Question: A Beraisa in Pesachim (70a) expounds "Lo Yalin Min ha'Basar" to teach about Chagigah of the 14th, that it is eaten for two days and a night...

Inference: [The Tana] holds that it is mid'Oraisa!

Strengthening of question: We find another Tana who holds that it is eaten for only one day and a night;

Inference: He holds that it is mid'Oraisa, but he argues with the other Tana, who said two days and a night!

Answer: He (Rav Ashi) holds like the Tana of the Mishnah in Pesachim (69b) that says "when is Chagigah [of the 14th] brought? When Pesach comes on a weekday, in Taharah, and a small amount (the Pesach does not have enough meat to satiate the group that offer it);

When Pesach comes on Shabbos, in a large amount (the Pesach suffices to satiate the group) or in Tum'ah, we do not bring [Chagigah of the 14th];

Inference: It is not obligatory, for sometimes it does not come, like Rav Ashi says there in the Gemara.

Explanation (R. Elchanan): Likewise, we could have asked that it is an Olah, and it is not eaten, and Kesef Ma'aser may be spent only on something that is eaten.

Support (Sifri, Parshas Aser Ta'aser) Suggestion: "B'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha" - perhaps one may buy [with Kesef Ma'aser] slaves... perhaps one may buy an animal for his son's wedding feast... we learn as follows:

Note: The Sifri learns a Gezeirah Shavah "v'Samachta-v'Samachta" from Devarim 27:7, "v'Zavachta Shelamim... v'Samachta"), to permit animals for Shelamim, but not for Chulin.

Perhaps just like there Olah and Shelamim (Devarim 26:6 says "v'Ha'alisa Alav Olos...") also here!

Rejection: "V'Achalta... v'Samachta" refers to Simchah with eating. This excludes Olos, which are not eaten.

Question: It says in Chulin (21a) in the Sugya of "ka'Mishpat", that we need ka'Mishpat regarding Olas ha'Of, to teach that it may come only from Chulin [and during the day, and with the right hand. just like Chatas Behemah];

We should know this already because it is an Olah!

Answer #1: This is not difficult. There (22a), we ask why it must teach that it is offered during the day. We should know this already from "on the day He commanded"!

The Gemara answered that it was taught needlessly. (Really, ka'Mishpat does not teach this.) Likewise, we could have asked that [it need not teach that it comes only from Chulin, for] it is an Olah, and answered so (it was taught needlessly).

Answer #2 (R. Elchanan): "V'Hikrivu" (Vayikra 1:15) teaches that [Nidvas Olas ha'Of] is different than other Olos, and it could come from Ma'aser, even though it is not eaten.

Citation (Megilah 8a - Mishnah): The only difference between Nedarim and Nedavos...

Question (Ri of Orlins): It should teach also that Nedarim come only from Chulin, for it is a Chovah, but Nedavos come even from Ma'aser!

Answer (R. Elchanan): It discusses an Olah, which in any case comes only from Chulin, since it is not eaten, like I explained.

Explanation: The first animal is from Chulin. Others may be from Ma'aser;

However, coins to coins, i.e. to join Chulin coins with Ma'aser coins to buy an animal, which Chizkiyah holds is bringing an obligation from Ma'aser, one may not.

R. Yochanan understands that Chulin must be mixed with all his consumptions.

Each one explains according to his reasoning.

Question: We should give a reason for both of them;

Chizkiyah says that we are not Tofel coins (add Ma'aser coins to Chulin coins). His reasoning is evident. Since it is possible to be Tofel two animals, this is preferable;

Chizkiyah holds there that one can divide his obligation to two animals. Therefore, we are not Tofel coins.

R. Yochanan holds that we are Tofel coins. Since the Torah included a Heter for Tefeilah, we are forced to say that this is it (for coins);

One may not [be Tofel] two animals, for R. Yochanan holds there that one cannot divide his obligation to two animals.

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Ila citing R. Ami): Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argue about whether one cannot divide his obligation to two animals.

Implied question: In Menachos (82a) we learn this from a different verse, and also in Zevachim (98a)!

Answer: Here we need [this Drashah]. One might have thought that since it says "Asher Yevarechecha" to permit Tefeilah of Ma'aser, one might have thought that one may totally bring from Ma'aser.

Observation: [The first Tana in] the Yerushalmi learns this from "Misas" and "Lo Suchal Se'eiso" - just like there it refers to Ma'aser... (also here, regarding Simchah, one may use Ma'aser).

