תלמוד על חגיגה 1:1

“Appearance”³⁵Quote from the Mishnah that introduces a new subject.. Our Mishnah³⁶R. Simson of Sens already noted that this is a scribal error and that the subsequent discussion shows that it is the value of the obligatory sacrifice which has a fixed minimum. Hence, one should read: “Our Mishnah is about appearance with a sacrifice but appearance in person has no measure.” is about appearance with a sacrifice, but appearance in person has a measure. This agrees with what R. Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins are words of the Torah”³⁷Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:2 fixes the minimum amount to be spent on the two obligatory sacrifices as, respectively, one silver obolus and two silver coins. [The two sacrifices are the holocaust for the altar and a family sacrifice of which only a small part was burned on the altar. The houses of Shammai and Hillel disagree on the distribution of these sums but not on the principle that the first has to be a silver obolus and the second two silver coins.] According to most commentators, the “silver coins” mentioned also are oboli [6 oboli equal one drachma (denar) and four drachmas equal one tetradrachma (סלע)]. In the Roman empire only the emperor could mint silver coins. The Eastern mint was at Tyre; hence, silver coins are also called Tyrian money. Before the inflation of the military anarchy, local coinage was of copper and worth one eighth of the corresponding silver coinage.
The following discussion will determine whether these minimal amounts have rabbinic or biblical status..

There⁸⁹Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:1. This refers to the duty of pilgrimage. Ex.23:17: “Three times a year all your male population should be seen before the Lord, the Eternal.”, we have stated: “Everybody is required to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite⁹⁰The first three are not subject to commandments, the last two may not be males..” What says Rebbi Jehudah in this respect? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, “also the blind one.”⁹¹Tosephta Ḥagigah 1:1, Babli Ḥagigah 2a, 4b; Sanhedrin 4b; Arakhin2b. Nobody says “also” unless he agrees with the preceding statement. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems to be inverted. There he says to exclude, but here he says to include⁹²For the pilgrimage he agrees that the person whose masculinity is questionable is excluded but for circumcision he includes him as male.. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse⁹³Gen. 17:14: “An uncircumcised male who refuses to circumcise the prepuce of his flesh …”. The rabbis explain “uncircumcised”, why does the verse add “male”? Only if he is totally male⁹⁴They disregard the existence of societies practicing female circumcision.. Rebbi Jehudah explains “male”, why does the verse add “uncircumcised”? Even if he is partially male⁹⁵The same argument in the Babli, Shabbat 136b/137a.. But here, “all your maleness”, that excludes the hermaphrodite.

There⁹⁶Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:1. The “appearance” is the assembly of all of Israel at the feast of Tabernacles during the Sabbatical year (Deut. 31:10–13); one derives from this the rules of appearance at all festivals of pilgrimage., we have stated: “Everybody is obligated for appearance except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor.” The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should hear and learn⁹⁷The spelling is not masoretical..” So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak⁹⁸He should be obligated.? Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Eleazar (Deut. 31:12): “So they should learn,” so they should teach⁹⁹The first conjugation verb could also be vocalized as a causative. The same argument is given in the Babli (Ḥagigah 3a) where it is noted that the second clause, “and learn”, would be superfluous if one excluded only the deaf but not the mute.. Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles¹⁰⁰In the language of the Babli: One does not make inferences from general principles, even when the exceptions are enumerated., since we have stated: “A ḥereš who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave,” and we thought that one who hears but does not speak is ḥereš, one who speaks but does not hear is not⁹⁴Reading of the parallel in Ḥagigah 1:1 (fol. 75d). ḥereš¹⁰¹Since he is not mentioned in the Mishnah.. But we have stated¹⁰²Mishnah Yebamot 12:5, speaking of the ceremony of ḥaliẓah, the taking off of one shoe, which frees the widow of a childless man from having to marry her brother-in-law (Deut. 25:4–10). The formalized statements by widow and brother-in-law before the court as described in the verses are an integral part of the proceedings.: “The ḥereš whose shoe was taken off, the female ḥereš who took off the shoe, and she who takes off the shoe of a minor, all performed invalid ceremonies.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say (Deut. 25:8): “he shall say”, (Deut. 25:7,9) “she shall say.¹⁰³Hence, the person who is deaf but not mute can perform a valid procedure. This is also the position of the Babli, Yebamot 104b.” We also have stated: “A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute¹⁰⁴This contradicts the formulation of the Mishnah in Yebamot..” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles.