חגיגה 8 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Thus he holds that the festal-offering of the fourteenth [of Nisan] is not enjoined by the Torah. The Master said [above]: ‘Beth Hillel say: [The festal-offering of the first day of the festival can be brought also] from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money’. Why? It is obligatory, and everything that is obligatory must be brought only from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money! — ‘Ulla said: When he supplements [the unconsecrated by that of the Second Tithe]. Hezekiah said: One animal may be supplemented by another animal, but money may not be supplemented by money. And R. Johanan said: Money may be supplemented by money, but one animal may not be supplemented by another animal. There is a teaching agreeing with Hezekiah and there is a teaching agreeing with R. Johanan. There is a teaching agreeing with R. Johanan: [it is written]: After the tribute; this teaches that a man must bring his obligatory offering from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. And whence [do we know] that if he desires to mix he may mix? The text teaches: According as the Lord, thy God, shall bless thee. There is a teaching agreeing with Hezekiah: [The expression] ‘after the tribute’ teaches that a man may bring his obligatory offering from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. Beth Shammai say: The first [festival] day from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. thenceforward [also] from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. Beth Hillel say: The first meal from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. thenceforward from [animals bought with Second] Tithe money. And the remaining days of Passover, a man may fulfil his obligation [also] with the tithe of cattle. Why may he not [do so] on the festival? — R. Ashi said: Lest he come to separate tithe on the festival; and it is impossible to separate tithe on the festival on account of the [marking with] red paint. What evidence is there that the [word] ‘tribute’ indicates that which is unconsecrated? — Because it is written: And the King Ahasuerus laid tribute upon the land. ISRAELITES MAY FULFIL THEIR OBLIGATION WITH VOW-OFFERINGS AND FREEWILL-OFFERINGS. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written], And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast. This includes all kinds of rejoicings as [festival] rejoicing. Hence the Sages said: Israelites may fulfil their obligation with vow-offerings, freewill-offerings and tithe of cattle; and the priests with sin-offering and guilt-offering, and with firstlings, and with the breast and the shoulder; one might [think] also with bird-offerings and meal-offerings, [therefore] Scripture teaches: ‘And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast’.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:Cf. p. 36.
^ᵇnote:If he has a large company and the festival-offering from his unconsecrated means (ihkuj) will not suffice, he is permitted to add thereto from the Second Tithe: according to Hezekiah, it means that he may purchase other festival-offerings with Second Tithe money; according to R. Johanan, he may add Second Tithe money in order to purchase a larger animal. The former deems it better that one should satisfy one's obligation to bring the festival-offering from unconsecrated means by bringing therefrom a complete offering i.e., the first, though by itself inadequate for the company; the latter prefers that every morsel of the festival-offering should contain a percentage purchased with unconsecrated money (Rashi). Tosaf. explains that R. Johanan objects to ‘dividing one's obligation’ by spreading it over two animals.
^ᶜnote:Deut. XVI, 10.
^ᵈnote:The expression ‘mix’ supports R. Johanan, because it is applicable to money and not to animals.
^ᵉnote:Ibid. I.e., with both unconsecrated and consecrated means.
^ᶠnote:Because it is obligatory then.
^ᵍnote:Though still termed festival-offerings, they are really peace-offerings of rejoicing.
^ʰnote:I.e., the first festal-offering.
^ⁱnote:Even on the same day.
^ʲnote:‘To rejoice’.
^ᵏnote:And also of course with offerings bought with Second Tithe money.
^ˡnote:I.e., satisfy his obligation after the first meal with tithe cattle, just as he may buy an offering with Second Tithe money.
^ᵐnote:Every tenth animal was designated as tithe by being marked with red paint (Bek. IX, 7); on a holy day painting, being regarded as work, is prohibited.
^ⁿnote:Esth. X, 1. The word used here xn, and ,xn in Deut. XVI, 10 are from the same root.
^ᵒnote:Deut. XVI, 14, which refers to Sukkoth, but by analogy is applicable to each of the three pilgrim festivals.
^ᵖnote:I.e., the precept to rejoice can be fulfilled only by having meat at the feast (cf. Pes. 119a), but the flesh of any kind of sacrifice will do.

