Explanation (Rashi): This refers to the Mitzvah "all your males will be seen [in the Mikdash on the festivals]."

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): We teach below that Beis Shamai says that the Shi'ur for Re'iyah is two silver [Ma'os]. This implies that we discuss the Korban (Olas Re'iyah)!

Question #2: A Beraisa in the Gemara teaches that an Arel (uncircumcised man) and a Tamei are exempt from Re'iyah;

(Beraisa): Granted, a Tamei is exempt because it says "u'Vasa Shamah" - whoever has a Mitzvah of Bi'ah, (entering the Mikdash) has a Mitzvah of bringing [a Korban].

Question #3 - Citation (Yerushalmi, Reish Chagigah): This refers to Re'iyas Korban. Everyone is obligated in Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah (being seen in the Mikdash), just like everyone is obligated in Hakhel (hearing the king read the Torah on Sukos), i.e. men, women and children;

Question #4 (Beraisa - R. Yosi): Yisrael were commanded three Mitzvos when they ascend for the Regel - Re'iyah, Simchah and Chagigah;

There is a law of Re'iyah that does not apply the other two. The Re'iyah is totally burned.

Inference: Stam "Re'iyah" refers to the Korban!

Answer (R. Tam): Our Mishnah discusses the Korban and [entering the] Azarah;

Implied question: Why did Rashi mention [only] Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah?

Answer #1: He discussed one matter that connotes both of them. He comes to exempt from all of them;

They are exempt even from Re'iyas Panim in the Azarah, and all the more so from Re'iyas Panim of the Korban.

Answer #2: We can also resolve that he holds that the Mishnah connotes that it discusses also Re'iyas Panim, for below (in our Mishnah) it teaches "who is a minor [who is exempt]? Anyone who cannot walk...

Inference: It discusses the minor that our Mishnah discusses. This shows that [our Mishnah] discusses Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah, for he cannot walk.

Observation: However, we cannot resolve the Yerushalmi with our Sugya, for many reasons;

Reason #1: There, we learn from Hakhel to obligate. [Here] we learn from it only to exempt a Cheresh;

Implied question: Below, we say 'one might have thought to learn "Re'iyah-Re'iyah" from Hakhel. Just like there, women are obligated...' (i.e. we wanted to learn to be stringent)!

Answer: In any case, we learn that according to the truth (the conclusion), we do not learn from Hakhel to obligate.

Reason #2: Also, how can we [say that also the Bavli] obligate[s] women in Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah from Re'iyah of Hakhel?

Below we establish "v'Lo Yir'u (Panai Reikam)" to discuss Re'iyas Panim b'Korban, and we exclude women from "Zechurcha"!

Reason #3: Below (6a), we say "who brought [the child] to Yerushalayim? His mother, who is obligated in [coming to Yerushalayim to eat Shalmei] Simchah, brought him";

We do not say that she is obligated in Re'iyah in the Azarah. This connotes that she is exempt.

Reason #4: The Gemara says that she is exempt from Re'iyah and obligated in Simchah. According to the Yerushalmi, it could have said that she is obligated in Re'iyas [Panim b']Azarah!

Conclusion: Rather, our entire Sugya proves that women are totally exempt from Re'iyah, like I explained.

Observation: We do not learn from general rules, even when they say 'except for' (i.e. there can be other exceptions), like we say in Eruvin 21a.

Proof: Our Mishnah omitted Mekametz (one who collects excrement), a tanner, and one who does not own land.

Disclaimer: However, these are not omissions, for our Mishnah discusses Pesul ha'Guf (the person himself is exempt), unlike these, which are disqualified for another reason, i.e. their trade [or lack of land].

Suggestion: The Mishnah omitted one who is deaf in one ear, lame in one foot, or needs sticks to walk!

Rejection: All of these are in included in the categories [of a Cheresh, and one who cannot ascend by foot].

Obviously, a Tamei is exempt, since he cannot enter [the Mikdash]. It is feasible only for him to bring [a Korban, and Tosfos brought above that anyone exempt from entering is exempt from Korban. Therefore, this is not an omission.]

Arel [is not an omission, for] the Gemara includes him like one who is Tamei, according to R. Akiva.

However, all those in our Mishnah are a Chidush. They require a verse to exclude them.

Explanation #1: From then (when he can ride) and onwards, he reached the age of Chinuch, and he is obligated mid'Rabanan, and he must bring his Korbanos for a Nedavah (voluntarily, but not for a Chiyuv);

According to the opinion (Beitzah 19a) that one may not offer Nedavos on Yom Tov, he may not offer them until the next day, which is Chol ha'Mo'ed.

Question (Tosfos' Rebbi): According to the opinion that the other days [on which one may bring Olas Re'iyah and Chagigah] are Tashlumin (compensation) for the first day, since he (a minor) cannot offer on the first day, he should not offer afterwards!

Note: Tosfos said that he brings a mere Nedavah. Tashlumin does not apply! Tosfos asks why our enactment mid'Rabanan is unlike Torah law (R. Pores Yosef).

We say so below (9a) regarding a lame person who healed on the second day.

Answer: There, the person is not qualified. Therefore, since he is not qualified on the first day, he is not qualified on the second;

Here (a minor), whatever Chiyuv he has on the second day, he has on the first, just the day was not proper to offer on it.

Support: We find in Pesachim (70b) regarding Chagigah, sometimes there are six [days among Sukos and Shemini Atzeres] when one may offer it, and sometimes there are seven;

If the first day of Yom Tov [and hence also Shemini Atzeres] is on Shabbos, there are six days to offer it.

Inference: Even though one may not offer it on the first day, one may offer it on the second day, since [the Isur on the first day] was due to the day, like I explained.

Suggestion: The one who forbids Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom Tov, forbids only mid'Rabanan. Here, Rabanan enacted that he (a minor) may offer even on Yom Tov!

Rejection: Beitzah (12a) connotes that he forbids mid'Oraisa, for [baking] Shtei ha'Lechem do[es] not override Yom Tov. (Isurim mid'Rabanan do not override Avodah in the Mikdash.)

Question: When he brings the Korbanos for Nedavah, why may he do Semichah on them? A minor does not do Semichah, like it says in Menachos 93a!

Answer: Even though he does not do Semichah, this is like Chinuch of one's son (training him to do Mitzvos).

Explanation #2 (Rashi): The Mishnah asks "which minor...?" not regarding Re'iyas Korban, rather, regarding Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah. (He is obligated only in the latter, for the sake of Chinuch. Maharsha - Rashi did not say so explicitly. He said that the Mishnah discusses [only] Re'iyas Panim b'Azarah, for it includes some minors. Mayim Chayim says that he explained that the Shi'ur of two Shekalim applies to an adult.)

Explanation: This is according to the latter Mishnah [that we force a master to free a half-slave].

Question: Our Mishnah says oppositely, like we derive in the Gemara (4a). "Who are not freed" connotes that a half slave [who still needs to be freed] is exempt!

Answer: Even so, we answer that the Reisha obligates, according to what we are thinking now;

The Tartzan (who answered) was not concerned for [how to explain] the words "slaves who are not freed."

Implied question: Tashlumin was written [only] regarding Chagigah!

Answer: In any case, we learn Re'iyah from it, that all of the days are Tashlumin of the first day;

Here, the person is not qualified. Since he is not qualified on the first day, he is not qualified on the second day;

We could not say that he was lame in the first hour [on the first day], and healed in the second hour, for this is obvious [that he is obligated].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The way Hash-m comes to see you, with His two eyes, so you come to see Him, with your two eyes.

Rejection #1 (R. Tam): "Coming" does not apply to the Shechinah, which is everywhere!

Note: We find Midrashim that say that the Shechinah "came", e.g. Tanchuma Beha'aloscha 6!

Rejection #2: Rashi expounds first the Mesores (the way it is written). Just the contrary, we should expound first the Mikra (the way we pronounce it)!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rather, the text must say "Yera'eh Yir'eh." Just like seeing is with two eyes, i.e. man comes to be seen in front of Hash-m through Hash-m's two eyes, also man comes to see Hash-m with his two eyes.

