QUESTION: The Mishnah lists the categories of people who are exempt from the obligation of "Re'iyah." RASHI explains that "Re'iyah" refers to the obligation to appear in the Azarah during the festival.

However, when the end of the Mishnah uses the word "Re'iyah," it clearly refers to the Korban one brings (the Olas Re'iyah) when he comes to the Azarah during the festival. Why does Rashi explain that the word "Re'iyah" in the beginning of the Mishnah refers to something different, to the obligation to appear in the Azarah during the festival? Rashi should explain that it refers to the obligation to bring a Korban Re'iyah on the festival. (TOSFOS DH ha'Kol)

ANSWER: The Mishnah continues and says that a minor (Katan) is not obligated in the Mitzvah of Re'iyah if he is not mature enough to be carried on his father's shoulders from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis (according to Beis Shamai) or to ascend to Har ha'Bayis while holding his father's hand (according to Beis Hillel). This implies that if he is old enough to walk (or ride, according to Beis Shamai), he is obligated in Re'iyah even though he is only a minor. However, RASHI (DH Beis Shamai) writes that only an adult is obligated to bring a Korban Re'iyah. Since a minor is not obligated by the Torah to bring a Korban and cannot sanctify an animal as a Korban, there is also no Mitzvah of Chinuch to have him bring a Korban Re'iyah. Any animal he would bring for a Korban Re'iyah would violate the prohibition against bringing a non-sanctified animal into the Azarah.

For this reason, Rashi explains that the Mishnah's statement, "Everyone is obligated in Re'iyah," refers to the Mitzvah to appear in the Azarah (but not the Mitzvah to bring a Korban Re'iyah). When the Mishnah continues and says that a minor who is old enough to go from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis is obligated, it means that he is obligated to appear in the Azarah -- but not to bring a Korban. (This also appears to be the intention of Tosfos (end of DH Eizehu), who offers an explanation for Rashi's words. See also TUREI EVEN to 6a, DH Eizehu, and MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Chagigah 2:3.)

TOSFOS (DH Eizehu) disagrees with Rashi's explanation and says that a minor is obligated even to bring a Korban Re'iyah because of Chinuch. (To fulfill this obligation of Chinuch, he brings a Korban Nedavah on the following day (Chol ha'Mo'ed) and not on Yom Tov itself. Also, he does not perform Semichah to the animal, since a minor cannot do Semichah.)

Tosfos is consistent with his opinion expressed earlier (DH ha'Kol Chayavin) that when the Mishnah mentions "Re'iyah," it refers to the Korban and not merely to the Mitzvah to appear in the Azarah. Therefore, when the words of the Mishnah later imply that a minor who is old enough to walk is obligated, it refers to the obligation to bring a Korban.

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that according to Beis Shamai, a minor is exempt from the obligation of Re'iyah if he is not old enough "to ride on his father's shoulders from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis." According to Beis Hillel, a minor is exempt if he is not old enough "to hold his father's hand and walk from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis."

RASHI (DH Shalosh) explains that if the child cannot walk by himself, he is exempt because had he been an adult in the same state (unable to walk), he would have been exempt. The Mitzvah of Chinuch applies to a child only when he would have been obligated in the Mitzvah had he been an adult.

However, when the Mishnah says that an adult "who is unable to walk upon his feet" is exempt, RASHI (DH u'Mi she'Eino) writes that he is exempt from the Mitzvah to appear in the Azarah on the festival if he cannot walk "from Yerushalayim to the Azarah" (and not merely to Har ha'Bayis). This is logical; the Mitzvah of "Aliyah l'Regel" requires that one go to the Azarah and not merely to Har ha'Bayis, because the Azarah is considered "before Hash-m" (Shemos 23:17) while Har ha'Bayis is not considered "before Hash-m" (Chagigah 7a).

Why, then, does the Mishnah say that a minor must be able to walk (or be carried) "from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis"? Since the Mitzvah is to go to the Azarah, the Mishnah should say that the minor is obligated only if he is able to walk (or be carried) from Yerushalayim to the Azarah and not merely to Har ha'Bayis. (TOSFOS YOM TOV)

(a) The TOSFOS YOM TOV answers that the most difficult part of Aliyah l'Regel is the ascent from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis. This ascent is a steep incline with no stairs. In contrast, the ascent from Har ha'Bayis to the Azarah is an easy walk because there are stairs which lead to the Azarah (as the Mishnah describes in Midos 2:3). If the child is able to get to Har ha'Bayis, he certainly is able to get to the Azarah.

(b) RASHI later (4b, DH Mefanki) writes that in order to be obligated in the Mitzvah of Re'iyah, a person must be able to ascend Har ha'Bayis without shoes, because one is prohibited to enter Har ha'Bayis while wearing shoes (Berachos 54a). Accordingly, perhaps the Mishnah says that a minor must be able to walk to "Har ha'Bayis" in order to allude to this unique Halachah which applies to all of Har ha'Bayis and affects the age at which a minor is obligated in Aliyah l'Regel. Even though the Mitzvah requires that he go to the Azarah, if he cannot walk without shoes he is exempt because one may not enter Har ha'Bayis (to get to the Azarah) while wearing shoes.

According to Beis Shamai (who maintains that a minor is obligated in Re'iyah as long as he is old enough to ride on his father's shoulders even though he is not old enough to walk to Har ha'Bayis), the Mishnah mentions Har ha'Bayis to teach that the child is obligated only when his father is able to walk without shoes as he carries his son on his shoulders. (Even though another person could bring the child up to Har ha'Bayis if the father cannot go, the obligation of Chinuch rests solely on the father's shoulders. It is not the child's obligation per se to go up, as Rashi implies.) (M. Kornfeld)

(c) The OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Beis ha'Bechirah 6:10) writes that the Yerushalmi implies that the distance one must be able to walk in order to be obligated in Re'iyah is a set distance, and it is not a relative distance which varies according to the place from which the person departs. Accordingly, since the Azarah potentially can be extended to all parts of Har ha'Bayis (but not beyond Har ha'Bayis, as the Rambam there implies), the distance which one must be able to walk was established to be from Yerushalayim to Har ha'Bayis. The ability to walk this distance reflects the level of maturity of the child and shows whether or not the obligation of Chinuch for this Mitzvah applies to him. (However, the Or Same'ach points out that the Gemara later (6a) seems to understand the Mishnah differently.)

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that when the Mishnah states that "everyone is obligated in Re'iyah," its intention is to include a person who is half-slave and half-free in the obligation of Re'iyah.

The Mishnah a few lines later lists "slaves who are not free" among those who are exempt from Re'iyah. Ravina infers from the extra words "who are not free" that the Mishnah refers to a person who is half-slave and half-free.

How can the Mishnah first teach that a half-slave is obligated in Re'iyah, and then teach that a half-slave is exempt from Re'iyah? The Gemara answers that one statement of the Mishnah was taught according to the "Mishnah Rishonah," the earlier ruling that a half-slave serves his master for one day and is free the next day. The other statement of the Mishnah was said according to the "Mishnah Acharonah," the later ruling which retracted the first ruling and stated that the master is obligated to free his half-slave. Which part of the Mishnah expresses the ruling of the Mishnah Rishonah, and which part of the Mishnah expresses the Mishnah Acharonah?

(a) RASHI, TOSFOS, and most Rishonim explain that the statement of the Mishnah that a half-slave is exempt from Re'iyah follows the Mishnah Rishonah which stated that a half-slave remains a slave (and serves his master half of the time). A half-slave is exempt according to the Mishnah Rishonah because he retains the status of a slave.

