Chagigah 6a (ו.) — the Talmud in English

But

until here

[until Jerusalem]—

who brought him

[who brought him]!?

That is to say: The obligation of appearing applies only to one who is able to ascend on foot from his home to Jerusalem; it is not sufficient that he is able to ascend on foot from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount. If so, why should this child require hinukh? Even had he been an adult, he would have been exempt?!

He said

[he answered]

to him, Abaye:

Until here

[until Jerusalem],

his mother, who is obligated in rejoicing, brought him

[the child came with his mother, who was obligated to come to Jerusalem in order to rejoice in the Festival with her husband, for women too were commanded regarding rejoicing, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household.” Rashi]—

But

from here onward

[from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, for his mother is not obligated to come], only

if he can ascend while holding his father’s hand

and ascend in this manner

from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, is he obligated. But if not, he is exempt.

He challenged

[he raised an objection]

Rabbi, on behalf of Beit Hillel, according to Beit Shammai

[who said that even a child who cannot walk on his own feet is subject to hinukh whenever he can ride on his father’s shoulders]: The verse states concerning Hannah, the mother of Samuel the Prophet: “And the man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to the Lord the offering of the days [the offering of the Festivals, Rashi] and his vow.”

And Hannah

[his wife]

did not go up, for she said to her husband: Until the child is weaned

[Samuel, at the end of twenty-four months],

I will bring him

and we will appear before the Lord, and he will remain there forever” [as she had vowed: “I shall give him to the Lord all the days of his life].

But Samuel

was already, in the first year of his life, in the category of

“able to ride on his father’s shoulders”

[from Shiloh to the Tabernacle, Rashi]

he was.

Nevertheless, they did not train him to make the pilgrimage to the Tabernacle at Shiloh.

It follows that anyone who cannot walk on his own feet is not trained in this mitzva, in accordance with Beit Hillel. But this is difficult for Beit Shammai?!

He said

[he answered]

to him

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

his father

of Rabbi, to Rabbi.

And according to your reasoning, you too have a difficulty: Hannah herself—

was she not obligated in rejoicing

[was Hannah herself not obligated in rejoicing], and how could she fail to ascend to Jerusalem on account of her own obligation?!

Rather,

you are compelled to say:

Hannah perceived an excessive delicacy in Samuel

[Hannah saw that Samuel was unusually delicate],

and

for that reason

she was concerned that Samuel would become weakened by the journey

[his mother feared that he might become weakened by the journey]. Therefore, she was unable to bring him up to Jerusalem, and his mother remained with him.

The following sugya is explained according to the Hazon Ish (129:3), with additional clarification in the notes.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a question: A child

who was at a very young age, when he was still unable to hold his father’s hand and ascend.

And this child was

lame,

unable to ascend on his own feet because of his lameness, but able to ride on his father’s shoulders,

according to Beit Shammai—

what is the halakha: Is his father obligated to train him in the mitzva of appearing?

And

likewise, a child who still could not walk on his own feet but held his father’s hand, and who was

blind,

and needed to hold his father’s hand because of his blindness,

according to both of them

[Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel]—

what

is the halakha: Does he require hinukh in the mitzva of appearing?

The Gemara explains the nature of the uncertainty:

What are the circumstances?

In what situation is Reish Lakish uncertain?

If we say it concerns a lame person who cannot recover

ever [Rashi], so that he will never become obligated in appearing,

and

the uncertainty concerning a blind person likewise refers to

a blind person who cannot recover

from his blindness and ever become obligated in appearing—

there is no uncertainty that he is not trained in the mitzva. For:

If an adult is exempt now,

is it necessary to say that a child is exempt?!

Is it necessary to state that the child is exempt?

The entire idea of hinukh is to train him so that he will perform the mitzva when he grows up. Since, when he grows up, he will not be obligated, there is no reason to train him in the mitzva while he is a child [Rashi]?!

And we explain:

It is necessary

to discuss this uncertainty only

in the case of a lame person who can recover

and become obligated,

and a blind person who can recover

and become obligated—

what

is their halakha?

He said,

he resolved

Abaye

the problem:

Whenever an adult

in such a situation

is obligated by Torah law—

a child is likewise trained by rabbinic law.

But

whenever an adult

in such a situation

is exempt by Torah law

[as in the case of a lame or blind person]—

a child is likewise exempt by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: The offering of appearance is worth two silver coins,

and the Festival peace-offering is worth one silver ma’a; and Beit Hillel say: The offering of appearance is worth one silver ma’a, and the Festival peace-offering is worth two silver coins:

The Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: The offering of appearance is worth two

coins

of silver, and the Festival peace-offering is worth one silver coin.

For it is logical that the burnt-offering of appearance should be more significant than the Festival peace-offering, since

the offering of appearance is entirely offered to the Most High

as is the law of a burnt-offering,

unlike the Festival peace-offering,

which is a peace-offering and is eaten by its owners.

And further,

there is a reason that the burnt-offering should be more significant than the peace-offering:

For

we find concerning Shavuot,

the Festival of Weeks,

that the Torah increased the number of burnt-offerings more than that of peace-offerings!

For seven unblemished lambs, one bull, and two rams are brought as burnt-offerings, whereas for the peace-offerings only two year-old lambs are brought as a peace-offering.

And Beit Hillel say: The offering of appearance is worth one

single

silver coin, and the

Festival

peace-offering is worth two

coins

of silver.

For it is logical that the Festival peace-offerings should be more significant than the burnt-offering of appearance, since

the Festival peace-offering,

which is a peace-offering,

existed

already

before the Revelation

[before the giving of the Torah], as it is written: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel [the firstborn], and they offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings to the Lord.”

This verse was stated before the giving of the Torah, and the verse “And they shall celebrate a Festival for Me in the wilderness” [which Moses said to Pharaoh in Egypt] was fulfilled through it. Thus, a “Festival offering” was offered before the Revelation [Rashi on the next page].

But this is not so with regard to the

sacrifice of

appearance,

which did not exist before the Revelation.

And further,

there is a reason that the peace-offerings should be more significant than the burnt-offering, for

we find concerning the princes

[when the Tabernacle was erected], when they offered their sacrifices for the dedication of the altar,

that the Torah increased the number of peace-offerings among them more than the burnt-offerings.

As it is written: “All the cattle for the burnt-offering: twelve bulls, twelve rams, twelve year-old lambs. And all the cattle for the sacrifice of peace-offerings: twenty-four bulls, sixty rams, sixty he-goats, sixty year-old lambs.”

The Gemara explains:

And Beit Hillel—

what is the reason that they did not state their view in accordance with Beit Shammai?

Beit Shammai proved from the number of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings on Shavuot that the burnt-offering is more significant than the peace-offering?!

Because Beit Hillel would say to you: Regarding what

you said

that

the offering of appearance is superior

because

it

is a burnt-offering, and

a burnt-offering is entirely offered to the Most High—

we say to you:

On the contrary, the Festival peace-offering is superior,

since

it contains two forms of eating, “the eating of the Most High,” through the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar, and the eating of the owners.

And regarding what you said: Let us derive the law from Shavuot,

where the Torah increased the number of burnt-offerings more than that of peace-offerings, Beit Hillel would say to you:

We derive the law concerning an individual offering

[the burnt-offering of appearance and the Festival peace-offering]

from an individual offering,

that of the princes,

but we do not derive the law concerning an individual offering

of the burnt-offering of appearance and the Festival peace-offering

from a communal offering,

that of Shavuot.

The Gemara continues to explain:

And Beit Shammai—

what is the reason that they did not state their view in accordance with Beit Hillel?

Beit Hillel proved that the peace-offerings are more significant than the burnt-offering?!

Because Beit Shammai would say to you: Regarding what

you said, the Festival peace-offering is superior,

since

it existed before the Revelation,

we answer you that

the offering of appearance likewise existed before the Revelation!

For it is written in that same verse: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings. And they beheld God, and they ate and drank.” Beit Shammai maintain that those burnt-offerings were offerings of appearance, on account of the verse “And they beheld God.”

And regarding what

you said:

Let us derive the law from the princes,

that the peace-offerings are more significant, we answer you:

We derive a matter that applies for all generations,

such as the burnt-offering of appearance and the Festival peace-offering,

from a matter that applies for all generations,

such as the offerings of Shavuot,

but we do not derive a matter that applies for all generations from a matter that does not apply for all generations,

such as the offerings of the princes.

The Gemara continues to explain the reasoning of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

And according to Beit Hillel, what is different about the Festival peace-offering

that it is superior because

it

alone, in their view,

“existed before the Revelation,”

since

it is written: “And they sacrificed peace-offerings”?

But

the offering of appearance likewise

existed before the Revelation, for

it is written

in that same verse:

“And they offered burnt-offerings”!?

And we answer: Because

Beit Hillel maintain that the

same

burnt-offering that Israel offered in the wilderness—

was the daily burnt-offering,

and not the offering of appearance.

And Beit Shammai maintain that the

same

burnt-offering that Israel offered in the wilderness—

was the offering of appearance.

Abaye said:

Beit Shammai, Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Elazar all maintain: The burnt-offering that Israel offered in the wilderness was the offering of appearance.

And Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili all maintain: The burnt-offering that Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily burnt-offering.

Abaye proves his statement:

a.

Beit Shammai—

this is what we have said

here: They maintain that it was the offering of appearance.

b.

Rabbi Yishmael—

he too maintains this, from the following,

as it was taught:

Rabbi Yishmael says: General principles were stated at Sinai!

That is to say: There are laws that were told to Moses at Sinai only in general terms, without all their details being specified.

For example, Moses was told at Sinai: “You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings.” The sacrifices of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are mentioned there in general terms, but the details of their laws are not included in that passage, such as the manner of sprinkling the blood and the flaying and cutting up of the burnt-offerings, and the sprinkling of the blood and offering of the sacrificial portions of the peace-offerings.