Please note that unless where otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi.
Our notes and comments do not necessarily have a bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) The Mitzvah of Re'iyah constitutes appearing in the Azarah (with an Olas Re'iyah) once on each Yom-Tov.

(b) This Mitzvah does not pertain to ...

1. ... women or to ...
2. ... slaves or to ...
3. ... a Tumtum and an Androginus.

(c)

1. A Tumtum - is a person whose sexual organs are covered by a layer of skin, and it cannot be ascertained whether he is male or female.
2. An Androginus - is one who has both the sexual organs of both a male and a female.

(d) Sick and old people (who cannot walk) are Patur, and so is anyone who cannot go up on foot - from Yerushalayim to the Har ha'Bayis.

3)

(a) Beis Shamai defines a Katan as one who is too small to ride on his father's shoulders from Yerushalayim to the Har ha'Bayis. Beis Hillel say - one who is too small to walk (who is obviously older than the Katan of Beis Shamai).

(b) The Chiyuv to bring a child who has passed that stage is mi'de'Rabbanan. Chazal place the obligation to educate him - on both his father and his mother (though most Rishonim disagree with Rashi, confining the obligation to his father).

(c) According to Beis Shamai, the Olas Re'iyah must be worth at least *two* silver Ma'ah (each one a sixth of a Dinar), and the Shalmei Chagigah, *one*; according to Beis Hillel - it is the other way round: the Olas Re'iyah must be worth at least *one* silver Ma'ah, the Chagigah, *two*.

(d) We learn that someone who comes to the Beis Hamikdash on Yom-Tov, is obligated to bring ...

1. ... an Olas Re'iyah - from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Lo Yera'u Panai Reikam".
2. ... a Shalmei Chagigah - from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Chagosem Oso Chag la'Hashem".

(a) Our Mishnah began 'ha'Kol Chayavin bi'Re'iyah'. We initially contend that 'ha'Kol' comes to include someone who is a half slave and half free. This is possible - if he was jointly owned by two masters, one of whom set him free.

(b) We reject this contention because it does not conform with the opinion of Ravina - who says that someone who is a half slave and half free is Chayav Re'iyah (we shall see why later).

(c) We reject the contention that 'ha'Kol' comes to include someone who was lame on the *first* day, but was cured on the *second* - because that would not conform with those who say that the obligation on the subsequent days of Yom-Tov is only as a Tashlumin for the first day (to make up for not having brought it then). Consequently, whoever was not Chayav then, will not be Chayav on the other days either.

(a) In the first (acceptable) answer, we conclude that 'ha'Kol' comes to include someone who is blind only in one eye, and that the author of our Mishnah is not Yochanan ben Dahavai who, quoting Rebbi Yehudah, says - that someone who is blind in only one eye is Patur from Re'iyah from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "*Yera'eh* Kol Zechurcha es P'nei ha'Adon Hashem", which, due to the absence of a 'Yud', is as if the Torah had written "Yir'eh". From the combination, we Darshen "Yera'eh" "Yir'eh", in the same way as Hashem wants to be seen by us (with two eyes - ke'Vayachol), He wants us to see Him.

(b) The second answer reinstates our initial contention (that 'ha'Kol comes to include someone who is a half-slave and half-free) even according to Ravina, who maintains that he is basically Patur from Re'iyah - but that is only according to the Mishnah Rishonah, which, following Torah law, and obligates the half-slave to remain with his master. Our Mishnah, which obligates him to fulfill the Mitzvah of Re'iyah, follows the opinion of the Mishnah Acharonah, which obligates his master to set him free. Consequently, it is considered as if he was already free, and is Chayav therefore, to fulfill the Mitzvah of Re'iyah.

(c) Beis Hillel hold in the Mishnah Rishonah - that a man who is a half- slave and half free takes turns in serving his master and serving himself: one day he serves his master, and one day he is free.

(d) Beis Shamai convinced Beis Hillel to retract from their initial opinion - using the argument that, it is all very well for his master, who has his slave; but how about the poor slave, who is unable to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah ve'Rivyah (or even that of "Lo Tohu Bera'ah, la'Sheves Yetzarah" - a branch of Piryah ve'Rivyah), seeing as he is neither able to marry a Shifchah, nor a regular Jewish woman?

6)

(a) When we say 'ka'Tani Cheresh Dumya de'Shoteh ve'Katan' - we mean that the Cheresh in our Mishnah (and everywhere else in Shas), like the Shoteh and the Katan there, must be a deaf-mute who has no Da'as at all (i.e. he is not lucid), and not just deaf.

(b) A deaf man who can speak is considered more normal than one who cannot - because, seeing as he learned to speak, he must have been lucid at that time.

(c) Our Mishnah (as well a Mishnah in Yevamos) hints at what is explicitly stated in a Beraisa which says - that someone who can speak but not hear (a Cheresh - technically, though not the Cheresh to which Chazal generally refer) or hear but not speak (an Ileim), are considered normal in all respects.

(d) The statement 'Tanina le'Ha de'Tanu Rabbanan' comes to teach us - that the Beraisa is reliable.

8) We just quoted a Beraisa which includes someone who is dumb (but can hear) or someone who is deaf (but can speak) in the Mitzvah of Re'iyah. However on the basis of another Beraisa which exempts them, we amend the first Beraisa. According to the new text - a dumb person or someone who is deaf, remain obligated to perform the Mitzvah of bringing a Shalmei Simchah.

Next daf