Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

May 25, 2022 | 讻状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Yevamot 79

Today's Daf Yomi

October 14, 2021 | 讞壮 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Rosh Hashanah is dedicated anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

A month of shiurim are sponsored for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

    This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer.

Rosh Hashanah 5

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jennifer in honor of聽 Paul Corwin. “Thank you for introducing me to the Daily Daf and for making every step of this life journey a joy. You yourself are a Tree of Life. Your heart is full of all the warmth of Shabbat and wherever you go you leave Mitzvahs behind. All blessings to you my dear friend.”

The Gemara continues the discussion from a braita regarding the five approaches regarding when one is obligated for delaying bringing a sacrifice. Those who derived from the verse 鈥淥n the holiday of the matzot, on the holiday of Shavuot and on the holiday of Sukkot鈥 an analogy from Pesach to Shavuot that one has seven days in which to bring the Chagiga sacrifice even on Shavuot, what do they derive from the reference to Sukkot in the verse? They make an analogy from Pesach to Sukkot that one needs to stay overnight in Jerusalem on the holiday. The ones who need the verse about the holidays to relate to delays in sacrifices, from where do they derive that on Shavuot one has seven says to bring the Chagiga sacrifice? They learn it from Rosh Chodesh. The Gemara refers back to the braita that mentioned all the types of sacrifices/promises in which the prohibition to delay is effective. In this braita, a Pesach sacrifice is mentioned. Why? Doesn鈥檛 it need to be brought on Pesach 鈥 how can one offer it on a different holiday. One answer is that it got there by mistake. Another is to say that it is referring to one who designated an animal for Pesach but did not sacrifice it 鈥 in that case, it becomes a peace offering. Another braita is brought which takes the verse where delaying is mentioned 鈥 only in reference to a vow 鈥 and derives from it the other types of items that we saw previously. 聽Two other laws are derived from this verse. One is: 鈥渉e” and not his exchange. The Gemara tries to determine what is meant by exchange. Another is: “And in thee was sin.” From there they derive that the sin is upon the person but the sacrifice is not disqualified. A question is raised against this as it seems to be derived from a different verse by the firstborn.

 

诪讛 讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 讟注讜谉 诇讬谞讛 讗祝 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 讟注讜谉 诇讬谞讛

Just as the festival of Passover requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem, and only on the following day may one return home, so too, the festival of Sukkot requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem before returning home.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻谞讬转 讘讘拽专 讜讛诇讻转 诇讗讛诇讬讱

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to Passover, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains: As it is written about the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:7).

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 (讘谉 讗诇注讝专) 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇注爪专转 诪谞讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita and Rabbi Shimon, who learn from the verse: 鈥淥n the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:16), that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have passed, from where do they derive the halakha that the Shavuot offering has redress for seven days?

谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讜拽讚砖 讞讚砖 诪谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讜拽讚砖 注爪专转 诪讛 讞讚砖 诇诪谞讜讬讜 讗祝 注爪专转 诇诪谞讜讬讜

The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which Rabba bar Shmuel taught, as Rabba bar Shmuel taught: The Torah states to count the days, as it is stated: 鈥淎 month of days鈥 (Numbers 11:20), and then sanctify a new month with offerings. And the Torah also said to count the days from Passover, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall count fifty days鈥 (Leviticus 23:16), and then sanctify the festival of Shavuot with offerings. Just as the new month is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one day, so too, Shavuot is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one full week, as it is stated: 鈥淪even complete weeks shall there be鈥 (Leviticus 23:15).

讗讬诪讗 注爪专转 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讟讜 注爪专转 讬讜诪讬 诪谞讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讬 诇讗 诪谞讬谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬 讜注讜讚 讞讙 砖讘讜注讜转 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But if so, say that the Shavuot offering may be redressed for only one day, as Shavuot is determined by a count of fifty days from Passover. How, then, is it known that the Shavuot offering has seven days for redress? Rava said: Is that to say that we count only days until Shavuot, but we do not also count weeks? But didn鈥檛 the Master say: It is a mitzva to count fifty days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks, which teaches that the Festival peace-offering brought on Shavuot may be sacrificed for an entire week. And further, it is written in the verse: 鈥淭he festival of weeks [shavuot],鈥 which teaches that it is a Festival that is established through a count of weeks.

讜驻住讞 讘专 诪讬拽专讘 讘专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗 驻住讞 讝讬诪谞讗 拽讘讬注讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗拽专讘讬讛 讗拽专讘讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗拽专讘讬讛 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛

搂 It was taught in the baraita that one becomes liable for transgressing the prohibition against delaying if he delays bringing the Paschal lamb. The Gemara expresses its astonishment about this ruling: But is the Paschal lamb fit to be sacrificed on the other Festivals? The Paschal lamb has a fixed time to be brought, on the fourteenth of Nisan; if one sacrificed it then, he has sacrificed it, but if he did not sacrifice it then, it is excluded forever from any use.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 驻住讞 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛

Rav 岣sda said: The Paschal lamb is cited here for no reason [kedi]; that is to say, the prohibition against delaying is not relevant to the Paschal lamb, and the latter was mentioned in the baraita only because firstborn offerings, animal tithes, and the Paschal lamb are often grouped together.

专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诪讗讬 驻住讞 砖诇诪讬 驻住讞

Rav Sheshet said a different explanation: What is meant here by a Paschal lamb? It is the peace-offering that is brought in place of a Paschal lamb. If a lamb that had been set aside to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering was lost, and its owner took another lamb and sacrificed that as his Paschal lamb, and afterward the first animal was found, it must now be brought as a peace-offering. This offering is subject to all the halakhot of the prohibition against delaying.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 砖诇诪讬诐 转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 讜转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讞诪转 驻住讞 拽讗转讜

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the peace-offerings listed earlier, and it is still redundant. The Gemara answers: The baraita taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought in place of a Paschal lamb, and it also taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought independently. The reason for this repetition is that it might enter your mind to say: Since the peace-offerings are brought in place of a Paschal lamb,

讻驻住讞 讚诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

they are considered like the Paschal lamb itself, and so one transgresses the prohibition against delaying as soon as one Festival has passed. The baraita therefore teaches us that this is not so, as even this type of peace-offering is treated like the other offerings, and there is no liability until three Festivals have passed.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 转讚讜专 谞讚专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚专 谞讚讘讛 诪谞讬谉

搂 The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that all the offerings and vows listed above in the baraita are subject to the prohibition against delaying? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will surely require it from you, and it would be sin in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:22). From the words 鈥渨hen you shall vow a vow,鈥 I have derived only the halakha in the case of a vow-offering, where one says: I undertake to bring an offering, thereby assuming personal responsibility to bring an offering, no matter what happens to any particular animal. But as for the case of a gift-offering, one says: I undertake to bring this animal as an offering. He assumes responsibility only to bring that particular animal, without assuming a general responsibility to bring an offering. From where do I derive that this, too, is included in the prohibition against delaying?

谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 谞讚专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讗诐 谞讚专 讗讜 谞讚讘讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞讚讘讛 注诪讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞讚讘讛 注诪讜

The Gemara now analyzes the words of Deuteronomy 23:22 cited above and looks at each component. It is stated here: 鈥淰ow,鈥 and it is stated elsewhere: 鈥淏ut if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a gift-offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:16). Just as there a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha, so too, here, a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha.

诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诇讜 讛讚诪讬谉 讛注专讻讬谉 讜讛讞专诪讬谉 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转 诇讗 转讗讞专 诇砖诇诪讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讞讬诇讜驻讬讜 讻讬 讚专讜砖 讬讚专砖谞讜 讗诇讜 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 注讜诇讜转 讜砖诇诪讬诐

The verse continues: 鈥淭o the Lord your God.鈥 This is referring to various types of consecrations that are allocated to Temple maintenance: Assessments, valuations, dedications, and consecrations. 鈥淵ou shall not delay paying it鈥 teaches that one violates the prohibition against delaying if he is late in paying it, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, as will be explained below. 鈥淔or the Lord your God will surely require it from you鈥 comes to include all other things that one is required to bring; these are sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings.

讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诇讜 爪讚拽讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讜讘讻讜专 诪注诪讱 讝讛 诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讜讛讬讛 讘讱 讞讟讗 讜诇讗 讘拽专讘谞讱 讞讟讗

The words in the verse: 鈥淔or the Lord your God鈥 are an apparently superfluous phrase that in fact comes to include additional things in the prohibition; these are vows of charity, and tithes, and firstborn offerings. 鈥淔rom you鈥; this comes to include other items that one gives of one鈥檚 own for the sake of a mitzva, i.e., gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corner of the field. 鈥淎nd it would be sin in you鈥; this teaches that the sin of delaying would be in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering is not disqualified due to the delay.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 转讗讞专 诇砖诇诪讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讞讬诇讜驻讬讜 讞讬诇讜驻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪拽专讘 拽专讘讬

The Gemara clarifies certain points in the baraita. The Master said, citing the baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not delay paying it鈥 teaches that one violates the prohibition if he is late in paying it, i.e., the original offering, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, i.e., an animal that substituted for his offering. The Gemara asks: A substitute for what offering? If you say that the baraita is speaking of a substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside to serve as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is sacrificed just like the first, and so it is certainly subject to the prohibition against delaying.

讗讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬 讞讟讗转 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬讜 讞讬诇讜驻讬 转讜讚讛

If the baraita is referring to a substitute for a sin-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside as a sin-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is left to die, as it has become disqualified and can no longer be sacrificed on the altar. This being the case, there is no reason to say that it is subject to the prohibition against delaying. Rather, what is the substitute referred to in the baraita? It is the substitute for a thanks-offering.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转讜讚讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘转诪讜专转讛 讜诪转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讞讘专转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 转拽谞讛

As Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita: In the case of a thanks-offering that became mixed up with its substitute, i.e., one substituted an animal for one designated as a thanks-offering, in which case both animals are considered consecrated, and then the original animal and its substitute became mixed up with each other, and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other one, and so it must be left to graze until it becomes blemished.

讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇讬拽专讘讛 讜诇讬拽专讬讘 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 讚诇诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 诇讬拽专讘讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讚诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: What could he have done with the remaining animal? If you say that he may sacrifice it and sacrifice the bread with it, i.e., the forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering together with the animal component of the thanks-offering, perhaps this animal is not the one that had originally been set aside but rather the substitute, and the rule is that the substitute is sacrificed like the thanks-offering itself, but without bread. If you say that he should sacrifice it without bread, perhaps it is the original thanks-offering, which must be brought with bread. This, then, is the substitute that the baraita says is not subject to the prohibition against delaying.

讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since the animal is not fit to be sacrificed, why do I need a special verse to exclude it from the prohibition against delaying? In any case it cannot be sacrificed on the altar, and so there is no need to state that it is not included in the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇注讜诇诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 专讙诇讬诐 讜讛讜诪诐 讜讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 讗讞专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讙诇 讗讞讚 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讞 拽诪讗 拽讗转讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注讘专讜 注诇讬讜 砖诇砖讛 专讙诇讬诐 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Sheshet said: Actually, you can say that the verse comes to exclude the substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering. And here we are dealing with a case where two Festivals already passed from the time that one had consecrated the original animal but did not bring it to the altar, and it became blemished, and he redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, as required. And then another Festival passed and he did not yet bring the substitute to the altar. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, as it was consecrated as a substitute for it, it should be considered as one for which three Festivals have already passed; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the three Festivals are counted from the time of the replacement animal鈥檚 consecration.

讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讙诇 专讗砖讜谉 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜诪诐 讘转讜讱 讛专讙诇 讜讞讬诇诇讜 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛专讙诇 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讞 拽诪讗 拽讗转讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注讘专 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 专讙诇 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This answers the question of which substitute the baraita is referring to according to the opinion of the Rabbis, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Once even the first Festival has passed one transgresses the mitzva: You shall not delay, what is there to say here? Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the original animal became blemished during the Festival, and one redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, and the Festival passed without that animal being sacrificed. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, and the first one had already been consecrated before the Festival, it should be considered as one for which an entire Festival has already passed, so that he transgresses the prohibition against delaying; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, an entire Festival must pass for the replacement animal.

