## Chagigah Daf 10b

###### Chagigah 10b:1
[Chagigah 10b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:1)

מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, וּמְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת לָא כְּתִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The Torah prohibited** only planned, **creative labor** on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. **And** limitation of the prohibition against **creative labor is not written** anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the *halakhot* of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.


###### Chagigah 10b:2
[Chagigah 10b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:2)

חֲגִיגוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! לָא צְרִיכָא, לִכְדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״וְחַגּוֹתֶם אוֹתוֹ חַג לַה׳״ — זְבִיחָה? דִּלְמָא ״חוֹגּוּ חַגָּא״ קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that the *halakhot* of **Festival peace**-offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But **they are written** in the Torah. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to say this **in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where** is it derived **that this** verse: **“And you shall celebrate it as a Festival [*veḥagotem*] to the Lord”** (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to **an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is** simply **saying: Celebrate a Festival.**


###### Chagigah 10b:3
[Chagigah 10b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:3)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב ״וְיָחוֹגּוּ לִי בַּמִּדְבָּר״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּחוֹגּוּ חַגָּא הוּא? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמַר מֹשֶׁה גַּם אַתָּה תִּתֵּן בְּיָדֵינוּ זְבָחִים וְעוֹלוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye responded: **However, if that is so,** consider **that it is written:** “Let My people go, **that they may hold a feast [*veyaḥogu*] to Me in the wilderness”** (Exodus 5:1). **So too,** the meaning of this verse **is that** they will merely **celebrate a Festival,** and not bring an offering. **And if you would say that is** indeed **so,** that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, **but isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-**offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.


###### Chagigah 10b:4
[Chagigah 10b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:4)

דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״אִכְלוּ וּשְׁתוּ וְחוֹגּוּ חַגָּא קַמַּאי״? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יָלִין חֵלֶב חַגִּי עַד בֹּקֶר״, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּחוֹגָּא הוּא, תַּרְבָּא לְחַגָּא אִית לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But **perhaps this is what the Merciful One said:** Slaughter animals so that you can **eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me,** but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This **cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “The fat of My Festival feast [*ḥagi*] shall not remain all night until the morning”** (Exodus 23:18). **And if it enters your mind** to say **that it is** referring to a regular **Festival feast** and not an offering, **does a Festival feast have** forbidden **fats?**


###### Chagigah 10b:5
[Chagigah 10b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:5)

וְדִלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: חֵלֶב הַבָּא בִּזְמַן חַג — ״לֹא יָלִין״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states** in the Torah: The **fats** of gift offerings **that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night.** If so, the phrase “My Festival feast” is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.


###### Chagigah 10b:6
[Chagigah 10b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:6)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: הַבָּא בִּזְמַן חַג — הוּא דְּלֹא יָלִין, הָא דְּכׇל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ — יָלִין?! ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה עַד הַבֹּקֶר״, כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **However, if that is so,** this verse indicates that it is only those fats **that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight.** It may be inferred from here **that** fats which are brought **throughout the year may remain all night.** But **it is written** about burnt-offerings: “On its firewood upon the altar **all night into the morning”** (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.


###### Chagigah 10b:7
[Chagigah 10b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:7)

דִּלְמָא אִי מֵהָהוּא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָהוּא לַעֲשֵׂה כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא, הַאי לְלָאו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **Perhaps if** this *halakha* was derived **from that** verse, **I would say that** verse serves as the source **of a positive mitzva.** Therefore, **the Merciful One writes this** verse: “Shall not remain all night,” **as a prohibition** as well.


###### Chagigah 10b:8
[Chagigah 10b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:8)

לְלָאו כְּתַב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״וְלֹא יָלִין מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר תִּזְבַּח בָּעֶרֶב בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן לַבֹּקֶר״. וְדִלְמָא לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין וַעֲשֵׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds. With regard **to the prohibition** against leaving over an offering on a Festival, **another verse was written: “Neither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morning”** (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: **But perhaps** the verse: “Shall not remain all night” comes to teach that one who does so **violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva.**


###### Chagigah 10b:9
[Chagigah 10b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:9)

אֶלָּא: אָתְיָא ״מִדְבָּר״ ״מִדְבָּר״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְיָחוֹגּוּ לִי בַּמִּדְבָּר״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״הַזְּבָחִים וּמִנְחָה הִגַּשְׁתֶּם לִי בַּמִּדְבָּר״, מָה לְהַלָּן זְבָחִים — אַף כָּאן זְבָחִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering **comes** from a verbal analogy between the term **“wilderness”** stated here and the term: **“wilderness”** stated elsewhere. **It is written here: “They shall make an offering to Me in the wilderness”** (Exodus 5:1), **and it is written there: “Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings** forty years **in the wilderness,** house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25). **Just as there** it is referring to actual **animal offerings, so too here,** it is referring to **animal offerings,** not merely the celebration of a Festival.


