Festival Offerings of Passover and the Debate of Shammai and Hillel

Another interpretation: if the first and last days, which have no days before or after them, require a festival offering, then the intermediate days, which have days before and after them, should by law require a festival offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: Behold it says, "Seven days you shall keep the festival" (Deuteronomy 16:15), to include the seven days of Passover, that they require a festival offering. Or perhaps it speaks only of Sukkot? When it says, "And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD" (Leviticus 23:41), behold, Sukkot is already stated; so what does "seven days you shall keep the festival" teach? To include the seven days of Passover, that they require a festival offering. "Throughout your generations" - I might hear a minimum of generations, namely two; Scripture teaches, "an eternal statute you shall celebrate it." The House of Shammai says: One brings peace offerings but does not lay hands upon them, and not burnt offerings. And the House of Hillel says: One brings peace offerings and burnt offerings and lays hands upon them. Ulla said: the dispute is over the festival peace offering with regard to laying hands, and over the burnt offering of appearance with regard to bringing it near, for the House of Shammai hold "and you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD" - a festival offering yes, a burnt offering of appearance no; and the House of Hillel hold "to the LORD" means all that is for the LORD. But as for vow offerings and freewill offerings, all agree they are not offered on a festival day. They challenged this: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, they did not dispute over a burnt offering that is not of the festival day, that it is not offered on the festival day, nor over peace offerings that are of the festival day, that they are offered on the festival day. Over what did they dispute? Over a burnt offering that is of the festival day and over peace offerings that are not of the festival day, for the House of Shammai say one may not bring them, and the House of Hillel say one may bring them. Rav Yosef said: Have you taken Tannaim from the world? It is a dispute of Tannaim, as it was taught: peace offerings that come on account of the festival day, on the festival day, the House of Shammai say one brings them from the eve of the festival and lays hands and slaughters on the festival, and the House of Hillel say one lays hands on them on the festival and slaughters them on the festival; but as for vow offerings and freewill offerings, all agree they are not offered on the festival day. It was taught: The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: if in a case where it is forbidden to a layman it is permitted for the Most High, then in a case where it is permitted to a layman, is it not logical that it be permitted for the Most High? The House of Shammai said to them: vow offerings and freewill offerings prove otherwise, for they are permitted to a layman and forbidden for the Most High. The House of Hillel said to them: what of vow offerings and freewill offerings, which have no fixed time? Can you say the same of the burnt offering of appearance, which has a fixed time? The House of Shammai said to them: even the burnt offering has no fixed time, for we have learned: one who did not bring the festival offering on the first festival day may keep bringing it throughout the festival. The House of Hillel said to them: even this one has a fixed time, for we have learned: if the festival passed and he did not offer it, he is not liable for its replacement. The House of Shammai said to them: but has it not already been said "for you," and not for the Most High? The House of Hillel said to them: but has it not already been said "to the LORD," meaning all that is for the LORD? If so, what does "for you" teach? "For you" and not for the Samaritans, "for you" and not for dogs. Abba Shaul says it in another formulation: if in a place where your own oven is closed your master's oven is open, in a place where your own oven is open, is it not logical that your master's oven be open? And so it is by law, that your table should not be full while your master's table is empty. In what do they disagree? One master holds vow offerings and freewill offerings are offered on the festival day, and one master holds they are not offered on the festival day. Rabbi Yose said: the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute over the laying on of hands, that it is required. Over what did they dispute? Over whether the slaughter must immediately follow the laying on of hands, for the House of Shammai say it is not required and the House of Hillel say it is required. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehuda says: the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not dispute that the slaughter must immediately follow the laying on of hands, that it is required; over what did they dispute? Over the laying on of hands itself, for the House of Shammai say it is not required and the House of Hillel say it is required. The festival offering of the fourteenth - what is the reason it does not override the Sabbath, seeing that it is a communal offering? The verse says, "And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD seven days" (Leviticus 23:41) - seven, but with the fourteenth there would be eight; rather, from here we learn that the festival offering does not override the Sabbath. Rabbi Elazar said: peace offerings slaughtered on the eve of the festival day do not fulfill the obligation, neither of rejoicing nor of the festival offering. Not of rejoicing, for it is written, "And you shall sacrifice peace offerings... and you shall rejoice" (Deuteronomy 27:7) - we require that the slaughter be at the time of rejoicing, and there is none. Not of the festival offering, for it is a matter of obligation, and every matter of obligation comes only from non-sacred property.