וַאֲגַלַּח מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מַהוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ נָדוּר וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא נָזִיר וְאֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ: 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.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ הַבוּ לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע מְאָה זוּזֵי לִפְלוֹנִי וְלִנְסֵיב בְּרַתִּי אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא אַרְבַּע מְאָה שָׁקֵיל וּבְרַתֵּיה אִי בָּעֵי נָסֵיב אִי בָּעֵי לָא נָסֵיב 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.
טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר הַבוּ לֵיהּ וְלִנְסֵיב אֲבָל אִי אָמַר לִנְסֵיב וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ אִי נָסֵיב שָׁקֵיל וְאִי לָא נָסֵיב לָא שָׁקֵיל: 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.
יָתֵיב מָרִימָר וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָרִימָר אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ אֲנַן כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַתְנִינַן לַהּ: 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.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הָעוֹלָה וַיַּעֲשֶׂהָ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט כְּמִשְׁפַּט עוֹלַת נְדָבָה לִמֵּד עַל עוֹלַת חוֹבָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה סְמִיכָה § 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ דַּאֲמַר לָךְ מַנִּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא דְּלָא גָּמְרִי שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה דְּאִי בֵּית הִלֵּל כֵּיוָן דְּגָמְרִי שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה עוֹלַת חוֹבָה נָמֵי לָא תִּבְעֵי קְרָא דְּגָמְרִי מֵעוֹלַת נְדָבָה 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.
וּמִמַּאי דְּבֵית הִלֵּל שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה גָּמְרִי דִּלְמָא מֵעוֹלַת חוֹבָה גָּמְרִי וְעוֹלַת חוֹבָה גּוּפָא בָּעֲיָא קְרָא 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.”
מַאי שְׁנָא מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה דְּלָא גָּמְרִי שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין מֵעוֹלַת חוֹבָה נָמֵי לָא גָּמְרִי שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל 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.
(אֶלָּא) אָתְיָא מִבֵּינַיָּיא 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.”
וְסָבְרִי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה לָא בָּעוּ סְמִיכָה וְהָתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל הַסְּמִיכָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ עַל תֵּכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ 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.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל עַל תֵּכֶף לִסְמִיכָה שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ עַל הַסְּמִיכָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים צָרִיךְ: 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן מַעֲשֶׂה בְּהִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁהֵבִיא עוֹלָתוֹ לָעֲזָרָה לִסְמוֹךְ עָלֶיהָ בְּיוֹם טוֹב חָבְרוּ עָלָיו תַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן אָמְרוּ לוֹ מָה טִיבָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה זוֹ אָמַר לָהֶם נְקֵבָה הִיא וּלְזִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים הֲבֵאתִיהָ כִּשְׁכֵּשׁ לָהֶם בִּזְנָבָהּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם § 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.
וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם גָּבְרָה יָדָם שֶׁל בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עַל בֵּית הִלֵּל וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן וְהָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד מִתַּלְמִידֵי שַׁמַּאי הַזָּקֵן וּבָבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא שְׁמוֹ שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל וְשָׁלַח 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