Citation (Yerushalmi - R. Eliezer): It says here Simchah, and it says there Simchah. Just like there [it discusses] Ma'aser, also here [one may use] Ma'aser.

Citation (cont. - R. Ula bar Yishmael): It says here Misas, and it says there "va'Terav Mas'as". Just like there, one was primary (Binyamin's own portion) and the rest (he received also the portions of Yosef and his wife and sons) was Tefel (secondary), also here.

Observation: Some Seforim have a different text, but it cannot be resolved.

Question (R. Elchanan): Even without this, it should be forbidden because we are not Makdish on Yom Tov, like it says in Beitzah (36b)!

Answer #1: Here is different, for it is already Kadosh, since the Torah obligates him to be Mekadesh it, like it says in Bechoros (58a). Therefore, there is no Isur to be Mekadesh it.

Answer #2 (Ri): [Rav Ashi] mentioned dying, for this is an Isur mid'Oraisa. Therefore, they decreed about it. The Isur to be Makdish is only mid'Rabanan. They did not decree about it.

Support: In Beitzah (36b), regarding "we do not ride on an animal", we establish this to be due to [the Isur of leaving] the Techum;

Citation (36b): Does he hold that Techumim are mid'Oraisa?! Rather, it is a decree lest he detach a branch [to make the animal go].

Inference: We would not decree due to an Isur mid'Rabanan.

Answer #3 (R. Elchanan): [Rav Ashi] did not say that it is due to being Makdish, for we say in Shabbos (148b) that one may be Makdish his Chagigah on Yom Tov, and his Pesach on Shabbos;

If so, also here, since through it he is Yotzei Shalmei Simchah, he may be Makdish it (if not due to the Isur of dying).

Objection (Ri): Since primarily it does not come for Shalmei Simchah [it is not permitted].

Proof: [If it were permitted,] we should permit to be Makdish also Nedarim and Nedavos, since one can be Yotzei Simchah through them!

Question: [Almost] all of these answers do not suffice in Bechoros (58a) to explain why it says [that they did not fix the Goren for tithing animals to be Tishrei 1] due to dying, and not due to being Makdish [on Yom Tov]!

There, it is not a decree [lest one be Makdish on Yom Tov, and we can say that we do not decree due to an Isur mid'Rabanan. The Hava Amina was to enact to tithe specifically on Yom Tov!]

Only the first answer, that they are already Kadosh, can apply there and here. (R. Elchanan's answer does not apply there, for there is no Mitzvah to eat Kodesh meat on Rosh Hashanah.)

Implied question: This should be forbidden just like one may not separate Terumos and Ma'aseros, due to fixing!

Answer: Here it is not fixing, for even without tithing, one may eat his animals before tithing them.

Implied question: Why don't we bring "Yihyu Lecha la'Mas va'Avaducha" or "va'Yhi l'Mas Oved"?

Answer: Those do not connote money. They are mere expressions of servitude.

Explanation: This is written regarding Chag ha'Sukos. We expound it because it was repeated here, since it is written regarding Shavuos, and we learn Pesach [and Sukos] from it through a Hekesh.

Support: R. Elchanan found in the Sifri that we expound from Shavuos, for it says "v'Zacharta Ki Eved Hayisa b'Eretz Mitzrayim" to teach that whatever applies on Shavuos applies on Pesach and Sukos;

Citation (Sifri) Suggestion: Perhaps we expound that whatever applies on Pesach and Sukos, applies on Shavuos!

Rejection: It says "ha'Eleh" - these apply on Shavuos...

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We learn that Simchah is only through animals,] since it says "Lo Yalin Chelev Chagi" (Chagigah is only from animals, which have Chelev).

Question: Below (10b), we do not learn from there in the conclusion, rather, from a Gezeirah Shavah "Midbar-Midbar"!

Answer: Perhaps in any case, the verse connotes Chagigah;

Below (10b), we learn from "Midbar-Midbar." Perhaps we rely on the word "v'Yachogu", which connotes Chagigah;

If we relied only on "Midbar", one might have thought [even] Olah and Shelamim.

Suggestion: [If Simchah is only from things from which Chagigah] comes from them, Shalmei Simchah should come from Ma'aser only through Tefeilah, like Chagigah! (This is only based on Rashash, who says that this begins a new matter.)

Rejection: The Sifri learns from a Gezeirah Shavah [to permit Simchah totally from Ma'aser]. It says "Sham" regarding [Shelamim and] Ma'aser. Also in Menachos (82a) it mentions the Gezeirah Shavah "Sham-Sham" to Shelamim.

