Talmud - Hagigah 6a חגיגה ו׳ א׳

Who brought him to here, all the way to Jerusalem? If the father could bring his child to Jerusalem, why can’t he bring him to the Temple Mount?

Abaye said to him: With regard to the way to here, as his mother is also obligated in rejoicing on the Festival, his mother brought him when she herself ascended to the capital. From this point forward, if he is able to ascend and hold his father’s hand from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded in place of Beit Hillel, that according to the statement of Beit Shammai that a child who is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, they must explain a verse that deals with Hanna, Samuel’s mother: “But Hanna did not ascend, for she said to her husband: Until the child is weaned, when I will bring him” (I Samuel 1:22). But Samuel was able to ride on his father’s shoulders. The age of weaning is twenty-four months, before which Samuel was already old enough to ride on his father’s shoulders, and yet he was not ready to ascend to the Tabernacle. This shows that only a child who is able to walk on his own is obligated in the mitzva of appearance.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s father said to him: According to your reasoning, ask about Hanna herself: Wasn’t she obligated in rejoicing? Why didn’t she travel to the Tabernacle to fulfill a mitzva in which she herself was obligated? Rather, Hanna saw in Samuel the need for extra pampering, and she was concerned about Samuel lest he experience weakness from the journey. Since she was unable to bring him, she herself did not come.

Rabbi Shimon raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor who is lame and yet he is able to ascend on his father’s shoulders, according to the statement of Beit Shammai, and likewise a minor who is blind but is able to hold his father’s hand and ascend, according to the statements of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, what is the halakha? Are these children obligated in the mitzva of appearance?

The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that it is referring to a lame minor who cannot be healed, and a blind child who cannot develop sight, what is the dilemma? Now, if an adult in this state is exempt, is it necessary to ask about a minor? Since this minor will never be obligated in the mitzva, even when he is an adult, there is no need to train him in its performance. The Gemara explains: No; it is necessary to ask with regard to a lame minor who can be healed and a blind minor who can develop sight. What is the halakha? Since the minor might eventually be obligated, is it necessary to train him at this point?

Abaye said: Anywhere that an adult is obligated by Torah law, one must also train a minor in that state of health by rabbinic law. Anywhere that an adult is exempt by Torah law, a minor in that same state is also exempt by rabbinic law. Since in this current condition an adult would be exempt, there is no obligation to train this minor either, despite the fact that he might become obligated in the future.

§ The mishna taught that Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance, brought by a pilgrim when he appears at the Temple on a Festival, must be worth at least two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering must be worth at least one silver ma’a coin. And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth at least one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering at least two silver coins.

The Sages taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering need be worth only one silver ma’a. The reason the burnt-offering must be worth more is that the burnt-offering of appearance goes up entirely to God, which is not so with regard to the Festival peace-offering, as parts of a peace-offering are eaten by its owner while other portions are consumed by the priests. And furthermore, another reason for this difference is that we find with regard to the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, that the verse includes more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. The sacrificial requirement consists of one bull, two rams, and seven sheep as burnt-offerings, but only two sheep for peace-offerings.

And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering must be worth two silver coins. The reason for this difference is that the Festival peace-offering existed before the speech of God, i.e., before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, which is not so with regard to the mitzva of appearance. And furthermore, another reason is that we find with regard to the offerings of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle that the verse includes more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. Each prince brought one cow, a ram, and a sheep as burnt-offerings, but two cows, two rams, five goats, and five sheep as peace-offerings.

The Gemara asks: And Beit Hillel, what is the reason that they do not say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Beit Hillel would respond to both claims of Beit Shammai. With regard to that which you said, that the burnt-offering of appearance is superior because it goes up entirely to God, on the contrary, the Festival peace-offering is superior, as it has two consumptions, by God on the altar and by people. And with regard to that which you said that we derive this halakha from the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, one could argue instead that one should derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from another offering of an individual, i.e., the princes; and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the communal offering of Shavuot.

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? Beit Shammai would respond to the arguments of Beit Hillel: With regard to that which you said, that the Festival peace-offering is superior, as it existed before the speech of God, the burnt-offering of appearance also existed before the speech. According to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the Jewish people sacrificed burnt-offerings at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah.

And with regard to that which you said, that one derives the halakhot of these offerings from the offerings of the princes, one could argue that one derives the halakhot of a matter that is performed in all generations, i.e., the value of the different Festival offerings, from another matter that is performed in all generations, i.e., the offerings brought on Shavuot. However, one does not derive the halakhot of a matter that is performed in all generations from a matter that is not performed in all generations, as the offerings of the princes was a specific mitzva for the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, what is different about the Festival peace-offering, that it existed before the speech of God, as it is written: “And they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5)? The burnt-offering of appearance is also mentioned, as isn’t it written in the same verse: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings”?

The Gemara responds: Beit Hillel hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering, which is a communal offering, as there were no individual burnt-offerings before the giving of the Torah. And Beit Shammai hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance, which is an individual offering.

Abaye said: Beit Shammai, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael all hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance. And Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili all hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a daily burnt-offering, not an individual offering.

The Gemara explains the source for each opinion. Beit Shammai is that which we said. Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: General statements were said at Sinai, i.e., Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the Ten Commandments.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chagiga 6a examines whether a young child must be brought to the Temple for the pilgrimage rituals, debating Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel through Hannah and Samuel's story.