גּוֹי וַחֲבֵירוֹ מֵחַד קְרָא נָפְקִי, אִיַּיתְרִי לְהוּ תְּרֵי: חַד – ״קָרְבָּנוֹ״ וְלֹא קָרְבַּן אָבִיו, וְאִידָךְ – לְרַבּוֹת כָּל בַּעֲלֵי חוֹבְרִין לִסְמִיכָה.

but he maintains that the exclusion of a gentile and the exclusion of the offering of another person from the requirement of placing hands are derived from the same one mention of “his offering” in the verse. This leaves two mentions of “his offering” for Rabbi Yehuda. One he expounds to teach that he places hands on “his offering,” but not on his father’s offering that he inherited, and the other mention remains to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הַאי ״הָמֵר יָמִיר״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה; דְּתַנְיָא: לְפִי שֶׁכָּל הָעִנְיָן אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹן זָכָר, מַה סּוֹפֵינוּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״.

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: “If he shall substitute [ hamer yamir ]”? The Gemara answers: He requires it to include a woman among those who can effect substitution. As it is taught in a baraita : Since the entire matter of substitution is stated in the Torah only in the masculine form, what is the reason that we ultimately come to include a woman? The verse states: “And if he shall substitute [ hamer yamir ],” using a doubled form.

וְרַבָּנַן? מִ״וְאִם״. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, ״וְאִם״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, from where do they learn that a woman can perform substitution? The Gemara answers: They derive it from the extra “and” in the phrase: “And if he shall substitute” (Leviticus 27:10). But Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the extra “and” in the term “and if” at all.

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּסוּכָּה״ לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאִיתוּיֵי קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְאִמּוֹ – חַיָּיב בְּסוּכָּה.

§ The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the following baraita : Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of sukka ? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor who does not need his mother when he awakes in the middle of the night. As we learned in a mishna ( Sukka 28a): A minor who does not need his mother is obligated in the mitzva of sukka .

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּלוּלָב״ לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאִיתוּיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעֲנֵעַ, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעֲנֵעַ – חַיָּיב בְּלוּלָב.

The Gemara further asks: What is added by the ruling of the following baraita : Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of lulav ? The Gemara answers: This clause serves to add a minor who knows how to wave the lulav . As we learned in a mishna ( Sukka 42a): A minor who knows how to wave the lulav is obligated in the mitzva of lulav .

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּצִיצִית״ לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאִיתוּיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְעַטֵּף, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִתְעַטֵּף – חַיָּיב בְּצִיצִית.

The Gemara continues to ask similar questions: What is added by the statement of a baraita : Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes? The Gemara explains that this serves to add a minor who knows how to wrap himself in a garment. As it is taught in a baraita : A minor who knows how to wrap himself in a garment is obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes.

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְפִילִּין״ לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאִיתוּיֵי קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִלִּין, דְּתַנְיָא: קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לִשְׁמוֹר תְּפִלִּין – אָבִיו לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ תְּפִלִּין.

The Gemara asks: What is added by the ruling of a baraita : Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries? The Gemara answers that it serves to add a minor who knows how to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries by maintaining a state of bodily cleanliness. As it is taught in a baraita : With regard to a minor who knows how to preserve the sanctity of phylacteries in a state of cleanliness, his father purchases phylacteries for him.

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּרְאִיָּיה״ לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאִיתוּיֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין.

§ The Gemara further inquires: What is added by the statement of the mishna ( Ḥagiga 2a): Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of appearance, i.e., the obligation to appear in the Temple and to sacrifice an offering on the three pilgrimage Festivals. The Gemara answers: The mishna serves to add one who is a half-slave half-freeman, e.g., a Canaanite slave who was owned jointly, and only one of his owners freed him.

וּלְרָבִינָא דְּאָמַר: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה – לְאִיתוּיֵי חִיגֵּר בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְפַּשֵּׁט בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי.

The Gemara explains: And according to the opinion of Ravina, who said: One who is half-slave half-freeman is exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple, that clause serves to add one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was unable to travel, and was therefore exempt at the time, but who was healed on the second day of the Festival. This man is obligated to appear in the Temple before the end of the Festival.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּן תַּשְׁלוּמִין זֶה לָזֶה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּן תַּשְׁלוּמִין לָרִאשׁוֹן, לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי?

