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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 17, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 8

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Leah Shakdiel for the refuah shleima of Nili bat Esther and Moshe Tzvi.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Mollie Pollack and Toby Sasnowitz yahrzeit. 鈥淭hey would have shepped much nachat from the family’s commitment to Torah, and today’s vort of their great-granddaughter (our granddaughter) Chavi Sommer to Zecharya Runge (Runge).鈥澛

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

Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding whether or not the chagigah can be bought from maaser sheni money or not. Ulla explains Beit Hillel to be referring to adding on to the unsanctified money spent on the sacrifice. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this can be done by adding maaser sheni money to unsanctified money to purchase the chagigah sacrifices or by or adding animals for chagigah sacrifices bought from maaser sheni money in addition to animals bought from unsanctified money (each one holds that one is permitted and the other is not). Braitot are brought to support each position. From where do we derive that in order to fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on the holiday, one needs to bring animal sacrifices? Two different possibilities are brought. The Mishna distinguishes between different types of people with different financial means and different numbers of people in their family and how that affects whether they should bring more burnt offerings (for appearing) or more chagigah peace sacrifices. One who doesn鈥檛 have a lot of money and has a lot of mouths to feed brings more peace offerings and few burnt offerings. But how does he have money even for the chagigah peace offerings? Rav Chisda explains that one can use one鈥檚 maaser sheni money to get a bigger animal. Since he uses the example of adding money to get a bigger animal and not adding on additional animals, Rav Sheshet asks why he didn鈥檛 give the option to add other animals since the rabbis permit that. The Gemara tries to understand this question in light of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya but in the end, suggests that Rav Sheshet didn鈥檛 agree fully with either of them as he permitted both adding money to buy an animal and adding more animals with maaser sheni money. If one separates ten animals and only brings five on the first day and five on the second day, is that permitted or not? There is a debate on this issue, but the Gemara explains that they do not actually disagree but are each describing a different situation.

 

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讙讬讙转 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Apparently, he holds that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth does not apply by Torah law, and therefore one may bring it even from second-tithe funds.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪讗讬 讚讘专 砖讘讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘讞讜讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘讟讜驻诇

The Master said in the baraita that Beit Hillel say: Festival peace-offerings may be brought even from the second tithe. The Gemara asks: Why? It is an obligatory matter, and any obligatory matter may come only from non-sacred property. Ulla said: This is referring to a case where one combines, i.e., the offering is purchased with a combination of second-tithe funds and non-sacred money. The Gemara adds that amora鈥檌m dispute the details of this halakha.

讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讜驻诇讬谉 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讜讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛

岣zkiya said: One may combine one animal with another animal. If one has a large household for which one animal will not suffice, he brings one animal for the Festival offering from non-sacred money and he may combine funds of second tithe to purchase a second animal. Since he has fulfilled his obligation of the Festival offering by bringing one animal from non-sacred money, he may bring the others from second tithe or animal tithes. But one may not combine money with other money, i.e., one may not combine second-tithe funds with non-sacred money toward the purchase of one animal for the Festival offering. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may combine money with other money, but one may not combine one animal with another animal.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪住转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇注专讘 诪注专讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of 岣zkiya, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan:After the measure of the gift offering of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:10). This teaches that a person brings his obligatory offering from non-sacred property. And from where is it derived that if one wishes to mix he may mix? The verse states: 鈥淎s the Lord your God blesses you鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:10), i.e., one may use any money with which God has blessed him, even second tithe. The term: Mix, means combining money from different sources.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 诪住转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of 岣zkiya: 鈥淎fter the measure鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:10). This teaches that a person brings his obligatory offering from non-sacred property. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to this issue, as Beit Shammai say: On the first day one may bring only from non-sacred property. From this point forward one may buy the animal from the second-tithe money. And Beit Hillel say: The first eating must be from non-sacred property. From this point forward one may bring from the second-tithe money. The phrase: The first eating, means the first animal that one eats, which is in accordance with 岣zkiya鈥檚 opinion.

