Chagigah 6

עד הכא מאן אתייה

Who brought him to here, all the way to Jerusalem? If the father could bring his child to Jerusalem, why can’t he bring him to the Temple Mount?

אמר ליה אביי עד הכא דמיחייבא אימיה בשמחה אייתיתיה אימיה מכאן ואילך אם יכול לעלות ולאחוז בידו של אביו מירושלים להר הבית חייב ואי לא פטור

Abaye said to him: With regard to the way to here, as his mother is also obligated in rejoicing on the Festival, his mother brought him when she herself ascended to the capital. From this point forward, if he is able to ascend and hold his father’s hand from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt.

השיב רבי תחת בית הלל לדברי בית שמאי וחנה לא עלתה כי אמרה לאישה עד יגמל הנער והביאותיו והא שמואל דיכול לרכוב על כתיפו של אביו הוה

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded in place of Beit Hillel, that according to the statement of Beit Shammai that a child who is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, they must explain a verse that deals with Hanna, Samuel’s mother: “But Hanna did not ascend, for she said to her husband: Until the child is weaned, when I will bring him” (I Samuel 1:22). But Samuel was able to ride on his father’s shoulders. The age of weaning is twenty-four months, before which Samuel was already old enough to ride on his father’s shoulders, and yet he was not ready to ascend to the Tabernacle. This shows that only a child who is able to walk on his own is obligated in the mitzva of appearance.

אמר ליה אבוה ולטעמיך תיקשי לך חנה גופה מי לא מיחייבא בשמחה אלא חנה מפנקותא יתירתא חזייא ביה בשמואל וחשא ביה בשמואל לחולשא דאורחא

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s father said to him: According to your reasoning, ask about Hanna herself: Wasn’t she obligated in rejoicing? Why didn’t she travel to the Tabernacle to fulfill a mitzva in which she herself was obligated? Rather, Hanna saw in Samuel the need for extra pampering, and she was concerned about Samuel lest he experience weakness from the journey. Since she was unable to bring him, she herself did not come.

בעי רבי שמעון קטן חיגר לדברי בית שמאי וסומא לדברי שניהם מהו

Rabbi Shimon raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor who is lame and yet he is able to ascend on his father’s shoulders, according to the statement of Beit Shammai, and likewise a minor who is blind but is able to hold his father’s hand and ascend, according to the statements of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, what is the halakha? Are these children obligated in the mitzva of appearance?

היכי דמי אילימא בחיגר שאינו יכול להתפשט וסומא שאינו יכול להתפתח השתא גדול פטור קטן מיבעיא לא צריכא בחיגר שיכול להתפשט וסומא שיכול להתפתח מאי

The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that it is referring to a lame minor who cannot be healed, and a blind child who cannot develop sight, what is the dilemma? Now, if an adult in this state is exempt, is it necessary to ask about a minor? Since this minor will never be obligated in the mitzva, even when he is an adult, there is no need to train him in its performance. The Gemara explains: No; it is necessary to ask with regard to a lame minor who can be healed and a blind minor who can develop sight. What is the halakha? Since the minor might eventually be obligated, is it necessary to train him at this point?

אמר אביי כל היכא דגדול מיחייב מדאורייתא קטן נמי מחנכינן ליה מדרבנן כל היכא דגדול פטור מדאורייתא מדרבנן קטן נמי פטור

Abaye said: Anywhere that an adult is obligated by Torah law, one must also train a minor in that state of health by rabbinic law. Anywhere that an adult is exempt by Torah law, a minor in that same state is also exempt by rabbinic law. Since in this current condition an adult would be exempt, there is no obligation to train this minor either, despite the fact that he might become obligated in the future.

בית שמאי אומרים הראייה שתי כסף כו׳

§ The mishna taught that Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance, brought by a pilgrim when he appears at the Temple on a Festival, must be worth at least two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering must be worth at least one silver ma’a coin. And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth at least one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering at least two silver coins.

תנו רבנן בית שמאי אומרים הראייה שתי כסף והחגיגה מעה כסף שהראייה עולה כולה לגבוה מה שאין כן בחגיגה ועוד מצינו בעצרת שריבה בהן הכתוב בעולות יותר מבשלמים

The Sages taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth two silver coins, and the Festival peace-offering need be worth only one silver ma’a. The reason the burnt-offering must be worth more is that the burnt-offering of appearance goes up entirely to God, which is not so with regard to the Festival peace-offering, as parts of a peace-offering are eaten by its owner while other portions are consumed by the priests. And furthermore, another reason for this difference is that we find with regard to the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, that the verse includes more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. The sacrificial requirement consists of one bull, two rams, and seven sheep as burnt-offerings, but only two sheep for peace-offerings.

ובית הלל אומרים הראייה מעה כסף וחגיגה שתי כסף שחגיגה ישנה לפני הדיבור מה שאין כן בראייה ועוד מצינו בנשיאים שריבה בהן הכתוב בשלמים יותר מבעולות

And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth one silver ma’a and the Festival peace-offering must be worth two silver coins. The reason for this difference is that the Festival peace-offering existed before the speech of God, i.e., before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, which is not so with regard to the mitzva of appearance. And furthermore, another reason is that we find with regard to the offerings of the princes during the dedication of the Tabernacle that the verse includes more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. Each prince brought one cow, a ram, and a sheep as burnt-offerings, but two cows, two rams, five goats, and five sheep as peace-offerings.

ובית הלל מאי טעמא לא אמרי כבית שמאי דקא אמרת ראייה עדיפא דעולה כולה לגבוה אדרבה חגיגה עדיפא דאית בה שתי אכילות ודקא אמרת נילף מעצרת דנין קרבן יחיד מקרבן יחיד ואין דנין קרבן יחיד מקרבן צבור

The Gemara asks: And Beit Hillel, what is the reason that they do not say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? Beit Hillel would respond to both claims of Beit Shammai. With regard to that which you said, that the burnt-offering of appearance is superior because it goes up entirely to God, on the contrary, the Festival peace-offering is superior, as it has two consumptions, by God on the altar and by people. And with regard to that which you said that we derive this halakha from the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, one could argue instead that one should derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from another offering of an individual, i.e., the princes; and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the communal offering of Shavuot.

ובית שמאי מאי טעמא לא אמרי כבית הלל דקאמרת חגיגה עדיפא דישנה לפני הדיבור ראייה נמי ישנה לפני הדיבור

The Gemara asks the reverse question: And what is the reason that Beit Shammai do not say in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? Beit Shammai would respond to the arguments of Beit Hillel: With regard to that which you said, that the Festival peace-offering is superior, as it existed before the speech of God, the burnt-offering of appearance also existed before the speech. According to the opinion of Beit Shammai, the Jewish people sacrificed burnt-offerings at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah.

ודקאמרת נילף מנשיאים דנין דבר הנוהג לדורות מדבר הנוהג לדורות ואין דנין דבר הנוהג לדורות מדבר שאינו נוהג לדורות

And with regard to that which you said, that one derives the halakhot of these offerings from the offerings of the princes, one could argue that one derives the halakhot of a matter that is performed in all generations, i.e., the value of the different Festival offerings, from another matter that is performed in all generations, i.e., the offerings brought on Shavuot. However, one does not derive the halakhot of a matter that is performed in all generations from a matter that is not performed in all generations, as the offerings of the princes was a specific mitzva for the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

ובית הלל מאי שנא חגיגה דישנה לפני הדיבור דכתיב ויזבחו זבחים שלמים ראייה נמי הכתיב ויעלו עולות

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, what is different about the Festival peace-offering, that it existed before the speech of God, as it is written: “And they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5)? The burnt-offering of appearance is also mentioned, as isn’t it written in the same verse: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings”?

קסברי בית הלל עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת תמיד הואי ובית שמאי סברי עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת ראייה הואי

The Gemara responds: Beit Hillel hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering, which is a communal offering, as there were no individual burnt-offerings before the giving of the Torah. And Beit Shammai hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance, which is an individual offering.

אמר אביי בית שמאי ורבי אלעזר ורבי ישמעאל כולהו סבירא להו עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת ראייה הואי ובית הלל ורבי עקיבא ורבי יוסי הגלילי כולהו סבירא להו עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת תמיד הואי

Abaye said: Beit Shammai, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Yishmael all hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance. And Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili all hold that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was a daily burnt-offering, not an individual offering.

בית שמאי הא דאמרן רבי ישמעאל דתניא רבי ישמעאל אומר כללות נאמרו בסיני

The Gemara explains the source for each opinion. Beit Shammai is that which we said. Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: General statements were said at Sinai, i.e., Moses received general mitzvot at Sinai, including the Ten Commandments.

ופרטות באהל מועד ורבי עקיבא אומר כללות ופרטות נאמרו בסיני ונשנו באהל מועד ונשתלשו בערבות מואב ואי סלקא דעתך עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת תמיד הואי

And the details of the mitzvot, e.g., the particulars of the sacrificial process, were said to Moses at a later time in the Tent of Meeting. And Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai and later repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and reiterated a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Yishmael holds that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering, rather than the burnt-offering of an individual, the following question arises:

מי איכא מידי דמעיקרא לא בעי הפשט וניתוח ולבסוף בעי הפשט וניתוח

Is there any offering that initially did not require skinning and cutting into pieces, as these details of the daily burnt-offering were transmitted later in the Tent of Meeting, and ultimately, when these details were added, the offering required skinning and cutting? It is not plausible that the details of a mitzva would change over time. Therefore, it is clear that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael the Jews did not sacrifice the daily burnt-offering before the giving of the Torah, which means that the burnt-offering sacrificed at Mount Sinai must have been a burnt-offering of appearance.

רבי אלעזר דתניא עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני רבי אלעזר אומר מעשיה נאמרו בסיני והיא עצמה לא קרבה

The Gemara cites the source for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As it is taught in a baraita: “It is a daily burnt-offering, which was performed on Mount Sinai” (Numbers 28:6). Rabbi Elazar says: The details of its performance were said at Sinai, but it itself was not sacrificed until the Tabernacle was erected. This indicates that the offering brought on Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance.

רבי עקיבא אומר קרבה ושוב לא פסקה אלא מה אני מקיים הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי במדבר ארבעים שנה בית ישראל

Rabbi Akiva says: It was sacrificed when they stood at Mount Sinai and its sacrifice never ceased. The Gemara asks: But if so, how do I uphold, i.e., how does Rabbi Akiva explain the following verse: “Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25). This verse indicates that they did not sacrifice these offerings.

שבטו של לוי שלא עבדו עבודה זרה הן הקריבו אותה

The Gemara answers: The tribe of Levi, which did not commit the sin of idol worship, sacrificed it from their own funds. Since the rest of the Jewish people did not contribute the funds for the daily burnt-offering, it is as though they did not sacrifice this offering. This concludes the list of sources of the opinions of those Sages who hold that the daily burnt-offering was not sacrificed at Mount Sinai, and the offering that was sacrificed there was a burnt-offering of appearance.

בית הלל הא דאמרן רבי עקיבא הא נמי דאמרן רבי יוסי הגלילי דתניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בעלותם לרגל ראייה וחגיגה ושמחה

The Gemara cites the sources for the opinions that the daily burnt-offering was sacrificed at Mount Sinai. Beit Hillel: That which we said. Rabbi Akiva: Also that which we said, in the aforementioned dispute with Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The Jewish people were commanded to perform three mitzvot when they ascended to the Temple for the pilgrimage Festivals: The burnt-offering of appearance, and the Festival peace-offering, and the peace-offering of rejoicing.

יש בראייה שאין בשתיהן ויש בחגיגה שאין בשתיהן יש בשמחה שאין בשתיהן יש בראייה שאין בשתיהן שהראייה עולה כולה לגבוה מה שאין כן בשתיהן

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili continues. There is an element of the burnt-offering of appearance that is not present in the other two; there is an element of the Festival peace-offering that is not present in the other two; and there is an element of the peace-offering of rejoicing that is not present in the other two. He elaborates: There is an element of the burnt-offering of appearance that is not present in the other two, as the burnt-offering of appearance goes up entirely to God, which is not so with regard to the other two, as the majority portion of the other two offerings is eaten.

יש בחגיגה מה שאין בשתיהן שחגיגה ישנה לפני הדיבור מה שאין בשתיהן יש בשמחה מה שאין בשתיהן שהשמחה נוהגת באנשים ובנשים מה שאין בשתיהן

There is an element of the Festival peace-offering that is not present in the other two, as the Festival peace-offering existed before the speech of God at Mount Sinai, which is not so with regard to the other two. Finally, there is an element of the peace-offering of rejoicing that is not present in the other two, as the peace-offering of rejoicing is performed by both men and by women, which is not so with regard to the other two. This shows that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the burnt-offering of appearance was not sacrificed at Mount Sinai, which means that the burnt-offering mentioned in that context must have been the daily burnt-offering.

ורבי ישמעאל מאי טעמא קא מוקמת ליה כבית שמאי אי סלקא דעתך עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת תמיד הואי מי איכא מידי דמעיקרא לא בעי הפשט וניתוח ולבסוף בעי הפשט וניתוח

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Abaye’s explanation. And with regard to Rabbi Yishmael, what is the reason that you established his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that the burnt-offering sacrificed at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance? The explanation for his opinion was: If it enters your mind that the burnt-offering the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert was a daily burnt-offering, is there any offering that initially did not require skinning and cutting into pieces and ultimately required skinning and cutting into pieces?

והא רבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר עולת תמיד הואי מעיקרא לא בעי הפשט וניתוח ולבסוף בעי הפשט וניתוח

But wasn’t it Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who said: The burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering? Nevertheless, he holds that initially it did not require skinning and cutting into pieces, and ultimately it required skinning and cutting into pieces.

דתניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר עולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר אינה טעונה הפשט וניתוח לפי שאין הפשט וניתוח אלא מאהל מועד ואילך סמי מכאן רבי ישמעאל

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert did not require skinning and cutting into pieces, because the requirement of skinning and cutting offerings applied only from the time God commanded this mitzva in the Tent of Meeting and onward. The Gemara concludes: There is no clear evidence as to what Rabbi Yishmael actually maintains in this regard, and therefore one should delete Rabbi Yishmael from this list here, i.e., the list of those who hold that the burnt-offering sacrificed in the desert was a burnt-offering of appearance.

בעי רב חסדא האי קרא היכי כתיב וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עולות כבשים ויזבחו זבחים שלמים לה׳ פרים או דלמא אידי ואידי פרים הוו

Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma: This verse, how is it written, i.e., how should it be understood? Should the following verse be read as two separate halves, with the first part consisting of: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they sacrificed burnt-offerings” (Exodus 24:5), which were sheep; and the second part consisting of the rest of the verse: “And they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,” i.e., these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps both of these were bulls, as the term: “Bulls,” refers both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings.

למאי נפקא מינה מר זוטרא אמר לפיסוק טעמים

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two readings? Mar Zutra said: The practical difference is with regard to the punctuation of the cantillation notes, whether there should be a break in the verse after: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings,” indicating that these offerings consisted of sheep; or whether it should read: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls,” as one clause.

רב אחא בריה דרבא אמר לאומר הרי עלי עולה כעולה שהקריבו ישראל במדבר מאי פרים הוו או כבשים הוו תיקו

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said that the difference between these two readings of the verse is for one who says in the form of a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai. What is he required to bring? Were they bulls or were they sheep? The Gemara does not provide an answer and states that the question shall stand unresolved.

תנן התם אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור

We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 1:1): These are the mitzvot that have no measure: