Chagigah 6a — the Talmud in English

But behold,

“until here” [

until Jerusalem] —

who brought him [

who brought him]!?

That is to say: the obligation of appearance applies only to one who is able to ascend on foot from his home to Jerusalem, and it is not enough that he is able to ascend on foot from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount. And since this is so, why should this minor require education? Behold, even if he were an adult, he would be exempt?!

He said,

he answered

him, Abaye:

“Until here” [

until Jerusalem],

his mother, who is obligated in rejoicing, brought him [

the minor came with his mother, who is obligated to come to Jerusalem in order to rejoice during the festival with her husband, for women were commanded concerning rejoicing, as it is written, “and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” Rashi] —

But

from here onward [

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

if he can ascend and hold his father’s hand,

and ascend in this manner

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

He objected [

he raised a difficulty]

Rabbi, according to the view of Beit Shammai, who would say that even a minor who cannot walk on his feet is obligated in education, whenever he can ride on his father’s shoulders:

for they would say that even a minor who cannot walk on his feet is obligated in education, whenever he can ride on his father’s shoulders. But behold, Scripture said concerning Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel: “And the man Elkanah and all his household went up to slaughter to the Lord the sacrifice of the days [the sacrifice of the festivals, Rashi] and his vow.

And Hannah [

his wife]

did not go up, for she said to her husband: “Until the boy is weaned” [

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

“and I shall bring him

and we shall see the face of the Lord, and he shall dwell there forever” [as she vowed: “and I shall give him to the Lord all the days of his life]].

But Samuel,

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

“one who can ride on his father’s shoulders”" [

from Shiloh to the Sanctuary, Rashi]

was.

And nevertheless, they did not educate him to make the pilgrimage ascent to the Sanctuary at Shiloh.

And it is proven that anyone who cannot walk on his feet is not educated. And this is in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel. But this is difficult for Beit Shammai?!

He said,

answered

him

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

his father,

Rabbi’s.

And according to your reasoning, this too should be difficult for you: Hannah herself —

is she not obligated in rejoicing [

is Hannah herself not obligated in rejoicing, and how did she not ascend to Jerusalem on account of her obligation]?!

Rather,

necessarily:

Hannah saw excessive delicacy in Samuel [

Hannah saw excessive delicacy in Samuel],

and

and for this reason

she was concerned regarding Samuel about the weakness of the journey [

his mother was concerned lest he become weakened by the journey], and therefore she was unable to bring him up to Jerusalem, and his mother remained with him.

The following sugya is explained according to the Chazon Ish 129:3, with additional explanation in the notes.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a question: A minor

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

And this minor was

lame,

who cannot ascend on his feet because of his lameness, but he can ride on his father’s shoulders,

according to the view of Beit Shammai —

what is the ruling: is his father obligated to educate him in the mitzva of appearance?

And

And likewise, a minor who still does not walk on his feet, but holds his father’s hand, who was

blind,

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

according to the view of both of them [

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel] —

what is the ruling

as to whether he requires education for appearance?

And the Gemara explains the form of the doubt:

What are the circumstances?

In what manner does Reish Lakish raise his doubt?

If you say it refers to a lame person who cannot become straight

forever [Rashi], with the result that he will never become obligated in appearance],

and

and in the doubt concerning the blind person, it refers to

a blind person who cannot become sighted

from his blindness and ever become obligated in appearance?

There is no doubt concerning the matter: he is not educated. For:

Now, if an adult is exempt —

is it necessary to say that a minor is exempt!

Is it necessary to say that a minor is exempt?

For the entire matter of education is to educate him so that he will perform the mitzva when he grows up, and since when he grows up he will not become obligated, there is no point in educating him in the mitzva while he is a minor [Rashi]?!

And we explain:

It is not necessary

to discuss this doubt; rather,

it concerns a lame person who can become straight

and become obligated,

and a blind person who can become sighted

and become obligated —

what is

his law?

He said,

resolved

Abaye

the problem:

Wherever an adult

in such a situation

is obligated by Torah law —

a minor too is educated by rabbinic law.

But

wherever an adult

in such a situation

is exempt by Torah law [

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

a minor too is exempt by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: The appearance-offering is two silver

and the festival peace-offering is one silver coin; and Beit Hillel say: the appearance-offering is one silver coin and the festival peace-offering is two silver coins:

The Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: The appearance-offering is two

coins

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

For it is reasonable that the appearance burnt-offering should be more important than the festival peace-offering, since

the appearance-offering goes entirely to the Most High

as the law of a burnt-offering,

which is not so with the festival peace-offering,

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

And furthermore,

a reason that the burnt-offering should be more important than the peace-offering:

For

we find on Shavuot,

on the festival of Weeks,

that Scripture increased burnt-offerings therein more than peace-offerings!

For as a burnt-offering they bring seven unblemished sheep, one bull of cattle, and two rams, whereas for the peace-offerings they bring only two yearling sheep as a peace-offering sacrifice.

And Beit Hillel say: The appearance-offering is one

single

silver coin, and the

the

festival peace-offering is two

coins

of silver.

For it is reasonable that the festival peace-offering should be more important than the appearance burnt-offering, because

the festival peace-offering,

which is a peace-offering,

exists

still

before the utterance [

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 slaughtered peace-offerings to the Lord.”

And this verse was said before the giving of the Torah, and in it was fulfilled: “And they shall celebrate for Me in the wilderness” [which Moses said to Pharaoh in Egypt]. Thus, a “festival peace-offering” was offered before the utterance [Rashi on page b].

But this is not so with regard to the

As opposed to the

appearance-offering,

which did not exist before the utterance.

And furthermore,

a reason that the peace-offerings should be more important than the burnt-offering, for

we find concerning the princes [

when the Sanctuary was erected], when they brought their sacrifices for the dedication of the altar,

that Scripture increased peace-offerings therein more than burnt-offerings.

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

And the Gemara explains:

And Beit Hillel —

why do they not say in accordance with Beit Shammai?

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

Because Beit Hillel can say to you: concerning what

you said,

that

the appearance-offering is superior

because

it is a burnt-offering, and

is a burnt-offering, and

a burnt-offering goes entirely to the Most High —

we shall say to you:

on the contrary, the festival peace-offering is superior,

since

it has two acts 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 concerning what you said: Let us derive it from Shavuot,

that Scripture increased the burnt-offerings more than the peace-offerings, Beit Hillel can say to you:

one derives an individual offering [

the appearance burnt-offering and the festival peace-offering]

from an individual offering

of the princes,

but one does not derive an individual offering

of the appearance burnt-offering and the festival peace-offering,

from a communal offering

on Shavuot.

And the Gemara continues to explain:

And Beit Shammai —

why do they not say in accordance with Beit Hillel?

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

Because Beit Shammai can say to you: concerning what

you said, the festival peace-offering is superior,

since

it exists before the utterance,

we shall answer you that

the appearance-offering too exists before the utterance!

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

And regarding what

And concerning what

you said: Let us derive it from the princes,

that the peace-offerings are more important, we shall say to you:

one derives a matter practiced for generations,

such as the appearance burnt-offering and the festival peace-offering,

from a matter practiced for generations,

such as the offerings of Shavuot,

but one does not derive a matter practiced for generations from a matter not practiced for generations,

such as the offerings of the princes.

And 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

in their view only it

“exists before the utterance”,”

since

it is written, “and they slaughtered peace-offerings.”

But

the appearance-offering too

existed before the utterance, for

it is written

in that same verse:

“and they brought up burnt-offerings”?!

And we answer: because

Beit Hillel hold:

that

burnt-offering that Israel brought in the wilderness —

it was a daily burnt-offering,

and not an appearance burnt-offering.

And Beit Shammai hold:

that

burnt-offering that Israel brought in the wilderness —

it was an appearance burnt-offering.

Abaye said:

Beit Shammai, Rabbi Ishmael, and Rabbi Elazar all hold: the burnt-offering that Israel brought in the wilderness was an appearance burnt-offering.

And Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei the Galilean all hold: the burnt-offering that Israel brought in the wilderness was a daily burnt-offering.

And Abaye proves his words:

A.

Beit Shammai —

this is what we said

here, that they hold it was an appearance burnt-offering.

B.

Rabbi Ishmael —

he too holds so, from this

that was taught:

Rabbi Ishmael says: General principles were stated at Sinai!

That is to say: there are laws that were stated to Moses at Sinai only in a general manner, without detailing all the laws contained in them.

For example, that which was said to Moses at Sinai: “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your burnt-offerings and your peace-offerings.” Behold, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are stated in general terms, but this passage does not contain the details of the laws, such as the manner of applying the blood and the flaying and cutting up of the burnt-offerings, and the application of the blood and offering of the sacrificial portions of the peace-offerings.