The statement at the beginning of the Mishnah, which teaches that a half-slave is obligated in Re'iyah, follows the Mishnah Acharonah which stated that the master is obligated to free his half-slave. Consequently, the half-slave is considered to be free now and thus is obligated in Re'iyah. Although the Gemara in Gitin (42b) does not answer its question of whether a half-slave (according to the Mishnah Acharonah) is considered the legal property of the master (and may eat Terumah if the master is a Kohen), that question applies only insofar as a Kinyan, legal ownership, is concerned. The legal ownership of the half-slave does not affect the Halachah with regard to Re'iyah; the obligation of Re'iyah depends on whether or not the person has any master over him other than Hash-m. As far as the obligation of Re'iyah is concerned, the half-slave is considered to have no other master over him since his former master is obligated to release him and cannot tell him what to do.

According to this explanation, however, the order of the Mishnah is not chronologically accurate. The beginning of the Mishnah expresses the Halachah according to the Mishnah Acharonah, while the later part of the Mishnah expresses the Halachah according to the Mishnah Rishonah.

(b) The RAMBAM explains that the beginning of the Mishnah follows the Mishnah Rishonah. According to the Mishnah Rishonah, a half-slave is obligated in Re'iyah since the master is not obligated to set him free (the reasoning behind this is explained below). The second part of the Mishnah follows the Mishnah Acharonah. Since, according to the Mishnah Acharonah, the master is required to free the half-slave, the half-slave is not obligated in Re'iyah.

What is the logic behind the Rambam's explanation? Why is there more reason to obligate the half-slave in Re'iyah if the master does not have to free him?

1. The KESEF MISHNEH (Hilchos Korban Pesach 2:13) explains that according to the Mishnah Rishonah, since the half-slave remains in that state (as the master is not required to free him), the Chachamim negotiated a compromise for him so that his days are split between serving the master and serving himself. As a result of this compromise, every other day -- when the servant serves himself -- he is considered a completely free man and is not subjugated to his master at all. Therefore, he is obligated in the Mitzvah of Re'iyah.

In contrast, according to the Mishnah Acharonah which requires the master to free his half-slave, the Chachamim had no reason to make a compromise for him. Since he is going to be freed he retains the status of a slave until he is freed. Therefore, before he is actually freed there is no time at which he is not subjugated to his master, and thus he is exempt from the Mitzvah of Re'iyah.

2. Although the answer of the Kesef Mishneh addresses the rulings of the Rambam in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Korban Pesach loc. cit., and Hilchos Chagigah 2:1), the wording of the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos (Pesachim 8:1) seems to contradict this approach. The Rambam there writes that according to the Mishnah Acharonah (which requires the master to free his half-slave), since the Chachamim do not permit him to remain a half-slave and thus his freedom is imminent, they do not permit him to eat the Korban Pesach or to bring the Korban Re'iyah until he is freed completely.

The Rambam there implies that the reason why the half-slave is not obligated to bring a Korban is because the master must free him. According to the Kesef Mishneh's approach, however, the half-slave's exemption is not related to the fact that the master must free him, but rather he is exempt because he retains the official status of a slave.

The KESEF MISHNEH (loc. cit.) suggests that perhaps the Rambam's explanation is based on a different line of reasoning. In truth, a half-slave is obligated mid'Oraisa to bring the Korban Re'iyah, because his half which is not a slave has no master other than Hash-m. However, the Chachamim decreed that he is exempt and may not bring the Korban (which they are empowered to do, since it is "Shev v'Al Ta'aseh") in order to provide an incentive for him to seek his freedom. (According to this explanation, it is the slave who needs to be encouraged to be freed. The slave often prefers to remain enslaved and have someone else provide him with all of his needs. Therefore, the Chachamim gave the slave an incentive to seek his freedom by decreeing that he may not bring his Korban Re'iyah or Korban Pesach until he becomes completely free. On the other hand, the Chachamim did not force the master to free the half-slave because the slave himself is able to force the master to free him by bringing him to Beis Din whenever he chooses.)

3. RABEINU AVRAHAM BEN HA'RAMBAM (cited by the Kesef Mishneh) suggests an answer which explains not only the logic behind the Rambam's understanding of the Gemara, but which also reconciles the Rambam's explanation in Perush ha'Mishnayos with his explanation in Mishneh Torah.

In truth, a half-slave is exempt mid'Oraisa from the Mitzvah to bring a Korban Re'iyah and the Mitzvah to bring a Korban Pesach. Thus, even if the master is obligated to free him (the Mishnah Acharonah), he is exempt because he is still a slave.

However, according to the Mishnah Rishonah, which stated that a half-slave remains in that state indefinitely, since his state is a permanent one the Chachamim instituted that he may bring the Korban Re'iyah and Korban Pesach.

This answer is difficult to understand. How could the Chachamim require that a person bring a Korban when the Torah exempts him? According to the Torah, the animal is not sanctified, and such an animal may not be brought into the Azarah. (LECHEM MISHNEH, Hilchos Chagigah 2:1)

The Lechem Mishneh explains that Rabeinu Avraham means that the Chachamim utilized their authority of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker" and proclaimed the half of the person owned by the master to be ownerless in order to obligate the person in the Mitzvah. However, they did not dissolve the master's partial ownership of the person with regard to his obligation to serve his master. Thus, he still must obey his master (on the day which he serves his master) and do whatever his master tells him to do. In that respect, he is still a slave. The Chachamim made him free only with regard to the obligation to bring Korbanos which require him to be free.

OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes the Mishnah in Gitin (41a) which discusses the status of a person who is half-slave and half-free ("Chatzyo Eved v'Chatzyo Ben Chorin"). Beis Hillel originally ruled that the slave is to work for his master half of the time and for himself half of the time (he alternates days for whom he works).

Although this arrangement suits the dual monetary ownership of the slave, it does not resolve the dilemma posed to the slave's nuptial status: a half-slave, half-free man cannot marry any woman; he cannot marry a Shifchah (maidservant) because of the half-free part of him, and he cannot marry a free Jewess because of the half-slave part of him. For this reason, Beis Shamai disagrees with Beis Hillel and requires that the master free his portion of the slave in order to enable the slave to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.

The Mishnah relates that Beis Hillel retracted his original opinion and accepted the ruling of Beis Shamai.

When the Mishnah says that the slave is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah, which part of him is obligated? Is only the part of him that is free obligated, or is even the part of him that is a slave obligated to fulfill Piryah v'Rivyah (see Insights to Gitin 41:4 for why a slave may have an obligation of Piryah v'Rivyah)?

(a) In order to answer this question, it is necessary to examine the source for the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. Two verses refer to the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. The first verse states, "Peru u'Revu" -- "Be fruitful and multiply" (Bereishis 1:28). The second verse states, "He did not create it in vain; He fashioned it to be inhabited (la'Sheves)" (Yeshayah 45:18). This is the verse quoted by the Mishnah in Gitin.

The RIVAM (quoted by TOSFOS DH Lo) maintains that the two halves of the person who is a half-slave have two separate obligations. The free part of him is obligated to fulfill the basic Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah, while the slave part of him is obligated only to fulfill "la'Sheves." (The free part of him certainly is obligated to fulfill that element as well. The difference is that the slave part of him is only obligated to fulfill the concept of "la'Sheves" but not the actual Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.)

The Rivam adduces support from the wording of the Mishnah. If the reason why the master must free the half-slave is to enable him to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah, why does the Mishnah not quote the verse in Bereishis which is the source for the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah? It must be that the Mishnah prefers to quote a verse which is relevant to both parts of the half-slave, half-free person. Since a slave is not obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of "Peru u'Revu," the Mishnah cites the verse of "la'Sheves."

(b) TOSFOS here (2b, DH Lo) disagrees with the Rivam. He asserts that a Jewish slave is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. Tosfos infers from the wording of the Mishnah, "[Lo Nivra ha'Olam Ela] l'Piryah v'Rivyah," that the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah applies even to the part of the person which is a slave.

How, though, does Tosfos refute the proof of the Rivam? Tosfos explains that the Mishnah cites the verse of "la'Sheves" because that verse teaches the great importance of the Mitzvah when it says that the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah is one of the primary purposes of Hash-m's creation of the world. (See also Insights to Gitin 41:3.)