holocaust

Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean, Rebbi Yasa bar Ḥanina: One does not ask rulings on practice before the bier of a deceased. But Rebbi Yoḥanan asked Rebbi Yannai before the bier of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoẓadaq about him who dedicated his holocaust sacrifice for the upkeep of the Temple, and he answered him! Let us say when he was far away or when they were bringing him to the study hall. But Rebbi Jeremiah asked Rebbi Zeïra before the bier of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac! Let us say that he answered him when he was far away; when he was close he did not answer him.

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rav Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, he can dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. But Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he cannot free his ṭevel by Torah law! So here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah who says thatFirst Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yudan the Prince, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of animals? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion (Num. 18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meїr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say, one is guilty. The statement of Cahana disagrees since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

Rebbi Aḥa bar Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Following the opinion that someone who cannot give heave cannot dedicate to the Temple. Why did he not say: following the opinion that he can give heave, can he dedicate to the Temple? Because of Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says he can give heave but cannot dedicate. Rebbi Joḥanan says, even following the opinion that he cannot give heave, he can dedicate. What can he dedicate? Holocaust and well-being offerings. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for fat because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for fat. He cannot bring a sin sacrifice for blood because he is not obligated to a sin sacrifice for blood. May he bring a sacrifice relating to gonorrhea and skin disease? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he becomes impure by these can he bring it? If it is obvious for you that he brings, can he become an agent for these? Since he may become impure by these, may he become an agent, or since he cannot become an agent for anything else, can’t he become an agent for these? Rebbi Yudan objected: His produce is ṭevel from the Torah but he can free his ṭevel by Torah law! But here, even though he may become impure by them, he cannot become an agent. May he bring First Fruits following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah says that First Fruits have the status of territorial consecrated things? He may not bring following the rabbis who say they have the status of things consecrated to the Temple. May he bring a sacrifice of pilgrimage? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since he may change its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring a Passover sacrifice? Since it is obligatory can’t he bring it, or since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia, a person may bring a Passover sacrifice any day of the year when he changes its name to well-being offering, may he bring it? May he bring tithes of cereals? If he holds with Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said (Num.18:28): “From all your tithes,” that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals. May he make substitutions? If Rebbi Meïr is of the opinion that all tithes were bracketed together, then since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions. One may hold with Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon says that tithes of animals teach you for all sacrifices about substitutions. That means, since he cannot bring tithes of grain he cannot bring tithes of animals; since he cannot bring tithes of animals he cannot make substitutions; since he cannot make substitutions for these he cannot make substitutions for any sacrifices. Is one guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple? Cahana said, one cannot be guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both say, one is guilty sacrificing for him outside the Temple. The statement of Cahana disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah frees his ṭevel as biblical law. And you say so? We can say he [Cahana] is following him who says they accepted tithes voluntarily.

I. (1) All are bound in the case of a holocaust except a deaf man, a fool, and a child, and one of doubtful sex, and one of double sex, and women, and slaves who are not manumitted, the lame man, and the blind man, and the sick man, and the old man, and him who is not able to go up on his feet. What is the definition of a child? Every one who is not able to ride upon his father's shoulders, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House. These are the words of the house of Shammai. But the house of Hillel say, Every one who is not able to take hold of his father's hand, and to go up from Jerusalem to the mountain of the House, as it is said, "three footgoing times" (Ex. xxiii. 14).

(2) The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver and the chagigah a meah of silver, but the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the chagigah two pieces of silver.

(2) The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver and the chagigah a meah of silver, but the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the chagigah two pieces of silver.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

What is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is half a slave and half free. But according to Rabena, who says, He who is half a slave and half free is exempt from the holocaust, what is the expression all to include? It is to include him who is lame on the first day and well on the second day. This agrees with him who says, All of them are transferable from one day to another; but according to him who says, All of them are transferable as from the first day only, what is the expression all to include? It is to include the blind in one eye. But this is not in accordance with the following Baraitha. For Jochanan ben Dahăbai, saying it in the name of Rabbi Jehudah, taught, He who is blind in one eye is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "He shall be seen," or "He shall see" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). As he went to see, so he went to be seen; as to see with both his eyes, so to be seen with both His eyes.

Except a deaf man, a fool, and a child etc. There is a Baraitha, A deaf man is like a fool and a child. As a fool and a child are not responsible for their actions, so a deaf man is not responsible for his actions. And we learn, as we are taught by a canonical Mishnah, A deaf man, as wise men have everywhere said, is one who does not hear and does not speak (Niddah, 13b, ii. 17). Lo, you will say then, He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. Yes, for there is a Baraitha for this. For our Rabbis have taught, He who speaks and does not hear is deaf, he who hears and does not speak is dumb. Both one and the other are to be treated as capable persons in all that relates to them. And whence do you infer that he who speaks and does not hear is deaf, and that he who hears and does not speak is dumb? Since it is written, "But I as a deaf man hear not; and I am as a dumb man, who openeth not his mouth" (Ps. xxxviii. 14). And, if you like, I will say, according to the proverbial saying, A man stumbling in his words. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. But, lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt. Rabena, or it may have been Rabba, said, There is a hiatus here. And there is a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust, and as regards the rejoicing, except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust, he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak, and as for a fool and a child, he is exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law.

Except a deaf man, a fool, and a child etc. There is a Baraitha, A deaf man is like a fool and a child. As a fool and a child are not responsible for their actions, so a deaf man is not responsible for his actions. And we learn, as we are taught by a canonical Mishnah, A deaf man, as wise men have everywhere said, is one who does not hear and does not speak (Niddah, 13b, ii. 17). Lo, you will say then, He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. Yes, for there is a Baraitha for this. For our Rabbis have taught, He who speaks and does not hear is deaf, he who hears and does not speak is dumb. Both one and the other are to be treated as capable persons in all that relates to them. And whence do you infer that he who speaks and does not hear is deaf, and that he who hears and does not speak is dumb? Since it is written, "But I as a deaf man hear not; and I am as a dumb man, who openeth not his mouth" (Ps. xxxviii. 14). And, if you like, I will say, according to the proverbial saying, A man stumbling in his words. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. But, lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt. Rabena, or it may have been Rabba, said, There is a hiatus here. And there is a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust, and as regards the rejoicing, except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust, he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak, and as for a fool and a child, he is exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law.

Except a deaf man, a fool, and a child etc. There is a Baraitha, A deaf man is like a fool and a child. As a fool and a child are not responsible for their actions, so a deaf man is not responsible for his actions. And we learn, as we are taught by a canonical Mishnah, A deaf man, as wise men have everywhere said, is one who does not hear and does not speak (Niddah, 13b, ii. 17). Lo, you will say then, He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. Yes, for there is a Baraitha for this. For our Rabbis have taught, He who speaks and does not hear is deaf, he who hears and does not speak is dumb. Both one and the other are to be treated as capable persons in all that relates to them. And whence do you infer that he who speaks and does not hear is deaf, and that he who hears and does not speak is dumb? Since it is written, "But I as a deaf man hear not; and I am as a dumb man, who openeth not his mouth" (Ps. xxxviii. 14). And, if you like, I will say, according to the proverbial saying, A man stumbling in his words. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is bound. But, lo, there is a Baraitha, viz., He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt. Rabena, or it may have been Rabba, said, There is a hiatus here. And there is a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust, and as regards the rejoicing, except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, or he who hears and does not speak, is exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust, he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak, and as for a fool and a child, he is exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law.

There is also a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust and the rejoicing except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, and he who hears and does not speak, are exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust,

There is also a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust and the rejoicing except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, and he who hears and does not speak, are exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust,

There is also a Baraitha to this effect, All are bound as regards the holocaust and the rejoicing except a deaf man. He who speaks and does not hear, and he who hears and does not speak, are exempt from the holocaust. But although he is exempt from the holocaust,

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

he is bound as regards the rejoicing; but as for him who does not hear and does not speak and as for a fool and a child, they are exempt also from the rejoicing, inasmuch as these are exempt from all the commandments which are contained in the Law. What is the difference in the nature of holocaust, that they are exempt, and in the nature of rejoicing, that they are bound? As regards the nature of holocaust we are taught by the recurrence of the word from the passage intitled "Assemble," as it is written, "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones" (Deut. xxxi. 12), and it is written, "when all Israel is come to appear" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And that point, whence do we get it? Because it is written, "that they may hear and that they may learn" (Deut. xxxi. 12). And there is a Baraitha as follows, "That they may hear," this expression excludes him who speaks and does not hear; "and that they may learn," this expression excludes him who hears and does not speak. Is this to say, that he who cannot talk cannot learn? No; for this suggests the case of the two dumb men who were in the neighbourhood of Rabbi, viz., the sons of R. Jochanan ben Gudgodah's daughter; and the sons of R. Jochanan's sister say concerning it, that every time that Rabbi went up to the College, they went up and sat before him, and shook their heads, and moved their lips, and Rabbi asked for mercy for them, and they were examined, and it was ascertained that they were perfect in knowledge of Halachah and Siphra and Siphre and all the Talmud. Mar Zot'ra said, The reading there is, "in order that they may teach." R. Ashi said, Assuredly it is, "in order that they may teach"; for, if you imagine that it is, "in order that they may learn," then, since he who does not talk does not learn, and since he who does not hear does not learn, this sense of learn comes out of the words, "in order that they may hear," but assuredly it is here, "in order that they may teach."