###### Chagigah 10b:10
[Chagigah 10b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:10)

וּמַאי ״כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה״ — דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִדִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in light of this verbal analogy, in **what** way is this *halakha* **like mountains suspended by a hair?** The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally **one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition,** i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new *halakhot*, as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a *halakha* derived from the Torah itself.


###### Chagigah 10b:11
[Chagigah 10b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:11)

מְעִילוֹת. מִיכְתָּב כְּתִיבָן! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִכְדִתְנַן: הַשָּׁלִיחַ שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל, לֹא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught that the details of the *halakhot* of **misuse** of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But **they are written** in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14–16). **Rami bar Ḥama said:** This statement **is necessary only for that which we learned** in a mishna (*Me’ila* 20a): With regard to **an agent who performs his agency,** e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, **the homeowner has misused** consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent **did not perform his agency,** but in some way acted on his own account, **the agent has misused** consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.


###### Chagigah 10b:12
[Chagigah 10b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:12)

וְכִי עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, אַמַּאי מָעַל? וְכִי זֶה חוֹטֵא וְזֶה מִתְחַיֵּיב? הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And when he performed his agency, why** is the owner considered to have **misused** consecrated property? **And is it** possible **that this one sins and that one is rendered liable?** Since this *halakha* is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. **This is** what the mishna was referring to when it said that these *halakhot* are **like mountains suspended by a hair.**


###### Chagigah 10b:13
[Chagigah 10b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי מְעִילָה דְּיָלְפָא ״חֵטְא״ ״חֵטְא״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה הָתָם שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ — אַף כָּאן שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And what is** the logical **difficulty** with this *halakha*? **Perhaps** the transgression of **misuse** of consecrated property **is different, as it is derived** through a verbal analogy from the parallel term **“sin”** (Leviticus 5:6) and **“sin”** (Numbers 18:9), **from** the case of ***teruma*: Just as there,** with regard to *teruma*, the legal status of **a person’s agent is like** that of **himself,** and therefore the agent may separate *teruma* on behalf of the owner of the produce, **so too here,** with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of **a person’s agent is like** that of **himself,** which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable.


###### Chagigah 10b:14
[Chagigah 10b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:14)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְכִדְתַנְיָא: נִזְכַּר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְלֹא נִזְכַּר שָׁלִיחַ — שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל. שָׁלִיחַ עַנְיָא מַאי קָא עָבֵיד? הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said:** The mishna’s statement with regard to mountains **is necessary only for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, **the homeowner remembered** that it was a consecrated item **and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused** consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, **what did the poor agent do?** He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. **This is** what the mishna is referring to when it says that these *halakhot* are **like mountains suspended by a hair.**


###### Chagigah 10b:15
[Chagigah 10b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:15)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמּוֹצִיא מְעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְחוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** And **what is** the logical **difficulty** with this *halakha*? **Perhaps** this **is just as it is with** regard to **one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred** purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable.


###### Chagigah 10b:16
[Chagigah 10b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:16)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִכְדִתְנַן: נָטַל אֶבֶן אוֹ קוֹרָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ — הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא מָעַל, נְתָנָהּ לַחֲבֵירוֹ — הוּא מָעַל וַחֲבֵירוֹ לֹא מָעַל. מִכְּדֵי מִישְׁקָל שַׁקְלַהּ, מָה לִי הוּא וּמָה לִי חֲבֵירוֹ? הַיְינוּ כַּהֲרָרִין הַתְּלוּיִין בִּשְׂעָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said:** The mishna **is necessary only for that which we learned** in a mishna (*Me’ila* 19b): If one **picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused** consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he **gave it to another, he has misused** consecrated property **and the other** person **has not misused** consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: **Since he picked it up, what** difference **is** there **to me** if **he** keeps it, **and what** difference **is** there **to me** if he gives it to **another?** What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, **this is** the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these *halakhot* are **like mountains suspended by a hair.**


###### Chagigah 10b:17
[Chagigah 10b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chagigah/r/10b:17)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּלְמָא כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָכָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty. **What is** the logical **difficulty** with this *halakha*? **Perhaps** it should be explained **in accordance with** the opinion **of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here,** this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself.