Talmud su Esodo 23:17

“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 sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male³²By an accident or an operation his skin was torn and it turned out that he had penis and testicles. Then he is a male and liable for all obligations of a male. Since a male is required to appear in the Temple on a holiday, but not before, now that he knows that he is a male he is liable like everybody else. on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen³³Ex.23:17,34:23. In both places only Passover is mentioned as going on for 7 days; Pentecost and Tabernacles appear as single holidays. Since the obligation to appear is repeated, it follows that the seven day holiday has to be treated like a one-day holiday. A person not obligated on the one day cannot become obligated later., he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there³⁴Babli 2a, 9a, Pesaḥim93a. Since the Second Pesaḥ is biblical institution for people not liable to bring the first of the 14th of Nisan, it proves that make-up days are also for people not liable for appearance on the first day of a holiday., the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory³⁵They are independent possibilities for fulfilling the obligation of appearance, including the six days following the one-day holiday of Pentecost.. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one³⁶A person impure on the first day, to become pure on a later day.? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable³⁷Therefore he certainly is not liable for Ḥisqia and R. Joḥanan; the question remains open for R. Hoshaia.; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable³⁸Mishnah Shabbat19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1..

“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.

“Women”. 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)., excluding women⁴⁶Sifry Deut. 143; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)..

“Slaves”. Let us hear from the following: Three times a year shall all your males be seen⁴⁷Ex. 23:17. Babli 4a., anybody who has no master but the Holy One, praise to Him. This excludes the slave who has another master. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, from where that anybody who keeps the commandment of appearance is like one who greets the Divine Presence? From this, Three times a year shall all your males be seen before the face of the Master, the Eternal, etc⁴⁷Ex. 23:17. Babli 4a..

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says 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)., and another verse says, walking occasions¹To 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.. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him⁴⁹For the House of Shammai the obligation of appearance extends to all boys able to ride on their father’s shoulders without being held by their father.. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being⁵⁰By Pentateuchal standards, only intelligent Jews can become impure (Mishnah Taharot 3:6). (The impurity of Gentiles is rabbinic, i. e., popular usage traceable to First Temple times.) Therefore a baby cannot be impure (but he cannot be pure either and as such is prevented from entering the Temple). It is now stated that as long as a parent has to grab his hand to make him walk with the parent he is considered unable to be asked in matters of purity and therefore impervious to purity. If such a child touches food prepared in purity, it remains pure. But if the child by himself takes his parent’s hand, he is treated as intelligent being and since he may be asked whether he touched certain things he is subject to impurity and if he touched pure food and does not remember what he did before this the food has to be treated as impure.. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt]⁵¹Corrector’s addition; correct but unnecessary in Yerushalmi style. he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable⁵²The rules of appearance (which refer to the parent’s obligation to bring his child) and those of impurity (which refer to the status of the child) are not comparable..