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

January 18, 2022 | ื˜ืดื– ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื‘ | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

October 15, 2021 | ื˜ืณ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

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.

Rosh Hashanah 6

Today’s daf is sponsored by Penny Gershman in memory of Shaindl Statman Stein. Shaindl started learning daf yomi this cycle and unfortunately passed away this week.ย 

Why does the braita bring a verse to introduce the idea that if one does not bring the animal in a prescribed time, the person has committed a sin, however, the animal is not disqualified from being sacrificed. Isn’t this learned out from other places? This appears both by a firstborn and Ben Azai learned it from the verse in pigul – that only there it is disqualified by not if one missed the time. The firstborn could be specifically there, but based on the question from pigul, the Gemara suggests emending the text to excluding one’s wife from being held responsible. In what case is one’s wife held responsible for her husband’s actions? From where is this derived? Near the verse about the vows regarding one who does not bring one’s vows in time, there is an additional verse in Devarim 23:24 relating to keeping one’s vows. A braita states that there is a positive commandment, as well as a negative commandment in this verse and that the court can force one to fulfill this obligation. It also derives that it not only refers to vows but to other obligations as well. Several questions are raised on this braita, each one asking about a different aspect of the drashot as to why is the drasha needed if the same idea is derived from a different verse. The answer given is that each one is coming to relate to a different case – one where the person said they would bring a sacrifice but never designated and the other when one designated but did not bring it to the Temple. This is questioned because no such case exists that one would say without designating by a nedava offering, as a Mishna is brought to explain the differences between a neder and a nedava. This is answered as well. Rava brings a number of halakhot about the prohibition of delaying and each time a difficulty is raised against him from a braita and is resolved. In one of the braitot it mentions a case where a year could pass without all three holidays passing – how can this be? Several possibilities are brought based on different opinions in other related debates. Is one who inherits liable for delaying? Is a woman liable? In Rosh Hashanah 5b, a braita was brought discussing the age limit for a firstborn animal. From when is that counted – from birth or from the 8th day when it is able to be brought as a sacrifice?

ืžื“ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื•

as this halakha is derived from that which ben Azzai said, as it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: The verse states: โ€œAnd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers it, it shall be piggulโ€ (Leviticus 7:18).

ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืื—ืจ ืœืฉืœืžื• ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ืžืื—ืจ ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืจืฆื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื• ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืœื ื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืื—ืจ ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ืœื ื™ืจืฆื”

For what purpose does the verse state the word โ€œitโ€? Since elsewhere it states: โ€œWhen 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 youโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22), I might have interpreted from this verse that even one who is late in paying his vow is included in: It shall not be accepted. Therefore, the verse states โ€œit.โ€ It, an offering disqualified by improper intention [piggul], is included in the halakha of: โ€œIt shall not be accepted,โ€ but the animal of one who is late in paying his vow is not included in the halakha of: โ€œIt shall not be accepted.โ€

ืืœื ื‘ืš ื—ื˜ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืืฉืชืš ื—ื˜ื

The Gemara rejects what was said above; rather, the explanation of the verse is as follows. The phrase: โ€œAnd it would be sin in youโ€ comes to teach that there would be a sin in you, but there would not be a sin in your wife.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืืฉืชื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืžืชื” ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืœืฉืœื ืœืžื” ื™ืงื— ืžืฉื›ื‘ืš ืžืชื—ืชื™ืš ืื™ืžื ื‘ื”ืื™ ืขื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื ืžื™ ืืฉืชื• ืžืชื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

It was necessary to say that the lateness is not imputed to the other members of oneโ€™s household for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, and some say that it was Rabbi Elazar who said: A personโ€™s wife dies only because others demand of him money and he does not have means with which to pay, as it is stated about one who commits himself to guarantee a loan: โ€œIf you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?โ€ (Proverbs 22:27). The verse warns one who takes a loan that incurring debt may result in one losing the very sheets that he sleeps on to his creditor. The Gemara understands this homiletically: Why should you cause God to take away your wife, i.e., she who shares your bed, so that she dies? Consequently, you might say that oneโ€™s wife also dies for this transgression of the prohibition: You shall not delay, in that one fails to fulfill his commitment. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, this sin is imputed to him alone.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื ืฉืคืชื™ืš ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืขืฉื” ืชืฉืžื•ืจ ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขืฉื•ืš ื›ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืช ื–ื” ื ื“ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ืš ืืœื• ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืืฉืžื•ืช ืขื•ืœื•ืช ื•ืฉืœืžื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื” ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจืช ืืœื• ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืคื™ืš ื–ื• ืฆื“ืงื”

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œThat which is gone out of your lips you shall keep and do; as you have vowed as a gift to the Lord your God, which you have promised with your mouthโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:24). โ€œThat which is gone out of your lipsโ€; this is a positive mitzva. โ€œYou shall keepโ€; this is a prohibition, as the phrase โ€œyou shall keepโ€ is a warning to keep oneself from sinning. โ€œAnd doโ€; this is an admonition to the court to make you fulfill your vow. โ€œAs you have vowedโ€; this is referring to a vow-offering. โ€œTo the Lord your Godโ€; this is referring to sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, teaching that one must keep his word and bring them. โ€œAs a giftโ€; this is understood in its literal sense to be referring to a gift-offering. โ€œWhich you have promisedโ€; this is referring to objects consecrated for Temple maintenance. โ€œWith your mouthโ€; this is referring to vows of charity, to which one commits himself with his mouth.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืžื•ืฆื ืฉืคืชื™ืš ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืขืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื•ื‘ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื ืฉืžื” ื ืคืงื ืชืฉืžื•ืจ ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžืœื ืชืื—ืจ ืœืฉืœืžื• ื ืคืงื

The Gemara clarifies the details mentioned in this baraita. The Master said: โ€œThat which is gone out of your lipsโ€; this is a positive mitzva. Why do I need this derivation? Isnโ€™t the positive mitzva derived from the verse: โ€œAnd there you shall come; and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift-offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flockโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:5โ€“6)? The baraita continues: โ€œYou shall keepโ€; this is a prohibition. Why do I need this derivation; this is derived from the verse: โ€œYou shall not delay paying itโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22).

ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขืฉื•ืš ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ืงืจื™ื‘ ืื•ืชื• ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ืงืจื™ื‘ ืื•ืชื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืจืฆื•ื ื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืจื•ืฆื” ืื ื™

โ€œAnd doโ€; this is a warning to the court to make you fulfill your vow. Why do I need this derivation? This rule is derived from the verse: โ€œHe shall offer itโ€ (Leviticus 1:3), as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œHe shall offer it,โ€ which teaches that he must be forced to bring his offering. One might have thought that he may be forced to bring his offering even against his will. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œIn accordance with his willโ€ (Leviticus 1:3). How so? The court coerces him until he says: I want to bring the offering. Now, since all of these halakhot are already known from other sources, what is the point of this repetition?

ื—ื“ ื“ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืืงืจื™ื‘

The Gemara answers: One set of verses is referring to a case where one said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, and one set of verses is referring to a case where he set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืืงืจื™ื‘ ืื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืชื™ื” ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ื ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืชื™ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, as had the Torah taught us only about the halakha of the case where one said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed because he did not keep his word; however, if he set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar, one might say that anywhere that it is, it is in the treasure house of the Merciful One, as the world and everything in it belongs to God, and therefore it makes no difference if he delays in bringing it to the Temple. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that even when one has not set aside a specific animal he transgresses the prohibition.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืืงืจื™ื‘ ื“ืงื ืžืฉื”ื™ ืœื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ืื™ืžื ื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And had the Torah taught us only about the case where one set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed because he is keeping the animal for himself. But if he said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, one might say that his mere speech is nothing, and there is no transgression provided he has not actually set aside an animal. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases.

ื•ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื“ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื ื ื“ื‘ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืื™ ื–ื”ื• ื ื“ืจ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื” ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืขื•ืœื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can you say that the Gemara is dealing with a case where one merely said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal? Isnโ€™t a gift-offering mentioned in the verse, and we learned in a mishna: What is a vow-offering? It is an offering brought by one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering. And what is a gift-offering? It is an offering brought by one who says, concerning a particular animal: I undertake to bring this animal as a burnt-offering.

ื•ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจ ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ื ื“ืจ ืžืช ืื• ื ื’ื ื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื• ื ื“ื‘ื” ืžืชื” ืื• ื ื’ื ื‘ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื”

And what is the difference between a vow-offering and a gift-offering? With regard to vow-offerings, if the animal died or was stolen, the one who took the vow is obligated to pay restitution for it. He undertook to bring a burnt-offering without specifying the animal, and therefore until he brings that offering he is not absolved of his obligation. With regard to a gift-offering, however, if the animal died or was stolen, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it because he undertook to bring a specific animal, and that is no longer possible. In the case of a gift-offering, then, a specific animal must have already been set aside as an offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืขื•ืœื” ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื”

Rava said: You can find a case of a gift-offering where a specific animal has not yet been set aside; for example, where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that after I set an animal aside in fulfillment of my vow, I will not be liable to replace it should the animal die or be stolen.

ื‘ืคื™ืš ื–ื• ืฆื“ืงื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืฆื“ืงื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื” ืœืืœืชืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืขื ื™ื™ื

ยง The baraita stated: โ€œWith your mouthโ€; this is referring to vows of charity. Rava said: In the case of vows of charity, one is liable immediately if he is late in distributing the charity that he had promised to give. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that poor people to whom the charity may be given exist in all places, and so the charity can be distributed to them immediately, unlike an offering, which must be brought to the Temple.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ืจื™ ืขืœื” ืฉืœืฉื” ืจื’ืœื™ื ื›ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชืœื™ื ื”ื• ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืœื ื“ื”ื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืขื ื™ื™ื

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that charity must be given to the poor without delay. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that since the halakha pertaining to vows of charity is written in the passage dealing with offerings, perhaps one does not transgress the prohibition against delaying until three Festivals have passed, as is the halakha with regard to offerings, therefore Rava teaches us that this is not so. Rather, there, with regard to the offerings, the Merciful One made the timing of the transgression dependent upon the time of the Festivals, when one must go on pilgrimage to the Temple. However, here, with regard to charity vows, this is not so because poor people who are ready to accept charity are found in all places.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื’ืœ ืื—ื“ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืฉื”

Rava said: Although, according to most opinions one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have elapsed, once even one Festival has passed and he has not sacrificed the offerings that he vowed to bring, he immediately violates a positive mitzva.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืคืคื™ื™ืก ืขืœ ื•ืœื“ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉื™ืงืจื‘ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืคืคื™ื™ืก ืื ื™ ืžืขื™ื“ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืœื ื• ืคืจื” ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืื›ืœื ื•ื” ื‘ืคืกื— ื•ืื›ืœื ื• ื•ืœื“ื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื—ื’

The Gemara raises an objection from the following mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papeyyas testified about the offspring of peace-offerings. They said that if the mother animal was consecrated before it conceived or during its pregnancy, the offspring, too, must be sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rabbi Papeyyas said: I testify that we once had a cow that was sacrificed as a peace-offering, and we ate it on Passover [beFesaแธฅ], and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival [beแธคag], i.e., on Sukkot.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืคืกื— ืœื ืืงืจื‘ื•ื” ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืžื—ื•ืกืจ ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืœื ื•ืœื“ื” ื‘ืขืฆืจืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื”ื™ ืœื” ื•ืขื‘ืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืฉื”

The Gemara clarifies the details of this story: Granted, on Passover itself Rabbi Papeyyas and his family did not sacrifice the offspring, as one can say that the animal was lacking the requisite time, i.e., it was less than eight days old, and it is prohibited to sacrifice such a young animal. But how could they delay and not sacrifice the offspring on Shavuot, the first Festival after Passover, if, according to Rava, they would have violates a positive mitzva as soon as the first Festival passed?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: For example, this occurs

ืฉื”ื™ื” ื—ื•ืœื” ื‘ืขืฆืจืช ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืžืื™ ื•ืื›ืœื ื• ื•ืœื“ื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื—ื’ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื’ ื”ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช

in a case where the offspring was sick on Shavuot, and therefore it could be brought to the altar only on the next Festival. Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the statement: And we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival, coming to teach? This is not referring to the festival of Sukkot, which is the usual meaning of the term the Festival; rather, it is referring to the festival of Shavuot. Therefore, there is no difficulty here whatsoever.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืคืกื— ืชื ื™ ืขืฆืจืช

The Gemara asks: And what does the other amora, Rav Zevid, say to this? He argues that anywhere that the tanna teaches a halakha concerning Passover using the term Pesaแธฅ, he teaches the halakha concerning Shavuot using the term Atzaret, not the term แธคag. In such a context, the term แธคag is reserved exclusively for Sukkot.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ืฉื ื” ื‘ืœื ืจื’ืœื™ื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืœื ืฉื ื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ

Rava said: Once three Festivals have passed, every day he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. The Gemara raises an objection from that which is taught in the following baraita: In the case of both a firstborn animal and all consecrated animals, once a year without three Festivals has passed, or three Festivals have passed without a year elapsing, the owner transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืžื›ื“ื™ ืชื ื ืืœืื•ื™ ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ

The Gemara first expresses its astonishment at the question itself: What is this objection? What is the comparison between this ruling and the statement of Rava? Rav Kahana said: He who raises an objection here raises a valid objection, and this is the way the question should be understood. Since the tanna of the baraita is looking for prohibitions to add, and he shows that the prohibition applies in additional cases, then if Rava is correct, let the tanna of the baraita teach that once three Festivals have passed he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, every single day.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืชื ื ืœืžื™ืงื‘ืขื™ื” ื‘ืœืื• ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืœืื•ื™ ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ืœื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ

And how does the other amora, Rava, explain the baraita? He understands that the tanna is trying to establish the action only as subject to a prohibition, i.e., he merely wishes to set the parameters of the prohibition; but once the action is established as prohibited, he is not looking for additional prohibitions.

ื’ื•ืคื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ืฉื ื” ื‘ืœื ืจื’ืœื™ื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืœื ืฉื ื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืœื ืฉื ื” ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ืฉื ื” ื‘ืœื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above, which stated: In the case of both a firstborn animal and all consecrated animals, once a year has passed, even if three Festivals have not passed, or once three Festivals have passed, even if a whole year has not passed, the owner transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. Granted, it is possible to have three Festivals without a year; you find it because three Festivals can pass in half a year, between Passover and Sukkot. But a year without three Festivals, under what circumstances can you find this case? How can a year pass without three Festivals also passing?

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื›ืกื“ืจืŸ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื›ืกื“ืจืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”

The Gemara clarifies the question: This works out well according to the one who is of the opinion that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only if the three Festivals have passed in their proper order. You can find a year without three Festivals in their proper order, e.g., if one made his vow shortly before Shavuot, in which case the year will end before Shavuot the following year, but three Festivals in order will not have elapsed until Sukkot of the third year. But according to the one who is not of the opinion that the three Festivals must be in their proper order, under what circumstances can you find this case of a year without three Festivals?

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ืฉื ื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื ื” ืชืžื™ืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ื ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื™ื•ื ื›ืžื ื™ืŸ ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ืžื”

The Gemara clarifies again: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, you find a year without three Festivals in a leap year, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of houses of walled cities, with regard to which an owner is given only one year to redeem his home if he sells it, after which it becomes the permanent possession of the purchaser, the verse states: โ€œAnd if it be not redeemed within the space of a full yearโ€ (Leviticus 25:30). How is the year determined? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One counts 365 days like the number of the days in a solar year, and not the usual lunar year, which is why it is called a full year.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ื ื” ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืžื™ื•ื ืœื™ื•ื ื•ืื ื ืชืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ื” ื ืชืขื‘ืจื” ืœื• ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื“ืืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื’ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ื“ื›ื™ ืžื˜ื ืฉื™ืœื”ื™ ืื“ืจ ื‘ืชืจืื” ืฉื ื” ืžืœื™ื ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœื ืžืœื• ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”

And the Rabbis disagree and say: One counts twelve months from day to day, from the date of the sale until that same date twelve months later, and if it is a leap year with an added month, the leap month is for the sellerโ€™s benefit, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house. You can find a year without three Festivals according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. How so? It is possible in a case where one consecrated the animal after the festival of Passover, so that once he reaches the end of the second month of Adar in a leap year, the year is completed, but the Festivals are not yet completed, as the third Festival is still to come. But according to the Sages, under what circumstances can you find this case of a year without three Festivals?

ื›ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืฉืžืขื™ื” ืขืฆืจืช ืคืขืžื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืขื” ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื—ืกืจื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื—ื“ ืžืœื ื•ืื—ื“ ื—ืกืจ ืฉืฉื”

The Gemara answers: As Rav Shemaya taught in a baraita: Shavuot sometimes occurs on the fifth of Sivan, sometimes on the sixth of Sivan, and sometimes on the seventh. How so? If both the months of Nisan and Iyyar are full months of thirty days each, the festival of Shavuot, which is celebrated fifty days after the second day of Passover, occurs on the fifth of Sivan; if both months are short, with twenty-nine days each, it occurs on the seventh of Sivan; and if one of them is full and the other is short, it occurs on the sixth of Sivan. According to this opinion, if both months were full and the festival of Shavuot occurred on the fifth day of Sivan, and one made his vow on the day after Shavuot, i.e., the sixth of Sivan, and in the following year both months were short, so that the festival of Shavuot occurred on the seventh of Sivan, a whole year would have passed without three Festivals.

ื•ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืžืขื™ื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืฆืจืช ืœืขืฆืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉ ื”ืฉื ื” ืœืจืืฉ ื”ืฉื ื” ืืœื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื™ืžื™ื ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื•ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ืฉื ื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื—ืžืฉื”

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rav Shemaya and says that a year has a fixed number of days? It is Aแธฅerim, as it is taught in a baraita: Aแธฅerim say: The difference between Shavuot of one year and Shavuot of the following year, and similarly, between Rosh HaShana of one year and Rosh HaShana of the following year, is only four days of the week. There are 354 days in a lunar year, which are divided into twelve alternating months, six months that are thirty days long and six months that are twenty-nine days long. Therefore, every year is fifty weeks and four days long. And if it were a leap year, in which case the year is comprised of 383 days, or fifty-four weeks and five days, there is a difference of five days between them.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื™ื•ืจืฉ ืžื”ื• ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื›ื™ ืชื“ื•ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ืœื ื ื“ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื•ื‘ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื ืฉืžื” ื•ื”ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

ยง Rabbi Zeira asks: In the case of an heir, what is the halakha with regard to the prohibition of: You shall not delay? That is to say, does an heir transgress the prohibition against delaying a vow taken by his father? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Is it that the Merciful One states in the Torah: โ€œWhen you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying itโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22), and this one, the heir, did not make a vow? Or perhaps the essence of the mitzva is as it says: โ€œAnd there you shall come; and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrificesโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:5โ€“6), and this one, the heir, is obligated to come and bring his fatherโ€™s offerings.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืขืžืš ืคืจื˜ ืœื™ื•ืจืฉ

Come and hear an answer to this, as Rabbi แธคiyya taught a baraita that says: The verse states: โ€œFor the Lord your God will surely require it from youโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22), which is interpreted to mean: To the exclusion of an heir. This teaches that an heir does not transgress the prohibition against delaying a vow taken by his father.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžืขืžืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื–ื” ืœืงื˜ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ืคืื” ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืขืžืš ื•ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืžืขืžืš

The Gemara asks: But this phrase โ€œfrom youโ€ is necessary to teach a different halakha, namely, that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying even for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce of the corner of his field. The Gemara answers: Rabbi แธคiyya derived two halakhot from this word. He read into the verse: โ€œYou [imakh],โ€ which he expounded as coming to include gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the produce of the corner of the field in the prohibition, and he read into the verse: โ€œFrom you [meโ€™imakh],โ€ with the extra letter mem coming to exclude an heir.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืฉื” ืžื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจืื™ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ื ืื™ืชื” ื‘ืฉืžื—ื”

ยง Rabbi Zeira asks another question on this topic: In the case of a woman who made a vow, what is the halakha with regard to the prohibition: You shall not delay? The Gemara explains: Do we say that since she is not obligated to appear in the Temple on the pilgrimage Festivals, as this obligation is a positive, time-bound mitzva, from which women are exempt, she also does not transgress if she is late in bringing her offering? Or perhaps, since she is obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, she should also be obligated in some of the other mitzvot connected to the day?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื ืื™ืชื” ื‘ืฉืžื—ื” ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฉื” ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืฉืžื—ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืงืืžืจ

Abaye said to him: Derive this from the fact that she is also obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival. The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say this, that a woman is obligated to rejoice on a Festival? But didnโ€™t Abaye say: As for a woman, her husband must make her joyful on a Festival? This means that the obligation falls not on the woman, but upon her husband. The Gemara answers: Abaye stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira holds that women are bound by a positive mitzva to rejoice on a Festival. Since, according to Rabbi Zeiraโ€™s opinion, they are obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, they are also subject to the prohibition: You shall not delay.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ืžื•ื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืžืฉืขื” ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืžืฉืขื” ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื”ืจืฆืื”

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a firstborn animal, from when does one begin to count a year with regard to the prohibition against delaying? Abaye said: One counts from the time it is born. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: One counts from the time it is fit for appeasement, i.e., from its eighth day, when it is fit to be brought as an offering, as explicitly stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:27).

ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื”ื ื‘ืชื

The Gemara comments: The two Sages do not disagree. This one, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov, who said that one counts from the time that the animal is fit for appeasement, is speaking about an unblemished firstborn, which must be brought to the altar for sacrifice.

Masechet Rosh Hashana ย is dedicated anonymously in honor ofย 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.

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 6: Fixing the Calendar

More on neder/nedavah offerings - specifically when a person must replace a lost or stolen dedicated item. Note that tzedakah...
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 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 6

ืžื“ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื•

as this halakha is derived from that which ben Azzai said, as it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: The verse states: โ€œAnd if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers it, it shall be piggulโ€ (Leviticus 7:18).

ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืคื™ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืื—ืจ ืœืฉืœืžื• ืฉื•ืžืข ืื ื™ ืืฃ ืžืื—ืจ ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื‘ืœ ื™ืจืฆื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื•ืชื• ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืœื ื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืื—ืจ ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ืœื ื™ืจืฆื”

For what purpose does the verse state the word โ€œitโ€? Since elsewhere it states: โ€œWhen 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 youโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22), I might have interpreted from this verse that even one who is late in paying his vow is included in: It shall not be accepted. Therefore, the verse states โ€œit.โ€ It, an offering disqualified by improper intention [piggul], is included in the halakha of: โ€œIt shall not be accepted,โ€ but the animal of one who is late in paying his vow is not included in the halakha of: โ€œIt shall not be accepted.โ€

ืืœื ื‘ืš ื—ื˜ื ื•ืœื ื‘ืืฉืชืš ื—ื˜ื

The Gemara rejects what was said above; rather, the explanation of the verse is as follows. The phrase: โ€œAnd it would be sin in youโ€ comes to teach that there would be a sin in you, but there would not be a sin in your wife.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืืฉืชื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืžืชื” ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื‘ืงืฉื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ืžืžื•ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ืื ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ืœืฉืœื ืœืžื” ื™ืงื— ืžืฉื›ื‘ืš ืžืชื—ืชื™ืš ืื™ืžื ื‘ื”ืื™ ืขื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื ืžื™ ืืฉืชื• ืžืชื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

It was necessary to say that the lateness is not imputed to the other members of oneโ€™s household for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, and some say that it was Rabbi Elazar who said: A personโ€™s wife dies only because others demand of him money and he does not have means with which to pay, as it is stated about one who commits himself to guarantee a loan: โ€œIf you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?โ€ (Proverbs 22:27). The verse warns one who takes a loan that incurring debt may result in one losing the very sheets that he sleeps on to his creditor. The Gemara understands this homiletically: Why should you cause God to take away your wife, i.e., she who shares your bed, so that she dies? Consequently, you might say that oneโ€™s wife also dies for this transgression of the prohibition: You shall not delay, in that one fails to fulfill his commitment. Therefore, the verse teaches us that this is not so. Rather, this sin is imputed to him alone.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื ืฉืคืชื™ืš ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืขืฉื” ืชืฉืžื•ืจ ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขืฉื•ืš ื›ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืช ื–ื” ื ื“ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ืš ืืœื• ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืืฉืžื•ืช ืขื•ืœื•ืช ื•ืฉืœืžื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื” ื›ืžืฉืžืขื• ืืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจืช ืืœื• ืงื“ืฉื™ ื‘ื“ืง ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืคื™ืš ื–ื• ืฆื“ืงื”

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œThat which is gone out of your lips you shall keep and do; as you have vowed as a gift to the Lord your God, which you have promised with your mouthโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:24). โ€œThat which is gone out of your lipsโ€; this is a positive mitzva. โ€œYou shall keepโ€; this is a prohibition, as the phrase โ€œyou shall keepโ€ is a warning to keep oneself from sinning. โ€œAnd doโ€; this is an admonition to the court to make you fulfill your vow. โ€œAs you have vowedโ€; this is referring to a vow-offering. โ€œTo the Lord your Godโ€; this is referring to sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings, teaching that one must keep his word and bring them. โ€œAs a giftโ€; this is understood in its literal sense to be referring to a gift-offering. โ€œWhich you have promisedโ€; this is referring to objects consecrated for Temple maintenance. โ€œWith your mouthโ€; this is referring to vows of charity, to which one commits himself with his mouth.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืžื•ืฆื ืฉืคืชื™ืš ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืขืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื•ื‘ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื ืฉืžื” ื ืคืงื ืชืฉืžื•ืจ ื–ื• ืžืฆื•ืช ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžืœื ืชืื—ืจ ืœืฉืœืžื• ื ืคืงื

The Gemara clarifies the details mentioned in this baraita. The Master said: โ€œThat which is gone out of your lipsโ€; this is a positive mitzva. Why do I need this derivation? Isnโ€™t the positive mitzva derived from the verse: โ€œAnd there you shall come; and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift-offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flockโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:5โ€“6)? The baraita continues: โ€œYou shall keepโ€; this is a prohibition. Why do I need this derivation; this is derived from the verse: โ€œYou shall not delay paying itโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22).

ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ืื–ื”ืจื” ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืขืฉื•ืš ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ืงืจื™ื‘ ืื•ืชื• ื ืคืงื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื™ืงืจื™ื‘ ืื•ืชื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื›ืจื—ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืจืฆื•ื ื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืจื•ืฆื” ืื ื™

โ€œAnd doโ€; this is a warning to the court to make you fulfill your vow. Why do I need this derivation? This rule is derived from the verse: โ€œHe shall offer itโ€ (Leviticus 1:3), as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œHe shall offer it,โ€ which teaches that he must be forced to bring his offering. One might have thought that he may be forced to bring his offering even against his will. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œIn accordance with his willโ€ (Leviticus 1:3). How so? The court coerces him until he says: I want to bring the offering. Now, since all of these halakhot are already known from other sources, what is the point of this repetition?

