כְּמִי שֶׁנָּגַח שׁוֹר חֲמוֹר וְגָמָל וְנַעֲשָׂה מוּעָד לַכֹּל אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא אִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא אֵי זֶהוּ שׁוֹטֶה זֶה הַמְאַבֵּד כׇּל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹתְנִים לוֹ הֲוָה הָדַר בֵּיהּ

like the actions of a forewarned ox that gored an ox, a donkey, and a camel. Since this ox gored three different animals on three separate occasions, it is considered predisposed to gore and becomes forewarned for every type of animal. Likewise, if someone performs three different deranged actions, it is assumed that there is no logical reason for his behavior and he is classified as an imbecile. Rav Pappa said: If Rav Huna had heard that which is taught in a baraita: Who is an imbecile? This is one who destroys whatever is given to him, he would have retracted his statement that one is an imbecile only if he performs three deranged actions.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ כִּי הֲוָה הָדַר בֵּיהּ מִמְּקָרֵע כְּסוּתוֹ הוּא דַּהֲוָה הָדַר בֵּיהּ דְּדָמְיָא לְהָא אוֹ דִלְמָא מִכּוּלְּהוּ הֲוָה הָדַר תֵּיקוּ:

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to Rav Pappa’s statement: When Rav Pappa claims that Rav Huna would have retracted his statement, would he have retracted only from the case of one who tears his garments, as this person is similar to one who destroys whatever is given to him? Or perhaps he would have retracted his opinion with regard to all of the signs of an imbecile? The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved, as no answer was found.

וְטוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס כּוּ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן זְכוּר לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים זְכוּרְךָ לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס כָּל זְכוּרְךָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַקְּטַנִּים

§ The mishna taught: And a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are exempt from the mitzva of appearance in the Temple. The Sages taught, with regard to the verse: “Three occasions in the year all your males will appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17), had the verse simply said “males,” this would serve to exclude women from this mitzva. By specifying “your males,” it comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite as well. Furthermore, when the verse adds “all your males,” this serves to include male minors.

אָמַר מָר זְכוּר לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא מִכְּדִי מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הוּא וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת

The Master said in the baraita: “Males” comes to exclude women. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse for this halakha? After all, the obligation of appearance on a Festival is a positive, time-bound mitzva, and women are exempt from any positive, time-bound mitzva.

אִצְטְרִיךְ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נֵילַף רְאִיָּיה רְאִיָּיה מֵהַקְהֵל מָה לְהַלָּן נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת אַף כָּאן נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

The Gemara answers: This statement was necessary, as otherwise it could enter your mind to say: Let us derive by means of a verbal analogy between the term: Appearance, which appears here, and the term: Appearance, stated with regard to the mitzva of assembly (Deuteronomy 31:11), which is also a positive, time-bound mitzva. Just as there, women are obligated in the mitzva of assembly, so too here, women are obligated in the mitzva of appearance on the Festival. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that women are exempt.

אָמַר מָר זְכוּרְךָ לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס בִּשְׁלָמָא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס אִצְטְרִיךְ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וְאִית לֵיהּ צַד זַכְרוּת לִיחַיַּיב קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּבְרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא

The Master said in the baraita: “Your males” comes to exclude a tumtum and a hermaphrodite. The Gemara asks: Granted, the exclusion of a hermaphrodite was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since he possesses an aspect of masculinity, i.e., he has a male sexual organ, he should be obligated like a male. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that a hermaphrodite is a being unto itself, which is neither male nor female.

אֶלָּא טוּמְטוּם סְפֵיקָא הוּא מִי אִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי כְּשֶׁבֵּיצָיו מִבַּחוּץ

However, as the status of a tumtum, who lacks external sexual organs, is a halakhic uncertainty, is a verse necessary to exclude an uncertainty? Abaye said: It is referring to a case when the testicles of a tumtum are on the outside, although his penis is not visible. The verse teaches that this tumtum is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, despite the fact that he is certainly male.

