Chagigah 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

And

if the

details

were stated to Moses

in the Tent of Meeting.

The details of the laws were stated to Moses later, in the Tent of Meeting, in the Tabernacle, as it is written at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus, which deals with the laws of the offerings: “And He called to Moses, and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying.”

And Rabbi Akiva says:

both the

general principles and

the

details were stated

entirely to Moses

at Sinai!

Even those mitzvot that were written in general form at Sinai were not stated to him in that manner alone; rather, they were stated to him together with all the details of their laws, although they were not written down.

And they were repeated,

and stated again by the word of the Lord to Moses

in the Tent of Meeting.

And they were transmitted

by Moses to Israel

in the Plains of Moab.

As it is written at the beginning of the Book of Deuteronomy, which is called “the repetition of the Torah”: “On the other side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to elucidate this Torah, saying.”

And Abaye proves this point:

And if it enters your mind

that Rabbi Yishmael holds:

The burnt offering that Israel brought in the wilderness was the daily burnt offering,

and it was the same burnt offering that Israel was later commanded to offer throughout the generations, then you must conclude that when they offered the burnt offering at Sinai in the wilderness, they did not perform its flaying and cutting into pieces, since according to Rabbi Yishmael they had not yet been commanded regarding the detail of flaying and cutting into pieces, but only regarding the general category of the burnt offering.

And this is impossible.

For

is there anything

that can be such

initially,

at the first offering at Sinai,

was not required,

the daily burnt offering did not require

flaying and cutting into pieces, but ultimately,

once the Tabernacle was erected and the details of the mitzva were revealed to Moses,

did require

the daily burnt offering

to undergo flaying and cutting into pieces?!

Rather, it is certain that Rabbi Yishmael held that it was the pilgrimage burnt offering, and that they were not commanded to offer it; rather, they offered it on their own initiative, since it was an individual offering. And this was not the same pilgrimage burnt offering that they were subsequently commanded to perform with flaying and cutting into pieces.

[But it is impossible to say that they offered the daily offering on their own initiative, since it is a communal offering, and a communal offering cannot be brought without a command.]

3.

Rabbi Elazar –

It can be proven that he holds that it was the pilgrimage burnt offering, from that

as it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the daily offering:

“The daily burnt offering made at Mount Sinai.”

Rabbi Elazar says: Its procedures were stated at Sinai, but

if

itself was not offered

at Sinai.

Rather, the burnt offering that they offered at Sinai was the pilgrimage burnt offering.

Rabbi Akiva says: The daily burnt offering was offered

at Sinai,

and it never ceased again.

Rather,

if you ask: Since it never ceased again,

how do I understand

what the Holy One, blessed be He, said rhetorically:

“Did you bring Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness for forty years, O House of Israel?!”

And this indicates that they truly did not bring them, because they were rebuked on account of the sin of the Golden Calf?!

The answer is: Only the House of Israel, who were rebuked on account of the sin of the Golden Calf, indeed did not bring it; but

the tribe of Levi, who did not worship idolatry

in the incident of the Golden Calf,

did offer it.

And Abaye continues to prove his assertion that Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili all hold that the burnt offering Israel brought in the wilderness was the daily burnt offering:

a.

Beit Hillel –

That is what we said.

b.

Rabbi Akiva –

This too is what we said,

here in the beraita: Rabbi Akiva said: The pilgrimage burnt offering was offered at Sinai, and it never ceased again.

c.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili –

That he too holds that it was the daily burnt offering can be learned from that

as it was taught:

Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot when they ascended for the pilgrimage:

a

pilgrimage offering, and

peace offerings of

the festival, and

peace offerings of

rejoicing

[If he does not have the meat of peace offerings from a vow or a voluntary offering that he pledged throughout the year, he brings peace offerings of his own, so that he will have meat to eat to satiety, for the rejoicing of the festival is only through meat. Rashi].

There is

an advantage

to the

pilgrimage

offering that the other two do not have

[the festival and rejoicing offerings].

And there is

an advantage

to the festival offering that the other two do not have

[the pilgrimage and rejoicing offerings].

And

there is

an advantage

to the rejoicing offering that the other two do not have

[the pilgrimage and festival offerings].

And the tanna explains:

There is an advantage to the pilgrimage offering that the other two do not have

[the festival and rejoicing peace offerings]:

The pilgrimage offering is entirely offered to the Most High, unlike the other two,

as the peace offerings are eaten by their owners.

There is an advantage to the festival offering that the other two do not have: The festival offering existed before the Revelation, unlike the other two,

and those burnt offerings that they offered together with the peace offerings at Sinai were not pilgrimage offerings, but daily burnt offerings.

There is an advantage to the rejoicing offering that the other two do not have: The rejoicing offering applies to men and women, unlike the other two.

And we raise a difficulty against Abaye’s statement that from Rabbi Yishmael’s words it is apparent that he holds like Beit Shammai, that the offering was not the daily burnt offering:

And Rabbi Yishmael, what is the reason that you establish him as agreeing with Beit Shammai?

For

if it enters your mind that the burnt offering Israel brought in the wilderness was the daily burnt offering, is there anything that initially did not require flaying and cutting into pieces but ultimately did require flaying and cutting into pieces,

as Abaye’s inference was explained above.

But this is difficult, for it is not conclusive!

Here

we find

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who said: The burnt offering Israel brought in the wilderness was the daily burnt offering

[as is apparent from his words in the beraita that the Gemara will now cite], and nevertheless we find that he holds that the daily burnt offering

initially did not require flaying and cutting into pieces, but ultimately did require flaying and cutting into pieces

[as is demonstrated in the beraita that the Gemara will now cite]?!

As it was taught: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt offering that Israel brought in the wilderness does not require flaying and cutting into pieces, because flaying and cutting into pieces applies only

only

from the Tent of Meeting onward.

And his reason is that at Sinai only general principles, and not details such as flaying and cutting into pieces, were stated; therefore, there was no command to flay and cut into pieces the burnt offering at Sinai.

And on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts the inference that Rabbi Yishmael agrees with Beit Shammai:

Delete

[erase and omit]

Rabbi Yishmael from here,

as it is indeed possible that he agrees with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

Rav Ḥisda asked: This verse

mentioned above, “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings to the Lord—bulls,”

how is it written

[how is it to be interpreted]?

Does the word “bulls” at the end of the verse not refer back to the entire verse, so that it contains two separate matters:

a.

“And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings,”

and those burnt offerings were from

sheep,

and not from the bulls mentioned at the end.

b.

“And they sacrificed peace offerings to the Lord—bulls.”

Or perhaps the word “bulls” at the end of the verse does refer to the entire verse, and this is the intention of the verse:

the word “bulls” at the end of the verse refers to the entire verse, and this is the intention of the verse:

Both this and that

—both the burnt offerings and the peace offerings—

were bulls?

What practical difference does it make,

that is, why do we need to know what they offered, since what happened has happened [Tosafot]?

Mar Zutra said:

The practical difference is

for the division of the cantillation

[the melodies of the biblical cantillation marks]. For if the verse is divided into two matters, the word “burnt offerings” should be given an etnaḥta or zakef katan, cantillation marks that “interrupt.” But if it is all one matter, it should be given a peshata or revi'i, cantillation marks that do not “interrupt.”

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said:

The practical difference is

for one who says

[who makes a vow]:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering like the burnt offering that Israel brought in the wilderness.”

What

must he bring?

Does

it consist of bulls,

so that he too must bring a bull?

Or did they consist of sheep,

so that he must bring a sheep?

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

We learned there

in tractate Pe'a:

These are matters that have no measure

by Torah law: