Beitza 19a-b.
1- Our Mishna discusses the machlokes of
Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel whether one may slaughter animals to offer as Shalmei Chagigah on Yom Tov.
2- Additional, they argued if one is permitted to do the required ‘semicha‘ on an animal.
We discussed the history of this unique machlokes.
See here from chabad.org
The First Unresolved Halachic Dispute (Machlokes)
For more than 1,000 years, since the giving of Torah at Sinai, scholarship was on such a high level that no halachic question was left undecided. After an issue was debated, analyzed, and voted on, there was complete unanimity and clarity in the decision. However, in the days of Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Jochanan, the initial Zugos, the first unresolved dispute arose. The case involved the permissibility of leaning one’s hands (semicha) on a sacrificial animal on Yom Tov, a holiday.
The question was whether the mitzvah of semicha should be performed despite the prohibition of exerting pressure on an animal on Yom Tov. Despite the fact that only one dispute arose among the countless facets of Jewish law, and even that one was a relatively minor rabbinic issue, the Talmud viewed this event as a disastrous drop in Torah scholarship.
See more here.
3- We began to talk about why this argument was not resolved for many years. To be continued.
4- The Gemara starts by quoting Ulla who says that they agree that one may not slaughter animals for Shalmei Nedavah on Yom Tov.
5- We discussed the regular korbanos tzibur that all agree were indeed brought on Shabbos and Yom Tov.
A korbon tzibur is defined as one bought from the machatzis hashekel collected every year.
6- In short: We spoke about the previous Rebbe’s mamorim of 1934 while in Poland and their difficult and deep concepts. The complaint from some Chassidim that these mamorim were above the grasp of the crowd…..and thus the Rebbe should switch to easier mamorim…... The Rebbe’s disapproval of this comment to his father-in-law.
The Rebbe printed these mamorim in 1951.
One idea discussed in the mamor is that despite reaching the greatest level of bitul (even in ruchniyosdike keilim) it still maintains somewhat of his earlier yeshus. The Rebbe adds a fascinating footnote.
ד”ה כי חלק תשי”א (תרצ”ד [קונטרס פג] סה”מ תשי”א ע’ 31)
See here. Bottom two paragraphs.
When one gives his machatzis hashekel we must say that his coin loses its individuality. It becomes part of the whole collection. For if not, then the korbon is not a tzibur one, but rather a korban of many individual people (like a partnership).
Thus all the coins in the collection necessarily need to become one entity with no ‘reference’ to the individual donors.
Nevertheless, we see that when Korach argued with Moshe Rabeinu, Moshe asked G-D ‘al tefen el minchosom’. Meaning do not pay attention to their portion within the korbon tzibur.
Now how can that be if all coins must lose their individuality? Korach had no ‘portion’ per se as an individual in the pot of the machatzis hashekel.
One must say, the Rebbe concludes, that despite the bitul of each coin within the total collection, it still maintains somewhat of its individuality.
