ראש השנה 6

6:1

the lesson is derived from the exposition of Ben ‘Azzai, as It has been taught: Ben ‘Azzai said: What is the point of the word otho [it]? Since it says, Thou shalt not be slack in paying it, I might think that a vow which is delayed also fails to appease. Therefore it says, ‘it’: this one fails to appease, but a delayed vow does not fail to appease! — No; [what we must say is], ‘"in thee a sin", but not in thy wife a sin’. For you might think that, since R. Johanan [or, as some say, R. Eleazar] has said, ‘A man's wife dies only because money is [rightfully] demanded of him and he has it not, as it says, Why should he take thy bed from under thee’? and so I would say that his wife will die also because of this transgression of ‘not delaying’. We are therefore told [that this is not so]. Our Rabbis taught: ‘That which is gone out of thy lips: this is an affirmative precept. Thou shalt observe: this is a negative precept. And do: this is an injunction to the Beth din to make thee do, According as thou hast vowed: this means a vow. To the Lord thy God: this means sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. A freewill-offering: this has its literal meaning. Even that which thou hast promised: this means things sanctified for the repair of the Temple. With thy mouth: this means charity.’ The Master has here said that ‘"that which is gone out of thy lips" implies an affirmative precept’. Why do I require the words for this purpose? This lesson can be derived from the words, and thither thou shalt come and thither ye shall bring. ‘"Thou shalt observe"; this implies a negative precept’. Why do I require these words? This lesson can be derived from ‘thou shalt not be slack in paying it’. ‘"And do": this is an injunction to the Beth din to make thee do’. Why do I require these words? This lesson can be derived from he shall bring it, as it has been taught: He shall bring it: this teaches us that he is to be constrained [if necessary]. I might say, even against his will. Therefore it says, of his own will. What is to be done then? We constrain him until he says ‘I am willing’. [What is the answer?] — The one [set of texts deal with the case] where he had pledged himself but had not yet set aside the animal, the other with the case where he had set it aside but had not yet offered it. And both are required. For if the rule had been laid down only for the case where he had pledged himself but had not yet set aside the animal, [I might say that the reason is] because he has not yet carried out his word, but where he has set it aside but not yet offered it I might argue that wherever it is, it is in the treasury of the All-Merciful. These texts therefore were necessary. And if again the rule had been laid down only for the cases where he has set the animal aside but not yet offered it, I might say that the reason is because he is keeping it by him, but if he has pledged himself without having yet set it aside I might argue that his mere word counts for nothing. Therefore these texts are also necessary. But how can you say that [one set of texts is] where he has pledged himself but not yet set aside, seeing that ‘freewill-offering’ is mentioned, and we have learnt, What is a vow? When a man says, I pledge myself to bring a burnt-offering. What is a freewill-offering? Where a man says, I declare this to be a burnt-offering. What is the difference [in practice] between a vow and a freewill-offering? If [an animal set aside to perform] a vow dies or is stolen, he has to replace it, but if a freewill-offering dies or is stolen he is not bound to replace it! — Raba replied: You can find a freewill-offering of this kind in the case where he said, ‘I pledge myself to bring a burnt-offering on condition that I shall not be obliged to replace it’. ‘"With thy mouth": this is charity’. Raba said: For [paying] charity-offerings one becomes liable at once. What is the reason? Because the poor are waiting. Surely this is obvious? — [Not so, since] you might think that, as charity is mentioned in the passage dealing with offerings, [it need not be paid] till three festivals have elapsed, as in the case of offerings. We are therefore told that this is not so. Only the others [the offerings] were made by the All-Merciful dependent on the festivals, but this [charity] is not so, because the poor are waiting. Raba said: As soon as one festival has elapsed, he transgresses an affirmative precept. The following objection was raised: R. Joshua and R. Pappias testified regarding the offspring of a peace-offering that it should also be brought as a peace-offering. R. Pappias said: I testify that we had a heifer which was sacrificed as a peace-offering, and we ate it on Passover, and we ate its young as a peace-offering on the Festival. Now I can understand why it was not offered on Passover, the ground being that it was still too short-lived. But how could the young be kept over Pentecost, which would involve the transgression of an affirmative precept? — R. Zebid said in the name of Raba: It may have been

—

6:2

that it was sick on Pentecost. R. Ashi said: What is meant by the statement ‘we ate its young as a peace-offering on the Festival’? it means, the Feast of Weeks. What says the other to this? — [He says that] wherever [Pentecost] is mentioned in connection with Passover, it is called ‘Assembly’ [‘azereth]. Raba said: As soon as three festivals have elapsed, he transgresses every day the precept of ‘not delaying’. The following was cited in objection to this: [The rule] both for a firstling and for all consecrated animals is that so soon as they have been kept back a year [even] without three festivals, or three festivals even it less than a year, the precept of ‘not delaying’ is transgressed. What objection is there here? — R. Kahana said: The objection is a sound one. See now: the Tanna is looking for prohibitions; let him then state, ‘he transgresses the precept of "not delaying" every day’. What says the other to this? — [He says that] the Tanna is only anxious to stamp the act as forbidden; he does not look for extra prohibitions. [To revert to] the [above] text: ‘[The rule] both for a firstling and for all consecrated animals is that so soon as they have been kept back a year even without three festivals or three festivals even if less than a year, the precept of "not delaying" is trans gressed’. I grant that three festivals without a year are possible; but how is a year possible without three festivals? And I still grant that this is possible for one who requires the three festivals to be in order, but for one who does not require them to be in order how is it possible? And I still grant that this is possible for Rabbi in a leap year, since it has been taught, [It is written] ‘a complete year’ : Rabbi says, he [the seller] reckons three hundred and sixty-five days, which is the number of days in the solar year, while the Sages say that he reckons twelve months from day to day, and if it is a leap year he gets the benefit. — It is possible for Rabbi [to have a year without three festivals] in the case where one sanctified the animal after the festival of Passover, since when the end of the next second Adar comes round the year is completed but the number of festivals is not completed. But for the Rabbis how is it possible? — [It is possible] on the basis of what R. Shemaiah learnt: Pentecost is sometimes on the fifth of the [third] month, sometimes on the sixth, and sometimes on the seventh. For instance, if both of them are full, it is on the fifth; if both of them are defective., it is on the seventh; if one is full and the other defective, it is on the sixth. Who is the Tanna who takes a different view from R. Shemaiah? It is the ‘Others’, as it has been taught: Others say that between Pentecost and Pentecost, between New Year and New Year there is always an interval of four days [of the week], or, in a leap year, five. R. Zera asked: Does the rule of ‘not delaying’ apply to an heir? [Do we reason that] the All-Merciful has said ‘When thou shalt vow a vow’, and he has not made a vow, or [perhaps we apply the text], and thither thou shalt come and thither shall ye bring, and he also is liable? — Come and hear, since R, Hiyya has taught: ‘From thee [me'imak]’: this excludes the heir. But this ‘me'imak’ is required to bring under the rule gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and corners of the field? — I expound ‘imak, and I expound me'imak. R. Zera also asked: Does the rule of ‘not delaying’ apply to a woman? Do we reason that she is not obliged to appear [at Jerusalem on the festivals] or perhaps do we reason that she is enjoined to rejoice? — Abaye replied: Is not the answer provided by the fact that she is enjoined to rejoice? But could Abaye say this, seeing that Abaye has said that a woman is made joyful by her husband? Abaye was answering R. Zera on his own premises. The question was raised: From what day is the year of the firstling reckoned? — Abaye said, From the hour of its birth; R. Aha b. Jacob said, From the time when it can be used for appeasement. Nor is there any conflict of opinion between them; one speaks of an animal without blemish,

—