讜讛讬讛 讘讱 讞讟讗 讜诇讗 讘拽专讘谞讱 讞讟讗 讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讚讗讞专讬诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讘讻讜专 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讻驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讬驻住诇

搂 It was taught in the baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it would be sin in you,鈥 which teaches that the sin of delaying would be sin in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering would not become disqualified due to the delay. The Gemara asks: Is it from here that this is learned? But isn鈥檛 it derived from the statement of A岣rim? As it is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say that one might have thought that a firstborn animal after its first year passed, during which time it was not sacrificed, should be like consecrated things that have become disqualified due to a blemish, and so it is disqualified from being brought to the altar.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 转讬专讜砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 讜讘讻讜专讜转 讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 诪拽讬砖 讘讻讜专 诇诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讗祝 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborns of your herds, and of your flocks鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:23), thereby juxtaposing a firstborn animal to the tithe of grain. Just as tithe is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, as it is explicitly stated that tithes may be eaten until the end of three years, so too, a firstborn animal is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, despite the delay in being brought to the altar. Therefore, there is another source for the halakha that the offering itself does not become disqualified even if it is brought late.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻讜专 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讛专爪讗讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讘谞讬 讛专爪讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬专爪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: The first derivation cited was necessary. Had this halakha been learned only from the case of a firstborn animal, it might enter your mind to say that this halakha that the offering is not disqualified applies only to a firstborn, which is not for appeasement, i.e., it does not come to atone for any sin, not even for the neglect of a positive mitzva, but is merely a gift for the priest. But as for other consecrated animals, which appease, their role being to atone for the sins of their owners, one might say that they do not appease when brought late. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the other offerings are also not disqualified when brought late.

讜讗讻转讬

The Gemara asks further: But still, it may be argued that this derivation is unnecessary,

Masechet Rosh Hashana 聽is dedicated anonymously in honor of聽Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Yad Binyamin ladies for the refuah shleima of Asher ben Devorah Fayga.

    This month's learning is sponsored by Bracha Rutner in loving memory of her mother, Anna Rutner, Sarah bat Yom Tov and Rachel, on her 5th yahrzeit.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Leora & Jonathan Kukin and Cynthia & Abe Steinberger in honor of Rella Feldman and Curtiss Pulitzer.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

The Keys of Rain: An Introduction to Ta’anit

An introduction to Masechet Taanit with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson from Hadran's Siyum Masechet Rosh Hashanah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDrM6bLZV18&feature=youtu.be
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Rosh Hashanah: 4-10 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn the significance to the first of Nissan being the New Year for the...
talking talmud_square

Rosh Hashanah 5: Oaths, Gifts, and Deadlines

More on the timeliness of offering consecrated items. But why does the Gemara need to get just this granular in...
intro rh GITTA

Intro to Masechet Rosh Hashanah

Introduction to Masechet Rosh Hashanah by Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld In honorof Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran learners, who are paradigms of...

Rosh Hashanah 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 5

诪讛 讞讙 讛诪爪讜转 讟注讜谉 诇讬谞讛 讗祝 讞讙 讛住讜讻讜转 讟注讜谉 诇讬谞讛

Just as the festival of Passover requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem, and only on the following day may one return home, so too, the festival of Sukkot requires remaining overnight in Jerusalem before returning home.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻谞讬转 讘讘拽专 讜讛诇讻转 诇讗讛诇讬讱

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to Passover, from where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara explains: As it is written about the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall roast and eat it in the place which the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:7).

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 (讘谉 讗诇注讝专) 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇注爪专转 诪谞讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna of the baraita and Rabbi Shimon, who learn from the verse: 鈥淥n the festival of Passover, and on the festival of Shavuot, and on the festival of Sukkot鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:16), that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have passed, from where do they derive the halakha that the Shavuot offering has redress for seven days?

谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讜拽讚砖 讞讚砖 诪谞讛 讬诪讬诐 讜拽讚砖 注爪专转 诪讛 讞讚砖 诇诪谞讜讬讜 讗祝 注爪专转 诇诪谞讜讬讜

The Gemara answers: They derive it from that which Rabba bar Shmuel taught, as Rabba bar Shmuel taught: The Torah states to count the days, as it is stated: 鈥淎 month of days鈥 (Numbers 11:20), and then sanctify a new month with offerings. And the Torah also said to count the days from Passover, as it is stated: 鈥淵ou shall count fifty days鈥 (Leviticus 23:16), and then sanctify the festival of Shavuot with offerings. Just as the new month is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one day, so too, Shavuot is sanctified for the unit of time by which it is counted, i.e., for one full week, as it is stated: 鈥淪even complete weeks shall there be鈥 (Leviticus 23:15).