R. Tanchum said, He that is deaf in one ear is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "in their ears" (Deut. xxxi. 11). And this expression "in their ears" must mean, in the ears of all Israel, for this comes out of the words "before all Israel." How "before all Israel"? I should say, that, although they could not all hear, the Merciful One wrote it in their ears, and the fact that they heard comes out of the expression "in order that they may hear."

R. Tanchum said, He that is lame in one foot is exempt from the holocaust, as it is said, "footgoing times." And this expression, "footgoing times," must mean to exempt men with wooden legs. This comes out of the expression "steps," for there is a Baraitha, viz., Steps are not steps but feet, and so He says, "The foot shall tread it down, the feet of the poor, the steps of the needy" (Is. xxvi. 6), and He says, "How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter!" (Cant. vii. 1). Rabba expounds thus, What is the meaning of that which is written, "How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter"? It means, How comely are the feet of Israel at the time when they go up to the feast! "Prince's daughter" means daughter of Abraham our father, who is called prince, as it is said, "The princes of the peoples are gathered together to be the people of the God of Abraham:" (Ps. xlvii. 9) "God of Abraham," and not God of Isaac and Jacob, but "God of Abraham"; for he was the first of the proselytes.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "all thy males" is to include the children. But there is a canonical Mishnah, Except a deaf man, a fool and a child (Chag. 2a, i. 1). Abai said, There is no difficulty. The one case has to do with a child who has reached the age for initiation in the law, the other with a child who has not reached the age for initiation. A child who has reached the age for initiation—this is Rabbinical only. Even so, and the expression is a mere supporting peg. But why does the expression come? To correspond with what the others said. For we have a Baraitha, Others say, the cordwainer and the smelter in bronze and the tanner are exempt from the holocaust, because it is said "all thy males" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who is able to go up with all thy males. They are exempt, who are not fit to go up with all thy males.

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver etc. Our Rabbis have taught thus, The house of Shammai say, The holocaust involves two pieces of silver, and the Chagigah a meah of silver; for the holocaust is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case with the Chagigah; and besides we find that at the Feast of Weeks the Scripture enjoins more burnt-offerings than peace-offerings. But the house of Hillel say, The holocaust involves a meah of silver and the Chagigah two pieces of silver, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case with the holocaust; and besides we find in the case of "the princes" (Numb. vii. 15, 17, etc.) that the Scripture enjoins more peace-offerings than burnt-offerings. What then is the reason that the house of Hillel do not agree with the house of Shammai? Inasmuch as thou sayest that a holocaust is better, for it is all a burnt-offering to the Most High, on the contrary a Chagigah is better, for there are in it two feastings; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from the Feast of Weeks, I reply that we are to judge an individual gift by comparison with an individual gift, and we are not to judge an individual gift by comparison with the gift of a congregation. What then is the reason that the house of Shammai do not agree with the house of Hillel? In that thou sayest that a Chagigah is superior, because it is older than the Decalogue, a holocaust also is older than the Decalogue; and in that thou sayest, Let us learn from "the princes," we are to judge a thing that lasts for ever by comparison with a thing that lasts for ever, and we are not to judge a thing which lasts for ever by comparison with a thing which does not last for ever. And how does the house of Hillel come to teach that the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, but the holocaust not? Because it is written, "and they sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings" (Exod. xxiv. 5). There must have been a holocaust also. Lo, it is written, "and they offered burnt-offerings." The house of Hillel consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering" (Exod. xxix. 42), but the house of Shammai consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. Abai said, The house of Shammai and R. El'azar and R. Ishmael all consider that the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was a holocaust. And the house of Hillel and R. Akiba and R. Jose the Galilaean all consider that the offering which Israel offered in the wilderness was the "continual burnt-offering." The house of Shammai hold this view according to what we have said. R. Ishmael agrees, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Ishmael says, The general directions only were given to Moses on Sinai,

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

The house of Hillel hold the view which we have mentioned. R. Akiba also holds the view which we have mentioned. R. Jose the Galilaean agrees with them, for there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jose the Galilaean says, Three commands have been put upon Israel when they go up to a feast, viz., the holocaust, and the Chagigah, and the rejoicing. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, and there is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, and there is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two. There is in the holocaust what there is not in the other two, for the holocaust is a whole burnt-offering to the Most High, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the Chagigah what there is not in the other two, for the Chagigah is older than the Decalogue, which is not the case in the other two. There is in the rejoicing what there is not in the other two, for the rejoicing has to do with women as well as men, which is not the case in the other two.

the corner of a field, and the first-fruits and the appearing before the Lord, and the conferring of kindnesses and the teaching contained in the Law. R. Jochanan said, We were of opinion that the appearing before the Lord had no superior limit but had an inferior limit, until R. Oshaia, in the name of a great teacher, came and taught that appearing before the Lord has no limit either superior or inferior. But wise men say, that the holocaust involves a meah of silver, but the Chagigah two pieces of silver. What does the appearing mean? R. Jochanan said, The presenting of oneself in the Court, but Resh Lakish said, The presenting of oneself with an offering. All the world is agreed that on the first day it means, the presenting of oneself with an offering, but men differ as regards the remainder of the days of the Feast. Every time that a man comes and brings an offering, all the world agrees that we are to receive it from him, but men differ in the case of one who comes and does not bring; for R. Jochanan considers that the presenting of oneself in the Court is sufficient, because it is not necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering; but Resh Lakish says, The presenting oneself with an offering is the meaning, for it is necessary, every time that he comes, to bring an offering. Resh Lakish put this difficulty to R. Jochanan, "None shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. He put this further difficulty to him. The passage "None shall appear before me empty" refers to coming with sacrifices. If thou sayest, With sacrifices? perhaps not, but with birds and meal-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, but the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, involves sacrifices, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, involve sacrifices. And what are these sacrifices? They are burnt-offerings. If thou sayest, Burnt-offerings? perhaps not, but peace-offerings; then here is an argument against thee. The Chagigah is assigned to a private person, and the appearing is assigned to the Most High. As the Chagigah, which is assigned to a private person, is suited to him, so must the appearing, which is assigned to the Most High, be suited to Him. And so it is fitting that thy table should not be full and the table of thy Master empty. He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast. R. Jose, in the name of R. Jehudah, put this difficulty to him, saying, Three times in the year Israel was commanded to go up to a Feast, viz., at the Feast of the Passover, and at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Tabernacles, and they must not appear by halves, inasmuch as it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17; Deut. xvi. 16), and they must not appear empty, inasmuch as it is said, "none shall appear before me empty" (Exod. xxiii. 15). He said to him, Yes, but only on the first day of the Feast.

Abai said to him, Of course. For otherwise the question would arise, Which of them wilt thou cause to be sinners, and which of them wilt thou cause to be obedient? But wherefore then does the passage come? It is to correspond to the saying of others. For there is a Baraitha, viz., Others say, The cordwainer, and the smelter in bronze and the tanner, are exempt from the holocaust, for it is said, "all thy males" (Exod. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16), i.e., he who can go up with all thy males. These are excluded, for they cannot go up with all thy males.

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;

But according to this it is burnt-offerings on a middle holiday that come from things not previously consecrated. Well, then, it follows that on a high holiday they come from the tithe. But why? For surely it is obligatory, and everything which is obligatory comes only from that which is not previously consecrated. And if thou sayest, Then this teaches us that burnt-offerings are offered on a middle holiday, and are not offered on a high holiday, with whom will this view correspond? With the house of Shammai. For there is a canonical Mishnah, viz., The house of Shammai say, Men bring peace-offerings and do not lay their hands on them, but not burnt-offerings; but the house of Hillel say, Men bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them (Beytsah, 19a, ii. 2, and elsewhere). There is a hiatus here, and this is the real teaching. It means that burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday, which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. There is also a Baraitha to this effect, Burnt-offerings, vows and freewill-offerings are brought on a middle holiday; on a high holiday they are not brought, but the burnt-offering of a holocaust is brought even on a high holiday. And when it is brought, it is only brought from things not previously consecrated, but peace-offerings of joy are brought even from the tithe. And the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, the house of Shammai say, is from things not previously consecrated, but the house of Hillel say, From the tithe. How is the Chagigah of a high holiday which is the first day of the Passover, different from that of any other high holiday? R. Ashi said, See, we learn from this that the Chagigah of the fifteenth day is taken from things not previously consecrated, but the Chagigah of the fourteenth not;