Chagigah 6b — the Talmud in English

6

If the

particulars

were said to Moses

in the Tent of Meeting.

The particulars of the laws were said 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

both the

particulars were said

all of them to Moses

at Sinai!

Even those mitzvot that were written in a general manner at Sinai were not said to him in that manner, but were said to him together with all the particulars of their laws; only, they were not written.

And they were repeated,

and said again by the mouth of the Lord to Moses

in the Tent of Meeting.

And they were transmitted in detail

by the mouth of Moses to Israel

in the plains of Moab.

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

And Abaye proves:

And if it enters your mind

that Rabbi Ishmael holds that

the olah that Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily olah,

and it was that same olah that Israel were commanded to offer for all generations, then necessarily, when they offered the olah at Sinai in the wilderness, they did not perform flaying and dismemberment on it, since according to Rabbi Ishmael they had not yet been commanded concerning the particular requirement of flaying and dismemberment, but only concerning the general principle of the olah.

And this is not possible.

For

is there such a thing,

is it possible for this to be so,

that at first,

at the first offering at Sinai,

it did not require,

the daily olah did not require

flaying and dismemberment, and at the end,

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

it did require

the daily olah

flaying and dismemberment?!

Rather, certainly Rabbi Ishmael held that it was a pilgrimage olah, and they were not commanded concerning it, but made it on their own initiative, since it is an individual offering. And this is not the same pilgrimage olah that they were later commanded to perform with flaying and dismemberment.

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

3.

Rabbi Elazar —

It should be proved that he holds that it was a pilgrimage olah, from this

as it was taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the daily offering:

“The daily olah made at Mount Sinai.”

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

if

itself was not offered

at Sinai.

Rather, that olah which they offered at Sinai was a pilgrimage olah.

Rabbi Akiva says: The daily olah was offered

at Sinai,

and thereafter it did not cease.

Rather,

if you might ask: Since it did not cease thereafter,

how do I establish

what the Holy One, blessed be He, said in the language of astonishment:

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

And it implies that they truly did not bring them, because they were rejected on account of the incident of the calf?!

Your answer is: Only the House of Israel, who were rejected on account of the incident of the calf, indeed did not bring them; but

the tribe of Levi, who did not worship idolatry

[in the incident of the calf]

did offer it.

And Abaye continues to prove what he said: that Beit Hillel, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yosei the Galilean all hold that the olah that Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily olah:

a.

Beit Hillel —

that which we said.

b.

Rabbi Akiva —

This too, that which we said,

here in the baraita: Rabbi Akiva said: The pilgrimage olah was offered at Sinai and thereafter did not cease.

c.

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean —

That he too holds that it was the daily olah, you learn from this

as it was taught:

Israel were commanded three mitzvot when they went up for the pilgrimage festival:

the

pilgrimage olah, and

the

festival peace-offerings, and

the

rejoicing peace-offerings

[If he does not have the meat of peace-offerings from a vow or a freewill offering that he vowed or offered throughout the year, he brings peace-offerings of his own, to have meat for satiety, for the rejoicing of the festival is only with meat. Rashi].

There is

an advantage

in the

pilgrimage

olah that is not in both of them

[the festival peace-offerings and the rejoicing peace-offerings].

And there is

an advantage

in the festival peace-offerings that is not in both of them

[the pilgrimage olah and the rejoicing peace-offerings].

And

there is

an advantage

in the rejoicing peace-offerings that is not in both of them

[the pilgrimage olah and the festival peace-offerings].

And the tanna explains:

There is in the pilgrimage olah what is not in both of them

[the festival peace-offerings and the rejoicing peace-offerings]:

for the pilgrimage olah goes entirely to the Most High, which is not so with both of them,

for they are peace-offerings whose meat is eaten by their owners.

There is in the festival peace-offerings what is not in both of them: for the festival peace-offerings existed before the proclamation, which is not so with both of them,

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

There is in the rejoicing peace-offerings what is not in both of them: for the rejoicing applies to men and to women, which is not so with both of them.

And we raise an objection to what Abaye said, that from Rabbi Ishmael’s words it is proved that he holds like Beit Shammai, that that olah was not the daily olah:

And Rabbi Ishmael, for what reason do you establish him as following Beit Shammai?

For

if it enters your mind that the olah that Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily olah, is there such a thing that at first it did not require flaying and dismemberment and at the end did require flaying and dismemberment,

as Abaye’s inference was explained above.

And one should challenge this, for it is not compelled!

Here

we find

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, who said: The olah that Israel offered in the wilderness was the daily olah

[as is understood from his words in the baraita that the Gemara will now bring], and nevertheless we find that he holds that the daily olah

at first did not require flaying and dismemberment, and at the end did require flaying and dismemberment

[as is demonstrated in the baraita that the Gemara will now bring]?!

As it was taught: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: The olah that Israel offered in the wilderness does not require flaying and dismemberment. For flaying and dismemberment is only

only

from the Tent of Meeting onward.

And his reason is that at Sinai only general principles were said, and not particulars such as flaying and dismemberment; therefore, concerning the Sinai olah there was no command of flaying and dismemberment.

And on account of this objection, the Gemara retracts the necessity that Rabbi Ishmael holds like Beit Shammai:

Erase

[delete and omit]

from here Rabbi Ishmael,

for indeed it is possible that he holds like Rabbi Yosei the Galilean.

Rav Hisda raised a question: This verse

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

how is it written

[how is it interpreted]?

Is the word “bulls” at the end of the verse not referring to the entire verse, and are two separate matters included in it:

a.

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

and those olot were from the

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 refers to the entire verse, and this is the intention of the verse:

Both this and that

— both these, the olot and the peace-offerings —

were bulls?

What practical difference is there,

that is to say: Why do we need to know what they offered, when what happened has happened [Tosafot]?

Mar Zutra said:

There is a practical difference

concerning the division of the cantillation

[the melodies of the cantillation marks]. For if the verse is divided into two matters, the word “olot” should be marked with an atnah or a zaqef qaton, for these cantillation marks “interrupt.” But if it is all one matter, it should be marked with cantillation such as pashta or revi‘i, which are cantillation marks that do not “interrupt.”

Rav Aha son of Rava said:

There is a practical difference

concerning one who says

[vows]:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah like the olah that Israel offered in the wilderness.”

What

must he bring?

Whether

they were bulls,

and this one too will bring a bull.

Or they were sheep,

and he will bring a sheep.

And we conclude:

It remains unresolved.

We learned there

in tractate Peah:

These are matters that have no measure

according to Torah law: