Chagigah 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

The verse juxtaposed rejoicing with the festival offering in order to teach you:

those from which a festival offering may be brought

fulfill the obligation of rejoicing through them;

these—

birds and meal-offerings—

are excluded, since a festival offering cannot be brought from them,

as it is stated with regard to the festival offering: “the fat of My festival offering,” whereas birds and meal-offerings have no fat.

Rav Ashi said: It is derived from

“and you shall rejoice

in your festival”:

the flesh of birds and the remnants of meal-offerings are excluded,

as they do not contain

in their consumption

rejoicing.

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rav Ashi, this phrase “in your festival”

what does he do with it?

And we explain:

That

verse, “in your festival,”

is needed for the teaching of Rav Daniel bar Ketina, as Rav Daniel bar Ketina said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that one may not marry during the Festival?

As it is stated: “And you shall rejoice in your festival,”

in your festival,

but not with your wife!

That is, one should not set aside the joy of the Festival and occupy himself with the joy of his wife [Moed Katan 8b].

Mishna:

a.

One who has many people to feed

[who depend upon him to provide them with meat during the Festival],

and

he has

few assets—

he

brings

sacrifices of

peace-offerings

[the festival offering]

in abundance

according to the number of people to feed,

and

burnt-offerings

of appearance in small number.

b. One who has

many assets and few people to feed—

he

brings burnt-offerings

of appearance

in abundance,

[as it is written: “Three times a year shall all your males appear”—a man according to the gift of his hand, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that He has given you],

and peace-offerings

for the festival offering

in small number,

so that he will not bring the sacrificial meat that would be left over to the point of disqualification [Meiri].

And if you would say

only

the amoraim disagree,

that is, the amoraim—Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Yoḥanan—are the only ones who disagree over whether money may be combined with other money, but

the baraitot do not disagree,

the baraitot disagree only with regard to combining one animal with another animal, whereas both agree that money may be combined with other money.

Therefore Rav Sheshet challenged Rav Ḥisda, relying on the statements of the baraitot: In addition to the fact that money may be combined with other money [which is not a matter disputed by the tannaim, as all the tannaim in the baraitot agree to it], one tanna in one of the baraitot holds that even one animal may be combined with another animal, and Rav Sheshet agrees with him. Therefore he argued to Rav Ḥisda: They said that even one animal may be combined with another animal.

It is impossible to interpret it this way.

For

it is taught

in that baraita:

“The first eating is from non-sacred produce!”

This implies that at the first meal brought to the table there will be only non-sacred meat; that is, he must bring a separate animal from non-sacred funds for the first eating, and he may not combine money with other money, since in that case even the first eating would be a mixture of both sources?!

And we explain: Actually, as we said, the second baraita includes the combining of money with other money. And

what is the meaning of “the first eating”

that they stated in the baraita?

The value of the first eating must be from non-sacred funds.

Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish:

If a man

set aside ten animals for his festival offering,

and

sacrificed five on the first Festival day,

he may return and sacrifice five on the second Festival day,

and he does not thereby violate the prohibition of adding to the mitzvot, despite what the Torah states: “And you shall celebrate that festival,” meaning one day and no more. For even the peace-offerings that he sacrifices on another day are the peace-offerings of the first day, and he is sacrificing them now as compensation [Rashi].

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Once he has stopped

sacrificing on the first day,

he may no longer sacrifice

them on another day.

Rabbi Abba said: They do not disagree,

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan, because:

Here—

in the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that once he has stopped sacrificing he may not sacrifice them—this refers

to an unspecified case,

where he did not explicitly set them aside in order to sacrifice them on the first day [Rashi].

Here—

in the statement of Reish Lakish, who said that he may return and sacrifice them—

to an explicitly designated case:

at the time he set them aside, he explicitly designated them for the first day, and therefore their sacrifice on another day is considered compensation for that day [Rashi].

And we explain it:

What is the unspecified case

in which, as you say, he may no longer sacrifice them?

What are the circumstances?

For what reason did he not sacrifice them on the first day?

If you say

that he did not sacrifice them on the first day because

there was not enough time during the day to sacrifice them

[the time was insufficient for him to sacrifice them]—

It is impossible to interpret it this way, because:

The reason he did not sacrifice them [Baḥ]

was that there was not enough time during the day;

therefore, presumably, he had set them aside with the intention of sacrificing them on the first day, and his status is that of one who explicitly designated them for sacrifice on the first day, in which case he may also sacrifice them on the following day.

is presumably that he set them aside in order to offer them on the first day. He is therefore considered to have specified that they were to be offered on the first day, and he may offer them on the following day as well.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the case is one in which he did not sacrifice them on the first day because

he did not have people to eat

[he did not have enough people who would eat the meat and leave none over].

This too cannot be the interpretation. For:

Let us say [Baḥ]

that

the reason he did not sacrifice them

all on the first day

was that he did not have

at that time

people to eat.

Nevertheless, initially he had set them aside for the first day.

No, it is necessary—

rather, the case must necessarily be one in which

there was enough time during the day

to sacrifice all the offerings he had set aside,

and

he also

had people to eat them,

but nevertheless he did not sacrifice them.

Therefore we infer:

Since on the

first

day he did not

sacrifice them [since he did not sacrifice them on the first day],

since he did not offer them on the first day],

infer from this—

that he deliberately left them over!

His eventual conduct proves his initial intention: initially he had set them aside with the intention of sacrificing them on two days. Therefore, he may not sacrifice them again on the second day.

And this too is logically evident,

that Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees that, in an unspecified case, he may sacrifice them on two days.

For

this is what

Ravin said when he came: Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one set aside ten animals for his festival offering,

and

sacrificed five on the first Festival day,

he

may return and sacrifice five on the second Festival day.

And seemingly,

the statements

of Rabbi Yoḥanan

contradict one another [for Rabbi Yoḥanan contradicts his own earlier statement, that he may not sacrifice them on another day]?!

for Rabbi Yoḥanan contradicts his own earlier statement, in which he said that he may not offer them on another day]?!

Rather, is it not the case that one may infer

that a distinction must be made in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements:

here, in an unspecified case,

he may return and sacrifice them;

here, in an explicitly designated case,

he may not return and sacrifice them.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this.

It was also stated

in accordance with what we said regarding Rabbi Yoḥanan: If there is no indication that initially he intended to sacrifice them over two days, he may sacrifice them over two days.

d.

Rav Shemen bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

to explain the baraita [mentioned on this page after the Mishna], where we learned: “That one you shall celebrate, but you shall not celebrate all seven days”: