חגיגה 10 — Soncino English Talmud

¹it was against her will, in the other it was with her consent. Or you may say: in both cases it was against her will but there is no contradiction: the one case concerns a priest's wife and the other an Israelite's wife. Neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in, Rab said: As soon as man goes forth from Halachic to Scripture study he no longer has peace. And Samuel said: It means one who leaves Talmud for Mishnah. And R. Johanan said: Even [if he goes] from Talmud to Talmud. MISHNAH. [THE LAWS CONCERNING] THE DISSOLUTION OF VOWS HOVER IN THE AIR AND HAVE NOUGHT TO REST ON. THE LAWS CONCERNING THE SABBATH, FESTAL-OFFERINGS, ACTS OF TRESPASS ARE AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR, FOR THEY HAVE SCANT SCRIPTURAL BASIS BUT MANY LAWS. [THE LAWS CONCERNING] CIVIL CASES AND [TEMPLE] SERVICES, LEVITICAL CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS, AND THE FORBIDDEN RELATIONS HAVE WHAT TO REST ON, AND IT IS THEY THAT ARE THE ESSENTIALS OF THE TORAH. GEMARA. It is taught: R. Eliezer said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: When one shall clearly utter [a vow], when one shall clearly utter [a vow]: one [intimates] an utterance to bind, and the other an utterance to dissolve. R. Joshua said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Wherefore I swore in My wrath. [It means,] I swore in My wrath, but I retracted. R. Isaac said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: Whosoever is of a willing heart. Hanania, son of the brother of R. Joshua, said: They have something to rest on, for it is said: I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances. Rab Judah said that Samuel said: Had I been there I should have said to them: My [Scriptural proof] is better than yours, for it is said: He shall not break his word. ‘He’ may not break it, but others may dissolve it for him. Raba said: To all these [proofs] objection can be made except to that of Samuel, against which no objection can be raised. For against R. Eliezer [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Judah , who said it in the name of R. Tarfon. For it is taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon: Indeed, neither of them becomes a Nazirite, because Naziriteship can be assumed only by clear utterance. Against R. Joshua [it may be objected]: Perhaps this is the meaning of the verse: I swore in My wrath and did not retract’. Against R. Isaac [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse comes to] exclude the view of Samuel. For Samuel said: Though he determined in his heart, he must still utter it with his lips. And [the verse] teaches us that even though he did not utter it with his lips [it is binding]. Against Hanania, the son of the brother of R. Joshua [it may be objected]: Perhaps [the verse is to be explained] according to R. Giddal who said it in the name of Rab. For R. Giddal said that Rab said: Whence [is it to be deduced] that one may take an oath to fulfil a precept? For it is said: ‘I have sworn, and I have confirmed it, to observe Thy righteous ordinances’. But against Samuel's proof no objection can be raised. Raba, and some say, R. Nahman b. Isaac, said: This is the meaning of the popular saying: Better one grain of pungent pepper than a basketful of pumpkins. THE LAWS CONCERNING THE SABBATH. But they are written [in Scripture]! — No, it is necessary [to state this] for the teaching of R. Abba. For R. Abba said: He who digs a hole on the Sabbath and requires it only for the sake of its earth is not liable for it. According to which authority [will this be]? According to R. Simeon, who said: one is not liable for work [performed on the Sabbath] which is not required for itself. — You may even say that it is according to R. Judah: there one is improving. here one is spoiling. But why does it say: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR?37^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ

^ᵃnote:In this case she may continue to live with her husband.
^ᵇnote:In this case even if it was against her will she may no longer live with her husband (cf. Keth. 51b).
^ᶜnote:Zech. VIII, 10.
^ᵈnote:V. Glos. s.v. Halachah.
^ᵉnote:Because the Halachah provides the ultimate ruling for conduct; cf. Hershon, Talmudic Miscellany, Ch. XI, No. 33, and the lines in Longfellow's ‘Golden Legend’ beginning: The Kabbala and Talmud lore, etc. (quoted in Streane's Chagigah).
^ᶠnote:Without the Talmudic explanation and discussion the Mishnah may be misleading.
^ᵍnote:According to Rashi, from the Palestinian Talmud (or Jerusalmi) to the Babylonian Talmud which was more difficult; cf. Sanh. 24a and B.M. 85b. But according to Tosaf., from either to the other before the first is properly understood.
^ʰnote:By a Sage, to whom the person who makes the vow explains his original intention which did not include the special circumstances that now cause him to regret the vow; thus a vyrj j,p (‘a way of retraction’) is found whereby the vow can be annulled. V. Ned. 9a, 10b.
^ⁱnote:I.e., in Biblical teaching, and depend only on oral tradition; but cf. Num. XXX, 8-9.
^ʲnote:The misappropriation of holy things to secular use. V. Lev. V, 14-16.
^ᵏnote:I.e., the offering of sacrifices.
^ˡnote:V. Lev. XVIII, 6f.
^ᵐnote:[MS.M.: ‘have on whom to rest’, i.e., have good authority. V. Zeitlin, JQR. (N.S.) VII, p. 500].
^ⁿnote:I.e., the laws concerning the dissolution of vows.
^ᵒnote:Twice: in Lev. XXVII, 2 and Num. VI, 2.
^ᵖnote:Ps. XCV, R.
^ᵠnote:I.e., hastily, but in calmer mood I regretted the oath and retracted. The verse refers to God, of course; but the inference is drawn from the anthropomorphism for ill-considered human vows.
^ʳnote:The ‘change of mind’ attributed here to God with regard to the generation of the wilderness must be explained by reference to Sanh. 110b where the view is expressed that they have a share in the world to come, i.e., they were not permitted to enter Canaan, their earthly possession, but it was granted them to enter their Heavenly heritage.
^ˢnote:Ex. XXXV, 5. But if the heart be no longer willing it is possible for the vow to be dissolved (cf. discussion in Shab. 26b).
^ᵗnote:Ps. CXIX, 106. But where instead of confirmation there is retraction, the person may be released from his vow.
^ᵘnote:Num. XXX, 3.
^ᵛnote:If the assumption of the state of Nazir (v. Num. VI) was made the forfeit of a wager between two, R. Tarfon holds that neither loser nor winner is a Nazir, because Naziriteship must be explicitly vowed and cannot be assumed conditionally. This he deduces from one of the two verses cited by R. Eliezer (cf. Nazir 32b Mishnah and 34a top).
^ʷnote:To swear a certain oath.
^ˣnote:Otherwise it is no oath and he is not liable.
^ʸnote:Cited by R. Isaac.
^ᶻnote:I.e., it is meritorious to do this that he may fulfil the precept with greater zeal.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Ned. 7b.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., a sharp mind is better than mere learning.
^ᵃᶜnote:Why then does the Mishnah say that there is little Scriptural basis for them?
^ᵃᵈnote:But if he required the hole itself, he would be guilty of building on the Sabbath, v. Shab. 73b.
^ᵃᵉnote:E.g., a hole dug for the sake of its earth. R. Simeon stated this principle in connection with carrying out the dead on the Sabbath (v. Shab. 93a).
^ᵃᶠnote:Who holds that one may not carry a corpse out on the Sabbath for burial (v. ibid.).
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e. , in the case of the corpse.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., burying the corpse and achieving something desired.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., in the case of the digging of a hole.
^ᵃʲnote:The hole does not improve the ground nor is it desired for itself.
^ᵃᵏnote:Implying that some kind of support is afforded by the Torah.

²— Because the Torah prohibited [on the Sabbath] purposed work, yet purposed work is not mentioned in Scripture. [LAWS CONCERNING] FESTAL-OFFERINGS. But they are written [in Scripture]! — No, it is necessary in the light of what R. Papa said to Abaye: Whence [do we know] that [the verse]: And ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord signifies sacrifice? Perhaps the Divine Law means: Celebrate a Festival! — If so, when it is written, That they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness, would that also mean: Celebrate a festival! And should you say that it indeed means that, surely it is written: And Moses said: ‘Thou must also give into our hand beasts of killing and burnt-offerings’! — Perhaps the Divine Law means this: Eat ye and drink and celebrate a festival before Me! — Do not think of this; for it is written: Neither shall the fat of My feast remain all night until the morning. If now you suppose that it means a festival [only], has a festival fat? — But perhaps the Divine Law means this: the fat that is offered during the course of the festival should not remain overnight! — If so, then [it would imply] that only during the festival the fat may not remain overnight, but throughout the year it may remain overnight; [but behold] it is written: All night unto the morning! — [But] perhaps from this [verse alone] one would know it merely as a positive precept, therefore Scripture wrote the other [verse to enjoin it] as a prohibition! — [To enjoin it] as a prohibition there is another verse: Neither shall any of the flesh, which thou sacrificest the first day at even, remain all night until the morning — [But] perhaps [this was required] in order to impose upon him two prohibitions and one positive precept! — Rather, it can be deduced from [the word] ‘wilderness’ which occurs in two passages. Here it is written: That they may hold a feast unto Me in the wilderness. And elsewhere it is written: Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness? Just as in the latter verse [it means] sacrifices, so in the former [it means] sacrifices. Why then does it say: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR? — [Because] no inference may be drawn concerning statements of the Torah from statements of the Prophets. ACTS OF SACRILEGE. But they are written [in Scripture]! Rami b. Hama said: It is required only for that which we have learnt. If the agent did his errand [committing thereby an act of sacrilege], the householder is guilty of sacrilege; if he did not do his errand, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. But why should he be guilty if he did his errand? Shall one man sin and another become liable! That is why [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. Raba said: But what is the objection? Perhaps sacrilege is different, since we compare it with terumah through the analogous expressions for ‘sin’ [which occur in connection with both laws]: just as there the agent of a person is like himself , so here the agent of a person is like himself. Rather, said Raba, it must be required for the [following] teaching; If the householder remembered, but the agent did not remember, the agent is guilty of sacrilege. What has the poor agent done! That is why [the Mishnah says]: AS MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. R. Ashi said: What is the objection? Perhaps it is like [every other] case where one spent [in error] sacred money for secular purposes! Rather, said R. Ashi, it must be required for that which we have learnt. If a man took away a stone or a beam from Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege; but if he gave it to his fellow, he himself is guilty, but his fellow is not guilty. See now, he has taken it, what difference does it make whether he or his fellow [keeps it]! Therefore it says: LIKE MOUNTAINS HANGING BY A HAIR. But what is the objection? Perhaps it is [to be explained] according to Samuel. For Samuel said: Here^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ

^ᵃˡnote:Lit., ‘work of thought’ (cf, Ex. XXXV, 35 where it is rendered in E.V. ‘skillful workmanship’) i.e., work that achieves the purpose primarily intended; v. supra n. 9. The various kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath are deduced from the different kinds of work involved in the Tabernacle; cf. Shab. 73a (Mishnah) Rashi a.l.
^ᵃᵐnote:It is only deduced from the juxtaposition of the section concerning the Sabbath and the section concerning the construction of the Tabernacle in Ex. XXXV.
^ᵃⁿnote:Ex. XII, 14; Lev. XXIII, 41.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ibid.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., without sacrifices. Tosaf. a.l. suggests: Celebrate it with dances, taking the rt. duj to mean to dance’; cf. Ps. CVII, 27.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ex. V, 1.
^ᵃʳnote:Ibid. X, 25.
^ᵃˢnote:The ‘beasts for killing’ (Heb. ohjcz, E.V. ‘sacrifices’) would thus not refer to sacrifices (i.e., ‘peace-offerings) but to animals killed for meat only.
^ᵃᵗnote:But should be burnt on the altar before dawn. Ibid. XXIII, 18.
^ᵃᵘnote:Heb. dj, which can mean both festival and festal-offering; cf. vdhdj, the Rabbinic word for festal-offering, which is derived from the same root.
^ᵃᵛnote:But it does not follow that there is an obligation to bring a festal-offering.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., in the case of other sacrifices offered at non-festival times.
^ᵃˣnote:Lev. VI, 2, which refers to all occasions, not just to festivals: it teaches us that the limbs and fat of sacrifices slaughtered during the day may be burnt on the altar all night but not thereafter.
^ᵃʸnote:The neglect of an ordinary positive precept is not indictable; but the transgression of a prohibition entails the bringing of a sin-offering, if the offence was committed unwittingly, or the punishment of stripes (maximum thirty-nine), if the transgression was wittingly committed, unless a severer penalty is ordained by Scripture. Exceptions not involving stripes are (a) ‘a prohibitive precept transformed into a mandatory law’ i.e., when the transgression must be repaired by a succeeding act; (b) a prohibition the transgression of which involves no action. Hence, the prohibition here referred to does not involve stripes.
^ᵃᶻnote:Deut. XVI, 4.
^ᵇᵃnote:Ex. V,1.
^ᵇᵇnote:Amos V, 25.
^ᵇᶜnote:For deduction by analogy is considered support for a law.
^ᵇᵈnote:Heb. vkce Lit., ‘tradition’, a designation for post-Pentateuchal books of the Bible, which are deemed of lesser authority than the Pentateuch or Torah. V. Bacher, Exeg. Term. I, 166, II, 185.
^ᵇᵉnote:E.g., sacred money was mixed with secular money, and not knowing of this, he asked the agent to buy a garment for him with the money.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e.,the one who instructed the agent.
^ᵇᵍnote:I.e., he has to refund the value of the sacred property plus a fifth and bring a trespass-offering.
^ᵇʰnote:I.e., the householder.
^ᵇⁱnote:It is a Talmudic principle that no one is considered an agent or messenger for the committal of sin, i.e., the transgressor is liable whether he commits the sin on his own behalf or for another.
^ᵇʲnote:A portion of the produce, between a fortieth and a sixtieth, given to the priest. V. Glos.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lev. V, 15 (trespass), and Num. XVIII, 32 (terumah).
^ᵇˡnote:I.e., in the case of terumah.
^ᵇᵐnote:Deduced from the words, ‘Ye also’, in Num. XVIII, 28.
^ᵇⁿnote:Before the agent committed sacrilege by spending the money for secular use.
^ᵇᵒnote:He did not know that he was misappropriating sacred money; why then should he be held responsible?
^ᵇᵖnote:Though a person committed sacrilege in error he is held responsible; so too here in the case of the agent.
^ᵇᵠnote:By this act he takes it out of the possession of the Temple.
^ᵇʳnote:Derived from Lev. V, 16.