Beitzah 20aביצה כ׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
20aכ׳ א

ואגלח ממעות מעשר שני מהו א"ל נדור ואינו יוצא נזיר ואינו מגלח:

and I will shave my head, meaning I will purchase the nazirite offerings that are brought when a nazirite shaves himself, with second-tithe money, which I am obligated in any case to bring to Jerusalem, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the thanks-offering, he has vowed and must bring the offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation of the Festival peace-offering with it, as the latter offering must be brought from unconsecrated animals. Similarly, one who took the vow of naziriteship is a nazirite, but he may not shave his head and bring nazirite offerings purchased with second-tithe money.

ההוא גברא דאמר להו הבו ליה ארבע מאה זוזי לפלוני ולנסיב ברתי אמר רב פפא ארבע מאה שקיל וברתיה אי בעי נסיב אי בעי לא נסיב

In relation to the previous case, in which one makes a conditional statement and only part of his statement is accepted, the Gemara relates a somewhat similar incident: A certain man said to those tending to him, in the form of a will: Give four hundred zuz to so-and-so, and let him marry my daughter. Rav Pappa said: The four hundred zuz he takes, but as for the benefactor’s daughter, if he wishes, he may marry her, and if he wishes, he need not marry her.

טעמא דאמר הבו ליה ולנסיב אבל אי אמר לנסיב והבו ליה אי נסיב שקיל ואי לא נסיב לא שקיל:

The Gemara comments: The reason is solely that he said it in this manner: Give him the money and let him marry my daughter, mentioning the gift before the condition. However, if he specified the condition first, by saying: Let him marry my daughter and give him the money, in that case, if he marries her, he takes the money, but if he does not marry her, he may not take it.

יתיב מרימר וקאמר להא שמעתא משמיה דנפשיה א"ל רבינא למרימר אתון הכי מתניתו לה אנן כדבעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן מתנינן לה:

The Gemara relates: Mareimar sat and stated this halakha with regard to one who attaches a condition to his vow to bring a thanks-offering in his own name, without attributing it to the Sage who stated it. Ravina said to Mareimar: You teach this halakha in this manner, without attribution, whereas we teach it in the form of a question that Reish Lakish asked of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

תני תנא קמיה דר' יצחק בר אבא (ויקרא ט, טז) ויקרב את העולה ויעשה כמשפט כמשפט עולת נדבה למד על עולת חובה שטעונה סמיכה

§ A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba: The verse concerning the burnt-offering that Aaron was commanded to sacrifice for the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “And he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation” (Leviticus 9:16), indicates that the halakha of an obligatory burnt-offering is similar to the regulation governing a gift burnt-offering. This teaches with regard to an obligatory burnt-offering that it too requires the person bringing the offering to place his hands on the head of the animal to be sacrificed.

א"ל דאמר לך מני בית שמאי היא דלא גמרי שלמי חובה משלמי נדבה דאי בית הלל כיון דגמרי שלמי חובה משלמי נדבה עולת חובה נמי לא תבעי קרא דגמרי מעולת נדבה

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to the tanna: He who told you that this halakha requires an explicit biblical source, in accordance with whose opinion did he say this? It is that of Beit Shammai, who do not learn the halakha of obligatory peace-offerings from that of gift peace-offerings by way of an analogy [binyan av], as they distinguish between the two with regard to the requirement of placing hands on the peace-offerings brought on a Festival. As, if it were the opinion of Beit Hillel, since they learn the halakha of obligatory peace-offerings from that of gift peace-offerings, there being no distinction between the two categories, then an obligatory burnt-offering should also not require a special verse to teach this halakha, as they can learn it from the halakha governing a gift burnt-offering by means of an analogy.

וממאי דבית הלל שלמי חובה משלמי נדבה גמרי דלמא מעולת חובה גמרי ועולת חובה גופא בעיא קרא

The Gemara asks: And from where may it be shown that Beit Hillel learn the halakhot of obligatory peace-offerings from those of gift peace-offerings? Perhaps they do not learn the halakhot of obligatory peace-offerings from those of gift peace-offerings. Rather, they learn the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings from the halakha governing an obligatory burnt-offering: Just as an obligatory burnt-offering requires the one bringing the offering to place his hands on the animal to be sacrificed, so too do obligatory peace-offerings. And an obligatory burnt-offering itself requires an explicit verse from which to derive this halakha, and perhaps the verse cited above is the source: “And he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation.”

מאי שנא משלמי נדבה דלא גמרי שכן מצויין מעולת חובה נמי לא גמרי שכן כליל

The Gemara challenges this argument: What is different about obligatory peace-offerings such that Beit Hillel do not learn the halakha governing them from the halakha applying to gift peace-offerings? It is that gift peace-offerings are more common, and perhaps a different halakha applies to them. If so, they should also not learn the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings from the halakha applying to an obligatory burnt-offering, as the latter is entirely burnt, unlike peace-offerings.

(אלא) אתיא מבינייא

The Gemara answers: Rather, the halakha governing obligatory peace-offerings is derived from between the two of them. The Torah explicitly states that one must place hands on the heads of both obligatory burnt-offerings and gift peace-offerings. It is possible to extend the same obligation to obligatory peace-offerings by combining the two sources, as follows: If one says that an obligatory burnt-offering is different from an obligatory peace-offering because it is entirely burnt, gift peace-offerings prove that this is not the critical factor; and if one counters that gift peace-offerings are different from obligatory peace-offerings because they are common, an obligatory burnt-offering proves that this is not crucial. Therefore, there is no proof from here with regard to Beit Hillel’s position, as they too might learn the halakha governing an obligatory burnt-offering from the verse: “And he brought the burnt-offering and sacrificed it according to regulation.”

וסברי בית שמאי שלמי חובה לא בעו סמיכה והתניא אמר רבי יוסי לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על הסמיכה עצמה שצריך על מה נחלקו על תכף לסמיכה שחיטה שבית שמאי אומרים אינו צריך ובית הלל אומרים צריך

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the halakha itself: And do Beit Shammai hold that obligatory peace-offerings do not require placing of hands on the head of the animal? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the placing of hands itself that it is required in the case of obligatory peace-offerings. With regard to what, then, did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the halakha that states that immediately following placing hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter. As Beit Shammai say: It is not necessary to be particular in this regard, and the ceremony of placing hands on the animal’s head may be performed even on the eve of the Festival, long before the animal is slaughtered. And Beit Hillel say: It is necessary, and therefore one who brings an offering on a Festival must place his hands on the animal’s head on the Festival itself.

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר רבי יוסי בר' יהודה לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על תכף לסמיכה שחיטה שצריך על מה נחלקו על הסמיכה עצמה שבית שמאי אומרים אינו צריך ובית הלל אומרים צריך:

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna said what he said in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a different baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree with regard to the halakha that immediately following placing hands on the head of an offering is its slaughter, that it is necessary. With regard to what, then, did they disagree? They disagreed with regard to the placing of hands itself on the head of obligatory peace-offerings. Beit Shammai say: It is not necessary, and Beit Hillel say: It is necessary.

ת"ר מעשה בהלל הזקן שהביא עולתו לעזרה לסמוך עליה ביו"ט חברו עליו תלמידי שמאי הזקן אמרו לו מה טיבה של בהמה זו אמר להם נקבה היא ולזבחי שלמים הבאתיה כשכש להם בזנבה והלכו להם

§ The Gemara returns to the basic dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who brought his burnt-offering to the Temple courtyard in order to place his hands on the animal’s head on a Festival. The students of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and said to him: What is the nature of this animal that you are bringing? Hillel, being humble and meek, did not want to quarrel with them in the Temple and therefore concealed the truth from them for the sake of peace. He said to them: It is a female, and I have brought it as a peace-offering, as burnt-offerings are always male. He swung its tail for them so that they would not be able to properly discern whether the animal was male or female, and they departed.

ואותו היום גברה ידם של בית שמאי על בית הלל ובקשו לקבוע הלכה כמותן והיה שם זקן אחד מתלמידי שמאי הזקן ובבא בן בוטא שמו שהיה יודע שהלכה כבית הלל ושלח

On that day, when the incident became known, suggesting that even Hillel had accepted Shammai’s view, Beit Shammai gained the upper hand over Beit Hillel, and they sought to establish the halakha in this regard in accordance with their opinion. But a certain Elder of the disciples of Shammai the Elder was there, and Bava ben Buta was his name, who knew that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in this matter. And he sent for