讗讬诪讗 注爪专转 讞讚 讬讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讟讜 注爪专转 讬讜诪讬 诪谞讬谞谉 砖讘讜注讬 诇讗 诪谞讬谞谉 讜讛讗诪专 诪专 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬 讜注讜讚 讞讙 砖讘讜注讜转 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: But if so, say that the Shavuot offering may be redressed for only one day, as Shavuot is determined by a count of fifty days from Passover. How, then, is it known that the Shavuot offering has seven days for redress? Rava said: Is that to say that we count only days until Shavuot, but we do not also count weeks? But didn鈥檛 the Master say: It is a mitzva to count fifty days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks, which teaches that the Festival peace-offering brought on Shavuot may be sacrificed for an entire week. And further, it is written in the verse: 鈥淭he festival of weeks [shavuot],鈥 which teaches that it is a Festival that is established through a count of weeks.

讜驻住讞 讘专 诪讬拽专讘 讘专讙诇讬诐 讛讜讗 驻住讞 讝讬诪谞讗 拽讘讬注讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗拽专讘讬讛 讗拽专讘讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗拽专讘讬讛 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛

搂 It was taught in the baraita that one becomes liable for transgressing the prohibition against delaying if he delays bringing the Paschal lamb. The Gemara expresses its astonishment about this ruling: But is the Paschal lamb fit to be sacrificed on the other Festivals? The Paschal lamb has a fixed time to be brought, on the fourteenth of Nisan; if one sacrificed it then, he has sacrificed it, but if he did not sacrifice it then, it is excluded forever from any use.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 驻住讞 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛

Rav 岣sda said: The Paschal lamb is cited here for no reason [kedi]; that is to say, the prohibition against delaying is not relevant to the Paschal lamb, and the latter was mentioned in the baraita only because firstborn offerings, animal tithes, and the Paschal lamb are often grouped together.

专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诪讗讬 驻住讞 砖诇诪讬 驻住讞

Rav Sheshet said a different explanation: What is meant here by a Paschal lamb? It is the peace-offering that is brought in place of a Paschal lamb. If a lamb that had been set aside to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering was lost, and its owner took another lamb and sacrificed that as his Paschal lamb, and afterward the first animal was found, it must now be brought as a peace-offering. This offering is subject to all the halakhot of the prohibition against delaying.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 砖诇诪讬诐 转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 讜转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讞诪转 驻住讞 拽讗转讜

The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as the peace-offerings listed earlier, and it is still redundant. The Gemara answers: The baraita taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought in place of a Paschal lamb, and it also taught the halakha with regard to peace-offerings brought independently. The reason for this repetition is that it might enter your mind to say: Since the peace-offerings are brought in place of a Paschal lamb,

讻驻住讞 讚诪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

they are considered like the Paschal lamb itself, and so one transgresses the prohibition against delaying as soon as one Festival has passed. The baraita therefore teaches us that this is not so, as even this type of peace-offering is treated like the other offerings, and there is no liability until three Festivals have passed.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 转讚讜专 谞讚专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚专 谞讚讘讛 诪谞讬谉

搂 The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived that all the offerings and vows listed above in the baraita are subject to the prohibition against delaying? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淲hen you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying it; for the Lord your God will surely require it from you, and it would be sin in you鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:22). From the words 鈥渨hen you shall vow a vow,鈥 I have derived only the halakha in the case of a vow-offering, where one says: I undertake to bring an offering, thereby assuming personal responsibility to bring an offering, no matter what happens to any particular animal. But as for the case of a gift-offering, one says: I undertake to bring this animal as an offering. He assumes responsibility only to bring that particular animal, without assuming a general responsibility to bring an offering. From where do I derive that this, too, is included in the prohibition against delaying?

谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 谞讚专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讗诐 谞讚专 讗讜 谞讚讘讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞讚讘讛 注诪讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞讚讘讛 注诪讜

The Gemara now analyzes the words of Deuteronomy 23:22 cited above and looks at each component. It is stated here: 鈥淰ow,鈥 and it is stated elsewhere: 鈥淏ut if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a gift-offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:16). Just as there a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha, so too, here, a gift-offering is together with the vow and is governed by the same halakha.

诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诇讜 讛讚诪讬谉 讛注专讻讬谉 讜讛讞专诪讬谉 讜讛讛拽讚砖讜转 诇讗 转讗讞专 诇砖诇诪讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讞讬诇讜驻讬讜 讻讬 讚专讜砖 讬讚专砖谞讜 讗诇讜 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 注讜诇讜转 讜砖诇诪讬诐

The verse continues: 鈥淭o the Lord your God.鈥 This is referring to various types of consecrations that are allocated to Temple maintenance: Assessments, valuations, dedications, and consecrations. 鈥淵ou shall not delay paying it鈥 teaches that one violates the prohibition against delaying if he is late in paying it, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, as will be explained below. 鈥淔or the Lord your God will surely require it from you鈥 comes to include all other things that one is required to bring; these are sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings.

讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诇讜 爪讚拽讜转 讜诪注砖专讜转 讜讘讻讜专 诪注诪讱 讝讛 诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讜讛讬讛 讘讱 讞讟讗 讜诇讗 讘拽专讘谞讱 讞讟讗

The words in the verse: 鈥淔or the Lord your God鈥 are an apparently superfluous phrase that in fact comes to include additional things in the prohibition; these are vows of charity, and tithes, and firstborn offerings. 鈥淔rom you鈥; this comes to include other items that one gives of one鈥檚 own for the sake of a mitzva, i.e., gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce of the corner of the field. 鈥淎nd it would be sin in you鈥; this teaches that the sin of delaying would be in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering is not disqualified due to the delay.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 转讗讞专 诇砖诇诪讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讞讬诇讜驻讬讜 讞讬诇讜驻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 诪拽专讘 拽专讘讬

The Gemara clarifies certain points in the baraita. The Master said, citing the baraita: 鈥淵ou shall not delay paying it鈥 teaches that one violates the prohibition if he is late in paying it, i.e., the original offering, but not if he is late in paying its substitute, i.e., an animal that substituted for his offering. The Gemara asks: A substitute for what offering? If you say that the baraita is speaking of a substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside to serve as a burnt-offering or a peace-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is sacrificed just like the first, and so it is certainly subject to the prohibition against delaying.

讗讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬 讞讟讗转 诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬讜 讞讬诇讜驻讬 转讜讚讛

If the baraita is referring to a substitute for a sin-offering, i.e., if an animal was set aside as a sin-offering and it was lost, and a substitute was set aside in its place, and then the original animal was found and sacrificed, in that case the substitute is left to die, as it has become disqualified and can no longer be sacrificed on the altar. This being the case, there is no reason to say that it is subject to the prohibition against delaying. Rather, what is the substitute referred to in the baraita? It is the substitute for a thanks-offering.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转讜讚讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘转诪讜专转讛 讜诪转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讞讘专转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 转拽谞讛

As Rabbi 岣yya taught in a baraita: In the case of a thanks-offering that became mixed up with its substitute, i.e., one substituted an animal for one designated as a thanks-offering, in which case both animals are considered consecrated, and then the original animal and its substitute became mixed up with each other, and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other one, and so it must be left to graze until it becomes blemished.

讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇讬拽专讘讛 讜诇讬拽专讬讘 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 讚诇诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 诇讬拽专讘讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讚诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: What could he have done with the remaining animal? If you say that he may sacrifice it and sacrifice the bread with it, i.e., the forty loaves of bread that are brought as a meal-offering together with the animal component of the thanks-offering, perhaps this animal is not the one that had originally been set aside but rather the substitute, and the rule is that the substitute is sacrificed like the thanks-offering itself, but without bread. If you say that he should sacrifice it without bread, perhaps it is the original thanks-offering, which must be brought with bread. This, then, is the substitute that the baraita says is not subject to the prohibition against delaying.