Question #1 (R. Elchanan): We should learn from Simchah from Har Eival, about which it says "v'Zavachta Shelamim", and from it we exclude birds and Menachos!

R. Yehudah ben Beseirah expounds like this in Pesachim (109a).

Question #2: Why don't we establish the verse to discuss Chulin meat, which is called Simchah?

Answer (and Explanation #2 - R. Elchanan): Surely we learn from Har Eival. Just like the Simchah there is Shelamim, also here it is Shelamim. (Maharsha - we exclude only Chulin meat, but Zevach does not exclude birds and Menachos. Perhaps R. Elchanan means that we learn from both Har Eival and "v'Samachta b'Chagecha"! However, the next line brings that the Yerushalmi excludes birds and Menachos from "Zevach" at Har Eival!)

Citation (Yerushalmi): However, [one is] not [Yotzei through] birds and Menachos, for it says "Zevach" at Har Eival.

Implied question: The first Tana expounds this (to include all kinds of Kodshim) from "v'Samachta b'Chagecha" - something from which Chagigah can come. (What is his source to forbid marrying during the Mo'ed?)

Answer #1: He expounds both of them from it, for it could have written b'Chag.

Answer #2: We can say that he argues with him. He holds that it does not connote [like Rav expounds];

He learns the Isur to marry during the Mo'ed like [one of] the other opinion[s] there. (It is because we do not mix Simchos, or due to exertion, or lest people delay marrying until the festival.)

Citation (Yerushalmi): If an Oni is generous, we apply to him "Ish k'Matnos Yado";

Citation (cont.): If an Ashir is stingy, we apply to him "k'Virkas Hash-m Elokecha";

Citation (cont.): If an Oni is stingy, for this it was said "one Ma'ah of silver, two [Ma'os] of silver" - one cannot bring [Olas Re'iyah] for less than one Ma'ah of silver, nor [Chagigah] for less than two [Ma'os of] silver.

Explanation #1 (Rashi) Implied question: He transgresses Bal Tosif, for the Torah said "v'Chagosem Oso" - Chagigah should be on one day, and he does so on two days!

Answer: He does not transgress, for it is Tashlumin of the first day. However, Stam it is forbidden, like the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Implied question: Since he cannot offer it on the first day, how can he offer it on the second day?

Answer: We heard that R. Yochanan said below that it is Tashlumin of the first day, so he is considered proper on the first day, since there are many Kohanim who can offer them at once.

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): Reish Lakish taught that if one separated 10 animals and offered five on Yom Tov Rishon, he offers five on Yom Tov Acharon;

Even though we do not offer Nedarim and Nedavos on Yom Tov, since their initial separation was for Chagigah, which may be offered on Yom Tov.

R. Yochanan says that since he interrupted, he may not return to offer them [on Yom Tov Acharon].

Explanation #2 (cont.): R. Aba explained that they do not argue. One discusses Stam, and one discusses when he specified;

R. Yochanan discusses when he separated them Stam and offered, and there was time in the day to slaughter the rest, and he had people to eat them, and he did not slaughter them;

He left them over, and they became like Nedarim and Nedavos not of Yom Tov, which may not be offered [on Yom Tov].

Reish Lakish discusses when he specified that he will offer the remainder on Yom Tov Acharon. In such a case it is permitted.

Support #1: When R. Avin came, he said in the name of R. Yochanan that if one separated 10 animals for his Chagigah, and offered five... he offers again...

This contradicts the other teaching of R. Yochanan! Rather, [we distinguish between whether or not he specified].

Support #2: Also R. Shemen bar Aba said in the name of R. Yochanan that we say that since he interrupted, he may not return to offer them, only when the day did not finish;

We say that he left them over, and they became Nedarim and Nedavos;

However, if the day finished, he may return to offer them [on Yom Tov Acharon]. So explained R. Chananel.

Proof (for Explanation #2) Citation (Yerushalmi in Chagigah) Question: If 10 animals were in front of him, and he offered five on Yom Tov Rishon, do the rest override Yom Tov Acharon?

Citation (cont. - R. Krispa): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued about this. One said that they override, and one said that they do not, and I do not know who said which.

Citation (cont. - R. Zeira): We can explain the opinion of Rabanan (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish) from their words;

R. Yochanan said that one is Tofel coins to coins. He says that it overrides;

Reish Lakish said that one is Tofel animals to animals, but not coins to coins. He says that it does not override.

R. Shemen bar Aba said in the name of R. Yochanan that really, he may increase, and override Yom Tov, until he says that he does not want to add.

Inference: He discusses overriding Yom Tov.