וְאֶלָּא קְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא לִכְדַאֲחֵרִים דִּתְנַן אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים הַמְקַמֵּץ וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחֹשֶׁת וְהַבּוּרְסִי פְּטוּרִין מִן הָרְאִיָּיה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כׇּל זְכוּרְךָ מִי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת עִם כׇּל זְכוּרְךָ יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַעֲלוֹת עִם כׇּל זְכוּרְךָ:

The Gemara asks: Rather, for what purpose does the verse: “All your males,” come? It comes to teach that which Aḥerim taught. As it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say that a scrimper, one who gathers dog feces to give them to tanners for the purpose of tanning hides; and a melder of copper, who purifies copper from dross; and a tanner of hides, are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as their occupation inflicts upon them a particularly unpleasant odor. This is because it is stated: “All your males,” which indicates that only one who is able to ascend with all your males is obligated, excluding those who are not suited to ascend with all your males, as people avoid their company.

נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְשׁוּחְרָרִים וְכוּ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא נָשִׁים כְּדַאֲמַרַן אֶלָּא עֲבָדִים מְנָלַן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר קְרָא אֶל פְּנֵי הָאָדוֹן ה׳ מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אָדוֹן אֶחָד יָצָא זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אָדוֹן אַחֵר

§ The mishna taught that women and slaves who are not emancipated are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Gemara asks: Granted, women are exempt, as we said earlier that this is derived from the phrase: “Your males.” However, with regard to slaves, from where do we derive that they are exempt? Rav Huna said that the verse states: “Before the Lord God” (Exodus 23:17). This indicates that one who has only one Master is obligated, which excludes this slave, who has another master.

הָא לְמָה לִי קְרָא מִכְּדֵי כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה חַיֶּיבֶת בָּהּ עֶבֶד חַיָּיב בָּהּ כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה חַיֶּיבֶת בֵּהּ אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָּיב בָּהּ דְּגָמַר ״לָהּ״ ״לָהּ״ מֵאִשָּׁה

The Gemara asks: Why do I need a verse to teach this halakha? After all, with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is obligated, a slave is also obligated in that mitzva; and with regard to every mitzva in which a woman is not obligated, a slave is not obligated in it either. The reason for this principle is that it is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the phrase: “To her” (Leviticus 19:20), written with regard to a designated maidservant, and the phrase: “To her” (Deuteronomy 24:3), written with regard to a divorced woman.

אָמַר רָבִינָא לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין דַּיְקָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְשׁוּחְרָרִין מַאי שֶׁאֵינָן מְשׁוּחְרָרִין אִילֵּימָא שֶׁאֵינָן מְשׁוּחְרָרִין כְּלָל לִיתְנֵי עֲבָדִים סְתָמָא אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁאֵינָן מְשׁוּחְרָרִין לִגְמָרֵי וּמַאי נִינְהוּ מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ:

Ravina said: This verse is necessary only to teach the exemption of one who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara notes that the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Women and slaves who are not emancipated. What is the purpose of specifying: Who are not emancipated? If we say that this means that they are not emancipated at all, let it simply teach: Slaves, without any further description. Rather, is it not the case that the mishna is referring to slaves who are not entirely emancipated? And who are these slaves? One who is half-slave half-freeman. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this that this is correct.

וְהַחִיגֵּר וְהַסּוֹמֵא וְחוֹלֶה וְהַזָּקֵן תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן רְגָלִים פְּרָט לְבַעֲלֵי קַבִּין דָּבָר אַחֵר רְגָלִים פְּרָט לְחִיגֵּר וּלְחוֹלֶה וּלְסוֹמֵא וּלְזָקֵן וּלְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת בְּרַגְלָיו וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת בְּרַגְלָיו לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי אָמַר רָבָא לְאֵתוֹיֵי

The mishna further taught: And the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the old are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance. The Sages taught: “Times [regalim]” (Exodus 23:14) alludes to the use of one’s feet [raglayim], and therefore it excludes people with artificial legs. Although they are able to walk, they are exempt from traveling, as they do not have feet. Alternatively, the term “regalim” comes to exclude the lame, the sick, the blind, the old, and one who is unable to ascend on his own feet. The Gemara asks: The last category of one who is unable to ascend on his feet, comes to add what? The baraita already taught that the lame and the sick are exempt. Rava said: It comes to add