Chag HaShavuos
1. At the end of the laws concerning the festival of Shavuos in the Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe writes:1 "במוצאי חג השבועות אסור להתענות מעיקר הדין לפי שהי׳ יום טבוח בזמן שבהמ״ק קיים דהיינו שבו ביום היו מקריבין עולות ראי׳ שלא היו יכולין להקריב ביו״ט עצמו לפי שאין בהם שום צורך אוכל נפש ואין מחללין יום טוב בשבילם כיון שאפשר להקריבו אחר יו״ט שהעצרת יש לה תשלומין כל שבעה, ואע״פ שזה הוא לדברי ב״ש אבל לדברי ב״ה מותר להקריבן אף ביו״ט עצמו מ״מ כיון שבדבר זה עשו ב״ה כדבריהם והרבה מישראל נהגו כמותם להקריבן אחר יו״ט ונעשה להם יום זה שהוא מוצאי יו״ט כמו יו״ט עצמו להאסר בו בהספד ותענית א״כ אף עתה משחרב בית המקדש לא הותרה ההספד והתענית בו ביום" ("On the day after the festival of Shavuos it is forbidden to fast according to the letter of the law, because it was the Yom Tavo'ach (the day of slaughtering) when the Beis HaMikdash stood — that is, on that day they would offer the Olos Re'iyah (the burnt-offerings of appearance), which they could not offer on Yom Tov itself, since they involve no need of food preparation, and Yom Tov is not desecrated for them, since it is possible to offer them after Yom Tov, for Atzeres has a make-up period of all seven days. And although this is according to the words of Beis Shammai, whereas according to the words of Beis Hillel it is permitted to offer them even on Yom Tov itself — nevertheless, since in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words, and many of Israel followed their practice of offering them after Yom Tov, this day, which is the day after Yom Tov, became for them like Yom Tov itself, so as to be forbidden for eulogy and fasting. If so, even now that the Beis HaMikdash has been destroyed, eulogy and fasting on that day have not been permitted").2
Well known is the question that is asked:3 Where is the source that Beis Hillel conducted themselves in this matter according to Beis Shammai and offered [the offerings] after Yom Tov, and that "many of Israel followed their practice"?
The Gemara4 cites a Baraisa:5 "מעשה ומת אלכסא בלוד ונכנסו כל ישראל לסופדו ולא הניחם רבי טרפון מפני שיו״ט של עצרת הי׳" ("It once happened that Alexa6 died in Lod, and all Israel came in to eulogize him, but Rabbi Tarfon did not let them, because it was the Yom Tov of Atzeres"). The Gemara asks: "יו״ט ס״ד" ("Yom Tov — can it enter your mind?"), and answers: "אלא אימא מפני שיום טבוח הי׳" ("Rather, say: because it was the Yom Tavo'ach"). Now, since it is not reasonable to say7 that Rabbi Tarfon would rule on his own like Beis Shammai,8 and that "all Israel" would then agree with his ruling, it is understood from this that "all Israel" had previously, on their own, conducted themselves in this matter according to the words of Beis Shammai.9
And although the Mishnah10 speaks explicitly about "עצרת שחל להיות בערב שבת ב״ש אומרים יום טבוח אחר השבת ובית הלל אומרים אין יום טבוח אחר השבת" ("When Atzeres falls on Erev Shabbos, Beis Shammai say the Yom Tavo'ach is after Shabbos, and Beis Hillel say there is no Yom Tavo'ach after Shabbos") — [which implies] that if Atzeres does not fall on Shabbos, no "Yom Tavo'ach" is needed,11 since one can offer on the day of Yom Tov —
The Tosafos Rid12 anticipates this question: "קשה לי דא״כ ר׳ טרפון כב״ש דאי ב״ה הא אמרו דאין לה יום טבוח דמקרבי ביו״ט" ("It is difficult for me: if so, Rabbi Tarfon [rules] like Beis Shammai, for according to Beis Hillel, they said that it has no Yom Tavo'ach, since they offer on Yom Tov"). And he answers: "ב״ה א״צ יום טבוח . . מיהו סתמי דמילתא אין כל ישראל יכולין להספיק ולהקריב שלמי חגיגה ועולת ראי׳ ביום ראשון והרבה מקריבין ביום שני והלכך יום שני של עצרת הוא אסור בהספד ותענית מפני שהוא יום טבוח וכו׳ שעיקר הקרבתן ביום שני" ("Beis Hillel do not require a Yom Tavo'ach . . . However, in the ordinary course of things, not all Israel are able to manage to offer the Shalmei Chagigah (festival peace-offerings) and the Olas Re'iyah on the first day, and many offer on the second day; therefore the second day of Atzeres is forbidden for eulogy and fasting because it is a Yom Tavo'ach, etc., since the main offering of them is on the second day").13
Based on this, the words of the Alter Rebbe in the Shulchan Aruch are explained and clarified: what he says — that in practice Isru Chag (of Atzeres) was a Yom Tavo'ach — is in accordance with (and based on) the words of the Tosafos HaRid mentioned above.14
2. However, it is not at all plausible that with the words "בדבר זה עשו ב״ה כדבריהם" ("in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words") the Alter Rebbe intends the reasoning of the Rid ("not all Israel are able to manage, etc."); the Alter Rebbe's wording does not contain such an explanation. And even from the fact that the Alter Rebbe says "והרבה מישראל נהגו כמותם להקריבן אחר יו״ט" ("and many of Israel followed their practice of offering them after Yom Tov"), it is also evident that he does not mean the idea stated in Tosafos Rid. For then the Alter Rebbe would have said (not "followed their practice of offering them after Yom Tov," which implies that they conducted themselves from the outset like Beis Shammai, but rather) "והרבה מישראל שלא הספיקו להקריב ביו״ט נהגו להקריבן אחר יו״ט" ("and many of Israel who did not manage to offer on Yom Tov were accustomed to offer them after Yom Tov"), or the like.
Furthermore, and most importantly: from the fact that the Alter Rebbe mentions only the "Olas Re'iyah" — "on that day they would offer the Olos Re'iyah" (not as in Tosafos Rid, where the "Shalmei Chagigah" are also mentioned) — and elaborates on the reason for this according to Beis Shammai (which applies only to the Olas Re'iyah15), "that they could not offer on Yom Tov itself, since they involve no need of food preparation,16 and Yom Tov is not desecrated for them, etc." —
— it is evident that the fact that "in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words, and many of Israel followed their practice" is not because "not all Israel are able to manage to offer" (which would apply to the Shalmei Chagigah as well), but rather it is connected with the reason of Beis Shammai, which applies only to the Olas Re'iyah.
For as to the reason why the Alter Rebbe does not accept the explanation of the Tosafos HaRid regarding the prohibition of eulogy and fasting on the day after Shavuos — it is that it is difficult to say that because of those who "are not . . . able to manage to offer, etc., on the first day," the second day should have the status of a Yom Tavo'ach with regard to the prohibition of eulogy and fasting,17 and for all Jews at that.18
The reason itself, too — that "not all Israel are able to manage to offer the Shalmei Chagigah and the Olas Re'iyah on the first day" — requires explanation: Why should one assume that "they are not able to manage"? We find that the Korban Pesach — an offering which every individual was also obligated to bring — all Jews were able to offer in one day. And more than that: the Korban Pesach on Erev Pesach could be offered only19 after midday,20 whereas the Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah could be offered the entire day, from after the morning Tamid offering.21
[And although not every individual brought the Korban Pesach, but rather people registered for it in groups22 — the law is23 that the Olos Re'iyah and Shalmei Chagigah24 can also be brought in partnership.]
Thus the question returns to its place: What is the source and the explanation for what the Alter Rebbe says,25 "since in this matter Beis Hillel26 acted in accordance with their words, and many of Israel followed their practice of offering them after Yom Tov"27 (on account of Beis Shammai's reason, "since they involve no need of food preparation")?
3. The words of the Alter Rebbe themselves also need to be understood:
a) After he says "since in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words" (those of Beis Shammai) — what does he add with "and many of Israel followed their practice"? Since not only Beis Shammai but also Beis Hillel offered on the day after Yom Tov, it is obvious that all Jews conducted themselves this way! Also: why the wording "many," and not "all Israel"?
b) From the lengthy words of the Alter Rebbe at the beginning of the se'if — "because it was the Yom Tavo'ach when the Beis HaMikdash stood — that is, on that day they would offer the Olos Re'iyah, which they could not offer on Yom Tov itself, since they involve no need of food preparation, and Yom Tov is not desecrated for them, since it is possible to offer them after Yom Tov, for Atzeres has a make-up period of all seven days" —
— it is implied that the fact that "in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words (those of Beis Shammai), and many of Israel followed their practice" is connected with the reason of Beis Shammai that he cites earlier, as mentioned above. It must be understood what the explanation of this is, since according to Beis Hillel it is permitted to offer them on Yom Tov.
4. This will be understood by first explaining the order of the se'ifim in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch at the end of the above laws: First comes se'if 18: "אסור להתענות תענית חלום בחג השבועות כו׳" ("It is forbidden to fast a dream-fast on the festival of Shavuos, etc."); after that, se'if 19: "On the day after the festival of Shavuos it is forbidden to fast according to the letter of the law"; and after that, se'if 20: "ונוהגין במדינות אלו שלא להתענות ושלא לומר תחנון מר״ח עד ח׳ בו ועד בכלל כו׳" ("And the custom in these countries is not to fast and not to say Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of the month, inclusive, etc.").
Now seemingly, it is understood why the Alter Rebbe placed the laws concerning the prohibition of fasting, etc., at the end of the laws of the festival of Shavuos: because reason dictates that first28 should come the laws and customs of the obligations that one must perform on the festival of Shavuos, and afterwards the matters and laws connected with prohibitions and the like. The question, however, concerns the order within the three se'ifim themselves:29 according to chronological order, it would have been fitting for the Alter Rebbe to begin first of all with the last se'if, "the custom in these countries is not to fast and not to say Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of the month, etc.," and afterwards the laws concerning the prohibition of (dream-)fasting on the festival of Shavuos and on the day after the festival of Shavuos30 [especially since the law that Tachanun is not said appears in the Rema (and that one does not fast, in the Magen Avraham31) at that place, whereas the prohibition of fasting a dream-fast on Shavuos is not cited in the Rema, but in the Chok Yaakov (in the name of the Maharil32)].
5. The explanation of all this:
As for what the Alter Rebbe says, that "Beis Hillel acted in accordance with the words" of Beis Shammai — it can be said that its source is in Tractate Beitzah:33
"מעשה בהלל הזקן שהביא עולתו לעזרה לסמוך עלי׳ ביו״ט חברו עליו תלמידי שמאי הזקן אמרו לו מה טיבה של בהמה זו אמר להם נקבה היא ולזבחי שלמים הבאתי׳ . . ואותו היום גברה ידם של ב״ש כו׳ והי׳ שם זקן אחד מתלמידי שמאי הזקן כו׳ שהי׳ יודע שהלכה כב״ה ושלח כו׳ ואותו היום גברה ידן של בית הלל וקבעו הלכה כמותן ולא הי׳ שם אדם שערער בדבר כלום" ("It once happened that Hillel the Elder brought his burnt-offering to the Courtyard to lean [his hands] on it on Yom Tov. The disciples of Shammai the Elder gathered around him and said to him: 'What is the nature of this animal?' He said to them: 'It is a female, and I brought it as a peace-offering' . . . And on that day the hand of Beis Shammai prevailed, etc. And there was an elder there, of the disciples of Shammai the Elder, etc., who knew that the halachah follows Beis Hillel, and he sent, etc. And on that day the hand of Beis Hillel prevailed, and they established the halachah according to them, and there was no one there who contested the matter at all").
After that the Gemara relates: "שוב מעשה בתלמיד אחד (. . לאחר המעשה הזה הי׳ מעשה בתלמיד אחד כו׳ — רש״י) מתלמידי ב״ה שהביא עולתו לעזרה לסמוך עלי׳ מצאו תלמיד אחד מתלמידי ב״ש אמר לו מה זו סמיכה, א״ל מה זו שתיקה שתקו בנזיפה והלך לו" ("Again, it happened with one disciple (Rashi: '. . . after this incident there was an incident with one disciple, etc.') of the disciples of Beis Hillel, who brought his burnt-offering to the Courtyard to lean on it. One of the disciples of Beis Shammai found him and said to him: 'What is this leaning?' He said to him: 'What is this silence?' He silenced him with a rebuke, and he went away").
Seemingly: since they established the halachah according to Beis Hillel — that one brings burnt-offerings34 and leans on them — how is it that afterwards there was an incident with one disciple of the disciples of Beis Hillel who brought his burnt-offering to the Courtyard, etc.? This shows that it was not an ordinary occurrence, but an exceptional case with one disciple — yet surely all the disciples of Beis Hillel should have done so, and in general the entire Jewish people (since they established the halachah like Beis Hillel)?
From this itself it is evident that even after they established the halachah like Beis Hillel, most Jews,35 including the disciples of Beis Hillel, conducted themselves not to bring their burnt-offerings on Yom Tov.
6. But this itself requires a reason: since they established the halachah according to them,36 why did they not bring their burnt-offerings on Yom Tov according to the words of Beis Hillel?37 Especially since the law concerning bringing the Olos Re'iyah on Yom Tov is not merely a permission to offer the Olos Re'iyah on Yom Tov, but rather that is then "עיקר מצותן" ("the essence of their mitzvah").38
Therefore the Alter Rebbe learns that the above incident in Gemara Beitzah is in line with what the Gemara relates in Chagigah, that Rabbi Tarfon did not allow a eulogy on the day after Shavuos because it was the Yom Tavo'ach. That is to say, the fact that they did not offer the Olos Re'iyah on Yom Tov itself is because that was how people conducted themselves in connection with Atzeres — the festival of Shavuos — after which there was then a Yom Tavo'ach [and from this it branched out to Pesach and Sukkos, that people were not particular to offer on the first day of Yom Tov].
The explanation of this:
According to the letter of the law, Beis Hillel indeed hold that the time of the Olos Re'iyah, and the essence of their mitzvah, is on the day of Yom Tov itself, as is learned39 from the verse40 "וחגותם אותו חג לה׳" ("You shall celebrate it as a festival to G‑d") — "כל דלה׳" ("whatever is for G‑d") — and on account of the reason "שלא יהא שולחנך מלא ושולחן רבך ריקן" ("so that your table should not be full while your Master's table is empty").41 But on Atzeres, regarding which "הכל מודים בעצרת דבעינן נמי לכם" ("all agree that on Atzeres we also require 'for you'") — "שישמח בו במאכל ומשתה" ("that one should rejoice on it with food and drink")42 — Beis Hillel conducted themselves according to the words of Beis Shammai and did not offer the Olos Re'iyah then.
