Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2021 | 讬状讚 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 20

This month鈥檚 learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v’Aytan Yehoshua.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Danielle Barta in memory of聽 Michelle Daman Wasserman – Gittel Frieda bat Sarah whose yahrzeit is tomorrow. “Michelle was taken from us too early, 15 years ago, leaving behind two little girls who have grown into beautiful young women who would, no doubt, make her very proud. Michelle, you will always be my inspiration to be my best both in my avodat Hashem and my bein adam l’chevero. I miss you and think about you every day.”

Rabbi Elazar Bar Shimon did not allow the use of a thanksgiving sacrifice to also be used to fulfill his duty to bring peace offerings for the holiday (the obligatory ones), even if it was so explicitly stipulated when one designated the animal. Why not? The Gemara illustrates this by bringing an example of one on his death bed who told someone I will give you 400 zuzim and you can marry my daughter. In this case, the condition is not effective. However, if he said it in the reverse order, it would be. Why? A student brought a braita before Rabbi Yitzchak Bar Abba bringing a drasha to derive the obligation for semicha on an obligatory burnt offering. Rabbi Yitzchak questions him as it seems his braita was stated only according to Beit Shamai as per their opinion in our Mishna that semicha can鈥檛 be performed on Yom Tov for obligatory peace offerings as semicha is not required for them. Likewise, semicha would also not be obligatory in obligatory burnt offerings, thus obviating the need for a drasha. The Gemara ultimately explains that the need for a drasha could be explained according to Beit Hillel as well. Rabbi Yitzchak鈥檚 question was based on the fact that the reason in the Mishnah for Beit Shamai to not permit semicha on Yom Tov was because it was not obligatory. Howver it appears in a braita that the reason is because he didn鈥檛 hold the semicha has to be performed immediately before the slaughtering of the animal and therefore, better to do it the day before. The Gemara answers that there are two different traditions regarding the reason for the dispute between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel in the Mishnah. There are stories told of Hillel the elder and Shamai鈥檚 students who clashed in the Temple regarding their debate. The Tosefta is brought in which Beit Hillel and Shamai each bring various arguments to support their opinions. The tana and Abba Shaul have a different tradition regarding their arguments and this is because they disagreed as to whether vow and gift offerings can be brought on Yom Tov according to Beit Hillel. Rav Huna thinks that whoever says they cannot be brought, holds it is forbidden by Torah law and not just a rabbinic decree. What if one transgressed and slaughtered the animal for a vow or gift offering, would one be able to sprinkle the blood on the altar on Yom Tov? Rabba and Rabba Bar Rav Huna disagree as to why it would be permitted.

讜讗讙诇讞 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讚讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讙诇讞

and I will shave my head, meaning I will purchase the nazirite offerings that are brought when a nazirite shaves himself, with second-tithe money, which I am obligated in any case to bring to Jerusalem, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: With regard to the thanks-offering, he has vowed and must bring the offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation of the Festival peace-offering with it, as the latter offering must be brought from unconsecrated animals. Similarly, one who took the vow of naziriteship is a nazirite, but he may not shave his head and bring nazirite offerings purchased with second-tithe money.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诇谞住讬讘 讘专转讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讘专转讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 谞住讬讘 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘

In relation to the previous case, in which one makes a conditional statement and only part of his statement is accepted, the Gemara relates a somewhat similar incident: A certain man said to those tending to him, in the form of a will: Give four hundred zuz to so-and-so, and let him marry my daughter. Rav Pappa said: The four hundred zuz he takes, but as for the benefactor鈥檚 daughter, if he wishes, he may marry her, and if he wishes, he need not marry her.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讜诇谞住讬讘 讗讘诇 讗讬 讗诪专 诇谞住讬讘 讜讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞住讬讘 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘 诇讗 砖拽讬诇

The Gemara comments: The reason is solely that he said it in this manner: Give him the money and let him marry my daughter, mentioning the gift before the condition. However, if he specified the condition first, by saying: Let him marry my daughter and give him the money, in that case, if he marries her, he takes the money, but if he does not marry her, he may not take it.

讬转讬讘 诪专讬诪专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讗转讜谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara relates: Mareimar sat and stated this halakha with regard to one who attaches a condition to his vow to bring a thanks-offering in his own name, without attributing it to the Sage who stated it. Ravina said to Mareimar: You teach this halakha in this manner, without attribution, whereas we teach it in the form of a question that Reish Lakish asked of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讬拽专讘 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 讜讬注砖讛 讻诪砖驻讟 讻诪砖驻讟 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 诇诪讚 注诇 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 住诪讬讻讛

A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Abba: The verse concerning the burnt-offering that Aaron was commanded to sacrifice for the inauguration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation鈥 (Leviticus 9:16), indicates that the halakha of an obligatory burnt-offering is similar to the regulation governing a gift burnt-offering. This teaches with regard to an obligatory burnt-offering that it too requires the person bringing the offering to place his hands on the head of the animal to be sacrificed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讙诪专讬 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讘注讬 拽专讗 讚讙诪专讬 诪注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k said to the tanna: He who told you that this halakha requires an explicit biblical source, in accordance with whose opinion did he say this? It is that of Beit Shammai, who do not learn the halakha of obligatory peace-offerings from that of gift peace-offerings by way of an analogy [binyan av], as they distinguish between the two with regard to the requirement of placing hands on the peace-offerings brought on a Festival. As, if it were the opinion of Beit Hillel, since they learn the halakha of obligatory peace-offerings from that of gift peace-offerings, there being no distinction between the two categories, then an obligatory burnt-offering should also not require a special verse to teach this halakha, as they can learn it from the halakha governing a gift burnt-offering by means of an analogy.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讙诪专讬 讚诇诪讗 诪注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讙诪专讬 讜注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讙讜驻讗 讘注讬讗 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And from where may it be shown that Beit Hillel learn the halakhot of obligatory peace-offerings from those of gift peace-offerings? Perhaps they do not learn the halakhot of obligatory peace-offerings from those of gift peace-offerings. Rather, they learn the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings from the halakha governing an obligatory burnt-offering: Just as an obligatory burnt-offering requires the one bringing the offering to place his hands on the animal to be sacrificed, so too do obligatory peace-offerings. And an obligatory burnt-offering itself requires an explicit verse from which to derive this halakha, and perhaps the verse cited above is the source: 鈥淎nd he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation.鈥

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 砖讻谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诪注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙诪专讬 砖讻谉 讻诇讬诇

The Gemara challenges this argument: What is different about obligatory peace-offerings such that Beit Hillel do not learn the halakha governing them from the halakha applying to gift peace-offerings? It is that gift peace-offerings are more common, and perhaps a different halakha applies to them. If so, they should also not learn the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings from the halakha applying to an obligatory burnt-offering, as the latter is entirely burnt, unlike peace-offerings.

(讗诇讗) 讗转讬讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讗

The Gemara answers: Rather, the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings is derived from between the two of them. The Torah explicitly states that one must place hands on the heads of both obligatory burnt-offerings and gift peace-offerings. It is possible to extend the same obligation to obligatory peace-offerings by combining the two sources, as follows: If one says that an obligatory burnt-offering is different from an obligatory peace-offering because it is entirely burnt, gift peace-offerings prove that this is not the critical factor; and if one counters that gift peace-offerings are different from obligatory peace-offerings because they are common, an obligatory burnt-offering proves that this is not crucial. Therefore, there is no proof from here with regard to Beit Hillel鈥檚 position, as they too might learn the halakha governing an obligatory burnt-offering from the verse: 鈥淎nd he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation.鈥

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诇讗 讘注讜 住诪讬讻讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛住诪讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 砖爪专讬讱 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the halakha itself: And do Beit Shammai hold that obligatory peace-offerings do not require placing of hands on the head of the animal? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the placing of hands itself that it is required in the case of obligatory peace-offerings. With regard to what, then, did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the halakha that states that immediately following placing hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter. As Beit Shammai say: It is not necessary to be particular in this regard, and the ceremony of placing hands on the animal鈥檚 head may be performed even on the eve of the Festival, long before the animal is slaughtered. And Beit Hillel say: It is necessary, and therefore one who brings an offering on a Festival must place his hands on the animal鈥檚 head on the Festival itself.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 砖爪专讬讱 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛住诪讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna said what he said in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the halakha that immediately following placing hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter, that it is necessary. With regard to what, then, did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the placing of hands itself on the head of obligatory peace-offerings. Beit Shammai say: It is not necessary, and Beit Hillel say: It is necessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 砖讛讘讬讗 注讜诇转讜 诇注讝专讛 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讞讘专讜 注诇讬讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讛讝拽谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 讟讬讘讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗转讬讛 讻砖讻砖 诇讛诐 讘讝谞讘讛 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐

搂 The Gemara returns to the basic dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal鈥檚 head on a Festival. The students of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and said to him: What is the nature of this animal that you are bringing? Hillel, being humble and meek, did not want to quarrel with them in the Temple and therefore concealed the truth from them for the sake of peace. He said to them: It is a female, and I have brought it as a peace-offering, as burnt-offerings are always male. He swung its tail for them so that they would not be able to properly discern whether the animal was male or female, and they departed.

讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讙讘专讛 讬讚诐 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讘拽砖讜 诇拽讘讜注 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谉 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讛讝拽谉 讜讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 砖诪讜 砖讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 砖讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜砖诇讞

On that day, when the incident became known, suggesting that even Hillel had accepted Shammai鈥檚 view, Beit Shammai gained the upper hand over Beit Hillel, and they sought to establish the halakha in this regard in accordance with their opinion. But a certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name, who knew that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in this matter. And he sent for

讜讛讘讬讗 讻诇 爪讗谉 拽讚专 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛注诪讬讚谉 讘注讝专讛 讜讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬 砖专讜爪讛 诇住诪讜讱 讬讘讗 讜讬住诪讜讱 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讙讘专讛 讬讚谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讚诐 砖注专注专 讘讚讘专 讻诇讜诐

and brought all the high-quality sheep of Kedar that were in Jerusalem, and he stood them in the Temple courtyard and said: Anyone who wishes to place his hands on the head of an animal should come and place his hands there. And on that day Beit Hillel gained the upper hand over Beit Shammai, and they established the halakha in this case in accordance with their opinion, and there was no one there who disputed the matter in any way.

砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讛讘讬讗 注讜诇转讜 诇注讝专讛 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讛 诪爪讗讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讝讜 住诪讬讻讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讝讜 砖转讬拽讛 砖转拽讜 讘谞讝讬驻讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讜

And some time later there was another incident involving a certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal鈥檚 head on a Festival. A certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Shammai found him and said to him: What is this placing of hands? Why do you place your hands on the animal鈥檚 head and thereby violate the statement of Beit Shammai? He said to him: What is this silence? Why do you not stay silent, as the halakha was not established in accordance with their opinion? He silenced him with a rebuke, and he, Beit Shammai鈥檚 disciple, departed quietly.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 诪诇转讗 诇讗 诇讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讟驻讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讚讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讝讜 住诪讬讻讛 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讝讜 砖转讬拽讛

Abaye said: Therefore, it is clear from here that a Torah scholar whose colleague says something reprimanding or insulting to him should not answer back with something more than his colleague had said to him, to avoid adding fuel to the fire, as in the above story the one said to the other: What is this placing of hands? and the latter responded to the former using the same language: What is this silence?

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诪讜转专 诇讙讘讜讛 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜转专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讙讘讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖诪讜转专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗住讜专 诇讙讘讜讛

搂 With regard to the dispute concerning the sacrifice of burnt-offerings of appearance on a Festival, it is taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Just as in a place where it is prohibited to slaughter for the sake of a common person [hedyot], e.g., on Shabbat, it is permitted to slaughter offerings in the Temple for the Most High, such as the daily and additional offerings, then so too, with regard to a place where it is permitted to slaughter for the sake of a common person, e.g., on a Festival, is it not right that it should be permitted for the sake of the Most High? This argument should include burnt-offerings of appearance as well. Beit Shammai said to them: This is no proof. Vow-offerings and gift-offerings prove that this reasoning is not valid, as it is permitted to slaughter an animal on a Festival for a common person to eat, but it is prohibited to slaughter vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival for the sake of the Most High.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讛 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 转讗诪专 讘注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 砖拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗祝 讝讜 讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 讞讙 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讻讜诇讜 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙

Beit Hillel said to them: If vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be slaughtered on a Festival, that is because they do not have a fixed time and there is no obligation to sacrifice them on a Festival in particular, but can you say the same with regard to a burnt-offering of appearance, which has a fixed time, the Festival itself? Beit Shammai said to them: It too has no fixed time, as we learned in a mishna: One who did not bring his Festival offering on the first Festival day of Sukkot may bring it throughout the entire Festival, including the last Festival day of Sukkot, on the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that day is regarded as part of Sukkot for this purpose. This shows that a burnt-offering of appearance need not be brought at a fixed time on the Festival either.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 讝讜 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讚转谞谉 注讘专 讛专讙诇 讜诇讗 讞讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

Beit Hillel said to them: Although a burnt-offering of appearance need not be sacrificed on a particular day of the Festival, nevertheless it too has a fixed time, albeit a lengthier one. As we learned in a mishna: If the entire Festival passed and he did not bring his Festival-offering, he is not accountable for it. That is to say, he is not required to bring another offering, as the mitzva has already passed. This indicates that the offering is limited specifically to the Festival days, unlike vow-offerings and gift-offerings, which may be brought at any time.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讛壮 讻诇 讚诇讛壮 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel in support of their own position: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated in the verse: 鈥淥nly that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you鈥 (Exodus 12:16), which indicates that for you may food be prepared, but not for the Most High? Beit Hillel said to them: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall observe it as a Festival to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:41), which teaches: Anything sacrificed to the Lord may be sacrificed? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇or you鈥? It means for you, but not for gentiles; for you, but not for dogs.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讞专转 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讬专转讱 住转讜诪讛 讻讬专转 专讘讱 驻转讜讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讬专转讱 驻转讜讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻讬专转 专讘讱 驻转讜讞讛 讜讻谉 讘讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 砖讜诇讞谞讱 诪诇讗 讜砖讜诇讞谉 专讘讱 专讬拽谉

Abba Shaul stated the same disagreement in a different formulation, that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Just as in a place where your stove is closed, i.e., on Shabbat, when a person may not cook for himself, your Master鈥檚 stove is open, as it is permitted to light a fire on the altar and sacrifice offerings upon it, so too, in a place where your stove is open, i.e., on a Festival, when one may cook food that he will eat, is it not right that your Master鈥檚 stove should be open? And it likewise stands to reason that your table should not be full while your Master鈥檚 table, the altar, remains empty.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the tanna of the first baraita and Abba Shaul disagree in their different versions of Beit Hillel鈥檚 statement? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Abba Shaul, holds that according to Beit Hillel, even vow-offerings and gift-offerings may be sacrificed on a Festival, and therefore Beit Shammai could not cite as proof the fact that they may not be sacrificed, as they claim in the first baraita. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that according to Beit Hillel, vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, and therefore Beit Shammai could adduce this halakha in support of their opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讝讗 讞讝讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讬 讘讛讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛

Rav Huna said: According to the statement of the one who says that vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, you should not say that by Torah law they are in fact fit to be sacrificed, and that it was the Sages who issued a decree about them that they should not be sacrificed on a Festival as a preventive measure, lest one delay sacrificing them until the Festival, when it is more convenient for him to bring them to the Temple, and thereby transgress the prohibition against delaying the fulfillment of one鈥檚 pledge.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讜 讚讛讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讙讝专 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

This is not the reason; rather, according to this opinion, they are not fit to be sacrificed on a Festival even by Torah law. As the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot are an obligation of that day, and there is no reason to issue a decree about them lest one come to delay their offering, since they may be brought only on that Festival, and yet their baking and preparation override neither Shabbat nor the Festival. According to this view, anything that need not be performed on the Festival itself may not be done on the Festival.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注讘专 讜砖讞讟 诪讗讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of the one who says that vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, if one transgressed and slaughtered those vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival, what is the halakha? Rava said: He sprinkles the blood of these offerings on the altar in order to allow the meat to be eaten on the Festival. Rabba bar Rav Huna, however, said: He sprinkles the blood in order to burn the sacrificial parts of the animal, including the fats and other portions that are brought upon the altar, in the evening.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 诇专讘讗 诇讗 讝专讬拽 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝专讬拽

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of Rava and that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, since both agree that the blood is sprinkled? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the meat became ritually impure or was lost. According to Rava, who holds that the blood is sprinkled in order to permit the meat to be eaten, by rabbinic decree one may not sprinkle the blood, as this sprinkling is not required for the Festival. On the other hand, according to Rabba bar Rav Huna, who holds that the blood is sprinkled in order to burn the sacrificial parts upon the altar in the evening, he does sprinkle the blood, even though it does not enable him to eat the meat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞谉 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讜讗诐 讝专拽

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna from the following baraita: With regard to the lambs of Shavuot, i.e., the two lambs sacrificed as peace-offerings that accompany the two loaves of bread brought on that Festival, if one slaughtered them not for their own purpose, i.e., at the time of slaughter his intent was to slaughter them as a different offering, or if he slaughtered them not at their proper time, whether before their time or after their time, the offerings themselves are valid, although the community has not fulfilled its obligation. What is to be done with them? The blood should be sprinkled and the meat should be eaten. And if the day he slaughtered the lambs was Shabbat, on which cooking or roasting the meat is prohibited, then since the sprinkling of the blood serves no purpose, neither with regard to their mitzva nor for any other matter, he may not sprinkle the blood. And if nevertheless he sprinkled the blood,

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah: 15-23 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin the second chapter of Masechet Beitza we will be learning about Eiruv Tavshilin which allows one to...
alon shvut women

Smicha

Smicha on Personal Korbanot on Chag Beitzah, Daf 20 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/ghy8VXeCkBE

Beitzah 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 20

讜讗讙诇讞 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讚讜专 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 谞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讙诇讞

and I will shave my head, meaning I will purchase the nazirite offerings that are brought when a nazirite shaves himself, with second-tithe money, which I am obligated in any case to bring to Jerusalem, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: With regard to the thanks-offering, he has vowed and must bring the offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation of the Festival peace-offering with it, as the latter offering must be brought from unconsecrated animals. Similarly, one who took the vow of naziriteship is a nazirite, but he may not shave his head and bring nazirite offerings purchased with second-tithe money.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜诇谞住讬讘 讘专转讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 砖拽讬诇 讜讘专转讬讛 讗讬 讘注讬 谞住讬讘 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘

In relation to the previous case, in which one makes a conditional statement and only part of his statement is accepted, the Gemara relates a somewhat similar incident: A certain man said to those tending to him, in the form of a will: Give four hundred zuz to so-and-so, and let him marry my daughter. Rav Pappa said: The four hundred zuz he takes, but as for the benefactor鈥檚 daughter, if he wishes, he may marry her, and if he wishes, he need not marry her.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讜诇谞住讬讘 讗讘诇 讗讬 讗诪专 诇谞住讬讘 讜讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞住讬讘 砖拽讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 谞住讬讘 诇讗 砖拽讬诇

The Gemara comments: The reason is solely that he said it in this manner: Give him the money and let him marry my daughter, mentioning the gift before the condition. However, if he specified the condition first, by saying: Let him marry my daughter and give him the money, in that case, if he marries her, he takes the money, but if he does not marry her, he may not take it.

讬转讬讘 诪专讬诪专 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讗转讜谉 讛讻讬 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讻讚讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

The Gemara relates: Mareimar sat and stated this halakha with regard to one who attaches a condition to his vow to bring a thanks-offering in his own name, without attributing it to the Sage who stated it. Ravina said to Mareimar: You teach this halakha in this manner, without attribution, whereas we teach it in the form of a question that Reish Lakish asked of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讬拽专讘 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 讜讬注砖讛 讻诪砖驻讟 讻诪砖驻讟 注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 诇诪讚 注诇 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 砖讟注讜谞讛 住诪讬讻讛

A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Abba: The verse concerning the burnt-offering that Aaron was commanded to sacrifice for the inauguration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation鈥 (Leviticus 9:16), indicates that the halakha of an obligatory burnt-offering is similar to the regulation governing a gift burnt-offering. This teaches with regard to an obligatory burnt-offering that it too requires the person bringing the offering to place his hands on the head of the animal to be sacrificed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讱 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讚讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讙诪专讬 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 转讘注讬 拽专讗 讚讙诪专讬 诪注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛

Rabbi Yitz岣k said to the tanna: He who told you that this halakha requires an explicit biblical source, in accordance with whose opinion did he say this? It is that of Beit Shammai, who do not learn the halakha of obligatory peace-offerings from that of gift peace-offerings by way of an analogy [binyan av], as they distinguish between the two with regard to the requirement of placing hands on the peace-offerings brought on a Festival. As, if it were the opinion of Beit Hillel, since they learn the halakha of obligatory peace-offerings from that of gift peace-offerings, there being no distinction between the two categories, then an obligatory burnt-offering should also not require a special verse to teach this halakha, as they can learn it from the halakha governing a gift burnt-offering by means of an analogy.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讙诪专讬 讚诇诪讗 诪注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讙诪专讬 讜注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讙讜驻讗 讘注讬讗 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And from where may it be shown that Beit Hillel learn the halakhot of obligatory peace-offerings from those of gift peace-offerings? Perhaps they do not learn the halakhot of obligatory peace-offerings from those of gift peace-offerings. Rather, they learn the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings from the halakha governing an obligatory burnt-offering: Just as an obligatory burnt-offering requires the one bringing the offering to place his hands on the animal to be sacrificed, so too do obligatory peace-offerings. And an obligatory burnt-offering itself requires an explicit verse from which to derive this halakha, and perhaps the verse cited above is the source: 鈥淎nd he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation.鈥

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 砖讻谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诪注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙诪专讬 砖讻谉 讻诇讬诇

The Gemara challenges this argument: What is different about obligatory peace-offerings such that Beit Hillel do not learn the halakha governing them from the halakha applying to gift peace-offerings? It is that gift peace-offerings are more common, and perhaps a different halakha applies to them. If so, they should also not learn the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings from the halakha applying to an obligatory burnt-offering, as the latter is entirely burnt, unlike peace-offerings.

(讗诇讗) 讗转讬讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讗

The Gemara answers: Rather, the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings is derived from between the two of them. The Torah explicitly states that one must place hands on the heads of both obligatory burnt-offerings and gift peace-offerings. It is possible to extend the same obligation to obligatory peace-offerings by combining the two sources, as follows: If one says that an obligatory burnt-offering is different from an obligatory peace-offering because it is entirely burnt, gift peace-offerings prove that this is not the critical factor; and if one counters that gift peace-offerings are different from obligatory peace-offerings because they are common, an obligatory burnt-offering proves that this is not crucial. Therefore, there is no proof from here with regard to Beit Hillel鈥檚 position, as they too might learn the halakha governing an obligatory burnt-offering from the verse: 鈥淎nd he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation.鈥

讜住讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诇讗 讘注讜 住诪讬讻讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 讛住诪讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 砖爪专讬讱 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the halakha itself: And do Beit Shammai hold that obligatory peace-offerings do not require placing of hands on the head of the animal? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the placing of hands itself that it is required in the case of obligatory peace-offerings. With regard to what, then, did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the halakha that states that immediately following placing hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter. As Beit Shammai say: It is not necessary to be particular in this regard, and the ceremony of placing hands on the animal鈥檚 head may be performed even on the eve of the Festival, long before the animal is slaughtered. And Beit Hillel say: It is necessary, and therefore one who brings an offering on a Festival must place his hands on the animal鈥檚 head on the Festival itself.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 注诇 转讻祝 诇住诪讬讻讛 砖讞讬讟讛 砖爪专讬讱 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讛住诪讬讻讛 注爪诪讛 砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 爪专讬讱

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna said what he said in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the halakha that immediately following placing hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter, that it is necessary. With regard to what, then, did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the placing of hands itself on the head of obligatory peace-offerings. Beit Shammai say: It is not necessary, and Beit Hillel say: It is necessary.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注砖讛 讘讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 砖讛讘讬讗 注讜诇转讜 诇注讝专讛 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讞讘专讜 注诇讬讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讛讝拽谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪讛 讟讬讘讛 砖诇 讘讛诪讛 讝讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 谞拽讘讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗转讬讛 讻砖讻砖 诇讛诐 讘讝谞讘讛 讜讛诇讻讜 诇讛诐

搂 The Gemara returns to the basic dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal鈥檚 head on a Festival. The students of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and said to him: What is the nature of this animal that you are bringing? Hillel, being humble and meek, did not want to quarrel with them in the Temple and therefore concealed the truth from them for the sake of peace. He said to them: It is a female, and I have brought it as a peace-offering, as burnt-offerings are always male. He swung its tail for them so that they would not be able to properly discern whether the animal was male or female, and they departed.

讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讙讘专讛 讬讚诐 砖诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讘拽砖讜 诇拽讘讜注 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谉 讜讛讬讛 砖诐 讝拽谉 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 砖诪讗讬 讛讝拽谉 讜讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 砖诪讜 砖讛讬讛 讬讜讚注 砖讛诇讻讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜砖诇讞

On that day, when the incident became known, suggesting that even Hillel had accepted Shammai鈥檚 view, Beit Shammai gained the upper hand over Beit Hillel, and they sought to establish the halakha in this regard in accordance with their opinion. But a certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name, who knew that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in this matter. And he sent for

讜讛讘讬讗 讻诇 爪讗谉 拽讚专 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讛注诪讬讚谉 讘注讝专讛 讜讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬 砖专讜爪讛 诇住诪讜讱 讬讘讗 讜讬住诪讜讱 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 讙讘专讛 讬讚谉 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜拽讘注讜 讛诇讻讛 讻诪讜转谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 砖诐 讗讚诐 砖注专注专 讘讚讘专 讻诇讜诐

and brought all the high-quality sheep of Kedar that were in Jerusalem, and he stood them in the Temple courtyard and said: Anyone who wishes to place his hands on the head of an animal should come and place his hands there. And on that day Beit Hillel gained the upper hand over Beit Shammai, and they established the halakha in this case in accordance with their opinion, and there was no one there who disputed the matter in any way.

砖讜讘 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讛讘讬讗 注讜诇转讜 诇注讝专讛 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讛 诪爪讗讜 转诇诪讬讚 讗讞讚 诪转诇诪讬讚讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讝讜 住诪讬讻讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讛 讝讜 砖转讬拽讛 砖转拽讜 讘谞讝讬驻讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讜

And some time later there was another incident involving a certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal鈥檚 head on a Festival. A certain disciple from among the disciples of Beit Shammai found him and said to him: What is this placing of hands? Why do you place your hands on the animal鈥檚 head and thereby violate the statement of Beit Shammai? He said to him: What is this silence? Why do you not stay silent, as the halakha was not established in accordance with their opinion? He silenced him with a rebuke, and he, Beit Shammai鈥檚 disciple, departed quietly.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛诇讻讱 讛讗讬 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 诪诇转讗 诇讗 诇讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讟驻讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讘专讬讛 讚讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讝讜 住诪讬讻讛 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讝讜 砖转讬拽讛

Abaye said: Therefore, it is clear from here that a Torah scholar whose colleague says something reprimanding or insulting to him should not answer back with something more than his colleague had said to him, to avoid adding fuel to the fire, as in the above story the one said to the other: What is this placing of hands? and the latter responded to the former using the same language: What is this silence?

转谞讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗住讜专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 诪讜转专 诇讙讘讜讛 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讜转专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜转专 诇讙讘讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖诪讜转专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗住讜专 诇讙讘讜讛

搂 With regard to the dispute concerning the sacrifice of burnt-offerings of appearance on a Festival, it is taught in a baraita: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Just as in a place where it is prohibited to slaughter for the sake of a common person [hedyot], e.g., on Shabbat, it is permitted to slaughter offerings in the Temple for the Most High, such as the daily and additional offerings, then so too, with regard to a place where it is permitted to slaughter for the sake of a common person, e.g., on a Festival, is it not right that it should be permitted for the sake of the Most High? This argument should include burnt-offerings of appearance as well. Beit Shammai said to them: This is no proof. Vow-offerings and gift-offerings prove that this reasoning is not valid, as it is permitted to slaughter an animal on a Festival for a common person to eat, but it is prohibited to slaughter vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival for the sake of the Most High.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讛 诇谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 转讗诪专 讘注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 砖拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗祝 讝讜 讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讚转谞谉 诪讬 砖诇讗 讞讙 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讞讜讙讙 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛专讙诇 讻讜诇讜 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖诇 讞讙

Beit Hillel said to them: If vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be slaughtered on a Festival, that is because they do not have a fixed time and there is no obligation to sacrifice them on a Festival in particular, but can you say the same with regard to a burnt-offering of appearance, which has a fixed time, the Festival itself? Beit Shammai said to them: It too has no fixed time, as we learned in a mishna: One who did not bring his Festival offering on the first Festival day of Sukkot may bring it throughout the entire Festival, including the last Festival day of Sukkot, on the Eighth Day of Assembly, as that day is regarded as part of Sukkot for this purpose. This shows that a burnt-offering of appearance need not be brought at a fixed time on the Festival either.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗祝 讝讜 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讚转谞谉 注讘专 讛专讙诇 讜诇讗 讞讙 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转讜

Beit Hillel said to them: Although a burnt-offering of appearance need not be sacrificed on a particular day of the Festival, nevertheless it too has a fixed time, albeit a lengthier one. As we learned in a mishna: If the entire Festival passed and he did not bring his Festival-offering, he is not accountable for it. That is to say, he is not required to bring another offering, as the mitzva has already passed. This indicates that the offering is limited specifically to the Festival days, unlike vow-offerings and gift-offerings, which may be brought at any time.

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讘讜讛 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讛壮 讻诇 讚诇讛壮 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel in support of their own position: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated in the verse: 鈥淥nly that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you鈥 (Exodus 12:16), which indicates that for you may food be prepared, but not for the Most High? Beit Hillel said to them: But wasn鈥檛 it already stated in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall observe it as a Festival to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:41), which teaches: Anything sacrificed to the Lord may be sacrificed? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇or you鈥? It means for you, but not for gentiles; for you, but not for dogs.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 讗讞专转 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讬专转讱 住转讜诪讛 讻讬专转 专讘讱 驻转讜讞讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讬专转讱 驻转讜讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻讬专转 专讘讱 驻转讜讞讛 讜讻谉 讘讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 砖讜诇讞谞讱 诪诇讗 讜砖讜诇讞谉 专讘讱 专讬拽谉

Abba Shaul stated the same disagreement in a different formulation, that Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai as follows: Just as in a place where your stove is closed, i.e., on Shabbat, when a person may not cook for himself, your Master鈥檚 stove is open, as it is permitted to light a fire on the altar and sacrifice offerings upon it, so too, in a place where your stove is open, i.e., on a Festival, when one may cook food that he will eat, is it not right that your Master鈥檚 stove should be open? And it likewise stands to reason that your table should not be full while your Master鈥檚 table, the altar, remains empty.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the tanna of the first baraita and Abba Shaul disagree in their different versions of Beit Hillel鈥檚 statement? The Gemara explains: One Sage, Abba Shaul, holds that according to Beit Hillel, even vow-offerings and gift-offerings may be sacrificed on a Festival, and therefore Beit Shammai could not cite as proof the fact that they may not be sacrificed, as they claim in the first baraita. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that according to Beit Hillel, vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, and therefore Beit Shammai could adduce this halakha in support of their opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讞讝讗 讞讝讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讬 讘讛讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛

Rav Huna said: According to the statement of the one who says that vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, you should not say that by Torah law they are in fact fit to be sacrificed, and that it was the Sages who issued a decree about them that they should not be sacrificed on a Festival as a preventive measure, lest one delay sacrificing them until the Festival, when it is more convenient for him to bring them to the Temple, and thereby transgress the prohibition against delaying the fulfillment of one鈥檚 pledge.

讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讜 讚讛讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讙讝专 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

This is not the reason; rather, according to this opinion, they are not fit to be sacrificed on a Festival even by Torah law. As the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot are an obligation of that day, and there is no reason to issue a decree about them lest one come to delay their offering, since they may be brought only on that Festival, and yet their baking and preparation override neither Shabbat nor the Festival. According to this view, anything that need not be performed on the Festival itself may not be done on the Festival.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注讘专 讜砖讞讟 诪讗讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讚诐 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of the one who says that vow-offerings and gift-offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, if one transgressed and slaughtered those vow-offerings and gift-offerings on a Festival, what is the halakha? Rava said: He sprinkles the blood of these offerings on the altar in order to allow the meat to be eaten on the Festival. Rabba bar Rav Huna, however, said: He sprinkles the blood in order to burn the sacrificial parts of the animal, including the fats and other portions that are brought upon the altar, in the evening.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞讟诪讗 讘砖专 讗讜 砖讗讘讚 诇专讘讗 诇讗 讝专讬拽 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讝专讬拽

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of Rava and that of Rabba bar Rav Huna, since both agree that the blood is sprinkled? The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the meat became ritually impure or was lost. According to Rava, who holds that the blood is sprinkled in order to permit the meat to be eaten, by rabbinic decree one may not sprinkle the blood, as this sprinkling is not required for the Festival. On the other hand, according to Rabba bar Rav Huna, who holds that the blood is sprinkled in order to burn the sacrificial parts upon the altar in the evening, he does sprinkle the blood, even though it does not enable him to eat the meat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞谉 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讜讗诐 讝专拽

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna from the following baraita: With regard to the lambs of Shavuot, i.e., the two lambs sacrificed as peace-offerings that accompany the two loaves of bread brought on that Festival, if one slaughtered them not for their own purpose, i.e., at the time of slaughter his intent was to slaughter them as a different offering, or if he slaughtered them not at their proper time, whether before their time or after their time, the offerings themselves are valid, although the community has not fulfilled its obligation. What is to be done with them? The blood should be sprinkled and the meat should be eaten. And if the day he slaughtered the lambs was Shabbat, on which cooking or roasting the meat is prohibited, then since the sprinkling of the blood serves no purpose, neither with regard to their mitzva nor for any other matter, he may not sprinkle the blood. And if nevertheless he sprinkled the blood,

Scroll To Top