## Beitzah Daf 20a

###### Beitzah 20a:1
[Beitzah 20a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:1)

וַאֲגַלַּח מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נָדוּר, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא. נָזִיר, וְאֵינוֹ מְגַלֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Beitzah 20a:2
[Beitzah 20a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 20a:3
[Beitzah 20a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:3)

טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר הַבוּ לֵיהּ וְלִנְסֵיב, אֲבָל אִי אָמַר לִנְסֵיב וְהַבוּ לֵיהּ, אִי נָסֵיב — שָׁקֵיל, וְאִי לָא נָסֵיב — לָא שָׁקֵיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 20a:4
[Beitzah 20a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:4)

יָתֵיב מָרִימָר וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְמָרִימָר: אַתּוּן הָכִי מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַתְנִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Beitzah 20a:5
[Beitzah 20a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:5)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבָּא: ״וַיַּקְרֵב אֶת הָעוֹלָה וַיַּעֲשֶׂהָ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״, כְּמִשְׁפַּט עוֹלַת נְדָבָה. לִמֵּד עַל עוֹלַת חוֹבָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה סְמִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Beitzah 20a:6
[Beitzah 20a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 20a:7
[Beitzah 20a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:7)

וּמִמַּאי דְּבֵית הִלֵּל שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה גָּמְרִי? דִּלְמָא מֵעוֹלַת חוֹבָה גָּמְרִי, וְעוֹלַת חוֹבָה גּוּפָא בָּעֲיָא קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”


###### Beitzah 20a:8
[Beitzah 20a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:8)

מַאי שְׁנָא מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה דְּלָא גָּמְרִי — שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין. מֵעוֹלַת חוֹבָה נָמֵי לָא גָּמְרִי — שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 20a:9
[Beitzah 20a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:9)

(אֶלָּא) אָתְיָא מִבֵּינַיָּיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”


###### Beitzah 20a:10
[Beitzah 20a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:10)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Beitzah 20a:11
[Beitzah 20a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:11)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Beitzah 20a:12
[Beitzah 20a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Beitzah 20a:13
[Beitzah 20a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Beitzah/r/20a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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