The reason: Although, on account of the reasoning "so that your table should not be full while your Master's table is empty," there is "צורך קצת" ("some need")43 in offering the Olos Re'iyah on Yom Tov, and consequently it is included in "שמחת יו״ט" ("the rejoicing of Yom Tov")44 — nevertheless, because of the greatness of the matter of "יום שניתנה בו תורה" ("the day on which the Torah was given") on Atzeres, which demands "שישמח בו במאכל ומשתה להראות שנוח ומקובל יום זה לישראל שנתנה תורה בו" ("that one rejoice on it with food and drink, to show that this day, on which the Torah was given, is pleasing and acceptable to Israel"),45 Beis Hillel endeavored that the principal offerings on this day should be only those in which there is evident not merely "some need," but a "complete need" — a rejoicing "with food and drink."
7. Based on the above, it is understood why the Alter Rebbe: a) cites (at length) at the beginning of the se'if the reason of Beis Shammai, "that they could not offer on Yom Tov itself, since they involve no need of food preparation, etc.," even though this does not at all accord with the view of Beis Hillel; b) mentions only the Olos Re'iyah, not as in Tosafos Rid (and likewise in the Levush), where the "Shalmei Chagigah" are also mentioned; c) adds "many of Israel followed their practice of offering them after Yom Tov" —
With this the Alter Rebbe emphasizes that although according to Beis Hillel "it is permitted to offer them (even) on Yom Tov," nevertheless "they acted in accordance with their words," and (not because they did not manage to offer the Olas Re'iyah (and Shalmei Chagigah) on Yom Tov itself, nor because of a stringency that they took upon themselves according to the view of Beis Shammai (as is found elsewhere46), but rather) on account of the reason of Beis Shammai, "that they involve no need of food preparation." Therefore: "many of Israel followed their practice of offering them after Yom Tov."
And the Alter Rebbe makes this even more pronounced by placing the se'ifim concerning the prohibition of fasting not according to their chronological order (which is: from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of the month, then the prohibition of a dream-fast on Shavuos, and after that the prohibition of fasting on the day after Shavuos); rather, he states the custom not to fast from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of the month after the prohibition of fasting on Shavuos and on the day after Shavuos —
— in order to emphasize that the fact that the prohibition of fasting on the day after Shavuos comes after the se'if concerning the prohibition of a dream-fast on Shavuos is not (only) because of chronological order, but as a continuation of the content of the preceding se'if:
Through the statement that "אסור להתענות תענית חלום בחג השבועות לפי שהוא יום שניתנה בו התורה וצריך לאכול ולשמוח בו להראות שנוח ומקובל לישראל יום שניתנה בו התורה לפיכך אינו דומה לשאר יו״ט ושבתות שמותר להתענות בהם תענית חלום" ("it is forbidden to fast a dream-fast on the festival of Shavuos, because it is the day on which the Torah was given, and one must eat and rejoice on it to show that the day on which the Torah was given is pleasing and acceptable to Israel; therefore it is unlike other Yamim Tovim and Shabbasos, on which it is permitted to fast a dream-fast"), it is explained why "on the day after the festival of Shavuos it is forbidden to fast according to the letter of the law, because it was the Yom Tavo'ach when the Beis HaMikdash stood — that is, on that day they would offer the Olos Re'iyah, etc." The Alter Rebbe immediately explains the reason of Beis Shammai (but without stating at once that this is what Beis Shammai say), because the definition holds according to Beis Hillel as well (although not as a prohibition), as mentioned above.47
[Based on this, the Alter Rebbe's wording here, "many of Israel followed their practice," is better understood. For seemingly, since "in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words," then "all Israel" conducted themselves this way. [The answer is] that (what matters here is not the fact that Jews conducted themselves this way in practice (as according to Tosafos Rid), but the reason — and it is possible that for some of them this was because they lacked alacrity and the like; rather) the proof is from the fact that "many" (at least) "followed their practice of offering after Yom Tov" — because of the reason behind the matter, which relates to "the day on which the Torah was given," as mentioned above.48]
8. It can be said that the Alter Rebbe also derives this from the Baraisa of Rabbi Tarfon itself: "Rabbi Tarfon did not let them (eulogize him) because it was the Yom Tov of Atzeres," and the Gemara asks, "יו״ט ס״ד אי ביו״ט מי קאתי אלא אימא מפני שיום טבוח הי׳" ("Yom Tov — can it enter your mind? Would they come on Yom Tov? Rather, say: because it was the Yom Tavo'ach"). Seemingly, how is it that the Gemara (the Baraisa) would initially alter the wording so as to say "the Yom Tov of Atzeres" instead of "Yom Tavo'ach"? But from this it is understood that this is the content of the first wording: this is indeed not "the day of Atzeres itself," but "after Atzeres"; yet on the other hand it contains within it an essential element of "the Yom Tov of Atzeres," being the "Yom Tavo'ach" of the offerings of "the Yom Tov of Atzeres."
According to the interpretation of Tosafos Rid, however, the "Yom Tavo'ach" of Atzeres is not the essence of (the offerings of) the Yom Tov of Atzeres, but merely a continuation, and only for a portion [of the people], and only for those who in practice "are not . . . able to manage." For this reason it is also not smooth that on this day the name (definition) of "Yom Tavo'ach" should take effect (and that on account of this it is forbidden for eulogy and fasting (to the extent that this is so even in the present time, after the Destruction, when offerings are not brought)), since the day itself is not a Yom Tavo'ach — [it is only like Isru Chag, which in the language of the Yerushalmi49 is "ברי׳ דמועדא" — "בן המועד" ("the son of the festival"),50 an offshoot and result of the inability to offer all the offerings on the festival itself51].
Whereas according to the Alter Rebbe's interpretation — since Atzeres is "the day on which the Torah was given, and one must eat and rejoice on it, etc.," and therefore some of the offerings of Atzeres were offered on a day which (in the Alter Rebbe's words, "Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words, and many of Israel followed their practice . . .") "became for them, this day which is the day after Yom Tov, like Yom Tov itself" — the actual obligation of the offerings52 is on the "Yom Tavo'ach,"53 and therefore it becomes forbidden for eulogy and fasting. And according to this it is understood that "if so, even now that the Beis HaMikdash has been destroyed, eulogy and fasting on that day have not been permitted," since the day "became, etc., like Yom Tov itself," as mentioned above.
9. According to all the above, it emerges that the difference between the Alter Rebbe and Tosafos Rid lies in two details: a) the Yom Tavo'ach is connected with the Yom Tov of Atzeres itself, as "the day on which the Torah was given"; b) it is not due to necessity and inability (as according to Tosafos Rid — because "not all Israel are able to manage to offer"), but it was brought about through the action and conduct of the Jewish people — "Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words, and many of Israel followed their practice" — and therefore "this day became for them, etc., like Yom Tov itself."
It can be said that these two details are connected with each other by virtue of their inner content:
In Torah there is the matter of Mattan Torah (the giving of the Torah) — as it is from the side of the Giver of the Torah, the Holy One, blessed be He — and Kabbalas HaTorah (the receiving of the Torah) — as it is from the side of the recipient, the Jewish people.
And this is what the Alter Rebbe says in his Shulchan Aruch: that the fact that "all agree that on Atzeres we also require 'for you'" is "to show that the day on which the Torah was given is pleasing and acceptable to Israel" — that is, to bring out the definition of the Torah as it is from the side of the recipient, from the side of the Jewish people.54
And therefore this is how it comes out regarding the day on which the offerings of the festival of Shavuos are brought, the Yom Tavo'ach: the taking effect of the name "Yom Tavo'ach" on that day is not due to necessity — because they did not manage to offer the offerings on the day of Shavuos, so that it consequently becomes "the son of the festival," a result of Yom Tov — but rather due to the conduct of the Jewish people, as mentioned above. Through their conduct in the joy and preciousness of the Torah, "to show that it is pleasing and acceptable to Israel," they brought about and added (also) in time,55 so that the day after Yom Tov "became for them, this day . . . like Yom Tov itself."56
(From the sichos of the second day of Shavuos, 5716, 5723, and 5736)
Notes
1) Siman 494, se'if 19.
2) It is worth noting that according to this — that Beis Hillel too acted in accordance with the words of Beis Shammai to offer them after Yom Tov — in the calendar of this year (5746), when "Atzeres falls on Erev Shabbos" (in the wording of the Mishnah, Chagigah 17a), [OCR unclear] for both the residents of Eretz Yisrael and those outside it, the Yom Tavo'ach is on Sunday. And see Tosafos Rid (cited below in the text), at its end; Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1030, note 26.
3) For what follows, see "Sofrim uSfarim" (by Rabbi S. Y. Zevin), "Pesachim," p. 16.
4) Chagigah 18a, end.
5) Tosefta Chagigah, end of ch. 2.
6) This is the reading in the Gemara and the Tosefta before us. In the Ein Yaakov there is a reading "Alexandrai," and the Tosefta (Zuckermandel edition) cites from variant readings "Alexander."
7) As stated in Mishneh LaMelech, Laws of the Temple Vessels, ch. 6, halachah 9; and elsewhere.
8) As in Yerushalmi Shevi'is, ch. 4, halachah 2 — that only in two matters did Rabbi Tarfon follow Beis Shammai.
9) As for why at first all Israel came in to eulogize him, it can be said that since this was after the Destruction (see Tosafos Rid, cited below in the text), and there was no Yom Tavo'ach in practice, they thought that there is no prohibition of eulogy, etc.
10) Ibid. 17a.
11) Even if it falls on the other days of the week (and not specifically on Erev Shabbos), as is understood in the Gemara there (17b), and as stated explicitly in the Tosefta there.
12) Ibid. 18a, end.
13) See also Yad David, ibid. 17a, s.v. "Mutarim."
14) Except that the Tosafos Rid was printed in 5581, as written there in "Sofrim uSfarim." And see there that the law of the Yom Tavo'ach is cited in the Shiltei HaGiborim on Taanis, ch. 2, in the name of "MaZ"H" (my teacher and grandfather, the Rav), that is, the Rid. It is likewise cited (with regard to the present time) in the Shibbolei HaLeket, siman 262, in the name of Rabbeinu Yeshayah, and in the Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 494, in the name of the above and of the Mahariv"ch (in the Ein Yaakov). And see below, note 51.
15) See the following note.
16) From the fact that the Alter Rebbe did not suffice with what he writes afterwards, "since it is possible to offer them after Yom Tov, for Atzeres has a make-up period," etc., [but also wrote] "since they involve no need of food preparation," it is evident that the Alter Rebbe holds that the Shalmei Chagigah are offered [on Yom Tov] even according to Beis Shammai [as in the Baraisa in Beitzah (19a — the words of Rashba and Ulla) and Megillah (5a), and as is the plain meaning of the wording in the Tosefta there (ch. 2, 5, at the beginning): "and peace-offerings — one who celebrates with them leans on them on the eve of Yom Tov"]; and not like Rashi on Chagigah there, s.v. "Yom Tavo'ach," and Tosafos s.v. the above (the second one), based on the Yerushalmi: "אמרו להם ב״ש חגיגה נמי אין זמנה קבוע שאם לא חגג בראשון חוגג והולך כל הרגל" ("Beis Shammai said to them: the Chagigah too has no fixed time, for if one did not celebrate on the first day, he goes on celebrating throughout the festival").
And even if you say that the Chagigah too is "for G‑d" and not "for you" — see the Yerushalmi (Beitzah, ch. 2, halachah 4, and Chagigah, ch. 2, halachah 3), that Beis Shammai exclude (according to the interpretation of Tosafos, that it refers to) the Chagigah from "for you" (and see Tosafos Yom Tov, Beitzah 2:4, s.v. "VeOlos") — it requires investigation whether one can say of it "they involve no need of food preparation." And see Maharsha on Tosafos there; Yad David there. And see below, note 47.
*) And in the Levush here: "because these offerings (Re'iyah and Chagigah) are called offerings of an individual, and an individual's offering overrides neither Shabbos nor Yom Tov." And see the wording of the Rambam, Laws of Chagigah, ch. 1, halachah 8.
**) And see also the commentators on the Yerushalmi there, that Beis Shammai are not referring to the Chagigah offering (since even according to them it is offered on Yom Tov), but to the Olas Re'iyah. And similarly in the commentators on the Toras Kohanim, Emor (23:39), and elsewhere.
17) And see what he continues there: "And although all seven [days] have a make-up, we cannot, etc." And note the Ra'avyah, vol. 2, siman 850, in the name of his father: a prohibition of eulogy and fasting during all seven make-up days of Shavuos.
18) And see the Yad David cited in note 13.
19) In the wording of the verse (Bo 12:6; Behaaloscha 9:3, and ibid. 5): "בין הערבים" ("in the afternoon").
20) The wording of the Rambam, Laws of the Korban Pesach, beginning of ch. 1 (and especially according to what he writes in halachah 4 there). And see the Mechilta, Bo, there.
21) It is strained to answer that [the difference is] because they needed to bring Olos Re'iyah and also Shalmei Chagigah and Shalmei Simchah, which is not so with the Korban Pesach — for on Erev Pesach too they brought the Chagigah of the fourteenth, even though the Chagigah of the fourteenth is optional (Rambam, ibid., ch. 10, halachah 13). And see Mishneh LaMelech, Laws of the Temple Vessels, there, as to whether the Chagigah of the fourteenth is offered the entire day; and the Encyclopedia Talmudis, entry "Chagigas Yud-Daled" (pp. 605–606).
But it can be said that regarding the Korban Pesach, since the obligation is only on this day, everyone was compelled to press themselves to offer it on that day; whereas on Yom Tov, where there is no compulsion (since there is a make-up period), not everyone pressed to [offer on] the first day.
22) See Rambam, ibid., beginning of ch. 2.
23) Tosefta Chagigah, ch. 1, 6.
24) This is stated explicitly in the Turei Even, Chagigah (6a), s.v. "HaRe'iyah" (near its end), that in both one can join in partnership. And plainly this is so according to the Tosefta. And see Kometz Minchah by the author of the Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 88.
25) Note that in the Levush there as well it is implied that he holds that Beis Hillel conducted themselves like Beis Shammai in this — see there in his wording: "And although when the House stood, eulogies and fasts were permitted according to Beis Hillel, etc."
26) In Kuntres HaShulchan (by Rabbi A. Ch. Naeh), here, he emends in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch "Beis Shammai" in place of "Beis Hillel" (and so wrote the sefer Hagahos Eliezer — reproduced in the supplements to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Kehot edition, p. 708a); see there his explanation. But it is strained to emend the Shulchan Aruch, since this is the reading in all the printings at hand.
27) As for why the Alter Rebbe did not write the reason of the Magen Avraham (Orach Chaim there, sub-paragraph 3) for the prohibition of fasting on Isru Chag of Shavuos, "because when Atzeres fell on Shabbos, the Yom Tavo'ach of the offerings was after Shabbos" — plainly this is because of the question of the Mishneh LaMelech (Laws of the Temple Vessels, there). And see how his words are resolved in the Machatzis HaShekel, [OCR unclear]; Birkei Yosef there, siman 494, end of sub-paragraph 4. And this requires further investigation. And see Yad David there, 18a, s.v. "Mipnei."
28) Especially since the heading of the siman is "The Order of Prayer for the Festival of Shavuos."
29) One cannot explain that the Alter Rebbe arranged the se'ifim according to the order of the laws in the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema, and therefore wrote first the prohibition of fasting on the day after Shavuos, which the author [of the Shulchan Aruch] wrote, and afterwards the custom not to say Tachanun from Rosh Chodesh, etc., which the Rema wrote after it. For a) he puts se'if 18, concerning a dream-fast, first, though it is not in the Beis Yosef and the Rema (as below in the text); b) from this siman itself it is evident that the Alter Rebbe does not follow the order of the Shulchan Aruch — for the custom to spread grasses on Shavuos, the custom to eat dairy foods on the first day of Shavuos, and the law of "one who distributes fragrant grasses," which the Rema and the Magen Avraham wrote at the end of the siman, the Alter Rebbe wrote before this (se'if 14 onward) — before all the laws concerning the prohibition of fasting.
30) Although it can be said that he wrote first (in se'ifim 18–19) the prohibition of fasting (on Shavuos and on the day after Shavuos) and afterwards (in se'if 20) the custom ("the custom . . . not to fast . . . from Rosh Chodesh until the eighth of the month, etc."), and also placed later what is customary only "in these countries."
31) Ibid., sub-paragraph 4.
32) Even though the Rema generally cites the words of the Maharil.
34) For although it is stated explicitly in the Gemara that "he said: whoever wishes to lean, let him come and lean," from their question to Hillel ("What is the nature of this animal?") it is evident that they argued (mainly) against bringing the burnt-offering. And this is likewise evident in the Tosefta Chagigah (ch. 2, 6): "whoever needs to bring burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, let him come and take" (and likewise in the Yerushalmi, Beitzah and Chagigah, there). And so it is in the Dikdukei Sofrim, Beitzah there, from a manuscript, that the decision was (also) about bringing the burnt-offering.
35) See Tosafos s.v. "Mevi'in Chagigah," Chagigah 7b (noted in the margin of the Gemara in Beitzah there).
36) For "they established the halachah according to him" (Beis Hillel) comes essentially to negate "they sought to establish the halachah according to him" (Beis Shammai — earlier in the Baraisa), and not to render the words of Beis Shammai "not a Mishnah."
37) It can be said that in the incident in Beitzah there as well, the disciple of Beis Hillel did not actually offer at that time, and the intent of the Gemara's words "שתקו בנזיפה והלך לו" ("he silenced him with a rebuke, and he went away") is that the disciple of Beis Hillel went away and postponed his offering to the next day. And seemingly this is implied by the words of Abaye there: "הלכך האי צורבא מרבנן דאמר לי׳ חברי׳ מילתא לא להדר לי׳ מילתא טפי ממה דאמר לי׳ חברי׳ דאיהו א״ל מה זו סמיכה וקא מהדר לי׳ מה זו שתיקה" ("Therefore, a Torah scholar to whom his colleague says something should not answer him with more than what his colleague said to him; for he said to him, 'What is this leaning?' and he answered him, 'What is this silence?'"). For if you say that it was the disciple of Beis Shammai who went away, what is Abaye's proof that one should not answer more, from the fact that the disciple of Beis Hillel answered him "What is this silence?" and nothing more? It is possible that he did not say more because the disciple of Beis Shammai went away. But from the fact that it was the disciple of Beis Hillel who went away and did not say more to him, it is evident that one should not answer further. But see Chochmas Mano'ach on Beitzah there.
38) Rashi, Chagigah there, s.v. "BeYom Tov."
*) And not like the Korban HaEdah on the Yerushalmi (Beitzah, ch. 2, end of halachah 4; Chagigah, ch. 2, end of halachah 3).
39) Beitzah 19a.
40) Emor 23:41.
42) Pesachim 68b, and Rashi there.
43) Tosafos, Beitzah 19a.
44) Tosafos s.v. [OCR unclear], ibid. 12a.
45) Rashi on Pesachim there.
46) Shabbos 17b, end, and onward — in the Mishnah. And elsewhere — see Tosafos s.v. [OCR unclear] (Avodah Zarah 21b).
47) Based on this, there is no compelling proof that in the Alter Rebbe's view the Shalmei Chagigah are offered on Yom Tov according to Beis Shammai, unlike Rashi and Tosafos (see above, note 16). For the fact that he emphasized and wrote specifically "Olos Re'iyah," and the reason "that they involve no need of food preparation, etc.," is because only this is relevant to the conduct of Beis Hillel, that "in this matter Beis Hillel acted in accordance with their words, and many of Israel followed their practice," as in the text.
48) And also, not necessarily that all of them did so, but only those in whom the great joy of the day of the Giving of the Torah was openly felt [similar to what we find (in Pesachim there) regarding Rav Yosef, who said: "Prepare for me a third-grown calf, etc."].
49) Avodah Zarah, ch. 1, halachah 1.
50) Beis Yosef on the Tur, Orach Chaim, end of siman 494, in the name of the Agur. And see the following note.
51) According to the explanation in the text, perhaps one can resolve why the Agur (cited in the Beis Yosef there) brought in the name of the Rid that it is forbidden to fast on the day after Shavuos even in the present time, and continues: "וזהו אסרו חג אמרה תורה כו׳ ובירושלמי קורא כו׳" ("And this is 'Bind the festival' that the Torah said, etc., and in the Yerushalmi it is called, etc.") — even though in the Tosafos HaRid the discussion is only about the Yom Tavo'ach and the prohibition of eulogy on the day after Shavuos, and not about the law of Isru Chag that applies to every Yom Tov. The Beis Yosef also cites, in continuation of the words of the Agur: "And so wrote the Mahariv"ch in the Ein Yaakov on ch. 2 of Chagigah, that it was because it was the Yom Tavo'ach"** (see Birkei Yosef there at length***). But since according to the Rid it is not due to a prohibition of this day itself, but rather because they did not manage to offer, the meaning of "Yom Tavo'ach" too is, in its content and definition, akin to Isru Chag — a connection to the festival; except that on Pesach and Sukkos the prohibition is not by law, since in them there is not (also) an Isru Chag (of this kind) through the offering of sacrifices. (And similarly one can explain the reasoning of the Shibbolei HaLeket there, who brought, in continuation of the words of the Rid: "And we have already explained that the other Yamim Tovim too are included in this, from the words of the Prophets, etc.")
*) For they do not explain that Rabbi Tarfon prevented them from eulogizing (not on account of the offerings, etc., but) because of Isru Chag, which applies to every day after Yom Tov, which is forbidden for eulogy, as written in the Mishneh LaMelech, Laws of the Temple Vessels, there; Si'ach Yitzchak on Chagigah there; Chasdei David on the Tosefta, Chagigah, there; and elsewhere.
**) Note that the Levush here also cites both of them, one after the other; and similarly in the Biur HaGra on the Shulchan Aruch, which cites first the Gemara in Sukkah, "כל העושה איסור לחג" ("whoever makes a binding for the festival") (according to the second interpretation in Rashi), and the above Yerushalmi, and concludes: "And in ch. 2 of Chagigah: 'It once happened that Alexa died in Lod, and they came, etc.' — and therefore he wrote it here."
***) And see also Machazik Brachah by the Chida, Orach Chaim there; Pesach Einayim, Chagigah there.
52) According to this, it is more than the make-up period of all seven days, regarding which it was explained (see below, p. 77ff.) that all seven are the time of the offering; whereas the Yom Tavo'ach (according to the above in the text), after Beis Hillel conducted themselves according to their words — it can be said that it became like the principal time of its obligation. This is similar to when Atzeres falls on Shabbos, where Beis Hillel concede that the Yom Tavo'ach is after Shabbos (as in the Mishnah, Chagigah there), which is not like the make-up on the other days, but was the principal time of its offering (and see below, p. 79, note 27).
And note the dispute of the later authorities: when Yom Tov fell on Shabbos and a person was lame on that day and was healed on the second day, whether to regard this as "not fit on the first [day]" — according to the Tzelach (Chagigah 9a, on the words of Tosafos s.v. "Af Atzeres") he has a make-up, while according to the Turei Even (Chagigah, omissions to 9a; and Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 88) it is considered "not fit on the first [day]," and he has no make-up. And seemingly this depends on the above, for according to the Tzelach the principal time of its offering is on the Yom Tavo'ach. And see there at the end of his words. This is not the place to elaborate.
53) Note the Tzafnas Pa'aneach, Hafla'ah (54, beginning of column 4), which explains the dispute in the Yerushalmi (Chagigah, ch. 2, halachah 4) concerning the Yom Tavo'ach, as to whether the hides belong to the members of the [current] watch or to all the watches — that is, whether the offerings are those of the festival and therefore belong to all the watches, or they belong to the Yom Tavo'ach. This is not the place to elaborate.
54) See Chiddushei Rabbeinu David Bonfid: "כדי לראות את עצמו שהוא שמח במ״ת ואינה עליו כעול על צוארו" ("in order to show himself that he rejoices in the Giving of the Torah, and that it is not upon him like a yoke on his neck"). And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 23, p. 28, note 12.
55) Note the saying of our Sages that Moshe added one day on his own initiative (Shabbos 87a). And see the Likkutei Sichos cited in the following note.
56) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1028ff., regarding the special endearment of specifically the second day of Shavuos (and see the connection to the Yom Tavo'ach — note 17 there).
Key Lesson
The Yom Tavo'ach after Shavuos came about not out of necessity, but through the Jewish people's own conduct, expressing their joy in receiving the Torah. When a Jew's joy in the Torah is genuine, it adds even in time, so that the day after the festival itself becomes like Yom Tov.