Note: Whenever the Torah mentions seeing Hash-m, or a revelation of Hash-m, Unkelos translates "Yekara da'Shem" (the honor of Hash-m).

Implied question: Why is this unlike "Uvad" and "Avad" (Pesachim 26b)? There, we expound both the Mikra and Mesores [and it connotes that all agree about this. Here, only R. Yehudah expounds both. Chachamim do not.]

Answer: Here, both are the same. (Both "Yera'eh" and "Yir'eh" are normally spelled the same. The Mikra and Mesores do not conflict.) There, each is different (the Mesores is without a Vov, which is normally read "Avad." A tradition teaches to pronounce it "Uvad."

Explanation: What the master originally had, he has now, i.e. [half]-servitude. You did not fix the half-slave himself, for he cannot marry a woman;

The slave does not care about the servitude at all. Initially, he was totally for the master, and now on his day he works for himself. (Maharsha - Tosfos proves that Beis Shamai enact to free him solely for the sake of marriage. They would not enact due to servitude, for the slave already profited. Initially, before one of his masters freed him, he was a full slave, and now works for himself on his (i.e. every other) day.)

R. Meshulam's text: The Mishnah says "you fixed him (the slave), but you did not fix the master at all, for also the master loses the [ability for the slave to produce] children.

Note: The Chasam Sofer (Gitin 41a) explains that without an enactment, one cannot force a half-slave to work Avodas Parech (very hard, like one can force a full Eved Kena'ani), for he is half-free. He must work as much time for his master like a regular worker, to equal working half the time Avodas Parech. He is left with little time for himself! The enactment helps him. He works half the time Avodas Parech for his master (for he is like a full Eved Kena'ani then), and half the time for himself. The master always receives the same value of work, but (compared to when he was a full slave of two partners,) he lost children.

Observation: He cannot sell himself (to be an Eved Ivri) in order to marry a Shifchah, for a convert cannot be sold to be an Eved Ivri.

Reason #1: This is because we must be able to fulfill "he will return to his family", but a convert has no family, like it says in Bava Metzi'a (71a).

Reason #2: Also, since he did not fulfill Peru u'Rvu as a Yisrael, we do not marry a Shifchah to him, due to his free half.

Support: In Kidushin 20a, we say that if an Eved Ivri has no wife and children, his master may not give a Shifchah to him.

Question: He should be able to marry someone like himself (a half-Shifchah)! His free side may cohabitate with her free side, and his slave side may cohabitate with her slave side!

This is like a mule (offspring of a horse and donkey) that seeks to mate. We do not mate it with a horse, nor with a donkey, rather, with its species (a similar mule, i.e. both their mothers were horses, or both were donkeys - Chulin 79a).

Answer: There, the verse is particular only about Kil'ayim of two species, and there is no problem (when it mates with a similar mule);

Here, the Torah is adamant about his free side. It may not cohabitate with [even a side of] slavery, and this occurs (if he marries a half-slave).

Assertion: The reason why we may mate a mule [with its species] permits also riding on it. (We do not consider this to be working with diverse species together.)

Citation (Tosefta Kil'ayim, and Yerushalmi - Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah): A Kal va'Chomer forbids riding on a mule. One may wear two [separate] cloaks [one of wool and one of linen], but their mixture (if they are connected) is forbidden;

Citation (cont.): One may not work with two [different] species. All the more so their mixture (an animal that was born to them) is forbidden!

Citation (cont. - Chachamim): It says "put my son Shlomo to ride on the mule"!

Citation (cont. - Isi ben Yehudah): We do not learn Torah from one who did improperly.

Citation (cont. - Chachamim): It says "he (David) did what is straight in Hash-m's eyes!"

Implied question: Why may he not marry a Mamzeres? A slave may marry a Mamzeres, for he is already Kadesh (comes from a union of people who cannot have Kidushin together. Tosfos holds that the verse "Lo Yihyeh Kadeshah... vLo Yihyeh Kadesh forbids Yisre'elim to marry slaves.)