讜讛讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘转 讛拽专讘讛 讛讬讗 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But since the animal is not fit to be sacrificed, why do I need a special verse to exclude it from the prohibition against delaying? In any case it cannot be sacrificed on the altar, and so there is no need to state that it is not included in the prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇注讜诇诐 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讬诇讜驻讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讜 砖谞讬 专讙诇讬诐 讜讛讜诪诐 讜讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 讗讞专 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讙诇 讗讞讚 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讞 拽诪讗 拽讗转讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注讘专讜 注诇讬讜 砖诇砖讛 专讙诇讬诐 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Sheshet said: Actually, you can say that the verse comes to exclude the substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering. And here we are dealing with a case where two Festivals already passed from the time that one had consecrated the original animal but did not bring it to the altar, and it became blemished, and he redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, as required. And then another Festival passed and he did not yet bring the substitute to the altar. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, as it was consecrated as a substitute for it, it should be considered as one for which three Festivals have already passed; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the three Festivals are counted from the time of the replacement animal鈥檚 consecration.

讜诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 专讙诇 专讗砖讜谉 注讜讘专 讘讘诇 转讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讜诪诐 讘转讜讱 讛专讙诇 讜讞讬诇诇讜 讜注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛专讙诇 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻讞 拽诪讗 拽讗转讬 讻诪讗谉 讚注讘专 注诇讬讛 讻讜诇讬讛 专讙诇 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This answers the question of which substitute the baraita is referring to according to the opinion of the Rabbis, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: Once even the first Festival has passed one transgresses the mitzva: You shall not delay, what is there to say here? Rava said: Here, we are dealing with a case where the original animal became blemished during the Festival, and one redeemed it by replacing it with another animal, and the Festival passed without that animal being sacrificed. In that case, it might enter your mind to say that since this second animal comes in place of the first one, and the first one had already been consecrated before the Festival, it should be considered as one for which an entire Festival has already passed, so that he transgresses the prohibition against delaying; therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, an entire Festival must pass for the replacement animal.

讜讛讬讛 讘讱 讞讟讗 讜诇讗 讘拽专讘谞讱 讞讟讗 讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讚讗讞专讬诐 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讘讻讜专 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讻驻住讜诇讬 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讬驻住诇

搂 It was taught in the baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd it would be sin in you,鈥 which teaches that the sin of delaying would be sin in you, but there would be no sin in your offering, i.e., the offering would not become disqualified due to the delay. The Gemara asks: Is it from here that this is learned? But isn鈥檛 it derived from the statement of A岣rim? As it is taught in a baraita: A岣rim say that one might have thought that a firstborn animal after its first year passed, during which time it was not sacrificed, should be like consecrated things that have become disqualified due to a blemish, and so it is disqualified from being brought to the altar.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗讻诇转 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 转讬专讜砖讱 讜讬爪讛专讱 讜讘讻讜专讜转 讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 诪拽讬砖 讘讻讜专 诇诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛 讗祝 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 诪砖谞讛 诇讞讘专转讛

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborns of your herds, and of your flocks鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:23), thereby juxtaposing a firstborn animal to the tithe of grain. Just as tithe is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, as it is explicitly stated that tithes may be eaten until the end of three years, so too, a firstborn animal is not disqualified by being kept over from one year to the next, despite the delay in being brought to the altar. Therefore, there is another source for the halakha that the offering itself does not become disqualified even if it is brought late.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讻讜专 讚诇讗讜 讘专 讛专爪讗讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讘谞讬 讛专爪讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 诇讬专爪讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: The first derivation cited was necessary. Had this halakha been learned only from the case of a firstborn animal, it might enter your mind to say that this halakha that the offering is not disqualified applies only to a firstborn, which is not for appeasement, i.e., it does not come to atone for any sin, not even for the neglect of a positive mitzva, but is merely a gift for the priest. But as for other consecrated animals, which appease, their role being to atone for the sins of their owners, one might say that they do not appease when brought late. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, the other offerings are also not disqualified when brought late.

讜讗讻转讬

The Gemara asks further: But still, it may be argued that this derivation is unnecessary,

Scroll To Top