Beitzah 20b — the Talmud in English

And he sent ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

and brought

the

entire flock of Kedar [

superior ones ]

that was in Jerusalem, and stood them in the Courtyard, and said: Whoever wishes to perform semikha

today, on the Festival, upon a pilgrimage burnt-offering

let him come and perform semikha,

and offer it as his pilgrimage burnt-offering.

And on that day the hand of Beit Hillel prevailed, and they established the halakha in accordance with them.

And there was no person there who challenged the matter at all.

Again

there was

an incident,

after that incident in which the halakha was established in accordance with Beit Hillel,

with one of the students of Beit Hillel, who brought his burnt-offering to the Courtyard

on the Festival in order

to perform semikha upon it

and offer it.

One of the students of Beit Shammai encountered him. He said to him: What is this semikha,

that you are coming to dispute with us?

He said to him

in that same retort:

What is this silence!?

You should have been silent!

They were silent in rebuke

with a reprimand,

and he went away

the student from Beit Shammai, being rebuked.

Abaye said: Therefore,

we learn from the style of speech in the dispute that was between the student of Beit Shammai and the student of Beit Hillel that

when this Torah scholar has his fellow say a word to him,

that his fellow said to him a word of rebuke,

he should not return a word to him more

so that he should not answer him with a harsher statement

than what his fellow said to him.

And the proof is:

for he said to him, “What is this semikha,”

and he answered him: “What is this silence.”

For he answered him with that same retort, and did not answer him with a harsher expression.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel: whether the pilgrimage burnt-offering is offered on the Festival:

It was taught: Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: And just as

on Shabbat,

in a place where it is forbidden to

for the need of

an ordinary person

to perform any labor in it,

it is permitted

to offer a communal offering on it

for on High.

The Festival, which is

a place where it is permitted

to perform every aspect of food preparation

for the

need of

an ordinary person—

is it not logical that

it should be

permitted

to perform in it every aspect of the needs of “the eating of the altar,” and to offer in it even a pilgrimage burnt-offering

for on High!

Beit Shammai said to them: Vows and freewill offerings

on the Festival

prove it: for

even though the Festival is a place of

permission to

perform in it the needs of

an ordinary person.

And

in any event

it is forbidden

to bring vows and freewill offerings on it, even according to your words,

for on High.

Beit Hillel said to them: What about vows and freewill offerings—

for

so

they do not have a fixed time,

and they can bring them tomorrow—

will you say this concerning a pilgrimage burnt-offering—

for it has a fixed time.

Beit Shammai said to them: This one too

the pilgrimage burnt-offering

does not have a fixed time

specifically on the Festival, for it is possible to bring it tomorrow, during the intermediate days of the Festival!

And Beit Shammai brought a proof for their words from that

which we learned

in tractate Hagiga [9a]:

One who did not celebrate on the first Festival day of the Festival,

because he did not bring on it a pilgrimage burnt-offering and a Festival peace-offering—

he celebrates and continues

and brings a pilgrimage burnt-offering and Festival peace-offerings

throughout the entire Festival,

and also on

the last Festival day of the Festival.

Beit Hillel said to them: This one too,

the pilgrimage burnt-offering

has a fixed time,

and therefore it must be brought even on the first Festival day of the Festival.

For we learned:

If

the Festival passed and he did not celebrate,

because he did not bring the pilgrimage burnt-offering and the Festival peace-offerings during the Festival,

he is not liable for them.

That is to say, he is not obligated to rectify what he omitted, because he cannot rectify it after the Festival.

And since the pilgrimage burnt-offering has a fixed time during the Festival, it should be permitted to bring it also on the Festival, because there is concern lest he be negligent or be prevented by circumstances later during the Festival, and be unable to bring it after the Festival.

Beit Shammai said to them: But was it not already stated

a limitation concerning the Festival, “It alone shall be done for you.” And we learn from here:

“For you,”

for your needs—

but not

an offering that is

for the

need of

on High!

Beit Hillel said to them: But was it not already stated “And you shall celebrate it as a festival for the Lord.” And we have to learn from it:

«И будете праздновать его как праздник ради Господа»? И мы должны вывести отсюда:

“For the Lord”—

everything that

needs to be done

for the

need of

the Lord,

that is, it is permitted to do it on the Festival.

And perhaps you will say:

If so, what does “for you” teach?

The verse comes to exclude:

“For you”—

but not for gentiles.

And the verse likewise excludes

“for you”—

but not for dogs!

Abba Shaul states it

as the argument of the kal va-chomer of Beit Hillel

in a different formulation:

And just as on

Shabbat, which is

a place where your stove is closed,

where one may not cook anything on a stove on Shabbat,

your Master’s stove,

the altar of the Almighty,

is open

to offer an offering upon it.

The Festival, which is

a place where your stove is open,

to cook on it for your needs—

is it not logical that your Master’s stove

should be

open

to offer upon it a pilgrimage burnt-offering!

And likewise

it

is the law,

for so it must be, in order

that your table should not be full while your Master’s table is empty.

And we explain:

In what do they disagree

the first tanna and Abba Shaul, who presented the dispute and the arguments between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in different forms?

One master,

Abba Shaul, who did not say, “Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: Vows and freewill offerings prove that they are not offered on the Festival,” since

he held

that indeed

vows and freewill offerings

so

are offered on the Festival.

And the other master,

the first tanna,

held

that

they are not offered on the Festival,

and therefore Beit Shammai proved to Beit Hillel from vows and freewill offerings.

Rav Huna said: According to the words of

the first tanna,

who says that vows and freewill offerings are not offered on the Festival—

do not say

that

according to Torah law they are fit,

for they are fit for offering according to Torah law, by the exposition “for the Lord”—everything for the Lord,

and

only

the Sages decreed concerning them

not to offer them on the Festival, because of

the decree lest he delay

a person bringing his vows and freewill offerings until the Festival, so that he would have meat to eat during the Festival when he ascends for the pilgrimage. And then it is possible that an impediment will befall him, so that he will be unable to come and offer them, and he will transgress “Do not delay,” which is the prohibition against delaying the bringing of his offerings.

Rather, even according to Torah law—

they are likewise not fit

to bring them on the Festival, for they are not included in “for the Lord,” since this verse speaks only of offerings whose time is fixed for the Festival itself [such as “and you shall celebrate,” which is a Festival offering, whose time is fixed for the Festival itself].

And the proof is:

for the two loaves, which are the obligation of the day

of the Festival of Shavuot

are,

and they do not come before the Festival,

and

automatically

there is no reason to decree

concerning them

lest he delay

their baking, for he is not obligated to bake them before the Festival [as there would have been reason to decree concerning vows and freewill offerings], and nevertheless the baking of the two loaves must be done only on the eve of the Festival, since their baking was not fixed for the Festival, and it is possible to do it also on the eve of the Festival. And their baking is not similar to the slaughtering of a Festival offering, whose time is only during the Festival itself, and not before it.

And

therefore

it does not override

the baking of the two loaves,

neither Shabbat nor the Festival.

And the same is the law with vows and freewill offerings, which can also be offered on the eve of the Festival.

It was asked of them: According to the one who says that vows and freewill offerings are not offered on the Festival,

if

he transgressed and slaughtered—

what

is the law of the offering; may he sprinkle its blood on the Festival?

Rava said: He sprinkles the blood,

provided that the meat is present, and the sprinkling of the blood is effective

in order

so as

to permit the meat to be eaten,

and therefore it is a need of the Festival. But if the meat was lost or became impure, and it is not eaten, he should not sprinkle its blood, for there is no need of the Festival in this.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: He sprinkles the blood in order

so that he can

burn the sacrificial fats in the evening.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the practical difference between them

in practice?

There is a difference between them

if

the meat became impure or was lost.

According to Rava, he does not sprinkle,

since according to his view there is in sprinkling the blood when it is not needed for the Festival the matter of the decree of “rest.”

According to Rabba bar Rav Huna—

he sprinkles.

An objection was raised

against Rabba bar Rav Huna from that which was taught:

The lambs of Shavuot that one slaughtered not for their sake,

and with which one does not fulfill his obligation, but they are fit for offering,

or if he slaughtered them either before their time

before Shavuot,

or after their time,

after Shavuot—

the blood shall be sprinkled, and the meat shall be eaten.

And if it was Shabbat—

he shall not sprinkle,

because there is no need for Shabbat in sprinkling the blood, for it is forbidden to cook and roast them on Shabbat, and he cannot eat the meat on Shabbat.