Talmud su Deuteronomio 16:16

⁸From here on there also is a parallel in Taˋaniot 4:2 (נ). Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel⁹By the statement of the preceding paragraph, no man in Israel would be permitted to work both in the morning and in the evening.. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written¹⁰Deut. 16:16. G instead quotes Ex.23:14., three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written¹¹Deut. 11:14., you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets¹²David, Asaph, Heman, and Yedutun, 1Chr. 25:1. instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand¹³1Chr. 27:1. The verse is read as meaning that every month there were 24’000 representatives of the people at the Temple.. A stand-by group¹⁴Since the Cohanim were changed every week, the people’s representatives also were changed every week; only one quarter of the 24’000 on stand-by were actually needed for one week. The Babylonian term for עָמוּד is מַעֲמָד (Taˋanit 27a). The actual numbers in Second Temple times were small. from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium¹⁵For the musical accompaniment of the Temple service., and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel¹⁶These are forbidden any work while the Daily Sacrifice is offered but everybody else may work..

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak²⁵While a child can hear and speak, it usually will not understand (meant here by “hear”) and it cannot teach (understood by “speak”).? They turned around and said, all your males²⁶Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn¹To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah., to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?]²⁷Corrector’s addition, unnecessary. Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable²⁸According to the Babli, 6a, this question refers to a deaf-mute child whom the experts give a chance of recovering hearing and/or speech.? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth]²⁹The corrector’s change introduces the Babli’s idiom; it should be deleted. The expression means that one was seeking proof in extraneous sources when the answer is readily available intrinsically. and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable³⁰In this discussion, it should be pointed out that the child is never liable, and cannot be liable before becoming an adult. The question is whether the parent is liable to bring the child to the Temple.. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult]³¹Corrector’s change, misunderstanding the text, to be deleted. The scribe’s text also implies that there should be no distinction made between the minor and the adult deaf-mute. deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males²⁶Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to exclude the hermaphrodite. There³⁸Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1., we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt³⁹Whether the baby was actually born on a Sabbath or maybe on Friday or Sunday. In the latter case he may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case⁴⁰Does R. Jehudah agree with the Mishnah which excludes the hermaphrodite from the duty of pilgrimage?? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one⁴¹Who is excluded from the duty of pilgrimage. Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2a, Sanhedrin4b, Arakhin 2b.. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement⁴²That the hermaphrodite is excluded.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse⁴³Gen. 17:14, establishing the duty of circumcision. The verse emphasizing male is not needed to exclude female circumcision since the limb to be circumcised always is referred to as flesh, and therefore designates the only boneless limb, the penis, which characterizes males.. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male⁴⁴While the hermaphrodite can be circumcised, having a penis, and has to be circumcised since his maleness may be the dominant trait, he cannot be classified as male.. Rebbi Jehudah explains male⁴⁵Babli Šabbat 137a. Instead of all your males, he reads your total maleness.. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.