Chagigah 6a

עַד הָכָא, מַאן אַתְיֵיהּ? 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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: עַד הָכָא דְּמִיחַיְּיבָא אִימֵּיהּ בְּשִׂמְחָה — אַיְיתִיתֵיהּ אִימֵּיהּ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, אִם יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וְלֶאֱחוֹז בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת — חַיָּיב, וְאִי לָא — פָּטוּר. 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.

הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי תַּחַת בֵּית הִלֵּל: לְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, ״וְחַנָּה לֹא עָלָתָה כִּי אָמְרָה לְאִישָׁהּ עַד יִגָּמֵל הַנַּעַר וַהֲבִיאוֹתִיו״ — וְהָא שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּיָכוֹל לִרְכּוֹב עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו הֲוָה. 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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲבוּהּ: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ, חַנָּה גּוּפַהּ מִי לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא בְּשִׂמְחָה? אֶלָּא חַנָּה, מְפַנְּקוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא חַזְיָיא בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וְחַשָּׁא בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁמוּאֵל לְחוּלְשָׁא דְאוֹרְחָא. 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.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: קָטָן חִיגֵּר לְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְסוֹמֵא לְדִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַהוּ? 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?

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּחִיגֵּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט, וְסוֹמֵא שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתְפַּתֵּחַ? הַשְׁתָּא גָּדוֹל — פָּטוּר, קָטָן — מִיבַּעְיָא?! לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּחִיגֵּר שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהִתְפַּשֵּׁט, וְסוֹמֵא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהִתְפַּתֵּחַ, מַאי? 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?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּגָדוֹל מִיחַיַּיב מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — קָטָן נָמֵי מְחַנְּכִינַן לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבָּנַן, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּגָדוֹל פָּטוּר מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — מִדְּרַבָּנַן קָטָן נָמֵי פָּטוּר. 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.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הָרְאִיָּיה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף כּוּ׳. § 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הָרְאִיָּיה שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף, וְהַחֲגִיגָה מָעָה כֶּסֶף. שֶׁהָרְאִיָּיה עוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּחֲגִיגָה, וְעוֹד: מָצִינוּ בָּעֲצֶרֶת שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב בְּעוֹלוֹת יוֹתֵר מִבִּשְׁלָמִים. 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.

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: הָרְאִיָּיה מָעָה כֶּסֶף וַחֲגִיגָה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף. שֶׁחֲגִיגָה יֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּרְאִיָּיה. וְעוֹד: מָצִינוּ בַּנְּשִׂיאִים שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׁלָמִים יוֹתֵר מִבְּעוֹלוֹת. 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.

וּבֵית הִלֵּל, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמְרִי כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? דְּקָא אָמְרַתְּ: רְאִיָּיה עֲדִיפָא — דְּעוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, אַדְּרַבָּה: חֲגִיגָה עֲדִיפָא — דְּאִית בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אֲכִילוֹת. וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ: נֵילַף מֵעֲצֶרֶת — דָּנִין קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקׇּרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְאֵין דָּנִין קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד מִקׇּרְבַּן צִבּוּר. 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.

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמְרִי כְּבֵית הִלֵּל? דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ: חֲגִיגָה עֲדִיפָא — דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, רְאִיָּיה נָמֵי יֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר. 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.

וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: נֵילַף מִנְּשִׂיאִים — דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת מִדָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר הַנּוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג לְדוֹרוֹת. 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.

וּבֵית הִלֵּל, מַאי שְׁנָא חֲגִיגָה דְּיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים״, רְאִיָּיה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲלוּ עוֹלוֹת״! 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”?

קָסָבְרִי בֵּית הִלֵּל: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה הֲוַאי. 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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה הֲוַאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי. 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.

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, 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.

וּפְרָטוֹת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת וּפְרָטוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וְנִשְׁנוּ בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְנִשְׁתַּלְּשׁוּ בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי, 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:

מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ?! 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.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר — דְּתַנְיָא: ״עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הָעֲשׂוּיָה בְּהַר סִינַי״, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מַעֲשֶׂיהָ נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וְהִיא עַצְמָהּ לֹא קָרְבָה. 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.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: קָרְבָה, וְשׁוּב לֹא פָּסְקָה. אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״הַזְּבָחִים וּמִנְחָה הִגַּשְׁתֶּם לִי בַמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל״ — 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.

שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי שֶׁלֹּא עָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ אוֹתָהּ. 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.

בֵּית הִלֵּל — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — הָא נָמֵי דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי — דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּעֲלוֹתָם לָרֶגֶל: רְאִיָּיה, וַחֲגִיגָה, וְשִׂמְחָה. 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.

יֵשׁ בָּרְאִיָּיה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן; וְיֵשׁ בַּחֲגִיגָה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן; יֵשׁ בַּשִּׂמְחָה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. יֵשׁ בָּרְאִיָּיה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן — שֶׁהָרְאִיָּיה עוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. 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.

יֵשׁ בַּחֲגִיגָה מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן, שֶׁחֲגִיגָה יֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר, מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. יֵשׁ בַּשִּׂמְחָה מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן, שֶׁהַשִּׂמְחָה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים, מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן. 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.

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מַאי טַעְמָא קָא מוֹקְמַתְּ לֵיהּ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ?! 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?

וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר — עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי: מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. 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.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ אֶלָּא מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ! סְמִי מִכָּאן רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. 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.

בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי קְרָא הֵיכִי כְּתִיב? ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עוֹלוֹת״ — כְּבָשִׂים, ״וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַה׳״ — ״פָּרִים״. אוֹ דִּלְמָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פָּרִים הֲווֹ. 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.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר: לְפִיסּוּק טְעָמִים. 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.

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה כָּעוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר״, מַאי? פָּרִים הֲווֹ, אוֹ כְּבָשִׂים הֲווֹ?! תֵּיקוּ. 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.

תְּנַן הָתָם, אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁיעוּר: We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 1:1): These are the mitzvot that have no measure:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: פְּשִׁיטָא, הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מְשַׁוֵּית לְהוּ פּוֹשְׁעִים, וְהֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ מְשַׁוֵּית לְהוּ זְרִיזִין! Abaye said to him: This is obvious; which of his sons would he render sinners, who are too lazy to ascend, and which of them would he render vigilant, eager to perform the mitzva at the first opportunity?

אֶלָּא קְרָא לְמַאי אֲתָא? לִכְדַאֲחֵרִים. דְּתַנְיָא, אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: הַמְקַמֵּץ, וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחֹשֶׁת, וְהַבּוּרְסִי — פְּטוּרִין מִן הָרְאִיָּיה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל זְכוּרְךָ״, מִי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת עִם כׇּל זְכוּרְךָ. יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ, שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לַעֲלוֹת עִם כׇּל זְכוּרְךָ. Rather, for what purpose does the verse: “All your males,” come? It comes to teach that which Aḥerim taught. As it is taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say that a scrimper, one who gathers dog feces to give them to tanners for the purpose of tanning hides; a melder of copper, who purifies copper from dross; and a tanner of hides are all exempt from the mitzva of appearance, as their occupation inflicts upon them an unpleasant odor. As it is stated: “All your males,” which indicates that only one who is able to ascend with all your males is obligated, excluding these. As people avoid their company, they cannot ascend with all your males.

מַתְנִי׳ עוֹלוֹת בַּמּוֹעֵד בָּאוֹת מִן הַחוּלִּין, וְהַשְּׁלָמִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. MISHNA: Burnt-offerings that one sacrifices on the intermediate days of the Festival must come from non-sacred property, not from sacred property such as second-tithe money. But the peace-offerings may be brought from the second tithe, i.e., from money with which one redeemed second tithe, which is subsequently used to purchase food in Jerusalem. With regard to the Festival peace-offering sacrificed on the first day of the festival of Passover, Beit Shammai say: It must come from non-sacred property, and Beit Hillel say: It may be brought even from the second tithe.

יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בִּנְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת וּבְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בְּחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וּבִבְכוֹר, וּבְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. אֲבָל לֹא בְּעוֹפוֹת, וְלֹא בִּמְנָחוֹת. In general, Israelites fulfill their obligation to eat peace-offerings of rejoicing with their voluntary vows and gift offerings donated during the year and sacrificed on the Festival; and likewise with animal tithes. And the priests fulfill their obligation of rejoicing with the meat of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings and with firstborn offerings, as the priests receive a portion of these, and with the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, to which they are also entitled. However, they do not fulfill their obligation with birds, e.g., a bird sacrificed as a sin-offering, nor with meal-offerings, as only the eating of meat constitutes rejoicing.

גְּמָ׳ אֶלָּא: עוֹלוֹת — בַּמּוֹעֵד הוּא דְּבָאוֹת מִן הַחוּלִּין, הָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב — מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר? אַמַּאי, דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה, הִיא! וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה, אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין. GEMARA: When the mishna states that burnt-offerings sacrificed during the intermediate days of the Festival may come from non-sacred property, this leads to the surprising conclusion that on the Festival they may even come from the second tithe. The Gemara asks: Why should this be the case? The burnt-offering is an obligatory matter, and there is a principle that any obligatory matter with regard to offerings may come only from non-sacred property that was consecrated expressly for this purpose alone, not from property that was previously consecrated for another purpose.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּעוֹלוֹת בַּמּוֹעֵד בָּאוֹת, בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֵינָן בָּאוֹת, כְּמַאן — כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?! And if you would say that this teaches us that burnt-offerings may come, i.e., be sacrificed, on the intermediate days of the Festival, whereas on the Festival they may not come at all, in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai.

דִּתְנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְבִיאִין שְׁלָמִים וְאֵין סוֹמְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא עוֹלוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבִיאִין שְׁלָמִים וְעוֹלוֹת, וְסוֹמְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן. As we learned in a mishna (Beitza 19a) that Beit Shammai say: One brings peace-offerings on a Festival, but one does not place his hands on them, as placing one’s hands on an animal on a Festival is prohibited by rabbinic law. However, one may not sacrifice burnt-offerings at all, as they are not eaten, and slaughtering is permitted on a Festival only for human needs. And Beit Hillel say: One brings both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings, and one does place his hands on them. It is unlikely that an anonymous mishna would follow the opinion of Beit Shammai, whose rulings are not accepted as halakha.

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: עוֹלוֹת נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת — בַּמּוֹעֵד בָּאוֹת, בְּיוֹם טוֹב — אֵינָן בָּאוֹת. וְעוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה בָּאָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וּכְשֶׁהִיא בָּאָה — אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין. וְשַׁלְמֵי שִׂמְחָה בָּאִין אַף מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וַחֲגִיגַת יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. The Gemara answers: This mishna is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: Burnt-offerings brought as a fulfillment of one’s vow or as gift offerings may come on the intermediate days of the Festival. However, on the Festival itself they may not come. And the burnt-offering of appearance comes even on the Festival, but when it comes, it may come only from non-sacred property, as it is obligatory. And peace-offerings of rejoicing may come even from the second tithe. And with regard to the Festival peace-offering brought on the first day of Passover, Beit Shammai say: It may come only from non-sacred property, and Beit Hillel say: It may come even from the second tithe.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: עוֹלוֹת, נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת — בַּמּוֹעֵד בָּאוֹת, בְּיוֹם טוֹב — אֵינָן בָּאוֹת. וְעוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה בָּאָה אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וּכְשֶׁהִיא בָּאָה — אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין. וְשַׁלְמֵי שִׂמְחָה בָּאִין אַף מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וַחֲגִיגַת יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: Burnt-offerings brought as a fulfillment of one’s vow or as gift offerings may come on the intermediate days of the Festival. However, on the Festival itself they may not come. And the burnt-offering of appearance comes even on the Festival, but when it comes it may come only from non-sacred property. And peace-offerings of rejoicing may come even from the second tithe. And with regard to the Festival peace-offering brought on the first day of the festival of Passover, Beit Shammai say: It may come only from non-sacred property, and Beit Hillel say: It may come even from the second tithe.

מַאי שְׁנָא חֲגִיגַת יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, חֲגִיגַת חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר — אִין, חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר — לָא. The Gemara asks: What is different about the Festival peace-offering brought on the first day of the festival of Passover? Rav Ashi said: This emphasis on the specific date teaches us that for the Festival peace-offering of the fifteenth, i.e., the pilgrimage Festival offerings brought on the first day of Passover, yes, this restriction applies; however, for the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth, no, this limitation is not in force. If the Paschal lamb was too small for a group, they would bring an additional peace-offering so that the Paschal lamb could be eaten when one was full. This offering was called the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan. Since this offering is not obligatory, everyone agrees that it may be purchased with second-tithe money.

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר — חֲגִיגַת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. 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.

אָמַר מָר, בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אַמַּאי? דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה הוּא, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה אֵינוֹ בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין? אָמַר עוּלָּא: בְּטוֹפֵל. § 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’im dispute the details of this halakha.

חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר, טוֹפְלִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה, וְאֵין טוֹפְלִין מָעוֹת לְמָעוֹת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טוֹפְלִין מָעוֹת לְמָעוֹת, וְאֵין טוֹפְלִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה. Ḥizkiya 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 Yoḥanan said: One may combine money with other money, but one may not combine one animal with another animal.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה, תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״מִסַּת״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִן הַחוּלִּין. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְעָרֵב מְעָרֵב — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiya, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “After the measure of the gift offering of your hand” (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: “As the Lord your God blesses you” (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.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה: ״מִסַּת״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָדָם מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִן הַחוּלִּין, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן מִן הַחוּלִּין, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַחוּלִּין, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiya: “After the measure” (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 Ḥizkiya’s opinion.

וּשְׁאָר כׇּל יְמוֹת הַפֶּסַח, אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּמַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. בְּיוֹם טוֹב מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? 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?

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְעַשּׂוֹרֵי בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעַשֵּׂר בְּיוֹם טוֹב מִשּׁוּם סְקַרְתָּא. 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.

מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי מִסַּת לִישָּׁנָא דְחוּלִּין הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּשֶׂם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ מַס עַל הָאָרֶץ״. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this: “After the measure [missat],” mentioned in the verse, is a term for non-sacred property? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute [mas] upon the land” (Esther 10:1), which is clearly referring to a tribute of non-sacred property.

יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בִּנְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ״ — לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל מִינֵי שְׂמָחוֹת לְשִׂמְחָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹצְאִין יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן בִּנְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת וּבְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, § 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: “And you shall rejoice in your feast” (Deuteronomy 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.

וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וּבִבְכוֹר, וּבְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. יָכוֹל אַף בָּעוֹפוֹת וּבִמְנָחוֹת — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ״, 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: “And you shall rejoice in your feast.”

מִי שֶׁחֲגִיגָה בָּאָה מֵהֶם, יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין חֲגִיגָה בָּאָה מֵהֶם. 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.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִ״וְּשָׂמַחְתָּ״ נָפְקָא. יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן שִׂמְחָה. Rav Ashi said: There is no need to derive this halakha from “And you shall rejoice in your feast” by explaining that the word feast is referring to the Festival peace-offering. Rather, this halakha is derived simply from the phrase “And you shall rejoice.” 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.

וְרַב אָשֵׁי, הַאי ״בְּחַגֶּךָ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? הַהוּא, לְכִדְרַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר קַטִּינָא. דְּאָמַר רַב דָּנִיאֵל בַּר קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים בַּמּוֹעֵד — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ״, וְלֹא בְּאִשְׁתֶּךָ. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Ashi do with the phrase: “In your feast”? 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: “And you shall rejoice in your feast,” indicating that one should rejoice only in your feast and not with your wife.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אוֹכְלִים מְרוּבִּים וּנְכָסִים מוּעָטִים — מֵבִיא שְׁלָמִים מְרוּבִּים וְעוֹלוֹת מוּעָטוֹת. נְכָסִים מְרוּבִּים וְאוֹכְלִין מוּעָטִין — מֵבִיא עוֹלוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים מוּעָטִין. 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.

זֶה וָזֶה מוּעָט — עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: מָעָה כֶּסֶף, שְׁתֵּי כֶּסֶף. זֶה וָזֶה מְרוּבִּים — עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״אִישׁ כְּמַתְּנַת יָדוֹ כְּבִרְכַּת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לָךְ״. 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’a 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: “Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God, which He has given you” (Deuteronomy 16:17).

גְּמָ׳ שְׁלָמִים מְרוּבִּים. מֵהֵיכָא מַיְיתֵי? הָא לֵית לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: טוֹפֵל וּמֵבִיא פַּר גָּדוֹל. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ טוֹפְלִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה! GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s 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 Ḥisda 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.

מַאי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ? אִילֵּימָא הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ טוֹפְלִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה אֲבָל לֹא מָעוֹת לְמָעוֹת, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֵין טוֹפְלִין מָעוֹת לְמָעוֹת! אֶלָּא הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ אַף טוֹפְלִין בְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה. Since Rav Sheshet’s objection is unclear, the Gemara asks: What is he saying to Rav Ḥisda? 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 Ḥisda, limit him to the purchase of one large animal? Why not also suggest that this individual may bring other animals from second-tithe money?

כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּחִזְקִיָּה וּדְלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן! The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav Sheshet say this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiya, who said that one may combine only one animal with another animal, and not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that one may combine only money with other money.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָמוֹרָאֵי הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי, מַתְנְיָיתָא לָא פְּלִיגִי. וְהָא קָתָנֵי: אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַחוּלִּין. And if you would say: It is the amora’im 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.

מַאי אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — שִׁיעוּר דְּמֵי אֲכִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַחוּלִּין. 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.

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הִפְרִישׁ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת לַחֲגִיגָתוֹ, הִקְרִיב חָמֵשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן — חוֹזֵר וּמַקְרִיב חָמֵשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁפָּסַק, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ מַקְרִיב. § 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: “You shall not add” (Deuteronomy 13:1), as though he were celebrating the first day twice, because the remaining offerings merely complete the first day’s offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: כָּאן בִּסְתָם, כָּאן בִּמְפָרֵשׁ. Rabbi Abba said: And these amora’im do not disagree, as they are referring to different circumstances. Here, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥananel).

הַאי סְתָם הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם לִקְרַב, הַאי דְּלָא אַקְרְבִינְהוּ — דְּלֵיכָּא שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם. 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.

וְאֶלָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אוֹכְלִין, הַאי דְּלָא אַקְרְבִינְהוּ — דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אוֹכְלִין. 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.

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאִיכָּא שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם וְאִית לֵיהּ אוֹכְלִין, מִדִּבְקַמָּא לָא אַקְרְבִינְהוּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ שַׁיּוֹרֵי שַׁיְּירִינְהוּ. 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.

וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִפְרִישׁ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת לַחֲגִיגָתוֹ, הִקְרִיב חָמֵשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן — חוֹזֵר וּמַקְרִיב חָמֵשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֵׁנִי. קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan, cited by Ulla and Ravin respectively, apparently contradict each other.

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן בִּסְתָם, כָּאן בִּמְפָרֵשׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. Rather, isn’t 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.

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: It was also stated that Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר, אֲבָל גָּמַר — חוֹזֵר וּמַקְרִיב. They taught that one may sacrifice the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day but not on all seven days, as recorded in the baraita on this amud below, only in a case where he did not finish. However, if he finished, he may go back and sacrifice.

מַאי ״גָּמַר״? אִילֵּימָא גָּמַר קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו — מַאי מַקְרִיב? אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר הַיּוֹם, אֲבָל גָּמַר הַיּוֹם — חוֹזֵר וּמַקְרִיב. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term: Finish, in this context? If we say it means that he finished sacrificing all of his offerings, what is he going back to sacrifice? Rather, it means that if the day did not end and he still has offerings left over, he may not return to sacrifice those on other Festival days. However, if the day ended and he had not finished sacrificing his offerings, he may go back and sacrifice them. This shows that Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in these circumstances it is permitted to sacrifice Festival peace-offerings during the remaining days of the Festival.

מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁלֹּא חָג בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג — חוֹגֵג אֶת כָּל הָרֶגֶל וְיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. MISHNA: With regard to one who did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may celebrate and bring it during the entire remaining days of the pilgrimage Festival, and even on the final day of the Festival, i.e., on the Eighth Day of Assembly.

עָבַר הָרֶגֶל וְלֹא חָג — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, עַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר ״מְעֻוָּות לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִמָּנוֹת״. If the pilgrimage Festival passed and one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. Even if he consecrated an animal for this purpose and it was lost, once the Festival is over he has no obligation to replace it, as he has missed the opportunity for performing this mitzva. And about this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְּיָיא אוֹמֵר: אֵיזֶהוּ מְעֻוָּות שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִתָּקֵן? זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר. אִם תֹּאמַר בְּגוֹנֵב וְגוֹזֵל — יָכוֹל הוּא לְהַחְזִירוֹ, וִיתַקֵּן. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. This individual is unable to rectify his sin, because the status of the illegitimate child is permanent. And if you say that it is referring to one who steals or robs, although he is crooked he can return what he stole and in this manner his sin will be rectified.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אֵין קוֹרִין מְעֻוָּות אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁהָיָה מְתוּקָּן בַּתְּחִילָּה וְנִתְעַוֵּות, וְאֵי זֶה? זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One calls crooked only someone who was initially straight and subsequently became crooked. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study. Here is an example of something straight that became crooked.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר ״עֲצֶרֶת״ בִּשְׁבִיעִי שֶׁל פֶּסַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״עֲצֶרֶת״ בִּשְׁמִינִי שֶׁל חַג. מָה לְהַלָּן לְתַשְׁלוּמִין — אַף כָּאן לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. GEMARA: The mishna taught that if one did not bring his Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, he may bring it even on the Eighth Day of Assembly, despite the fact that it is a separate Festival. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated: “Assembly” (Deuteronomy 16:8), with regard to the seventh day of Passover, and it is stated: “Assembly” (Leviticus 23:36), with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot. Just as there, with regard to Passover, the day of assembly, i.e., the seventh day of Passover, is available for redress, as it is certainly part of the Festival, so too here, in the case of Sukkot, the Eighth Day of Assembly is available for redress.

מוּפְנֶה. דְּאִי לָאו מוּפְנֶה, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִשְׁבִיעִי שֶׁל פֶּסַח שֶׁכֵּן אֵינוֹ חָלוּק מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו, תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁמִינִי שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָלוּק מִשֶּׁלְּפָנָיו. The Gemara adds that the term assembly in each of these contexts is free for this verbal analogy, i.e., it is superfluous in both contexts. As, if it is not free the verbal analogy can be refuted, because each context in which the term appears contains features that do not apply to the other one. What can one say about the seventh day of Passover? That it is not distinct from the days preceding it with regard to the Festival offerings and the prohibition against eating leavened bread. Can you say the same with regard to the eighth day of the festival of Sukkot, which is distinct from the days preceding it, i.e., that the Eighth Day of Assembly does not involve the same mitzvot as the festival of Sukkot?

לָאיֵי אִפְּנוֹיֵי מוּפְנֶה. מִכְּדֵי מַאי ״עֲצֶרֶת״ — עָצוּר בַּעֲשִׂיַּית מְלָאכָה, הָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה״, ״עֲצֶרֶת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי. However, this is not so [la’ei], as the term assembly is certainly free. Now, what is the meaning of: “assembly [atzeret]”? It means that one is stopped [atzur], i.e., prohibited, from performing labor. But isn’t it already written: “You shall not perform labor” (Deuteronomy 16:8)? Why then do I need this term atzeret that the Merciful One writes? Rather, learn from here that it is free for the verbal analogy.

וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְחַגּוֹתֶם אוֹתוֹ חַג לַה׳ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חוֹגֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ כָּל שִׁבְעָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ — אוֹתוֹ אַתָּה חוֹגֵג, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹגֵג כׇּל שִׁבְעָה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״שִׁבְעָה״ — לְתַשְׁלוּמִין. The Gemara comments: And a tanna cites proof from here, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with the festival of Sukkot: “And you shall keep it a feast to the Lord seven days” (Leviticus 23:41). One might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering all seven days of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” which teaches: It, i.e., the first day of the Festival, you shall celebrate with these offerings, and you may not celebrate all seven days. If so, why is “seven” stated? For redress, i.e., if one failed to bring an offering on the first day he may do so all seven days.

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא חָג יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחוֹגֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ אֶת כָּל הָרֶגֶל וְיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי תָּחֹגּוּ אוֹתוֹ״, אִי ״בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי״, יָכוֹל יְהֵא חוֹגֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ הַחֹדֶשׁ כּוּלּוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ — אוֹתוֹ אַתָּה חוֹגֵג, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹגֵג חוּצָה לוֹ. And from where is it derived that if one did not celebrate by bringing the Festival peace-offering on the first day of the festival of Sukkot that he may continue to celebrate throughout the pilgrimage Festival and even on the last festival day of Sukkot, which is the Eighth Day of Assembly? The verse states: “You shall keep it in the seventh month” (Leviticus 23:41), which indicates that one may bring the Festival offerings even after the seven days of the Festival. If the verse said only: “In the seventh month,” one might have thought that one may continue to celebrate by bringing the offering at any time during the rest of the entire month. Therefore, the verse states: “It,” indicating that you celebrate it, i.e., any of the Festival days, and you may not celebrate outside of these days.

וּמַאי תַּשְׁלוּמִין? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תַּשְׁלוּמִין לָרִאשׁוֹן, וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: תַּשְׁלוּמִין זֶה לָזֶה. § The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the concept of redress mentioned in the baraita? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The other days are redress for the first day. If one did not bring the Festival offering on the first day, he may still do so on the remaining days of the Festival. And Rabbi Oshaya said: The days are redress for one another. Each day can be considered the main day of obligation, i.e., if one did not bring the offering on the first available day he may do so on the remaining days.

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: חִיגֵּר בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְפַּשֵּׁט בְּיוֹם שֵׁנִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: תַּשְׁלוּמִין לָרִאשׁוֹן, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חֲזֵי בָּרִאשׁוֹן — לָא חֲזֵי בַּשֵּׁנִי. וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: תַּשְׁלוּמִין זֶה לָזֶה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי בָּרִאשׁוֹן — חֲזֵי בִּשְׁנֵי. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? Rabbi Zeira said: The practical difference between them is in a case of one who was lame on the first day of the Festival and was healed on the second day. Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the other days are redress for the first day; since he was not fit, i.e., was not qualified to sacrifice his offerings on the first day, he is not fit to do so even on the second, as the second day is redress for the first. The second day is not for those who were completely exempt on the first, but for those who were obligated to sacrifice but neglected to do so. And Rabbi Oshaya said that the days are redress for one another. Consequently, even though he was not fit to bring the offering on the first day, he is fit to do so on the second. Since a separate obligation applies on each day, even if one was unfit to bring the offering on the first day he must do so when he becomes fit.

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Rabbi Yoḥanan was involved in a dispute with regard to a nazirite. A nazirite who becomes ritually impure as a result of contact with a corpse must undergo a seven-day process of ritual purification, after which he must bring a set of offerings and restart counting the days of his nazirite period. Usually, a nazirite may bring one set of offerings even for many occurrences of ritual impurity. However, if he came into contact with a corpse for a second time on the eighth day after he first became ritually impure he must bring two sets of offerings, as the second impurity occurred at a time when he could have begun counting the days of his nazirite vow again. The amora’im dispute the details of this halakha.

וְהָאָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: נִטְמָא בַּיּוֹם — מֵבִיא, בַּלַּיְלָה — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. The Gemara continues. Didn’t Ḥizkiya say that if a nazirite became ritually impure on the eighth day itself, he brings a second set of offerings? However, if he became ritually impure on the previous night he does not bring an additional set of offerings, because he could not have brought the offering at night. Although seven complete days have passed, as he did not yet have the opportunity to bring the offering, it is as though his seven days were not yet complete. Consequently, he may still bring one set of offerings for the two instances of ritual impurity.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אַף בַּלַּיְלָה נָמֵי מֵבִיא. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the nazirite became ritually impure on the night on which the eighth day begins, he also brings a second set of offerings. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that this nazirite is effectively ready to begin counting the days of his vow again, as only the technicality that one may not bring offerings at night prevents him from doing so. This shows that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, even when one is incapable of sacrificing his offerings, his obligation remains intact. So too, in the case of a lame person, his obligation to bring the Festival offering applies in theory even on the first day, which means that he should be able to bring the offerings at a later date during the Festival.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שָׁאנֵי טוּמְאָה, דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ תַּשְׁלוּמִין בְּפֶסַח שֵׁנִי. Rabbi Yirmeya said: The case of one who cannot bring an offering due to ritual impurity is different. He is not completely disqualified, as there is redress for ritual purity. This can be demonstrated from the halakha of the second Pesaḥ. Just as one who is ritually impure and may not sacrifice the Paschal offering has the opportunity to redress the situation by means of the second Pesaḥ, so too, anyone who cannot bring an offering due to impurity may redress this at a later date.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פֶּסַח Rav Pappa strongly objects to this reasoning: This works out well according to the one who said that the second Pesaḥ

שֵׁנִי — תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּרִאשׁוֹן הוּא. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֵׁנִי רֶגֶל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? is redress for the first Paschal offering. According to this opinion, it is clear that ritual impurity does not nullify one’s obligation. However, according to the one who said that the second Pesaḥ is a separate pilgrimage Festival, established for those who were unable to sacrifice the Paschal offering at the proper time, what is there to say? In that case, Rav Yirmeya’s answer does not apply, and therefore it remains unclear that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that one who is not obligated in the Festival offerings on the first day is exempt during the remaining days.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לַיְלָה אֵינוֹ מְחוּסַּר זְמַן. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? Rather, Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived. Although one may not sacrifice offerings at night, the date itself has arrived and his period of impurity is complete, which is why any further impurity requires a second set of offerings. Consequently, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion with regard to a lame person does not contradict his ruling concerning a nazirite. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this, that night is not considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived?

וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רָאָה אַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּיּוֹם — מֵבִיא. But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: A zav at the end of his seven-day purification process who saw that he experienced one emission at night and then two in the day brings additional offerings for the second impurity? Had he experienced the emissions before he became ritually pure, he would have been required to bring only one set of offerings. However, once his purification is complete he must bring a separate set. In this case, the first emission occurred before he was able to sacrifice the offerings for his initial period of impurity. Nevertheless, as the two subsequent sightings occurred during the day, and they alone would suffice to confer upon him the status of a zav, they combine with the one from the previous night and he is required to bring new offerings.

שְׁתַּיִם בַּלַּיְלָה וְאַחַת בַּיּוֹם — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לַיְלָה אֵינוֹ מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, אֲפִילּוּ שְׁתַּיִם בַּלַּיְלָה וְאַחַת בַּיּוֹם — מֵבִיא! However, if he saw two emissions at night and one in the day, he does not bring additional offerings, because at night he could not yet sacrifice the offerings owed due to his current status, and without those two new sightings he would not become a zav again. And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that night is not considered a date whose time has not yet arrived, then even in the case where he saw two emissions at night and one in the day he should have to bring another set of offerings. He already reached the date of sacrificing the previous offerings before these new emissions occurred. This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived.

כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר לַיְלָה מְחוּסַּר זְמַן, לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר — פְּשִׁיטָא! שְׁתַּיִם בַּיּוֹם וְאַחַת בַּלַּיְלָה אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. The Gemara answers: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said this statement, he spoke according to the one who says that night is considered part of a date whose time has not yet arrived. However, he himself maintains that even if a zav saw all three emissions at night he must bring another offering. The Gemara asks: If he spoke only according to the one who says that opinion, it is obvious that no new offerings are required; what novel idea did Rabbi Yoḥanan intend to express? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it was necessary for him to teach the case of a zav who saw two in the day and one at night.

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא כְּאַתְקַפְתָּא דְּרַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב יוֹסֵף. The Gemara elaborates: It was necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan to say this, lest it enter your mind to say in the manner of the strong objection of Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi (see Keritot 8a), who holds that there is no reason to distinguish between a zav seeing one or two emissions at night. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, that the first sighting confers merely the status of ritual impurity of one who has a seminal emission, and he is not yet classified as a zav. Consequently, there is a difference between one who experienced one emission at night and one who experienced two.

עָבַר הָרֶגֶל וְלֹא חָג אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְעַל זֶה נֶאֱמַר: ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִימָּנוֹת״. § The mishna taught that if the pilgrimage Festival passed and one did not celebrate it by sacrificing a Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. And about this it is stated: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר הֵי הֵי לְהִלֵּל: הַאי ״לְהִימָּנוֹת״, לְהִמָּלאוֹת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא, זֶה (שֶׁמִּנּוּהוּ) [שֶׁנִּמְנוּ] חֲבֵירָיו לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וְהוּא לֹא נִמְנָה עִמָּהֶן. The Sage bar Hei Hei said to Hillel that if this is the correct interpretation of the verse, this term: “Be numbered [lehimanot]” is apparently inappropriate. It should have said: Be filled. Rather, this verse is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus [manuhu] with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus, and therefore he missed his opportunity to join them in the performance of the mitzva.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן״ — זֶה שֶׁבִּיטֵּל קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית, אוֹ קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע שֶׁל עַרְבִית, אוֹ שֶׁבִּיטֵּל תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל שַׁחֲרִית אוֹ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁל עַרְבִית. ״וְחֶסְרוֹן לֹא יוּכַל לְהִימָּנוֹת״ — זֶה שֶׁנִּמְנוּ חֲבֵירָיו לִדְבַר מִצְוָה וְהוּא לֹא נִמְנָה עִמָּהֶן. This explanation is also taught in a baraita. The meaning of the verse “That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered” is as follows: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight” is referring to one who omitted the recitation of the morning Shema or the recitation of the evening Shema, or who omitted the morning prayer or the evening prayer. “And that which is wanting cannot be numbered” is referring to one whose friends reached a consensus with regard to a matter of a mitzva and he was not part of their consensus.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר הֵי הֵי לְהִלֵּל, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשַׁבְתֶּם וּרְאִיתֶם בֵּין צַדִּיק לְרָשָׁע בֵּין עוֹבֵד אֱלֹהִים לַאֲשֶׁר לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״, הַיְינוּ ״צַדִּיק״ — הַיְינוּ ״עוֹבֵד אֱלֹהִים״, הַיְינוּ ״רָשָׁע״ — הַיְינוּ ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲבָדוֹ״ וְ״לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״ — תַּרְוַיְיהוּ צַדִּיקֵי גְּמוּרֵי נִינְהוּ, וְאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה שׁוֹנֶה פִּרְקוֹ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים, לְשׁוֹנֶה פִּרְקוֹ מֵאָה וְאֶחָד. The Gemara records another discussion between bar Hei Hei and Hillel. Bar Hei Hei said to Hillel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then you shall again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between he who serves God and he who does not serve Him” (Malachi 3:18). There are two redundancies here: “The righteous” is the same as “he who serves God,” and “the wicked” is the same as “he who does not serve Him.” Hillel said to him: The one “who serves Him” and the one “who does not serve Him” are both referring to completely righteous people. But the verse is hinting at a distinction between them, as one who reviews his studies one hundred times is not comparable to one who reviews his studies one hundred and one times.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִשּׁוּם חַד זִימְנָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״לֹא עֲבָדוֹ״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, צֵא וּלְמַד מִשּׁוּק שֶׁל חֲמָרִין: עַשְׂרָה פַּרְסֵי — בְּזוּזָא, חַד עֲשַׂר פַּרְסֵי — בִּתְרֵי זוּזֵי. Bar Hei Hei said to him: And due to one extra time that he did not review, the verse calls him a person “who does not serve Him”? He said to him: Yes. Go and learn from the market of donkey drivers. One can hire a driver to travel up to ten parasangs for one dinar. However, he will travel eleven parasangs only for two dinars. This shows that any departure beyond the norm is considered a significant difference.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵלִיָּהוּ לְבַר הֵי הֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנֵּה צְרַפְתִּיךָ וְלֹא בְכָסֶף בְּחַרְתִּיךָ בְּכוּר עוֹנִי״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁחָזַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל כׇּל מִדּוֹת טוֹבוֹת לִיתֵּן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלֹא מָצָא אֶלָּא עֲנִיּוּת. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יוֹסֵף, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: יָאָה עַנְיוּתָא לִיהוּדָאֵי כִּי בַּרְזָא סוּמָּקָא לְסוּסְיָא חִיוָּרָא. The Gemara relates that Elijah the Prophet said to bar Hei Hei, and some say that he said this to Rabbi Elazar: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction [oni]” (Isaiah 48:10)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sought after all good character traits to impart them to the Jewish people, and He found only poverty [aniyut] capable of preventing them from sin. Shmuel said, and some say it was Rav Yosef: This explains the folk saying that people say: Poverty is good for the Jewish people like a red bridle [barza] for a white horse. Just as a red bridle accentuates the white color of the horse, so the challenge of poverty draws out the purity of the Jewish people.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֵי זֶה הוּא ״מְעֻוָּת לֹא יוּכַל לִתְקוֹן״ — זֶה הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה מַמְזֵר וְכוּ׳. הוֹלִיד — אִין, לֹא הוֹלִיד — לָא? § The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is the crooked that cannot be made straight? This verse is referring to one who engaged in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and fathered a mamzer with her. The Gemara infers from the mishna: If he fathers a child, yes, this verse applies, as he cannot remedy the situation; if he does not father a child, no, the verse does not apply, as he can make amends.

וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: גּוֹנֵב אָדָם — אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר גְּנֵבוֹ וִיתַקֵּן, גּוֹזֵל אָדָם — אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר גְּזֵלוֹ וִיתַקֵּן, אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וַאֲסָרָהּ לְבַעְלָהּ — נִטְרַד מִן הָעוֹלָם וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: If a person steals it is possible that he might return his stolen property and be made straight; if a person robs from another it is possible that he might return his robbed property and be made straight. However, one who has sexual relations with a married woman with her consent and thereby renders her forbidden to her husband is banished from the world and passes away. There is no way for him to rectify the situation and achieve atonement, because a married woman who willingly has sexual relations with another man is permanently forbidden to her husband.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אֵין אוֹמֵר ״בַּקְּרוּ גָּמָל״ ״בַּקְּרוּ חֲזִיר״, אֶלָּא ״בַּקְּרוּ טָלֶה״. וְאֵי זֶה — זֶה תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Someone who wants to examine an animal for blemishes to bring it as an offering does not say: Inspect the camel, or: Inspect the pig, as these are inherently disqualified for the altar. Rather, he says: Inspect the lamb. Similarly, the term: “Crooked,” applies only to one who was previously straight. And who is this? This is a Torah scholar who leaves his Torah study.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁפֵּירַשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה, עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״כְּצִפּוֹר נוֹדֶדֶת מִן קִנָּהּ כֵּן אִישׁ נוֹדֵד מִמְּקוֹמוֹ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״מַה מָּצְאוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בִּי עָוֶל כִּי רָחֲקוּ מֵעָלָי״! Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: Any Torah scholar who leaves the Torah, about him the verse says: “As a bird that wanders from her nest, so is a man who wanders from his place” (Proverbs 27:8). And it says: “What unrighteousness have your fathers found in Me, that they are gone far from Me?” (Jeremiah 2:5). This indicates that the punishment is greater for one who was close to God and became distant from Him. In any case, there is a contradiction here, as in the mishna Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says that the act of one who fathers an illegitimate child is crooked and cannot be straightened, whereas in the baraita he says the same applies to anyone who has forbidden sexual relations, regardless of whether or not he fathers a child.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ פְּנוּיָה, כָּאן בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is dealing with a case where he had forbidden sexual relations with his unmarried sister. Although the intercourse itself is a severe sin, if he does not sire a child it can be rectified through repentance. There, in the baraita, it is referring to a case where he sinned with a married woman, causing irreparable damage to her marriage. And if you wish, say instead: This and that are both referring to a married woman. And it is not difficult. Here, the mishna is dealing

בְּאוֹנֶס, כָּאן בְּרָצוֹן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא וְהָא בְּאוֹנֶס, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן, כָּאן בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל. with a rape, in which case it is not prohibited for the woman to return to her husband. There, it is referring to a woman who had relations willfully, and therefore she is forbidden to her husband. And if you wish, say that this and that are both dealing with a rape, and it is still not difficult. Here, where the transgression cannot be rectified, it is referring to one who raped the wife of a priest, as it is forbidden for a priest to have relations with his wife once she has intercourse with any other man, even unwillingly. There, it is referring to one who raped the wife of an Israelite, in which case there is no prohibition against her returning to her husband.

״וְלַיּוֹצֵא וְלַבָּא אֵין שָׁלוֹם״, אָמַר רַב: כֵּיוָן שֶׁיּוֹצֵא אָדָם מִדְּבַר הֲלָכָה לִדְבַר מִקְרָא — שׁוּב אֵין לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. Since the Gemara mentioned a Torah scholar who abandons the study of Torah, it cites a relevant verse: “Neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in due to the adversary” (Zechariah 8:10). Rav said: Once a person leaves the study of halakha, i.e., Mishna and Gemara, even for the study of the Torah itself, he will no longer have peace. The verses of the Torah are often obscure and it is difficult to learn halakha directly from them without the aid of the interpretations of the Talmud.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: זֶה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִתַּלְמוּד לְמִשְׁנָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִתַּלְמוּד לְתַלְמוּד. And Shmuel said: This is referring to one who leaves the study of Talmud to learn Mishna. Whereas the reasoning of the Talmud is relatively clear, the Mishna cites legal rulings without explaining their reasoning. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse applies even to one who leaves the study of one Talmud for the other Talmud, i.e., who leaves off his study of the Jerusalem Talmud to begin the Babylonian Talmud, as he will encounter difficulties with the new style of learning.

מַתְנִי׳ הֶיתֵּר נְדָרִים — פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר וְאֵין לָהֶם עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ. MISHNA: Incidental to the Festival peace-offering, the mishna describes the nature of various areas of Torah study. The halakhot of the dissolution of vows, when one requests from a Sage to dissolve them, fly in the air and have nothing to support them, as these halakhot are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. There is only a slight allusion to the dissolution of vows in the Torah, which is taught by the Sages as part of the oral tradition.

הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, חֲגִיגוֹת וְהַמְּעִילוֹת — הֲרֵי הֵם כַּהֲרָרִים הַתְּלוּיִן בִּשְׂעָרָהּ, שֶׁהֵן מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת. הַדִּינִין וְהָעֲבוֹדוֹת הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת וַעֲרָיוֹת — יֵשׁ לָהֶן עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ, וְהֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה. The halakhot of Shabbat, Festival peace-offerings, and misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair, as they have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. The details of monetary law, sacrificial rites, ritual purity and impurity, and the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden all have something to support them, i.e., there is ample basis in the Torah for these halakhot, and these are the essential parts of Torah.

גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהֶם עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יַפְלִיא״ ״כִּי יַפְלִיא״ שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים: אַחַת הַפְלָאָה לְאִיסּוּר, וְאַחַת הַפְלָאָה לְהֶיתֵּר. GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakhot of the dissolution of vows have something to support them, as it is stated: “When a man shall clearly utter a vow” (Leviticus 27:2), and: “When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow” (Numbers 6:2), i.e., the words “clearly utter” appear twice. One clear utterance is for prohibition, i.e., when one states his intention to accept the vow, and one clear utterance is for dissolution, when he provides the Sage with a reason why the vow should no longer apply. This is an allusion in the Torah to the annulment of vows.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהֶם עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי בְאַפִּי״ — בְּאַפִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי, וְחָזַרְתִּי בִּי. Rabbi Yehoshua likewise says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: “Wherefore I swore in My wrath” (Psalms 95:11), meaning: In my wrath I swore, and I retracted. This is the basis for the dissolution of vows, in which the one who uttered the vow tells the Sage that he regrets it, as he did so in a moment of anger.

רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהֶם עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּל נְדִיב לִבּוֹ״. חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לָהֶם עַל מָה שֶׁיִּסָּמֵכוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי וָאֲקַיֵּימָה לִשְׁמוֹר מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ״. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These halakhot have something to support them, as it is stated: “Whoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it” (Exodus 35:5). This verse indicates that as long as one retains the same desire to fulfill the vow, he must continue to fulfill it, but if he regrets taking the vow he may arrange for it to be dissolved. Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, also says: They have something to support them, as it is stated: “I have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:106). This verse indicates that certain oaths need not be fulfilled, i.e., those that have been dissolved.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, אָמְרִי לְהוּ: דִּידִי עֲדִיפָא מִדִּידְכוּ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״ — הוּא אֵינוֹ מוֹחֵל, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מוֹחֲלִין לוֹ. אָמַר רָבָא: לְכוּלְּהוּ אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא, לְבַר מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּלֵית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If I had been there, sitting with those Sages, I would have said to them: My source is better than yours, as it is stated: “He shall not nullify his word” (Numbers 30:3), from which it may be inferred: He himself cannot nullify his word; however, others, i.e., a Sage, may nullify it for him by dissolving his vow. Rava said: For all of the suggested sources for the dissolution of vows there is a possible refutation, except for that of Shmuel, for which there is no refutation.

דְּאִי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — דִּלְמָא כִּדְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: לְעוֹלָם אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָזִיר, שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה נְזִירוּת אֶלָּא לְהַפְלָאָה. Rava elaborates. As, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, perhaps the phrase: “Clearly utter” should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said an alternative interpretation in the name of Rabbi Tarfon. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to two people who are arguing whether or not someone who passed before them is a nazirite, each of them declaring that if he is correct he himself will become a nazirite, Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: Actually, neither of them is a nazirite, as naziriteship is effected only by means of a clear utterance and neither party is certain they will be a nazirite at the time of their utterance. He derives this halakha from this phrase: “Clearly utter.”

אִי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּאַפִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי — וְלָא הָדַרְנָא בִּי. אִי מִדְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק — דִּלְמָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל. דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: גָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ — צָרִיךְ שֶׁיּוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו. Similarly, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, perhaps this is what the verse is saying: In my wrath I swore and I do not take it back, despite the fact that it was stated in a moment of anger. If it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, perhaps the phrase “a willing heart” comes to exclude the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: If one decided in his heart but did not verbalize a vow, it is insufficient, as he must verbally express it. And therefore this phrase teaches us that even though he did not verbally express the vow he is still obligated to fulfill it.

אִי מִדַּחֲנַנְיָה בֶּן אֲחִי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ — דִּלְמָא כְּרַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַמִּצְוָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי וָאֲקַיֵּימָה לִשְׁמוֹר מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ״. Finally, if it is derived from the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, perhaps the phrase “and fulfilled it” should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel, who said that Rav said a different interpretation of this verse. As Rav Giddel said that Rav said: From where is it derived that although one is already obligated to fulfill all mitzvot one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva, and this is not considered an oath taken in vain? As it is stated: “I have sworn, and have fulfilled it, to observe Your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:106).

אֶלָּא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לֵית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא. אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: טָבָא חֲדָא פִּלְפַּלְתָּא חֲרִיפְתָּא מִמְּלֵי צַנָּא דְקָרֵי. Rav concludes. However, for Shmuel’s source there is no refutation. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak who said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One spicy pepper is better than a basketful of squash, as the single pepper has more flavor than all the squash combined.

הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לָא צְרִיכָא, לְכִדְרַבִּי אַבָּא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הַחוֹפֵר גּוּמָּא בְּשַׁבָּת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ אֶלָּא לַעֲפָרָהּ — פָּטוּר עָלֶיהָ. § The mishna stated that the halakhot of Shabbat are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But the halakhot of Shabbat are written, i.e., the prohibition against performing labor is explicit in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Abba. As Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a hole on Shabbat only because he needs its dirt and not for the hole itself is exempt from liability for that act, as this is not the labor of digging prohibited on Shabbat by Torah law.

כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ — פָּטוּר עָלֶיהָ. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Abba issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who performs on Shabbat a labor that is not necessary for its own sake, i.e., he performs the labor for a purpose other than the direct result of the action, is exempt from liability for it.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הָתָם מְתַקֵּן, הָכָא מְקַלְקֵל הוּא. The Gemara offers an alternative possibility. This ruling can be explained even if you say that Rabbi Abba holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that one is liable for a labor that is not necessary for its own sake. There, in other cases, Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable because his purpose is creative. Here, where one is digging the hole for the dirt, the purpose is destructive, as the action damages the ground. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that in this case he is exempt.

מַאי ״כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה״? The Gemara returns to the mishna. What then does the mishna mean by the phrase: Like mountains suspended by a hair?

מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, וּמְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת לָא כְּתִיבָא. The Gemara answers: The Torah prohibited only planned, creative labor on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. And limitation of the prohibition against creative labor is not written anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the halakhot of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.

חֲגִיגוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לָא צְרִיכָא, לִכְדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״וְחַגּוֹתֶם אוֹתוֹ חַג לַה׳״ — זְבִיחָה? דִּלְמָא ״חוֹגּוּ חַגָּא״ קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! § The mishna taught that the halakhot of Festival peace-offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to say this in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where is it derived that this verse: “And you shall celebrate it as a Festival [veḥagotem] to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is simply saying: Celebrate a Festival.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְיָחוֹגּוּ לִי בַּמִּדְבָּר״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּחוֹגּוּ חַגָּא הוּא? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמַר מֹשֶׁה גַּם אַתָּה תִּתֵּן בְּיָדֵינוּ זְבָחִים וְעוֹלוֹת״. Abaye responded: However, if that is so, consider that it is written: “Let My people go, that they may hold a feast [veyaḥogu] to Me in the wilderness” (Exodus 5:1). So too, the meaning of this verse is that they will merely celebrate a Festival, and not bring an offering. And if you would say that is indeed so, that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, but isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.

דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אִכְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ וְחוֹגּוּ חַגָּא קַמַּאי״? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יָלִין חֵלֶב חַגִּי עַד בֹּקֶר״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּחוֹגָּא הוּא, תַּרְבָּא לְחַגָּא אִית לֵיהּ?! The Gemara raises a difficulty. But perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: Slaughter animals so that you can eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “The fat of My Festival feast [ḥagi] shall not remain all night until the morning” (Exodus 23:18). And if it enters your mind to say that it is referring to a regular Festival feast and not an offering, does a Festival feast have forbidden fats?

וְדִלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: חֵלֶב הַבָּא בִּזְמַן חַג — ״לֹא יָלִין״! The Gemara asks: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states in the Torah: The fats of gift offerings that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. If so, the phrase “My Festival feast” is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: הַבָּא בִּזְמַן חַג — הוּא דְּלֹא יָלִין, הָא דְּכׇל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ — יָלִין?! ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר״, כְּתִיב! The Gemara answers: However, if that is so, this verse indicates that it is only those fats that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. It may be inferred from here that fats which are brought throughout the year may remain all night. But it is written about burnt-offerings: “On its firewood upon the altar all night into the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.

דִּלְמָא אִי מֵהָהוּא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָהוּא לַעֲשֵׂה כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, הַאי לְלָאו! The Gemara further asks: Perhaps if this halakha was derived from that verse, I would say that verse serves as the source of a positive mitzva. Therefore, the Merciful One writes this verse: “Shall not remain all night,” as a prohibition as well.

לְלָאו כְּתַב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״וְלֹא יָלִין מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר תִּזְבַּח בָּעֶרֶב בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן לַבֹּקֶר״. וְדִלְמָא לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין וַעֲשֵׂה! The Gemara responds. With regard to the prohibition against leaving over an offering on a Festival, another verse was written: “Neither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morning” (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: But perhaps the verse: “Shall not remain all night” comes to teach that one who does so violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.

אֶלָּא: אָתְיָא ״מִדְבָּר״ ״מִדְבָּר״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְיָחוֹגּוּ לִי בַּמִּדְבָּר״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הַזְּבָחִים וּמִנְחָה הִגַּשְׁתֶּם לִי בַּמִּדְבָּר״, מָה לְהַלָּן זְבָחִים — אַף כָּאן זְבָחִים. Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering comes from a verbal analogy between the term “wilderness” stated here and the term: “wilderness” stated elsewhere. It is written here: “They shall make an offering to Me in the wilderness” (Exodus 5:1), and it is written there: “Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25). Just as there it is referring to actual animal offerings, so too here, it is referring to animal offerings, not merely the celebration of a Festival.

וּמַאי ״כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה״ — דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִדִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה לָא יָלְפִינַן. The Gemara asks: And in light of this verbal analogy, in what way is this halakha like mountains suspended by a hair? The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new halakhot, as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a halakha derived from the Torah itself.

מְעִילוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִכְדִתְנַן: הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל, לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל. § The mishna taught that the details of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But they are written in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14–16). Rami bar Ḥama said: This statement is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 20a): With regard to an agent who performs his agency, e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, the homeowner has misused consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent did not perform his agency, but in some way acted on his own account, the agent has misused consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.

וְכִי עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, אַמַּאי מָעַל? וְכִי זֶה חוֹטֵא וְזֶה מִתְחַיֵּיב? הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה. The Gemara explains: And when he performed his agency, why is the owner considered to have misused consecrated property? And is it possible that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? Since this halakha is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. This is what the mishna was referring to when it said that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי מְעִילָה דְּיָלְפָא ״חֵטְא״ ״חֵטְא״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה הָתָם שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ — אַף כָּאן שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ? Rava said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps the transgression of misuse of consecrated property is different, as it is derived through a verbal analogy from the parallel term “sin” (Leviticus 5:6) and “sin” (Numbers 18:9), from the case of teruma: Just as there, with regard to teruma, the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, and therefore the agent may separate teruma on behalf of the owner of the produce, so too here, with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְכִדְתַנְיָא: נִזְכַּר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא נִזְכַּר שָׁלִיחַ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל. שָׁלִיחַ עַנְיָא מַאי קָא עָבֵיד? הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה. Rather, Rava said: The mishna’s statement with regard to mountains is necessary only for that which is taught in a baraita: If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, the homeowner remembered that it was a consecrated item and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, what did the poor agent do? He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. This is what the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין! Rav Ashi said: And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps this is just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִכְדִתְנַן: נָטַל אֶבֶן אוֹ קוֹרָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל, נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ — הוּא מָעַל וַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא מָעַל. מִכְּדֵי מִישְׁקָל שַׁקְלַהּ, מָה לִי הוּא וּמָה לִי חֲבֵירוֹ? הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה. Rather, Rav Ashi said: The mishna is necessary only for that which we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 19b): If one picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he gave it to another, he has misused consecrated property and the other person has not misused consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: Since he picked it up, what difference is there to me if he keeps it, and what difference is there to me if he gives it to another? What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, this is the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these halakhot are like mountains suspended by a hair.

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא The Gemara raises a difficulty. What is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself.

בְּגִזְבָּר הַמְּסוּרוֹת לוֹ אַבְנֵי בִנְיָן עָסְקִינַן, דְּכׇל הֵיכָא דְּמַנְּחָה — בִּרְשׁוּתָא דִּידֵיהּ מַנְּחָה. Rather, we are dealing with the treasurer of the Temple, to whom the consecrated building stones were transferred for safekeeping. The reason for the exemption is that anywhere that the stone is resting, it is considered to be resting within his domain. Consequently, he is not liable for picking up the stone or beam, as he is permitted to carry it. However, he does not have permission to give it to someone else, and therefore when he hands it over to someone else he has misused consecrated property. If so, this halakha is also perfectly logical and should not be considered like mountains suspended by a hair.

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: בְּנָאָהּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיָּדוּר תַּחְתֶּיהָ בְּשָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. מִכְּדֵי שַׁנּוֹיֵי שַׁנְּיַיהּ, מָה לִי דָּר וּמָה לִי לָא דָּר, הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה? Rather, the comparison of these halakhot to mountains suspended by a hair is based on the latter clause of that same mishna: If he built the stone into his house, he has not misused consecrated property until he dwells under it an amount of time that is worth a peruta. Since he has changed the stone by incorporating it into his house, what difference is there to me if he dwelt there, and what difference is there to me if he did not dwell there? Apparently, this is the halakha considered like mountains suspended by a hair.

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא לְכִדְרַב. דְּאָמַר רַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ עַל פִּי אֲרוּבָּה. אִי דָּר בֵּיהּ — אִין, לָא דָּר בֵּיהּ — לָא. The Gemara rejects this claim. And what is the logical difficulty with this halakha? Perhaps it is stated in accordance with the opinion of Rav. As Rav said: This mishna is referring to a case where he placed the stone over a window, but he did not make any adjustment to the stone itself. If he dwelt in the house, yes, he has misused consecrated property, as he derived benefit from it. If he did not dwell in it, no, he has not misused consecrated property, as he gained no benefit from the stone.

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם כִּדְרָבָא. וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין, הָתָם מִידָּע יָדַע דְּאִיכָּא זוּזֵי דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ, אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי. הָכָא מִי יָדַע! הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה. Rather, the reason is actually in accordance with the aforementioned opinion of Rava, who holds that the innovative element of this halakha involves a case where the homeowner remembered, which caused the agent to misuse consecrated property. And with regard to that which posed a difficulty for you, i.e., that the halakha here should be just as it is with regard to one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred purposes, the two cases are not identical. There, in the case that Rava mentioned, the agent knew that he also had consecrated coins and therefore he should have examined carefully whether this money was consecrated. Here, did the agent know that there was a possibility that the money was consecrated? This is why this halakha is like mountains suspended by a hair.

מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת. תָּנָא: נְגָעִים וְאֹהָלוֹת, מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת. נְגָעִים מִקְרָא מוּעָט? נְגָעִים מִקְרָא מְרוּבֶּה הוּא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נְגָעִים — מִקְרָא מְרוּבֶּה וַהֲלָכוֹת מוּעָטוֹת, אֹהָלוֹת — מִקְרָא מוּעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרוּבּוֹת. § The mishna explained that those matters that are like mountains suspended by a hair have little written about them in the Torah, and yet the details of their halakhot are numerous. A Sage taught in the Tosefta: The halakhot of leprosy and the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents in which a corpse lies have little in the Torah and their halakhot are numerous. The Gemara asks: With regard to leprosy, is there little about their halakhot in the Torah? Leprosy is something about which there are numerous details stated in the Torah (see Leviticus, chapters 13–14). Rav Pappa said that this is what the mishna is saying: Leprosy has numerous details in the Torah but relatively few halakhot. In contrast, the case of ritual impurity imparted by tents has little in the Torah but numerous halakhot.

וּמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? אִי מִסְתַּפְּקָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא בִּנְגָעִים — עַיֵּין בִּקְרָאֵי, וְאִי מִסְתַּפְּקָא לָךְ מִילְּתָא בְּאֹהָלוֹת — עַיֵּין בְּמַתְנִיתִין. The Gemara asks: And what is the practical difference whether there are numerous or few references to a particular halakha in the Torah? The Gemara answers: If you are uncertain about a matter with regard to the halakhot of leprosy, delve into the verses, as it is treated extensively there. And if you are uncertain about a matter with regard to the halakhot of the ritual impurity imparted by tents, delve into the Mishna, as these halakhot are not sufficiently explicated in the Torah.

דִּינִין. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְכִדְרַבִּי. § The mishna taught that monetary law is one of those matters that have something to support them in the Torah. The Gemara asks: Monetary laws are written in the Torah; why does the mishna merely say it has something to support it? The Gemara answers: This is necessary only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״ — מָמוֹן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מָמוֹן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא נֶפֶשׁ מַמָּשׁ? נֶאֶמְרָה נְתִינָה לְמַטָּה. וְנֶאֶמְרָה נְתִינָה לְמַעְלָה. מָה לְהַלָּן — מָמוֹן, אַף כָּאן — מָמוֹן. The Gemara elaborates. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “But if any harm follow, then you shall give life for life” (Exodus 21:23). This verse is referring to a payment of money. Do you say money, or perhaps it is solely an actual life that is demanded? The term giving is stated below: “You shall give life for life,” and giving is stated above, in the previous verse: “And he shall give as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). Just as there, the giving is in the form of money, so too here, it is referring to a payment of money. Although this halakha is not explicit in the Torah, the verses lend support to it.

עֲבוֹדוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְהוֹלָכַת הַדָּם. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבוּ״, זוֹ קַבָּלַת הַדָּם. § The mishna stated that the halakhot of sacrificial rites have something to support them. The Gemara asks: Sacrificial rites are written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state that sacrificial rites have merely something to support them only with regard to the rite of carrying the blood to the altar. As it is taught in a baraita: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall offer the blood” (Leviticus 1:5); this is referring to collecting the blood, which is the stage before carrying the blood to the altar.

וְאַפְּקַהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן הוֹלָכָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״, וְאָמַר מָר: זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ. And the Merciful One expressed collecting the blood in the language of carrying, i.e., by means of the term offer. As it is written: “And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13). And the Master said that this term, “offer,” is not referring to sacrificing on the altar, as that is expressed by the phrase: “Make it smoke upon the altar.” Rather, this is referring to carrying the limbs to the ramp next to the altar, from where it is placed on the altar itself.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּהוֹלָכָה לָא תַּפְּקַהּ מִכְּלַל קַבָּלָה. Evidently, the Torah is referring to collecting the blood with the same terminology it used when referring to carrying. That is to say that carrying should not be excluded from the category of collecting. In other words, all the halakhot that pertain to collecting the blood of offerings, e.g., that it must be performed by a priest with his right hand, apply equally to carrying the blood.

טְהָרוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְשִׁיעוּר מִקְוֶה דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְרָחַץ אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַיִם״ — בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה. ״אֶת כׇּל בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — מַיִם שֶׁכׇּל גּוּפוֹ עוֹלֶה בָּהֶן, וְכַמָּה הֵן — אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה בְּרוּם שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת. וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים מֵי מִקְוֶה אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה. § The mishna further taught that the halakhot of ritual purity have something to support them. The Gemara again asks: But ritual purity is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: The observation that the halakhot of ritual purity merely have something to support them is necessary only for the minimum measure of a ritual bath, which is not written explicitly in the Torah. As it is taught in a baraita: “And he shall bathe his flesh in water” (Leviticus 14:9). This means in the water of a ritual bath. And it is stated: “And he shall wash all his flesh in water” (Leviticus 15:16), which indicates that it must contain water in which his whole body can enter. And how much water is this? One cubit by one cubit with a height of three cubits. And the Sages estimated that the measure for ritual bath water is forty se’a.

טְמָאוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְכַעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא. דְּתַנְיָא: ״בָּהֶם״ — § The mishna stated that the halakhot of ritual impurity also have something to support them. Once again the Gemara asks: Ritual impurity is written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is necessary only with regard to the size of a lentil-bulk from a creeping animal, which is not written. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with creeping animals: “Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:31).

יָכוֹל בְּכוּלָּן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵהֶם״. יָכוֹל בְּמִקְצָתָן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בָּהֶם״. One might have thought that only someone who touches an entire, whole creeping animal becomes ritually impure. The verse states: “And upon whatever any of them falls, when they are dead, it shall be impure” (Leviticus 11:32). “Of them” indicates that this halakha applies even if one comes into contact with a part of them. One might have thought that even some of them suffices to impart impurity. The verse states: “Them,” i.e., all of them. This conclusion apparently contradicts the first ruling.

הָא כֵּיצַד? עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ בְּמִקְצָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא כְּכוּלּוֹ. שִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, שֶׁכֵּן חוֹמֶט — תְּחִלָּתוֹ בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כִּזְנַב הַלְּטָאָה. How can this apparent contradiction be resolved? One does not become impure until he touches some of it that is like the whole, i.e., a significant amount. And the Sages estimated this measure as the size of a lentil-bulk. The reason is that in its early stages, the ḥomet, the smallest of these creeping animals, is the size of a lentil-bulk. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The size of a lentil-bulk is that of a lizard’s tail, which is considered a part that is like the whole. The tail of a lizard can be cut off easily, and as it continues to twitch even after it has been cut off, it has the appearance of life. Consequently, it is fitting to label it as a part that is like the whole.

עֲרָיוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לֹא נִצְרְכָה § The mishna further taught that the halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden have something to support them. The Gemara asks: The halakhot of those with whom relations are forbidden are written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is necessary only

לְבִתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָא. with regard to his daughter born from the woman he raped, which is not written explicitly in the Torah. It is forbidden for this man to have sexual relations with this daughter, despite the fact that she is not the daughter of his wife, as he did not marry her mother.

דְּאָמַר רָבָא, אֲמַר לִי רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: אָתְיָא ״הֵנָּה״ ״הֵנָּה״. As Rava said: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me that this halakha is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term they [hena], an unusual form of this word, written in one context, and the same term, they, written elsewhere. As it is written: “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter…you shall not take…they [hena] are near kinswomen; it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). And it is written: “The nakedness of your son’s daughter, or of your daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness you shall not uncover; for they [hena] are your own nakedness” (Leviticus 18:10). This indicates that every daughter, even from the rape of a woman who is not one’s wife, is forbidden, just like one’s daughter from his wife.

אָתְיָא ״זִימָּה״ ״זִימָּה״. Furthermore, the punishment for this transgression is derived from a verbal analogy between: “It is lewdness [zima]” (Leviticus 18:17), which is written with regard to a woman and her daughter, and the same term “lewdness” that appears elsewhere, as it is stated: “And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is lewdness [zima]: They shall be burnt with fire, both he and they” (Leviticus 20:14).

הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה. הָנֵי — אִין, הָנָךְ לָא? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הֵן וְהֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה. § The mishna taught: These [hen hen] are the essential parts of the Torah. The Gemara asks: These, the topics mentioned in the mishna, which are not written explicitly but for which there is ample basis in the Torah, yes, they are the essential parts of Torah, whereas those other categories listed in the mishna that are written explicitly, no, they are not essential? Rather, one must say that both these and those [hen vehen] are the essential parts of the Torah. Every part of the Torah is essential, whether or not it is written explicitly.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין

We shall return to you, [chapter of] "All of obligated..."

אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בָּעֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בִּשְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא בַּמֶּרְכָּבָה בְּיָחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ. MISHNA: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three or more individuals; nor may one expound the act of Creation and the secrets of the beginning of the world before two or more individuals; nor may one expound by oneself the Design of the Divine Chariot, a mystical teaching with regard to the ways God conducts the world, unless he is wise and understands most matters on his own.

כׇּל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, רָתוּי לוֹ כְּאִילּוּ לֹא בָּא לָעוֹלָם: מָה לְמַעְלָה, מָה לְמַטָּה, מָה לְפָנִים, וּמָה לְאָחוֹר. וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא חָס עַל כְּבוֹד קוֹנוֹ, רָתוּי לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם. The mishna continues in the same vein: Whoever looks at four matters, it would have been better for him had he never entered the world: Anyone who reflects upon what is above the firmament and what is below the earth, what was before Creation, and what will be after the end of the world. And anyone who has no concern for the honor of his Maker, who inquires into and deals with matters not permitted to him, deserves to have never come to the world.

גְּמָ׳ אָמְרַתְּ בְּרֵישָׁא: וְלֹא בַּמֶּרְכָּבָה בְּיָחִיד, וַהֲדַר אָמְרַתְּ: אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ! GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: You said in the first clause of the mishna: Nor may one expound the Design of the Divine Chariot by oneself, which indicates that the topic may not be learned at all, and yet you subsequently said: Unless he is wise and understands most things on his own, which indicates that an individual is permitted to study the Design of the Divine Chariot.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בָּעֲרָיוֹת לִשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית לִשְׁנַיִם, וְלֹא בַּמֶּרְכָּבָה לַיָּחִיד, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה חָכָם וּמֵבִין מִדַּעְתּוֹ. The Gemara explains: This is what the mishna is saying: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three students, nor the act of Creation before two, nor may one teach the Divine Chariot to one, unless that student was wise and understands on his own.

אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בָּעֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶל כׇּל שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ״. ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ — תְּרֵי, ״שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — חַד, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה״. § The Gemara continues to clarify the mishna, which reads: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three individuals. What is the reason for this? If we say it is because it is written: “None of you [ish, ish] shall approach any near of kin to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6). Ish, ish, literally means: Man, man. It is understood as an allusion to the number of students permitted to study the topic. This is as it is explained immediately: “Man, man” equals two; “any near of kin to him” is one; and the Merciful One states: “You shall not approach to uncover their nakedness,” which indicates that one may not expound the halakhot of forbidden sexual relations in the presence of three individuals.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו״, ״אִישׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּוֹלֶךְ״, הָכִי נָמֵי? They ask: If that is so, then what of this verse: “Any man [ish, ish] who curses his God” (Leviticus 24:15), or “Any man [ish, ish] who gives of his seed to the Molekh” (Leviticus 20:2), which is a form of idol worship? In both cases the double expression implies the number two. So too there, will you say that it is prohibited to teach these halakhot before two individuals?

אֶלָּא הָנְהוּ — מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם, שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין עַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם וְעַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. The Gemara answers: Rather, those instances of the double expression: Man, man, are required for him, the tanna, in order to include gentiles, who are commanded with regard to blessing, a euphemism for cursing, God, and with regard to idol worship just as Jews are commanded.

הַאי נָמֵי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין עַל הָעֲרָיוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. But if so, this mention of “man, man” in the case of forbidden relations is also required for him to include gentiles, who are commanded with regard to forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

אֶלָּא, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת מִשְׁמַרְתִּי״, ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם״ — תְּרֵי, ״מִשְׁמַרְתִּי״ — חַד, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת״. Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation, and suggests that the prohibition against teaching three is derived from the following verse stated with regard to forbidden sexual relations: “And you shall observe My charge” (Leviticus 18:30), which is explained as follows: “And you shall observe [ushmartem],” in the plural, indicates at least two; “My charge” is one; and the Merciful One states at the conclusion of this verse: “That you do not perform any of these abominable customs” (Leviticus 18:30), indicating that this topic may not be taught to three.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה דִּכְתִיב: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת״, ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַמַּצּוֹת״, ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֵת מִשְׁמֶרֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״, הָכִי נָמֵי? The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then what of that which is written: “And you shall observe the Shabbat” (Exodus 31:14), and “And you shall observe the festival of matzot” (Exodus 12:17), and “And you shall observe the charge of the sacred things” (Numbers 18:5); so too, will you say that none of these subjects may be taught to three?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בָּעֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה — אֵין דּוֹרְשִׁין בְּסִתְרֵי עֲרָיוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. Rather, Rav Ashi said: These scriptural allusions are all unacceptable. What is the meaning of: One may not expound the topic of forbidden sexual relations before three? It means: One may not expound the concealed laws of forbidden sexual relations before three. The prohibition against teaching before three applies to halakhot of forbidden sexual relations that are not explicitly stated in the Torah but are derived by expounding the verses or through analogy.

מַאי טַעְמָא — סְבָרָא הוּא. בֵּי תְרֵי כִּי יָתְבִי קַמֵּי רַבַּיְיהוּ, חַד שָׁקֵיל וְטָרֵי בַּהֲדֵי רַבֵּיהּ, וְאִידַּךְ מַצְלֵי אוּדְנֵיהּ לִגְמָרָא. תְּלָתָא, חַד שָׁקֵיל וְטָרֵי בַּהֲדֵי רַבֵּיהּ, וְהָנָךְ תְּרֵי שָׁקְלוּ וְטָרוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וְלָא יָדְעִי מַאי קָאָמַר רַבַּיְיהוּ, וְאָתוּ לְמִישְׁרֵי אִיסּוּרָא בָּעֲרָיוֹת. What is the reason? It is due not to a biblical allusion, but rather it is based on logical reasoning: When two students sit before their teacher, one of them is typically involved in a discussion of halakha with his teacher, while the other lends his ear to listen to the teaching. However, if there are three students, one of them is involved in a discussion with his teacher while the other two are engaged in a discussion with one another, and they do not know what their teacher is saying, and may come to render permitted a forbidden relation by following their own reasoning rather than the explanation provided by their teacher.

אִי הָכִי, כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה נָמֵי! The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the entire Torah should likewise be taught only to two individuals, to prevent similar errors.

עֲרָיוֹת שָׁאנֵי, דְּאָמַר מָר: גָּזֵל וַעֲרָיוֹת — נַפְשׁוֹ [שֶׁל אָדָם] מְחַמְּדָתָן וּמִתְאַוָּה לָהֶם. The Gemara answers: The halakha of forbidden sexual relations is different, for the Master said: Robbery and forbidden sexual relations are sins that one’s soul covets and lusts after. Therefore, we are concerned that one who has not properly studied these matters with his teacher will rule leniently for himself.

אִי הָכִי, גָּזֵל נָמֵי? עֲרָיוֹת, בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו נְפִישׁ יִצְרֵיהּ. גָּזֵל, בְּפָנָיו — נְפִישׁ יִצְרֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו — לָא נְפִישׁ יִצְרֵיהּ. The Gemara asks: If so, robbery should also not be taught to more than two, for this very reason. The Gemara responds: There is a difference between the lust for forbidden sexual relations and the lust for robbery. In the case of those with whom relations are forbidden, his evil inclination is strong whether or not the objects of desire are before him. With regard to robbery, however, if the object presents a direct temptation before him his inclination is strong, but when it is not before him his inclination is not strong, and we are therefore less concerned.

״וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בִּשְׁנַיִם״. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים״ — יָחִיד שׁוֹאֵל, וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹאֲלִין. § It is taught in the mishna: “Nor the act of Creation before two.” The Gemara poses a question: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains: As the Sages taught that the verse states: “For ask now of the days past, which were before you” (Deuteronomy 4:32); since this verse is stated in the singular, it teaches that an individual may ask questions with regard to Creation, i.e., “the days past,” but two may not ask, which indicates that one may teach such matters to only one student.

יָכוֹל יִשְׁאַל אָדָם קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ״. One might have thought that a person may ask questions with regard to matters preceding the creation of the world. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth,” but not earlier.

יָכוֹל לֹא יִשְׁאַל אָדָם מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְיָמִים רִאשׁוֹנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ״. One might have thought that a person may not ask questions with regard to matters that occurred during the six days of Creation before the creation of man. Therefore, the verse states: “For ask now of the days past, which were before you,” indicating that one may inquire about the days preceding the creation of man.

יָכוֹל יִשְׁאַל אָדָם מָה לְמַעְלָה וּמָה לְמַטָּה מָה לְפָנִים וּמָה לְאָחוֹר — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם״, מִלְּמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם — אַתָּה שׁוֹאֵל, וְאֵין אַתָּה שׁוֹאֵל מָה לְמַעְלָה מָה לְמַטָּה, מָה לְפָנִים מָה לְאָחוֹר. One might have thought that a person may ask questions with regard to what is above, what is below, what was before, and what is after the world. Therefore, the same verse states: “From one end of the heavens to the other” (Deuteronomy 4:32), which is explained as follows: With regard to that which is from one end of the heavens to the other, within the boundaries of the world, you may ask, but you may not ask what is above, what is below, what was before, or what is after.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לְּמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם״, ״לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ״ — לְמָה לִי? The Gemara poses a question: Now that it is derived from the phrase “from one end of the heavens to the other,” why do I need the phrase “since the day that God created man upon the earth”?

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִן הָאָרֶץ עַד לָרָקִיעַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ״. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁסָּרַח — הִנִּיחַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִיעֲטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָחוֹר וָקֶדֶם צַרְתָּנִי וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה״. The Gemara answers that this phrase teaches us something else, according to Rabbi Elazar. As Rabbi Elazar said: The height of Adam the first man reached from the ground to the skies, as it is stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of the heavens” (Deuteronomy 4:32). When he sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, as it is stated: “You fashioned me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5).

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ הָיָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם עַל הָאָרֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁסָּרַח הִנִּיחַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יָדוֹ עָלָיו וּמִיעֲטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה״. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The size of Adam the first man was from one end of the world to the other, as it is stated: “Since the day that God created man upon the earth, and from one end of the heavens to the other,” which indicates that he spanned the entire length of the world. Once he sinned, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed His hand upon him and diminished him, as it states: “And laid Your hand upon me.”

אִי הָכִי, קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי! אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא. The Gemara asks: If so, the two parts of the verse contradict each other, since one indicates that his height reached the heavens while the other says it reached the end of the earth. The Gemara answers: Both this and that are one, the same, measure.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים נִבְרְאוּ בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ, אוֹר וָחֹשֶׁךְ, רוּחַ וּמַיִם, מִדַּת יוֹם וּמִדַּת לַיְלָה. § The Gemara continues to discuss Creation: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Ten things were created on the first day of Creation, and they are as follows: Heaven and earth; tohu and vohu, i.e., unformed and void; light and darkness; wind and water; the length of day and the length of night.

שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ — דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ״, תֹּהוּ וָבֹהוּ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ״, אוֹר וָחֹשֶׁךְ, חֹשֶׁךְ — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל פְּנֵי תְהוֹם״, אוֹר — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר״, רוּחַ וּמַיִם — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם״, מִדַּת יוֹם וּמִדַּת לַיְלָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד״. All of these are derived from the Torah: Heaven and earth, as it is written: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Tohu and vohu, as it is written: “And the earth was unformed and void [tohu vavohu]” (Genesis 1:2). Light and darkness; darkness, as it is written: “And darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2); light, as it is written: “And God said: Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3). Wind and water, as it is written: “And the wind of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). The length of day and the length of night, as it is written: “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5).

תָּנָא: תֹּהוּ — קַו יָרוֹק שֶׁמַּקִּיף אֶת כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יָצָא חֹשֶׁךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יָשֶׁת חֹשֶׁךְ סִתְרוֹ סְבִיבוֹתָיו״. בֹהוּ — אֵלּוּ אֲבָנִים הַמְפוּלָּמוֹת הַמְשׁוּקָּעוֹת בַּתְּהוֹם, שֶׁמֵּהֶן יוֹצְאִין מַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָטָה עָלֶיהָ קַו תֹהוּ וְאַבְנֵי בֹהוּ״. It was taught in the Tosefta: Tohu is a green line that encompasses the entire world, and from which darkness emerges, as it is stated: “He made darkness His hiding place round about Him” (Psalms 18:12), indicating that a line of darkness surrounds the world. Vohu; these are damp stones submerged in the depths, from which water emerges, as it is stated: “And He shall stretch over it the line of tohu and stones of vohu” (Isaiah 34:11), which demonstrates that tohu is a line and that vohu is referring to stones.

וְאוֹר בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן אִיבְּרִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם אֱלֹהִים בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם רְבִיעִי״! The Gemara poses a question: And was light created on the first day? But isn’t it written: “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven” (Genesis 1:17), and it is also written: “And there was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day” (Genesis 1:19), indicating that light was created on the fourth day.

כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אוֹר שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, אָדָם צוֹפֶה בּוֹ מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּסְתַּכֵּל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּדוֹר הַמַּבּוּל וּבְדוֹר הַפְּלַגָּה וְרָאָה שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם מְקוּלְקָלִים — עָמַד וּגְנָזוֹ מֵהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיִמָּנַע מֵרְשָׁעִים אוֹרָם״. The Gemara answers: This should be understood in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: The light that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the first day was not that of the sun but a different kind of light, through which man could observe from one end of the world to the other. But when the Holy One, Blessed be He, looked upon the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersion and saw that their ways were corrupt and that they might misuse this light for evil, He arose and concealed it from them, as it is stated: “And from the wicked their light is withheld” (Job 38:15).

וּלְמִי גְּנָזוֹ — לַצַּדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאוֹר כִּי טוֹב״, וְאֵין ״טוֹב״ אֶלָּא צַדִּיק, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִמְרוּ צַדִּיק כִּי טוֹב״. And for whom did He conceal it? For the righteous people in the future, as it is stated: “And God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4), and “good” is referring to none other than the righteous, as it is stated: “Say of the righteous that it shall be good for them, for they shall eat the fruit of their actions” (Isaiah 3:10).

כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה אוֹר שֶׁגְּנָזוֹ לַצַּדִּיקִים שָׂמַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹר צַדִּיקִים יִשְׂמָח״. When the light saw that it had been concealed for the righteous, it rejoiced, as it is stated: “The light for the righteous shall rejoice” (Proverbs 13:9).

כְּתַנָּאֵי: אוֹר שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, אָדָם צוֹפֶה וּמַבִּיט בּוֹ מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הֵן הֵן מְאוֹרוֹת שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן, וְלֹא נִתְלוּ עַד יוֹם רְבִיעִי. The Gemara comments: This is like a dispute between tanna’im: The light that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created on the first day was so profound that man could observe through it from one end of the world to the other; this is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov. And the Rabbis say: This light is the very same as the lights created on the first day, but they were not suspended in their designated places in the firmament until the fourth day.

אָמַר רַב זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּא אָמַר רַב: בַּעֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם: בְּחׇכְמָה וּבִתְבוּנָה וּבְדַעַת, וּבְכֹחַ וּבִגְעָרָה וּבִגְבוּרָה, בְּצֶדֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּט, בְּחֶסֶד וּבְרַחֲמִים. § Rav Zutra bar Tuvya said that Rav said: The world was created through ten attributes: Through wisdom, through understanding, through knowledge, through strength, through rebuke, through might, through righteousness, through justice, through kindness, and through mercy.

בְּחׇכְמָה וּבִתְבוּנָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״ה׳ בְּחׇכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ כּוֹנֵן שָׁמַיִם בִּתְבוּנָה״. בְּדַעַת — דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּדַעְתּוֹ תְּהוֹמוֹת נִבְקָעוּ״. בְּכֹחַ וּגְבוּרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵכִין הָרִים בְּכֹחוֹ נֶאְזָר בִּגְבוּרָה״. בִּגְעָרָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״עַמּוּדֵי שָׁמַיִם יְרוֹפָפוּ וְיִתְמְהוּ מִגַּעֲרָתוֹ״. בְּצֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט — דִּכְתִיב: ״צֶדֶק וּמִשְׁפָּט מְכוֹן כִּסְאֶךָ״. בְּחֶסֶד וְרַחֲמִים — דִּכְתִיב: ״זְכֹר רַחֲמֶיךָ ה׳ וַחֲסָדֶיךָ כִּי מֵעוֹלָם הֵמָּה״. Scriptural proof is provided for this statement as follows: It was created through wisdom and through understanding, as it is written: “The Lord founded earth with wisdom, and established the heavens with understanding” (Proverbs 3:19); through knowledge, as it is written: “With His knowledge the depths were broken up” (Proverbs 3:20); through strength and through might, as it is written: “Who by Your strength sets fast the mountains, who is girded about with might” (Psalms 65:7); through rebuke, as it is written: “The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at His rebuke” (Job 26:11); through righteousness and justice, as it is written: “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne” (Psalms 89:15); through kindness and mercy, as it is written: “Remember Your mercies, O Lord, and Your kindnesses, for they are from times of old” (Psalms 25:6).

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, הָיָה מַרְחִיב וְהוֹלֵךְ כִּשְׁתֵּי פַקְעִיּוֹת שֶׁל שְׁתִי, עַד שֶׁגָּעַר בּוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַמּוּדֵי שָׁמַיִם יְרוֹפָפוּ וְיִתְמְהוּ מִגַּעֲרָתוֹ״, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי״ — אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָעוֹלָם דַּי. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הַיָּם הָיָה מַרְחִיב וְהוֹלֵךְ, עַד שֶׁגָּעַר בּוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְיִבְּשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גּוֹעֵר בַּיָּם וַיַּבְּשֵׁהוּ וְכׇל הַנְּהָרוֹת הֶחֱרִיב״. And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, with regard to the same matter: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the world, it continued to expand like two balls of a warp, whose cord lengthens as they unravel, until the Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked it and made it stand still, as it is stated: “The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at His rebuke” (Job 26:11). And this is the same as that which Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I am the Almighty God [El Shaddai]” (Genesis 17:1)? It means: I am He Who said to the world “enough [dai],” instructing it to stop expanding. Similarly, Reish Lakish said: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the sea, it continued to expand until the Holy One, Blessed be He, rebuked it and made it dry, as it is stated: “He rebukes the sea and makes it dry, and desiccates all the rivers” (Nahum 1:4).

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שָׁמַיִם נִבְרְאוּ תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִבְרֵאת הָאָרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ״. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶרֶץ נִבְרֵאת תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם״. § Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute the order of Creation, as the Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: The heavens were created first and afterward the earth was created, as it is stated: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1), which indicates that heaven came first. And Beit Hillel say: The earth was created first, and heaven after it, as it is stated: “On the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4).

אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, אָדָם בּוֹנֶה עֲלִיָּיה וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹנֶה בַּיִת?! שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַבּוֹנֶה בַשָּׁמַיִם מַעֲלוֹתָיו וַאֲגוּדָּתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ״. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה שְׁרַפְרַף, וְאַחַר כָּךְ עוֹשֶׂה כִּסֵּא?! שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ הַשָּׁמַיִם כִּסְאִי וְהָאָרֶץ הֲדוֹם רַגְלָי״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: זֶה וָזֶה כְּאַחַת נִבְרְאוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַף יָדִי יָסְדָה אֶרֶץ וִימִינִי טִפְּחָה שָׁמָיִם קוֹרֵא אֲנִי אֲלֵיהֶם יַעַמְדוּ יַחְדָּו״. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your words, does a person build a second floor and build the first floor of the house afterward? As it is stated: “It is He Who builds His upper chambers in the heaven, and has founded His vault upon the earth” (Amos 9:6), indicating that the upper floor, heaven, was built above the earth. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your words, does a person make a stool for his feet, and make a seat afterward? As it is stated: “So said the Lord: The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). But the Rabbis say: Both this and that were created as one, for it is stated: “Indeed, My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together” (Isaiah 48:13), implying that they were created as one.

וְאִידָּךְ, מַאי ״יַחְדָּו״? דְּלָא מִשְׁתַּלְּפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי. קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כְּשֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ — בָּרָא שָׁמַיִם וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּרָא הָאָרֶץ, וּכְשֶׁנָּטָה — נָטָה הָאָרֶץ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטָה שָׁמַיִם. The Gemara asks: And the others, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, what, in their opinion, is the meaning of “together”? The Gemara responds: It means that they do not separate from each other. In other words, the term “together” is referring not to the moment of their creation but to the manner of their positioning. The Gemara comments: In any case, the verses contradict each other, as heaven is sometimes mentioned first, while on other occasions earth is listed beforehand. Reish Lakish said: When they were created, He first created the heavens and afterward created the earth, but when He spread them out and fixed them in their places, He spread out the earth and afterward He spread out the heavens.

מַאי ״שָׁמַיִם״? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: שֶׁשָּׁם מַיִם. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: אֵשׁ וּמַיִם, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֱבִיאָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּטְרָפָן זֶה בָּזֶה, וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן רָקִיעַ. Incidental to the above, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning and source of the word “heaven” [shamayim]? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: It is an acronym, shesham mayim, meaning: That water is there. It was taught in a baraita: Shamayim means esh umayim, fire and water, which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought them both and combined them together, and made the firmament from them.

שָׁאַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּשֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בַּדֶּרֶךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתָּה שֶׁשִּׁימַּשְׁתָּ אֶת נַחוּם אִישׁ גַּם זוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה, שֶׁהָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ כׇּל ״אֶתִּין״ שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, ״אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ״, מָה הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ בָּהֶן? אָמַר לוֹ: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״שָׁמַיִם״ — שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ״, ״שָׁמַיִם״ — שָׁמַיִם מַמָּשׁ, ״אָרֶץ״ — אֶרֶץ מַמָּשׁ. § The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yishmael asked Rabbi Akiva a question when they were walking along the way. He said to him: You who served Naḥum of Gam Zu for twenty-two years, who would expound and learn that every appearance of the word et in the Torah is meant to teach something, what would he expound from the phrase: “The heaven and the earth” [et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz] (Genesis 1:1)? He said to him: These words should be expounded as follows: Had it stated: In the beginning God created hashamayim veha’aretz, i.e., the heaven and the earth, without the word et, I would have said: Shamayim is the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the same goes for aretz, and the verse would sound as if it meant that God, whose name is Shamayim and Aretz, created the world. Since it states “et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz,” it is clear that these are created objects and that shamayim means the actual heaven and aretz is the actual earth. It is for this reason that the word et is necessary.