讜砖讗专 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛驻住讞 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗

The baraita concludes: All this applies on the first day of the Festival. But with regard to all the other days of Passover, on which one is obligated to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, a person fulfills his obligation even with animal tithes, and certainly with funds of second tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one does not fulfill his obligation with animal tithes on the Festival?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇注砖讜专讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖讜诐 住拽专转讗

Rav Ashi said: There is a concern that if one requires additional animals, perhaps he may come to separate tithes on the Festival itself, and one may not separate tithes on the Festival due to the red dye [sikrata]. Every tenth animal is marked with red dye, and as it is prohibited to dye on a Festival due to the labor of writing, one may not separate tithes on a Festival.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 诪住转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诐 讛诪诇讱 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 诪住 注诇 讛讗专抓

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this: 鈥淎fter the measure [missat],鈥 mentioned in the verse, is a term for non-sacred property? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute [mas] upon the land鈥 (Esther 10:1), which is clearly referring to a tribute of non-sacred property.

讬砖专讗诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讘谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 砖诪讞讜转 诇砖诪讞讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讘谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讜讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

搂 The mishna stated that Israelites fulfill their obligation to eat peace-offerings of rejoicing with their vow offerings and gift offerings. The Sages taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast鈥 (Deuteronomy聽16:14) comes to include all types of rejoicing as constituting a fulfillment of the mitzva of rejoicing. From here the Sages stated: Israelites fulfill their obligation to eat peace-offerings of rejoicing with their vow offerings and gift offerings and likewise with animal tithes.

讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讘讘讻讜专 讜讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘注讜驻讜转 讜讘诪谞讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱

And the priests fulfill their obligation of rejoicing with the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, and with firstborn offerings, and with the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. One might have thought that they can fulfill their obligation even by eating bird-offerings and meal-offerings. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast.鈥

诪讬 砖讞讙讬讙讛 讘讗讛 诪讛诐 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讞讙讬讙讛 讘讗讛 诪讛诐

This teaches that eating those animals from which the Festival peace-offering may come, i.e., sheep and cattle, is a fulfillment of the mitzva of rejoicing. This excludes these, i.e., bird-offerings and meal-offerings, from which the Festival peace-offering may not come.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讜砖诪讞转 谞驻拽讗 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 砖诪讞讛

Rav Ashi said: There is no need to derive this halakha from 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast鈥 by explaining that the word feast is referring to the Festival peace-offering. Rather, this halakha is derived simply from the phrase 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice.鈥 This excludes those bird-offerings and meal-offerings that do not have an element of rejoicing, as the joy of eating is provided only by animal meat.

讜专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讘讞讙讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讻讚专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 谞讜砖讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱 讜诇讗 讘讗砖转讱

The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Ashi do with the phrase: 鈥淚n your feast鈥? The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rav Daniel bar Ketina. As Rav Daniel bar Ketina said that Rav said: From where is it derived that one may not marry a woman on the intermediate days of the Festival? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast,鈥 indicating that one should rejoice only in your feast and not with your wife.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 讜谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 诪讘讬讗 砖诇诪讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 讜注讜诇讜转 诪讜注讟讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 诪讘讬讗 注讜诇讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉

MISHNA: One who has many eaters, i.e., members of his household, and a small amount of property, may bring many peace-offerings and few burnt-offerings, so he can feed the members of his household with the peace-offerings. If one has much property and few eaters, he should bring many burnt-offerings and few peace-offerings.

讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜注讟 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 诪注讛 讻住祝 砖转讬 讻住祝 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪专讜讘讬诐 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讻诪转谞转 讬讚讜 讻讘专讻转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗砖专 谞转谉 诇讱

If both these and those, his property and the members of his household, are few, with regard to this individual it is stated in the mishna (2a) that the Sages established the smallest amount of one silver ma鈥檃 for the burnt-offering of appearance in the Temple and two silver coins for the Festival peace-offerings. If both his eaters and his property are many, with regard to this individual it is stated: 鈥淓very man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God, which He has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy聽16:17).

讙诪壮 砖诇诪讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 诪讛讬讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讟讜驻诇 讜诪讘讬讗 驻专 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that one who has many eaters and a small amount of property may bring many peace-offerings, the Gemara asks: From where can he bring many peace-offerings? He does not have much property. Rav 岣sda said: He combines his property with the second-tithe money and brings a large bull. In this way he will have a lot of meat from the peace-offering. Rav Sheshet said to him: The Sages said that one may combine an animal with another animal.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛

Since Rav Sheshet鈥檚 objection is unclear, the Gemara asks: What is he saying to Rav 岣sda? If we say that he was saying to him as follows: They said that one may only combine an animal with another animal, but one may not combine money with other money to purchase one large bull, then let him simply say: One may not combine money with other money. Rather, this is what he said to him: The Sages said that one may even combine an animal with another animal. Why did you, Rav 岣sda, limit him to the purchase of one large animal? Why not also suggest that this individual may bring other animals from second-tithe money?

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞讝拽讬讛 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Sheshet say this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of 岣zkiya, who said that one may combine only one animal with another animal, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that one may combine only money with other money.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诪讜专讗讬 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

And if you would say: It is the amora鈥檌m who disagree, whereas the baraitot that were cited in support of their opinions do not disagree and therefore Rav Sheshet may present his own opinion on the matter, this cannot be the case, as the baraita teaches: The first eating must come from non-sacred property. In other words, the first animal one eats must come entirely from non-sacred property, and combining is permitted only for the second animal. This indicates that although one may combine an additional animal with that first one, one may not combine money with other money to purchase even one animal.

诪讗讬 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讬注讜专 讚诪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara explains. What is the meaning of: The first eating? This means that when one combines non-sacred money with second-tithe money, the monetary value of the required measure of the first eating from the offering must come from non-sacred funds. However, the remaining value of that animal may come from second-tithe funds. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, one may combine an animal with another animal, i.e., by purchasing two separate animals, one from non-sacred funds and one from second-tithe money. Another option is to purchase one animal with combined funds, provided that the first eating is from non-sacred funds.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛驻专讬砖 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 诇讞讙讬讙转讜 讛拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖驻住拽 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 诪拽专讬讘

Ulla said that Reish Lakish said: If one separated ten animals for the purpose of his Festival peace-offering, and he sacrificed five of them on the first day of the Festival, he may return and sacrifice the remaining five on the second day of the Festival, or on any of the other days. There is no concern for the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not add鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:1), as though he were celebrating the first day twice, because the remaining offerings merely complete the first day鈥檚 offerings. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Since he stopped after the first five offerings on the day on which he first brought the Festival peace-offerings, he may no longer sacrifice the remaining animals on the other days, as that would be considered celebrating an extra day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖

Rabbi Abba said: And these amora鈥檌m do not disagree, as they are referring to different circumstances. Here, Rabbi Yo岣nan is speaking of a case where one did not specify when he intended to sacrifice these offerings, and therefore it is assumed that he meant to sacrifice them all on the first day. There, Reish Lakish is referring to a case where one explicitly said at the outset that he intended to bring them on all the days of the Festival (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).

讛讗讬 住转诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇拽专讘 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗拽专讘讬谞讛讜 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to this case where he did not specify, what are the circumstances? If we say that there was no time left in the day to sacrifice, i.e., he brought all his animals on the first day and realized that there was not enough time to sacrifice all of them, one can assume that the reason that he did not bring them is that there was no time left in the day. If so, his offering on another day is certainly considered merely the completion of the obligations of the first day. In this case his bringing of the additional offerings is not prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗拽专讘讬谞讛讜 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉

But rather, you must say that this is referring to a case where he does not have enough eaters in his household, and as one may not have leftovers, he did not sacrifice the remaining offerings. Here too, the fact that he did not sacrifice them is because he does not have enough eaters. Again, this cannot be the case in which it is prohibited to sacrifice the extra offerings.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讚讘拽诪讗 诇讗 讗拽专讘讬谞讛讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in a case where there is time left in the day and he has eaters in his household. From the fact that he did not sacrifice them on the first day of the Festival, one can conclude from it that he left them intentionally. Therefore, he is no longer permitted to sacrifice them on the other days of the Festival.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛驻专讬砖 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 诇讞讙讬讙转讜 讛拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees that if one specifies his intentions he may sacrifice the offerings on the remaining days, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one separated ten animals for his Festival peace-offering, and he sacrificed five on the first day of the Festival, he may return and sacrifice the other five on the second day of the Festival. These two statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan, cited by Ulla and Ravin respectively, apparently contradict each other.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this contradiction that this statement here is dealing with a case where one did not specify, whereas there it is referring to a situation where one stated his intentions explicitly? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that it is so.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

It was also stated that Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

  • 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: 7-13- Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 3 sacrifices that must be brought when coming to Jerusalem for the Festival...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Paying Taxes: Willingly or by Coercion? – Gefet 26

https://youtu.be/9N8VJBEK6nc  
talking talmud_square

Chagigah 8: What If You Don’t Have Money for a Lot of Sacrifices?

What monies can be used to pay for the korbanot of a festival, in particular, the Chagigah shelamim? And when...
WhatsApp Image 2022-02-09 at 09.02.04

Introduction to Chagigah

https://youtu.be/74Te41XwXKI  

Chagigah 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chagigah 8

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讞讙讬讙转 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 诇讗讜 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Apparently, he holds that the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth does not apply by Torah law, and therefore one may bring it even from second-tithe funds.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗诪讗讬 讚讘专 砖讘讞讜讘讛 讛讜讗 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘讞讜讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘讟讜驻诇

The Master said in the baraita that Beit Hillel say: Festival peace-offerings may be brought even from the second tithe. The Gemara asks: Why? It is an obligatory matter, and any obligatory matter may come only from non-sacred property. Ulla said: This is referring to a case where one combines, i.e., the offering is purchased with a combination of second-tithe funds and non-sacred money. The Gemara adds that amora鈥檌m dispute the details of this halakha.

讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟讜驻诇讬谉 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讜讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛

岣zkiya said: One may combine one animal with another animal. If one has a large household for which one animal will not suffice, he brings one animal for the Festival offering from non-sacred money and he may combine funds of second tithe to purchase a second animal. Since he has fulfilled his obligation of the Festival offering by bringing one animal from non-sacred money, he may bring the others from second tithe or animal tithes. But one may not combine money with other money, i.e., one may not combine second-tithe funds with non-sacred money toward the purchase of one animal for the Festival offering. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: One may combine money with other money, but one may not combine one animal with another animal.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪住转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇注专讘 诪注专讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讗砖专 讬讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of 岣zkiya, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan:After the measure of the gift offering of your hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:10). This teaches that a person brings his obligatory offering from non-sacred property. And from where is it derived that if one wishes to mix he may mix? The verse states: 鈥淎s the Lord your God blesses you鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:10), i.e., one may use any money with which God has blessed him, even second tithe. The term: Mix, means combining money from different sources.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讞讝拽讬讛 诪住转 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 诪谉 讛诪注砖专

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of 岣zkiya: 鈥淎fter the measure鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:10). This teaches that a person brings his obligatory offering from non-sacred property. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree with regard to this issue, as Beit Shammai say: On the first day one may bring only from non-sacred property. From this point forward one may buy the animal from the second-tithe money. And Beit Hillel say: The first eating must be from non-sacred property. From this point forward one may bring from the second-tithe money. The phrase: The first eating, means the first animal that one eats, which is in accordance with 岣zkiya鈥檚 opinion.

讜砖讗专 讻诇 讬诪讜转 讛驻住讞 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗

The baraita concludes: All this applies on the first day of the Festival. But with regard to all the other days of Passover, on which one is obligated to bring peace-offerings of rejoicing, a person fulfills his obligation even with animal tithes, and certainly with funds of second tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that one does not fulfill his obligation with animal tithes on the Festival?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇注砖讜专讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖讜诐 住拽专转讗

Rav Ashi said: There is a concern that if one requires additional animals, perhaps he may come to separate tithes on the Festival itself, and one may not separate tithes on the Festival due to the red dye [sikrata]. Every tenth animal is marked with red dye, and as it is prohibited to dye on a Festival due to the labor of writing, one may not separate tithes on a Festival.

诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 诪住转 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诐 讛诪诇讱 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 诪住 注诇 讛讗专抓

The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this: 鈥淎fter the measure [missat],鈥 mentioned in the verse, is a term for non-sacred property? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute [mas] upon the land鈥 (Esther 10:1), which is clearly referring to a tribute of non-sacred property.

讬砖专讗诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讘谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 砖诪讞讜转 诇砖诪讞讛 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转谉 讘谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讜讘诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

搂 The mishna stated that Israelites fulfill their obligation to eat peace-offerings of rejoicing with their vow offerings and gift offerings. The Sages taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast鈥 (Deuteronomy聽16:14) comes to include all types of rejoicing as constituting a fulfillment of the mitzva of rejoicing. From here the Sages stated: Israelites fulfill their obligation to eat peace-offerings of rejoicing with their vow offerings and gift offerings and likewise with animal tithes.

讜讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讘讘讻讜专 讜讘讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讘注讜驻讜转 讜讘诪谞讞讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱

And the priests fulfill their obligation of rejoicing with the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, and with firstborn offerings, and with the breast and thigh of peace-offerings. One might have thought that they can fulfill their obligation even by eating bird-offerings and meal-offerings. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast.鈥

诪讬 砖讞讙讬讙讛 讘讗讛 诪讛诐 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讞讙讬讙讛 讘讗讛 诪讛诐

This teaches that eating those animals from which the Festival peace-offering may come, i.e., sheep and cattle, is a fulfillment of the mitzva of rejoicing. This excludes these, i.e., bird-offerings and meal-offerings, from which the Festival peace-offering may not come.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讜砖诪讞转 谞驻拽讗 讬爪讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 砖诪讞讛

Rav Ashi said: There is no need to derive this halakha from 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast鈥 by explaining that the word feast is referring to the Festival peace-offering. Rather, this halakha is derived simply from the phrase 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice.鈥 This excludes those bird-offerings and meal-offerings that do not have an element of rejoicing, as the joy of eating is provided only by animal meat.

讜专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讘讞讙讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讻讚专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讚谞讬讗诇 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讬谉 砖讗讬谉 谞讜砖讗讬谉 谞砖讬诐 讘诪讜注讚 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诪讞转 讘讞讙讱 讜诇讗 讘讗砖转讱

The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Ashi do with the phrase: 鈥淚n your feast鈥? The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to teach in accordance with the statement of Rav Daniel bar Ketina. As Rav Daniel bar Ketina said that Rav said: From where is it derived that one may not marry a woman on the intermediate days of the Festival? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice in your feast,鈥 indicating that one should rejoice only in your feast and not with your wife.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 讗讜讻诇讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 讜谞讻住讬诐 诪讜注讟讬诐 诪讘讬讗 砖诇诪讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 讜注讜诇讜转 诪讜注讟讜转 谞讻住讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讜注讟讬谉 诪讘讬讗 注讜诇讜转 诪专讜讘讜转 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪讜注讟讬谉

MISHNA: One who has many eaters, i.e., members of his household, and a small amount of property, may bring many peace-offerings and few burnt-offerings, so he can feed the members of his household with the peace-offerings. If one has much property and few eaters, he should bring many burnt-offerings and few peace-offerings.

讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讜注讟 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 诪注讛 讻住祝 砖转讬 讻住祝 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪专讜讘讬诐 注诇 讝讛 谞讗诪专 讗讬砖 讻诪转谞转 讬讚讜 讻讘专讻转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗砖专 谞转谉 诇讱

If both these and those, his property and the members of his household, are few, with regard to this individual it is stated in the mishna (2a) that the Sages established the smallest amount of one silver ma鈥檃 for the burnt-offering of appearance in the Temple and two silver coins for the Festival peace-offerings. If both his eaters and his property are many, with regard to this individual it is stated: 鈥淓very man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God, which He has given you鈥 (Deuteronomy聽16:17).

讙诪壮 砖诇诪讬诐 诪专讜讘讬诐 诪讛讬讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讟讜驻诇 讜诪讘讬讗 驻专 讙讚讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖砖转 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 statement that one who has many eaters and a small amount of property may bring many peace-offerings, the Gemara asks: From where can he bring many peace-offerings? He does not have much property. Rav 岣sda said: He combines his property with the second-tithe money and brings a large bull. In this way he will have a lot of meat from the peace-offering. Rav Sheshet said to him: The Sages said that one may combine an animal with another animal.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讟讜驻诇讬谉 诪注讜转 诇诪注讜转 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗祝 讟讜驻诇讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诇讘讛诪讛

Since Rav Sheshet鈥檚 objection is unclear, the Gemara asks: What is he saying to Rav 岣sda? If we say that he was saying to him as follows: They said that one may only combine an animal with another animal, but one may not combine money with other money to purchase one large bull, then let him simply say: One may not combine money with other money. Rather, this is what he said to him: The Sages said that one may even combine an animal with another animal. Why did you, Rav 岣sda, limit him to the purchase of one large animal? Why not also suggest that this individual may bring other animals from second-tithe money?

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讞讝拽讬讛 讜讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Sheshet say this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of 岣zkiya, who said that one may combine only one animal with another animal, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that one may combine only money with other money.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗诪讜专讗讬 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 诪转谞讬讬转讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

And if you would say: It is the amora鈥檌m who disagree, whereas the baraitot that were cited in support of their opinions do not disagree and therefore Rav Sheshet may present his own opinion on the matter, this cannot be the case, as the baraita teaches: The first eating must come from non-sacred property. In other words, the first animal one eats must come entirely from non-sacred property, and combining is permitted only for the second animal. This indicates that although one may combine an additional animal with that first one, one may not combine money with other money to purchase even one animal.

诪讗讬 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讬注讜专 讚诪讬 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara explains. What is the meaning of: The first eating? This means that when one combines non-sacred money with second-tithe money, the monetary value of the required measure of the first eating from the offering must come from non-sacred funds. However, the remaining value of that animal may come from second-tithe funds. Therefore, according to the opinion of Rav Sheshet, one may combine an animal with another animal, i.e., by purchasing two separate animals, one from non-sacred funds and one from second-tithe money. Another option is to purchase one animal with combined funds, provided that the first eating is from non-sacred funds.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛驻专讬砖 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 诇讞讙讬讙转讜 讛拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖驻住拽 砖讜讘 讗讬谞讜 诪拽专讬讘

Ulla said that Reish Lakish said: If one separated ten animals for the purpose of his Festival peace-offering, and he sacrificed five of them on the first day of the Festival, he may return and sacrifice the remaining five on the second day of the Festival, or on any of the other days. There is no concern for the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not add鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:1), as though he were celebrating the first day twice, because the remaining offerings merely complete the first day鈥檚 offerings. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Since he stopped after the first five offerings on the day on which he first brought the Festival peace-offerings, he may no longer sacrifice the remaining animals on the other days, as that would be considered celebrating an extra day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖

Rabbi Abba said: And these amora鈥檌m do not disagree, as they are referring to different circumstances. Here, Rabbi Yo岣nan is speaking of a case where one did not specify when he intended to sacrifice these offerings, and therefore it is assumed that he meant to sacrifice them all on the first day. There, Reish Lakish is referring to a case where one explicitly said at the outset that he intended to bring them on all the days of the Festival (Rabbeinu 岣nanel).

讛讗讬 住转诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇拽专讘 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗拽专讘讬谞讛讜 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to this case where he did not specify, what are the circumstances? If we say that there was no time left in the day to sacrifice, i.e., he brought all his animals on the first day and realized that there was not enough time to sacrifice all of them, one can assume that the reason that he did not bring them is that there was no time left in the day. If so, his offering on another day is certainly considered merely the completion of the obligations of the first day. In this case his bringing of the additional offerings is not prohibited.

讜讗诇讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讗拽专讘讬谞讛讜 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉

But rather, you must say that this is referring to a case where he does not have enough eaters in his household, and as one may not have leftovers, he did not sacrifice the remaining offerings. Here too, the fact that he did not sacrifice them is because he does not have enough eaters. Again, this cannot be the case in which it is prohibited to sacrifice the extra offerings.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讚讘拽诪讗 诇讗 讗拽专讘讬谞讛讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 砖讬讜专讬 砖讬讬专讬谞讛讜

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in a case where there is time left in the day and he has eaters in his household. From the fact that he did not sacrifice them on the first day of the Festival, one can conclude from it that he left them intentionally. Therefore, he is no longer permitted to sacrifice them on the other days of the Festival.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛驻专讬砖 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 诇讞讙讬讙转讜 讛拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 讜诪拽专讬讘 讞诪砖 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees that if one specifies his intentions he may sacrifice the offerings on the remaining days, as when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one separated ten animals for his Festival peace-offering, and he sacrificed five on the first day of the Festival, he may return and sacrifice the other five on the second day of the Festival. These two statements of Rabbi Yo岣nan, cited by Ulla and Ravin respectively, apparently contradict each other.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from this contradiction that this statement here is dealing with a case where one did not specify, whereas there it is referring to a situation where one stated his intentions explicitly? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from here that it is so.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪谉 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

It was also stated that Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said:

Scroll To Top