

Abaye:

The verse did not come to exclude an ordinary tumtum, which is doubtful, but to exclude

a

such tumtum

whose testicles

protrude

outside,

which is certainly male, except that a membrane of skin covers the organ. And it would have been obligated if the verse had not excluded it by “your male,” and the Torah exempted it from appearing.

The Master said: “Every male of yours” —

to include minors.

And we object:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna: Everyone is obligated in appearing,

except for a deaf-mute, a fool, and a minor?!

Abaye said: It is not difficult,

for

here,

the beraita that obligates minors in appearing, is speaking

of a minor who has reached the age of education.

Here,

our Mishna, which exempts minors from appearing, is speaking

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

And we still object:

A minor who has reached the age of education

is obligated only

by rabbinic law,

so how are we to explain what the Torah said, “Every male of yours,” as including a minor who has reached the age of education?

And we answer:

Indeed so,

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

And the verse of “Every male of yours” —

“all your males” is

is merely a supporting citation

!

And we explain:

But —

since you say that the verse does not come to include minors and is merely a supporting citation —

the verse

of “Every male of yours”

for what purpose did it come [what does it come to include]?

[what does it come to include]?

For that of

the statement of

Aherim [Rabbi Meir, who is called “Aherim”]

[Rabbi Meir, who is called “the others”],

as it was taught: Aherim say: There are craftsmen, such as:

There are craftsmen, such as:

one who gathers dog dung [he gathers dog dung by hand in order to tan hides with it].

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

and one who refines copper [in a place where copper is quarried from the earth].

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

and a tanner [one who tans hides].

[who processes hides].

Since a foul odor emanates from them, these are

exempt from appearing.

Because it is stated: “Every” male of yours.

To teach: only

one who is able to ascend

together

with every male of yours

is obligated in appearing;

these are excluded, for they are not fit to ascend with every male of yours,

since a foul odor emanates from them.

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

women and slaves who are not

emancipated:

And we explain:

Granted, women,

the reason for their exemption is

as we said,

since it is written “male.”

But slaves —

from where do we know

that they are exempt?

Rav Huna said: For

Because

the verse says: “Every male of yours shall appear

“All your males shall appear

before the Master”

[the definite article in “the Master” means: the known and only Master]

the Lord.

And we learn:

one who has only one master,

the Almighty, is obligated in appearing —

excluding this one,

the slave,

who has another master,

his master who acquired him.

And we object:

this —

slaves —

why do I need a verse

to exempt them?!

Now,

after all,

every mitzva in which a woman is obligated

also the

slave is obligated in it.

But

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

Since

he derived

the slave’s law through a gzera shava

“for her, for her,” 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 was necessary —

our Mishna and the verse cited by Rav Huna —

only for one who is half-slave and half-free,

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

And Ravina continues and says:

It is also precise

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

From

what it teaches

in our Mishna: Everyone is obligated in appearing except for

women and slaves “who are not emancipated.”

And it may be analyzed:

What

slaves are

“who are not emancipated”?

If you say

slaves

who are not emancipated at all,

this is not possible. For why would the tanna state “slaves who are not emancipated”?

Let him teach simply, “slaves”!

Rather, is it not

what does “who are not emancipated” mean? —

who are not completely emancipated, and who are they?

One who is half-slave and half-free.

And we conclude:

learn from it

that our Mishna indeed speaks of one who is half-slave and half-free, and 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” —

excluding those with wooden legs,

who do not walk with their feet.

Alternatively: “Feet” —

excluding the lame, the sick, the blind, the elderly, and

one

who is unable to ascend on his feet.

And the Gemara explains:

"and who cannot ascend on his feet" -

"to include what"

(What is it coming to include, in addition to those mentioned, that they too cannot ascend on their feet?)?