Chagigah

he is bound to rejoice. One, however, that can neither hear nor speak, an imbecile and a minor are exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the precepts stated in the Torah. Why is it that in regard to appearing they are exempt, and in regard to rejoicing they are obligated? With regard to appearing, it is deduced by forming an analogy between the expressions for appearing1 from [the section] ‘Assemble’,2 for it is written: Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones;3 and it is [further] written: When all Israel is come to appear.4 But whence is it deduced for the latter?5 — For it is written: That they may hear and that they may learn.3 And it is taught: ‘That they may hear’, [this] excludes one that can speak but not hear; ‘and that they may learn’, [this] excludes one that can hear but not speak. Does this then mean to say that one that cannot talk cannot learn? But behold there were two dumb men in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, sons of the daughter of R. Johanan b. Gudgada, and according to others, sons of the sister of R. Johanan, who, whenever Rabbi entered the College, went in and sat down [before him], and nodded their heads and moved their lips. And Rabbi prayed for them6 and they were cured,7 and it was found that they were versed in Halachah,8 Sifra,9 Sifre10 and the whole Talmud!11 Said Mar Zutra, Read, That they may teach.12 R. Ashi said: Assuredly it is [to be read]: That they may teach.13 For if you suppose [that it should be read]: That they may learn, and [argue that] if one cannot talk one cannot learn (and [obviously] if one cannot hear one cannot learn),14 that follows from [the expression]: That they may hear.15 Therefore, it must certainly be [read]: That they may teach.16 R. Tanhum said: One that is deaf in one ear is exempt from appearing [at the Temple], for it is said: In their ears.17 But [this expression], ‘in their ears’,is required [to teach that it18 must be] in the ears of all Israel!19 — That can be deduced from [the expression],20 ‘before all Israel’. But if [it were deduced] from [the expression] ‘before all Israel’, I might say: Even though they did not hear;21 therefore it is written in the Divine Law:22 in their ears,’ they must be able to hear!23 — That call be deduced from [the expression], in order that they may hear.24 R. Tanhum said: One that is lame in one foot is exempt from appearing [at the Temple], as it is said: Regalim [on foot].25 But this [word] Regalim is required to exclude people with wooden legs! — That follows from [the word] Pe'amim [steps].26 For it is taught: ‘Pe'amim’; ‘Pe'amim’ means only feet;27 and thus it is said: The foot shall tread it down, even the feet of the poor, and the steps of [pa'ame]28 the needy.29 And it further says: How beautiful are thy steps [pe'amayik] in sandals, O prince's daughter.30 Raba expounded: What is the meaning of the verse: ‘How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter’. [It means:] How comely are the feet of Israel when they go up on the festival pilgrimage. ‘Prince's daughter’: [means] daughter of Abraham our father, who is called prince, as it is said: The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham.31 ‘The God of Abraham’, and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? [It must mean], therefore, the God of Abraham, who was the first of the Proselytes.32 R. Kahana said: R. Nathan b. Minyomi expounded in the name of R. Tanhum:33 What is the meaning of the verse: And the pit was empty, there was no water in it?34 Since it says that the pit was empty, would I not know that there was no water in it? [It must mean] therefore, there was no water in it, but there were in it snakes and scorpions. Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Beroka and R. Eleazar Hisma35 went to pay their respects to R. Joshua at Peki'in.36 Said he to them: What new teaching was there at the College to-day? They replied: We are thy disciples and thy waters do we drink.37 Said he to them: Even so, it is impossible for a college session to pass without some novel teaching. Whose Sabbath38 was it? — It was the Sabbath of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah, [they replied].-And what was the theme of his Haggadic39 discourse to-day? They answered: The section ‘Assemble’.40 And what exposition did he give thereon? ‘Assemble the people the men and the women and the little ones’. If the men came to learn, the women came to hear,41 but wherefore have the little ones to come? In order to grant reward42 to those that bring them. Said he to them: There was a fair Jewel in your hand, and you sought to deprive me of it. He further expounded: Thou hast avouched the Lord this day . . . and the Lord has avouched thee this day.43 The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: You have made me a unique object of your love44 in the world, and I shall make you a unique object of My love in the world.45 You have made me a unique object of your love, as it is written: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.46 And I shall make you a unique object of My love, as it is said: 10-13. follows, the rule or state by which one is guided,the categorical religious law’, (H. L. Strack, Intro. to the Talmud, p. 6 ¤ 7: v. whole section and refs.). The last meaning applies here. Cf. also the refs. to Halachah in R. T. Herford's The Pharisees, esp. Ch. III. V. Glos. (commencing with Ch. 5) and on Deut. V. Glos. divided. [MS.M. reads, ‘Talmud’]. but as part of the exegetical method of the Rabbis for the purpose of halachic and Haggadic deduction. learn, their exclusion can be inferred from the expression, ‘that they may hear’, which excludes the deaf, and similarly the dumb, and the words ‘that they may learn’ are superfluous. supra p. 5, n. 9) we apply this rule also to the law of Ex. XXIII, 17. both feet. only those having their own legs must visit the Temple. confess and worship the Lord, and the reference to the ‘princes, the peoples’ is to the proselytes who, like Abraham, offer themselves to the service of God. locative (prob. a native of Hismeh’) v. J.E. Vol. V, p. 99. their teacher on holy days; cf. R.H. 16b. 28a. (i.e., non-legal) in character (H. L. Strack). V. Glos. (ruler) comparing it, according to Bacher, with Pers. ‘Khedive’; Goldschmidt, ‘Verherrlichung’ (glorification); Rashi, ‘sole or unique object of praise’; Aruch, in the name of R. Hai Gaon, ‘Unique concept’ (,jt ruhm); Maharsha (quoting Rashi to Deut. XXVI, 17) ‘separation. (from root meaning ‘to hew’). LI.