Rosh Hashanah — Daf 6a

מדבן עזאי נפקא דתניא בן עזאי אומר (ויקרא ז, ל) אותו

מה ת"ל לפי שנא' (דברים כג, כב) לא תאחר לשלמו שומע אני אף מאחר נדרו בבל ירצה ת"ל אותו אותו בלא ירצה ואין מאחר נדרו בלא ירצה

אלא בך חטא ולא באשתך חטא

סד"א הואיל וא"ר יוחנן ואי תימא ר' אלעזר אין אשתו של אדם מתה אא"כ מבקשין ממנו ממון ואין לו שנאמר (משלי כב, כז) אם אין לך לשלם למה יקח משכבך מתחתיך אימא בהאי עון דבל תאחר נמי אשתו מתה קמ"ל

ת"ר (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך זו מצות עשה תשמור זו מצות לא תעשה ועשית אזהרה לב"ד שיעשוך כאשר נדרת זה נדר לה' אלהיך אלו חטאות ואשמות עולות ושלמים נדבה כמשמעו אשר דברת אלו קדשי בדק הבית בפיך זו צדקה

אמר מר מוצא שפתיך זו מצות עשה למה לי (דברים יב, ה) מובאת שמה והבאתם שמה נפקא תשמור זו מצות לא תעשה למה לי מלא תאחר לשלמו נפקא

ועשית אזהרה לב"ד שיעשוך למה לי מיקריב אותו נפקא דתניא (ויקרא א, ג) יקריב אותו מלמד שכופין אותו יכול בעל כרחו ת"ל (ויקרא א, ג) לרצונו הא כיצד כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני

חד דאמר ולא אפריש וחד אפריש ולא אקריב

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן אמר ולא אפריש משום דלא קיימיה לדיבוריה אבל אפריש ולא אקריב אימא כל היכא דאיתיה בי גזא דרחמנא איתיה צריכא

ואי אשמעינן אפריש ולא אקריב דקא משהי ליה גביה אבל אמר ולא אפריש אימא דיבורא לא כלום הוא צריכא

ומי מצית אמרת דאמר ולא אפריש והא נדבה כתיבא ותנן אי זהו נדר האומר הרי עלי עולה ואי זו היא נדבה האומר הרי זו עולה

ומה בין נדר לנדבה נדר מת או נגנב חייב באחריותו נדבה מתה או נגנבה אינו חייב באחריותה

אמר רבא משכחת לה כגון דאמר הרי עלי עולה על מנת שאיני חייב באחריותה

בפיך זו צדקה אמר רבא וצדקה מיחייב עלה לאלתר מ"ט דהא קיימי עניים

פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דבעניינא דקרבנות כתיבא עד דעברי עלה ג' רגלים כקרבנות קמ"ל התם הוא דתלינהו רחמנא ברגלים אבל הכא לא דהא שכיחי עניים

אמר רבא כיון שעבר עליו רגל אחד עובר בעשה

מיתיבי העיד ר' יהושע ור' פפייס על ולד שלמים שיקרב שלמים אמר ר' פפייס אני מעיד שהיתה לנו פרה של זבחי שלמים ואכלנוה בפסח ואכלנו ולדה שלמים בחג

בשלמא בפסח לא אקרבוה אימור דמחוסר זמן הוה אלא ולדה בעצרת היכי משהי לה ועברי עליה בעשה

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא כגון

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]?1 Since it says, Thou shalt not be slack in paying it,2 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,3 as it says, Why should he take thy bed from under thee’?4 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:5 this is an affirmative precept.6 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.7 A freewill-offering:8 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.9 ‘"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’.10 ‘"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,11 as it has been taught: He shall bring it: this teaches us that he is to be constrained12 [if necessary]. I might say, even against his will. Therefore it says, of his own will.13 What is to be done then? We constrain him until he says ‘I am willing’. [What is the answer?] — The one [set of texts14 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 kind15 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.16 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. 17 Raba said: As soon as one festival has elapsed, he transgresses an affirmative precept. The following objection was raised:18 R. Joshua and R. Pappias testified regarding the offspring of a peace-offering19 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.20 Now I can understand why it was not offered on Passover, the ground being that it was still too short-lived.21 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 unto him that offereth it. The word otho could be dispensed with. sacrificed.