²only with those [offerings] from which the festal-offering can be brought; these, then, are excluded Since the festal-offering cannot be brought from them. R. Ashi said: It is to be deduced from [the expression]. ‘And thou shalt rejoice’; these, then, are excluded because there is no [festive] joy in them. But what does R. Ashi do with [the expression]. ‘in thy feast’. — To intimate what R. Daniel b. Kattina learnt. For R. Daniel b. Kattina said that Rab said: Whence [is it derived] that marriages may not take place during the mid-festival? Because it is said: ‘And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast’, but not in thy wife. MISHNAH. HE THAT HAS MANY TO EAT [WITH HIM] AND FEW POSSESSIONS, OFFERS MANY PEACE-OFFERINGS AND FEW BURNT-OFFERINGS, [HE THAT HAS] MANY POSSESSIONS AND FEW TO EAT [WITH HIM] BRINGS MANY BURNT-OFFERINGS AND FEW PEACE-OFFERINGS. [HE THAT HAS] FEW OF EITHER, FOR HIM IS PRESCRIBED: ONE MA'AH OF SILVER’, ‘TWO PIECES OF SILVER’. HE THAT HAS MANY OF BOTH, OF HIM IT IS SAID: EVERY MAN SHALL GIVE AS HE IS ABLE, ACCORDING TO THE BLESSING OF THE LORD THY GOD, WHICH HE HATH GIVEN THEE. GEMARA. Whence shall he bring many peace-offerings? Behold He has not! — Said R. Hisda: He may supplement [unconsecrated money with Second Tithe money] and bring a large bull. Said R. Shesheth to him: Behold they said: One may supplement beast with beast! What did he mean? Should one say he meant this: Behold they said: One may supplement beast with beast, but not money with money; then he should say to him: One may not supplement money with money! — He must, therefore, have meant this: Behold they said: One may also supplement beast with beast! According to whom will this be? It will be neither according to Hezekiah nor according to R. Johanan. And should you say: It is only the Amoraim who differ [about it], but the Baraithas do not differ; but behold it says: The first meal must come from unconsecrated money! — The first meal means that the amount of the value of a first meal must be from unconsecrated money. ‘Ulla said that Resh Lakish said: If a man set aside ten beasts for his festal-offering [and] he offered up five on the first day of the festival, he may offer up the other five on the second day of the festival; R. Johanan said: Since he has interrupted [the offer- above) and not leave R. Hisda to infer what is prohibited from a statement of what is permitted. ings]. he cannot offer any more. R. Abba said: But they do not differ: the one speaks of an instance where he did not declare his intention, and the other speaks of an instance where he did declare his intention. What is the case of the one who had not declared his intention? — Should one say that there is no time left in the day to offer them, then the reason for his not offering them was because there is no time left in the day! [Should one say], therefore, that he had no [more] people to eat with him! - — No, it refers to a case where there was time left in the day [to offer] and he had people to eat with him; seeing that he did not offer them on the first day [of the festival] it proves that he left them over [intentionally]. And so it stands to reason; for when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said that R. Johanan said: If a man set aside ten beasts for his festal-offering, [and] he offered five the first day of the festival, he may offer the other five on the second day of the festival. [Now the two statements of R. Johanan] contradict one another! Surely, therefore, you must learn from this that in the one case he does not declare his intention and in the other he does declare his intention. Proven. It is also reported: R. Shaman b. Abba said that R. Johanan said:^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ᵠnote:V. p. 33, n. 3. Cf. also infra 10b.
^ʳnote:I.e., since Scripture has no redundant expressions, what teaching does he derive from it.
^ˢnote:Lit., ‘they may not take wives’.
^ᵗnote:V. M.K. 8b.
^ᵘnote:I.e., cattle (cf. Aramaic ihxfb cattle, herd), which, in contradistinction to land (immovable property), originally constituted essential (movable) wealth. The root xfb means to slaughter; cf. Latin pecunia from pecus (Goldschmidt). Cf. also chattels from cattle. Jastrow offers a different explanation.
^ᵛnote:Respectively for festal and pilgrimage sacrifices.
^ʷnote:In accordance with Deut. XVI, 17.
^ˣnote:By the Rabbis.
^ʸnote:V. p. 2, nn. 2, 4.
^ᶻnote:Deut. XVI, 17.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. p. 38, the views of Hezekiah and R. Johanan.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., let R. Shesheth, who follows Hezekiah's view, say distinctly what is prohibited (exactly as Hezekiah does
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., and not merely money with money.
^ᵃᵈnote:As neither of them permits the supplementing of both money with money and beast with beast.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘speakers’: the Talmudic scholars who were active from the time of the conclusion of the Mishnah (C. 220 C.E.) to the end of the fifth century, and compiled almost the whole of the Gemara; v. Glos. s.v. Amora. Here Hezekiah and R. Johanan are referred to.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., regarding the permissibility of supplementing money with money and adding beast to beast.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lit., ‘extraneous (teachings)’: the generic term for Tannaitic teachings not included in the Mishnah, v. Glos.
^ᵃʰnote:The Baraithas quoted above (pp. 38, 39) in support of Hezekiah and R. Johanan respectively do not contradict each other regarding the permissibility of adding money to money, only regarding the adding of beast to beast, which the first Baraitha prohibits and the second permits. Thus R. Shesheth will agree with the second Baraitha which permits the adding of beast to beast as well as money to money.
^ᵃⁱnote:This presumably means that the whole of the flesh of the first meal must come from unconsecrated money, which in turn shows that the Baraitha refers to the supplementing of beast with beast and not of money with money.
^ᵃʲnote:[I.e..the amount required to constitute generally a first festal meal and not, as assumed, the whole of the first meal. The text is in slight disorder].
^ᵃᵏnote:Thus the Baraitha may refer both to animals and money.
^ᵃˡnote:Rashi explains: One must not suppose that by offering the remaining beasts on the second day (i.e. , the first day of the mid-festival) he is transgressing the commandment to keep one day as a feast i.e., to offer his festal offerings on the first day (deduced infra p. 44 from Lev. XXIII, 41, ‘and ye shall keep it (only) a feast’), for the second day he is merely ‘compensating’ for the dues of the first. But according to R. Hananel (quoted in Tosaf’. rzuj v"s ) hba cuy ouh(‘the second day’) means, or should read, iurjt cuy ouh (‘the last day of the festival’); and he explains that one should not think that since vow-offerings and freewill-offerings cannot be brought on a festival day, therefore the remaining beasts may not be offered then; for these sacrifices are to be regarded as festal-offerings not as vow- or freewill-offerings, since in the first place they were set aside for that purpose. This interpretation is supported by the J.T.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., he said explicitly I set all of them aside for the first day; if then he offers some on the second day, they are merely ‘compensation’ for the first day.
^ᵃⁿnote:That you rule that he cannot offer them any more.
^ᵃᵒnote:But his intention was to offer them on the first day.
^ᵃᵖnote:In order to provide a feast for the second day.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e.. that R. Johanan would grant that if he declared his intention to offer them all on the first day, he may offer the remaining beasts on the second.
^ᵃʳnote:This is an Amoraic (v. p. 41, n. 3) corroboration to the effect that where it is evident that the pilgrim did not intend in the first instance to hold over some of the offerings for the second day, R. Johanan would agree with Resh Lakish.