Citation (Kidushin 69a - Mishnah): Mamzerim can purify (permit their descendants). A Mamzer marries a Shifchah.

[Also] the free side [of a half-slave] is permitted to her, like the Mishnah in Kidushin says that freed slaves and Mamzerim may marry each other.

Answer #1: We should not enact in order to increase Mamzerim in the world.

Answer #2: Since Kidushin takes effect on her, his slave half has relations with an Eshes Ish.

Implied question: Why may he not marry a Nesinah (one of the seven Kena'ani nations)? Mamzerim, Nesinim and freed slaves may marry each other!

Answer #1: Since Kidushin takes effect on her, his slave half has relations with an Eshes Ish.

Answer #2: A Nesinah is forbidden to his slave half, for a Nasin is not "already Kadesh";

Even though a Nasin may marry a Mamzeres, because he is not called "Kehal [Hash-m", even so] he is commanded "v'Lo Yihyeh Kadesh."

Question: The Aseh "Lasheves Yetzarah" should override the Lav of "Lo Yihyeh Kadesh"!

Answer #1: It is possible to fulfill both of them through forcing the master. (Therefore, we do not override the Lav.)

Answer #2: An Aseh overrides a Lav only in a case such as Bris Milah, which overrides [cutting off] Tzara'as [on the foreskin], for at the time he overrides the Lav, he fulfills the Aseh;

Here, he transgresses the Lav from the time of Ha'ara'ah (the initial stage of Bi'ah), and he does not fulfill the Aseh until a complete act of Bi'ah [which can produce a child].

Explanation #1: This Aseh is stronger than Peru u'Rvu, like it says in Megilah (27a), that one should sell a Sefer Torah in order to marry a woman and learn Torah. We learn from Lo Sohu Vera'ah.

Explanation #2: Some say that [we cite Lo Sohu Vera'ah, and not Peru u'Rvu] because a slave is not commanded Peru u'Rvu. We say that if he had children while he was a slave, and he was freed, he did not fulfill Peru u'Rvu.

Rejection #1: The Yerushalmi in Mo'ed Katan asked whether a slave may marry a woman during the Mo'ed, and brings a proof from this Mishnah;

Citation (Yerushalmi - Mishnah): Should he neglect [marrying]?! The world was created only for the sake of Peru u'Rvu!

Citation (cont. - Shimon bar Aba): Anyone commanded Peru u'Rvu may not marry a woman during the Mo'ed.

Rejection #2: The Gemara's wording here "the world was created only for the sake of Peru u'Rvu" connotes that it applies to both [sides of the half-slave]!

Implied question: [If a slave is commanded Peru u'Rvu,] why do we say that [if he had children while he was a slave, and he was freed,] he did not fulfill Peru u'Rvu?

Answer: This is because his children do not have lineage from him. Even a Yisrael who fathered a child from a Shifchah, his son is not called on his name (does not have lineage from him).

Rejection #3: Peru u'Rvu was written regarding all Bnei No'ach, even Kena'an. (Maharsha questions this from Sanhedrin (59b), which says that Nochrim are not commanded Peru u'Rvu. Mishneh l'Melech (Hilchos Melachim 10:7) and Sefas Emes answer that Tosfos proves that all Nochrim, even Kena'anim, were commanded Peru u'Rvu. Surely, a slave who immersed for the sake of Avdus is like a Yisrael, and did not lose Mitzvos at Sinai.)

Assertion: Even according to Shmuel, who says that if one was Mafkir his slave, he goes free, and he does not need a document of freedom, here they did better to make a full freedom [with a document].

Implied question: In Berachos (47b), we say that one who freed his slave transgresses an Aseh!

Answer: We prefer that the Rav do a small Isur, than for the slave to do a big Isur, like it says in Eruvin (32b).

Implied question: At the beginning of Shabbos (4a), it says "do we tell someone to sin, in order that someone else merit?"

Answer: There, he was negligent. He should not have baked the bread (i.e. put it in the oven to bake).

Support: In Pesachim (59a), we permit a Kohen to offer, after the afternoon Tamid, someone else's Kaparah (birds that permit him to eat Kodshim), so the latter will be able to eat Pesach at night, even though there is the Aseh of Hashlamah. (The Kohen transgresses offering after the afternoon Tamid.)

Implied question: Why does it teach Nashim in the plural, and Cheresh Shoteh v'Katan in the singular?

The Gemara was exacting about this in Nidah (8a) regarding "[here it teaches] girls, and here it teaches a woman! ("Girls" must refer to two cases. If it said girls because the law applies to all girls in that situation, the Seifa would similarly say women!)

Answer: Here they are two matters that do not resemble each other. A Cheresh and lunatic are exempt from all Mitzvos, like it says below, and we do not know from a verse that a minor is exempt;

We know this only from a Kal va'Chomer from women, for it says Zechurcha. All the more so, minors are exempt!

We make an inference like this in Kidushin (34b, that women are obligated more than minors). Minors are obligated [in Hakhel]. All the more so women are!

Explanation (Rashi): [He cannot go] from Yerushalayim to the Azarah;

This is a bigger Chidush. [We exempt] not only if he cannot go from his city to the Azarah. (Rather, even if he can go from his city to Yerushalayim, but cannot go from Yerushalayim to the Azarah, he is exempt.)

Likewise, he is exempt if he cannot go from his city to Yerushalayim, like the Gemara connotes "until now, who brought him?"

Implied question: In Megilah (19b), it says that everyone is Kosher to read the Megilah, except for a Cheresh Shoteh v'Katan... We do not infer there like here!

Answer: There, you are forced to say that we discuss [a Cheresh] who speaks, since he recited the Megilah. He could not be Motzi others through gesturing!

Implied question: Also in Chulin (2a), it says [that everyone is Kosher to slaughter], except for a Cheresh Shoteh v'Katan, lest they ruin the Shechitah. We do not infer there like here!

Answer: There, it depends on concentration, that he can train his hand to slaughter. (Therefore, even a Cheresh who speaks may not slaughter, since he cannot train his hand. Hagahos Ashri (Chulin 1:3, citing Or Zaru'a) rules like this, but the Rambam and Rosh (Chulin 1:3) (Rashash - and Tosfos Sukah 42b DH veha'Yode'a) disagree.)

Explanation: Bereishis Rabah learns that he cannot speak or hear from "Mi Sam Peh la'Adam Oh Mi Yasum Ilem Oh Cheresh" - Mi Sam Peh (Who gave or denied ability to speak) applies to both (an Ilem and a Cheresh).

Implied question: Why doesn't it teach that women are [similarly] obligated in Simchah, after this (Cheresh)?

Answer: The Tana was not concerned for (i.e. to teach) this, [for this would necessitate] teaching in an inverted order. ("Women" would have to interrupt between Cheresh and Shoteh v'Katan.)

Support: We find like this in several places.

Implied question: Below (6b), it says "there are matters that apply to Simchah, but not to both of them (Chagigah and Re'iyah). It (Simchah) applies to men and women, but both of them do not;

Why didn't it teach a Cheresh who speaks but cannot hear?

Answer: He is liable also in Chagigah. The Tana did not want to teach matters that apply to two of them, but not to one of them, e.g. a Cheresh who speaks but cannot hear;

The Tana came to teach his rule only regarding what applies to one of them, but not to two of them.

Here we say [that a Cheresh who speaks but cannot hear] is obligated in Simchah. The same applies to Chagigah, like I explained;

He (Ravina or Rava) mentioned Simchah, because women are obligated, and a [full] Cheresh, lunatic and child are exempt. (He did not teach Chagigah, for women are exempt from it.)

Implied question: It taught above that both of them (a Cheresh who can only speak, and one who can only hear) are like a healthy person in every way!

Answer: It means that they are obligated in Simchah and Chagigah.