1 And that which they have need of, both young bullocks and rams and lambs, for burnt-offerings to the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine and oil, according to the word of the priests that are in Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail? — Said R. Isaac to him: [Here is something] out of your own package: That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savour unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons. But even so, is not the action still a meritorious one, seeing that it has been taught: ‘If a man says, I offer this sela’ for charity in order that my children may live and in order that through it I may merit the future world, he may still be a wholly righteous man?’ — There is no contradiction; this statement applies to Israelites, there we speak of heathens. Alternatively I may say that we know he deteriorated because it is written, with three rows of great stories and a row of new timber, and let the expenses be given out of the king's house. Why did he make these conditions? He thought to himself, If the Jews revolt against me, I will burn it with fire. But did not Solomon do the same thing, as it is written, three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams? — Solomon placed the wood above and he placed it below; Solomon sunk it in the building and he did not sink it in the building; Solomon plastered it over and he did not plaster it over. R. Joseph, (or, as some say, R. Isaac) said: Whence do we know that he deteriorated? From here: And the king said unto me, the shegal also sitting by hint. What is ‘shegal’? Rabbah b. Lema said In the name of Rab, a she-dog. But if that is so, what are we to make of the verse, But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven, and they have brought the vessels of His house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy shegaloth and thy concubines have drunk wine in them. Now how can ‘shegal’ here be a dog? Do dogs drink wine? — This is no difficulty, as [we can suppose that] it was taught to drink. But what of the verse where it is written, Kings’ daughters are among thy favourites, at thy right hand doth stand the shegal in gold of Ophir? Now if ‘shegal’ is a dog, what promise is the prophet bringing to Israel? — What he means is this: Because the Torah is as dear to Israel as a ‘shegal’ to the heathens, you have earned as your reward the gold of Ophir. Alternatively I may say that ‘shegal’ does as a rule mean ‘queen’, but in this case Rabbah b. Lema had a tradition [that it means ‘dog’], and the reason why [in the text] it is called ‘shegal’ is because it was as dear to him as a queen; or, possibly, because he put it on the queen's seat. Alternatively I may say that we know he deteriorated from here: Unto a hundred talents of silver and to a hundred measures of wheat and to a hundred baths of wine and salt without prescribing how much. At first there was no limit, but now he made a limit. But perhaps at first he simply had not decided on the limit? The truth is that the best explanation is that which was given first. AND FOR FESTIVALS. How can [New Year] for the festivals be on the first of Nisan? It is surely on the fifteenth of Nisan? — R. Hisda said: What it means is that the festival which occurs in it is the New Year for the festivals. The legal import of this rule is for determining when one who makes a vow transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’. and R. Simeon is here followed, as it has been taught: Whether a man makes a vow, or sanctifies, or makes a valuation, as soon as three festivals elapse [before he carries out his word], he transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’. R. Simeon says: The three festivals must be in order, with Passover first. So too R. Simeon b. Yohai used to say: The festivals [referred to] are sometimes three [in number], sometimes four, sometimes five. For instance, if a man made a vow before Passover, they are three, if before Pentecost five, if before Tabernacles four. Our Rabbis taught: Those who are liable for a money valuation, for a valuation, for a herem, for consecrations, for sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, charity contributions, tithes, firstborn and tithe of cattle, paschal lamb,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗ
2 gleanings, forgotten sheaves and corners of the field, as soon as three festivals have elapsed transgress the precept of ‘not delaying’. R. Simeon said: The three festivals must be in order, with Passover first. R. Meir said: As soon as one festival has passed, he transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: As soon as two festivals have elapsed, he transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: As soon as the feast of Tabernacles has passed, he transgresses the precept of ‘not delaying’. What is the reason of the First Tanna? — Let us see, [he says]: The text has been speaking of them [the three festivals]. Why then does it repeat, on the feast of unleavened bread, on the feast of weeks, and on the feast of tabernacles? We must understand it to be laying down the rule for ‘not delaying’. R. Simeon again says that there was no need [even so] to repeat ‘on the feast of tabernacles’, of which the text was just speaking. Why then was it mentioned? To show that this one must be the last. What is R. Meir's reason? — Because it is written, And thither thou shalt come and thither ye shall bring. What do the Rabbis [say to this]? — They say that this constitutes only a positive injunction. What has R. Meir [to say to this]? — [He says that] since the All-Merciful told him to bring and he did not bring, automatically he has transgressed the precept of ‘not delaying’. What is the reason of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? Because it is written, These ye shall offer unto the Lord in your appointed seasons; the minimum of ‘seasons’ is two. What do the Rabbis [say to this]? — [They say] that this word is required for the exposition of R. Jonah; for R. Jonah said, All the festivals are put on the same footing with one another, to show that all atone for the uncleanness of the Sanctuary and its holy things. What is the reason of R. Eleazar son of Simeon? As it has been taught: R. Eleazar son of Simeon said: There was no need for the feast of Tabernacles to be mentioned in this verse, as the text was already speaking of it. Why then was it mentioned? To show that this one is the determining factor. What exposition then do R. Meir and R. Eliezer b. Jacob give of the words ‘on the feast of unleavened bread and on the feast of weeks and on the feast of tabernacles’ ? — They require them for the same purpose as R. Eleazar b. Oshaia. For R. Eleazar b. Oshaia said: How do we know that [a sacrifice due but not brought on] Pentecost can be made up for during the next seven days? Because it says, On the feast of unleavened bread and on the feast of weeks and on the feast of tabernacles. Just as [a sacrifice not brought on the first day of] the feast of Passover can be made up for during the next seven days, so [a sacrifice not brought on] the Feast of Weeks can be made up for during the next seven days. But why should not the Feast of Weeks be put on the same footing [in this respect] as the feast of Tabernacles, so that just as in that case [the duration of the festival is] eight days, so here eight days [should be allowed]? — The eighth day [of Tabernacles] is a separate festival. I can still say that we call the eighth day a separate festival in respect of P'Z'R’ K'SH'B’, but that in the matter of compensation all agree that this can be made on it for the first day, as we have learnt: If one did not bring his festival sacrifice on the first day of Tabernacles, he can bring during the whole of the festival, including the last day of the festival? — If you grasp a lot you cannot hold it, if you grasp a little you can hold it. But what injunction then did the All-Merciful indicate by mentioning the festival of Tabernacles [in this verse]? — [It is mentioned] in order to be put on the same footing as the feast of Passover [in this respect]:ᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