## Chagigah Daf 6a

###### Chagigah 6a:1
[Chagigah 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:1)

עַד הָכָא, מַאן אַתְיֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Chagigah 6a:2
[Chagigah 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עַד הָכָא דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא אִימֵּיהּ בְּשִׂמְחָה — אַיְיתִיתֵיהּ אִימֵּיהּ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, אִם יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וְלֶאֱחוֹז בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת — חַיָּיב, וְאִי לָא — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Chagigah 6a:3
[Chagigah 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:3)

הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי תַּחַת בֵּית הִלֵּל: לְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, ״וְחַנָּה לֹא עָלָתָה כִּי אָמְרָה לְאִישָׁהּ עַד יִגָּמֵל הַנַּעַר וַהֲבִיאוֹתִיו״ — וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּיָכוֹל לִרְכּוֹב עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 6a:4
[Chagigah 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ, חַנָּה גּוּפַהּ מִי לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא בְּשִׂמְחָה? אֶלָּא חַנָּה, מְפַנְּקוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא חַזְיָיא בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְחַשָּׁא בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁמוּאֵל לְחוּלְשָׁא דְאוֹרְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 6a:5
[Chagigah 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:5)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: קָטָן חִיגֵּר לְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְסוֹמֵא לְדִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Chagigah 6a:6
[Chagigah 6a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:6)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּחִיגֵּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט, וְסוֹמֵא שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְפַּתֵּחַ? הַשְׁתָּא גָּדוֹל — פָּטוּר, קָטָן — מִיבַּעְיָא?! לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּחִיגֵּר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט, וְסוֹמֵא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהִתְפַּתֵּחַ, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Chagigah 6a:7
[Chagigah 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּגָדוֹל מִיחַיַּיב מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — קָטָן נָמֵי מְחַנְּכִינַן לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּגָדוֹל פָּטוּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — מִדְּרַבָּנַן קָטָן נָמֵי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 6a:8
[Chagigah 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:8)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הָרְאִיָּיה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chagigah 6a:9
[Chagigah 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הָרְאִיָּיה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף, וְהַחֲגִיגָה מָעָה כֶּסֶף. שֶׁהָרְאִיָּיה עוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּחֲגִיגָה, וְעוֹד: מָצִינוּ בָּעֲצֶרֶת שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב בְּעוֹלוֹת יוֹתֵר מִבִּשְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 6a:10
[Chagigah 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:10)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הָרְאִיָּיה מָעָה כֶּסֶף וַחֲגִיגָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף. שֶׁחֲגִיגָה יֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּרְאִיָּיה. וְעוֹד: מָצִינוּ בַּנְּשִׂיאִים שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלָמִים יוֹתֵר מִבְּעוֹלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 6a:11
[Chagigah 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:11)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמְרִי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ: רְאִיָּיה עֲדִיפָא — דְּעוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, אַדְּרַבָּה: חֲגִיגָה עֲדִיפָא — דְּאִית בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת. וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ: נֵילַף מֵעֲצֶרֶת — דָּנִין קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקׇּרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְאֵין דָּנִין קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקׇּרְבַּן צִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Chagigah 6a:12
[Chagigah 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:12)

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמְרִי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל? דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ: חֲגִיגָה עֲדִיפָא — דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, רְאִיָּיה נָמֵי יֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 6a:13
[Chagigah 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:13)

וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: נֵילַף מִנְּשִׂיאִים — דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 6a:14
[Chagigah 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:14)

וּבֵית הִלֵּל, מַאי שְׁנָא חֲגִיגָה דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים״, רְאִיָּיה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲלוּ עוֹלוֹת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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”?


###### Chagigah 6a:15
[Chagigah 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:15)

קָסָבְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה הֲוַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chagigah 6a:16
[Chagigah 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:16)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה הֲוַאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chagigah 6a:17
[Chagigah 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/6a:17)

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.