Parallel
חגיגה 6:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Who brought him thus far? — Said Abaye to him: Thus far his mother brought him, since she is bound to rejoice [on the festival]; from here onward, if he is able to go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount holding his father's hand, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt. Rabbi objected on behalf of Beth Hillel to the view of Beth Shammai: But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband: Until the child be weaned, when I will bring him up. Now Samuel was [already] able to ride on his father's shoulders! - — Said his father to him: But according to thy own reasoning there is a difficulty: was not Hannah herself bound to rejoice [on the festival]? The explanation, therefore, must be that Hannah saw that Samuel was exceptionally delicate, and she feared that the journey might unduly fatigue Samuel. R. Simeon asked: What [is the law], according to the view of Beth Shammai, respecting a minor who is lame, and according to both views, respecting one who is blind? — What is the case? Shall one say that it is a case of a lame child who will never be able to walk, and of a blind child who will never be able to see? Now [in such cases] a major is exempt, can there be any question about a minor? — No, [the question] is necessary with respect to a lame child who may [eventually] be able to walk and with respect to a blind child who may [eventually] be able to see. What [is the law then]? — Abaye said: Wherever a major is obligated according to the law of the Torah, we also initiate a minor according to Rabbinic law; wherever a major is exempt according to the law of the Torah, a minor is also exempt according to Rabbinic law. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: THE PILGRIMAGE-OFFERING MUST BE WORTH [AT LEAST] TWO PIECES OF SILVER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai say: The pilgrimage-offering [must be worth at least] two pieces of silver and the festal-offering one ma'ah of silver, because the pilgrimage-offering is offered up entirely to God, which is not the case with regard to the festal-offering; furthermore, we find that for the Festival of Weeks Scripture has enjoined more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But Beth Hillel say: The pilgrimage-offerings [must be at least] one ma'ah of silver and the festal-offering two pieces of silver, because the festal-offering obtained prior to the Revelation, which is not the case with regard to the pilgrimage-offering. Furthermore, we find that in the case of ‘the princes’, Scripture enjoined more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. Now why do not Beth Hillel agree with Beth Shammai? — As for your saying that the pilgrimage-offering is more important because it is entirely offered up to God, on the contrary, the festal-offering is more important, because in it there are two meals. And as for your saying that we should learn by analogy from the Feast of Weeks, [I contend that] we should form an analogy between the offering of an individual and the offering of an individual, but we should not form an analogy between the offering of an individual and an offering of the community. And why do not Beth Shammai agree with Beth Hillel? — As for your saying that the festal-offering is more important because it obtained prior to the Revelation, [I contend] that the pilgrimage-offering also obtained prior to the Revelation. And as for your saying that we should learn by analogy from ‘the princes’. [I contend that] we have to form an analogy between something that applies to [future] generations and something [else] that applies to [future] generations; but we should not form an analogy between something that applies to [future] generations and something that does not apply to [future] generations. Now according to Beth Hillel, why is the festal-offering singled out as obtaining prior to the Revelation? Because it is written: And they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings. Surely the pilgrimage-offerings must also [have been offered up then]; [for] behold, it is written: And they offered burnt-offerings! — Beth Hillel are of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the ‘continual burnt-offering’. And Beth Shammai? — They are of the opinion that the burnt-offering that the Israelites offered in the wilderness was a pilgrimage-offering. Abaye said: Beth Shammai and R. Eleazar and R. Ishmael are all of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was a pilgrimage-offering. And Beth Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilean are all of the opinion that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the ‘continual burnt-offering’. ‘Beth Shammai’, as we have said [above]. ‘R. Ishmael’, for it is taught: R. Ishmael said: The general directions were given at Sinai,
—