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that all seven days of a Festival rectify one another, i.e., the obligation to appear applies equally to all days of the Festival, not just the first. Consequently, one who was exempt on the first day is nevertheless obligated on the second day. But according to the one who says that the main obligation is on the first day and that all the remaining days merely rectify the first day, a person who was lame on the first day of the Festival remains exempt throughout the rest of the Festival. If so, what does the statement of the mishna in Ḥagiga 2a serve to add?

לְאִיתוּיֵי סוּמָא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו; וּדְלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא,

The Gemara answers: It serves to add one who is blind in one of his eyes, and teaches that he is obligated to appear in the Temple, whereas one who is entirely blind is exempt. The Gemara notes: And this ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna , Rabbi Yehuda.

דְּתַנְיָא, יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: סוּמָא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו – פָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִרְאֶה״ ״יֵרָאֶה״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבָּא לִרְאוֹת – כָּךְ בָּא לֵירָאוֹת, מַה לִּרְאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו – אַף לֵירָאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי עֵינָיו.

As it is taught in a baraita that Yoḥanan ben Dahavai says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: One who is blind in one of his eyes is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as it is stated: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear [ yera’eh ] before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). According to the way in which the verse is written, without vocalization, it can be read as yireh , meaning: Shall see, instead of yera’eh , meaning: Shall appear. This teaches that in the same manner that one comes to see, so he comes to appear, i.e., to be seen: Just as the usual way to see is with both of one’s eyes, so too, the obligation to appear applies only to one who comes with the sight of both his eyes. This is one possible explanation for what is added by the general statement of the mishna in Ḥagiga 2a, according to Ravina.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לְאִיתוּיֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ דְּרָבִינָא – לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן בְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, that statement serves to include one who is half-slave and half-freeman. And with regard to what was difficult for you according to the opinion of Ravina, that he exempts such a person from the obligation of appearance, it is not difficult: Here the ruling is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna, whereas there it is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna.

דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.

As we learned in a mishna ( Pesaḥim 88a): One who is half-slave and half-freeman serves his master one day, as he is half a slave, and works for himself one day, since he is half free. This is the statement of Beit Hillel.

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי: תִּיקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִּיקַּנְתֶּם! לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל; יִבָּטֵל? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״!

Beit Shammai said to them: You have thereby remedied the situation of his master, who fully derives benefit from all his rights to the slave, but you have not remedied his own situation. How so? He cannot marry a maidservant, as half of him is free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also unable to marry a free woman, as half of him is still a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle, i.e., refrain from marrying, but isn’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “For so said the Lord that created the heavens…Who formed the earth and made it, He established it. He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)?

אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָּמָיו, וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי.

Rather, for the betterment of the world, i.e., so that the slave will be able to engage in procreation, the court forces his master to make him a freeman by emancipating the half that he owns. And the slave writes a bill to his master accepting responsibility to pay half his value to him over time, as currently he has no property with which to redeem himself. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be emancipated. The ruling of the mishna that a half-slave must appear in the Temple is in accordance with this opinion, which holds that the master must free him. Ravina’s statement that he is not obligated to appear in the Temple is in accordance with the initial mishna, according to which Beit Hillel held that the master is not forced to free the half-slave.

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר״ לְאִיתוּיֵי מַאי? לְאִיתוּיֵי קָטָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְחִינּוּךְ, דִּתְנַן: אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּטָן מִלִּתְקוֹעַ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

§ The Gemara asks: What is added by the statement of the baraita : Everyone is obligated to sound the shofar? The Gemara answers: This serves to add a minor who reached the age of training in mitzvot. As we learned in a mishna ( Rosh HaShana 32b): One need not prevent minors from sounding the shofar on the festival of Rosh HaShana, despite the fact that they are not obligated in mitzvot.

״הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה״, ״הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה״ – לְאִיתוּיֵי

The Gemara asks: With regard to the ruling of the baraita : Everyone is obligated in the mitzva of reading the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, and the statement of the mishna ( Megilla 19b): Everyone is fit to read the Megilla, these serve to add