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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 15, 2022 | 讬状讚 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • 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.

Chagigah 6

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Eva Schweber in loving memory of her father, Ken Schweber on his yahrzeit. 鈥淗is Talmud study was the inspiration for me to study daf yomi. My daily learning makes me feel deeply connected to him and that is a daily blessing to me.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother.聽

On the subject of Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel鈥檚 debate regarding a child, how could a child so young have gotten to Jerusalem? It must be the mother brought the child as she is obligated in simcha, even though she does not need to go to the Temple, she does go to Jerusalem. If young children went with their mothers to Jerusalem, why did Chana stay at home with Shmuel? If a young lame or blind child obligated according to Beit Shamai since they anyway are carried by their fathers? In what situation is this question asked? What is the root of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel whether one should spend more money on the burnt offering of seeing or the peace offering of chagigah. Each brings two arguments and explains why they don鈥檛 agree with the other鈥檚 claims. Part of the debate revolves around what type of burnt offerings were sacrificed at Har Sinai when the Torah was given – were they burnt offerings of seeing or burnt offerings of the Tamid sacrifice. Abaye mentions other tanaim who held like Beit Shamai and others who held like Beit Hillel regarding the identity of the burnt offering at Har Sinai. Their statements where this is evident are brought.

注讚 讛讻讗 诪讗谉 讗转讬讬讛

Who brought him to here, all the way to Jerusalem? If the father could bring his child to Jerusalem, why can鈥檛 he bring him to the Temple Mount?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讚 讛讻讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讘砖诪讞讛 讗讬讬转讬转讬讛 讗讬诪讬讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讜诇讗讞讜讝 讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讛专 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 驻讟讜专

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鈥檚 hand from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt.

讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 转讞转 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讞谞讛 诇讗 注诇转讛 讻讬 讗诪专讛 诇讗讬砖讛 注讚 讬讙诪诇 讛谞注专 讜讛讘讬讗讜转讬讜 讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讻讜诇 诇专讻讜讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讛讜讛

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鈥檚 shoulders is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, they must explain a verse that deals with Hanna, Samuel鈥檚 mother: 鈥淏ut Hanna did not ascend, for she said to her husband: Until the child is weaned, when I will bring him鈥 (I聽Samuel 1:22). But Samuel was able to ride on his father鈥檚 shoulders. The age of weaning is twenty-four months, before which Samuel was already old enough to ride on his father鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讞谞讛 讙讜驻讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞讛 诪驻谞拽讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讞讝讬讬讗 讘讬讛 讘砖诪讜讗诇 讜讞砖讗 讘讬讛 讘砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讜诇砖讗 讚讗讜专讞讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 father said to him: According to your reasoning, ask about Hanna herself: Wasn鈥檛 she obligated in rejoicing? Why didn鈥檛 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讟谉 讞讬讙专 诇讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜住讜诪讗 诇讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讛讜

Rabbi Shimon raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor who is lame and yet he is able to ascend on his father鈥檚 shoulders, according to the statement of Beit Shammai, and likewise a minor who is blind but is able to hold his father鈥檚 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?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞讬讙专 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻砖讟 讜住讜诪讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻转讞 讛砖转讗 讙讚讜诇 驻讟讜专 拽讟谉 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讞讬讙专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻砖讟 讜住讜诪讗 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻转讞 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 诪讞谞讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讚讜诇 驻讟讜专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讗讬讬讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讻讜壮

搂 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鈥檃 coin. And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth at least one silver ma鈥檃 and the Festival peace-offering at least two silver coins.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讗讬讬讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讞讙讬讙讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 砖讛专讗讬讬讛 注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讞讙讬讙讛 讜注讜讚 诪爪讬谞讜 讘注爪专转 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讘注讜诇讜转 讬讜转专 诪讘砖诇诪讬诐

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鈥檃. 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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讗讬讬讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 讜讞讙讬讙讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 砖讞讙讬讙讛 讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘专讗讬讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪爪讬谞讜 讘谞砖讬讗讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖诇诪讬诐 讬讜转专 诪讘注讜诇讜转

And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth one silver ma鈥檃 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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专转 专讗讬讬讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讚专讘讛 讞讙讬讙讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 谞讬诇祝 诪注爪专转 讚谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专

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.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚拽讗诪专转 讞讙讬讙讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 专讗讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专

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.

讜讚拽讗诪专转 谞讬诇祝 诪谞砖讬讗讬诐 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转

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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讙讬讙讛 讚讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讝讘讞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 专讗讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇讜 注讜诇讜转

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: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 24:5)? The burnt-offering of appearance is also mentioned, as isn鈥檛 it written in the same verse: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt-offerings鈥?

拽住讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讛讜讗讬

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇诇讜转 谞讗诪专讜 讘住讬谞讬

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.

