I.e., from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount.
Ordinarily, a boy up to the age of thirteen years and a day is considered a minor
I.e., is too young; but as soon as he is old enough he must visit the Temple, because, although exempt by the Law of the Torah till he reaches his majority (v. n. 8), the Rabbis imposed on the father the duty of training him in theobservance of the precepts.
Ex. XXIII, 14.
) rendered in E.V. by ‘times’, occurs in this sense again only in Num. XXII, 28, 32, 33. On thebasis of Ex. XXIII, 14, the Mishnah often uses
of the three Pilgrim Festivals. But the usual meaning of
is‘foot’, hence the quotation is understood in our Mishnah as ‘three times on foot’ i.e., the precept to appear at the Templeapplies only to those who can walk.
, the word translated above ‘to appear’ (v. p. 1, n. 1). Here it stands for
, theburnt-offering, which, it was inferred from Ex. XXIII,15 (end), the pilgrim had to bring on visiting the Temple.
I.e., two ma'ahs, v. n. 4.
, whence our tractate derives its name. It was a peace-offering (cf. Lev. III,15) and was inferred from Lev.XXIII, 41; v. infra 9a.
A sixth of a denar, v. Glos.
The word ‘ALL’ is emphatic’; it implies that persons who might be thought exempt are subject to thecommandment; hence the question.
E.g., he belonged to two masters, and was freed by one of them.
Lit., ‘became straight’ (in limb).
I.e.,the seven individual days of the festival.
I.e., if a man was unfit to bring his sacrifices on the first day of the festival (e.g.,if he was exempt on account of lameness) and during the festival he became fit (i.e., regained the use of his leg), it is his duty to make good hissacrificial dues on the day of the festival that he becomes fit.
I.e., if he was unfit on the first day, he is completely exempt, though he becomes fit in the course of the festival.
Probably the name means, ‘Goldsmith’.
Or, according to Tosaf. (v. p. 1, n. 1), ‘exempt from bringing the pilgrimage- offering’; and so wherever thetranslation has ‘appearing’.
Ex. XXIII, 17.
may be vocalised
(Kal, ‘He will see’) or following the Massorah,
(Nif'al, ‘He will be seen,appear); cf. Gen. XXII, 14. By combining both readings, it is deduced that the ‘seeing’ and ‘being seen’ must be alike inregard to fulness of vision i.e., in regard to the use of both eyes: just as God comes to see the pilgrim with both eyes (ananthropomorphism for full vision necessitated by the desired parallel in respect to man), so when the pilgrim comes toappear before God, he must be able to see with both eyes. So Rashi: but R. Tam (in Tosaf. a.l.) prefers to make man thesubject, and construes thus;
just as the pilgrim is seen by God, Who has two eyes (i.e., full vision), sohe must see Him (i.e., appear in the Divine presence) with both eyes.
I.e., that the word all comes to include a half-slave.
I.e., the statement that unfreed slaves are exempt from visiting the Temple, which Rabina interprets as inferringsuch as are half free.
I.e., the Mishnah as it was formulated before the School of Hillel (whose ruling was authoritative against that of theShammaite School cf. Ber. 36b and Gratz, vol. IV, p. 424, n. 4; Heb. edn. vol. II, p. 172, n. 1) came over to the view of the School of Shammai.
(rendered, ‘the earlier Mishnah’) may refer either (a) to a single previousruling later revised, or (b) to an entire compilation of the Mishnah, in which case it may be rendered, ‘the first Mishnah’;cf. J.E. vol. VIII, P. 610f, and refs.
V. note 4.
I.e., representing the later opinion of the School of Hillel. Though this second opinion contradicts the first, theearlier ruling was not erased from the Mishnah, on the principle that a Mishnah (ruling) which had once been taught wasnot to be removed from its place; cf. Yeb. 30a et passim.
Talmud - Mas. Chagigah 2b