Yerushalmi Chagigah 1:2 ירושלמי חגיגה א׳:ב׳

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, the sacrifice of appearance is two silver coins, and the festival sacrifice one obolus⁷⁵The sacrifice of appearance is an elevation sacrifice, not for human consumption. The festival sacrifice is a family well-being sacrifice providing the meat to the festival meal to be consumed in purity as part of the commandment to enjoy the holiday. The obolus in the Augustean system is the smallest silver coin, 1/6 of a silver denar, about 0.6g of silver.. But the House of Hillel say, the sacrifice of appearance is one silver obolus, and the festival sacrifice two silver coins.

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost⁷⁶The only holiday offering by the public including well-being sacrifices. The presentation of bread from the new wheat harvest is accompanied by elevation sacrifices of one bull, 2 rams, and 7 sheep, as well as a well-being sacrifice of 2 sheep (Lev. 23:18–19).; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes⁷⁷All of the tribal leaders brought the same sacrifice for the inauguration of the Tent of Meeting, 1 bull, 1 ram, 1 sheep as elevation offering but 2 bulls, 5 rams, 5 goats, 5 sheep as well-being sacrifice (Num. 7). Babli 6a.. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

It was stated⁷⁸Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b.: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High⁷⁹Everything is burned on the altar; there is no part even for the Cohanim.; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word⁸⁰The theophany of Sinai. and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word⁸¹Before the Giving of the Torah there could be no commandments and no commanded sacrifices.? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word⁸²Ex. 5:1.: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“⁷⁸Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b. And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose⁸³One may enjoy the holiday being invited to somebody else’s well-being sacrifice, and even with meat from an animal not admissible as sacrifice.. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance⁸⁴Tosephta 1:4; obviously not part of R. Yose’s baraita text.”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy⁸⁵“Enjoyment” of the meat of well-being sacrifices is mentioned without any reference to holidays in Deut. 12:12, and as a requirement of the holidays in Deut. 16:11,14,15., even from a butcher shop⁸⁶Latin macellum. According to his argument, the duty to eat meat on holidays is biblical also after the destruction of the Temple when sacrificial meat is not available.. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices⁸⁷The comparison of the verses quoted in Note 85 shows that the biblical requirement is intrinsically connected with well-being sacrifices and therefore became moot with the destruction of the Temple.. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply]⁸⁸The corrector considered the scribe’s otherwise unknown פשש as scribal error and replaced it with a known word with similar letters. The scribe may have intended a word like Arabic פסּ “to deflate”. all seven days⁸⁹Following R. Eleazar he did not accept the duty to eat meat on a holiday as scriptural and ate simple fare during the holiday week..

⁹⁰This text is parallel to a somewhat defective text in Peah1:1 (Notes 37–57); in places the Rome ms. of Zeraim has a more complete text. Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins⁹¹The amounts stated in Mishnah 2 have biblical status. are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything⁹²One may appear in the Temple with one sacrifice for the appearance and one for the family holiday; no minimal expenditure is required. The monetary minimum is purely a rabbinic one. Babli 7a.; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages⁹³There are many biblical precepts that are applied only to some minimal amount and volume. None of these are spelled out in the Torah; they are all customary or rabbinic formulations.? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse⁹⁴All rules of defilement by parts of a corpse apply only if a minimum size of the volume of one olive is present. Hence, somebody in a house in which less than that volume of a corpse is present may go to the Temple without the purification procedure of the ashes of the Red Cow even though going there in impurity is a strict biblical prohibition., the volume of an olive from a cadaver⁹⁵To bring a sin offering for having eaten meat from a cadaver needs this minimum amount; the same minimum applies to the impurity caused by touching or carrying pieces of the cadaver of an otherwise kosher animal., the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile⁹⁶The minimum volume from a carcass that causes the severe impurity incurred by touching dead reptiles.. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed⁹⁷Ex. 23:15, 34:20., with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this⁹⁸These verses (and an additional one in Deut.) insist that one may not appear empty-handed; this must mean that a negligible amount is counted as nothing and, therefore, is forbidden by the Torah. is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities⁹⁹Since one is required and permitted to bring a sin-offering only if he ate more than the volume of an olive, he is forbidden to bring one if he ate less than that volume. Hence, the determination of that volume is essential. In the Babli Yoma 80a the interpretation is that not the rule of “volume of an olive” might change but rather its interpretation. Not only are antique measures never defined to exact standards, also modern interpretations of “volume of an olive” vary on a scale of 1 to 30. Hence, once the Temple is rebuilt an authoritative re-interpretation is needed even according to R. Joḥanan.; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan¹⁰⁰Instead of this totally impossible reading (R. Jonathan precedes R. Joḥanan) read with the Peah text: R. Yose. said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals¹⁰¹In the Babli 8a it is explained that the obligation to spend an obolus and two silver coins must be satisfied by unencumbered money. Now four years out of seven there is a second tithe on agricultural produce of the Land of Israel. That second tithe is the property of the farmer but it must be consumed in Jerusalem; it also may be redeemed by money and the money taken to Jerusalem and there spent on food to be consumed in Jerusalem. So one may assume that many people on their pilgrimage for the holiday have money and, in case they are priests, animals of the tithe that they want to eat in Jerusalem to absolve themselves at the same time of the obligations of pilgrimage and Second Tithe. According to Ḥizqiah, on the first day of the holiday one may bring small and cheap animals as obligatory sacrifices and then use the money of tithes for additional Ḥagigah offerings but one may not add the money of Second Tithes to profane money to buy one large animal for any of the two obligations.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money¹⁰²R. Joḥanan holds that one may add money (if only the basic amount is profane) but not animals (since no animal worth less than two pieces of silver is acceptable as Ḥagigah.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday¹⁰³If these animals retain the status of Ḥagigah, they may be sacrificed on the last day of Pesaḥ or Sukkot which are also full holidays. If, however, they have only the status of sacrifices in fulfillment of a vow (since any dedication as sacrifice is a vow to bring the animal to the Temple), then they may be slaughtered only during the intermediate days of the holiday or after its conclusion, and they do not push aside holiday prohibitions. (Babli 8b.)? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push¹⁰⁴Since each animal was bought with money dedicated for Ḥagigah, they all have the status of Ḥagigah.. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push¹⁰⁵Since one may not adjoin money, only the first animal was Ḥagigah, the rest are not and cannot be used on a full holiday.. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds¹⁰⁶Even during the intermediate days of the holiday, when one’s biblical obligation of appearing in the Temple with a sacrifice has already been satisfied, he can add money to the original money and still the animals bought will fall under the category of Ḥagigah. But when he declares that it is enough, the next money spent will no longer buy Ḥagigah sacrifices. This extension of R. Joḥanan’s statement is not a logical consequence of his earlier one. and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.