Rosh Hashanah — Daf 5b

כפסח דמו קמ"ל

מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים כג, כב) כי תדור נדר אין לי אלא נדר נדבה מנין

נאמר כאן נדר ונאמר להלן (ויקרא ז, טז) אם נדר או נדבה מה להלן נדבה עמו אף כאן נדבה עמו

(דברים כג, כב) לה אלהיך אלו הדמין הערכין והחרמין וההקדשות (דברים כג, כב) לא תאחר לשלמו הוא ולא חילופיו (דברים כג, כב) כי דרוש ידרשנו אלו חטאות ואשמות עולות ושלמים

(דברים כג, כב) ה' אלהיך אלו צדקות ומעשרות ובכור (דברים כג, כב) מעמך זה לקט שכחה ופאה (דברים כג, כב) והיה בך חטא ולא בקרבנך חטא

אמר מר לא תאחר לשלמו הוא ולא חילופיו חילופי מאי אי חילופי עולה ושלמים מקרב קרבי

אי חילופי חטאת למיתה אזלא אלא מאי חילופיו חילופי תודה

דתני רבי חייא תודה שנתערבה בתמורתה ומתה אחת מהן חברתה אין לה תקנה

היכי ליעביד ליקרבה וליקריב לחם בהדה דלמא תמורה היא ליקרבה בלא לחם דלמא תודה היא

והא כיון דלאו בת הקרבה היא קרא למעוטי למה לי

אמר רב ששת לעולם למעוטי חילופי עולה ושלמים והכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעברו עליו שני רגלים והומם וחיללו על אחר ועבר עליו רגל אחד סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ומכח קמא קאתי כמאן דעברו עליו ג' רגלים דמי קמ"ל

ולרבי מאיר דאמר כיון שעבר עליו רגל א' עובר בבל תאחר מאי איכא למימר אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהומם בתוך הרגל וחיללו ועבר עליו הרגל סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ומכח קמא קאתי כמאן דעבר עליה כוליה רגל דמי קמ"ל

והיה בך חטא ולא בקרבנך חטא והא מהכא נפקא מדאחרים נפקא דתניא אחרים אומרים יכול יהא בכור שעברה שנתו כפסולי המוקדשין ויפסל

תלמוד לומר (דברים יד, כג) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וצאנך מקיש בכור למעשר מה מעשר אינו נפסל משנה לחברתה אף בכור אינו נפסל משנה לחברתה

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי בכור דלאו בר הרצאה הוא אבל קדשים דבני הרצאה נינהו אימא לא לירצו קא משמע לן

ואכתי

is on the same footing as the paschal lamb.1 Therefore we are told [that this is not so]. What is the authority [in the Scripture] for these rules? — As our Rabbis have taught: ‘ When thou shalt vow a vow:2 this tells me only [the rule for] a vow; how do I know that a freewill-offering3 is also included? We have here the term ‘vow’ and in another place4 we find the expression if a vow or a free will-offering; just as there a freewill-offering goes with the vow, so here, a freewill-offering goes with it. To the Lord thy God: this indicates money valuations, valuations, devoted things, and consecrated things.5 Thou shalt not be slack to pay it: it, but not its substitute.6 For he will surely require it: this indicates sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings.7 The Lord thy God: this indicates charity contributions, tithes and firstborn.8 From thee: this indicates gleanings, forgotten sheaves and corners of the field. And it will be sin in thee; but not sin in thy offering.9 The Master has [just] said: "’Thou shalt not be slack in paying it"; It and not its substitute’. Substitute for what? If the substitute for a burnt-offering or a peace-offering is meant, this is actually offered.10 If the substitute for a sin-offering, this is allowed to perish.11 How then are we to understand ‘its substitute’? — The substitute for a thanksgiving-offering, as R. Hiyya taught: If a thanksgiving offering became mixed up with its substitute and one of them died , there is no remedy for the other,12 For what is he [the owner] to do? Shall he offer it and offer the bread13 with it? Perhaps it is the substitute.14 Shall he offer it without the bread? Perhaps it is the original thank-offering. But [if that is so,] seeing that it cannot be offered, why do I require a text to exclude it? — R. Shesheth replied: In point of fact, [the intention of the verse is] to exclude the substitutes for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, and we are dealing here with the case of one which was kept over during two festivals and then became blemished and the owner made it profane by substituting another and this was kept over one festival. You might imagine in this case that since it takes the place of the first, it is as if it had been kept over for three festivals; therefore we are told that this is not so. But on the view of R. Meir who said that as soon as one festival has been allowed to elapse there is a transgression of the precept ‘not to delay’, what can be said? — Raba replied: Here we are dealing with a case where the animal became blemished during the festival and he declared it profane [by substituting another], and this was kept over the festival. You might imagine that since it takes the place of the first it is as if it had been kept over during the whole of the festival.15 Therefore we are told [that this is not so]. "’And it will be sin in thee," but not sin in thy offering’. Do we derive this lesson from here? Surely it is derived from the text adduced by the ‘Others’, as it has been taught: ‘Others say, I might say that a firstling after a year has passed16 is like consecrated things that have become disqualified17 and so is disqualified. Therefore it says, And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herd and of thy flock.18 Here firstling is mentioned alongside of tithe, [to indicate that] just as tithe is not disqualified by being kept from one year to another,19 so a firstling is not disqualified by being kept from one year to another.’ — It was still necessary [to learn the lesson in the other way]. For you might have imagined that this applies only to a firstling, which is not for appeasement, but consecrated20 things which are for appeasement21 will not appease [if kept over]. Therefore I am told that this is not so. But still [I may object that] ‘I undertake to bring this animal as an offering’. demanded. The burnt-offerings and peace-offerings referred to are those which were brought as an additional offering on the festival. If they had been already set aside, they could be brought on a subsequent festival (V. Tosaf., s.v. ukt ). substitute also comes under the rule of ‘not delaying’.