讜驻专讟讜转 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇诇讜转 讜驻专讟讜转 谞讗诪专讜 讘住讬谞讬 讜谞砖谞讜 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜谞砖转诇砖讜 讘注专讘讜转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬

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:

诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛注砖讜讬讛 讘讛专 住讬谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注砖讬讛 谞讗诪专讜 讘住讬谞讬 讜讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诇讗 拽专讘讛

The Gemara cites the source for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淚t is a daily burnt-offering, which was performed on Mount Sinai鈥 (Numbers聽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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽专讘讛 讜砖讜讘 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜诪谞讞讛 讛讙砖转诐 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇

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: 鈥淒id you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?鈥 (Amos 5:25). This verse indicates that they did not sacrifice these offerings.

砖讘讟讜 砖诇 诇讜讬 砖诇讗 注讘讚讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗讜转讛

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.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘注诇讜转诐 诇专讙诇 专讗讬讬讛 讜讞讙讬讙讛 讜砖诪讞讛

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.

讬砖 讘专讗讬讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讜讬砖 讘讞讙讬讙讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讬砖 讘砖诪讞讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讬砖 讘专讗讬讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 砖讛专讗讬讬讛 注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖转讬讛谉

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.

讬砖 讘讞讙讬讙讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 砖讞讙讬讙讛 讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讬砖 讘砖诪讞讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 砖讛砖诪讞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜讘谞砖讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉

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.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 诪讜拽诪转 诇讬讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Abaye鈥檚 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?

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

But wasn鈥檛 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讗诇讗 诪讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗讬诇讱 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讛讬讻讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诇讞 讗转 谞注专讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬注诇讜 注讜诇讜转 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讬讝讘讞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讛壮 驻专讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻专讬诐 讛讜讜

Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd 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: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,鈥 i.e., these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps both of these were bulls, as the term: 鈥淏ulls,鈥 refers both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诇驻讬住讜拽 讟注诪讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt-offerings,鈥 indicating that these offerings consisted of sheep; or whether it should read: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls,鈥 as one clause.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讻注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 驻专讬诐 讛讜讜 讗讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讜 转讬拽讜

Rav A岣, 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讬注讜专

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

  • 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

Chagigah: 2-6- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

Masechet Chagiga discusses the mitzvah of Aliya L鈥橰egel, going up to the Temple in Jerusalem during the 3 festivals of...
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 6: Why Women Made Holiday Pilgrimages

Who is a minor? The Gemara follows the mishnah's discussion of the abilities of the child - to ride on...
WhatsApp Image 2022-02-09 at 09.02.04

Introduction to Chagigah

https://youtu.be/74Te41XwXKI  

Chagigah 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 6

注讚 讛讻讗 诪讗谉 讗转讬讬讛

Who brought him to here, all the way to Jerusalem? If the father could bring his child to Jerusalem, why can鈥檛 he bring him to the Temple Mount?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 注讚 讛讻讗 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讗讬诪讬讛 讘砖诪讞讛 讗讬讬转讬转讬讛 讗讬诪讬讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 讜诇讗讞讜讝 讘讬讚讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 诪讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讛专 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 驻讟讜专

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鈥檚 hand from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, he is obligated, and if not, he is exempt.

讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 转讞转 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讞谞讛 诇讗 注诇转讛 讻讬 讗诪专讛 诇讗讬砖讛 注讚 讬讙诪诇 讛谞注专 讜讛讘讬讗讜转讬讜 讜讛讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讬讻讜诇 诇专讻讜讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讛讜讛

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鈥檚 shoulders is not obligated in the mitzva of appearance, they must explain a verse that deals with Hanna, Samuel鈥檚 mother: 鈥淏ut Hanna did not ascend, for she said to her husband: Until the child is weaned, when I will bring him鈥 (I聽Samuel 1:22). But Samuel was able to ride on his father鈥檚 shoulders. The age of weaning is twenty-four months, before which Samuel was already old enough to ride on his father鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讞谞讛 讙讜驻讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讘砖诪讞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞讛 诪驻谞拽讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讞讝讬讬讗 讘讬讛 讘砖诪讜讗诇 讜讞砖讗 讘讬讛 讘砖诪讜讗诇 诇讞讜诇砖讗 讚讗讜专讞讗

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 father said to him: According to your reasoning, ask about Hanna herself: Wasn鈥檛 she obligated in rejoicing? Why didn鈥檛 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.

讘注讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讟谉 讞讬讙专 诇讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜住讜诪讗 诇讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讛讜

Rabbi Shimon raises a dilemma: With regard to a minor who is lame and yet he is able to ascend on his father鈥檚 shoulders, according to the statement of Beit Shammai, and likewise a minor who is blind but is able to hold his father鈥檚 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?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讞讬讙专 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻砖讟 讜住讜诪讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻转讞 讛砖转讗 讙讚讜诇 驻讟讜专 拽讟谉 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讞讬讙专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻砖讟 讜住讜诪讗 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛转驻转讞 诪讗讬

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?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讚讜诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 诪讞谞讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讚讜诇 驻讟讜专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讟谉 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讗讬讬讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讻讜壮

搂 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鈥檃 coin. And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth at least one silver ma鈥檃 and the Festival peace-offering at least two silver coins.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讗讬讬讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 讜讛讞讙讬讙讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 砖讛专讗讬讬讛 注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讞讙讬讙讛 讜注讜讚 诪爪讬谞讜 讘注爪专转 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讘注讜诇讜转 讬讜转专 诪讘砖诇诪讬诐

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鈥檃. 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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讗讬讬讛 诪注讛 讻住祝 讜讞讙讬讙讛 砖转讬 讻住祝 砖讞讙讬讙讛 讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘专讗讬讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪爪讬谞讜 讘谞砖讬讗讬诐 砖专讬讘讛 讘讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖诇诪讬诐 讬讜转专 诪讘注讜诇讜转

And Beit Hillel say: The burnt-offering of appearance must be worth one silver ma鈥檃 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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专转 专讗讬讬讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜讛 讗讚专讘讛 讞讙讬讙讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚讗讬转 讘讛 砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 讜讚拽讗 讗诪专转 谞讬诇祝 诪注爪专转 讚谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 诪拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专

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.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚拽讗诪专转 讞讙讬讙讛 注讚讬驻讗 讚讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 专讗讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专

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.

讜讚拽讗诪专转 谞讬诇祝 诪谞砖讬讗讬诐 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 讛谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 诇讚讜专讜转

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.

讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讙讬讙讛 讚讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讝讘讞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 专讗讬讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇讜 注讜诇讜转

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: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord鈥 (Exodus 24:5)? The burnt-offering of appearance is also mentioned, as isn鈥檛 it written in the same verse: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt-offerings鈥?

拽住讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讛讜讗讬

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 专讗讬讬讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬

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.

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇诇讜转 谞讗诪专讜 讘住讬谞讬

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.

讜驻专讟讜转 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇诇讜转 讜驻专讟讜转 谞讗诪专讜 讘住讬谞讬 讜谞砖谞讜 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜谞砖转诇砖讜 讘注专讘讜转 诪讜讗讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬

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:

诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛注砖讜讬讛 讘讛专 住讬谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注砖讬讛 谞讗诪专讜 讘住讬谞讬 讜讛讬讗 注爪诪讛 诇讗 拽专讘讛

The Gemara cites the source for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淚t is a daily burnt-offering, which was performed on Mount Sinai鈥 (Numbers聽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.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽专讘讛 讜砖讜讘 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讛讝讘讞讬诐 讜诪谞讞讛 讛讙砖转诐 诇讬 讘诪讚讘专 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讘讬转 讬砖专讗诇

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: 鈥淒id you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?鈥 (Amos 5:25). This verse indicates that they did not sacrifice these offerings.

砖讘讟讜 砖诇 诇讜讬 砖诇讗 注讘讚讜 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗讜转讛

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.

讘讬转 讛诇诇 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘注诇讜转诐 诇专讙诇 专讗讬讬讛 讜讞讙讬讙讛 讜砖诪讞讛

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.

讬砖 讘专讗讬讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讜讬砖 讘讞讙讬讙讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讬砖 讘砖诪讞讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讬砖 讘专讗讬讬讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 砖讛专讗讬讬讛 注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖转讬讛谉

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.

讬砖 讘讞讙讬讙讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 砖讞讙讬讙讛 讬砖谞讛 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 讬砖 讘砖诪讞讛 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉 砖讛砖诪讞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讘讗谞砖讬诐 讜讘谞砖讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘砖转讬讛谉

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.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 诪讜拽诪转 诇讬讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

The Gemara asks a question with regard to Abaye鈥檚 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?

讜讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注讜诇转 转诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘注讬 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞

But wasn鈥檛 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讗诇讗 诪讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗讬诇讱 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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.

讘注讬 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讛讬讻讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诇讞 讗转 谞注专讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬注诇讜 注讜诇讜转 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讬讝讘讞讜 讝讘讞讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讛壮 驻专讬诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 驻专讬诐 讛讜讜

Rav 岣sda 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: 鈥淎nd 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: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,鈥 i.e., these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps both of these were bulls, as the term: 鈥淏ulls,鈥 refers both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗诪专 诇驻讬住讜拽 讟注诪讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt-offerings,鈥 indicating that these offerings consisted of sheep; or whether it should read: 鈥淎nd they sacrificed burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls,鈥 as one clause.

专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讻注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 诪讗讬 驻专讬诐 讛讜讜 讗讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讜 转讬拽讜

Rav A岣, 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 砖讬注讜专

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

Scroll To Top