Chagigah

and the details in the Tent of Meeting.1 But R. Akiba said: The general directions and the details were given at Sinai2 and repeated in the Tent of Meeting and enjoined a third time in the Plains of Moab.3 Now if you suppose that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the [statutory] continual burnt-offering4 , is it possible for a sacrifice not to require flaying and dissection at first5 and later to require flaying and dissection? 6 ‘R. Eleazar’, for it was taught: It is it continual burnt-offering, which was offered in Mount Sinai.7 R. Eleazar said: The manner of its offering was enjoined at Sinai, but it was not actually offered up.8 R. Akiba said: It was offered up and was never discontinued. But how am I to explain [the verse]: Did you bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?9 — The tribe of Levi, who were not guilty of idol worship.10 offered them up.11 ‘Beth Hillel’, as we have said [above]. ‘R. Akiba’, also, as we have said [above]. ‘R. Jose the Galilean’,for it is taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: Three precepts are enjoined upon Israel when they make their pilgrimage at a festival: the pilgrimage-offering and the festal-offering and the rejoicing.12 The pilgrimage-offering has something that the other two have not;13 and the festal-offering has something that the other two have not; and the rejoicing has something that the other two have not. The pilgrimage-offering has something that the other two have not, for the pilgrimage-offering is offered entirely to God, which is not the case with the other two. The festal-offering has something that the other two have not, for the festal-offering obtained prior to the Revelation,14 which was not the case with the other two. The rejoicing has something which the other two have not, for the rejoicing applies to both men and women,15 which is not the case with the other two.16 With reference to R. Ishmael, why do you represent him as agreeing with Beth Shammai?17 [Because you argue]: If it were supposed that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering, is it possible for a sacrifice not to require flaying and dissection at first and later to require flaying and dissection? But behold R. Jose the Galilean said [distinctly]18 that the burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness was the continual burnt-offering; [and yet he held that] at first it did not require flaying and dissection, and later it did require flaying and dissection. For it is taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: The burnt-offering which the Israelites offered in the wilderness did not require flaying and dissection, because flaying and dissection came into force only from [the erection of] the Tent of Meeting onward!19 — Strike out R. Ishmael from here.20 R. Hisda asked: How is this verse to be understood: And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt-offerings [namely] lambs, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord?21 Or Perhaps both were oxen?22 What difference does it make? Mar Zutra said: In regard to the punctuation.23 R. Abba, the son of Raba, said: In regard to one who says: I vow [to offer] a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness. What [must he offer]? Were they oxen or lambs? — It remains [undecided]. We have learnt elsewhere:24 The following things Meeting. whilst the continual burnt-offering. like all burnt-offerings, required flaying and dissection, v. Lev. I, 6; therefore it must be pilgrimage-offerings that are referred to in Ex. XXIV, which they offered on their own accord and which were consequently not subject to any of the detailed laws governing burnt-offerings (Rashi). offered, because Israel was under divine censure. free-will gifts or as tithe, did not suffice for all, additional peace-offerings had to be brought as offerings of rejoicing. called festal-offerings (vdhdj) because they were the fulfilment of Ex. V, 1. As R. Jose holds that the pilgrimage-offerings were not prior to the Revelation, he is in agreement with Beth Hillel. days’ vgca kf ihnuka, vk ah vjnava incumbent on men only. should avoid representing R. Ishmael as agreeing with Beth Shammai. would require the word ,ukg to have a disjunctive accent (e.g.. ethnahta, as in our texts), and the second would require a conjunctive accent (e.g.. Pashta or Rebia’). But actually the Neginoth are of Post-Talmudic origin; v. J.E. Vol. I p. 157, 6, prg. 7. For doubtful verse-division cf. also Yoma 5a-b. V. also Ned., Sonc. ed., p. 113, n. 5.