Chagigah

only with those [offerings] from which the festal-offering can be brought;1 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’.2 — To intimate what R. Daniel b. Kattina learnt. For R. Daniel b. Kattina said that Rab said: Whence [is it derived] that marriages3 may not take place during the mid-festival? Because it is said: ‘And thou shalt rejoice in thy feast’, but not in thy wife.4 MISHNAH. HE THAT HAS MANY TO EAT [WITH HIM] AND FEW POSSESSIONS,5 OFFERS MANY PEACE-OFFERINGS AND FEW BURNT-OFFERINGS,6 [HE THAT HAS] MANY POSSESSIONS AND FEW TO EAT [WITH HIM] BRINGS MANY BURNT-OFFERINGS7 AND FEW PEACE-OFFERINGS. [HE THAT HAS] FEW OF EITHER, FOR HIM IS PRESCRIBED:8 ONE MA'AH OF SILVER’, ‘TWO PIECES OF SILVER’.9 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.10 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.11 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!12 — He must, therefore, have meant this: Behold they said: One may also supplement beast with beast!13 According to whom will this be? It will be neither according to Hezekiah nor according to R. Johanan.14 And should you say: It is only the Amoraim15 who differ [about it],16 but the Baraithas17 do not differ;18 but behold it says: The first meal must come from unconsecrated money!19 — The first meal means that the amount of the value of a first meal20 must be from unconsecrated money.21 ‘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;22 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.23 What is the case of the one who had not declared his intention?24 — 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!25 [Should one say], therefore, that he had no [more] people to eat with him!25 - — 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].26 And so it stands to reason;27 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:28 R. Shaman b. Abba said that R. Johanan said: 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. 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. 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. turn shows that the Baraitha refers to the supplementing of beast with beast and not of money with money. The text is in slight disorder]. 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. merely ‘compensation’ for the first day. remaining beasts on the second. in the first instance to hold over some of the offerings for the second day, R. Johanan would agree with Resh Lakish.