Beitzah 20a — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Let him vow

a thanksgiving-offering,

and he does not fulfill

through it his obligation of the festival-offering.

And likewise, if he vowed as a nazirite on condition that he would bring his offerings from second-tithe money, he is

a nazirite, but he does not shave

with second-tithe money, but rather with non-sacred money.

That is to say, his vow takes effect, and he is obligated to fulfill it, whereas his stipulation that he fulfill his obligation of the festival-offering through his thanksgiving-offering, or that he fulfill his obligation of nazirite-offerings with second-tithe money, does not take effect.

And the Gemara brings a similar incident, in which the person’s speech takes effect, whereas his stipulation does not take effect:

An incident occurred with

a certain man, who said to them

—to those surrounding him at the time of his departure from the world—in a will:

Give

—give—

him four hundred dinars to so-and-so.

And let him marry my daughter,

and he shall marry my daughter. And the man who issued the will died.

Rav Pappa said: The four hundred

dinars—

he takes,

that man shall take them, by virtue of the will.

And

as for

his daughter,

the daughter of that man,

if he wishes—

he marries,

if he wishes, he shall marry her.

If he wishes—

he does not marry.

And the Gemara precisely infers that all this is said when he preceded his statement, and only afterward stated his stipulation. But if he preceded his stipulation to his statement, the statement does not take effect.

The reason is that he said

first

“Give him

four hundred dinars,” and only afterward said

“and let him marry

my daughter”; therefore the gift of the one who issued the will takes effect, without the recipient becoming obligated to fulfill his stipulation to marry his daughter.

But if he said

the stipulation first,

“Let him marry

my daughter,” and only afterward stated the gift in the will of the deceased,

“and give him

four hundred dinars”—then only

if he marries,

if he marries his daughter—

he takes,

he receives the money.

And if he does not marry—

he does not take.

Mareimar was sitting and reciting this teaching,

the “report” that Rabbi Yohanan had said in response to the question of Reish Lakish—

in his own name,

in his own name.

Ravina said to Mareimar: You—

so teach it,

this teaching in your own name, without the question and the answer to the question.

But

we—

as he asked him,

as Reish Lakish asked

Rabbi Yohanan,

and as Rabbi Yohanan answered him—so

we teach it

this teaching.

A tanna taught before Rabbi Yitzhak bar Abba:

that which is written concerning the burnt-offering that Aaron the priest brought on the eighth day of the inauguration

“And he brought the burnt-offering, and he performed it according to the law”:

the verse teaches that Aaron performed his burnt-offering, which was an obligatory burnt-offering,

according to the law of a voluntary burnt-offering.

And here

it

is

learned

from

an obligatory burnt-offering that requires laying on of hands,

just as the verse requires with regard to a voluntary burnt-offering.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yitzhak, to the one who recited this beraita before him:

If he says to you,

the one who taught you this beraita and expounded the verse in it, and did not learn this merely by means of an inference from the voluntary burnt-offering, which requires laying on of hands—

whose

method did he follow in teaching this beraita? It must be that according to the method of

Beit Shammai it is

taught,

as they do not learn,

for they do not learn the law of laying on of hands with regard to

obligatory peace-offerings from

the law of laying on of hands with regard to

voluntary peace-offerings,

with regard to which the Torah commanded laying on of hands.

And therefore they likewise do not learn the law of laying on of hands with regard to an obligatory burnt-offering from the law of laying on of hands with regard to a voluntary burnt-offering, because according to their method it is impossible to learn an obligatory matter from a voluntary one.

For if it is Beit Hille, since they learn

Beit Hille the law of laying on of hands with regard to

obligatory peace-offerings from voluntary peace-offerings—

then according to them,

an obligatory burnt-offering also would not require a verse,

for the obligation of laying on of hands, since

they learn

an obligatory burnt-offering merely by means of an inference

from a voluntary burnt-offering,

with regard to which there is a mitzva to lay on hands, just as they learn an obligatory matter from a voluntary one with regard to peace-offerings.

And we challenge this as proof of Rabbi Yitzhak:

And from where is it that Beit Hille

laying on of hands with regard to

obligatory peace-offerings—

learn it from voluntary peace-offerings?

Perhaps Beit Hille do not learn the law of laying on of hands with regard to obligatory peace-offerings from voluntary peace-offerings, because one does not learn an obligatory matter from a voluntary one.

Rather, the law of laying on of hands with regard to obligatory peace-offerings—

Rather, they derive the requirement of laying hands for obligatory peace offerings

they learn it from an obligatory burnt-offering

They learn this according to the principle that one learns an obligatory matter from an obligatory matter, and not an obligatory matter from a voluntary one.

And

therefore,

the obligatory burnt-offering itself requires a verse

that there is in it an obligation of laying on of hands, because were it not for the verse that imposes laying on of hands on an obligatory burnt-offering, we would know the obligation of laying on of hands neither with regard to an obligatory burnt-offering nor with regard to obligatory peace-offerings.

And if so, this beraita is according to everyone!

And Rabbi Yitzhak answers: According to your words, that Beit Hille do not learn obligatory peace-offerings from voluntary peace-offerings—

what is different about

obligatory peace-offerings

from voluntary peace-offerings, that they do not learn

Beit Hille? Necessarily, the reason is

that

voluntary peace-offerings

are common,

whereas obligatory peace-offerings are not common, and one does not learn what is common from what is not common.

If so, Beit Hille also

do not learn obligatory peace-offerings from an obligatory burnt-offering—

they do not learn,

since there is a distinction between them:

For

the burnt-offering is burned

entirely

for the sake of the Most High, whereas peace-offerings are eaten by the owners and by the priest.

And the Gemara rejects this: Actually, the beraita is also according to Beit Hille. And one must expound the verse “And he brought the burnt-offering, and he performed it according to the law” to teach that an obligatory burnt-offering has laying on of hands like a voluntary burnt-offering, since one does not learn an obligatory matter from a voluntary one by means of a mere inference.

And as for what you claim, that if so Beit Hille will not learn obligatory peace-offerings from an obligatory burnt-offering, since the burnt-offering is burned entirely, one can say that obligatory peace-offerings

are derived from the combination of the two

by means of an inference, from the two among which the obligation of laying on of hands is already known to us: from the voluntary peace-offerings stated explicitly in the verse, and from the obligatory burnt-offering learned in the beraita from the verse.

For if you challenge the inference from voluntary peace-offerings: What is special about obligatory peace-offerings, since they are common? The obligatory burnt-offering, which is not common, proves that it has laying on of hands.

And if you challenge the inference from an obligatory burnt-offering: What is special about an obligatory burnt-offering, since it is burned entirely? The voluntary peace-offerings prove it, for they are not burned entirely, and they have laying on of hands.

And now the Gemara discusses Rabbi Yitzhak’s statement:

And

if

Beit Shammai hold

that

obligatory peace-offerings do not require laying on of hands?

But was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hille did not disagree concerning the laying on of hands itself

with regard to obligatory peace-offerings,

that it is required

to perform it.

Concerning what did they disagree—

concerning

the principle that

“immediately following laying on of hands is slaughter.”

For Beit Shammai say: It is not required

to slaughter immediately and at once after the laying on of hands; rather, one may lay on hands on the eve of the festival, and slaughter on the following day, on the festival.

And Beit Hille say: It is required

to slaughter immediately and at once after the laying on of hands, and therefore one may not lay on hands on the eve of the festival; rather, one lays on hands on the festival.

It follows that the beraita holds contrary to Rabbi Yitzhak’s view, and according to the tanna in the beraita, with regard to Beit Shammai one does lay hands on obligatory peace-offerings.

And we answer:

He

is Rabbi Yitzhak, who holds that according to Beit Shammai one does not lay hands on obligatory peace-offerings,

who says—

like this tanna

in a beraita, who holds as he does:

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hille did not disagree concerning “immediately following laying on of hands is slaughter”—

that it is required.

Concerning what did they disagree—

concerning the laying on of hands

with regard to obligatory peace-offerings

itself.

For Beit Shammai say: It is not required

to lay hands on obligatory peace-offerings.

And Beit Hille say: It is required.

The Sages taught: An incident occurred with Hillel the Elder, who brought his burnt-offering

[a burnt-offering of appearance]

to the Temple courtyard,

and he wished

to lay hands upon it on the festival.

The disciples of Shammai the Elder confronted him and said to him: What is the nature of this animal?

They did not discern from it whether it was male or female; rather, they wished to ask for which type of offering he had brought it.

He said to them: It is female,

this animal, and it is unfit as a burnt-offering,

and I brought it for peace-offerings.

And it is permitted to alter the truth for the sake of the ways of peace. And Hillel did not wish to tell them the truth, that he was bringing it according to his position, that a burnt-offering of appearance may be offered also on the festival.

He wagged its tail at them,

in order to mislead them, so that they would think that he was showing them that it was female,

and they went away.

And on that day the power of Beit Shammai prevailed over Beit Hillel,

for Hillel had thereby conceded to them that he himself did not bring a burnt-offering of appearance on the festival, but only a peace-offering.

And they sought

Beit Shammai

to establish the halakha according to their view.

And there was one elder there, among the disciples of Shammai the Elder, and his name was Bava ben Buta, who knew that the halakha

in this dispute was

according to Beit Hille.