[Translation by Binyamin S Silver]
like someone who gores an ox, donkey and a camel and has become a muad (known attacker) for all (species).
Rav Papa says (that) had Rav Huna heared what we learned in the Braisa, “who is a mentally handicapped individual? someone who loses everything that is given to him”, he would have retracted.
What do we mean that he would have retracted? Are we referring to someone who tears up his clothing, (and this would suffice for) him to retract, and (thus) compare (consider) him (a mentally handicapped individual (shoteh)), or maybe, (only if he does) all of (the above listed activities), then he would have retracted. (i.e. does it matter how he does them according to Rav Huna, such that one occurrence in a manner resembling the mentally handicapped causes him to be labelled a ‘shoteh’, or does he need to have done all three activities (going out alone at night, tearing his clothes, and sleeping in a cemetery), even in a similar manner, in order to be labelled and thus exempt. This argument/line of questioning is not settled.
(Quote from our Mishna)
“the non-gendered and bi-gendered (Toomtooom and Androgenoos), etc.,”.
Our Rabbis taught, (the use of the term in the verse describing the obligation) “males”, excludes women, (the use of the word) “your males (zechurcha)”, excludes the non-gendered and bi- gendered, (and the use of the words) “all your males (kol zechurcha)”, comes to include the children.
Mar says (quoting the above statement that, the use of the term in the verse describing the obligation) “males”, excludes women, - so why do I need a verse (to make this explicit)? Let’s examine (the situation). It (the obligation to visit the Temple on the 3 holidays of Succos, Pesach and Shavuous) is a time bound mitzvah (it has to happen at specific times), and all Mitzvos that are time-sensitive, women are exempt from. (The explicit mention of males) is needed (because otherwise) I might have thought to extrapolate (the obligation, i.e. who is obligated) from “Ri’iyah, Ri’iyah” from ‘Hak-hel’ (the obligation to gather ALL the people together every seven years to hear the king). Just like other there (Hak-hel) women are obligated, so too here (I might have thought) women are obligated (due to the comparison of the wording, and thus a comparison of the laws). Therefore, (the Torah tells us explicitly that it is only males who are obligated).
Mar says says (quoting the above statement that the use of the wording) “your males (zechurcha)”, excludes the non-gendered and bi-gendered is good (understandable regarding) the bi-gendered, because it is needed (to exclude such a person) because I might have thought that since he has an aspect of masculinity, he should be obligated, therefore (the Torah) comes to teach us that (the bi- gendered) is a creation on its own (neither male nor female). However, a non-gendered person (there
Mar says, (quoting the above statement that the use of the wording) “all your males (kol zechurcha)”, includes children, (and counters with thus following argument). Isn’t it taught in a Mishnah, “excluding a deaf-mute, mentally handicapped and a minor” (so why do we need two teachings for the same lesson)?
Abaiyay answers (that) this is not a question (problem). Here we are dealing with a child who has the age of (getting) educated, and here we are dealing with a child who has not reached the age of education. (i.e. that a child who has reached the age of education is included in the obligation, in order to be educated, and younger children are not.)
Isn’t this (the requirement for a child to get an education) a Rabbincal (requirement)? (and if so, how can you use a biblical verse to prove something non-biblical?) Yes, indeed it is (a Rabbinic requirement), and the verse serves (something) we can lean on (for support, i.e., not a proof per se). If so (that it is just a leaning post, and not a proof) why was it brought (in such a fashion)? To (go along with what was taught by) Acheirim. Acheirim says (that), “the (dog) feces collector, the bronze smelter and the tanner are exempt from the Ri’iyah, because it is stated ‘all your males (kol zechurcha)’, (meaning) those who are able to go up (to the Temple at the holiday time) with all your males, (which) excludes these (3) that are not fit to go up with all your males (due to the foul odour they are giving off).”
(Quote from our Mishna)
“women, slaves who are not free, etc”
It is good (it is understandable to exempt) women, according to what we said (earlier), however, where do we know that slaves are exempt?
Rav Huna says there is a verse that says, “toward the presence of The Master, HaShem”, (referring to) people who have one master, which excludes those that have another master (i.e. the slave who has an owner). Why do I need a verse (to tell me this)? Let’s examine (the scenario). All Mitzvos that a women is obligated (to perform), a slave is (also) obligated in; (and) all Mitzvos that a woman is not obligated (to perform), a slave is (likewise) not obligated in, as (the laws about both of them are connected via a comparison of biblical word usage) it (the Torah compares the two and teaches) “to her (la)”, “to her(la)”, from (the laws) of women.
Ravina says, it was not needed except (regarding) someone who is half slave and free. (The Gemara concurs with Ravina and says) exactly so! (Moving on to prove Ravina’s point, the Gemara leads on): As it teaches, “women and slaves who are not free, etc” (To prove this point the Gemara asks a rhetorical question) What is (meant by) “who aren’t free”? If it meant that they are not free at all, (the Mishnah should have) taught (about) slaves period. Rather, (we) are not (speaking) about (slaves) who aren’t free completely (i.e. not full-fledged slaves). And what are these (people)? (The Mishnah is
talking about) someone who is half slave and half free. Learn from here (indeed, we are speaking about someone who is half slave and half free conclusion of section).
(Quote from our Mishna)
“and the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the elderly”
The Rabbis taught, “legs”, excluding someone who uses a leg prosthesis. Another thing (concept): “legs”, excluding lame people, and the sick, and the blind, and the elderly, and someone who isn’t able to go up to the Beis Hamikdash (Holy Temple) on his (own) feet. (Now this statement which says) “and someone who isn’t able to go up to the Beis Hamikdash (Holy Temple) on his (own) feet”, is (meant) to include whom? Rava says (it is meant) to include
a delicate person, as it is written (in a verse), “when they come/came to see my face/presence, who asked this from you, (to) trample my courtyard (i.e. to desecrate The Temple)?” (This verse and line of reasoning is used in order to prove the following point. There is a law that we are not allowed to wear shoes on The Temple grounds, and, as a delicate person (specifically delicate in this respect) does not go anywhere without shoes, and as it would be a desecration to wear shoes on The Temple grounds, he is exempt.)
(New area of exposition)
It was taught, “the uncircumcised and the (ritually) impure are exempt from “Ri’iyah”. It is good (and understandable that) the (ritually) impure (are exempt) as it is written (in the verse), “and you (shall) come there, and you (shall) bring there”, (which implies that) all who are included in (the obligation to) come are (also) included (in the obligation to) bring (a sacrifice), and all who are not included (in the obligation) to come, are not included (in the obligation) to bring (a sacrifice; and as a ritually impure person is not included in the obligation to come (to The Temple for the 3 holidays of Succos, Pesach and Shavuous), he is also not included in the obligation to bring a sacrifice). However, an uncircumcised person, how do we know (that he is not included in the obligations)? Who is this (that makes the following extrapolation)? It is Rabbi Akiva, who compares (and learns similar laws for) an uncircumcised person to a ritually impure person, (in accordance to what was) taught in a Braisa (which states): (It is stated in a verse, “man, man”, (the repetition of the usage of the word man in the verse serves) to include an uncircumcised person.
The Rabbis taught (that) a ritually impure person is exempt from “Ri’iyah”, as the verse states, “and you (shall) come there, and you (shall) bring there”, (which implies that) all who are included in (the obligation to) come are (also) included (in the obligation to) bring (a sacrifice), and all who are not included (in the obligation) to come, are not included (in the obligation) to bring (a sacrifice).
Rabbi Yochanan ben (son of) Dehavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda (that) someone blind in one eye is exempt from “Ri’iyah”, as it says (in verses, and using a method of learning via word-play), “Year-eh, Yay-ra-eh”, (that) in the manner (G-d) comes to see (us), so (should be the manner one) comes to see
(G-d). Just like (G-d) see with two eyes (i.e. with perfect vision), also (we should come seeing G-d) with two eyes.
(The Gemara here starts a new topic and section explaining various (seemingly unrelated to our previous topic(s) verses)
Rav Huna, upon reaching the verse, “Year-eh, Yay-ra-eh”, cried, (and) said, “a slave whose master desires to see him, causes distance from him (the slave)?!, as it is written (in an above-quoted verse), “when they come/came to see my face/presence, who asked this from you, (to) trample my courtyard (i.e. to desecrate The Temple)?”
Rav Huna, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “and you slaughtered peace-offerings, and you ate there”, (to which he read into it the following): A slave whose master desires to dine with him on his table, shall distance himself from him?! (To which Rav Huna proves this concept from what) is written, “What do I (need so) many offerings, says HaShem”.
Rabbi Elazar, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “and his brothers were not able to answer him because they were afraid of his presence”. (Rabbi Elazar read into the verse the following message): (The) rebuke of flesh and blood (i.e. being told off by a human being causes) such (an effect), the rebuke of The Holy One, Blessed Be He (G-d), how much more so (devastating)!
Rabbi Elazar, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “And Shmuel (Samuel the prophet) said to Shaul (King Saul), “Why have you bothered me to come up?” Now, if Shmuel The Righteous was afraid of judgement (from G-d), how much more so (should) we (be afraid of judgement from G-d). (From) where (do we know) Shmuel was (afraid)? (We know it from what) is written (in a verse preceding the just-quoted verse), “And the woman said to Shaul, G-d, I saw, ascending, ascending” (The use of the) double (word usage, i.e., the repetition of the word ‘ascending’), implies one (was) Shmuel, and the other (Moshe Rabbeinu Moses). (This) implies that Shmuel went and brought Moshe with him. (Shmuel) said, maybe ‘mercy and peace’ (i.e., G-d forbid), it is for judgement that I am being summoned. He got up with him (Moshe) (and discussed and found) that there wasn’t a thing written in the Torah that he hadn’t upheld (fulfilled).
Rabbi Ami, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “He should put his mouth in the dirt so that (he) may (have) hope.” (He) said, “All this, and (only) maybe?!”
Rabbi Ami, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “Request judgement, request humility, maybe you will be hidden on the day of HaShem’s wrath”. (He) said, “All this and (only) maybe?!”
Rabbi Assi, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “Hate evil and love good, set up justice in (the) gates, maybe HaShem, G-d of Hosts will be gracious” (He) said, “All this and (only) maybe?!”
Rav Yosef, upon reaching (the following) verse cried, “and there is loss without justice”. (He) said, “Is there anyone that dies not in his time?” Yes, like in the house of Rav Bivi bar (son of) Abayay, who was used to having the Angel of Death (around). He said to the messenger (of death), “Go bring me Miryam, the hairdresser”. (He) went and brought him Miryam, the childcare provider”. He said to him, “I told you
(to bring me) Miryam, the hairdresser”. He said to him, “If so, I will return her”. He said to him, “Since you brought her, let her be in the count”. (Gemara) How is it possible? She had a hot stick in her hand and she was moving (it around)
and heating up the oven/coals. She took it and let it rest (presumably by lack of thought) on her foot, (which) caused her mazel to go bad and (so I was able to) bring her.
Special thanks is needed to be expressed to Hebrewbook.org for the original text of the Talmud, Dafyomi.org for Rabbi Grossman’s Shiurim and OUradio.org/daf for Rabbi Elefant’s Shiurim that helped me understand parts of the text, as well as to mechon-mamre.org for their complete Biblical texts and translations made available to the public. I have done my best to use these sparingly; however there were some words and concepts that I did need their help for. Any mistakes are my own.