ื—ื“ ื“ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื—ื“ ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืืงืจื™ื‘

The Gemara answers: One set of verses is referring to a case where one said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, and one set of verses is referring to a case where he set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืืงืจื™ื‘ ืื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ืชื™ื” ื‘ื™ ื’ื–ื ื“ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ืชื™ื” ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases, as had the Torah taught us only about the halakha of the case where one said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed because he did not keep his word; however, if he set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar, one might say that anywhere that it is, it is in the treasure house of the Merciful One, as the world and everything in it belongs to God, and therefore it makes no difference if he delays in bringing it to the Temple. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that even when one has not set aside a specific animal he transgresses the prohibition.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืืงืจื™ื‘ ื“ืงื ืžืฉื”ื™ ืœื™ื” ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ืื™ืžื ื“ื™ื‘ื•ืจื ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And had the Torah taught us only about the case where one set aside a specific animal for his vow but did not yet sacrifice it on the altar, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed because he is keeping the animal for himself. But if he said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal for his vow, one might say that his mere speech is nothing, and there is no transgression provided he has not actually set aside an animal. Therefore, it is necessary to teach the halakha in both cases.

ื•ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื“ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื ื ื“ื‘ื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื•ืชื ืŸ ืื™ ื–ื”ื• ื ื“ืจ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืขื•ืœื” ื•ืื™ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ื ื“ื‘ื” ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืขื•ืœื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can you say that the Gemara is dealing with a case where one merely said that he vowed to bring an offering but did not yet set aside a specific animal? Isnโ€™t a gift-offering mentioned in the verse, and we learned in a mishna: What is a vow-offering? It is an offering brought by one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering. And what is a gift-offering? It is an offering brought by one who says, concerning a particular animal: I undertake to bring this animal as a burnt-offering.

ื•ืžื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจ ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ื ื“ืจ ืžืช ืื• ื ื’ื ื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื• ื ื“ื‘ื” ืžืชื” ืื• ื ื’ื ื‘ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื”

And what is the difference between a vow-offering and a gift-offering? With regard to vow-offerings, if the animal died or was stolen, the one who took the vow is obligated to pay restitution for it. He undertook to bring a burnt-offering without specifying the animal, and therefore until he brings that offering he is not absolved of his obligation. With regard to a gift-offering, however, if the animal died or was stolen, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it because he undertook to bring a specific animal, and that is no longer possible. In the case of a gift-offering, then, a specific animal must have already been set aside as an offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืขื•ืœื” ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชื”

Rava said: You can find a case of a gift-offering where a specific animal has not yet been set aside; for example, where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering on the condition that after I set an animal aside in fulfillment of my vow, I will not be liable to replace it should the animal die or be stolen.

ื‘ืคื™ืš ื–ื• ืฆื“ืงื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืฆื“ืงื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœื” ืœืืœืชืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื ืงื™ื™ืžื™ ืขื ื™ื™ื

ยง The baraita stated: โ€œWith your mouthโ€; this is referring to vows of charity. Rava said: In the case of vows of charity, one is liable immediately if he is late in distributing the charity that he had promised to give. What is the reason for this halakha? It is that poor people to whom the charity may be given exist in all places, and so the charity can be distributed to them immediately, unlike an offering, which must be brought to the Temple.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืขื ื™ื™ื ื ื“ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ืขื“ ื“ืขื‘ืจื™ ืขืœื” ืฉืœืฉื” ืจื’ืœื™ื ื›ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืชืœื™ื ื”ื• ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ืœื ื“ื”ื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืขื ื™ื™ื

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that charity must be given to the poor without delay. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that since the halakha pertaining to vows of charity is written in the passage dealing with offerings, perhaps one does not transgress the prohibition against delaying until three Festivals have passed, as is the halakha with regard to offerings, therefore Rava teaches us that this is not so. Rather, there, with regard to the offerings, the Merciful One made the timing of the transgression dependent upon the time of the Festivals, when one must go on pilgrimage to the Temple. However, here, with regard to charity vows, this is not so because poor people who are ready to accept charity are found in all places.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ืจื’ืœ ืื—ื“ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืฉื”

Rava said: Although, according to most opinions one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have elapsed, once even one Festival has passed and he has not sacrificed the offerings that he vowed to bring, he immediately violates a positive mitzva.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืคืคื™ื™ืก ืขืœ ื•ืœื“ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉื™ืงืจื‘ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืคืคื™ื™ืก ืื ื™ ืžืขื™ื“ ืฉื”ื™ืชื” ืœื ื• ืคืจื” ืฉืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืื›ืœื ื•ื” ื‘ืคืกื— ื•ืื›ืœื ื• ื•ืœื“ื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื—ื’

The Gemara raises an objection from the following mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papeyyas testified about the offspring of peace-offerings. They said that if the mother animal was consecrated before it conceived or during its pregnancy, the offspring, too, must be sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rabbi Papeyyas said: I testify that we once had a cow that was sacrificed as a peace-offering, and we ate it on Passover [beFesaแธฅ], and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival [beแธคag], i.e., on Sukkot.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื‘ืคืกื— ืœื ืืงืจื‘ื•ื” ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืžื—ื•ืกืจ ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื•ื” ืืœื ื•ืœื“ื” ื‘ืขืฆืจืช ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื”ื™ ืœื” ื•ืขื‘ืจื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืฉื”

The Gemara clarifies the details of this story: Granted, on Passover itself Rabbi Papeyyas and his family did not sacrifice the offspring, as one can say that the animal was lacking the requisite time, i.e., it was less than eight days old, and it is prohibited to sacrifice such a young animal. But how could they delay and not sacrifice the offspring on Shavuot, the first Festival after Passover, if, according to Rava, they would have violates a positive mitzva as soon as the first Festival passed?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: For example, this occurs

ืฉื”ื™ื” ื—ื•ืœื” ื‘ืขืฆืจืช ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืžืื™ ื•ืื›ืœื ื• ื•ืœื“ื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื—ื’ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื—ื’ ื”ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช

in a case where the offspring was sick on Shavuot, and therefore it could be brought to the altar only on the next Festival. Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation: What is the statement: And we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival, coming to teach? This is not referring to the festival of Sukkot, which is the usual meaning of the term the Festival; rather, it is referring to the festival of Shavuot. Therefore, there is no difficulty here whatsoever.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืคืกื— ืชื ื™ ืขืฆืจืช

The Gemara asks: And what does the other amora, Rav Zevid, say to this? He argues that anywhere that the tanna teaches a halakha concerning Passover using the term Pesaแธฅ, he teaches the halakha concerning Shavuot using the term Atzaret, not the term แธคag. In such a context, the term แธคag is reserved exclusively for Sukkot.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ืฉืœืฉื” ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ืฉื ื” ื‘ืœื ืจื’ืœื™ื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืœื ืฉื ื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ

Rava said: Once three Festivals have passed, every day he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. The Gemara raises an objection from that which is taught in the following baraita: In the case of both a firstborn animal and all consecrated animals, once a year without three Festivals has passed, or three Festivals have passed without a year elapsing, the owner transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืžื›ื“ื™ ืชื ื ืืœืื•ื™ ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ื™ื•ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ

The Gemara first expresses its astonishment at the question itself: What is this objection? What is the comparison between this ruling and the statement of Rava? Rav Kahana said: He who raises an objection here raises a valid objection, and this is the way the question should be understood. Since the tanna of the baraita is looking for prohibitions to add, and he shows that the prohibition applies in additional cases, then if Rava is correct, let the tanna of the baraita teach that once three Festivals have passed he transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay, every single day.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืชื ื ืœืžื™ืงื‘ืขื™ื” ื‘ืœืื• ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ื‘ืœืื•ื™ ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ืœื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ

And how does the other amora, Rava, explain the baraita? He understands that the tanna is trying to establish the action only as subject to a prohibition, i.e., he merely wishes to set the parameters of the prohibition; but once the action is established as prohibited, he is not looking for additional prohibitions.

ื’ื•ืคื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ืฉื ื” ื‘ืœื ืจื’ืœื™ื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืœื ืฉื ื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื‘ืœื ืฉื ื” ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ืฉื ื” ื‘ืœื ืจื’ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above, which stated: In the case of both a firstborn animal and all consecrated animals, once a year has passed, even if three Festivals have not passed, or once three Festivals have passed, even if a whole year has not passed, the owner transgresses the prohibition: You shall not delay. Granted, it is possible to have three Festivals without a year; you find it because three Festivals can pass in half a year, between Passover and Sukkot. But a year without three Festivals, under what circumstances can you find this case? How can a year pass without three Festivals also passing?

ื”ื ื™ื—ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื›ืกื“ืจืŸ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื›ืกื“ืจืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”

The Gemara clarifies the question: This works out well according to the one who is of the opinion that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only if the three Festivals have passed in their proper order. You can find a year without three Festivals in their proper order, e.g., if one made his vow shortly before Shavuot, in which case the year will end before Shavuot the following year, but three Festivals in order will not have elapsed until Sukkot of the third year. But according to the one who is not of the opinion that the three Festivals must be in their proper order, under what circumstances can you find this case of a year without three Festivals?

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ืฉื ื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื“ืชื ื™ื ืฉื ื” ืชืžื™ืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ื ื” ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื™ื•ื ื›ืžื ื™ืŸ ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ืžื”

The Gemara clarifies again: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, you find a year without three Festivals in a leap year, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of houses of walled cities, with regard to which an owner is given only one year to redeem his home if he sells it, after which it becomes the permanent possession of the purchaser, the verse states: โ€œAnd if it be not redeemed within the space of a full yearโ€ (Leviticus 25:30). How is the year determined? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One counts 365 days like the number of the days in a solar year, and not the usual lunar year, which is why it is called a full year.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ื ื” ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืžื™ื•ื ืœื™ื•ื ื•ืื ื ืชืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ื” ื ืชืขื‘ืจื” ืœื• ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื“ืืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ืชืจ ื—ื’ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ื“ื›ื™ ืžื˜ื ืฉื™ืœื”ื™ ืื“ืจ ื‘ืชืจืื” ืฉื ื” ืžืœื™ื ืจื’ืœื™ื ืœื ืžืœื• ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื”

And the Rabbis disagree and say: One counts twelve months from day to day, from the date of the sale until that same date twelve months later, and if it is a leap year with an added month, the leap month is for the sellerโ€™s benefit, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house. You can find a year without three Festivals according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. How so? It is possible in a case where one consecrated the animal after the festival of Passover, so that once he reaches the end of the second month of Adar in a leap year, the year is completed, but the Festivals are not yet completed, as the third Festival is still to come. But according to the Sages, under what circumstances can you find this case of a year without three Festivals?

ื›ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ืฉืžืขื™ื” ืขืฆืจืช ืคืขืžื™ื ื—ืžืฉื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉืฉื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืขื” ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืžืœืื™ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ื—ืกืจื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืื—ื“ ืžืœื ื•ืื—ื“ ื—ืกืจ ืฉืฉื”

The Gemara answers: As Rav Shemaya taught in a baraita: Shavuot sometimes occurs on the fifth of Sivan, sometimes on the sixth of Sivan, and sometimes on the seventh. How so? If both the months of Nisan and Iyyar are full months of thirty days each, the festival of Shavuot, which is celebrated fifty days after the second day of Passover, occurs on the fifth of Sivan; if both months are short, with twenty-nine days each, it occurs on the seventh of Sivan; and if one of them is full and the other is short, it occurs on the sixth of Sivan. According to this opinion, if both months were full and the festival of Shavuot occurred on the fifth day of Sivan, and one made his vow on the day after Shavuot, i.e., the sixth of Sivan, and in the following year both months were short, so that the festival of Shavuot occurred on the seventh of Sivan, a whole year would have passed without three Festivals.

ื•ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ื“ืคืœื™ื’ ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืžืขื™ื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืฆืจืช ืœืขืฆืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืจืืฉ ื”ืฉื ื” ืœืจืืฉ ื”ืฉื ื” ืืœื ืืจื‘ืขื” ื™ืžื™ื ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื•ืื ื”ื™ืชื” ืฉื ื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจืช ื—ืžืฉื”

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rav Shemaya and says that a year has a fixed number of days? It is Aแธฅerim, as it is taught in a baraita: Aแธฅerim say: The difference between Shavuot of one year and Shavuot of the following year, and similarly, between Rosh HaShana of one year and Rosh HaShana of the following year, is only four days of the week. There are 354 days in a lunar year, which are divided into twelve alternating months, six months that are thirty days long and six months that are twenty-nine days long. Therefore, every year is fifty weeks and four days long. And if it were a leap year, in which case the year is comprised of 383 days, or fifty-four weeks and five days, there is a difference of five days between them.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื™ื•ืจืฉ ืžื”ื• ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ื›ื™ ืชื“ื•ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ื”ื ืœื ื ื“ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื•ื‘ืืช ืฉืžื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื ืฉืžื” ื•ื”ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘

ยง Rabbi Zeira asks: In the case of an heir, what is the halakha with regard to the prohibition of: You shall not delay? That is to say, does an heir transgress the prohibition against delaying a vow taken by his father? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Is it that the Merciful One states in the Torah: โ€œWhen you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay paying itโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22), and this one, the heir, did not make a vow? Or perhaps the essence of the mitzva is as it says: โ€œAnd there you shall come; and there you shall bring your burnt-offerings and your sacrificesโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:5โ€“6), and this one, the heir, is obligated to come and bring his fatherโ€™s offerings.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืขืžืš ืคืจื˜ ืœื™ื•ืจืฉ

Come and hear an answer to this, as Rabbi แธคiyya taught a baraita that says: The verse states: โ€œFor the Lord your God will surely require it from youโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:22), which is interpreted to mean: To the exclusion of an heir. This teaches that an heir does not transgress the prohibition against delaying a vow taken by his father.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžืขืžืš ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื–ื” ืœืงื˜ ืฉื›ื—ื” ื•ืคืื” ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืขืžืš ื•ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืžืขืžืš

The Gemara asks: But this phrase โ€œfrom youโ€ is necessary to teach a different halakha, namely, that one transgresses the prohibition against delaying even for gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce of the corner of his field. The Gemara answers: Rabbi แธคiyya derived two halakhot from this word. He read into the verse: โ€œYou [imakh],โ€ which he expounded as coming to include gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the produce of the corner of the field in the prohibition, and he read into the verse: โ€œFrom you [meโ€™imakh],โ€ with the extra letter mem coming to exclude an heir.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืฉื” ืžื” ื”ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืœ ืชืื—ืจ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจืื™ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ื ืื™ืชื” ื‘ืฉืžื—ื”

ยง Rabbi Zeira asks another question on this topic: In the case of a woman who made a vow, what is the halakha with regard to the prohibition: You shall not delay? The Gemara explains: Do we say that since she is not obligated to appear in the Temple on the pilgrimage Festivals, as this obligation is a positive, time-bound mitzva, from which women are exempt, she also does not transgress if she is late in bringing her offering? Or perhaps, since she is obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, she should also be obligated in some of the other mitzvot connected to the day?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื ืื™ืชื” ื‘ืฉืžื—ื” ื•ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฉื” ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืฉืžื—ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืงืืžืจ

Abaye said to him: Derive this from the fact that she is also obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival. The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say this, that a woman is obligated to rejoice on a Festival? But didnโ€™t Abaye say: As for a woman, her husband must make her joyful on a Festival? This means that the obligation falls not on the woman, but upon her husband. The Gemara answers: Abaye stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira holds that women are bound by a positive mitzva to rejoice on a Festival. Since, according to Rabbi Zeiraโ€™s opinion, they are obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival, they are also subject to the prohibition: You shall not delay.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ืžืื™ืžืชื™ ืžื•ื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืžืฉืขื” ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืืžืจ ืžืฉืขื” ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื”ืจืฆืื”

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of a firstborn animal, from when does one begin to count a year with regard to the prohibition against delaying? Abaye said: One counts from the time it is born. Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said: One counts from the time it is fit for appeasement, i.e., from its eighth day, when it is fit to be brought as an offering, as explicitly stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 22:27).

ื•ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื”ื ื‘ืชื

The Gemara comments: The two Sages do not disagree. This one, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov, who said that one counts from the time that the animal is fit for appeasement, is speaking about an unblemished firstborn, which must be brought to the altar for sacrifice.

Scroll To Top