ראש השנה 5 — Soncino English Talmud

¹just as on the feast of Passover [the celebrant is] required to stay overnight [in Jerusalem], so on the feast of Tabernacles he is required to stay overnight. How do we know this in the case of Passover? — Because it is written, And thou shalt turn in the morning and go unto thy tents. But whence then do the First Tanna and R. Simeon derive the rule of compensation for the Feast of Weeks? — They derive it from the statement of Rabbah b. Samuel; for Rabbah b. Samuel stated: The Torah said, Count days and sanctify the new moon, count days and sanctify the Feast of Weeks, [indicating that] just as the new moon [is sanctified for the period corresponding with the unit of time] by which it is counted, so the Feast of Weeks [is sanctified for the period corresponding with the unit of time] by which it is counted. [In that case] I should say that [the compensation period of] the Feast of Weeks is only one day? — Raba replied: Do we count only days to the Feast of Weeks and not weeks [also]? Has not a Master said, It is a mizwah to count days and it is also a mizwah to count weeks? And further, we read in the text, ‘the feast of weeks’. But can the paschal lamb be offered on any of the festivals? The paschal lamb [surely] has a fixed date: if it is brought then, well and goods but if not, it is rejected? — R. Hisda replied: The paschal lamb is mentioned incidentally. R. Shesheth said: ‘Paschal lamb’ here means the peace-offering [brought] in lieu of the paschal lamb. But if that is so, this is covered by the term peace-offerings’? — Our authority mentions the peace-offering [which is brought] in lieu of the paschal lamb and he also mentions the peace-offerings which are brought for their own sake. You might be inclined to think that [the former] being brought in lieu of the paschal lamb^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the first night of the intermediate days (Rashi).
^ᵇnote:In connection with the paschal lamb.
^ᶜnote:Deut. XVI, 7. The morning of the first day of the festival obviously cannot be meant, as on that day the celebrant had to bring his festival offering.
^ᵈnote:Who require the whole of this verse for the rule of ‘not delaying’.
^ᵉnote:As it is written. Ye shall not eat it one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, but a whole month (Num. XI, 19, 20).
^ᶠnote:By sacrifices, v. Num. XXVIII, 11.
^ᵍnote:V. Lev. XXIII, 15. [Read with R. Hananel, Count weeks and sanctify the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 15].
^ʰnote:It is counted by days and is sanctified for one day.
^ⁱnote:It is counted by weeks and is sanctified for one week.
^ʲnote:Since it also says, ‘Ye shall count fifty days’. Ibid. 16.
^ᵏnote:To say, e.g., ‘seven days which are one week to the ‘omer’.
^ˡnote:Deut. XVI, 16.
^ᵐnote:Mentioned above (p. 11) among the objects to which the rule of ‘not delaying’ applies.
^ⁿnote:Viz., the fourteenth of Nisan.
^ᵒnote:Lit., ‘pushed away’.
^ᵖnote:Lit., peace-offerings of the paschal lamb’. If the paschal lamb was not brought at the proper time through being lost, another was declared to be a peace-offering in its place, and this came under the rule of ‘not delaying’.
^ᵠnote:Which also occurs in the Baraitha quoted.

²is on the same footing as the paschal lamb. 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: this tells me only [the rule for] a vow; how do I know that a freewill-offering is also included? We have here the term ‘vow’ and in another place 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. Thou shalt not be slack to pay it: it, but not its substitute. For he will surely require it: this indicates sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. The Lord thy God: this indicates charity contributions, tithes and firstborn. 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. 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. If the substitute for a sin-offering, this is allowed to perish. 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, For what is he [the owner] to do? Shall he offer it and offer the bread with it? Perhaps it is the substitute. 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. 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 passed is like consecrated things that have become disqualified 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. Here firstling is mentioned alongside of tithe, [to indicate that] just as tithe is not disqualified by being kept from one year to another, 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 consecrated things which are for appeasement will not appease [if kept over]. Therefore I am told that this is not so. But still [I may object that]^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ʳnote:And the transgression of ‘not delaying’ is incurred with the passing of one festival (Rashi).
^ˢnote:Deut. XXIII, 22.
^ᵗnote:In making a vow a man said, ‘I undertake to bring such-and-such an offering’; in making a freewill-offering he said, ‘I undertake to bring this animal as an offering’.
^ᵘnote:Lev. VII, 16.
^ᵛnote:V. supra p. 11 nn. 5-8. Because all these went for the repair of the Temple and not to the priests.
^ʷnote:This is explained below.
^ˣnote:All these as distinct from the vow and freewill-offerings were an obligation the fulfilment of which could be 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 ).
^ʸnote:The words ‘the Lord thy God’ here are strictly speaking superfluous, and can therefore be used for an exposition.
^ᶻnote:I.e., the offering is not disqualified thereby.
^ᵃᵃnote:If the original animal was lost and another substituted and then the first was found, both are offered and the substitute also comes under the rule of ‘not delaying’.
^ᵃᵇnote:And never offered.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., it must be allowed to perish.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Lev. VII, 12, 13.
^ᵃᵉnote:And according to Men. 79b, bread was not to be brought with the substitute of a thanksgiving-offering.
^ᵃᶠnote:And thus, according to R. Meir, is the rule of ‘not delaying’ transgressed.
^ᵃᵍnote:A firstling has to be sacrificed within its first year, v. Deut. XV, 20.
^ᵃʰnote:For being offered on the altar.
^ᵃⁱnote:Deut. XIV, 23.
^ᵃʲnote:Because it says, At the end of every three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe etc., Deut. XIV, 28.
^ᵃᵏnote:E.g., burnt — and sin-offerings.
^ᵃˡnote:Heb. ubmrk Lev. I, 3 et al. E.V. ‘that he (it) may be accepted.’