וּפְרָטוֹת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר כְּלָלוֹת וּפְרָטוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי וְנִשְׁנוּ בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְנִשְׁתַּלְּשׁוּ בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי And the details of the mitzvot, e.g., the particulars of the sacrificial process, were said to Moses at a later time in the Tent of Meeting. And Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai and later repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and reiterated a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab, as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. And if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Yishmael holds that the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering, rather than the burnt-offering of an individual, the following question arises:
מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ Is there any offering that initially did not require skinning and cutting into pieces, as these details of the daily burnt-offering were transmitted later in the Tent of Meeting, and ultimately, when these details were added, the offering required skinning and cutting? It is not plausible that the details of a mitzva would change over time. Therefore, it is clear that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael the Jews did not sacrifice the daily burnt-offering before the giving of the Torah, which means that the burnt-offering sacrificed at Mount Sinai must have been a burnt-offering of appearance.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּתַנְיָא עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הָעֲשׂוּיָה בְּהַר סִינַי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מַעֲשֶׂיהָ נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי וְהִיא עַצְמָהּ לֹא קָרְבָה The Gemara cites the source for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. As it is taught in a baraita: “It is a daily burnt-offering, which was performed on Mount Sinai” (Numbers 28:6). Rabbi Elazar says: The details of its performance were said at Sinai, but it itself was not sacrificed until the Tabernacle was erected. This indicates that the offering brought on Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר קָרְבָה וְשׁוּב לֹא פָּסְקָה אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים הַזְּבָחִים וּמִנְחָה הִגַּשְׁתֶּם לִי בַמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל Rabbi Akiva says: It was sacrificed when they stood at Mount Sinai and its sacrifice never ceased. The Gemara asks: But if so, how do I uphold, i.e., how does Rabbi Akiva explain the following verse: “Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings for forty years in the wilderness, house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25). This verse indicates that they did not sacrifice these offerings.
שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי שֶׁלֹּא עָבְדוּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֵן הִקְרִיבוּ אוֹתָהּ The Gemara answers: The tribe of Levi, which did not commit the sin of idol worship, sacrificed it from their own funds. Since the rest of the Jewish people did not contribute the funds for the daily burnt-offering, it is as though they did not sacrifice this offering. This concludes the list of sources of the opinions of those Sages who hold that the daily burnt-offering was not sacrificed at Mount Sinai, and the offering that was sacrificed there was a burnt-offering of appearance.
בֵּית הִלֵּל הָא דַּאֲמַרַן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָא נָמֵי דַּאֲמַרַן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּעֲלוֹתָם לָרֶגֶל רְאִיָּיה וַחֲגִיגָה וְשִׂמְחָה The Gemara cites the sources for the opinions that the daily burnt-offering was sacrificed at Mount Sinai. Beit Hillel: That which we said. Rabbi Akiva: Also that which we said, in the aforementioned dispute with Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The Jewish people were commanded to perform three mitzvot when they ascended to the Temple for the pilgrimage Festivals: The burnt-offering of appearance, and the Festival peace-offering, and the peace-offering of rejoicing.
יֵשׁ בָּרְאִיָּיה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן וְיֵשׁ בַּחֲגִיגָה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן יֵשׁ בַּשִּׂמְחָה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן יֵשׁ בָּרְאִיָּיה שֶׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן שֶׁהָרְאִיָּיה עוֹלָה כּוּלָּהּ לַגָּבוֹהַּ מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן Rabbi Yosei HaGelili continues. There is an element of the burnt-offering of appearance that is not present in the other two; there is an element of the Festival peace-offering that is not present in the other two; and there is an element of the peace-offering of rejoicing that is not present in the other two. He elaborates: There is an element of the burnt-offering of appearance that is not present in the other two, as the burnt-offering of appearance goes up entirely to God, which is not so with regard to the other two, as the majority portion of the other two offerings is eaten.
יֵשׁ בַּחֲגִיגָה מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן שֶׁחֲגִיגָה יֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי הַדִּיבּוּר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן יֵשׁ בַּשִּׂמְחָה מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן שֶׁהַשִּׂמְחָה נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וּבְנָשִׁים מַה שֶּׁאֵין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן There is an element of the Festival peace-offering that is not present in the other two, as the Festival peace-offering existed before the speech of God at Mount Sinai, which is not so with regard to the other two. Finally, there is an element of the peace-offering of rejoicing that is not present in the other two, as the peace-offering of rejoicing is performed by both men and by women, which is not so with regard to the other two. This shows that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that the burnt-offering of appearance was not sacrificed at Mount Sinai, which means that the burnt-offering mentioned in that context must have been the daily burnt-offering.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַאי טַעְמָא קָא מוֹקְמַתְּ לֵיהּ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא לָא בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ The Gemara asks a question with regard to Abaye’s explanation. And with regard to Rabbi Yishmael, what is the reason that you established his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that the burnt-offering sacrificed at Mount Sinai was a burnt-offering of appearance? The explanation for his opinion was: If it enters your mind that the burnt-offering the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert was a daily burnt-offering, is there any offering that initially did not require skinning and cutting into pieces and ultimately required skinning and cutting into pieces?
וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי דְּאָמַר עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר עוֹלַת תָּמִיד הֲוַאי מֵעִיקָּרָא לָא בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ וּלְבַסּוֹף בָּעֵי הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ But wasn’t it Rabbi Yosei HaGelili who said: The burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai was the daily burnt-offering? Nevertheless, he holds that initially it did not require skinning and cutting into pieces, and ultimately it required skinning and cutting into pieces.
דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ אֶלָּא מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ סְמִי מִכָּאן רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert did not require skinning and cutting into pieces, because the requirement of skinning and cutting offerings applied only from the time God commanded this mitzva in the Tent of Meeting and onward. The Gemara concludes: There is no clear evidence as to what Rabbi Yishmael actually maintains in this regard, and therefore one should delete Rabbi Yishmael from this list here, i.e., the list of those who hold that the burnt-offering sacrificed in the desert was a burnt-offering of appearance.
בָּעֵי רַב חִסְדָּא הַאי קְרָא הֵיכִי כְּתִיב וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עוֹלוֹת כְּבָשִׂים וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַה׳ פָּרִים אוֹ דִּלְמָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי פָּרֵים הֲווֹ Rav Ḥisda raises a dilemma: This verse, how is it written, i.e., how should it be understood? Should the following verse be read as two separate halves, with the first part consisting of: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they sacrificed burnt-offerings” (Exodus 24:5), which were sheep; and the second part consisting of the rest of the verse: “And they sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls to the Lord,” i.e., these peace-offerings alone were bulls? Or perhaps both of these were bulls, as the term: “Bulls,” refers both to the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings.
לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ מָר זוּטְרָא אָמַר לְפִיסּוּק טְעָמִים The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the two readings? Mar Zutra said: The practical difference is with regard to the punctuation of the cantillation notes, whether there should be a break in the verse after: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings,” indicating that these offerings consisted of sheep; or whether it should read: “And they sacrificed burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings of bulls,” as one clause.
רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר לָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה כָּעוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר מַאי פָּרֵים הֲווֹ אוֹ כְּבָשִׂים הֲווֹ תֵּיקוּ Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said that the difference between these two readings of the verse is for one who says in the form of a vow: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the desert at Mount Sinai. What is he required to bring? Were they bulls or were they sheep? The Gemara does not provide an answer and states that the question shall stand unresolved.
תְּנַן הָתָם אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁיעוּר We learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 1:1): These are the mitzvot that have no measure: