Rosh Hashanah 5b — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

its status is like that of the Paschal offering

, their law is like the law of the Paschal offering itself, and at the first pilgrimage Festival he would transgress the prohibition of “do not delay.”

This teaches us

, the tanna taught us that one does not transgress concerning them the prohibition of “do not delay” until three pilgrimage Festivals have passed.

And now the Gemara explains: from where did the beraita learn that the prohibition of “do not delay” is stated concerning all the matters brought in the aforementioned beraita:

From where are these matters

? From where do we know that the prohibition of “do not delay” is stated concerning all the matters brought in the beraita?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 23:22]: “When you vow a vow to the Lord your God, do not delay paying it. For the Lord your God will surely demand it from you, and there will be sin in you.”

And the beraita proceeds to explain the wording of the verse:

It is stated in the verse:

“When you vow a vow”—

I have only

the possibility of learning from this verse the prohibition of “do not delay”

but

only concerning delay of a

vow

alone. That is, one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring such-and-such an offering,” and did not bring it at the proper time.

A gift-offering

, one who says, “This animal is consecrated for such-and-such an offering”—

from where

do we know that “do not delay” is also stated concerning this?

It is stated here

, concerning “do not delay,”

“a vow,” and it is stated there, “a vow”

[Leviticus 7:16], concerning the peace-offering:

“And if it is a vow or a gift-offering

of his sacrifice.”

Just as there

, just as concerning the vow mentioned with regard to the peace-offering,

a gift-offering was mentioned with it

—so too

the “vow” that was mentioned

here

concerning “do not delay,”

a gift-offering was mentioned with it,

and from here we learned that “do not delay” is also stated concerning a gift-offering.

And so it is stated in this verse: “(When you vow a vow)

to the Lord your God.”

And these two words are superfluous. And the Sages expounded that Scripture comes to include everything that a person gives to the Lord, in which the priests have no share:

These are valuations of persons

. One who says, “My value is upon me”; they assess him as a slave, and he gives his value to the Temple treasury.

And valuations

, one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” who gives to the Temple treasury the valuation fixed in the Torah according to his years.

And devoted property

, one who says, “This is devoted property for the repair of the Temple.”

And consecrated property

, one who says, “This is consecrated.”

And it is stated further in the verse

“Do not delay paying it.” “

Paying it” means paying it, and it implies that specifically

it

, the offering itself, is included in the prohibition of “do not delay,”

but not its substitutes!

For if he exchanged the offering for another animal and delayed “paying it,” bringing it and sacrificing it, he does not transgress the prohibition of “do not delay.” And below the Gemara will explain in what manner of exchange this is speaking.

And further in the verse it is stated:

“For He will surely demand it.”

This comes to include offerings that are demanded of a person, since he is obligated in them, and

these are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings

, in which he is obligated because he sinned. And

burnt-offerings

of appearance,

and peace-offerings

, peace-offerings of the Festival pilgrimage, in which he is obligated when he goes up for the pilgrimage. ,

And further in the verse it is stated: “For He will surely demand it

from the Lord your God.”

And the last two words are superfluous. For at the beginning of the verse it was already stated, “When you vow a vow to the Lord your God,” and it would have been appropriate to say, “For He will surely demand it from you”; it is self-evident that the entire continuation of the verse continues to speak about the Lord your God.

And why is “to the Lord your God” stated?

Scripture comes to include additional obligations concerning which “to the Lord your God” is said, for the prohibition of “do not delay”:

These are charitable gifts

, concerning which it is stated: “And it shall be charity for you before the Lord your God” [Deuteronomy 24].

And tithes, and the firstborn

, concerning which it is stated: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, and the firstborn of your cattle and your flocks” [there, 14].

And further in the verse it is stated: “For He will surely demand it, the Lord your God

from you.”

And the word “from you” is superfluous. And it comes to include the gifts of the poor. For concerning the poor person it is stated, “the poor person with you” [Exodus 22]—

this is gleaning, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

And further in the verse it is stated:

“And there will be sin in you.”

And from the word “in you” they expounded that if you delay bringing the offering, there will be sin only in you,

and not

will there be

sin in your offering

[disqualification].

For although one who delays paying his offering transgresses a negative commandment, nevertheless the offering is not disqualified.

Thus far are the words of the beraita, and the Gemara explains parts of the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita: It is stated

“Do not delay paying it,”

and it implies that specifically

it

, the offering itself, is subject to “do not delay,”

but not its substitutes

, for if he exchanged the offering for another animal and delayed paying it, he does not transgress “do not delay.”

And we considered it:

Substitutes for what?

Substitutes for which offering is this speaking?

If

, if it is said that it is speaking of

substitutes for a burnt-offering and peace-offerings

that were lost, and he designated other animals in their place, and ultimately the first ones were found and he sacrificed them, and Scripture excluded that if he delayed paying the substitutes he does not transgress “do not delay.”

It is impossible to say so.

For these substitutes

are fit for sacrifice

, and this is like one who designates an animal for a burnt-offering or peace-offerings, which are certainly included in “paying it” mentioned in the verse!

If

, and if it is said that it is speaking of

a substitute for a sin-offering

, a sin-offering that was lost, and its owners designated another animal in its place as a sin-offering and sacrificed it, and ultimately the first one was found, and Scripture excluded that if he delayed paying it he does not transgress “do not delay,” it is impossible to say so.

For a substitute for a sin-offering—

goes to death!

For they place it in a room and starve it until it dies.

And since it is not sacrificed, it is obvious that “do not delay” is not applicable here at all, and no exclusion is needed for this!

Rather, what are its substitutes—

substitutes for a thanksgiving-offering.

A thanksgiving-offering that was lost, and he designated another animal in its place, and the first was found. And before they managed to sacrifice it, the animals became mixed up with one another.

And the law of a substitute for a thanksgiving-offering differs from the law of the thanksgiving-offering itself, for the thanksgiving-offering itself is sacrificed together with forty loaves . But the offering that is “the substitute of the thanksgiving-offering” is sacrificed without bread.

And when the thanksgiving-offering and its substitute became mixed with one another, it is possible to bring forty loaves and say, “This bread is consecrated for the sake of whichever of these animals is the thanksgiving-offering.” And the slaughter of the thanksgiving-offering consecrates the bread, according to its law.

And the verse that excludes “it, but not its substitutes” speaks of a case in which one of the animals died, and it is impossible to bring the loaves for the sake of the thanksgiving-offering itself, for it is possible that it died.

For Rabbi Hiyya taught: A thanksgiving-offering that became mixed with its exchange

and one of them died

—its companion

, the living one,

has no remedy

, and it is impossible to sacrifice it. For:

What should he do?

How should he act?

Sacrifice it, and sacrifice bread with it

, if you say that he should sacrifice the living animal and sacrifice the loaves with it, this cannot be done, for there is concern

perhaps

[lest]

it is the exchange,

and an exchange of a thanksgiving-offering is sacrificed without bread!

If you say

sacrifice it without bread,

even so he may not do this. For there is concern

perhaps

that the

thanksgiving-offering

itself

it is,

and the thanksgiving-offering itself is not sacrificed without bread!

And since the substitute of the thanksgiving-offering has no remedy, therefore if he delayed paying them for three pilgrimage Festivals, he does not transgress “do not delay.” And we object:

But since

an animal that is “the substitute of a thanksgiving-offering”

is not fit for sacrifice

, if so,

why do I need a verse to exclude it

!?

Why is a verse needed to exclude it from “do not delay”? For since it is impossible to sacrifice it, it is obvious that “delay” is not applicable to it!

Rav Sheshet said: Actually

, what we expounded in the beraita, “it” and not its substitutes, comes

to exclude substitutes for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings,

so that one who delays paying them for three pilgrimage Festivals does not transgress “do not delay.”

And regarding what we objected above—that substitutes for burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are sacrificed, and consequently they are included in “do not delay paying it,” and it is impossible to say that they were excluded from “do not delay”—

Rav Sheshet answers this:

And here, with what are we dealing

, what is this speaking about?

For example, when

already

two pilgrimage Festivals had passed over it

, over the original first offering,

and

they had still not sacrificed it,

and

then it

became blemished

, a blemish occurred in it,

and he redeemed it onto

another

unblemished

offering. He said, “Behold, the unblemished animal is in place of the blemished one.” The unblemished animal becomes consecrated with the sanctity of the offering, and the blemished one becomes unconsecrated.

And one pilgrimage Festival passed over it

, over the unblemished animal,

one pilgrimage Festival

, and he did not sacrifice it, and

it might enter your mind to say

, it might occur to you to say:

since

this unblemished offering

comes by virtue of

the sanctity of the first offering,

it comes

, and it stands in its place, and when one pilgrimage Festival passed over it,

it is considered as though three pilgrimage Festivals had passed over it

, for both animals possess the same sanctity, and three pilgrimage Festivals passed over both of them together [over the first, two pilgrimage Festivals, and over the second, one pilgrimage Festival].

This teaches us

, this verse taught us that specifically when three pilgrimage Festivals passed over one offering by itself does he transgress “do not delay,” and we do not combine it and its substitute to constitute a delay of three pilgrimage Festivals.

But it is still possible to raise a difficulty.

Since Rav Sheshet explained that the exposition “it, but not its substitutes” comes to teach us that we do not combine the offering and its substitutes to make three pilgrimage Festivals, this may be challenged:

And according to Rabbi Meir, who says

that concerning every offering,

once one pilgrimage Festival has passed over it, one transgresses “do not delay”

—what can be said?

How can we establish the exclusion “it, but not its substitutes”? For according to Rabbi Meir, there is no need to combine the offering and its substitutes with one another, since in each one of them, immediately when one pilgrimage Festival passed over it and he did not sacrifice it, he transgresses “do not delay”!

He said

he answered,

Rava:

according to Rabbi Meir,

what are we dealing with here?

What did the verse speak of?

For example, when it became blemished

the first offering

during the festival,

in the middle of the first festival,

and

then

he transferred its sanctity onto

another

one [unblemished],

and

its time elapsed

at the end of

the festival.

It might have entered your mind to say,

it might have entered your mind to say that

since

the sanctity of the second

comes by virtue of

the sanctity of the

first,

and it stands in its place, and when the end of the festival elapsed for it,

it is considered as though the entire festival had elapsed for it,

and this is as though a complete festival had elapsed for it, since both animals possess the same sanctity, and a complete festival elapsed for both of them together.

It teaches us

that the verse teaches us that only if the time of delay [a complete festival] elapsed for one by itself does he transgress bal te’acher, and we do not combine it and its replacements. We learned in the continuation of the beraita:

It is written:

“And there shall be sin in you”,

and from the word “in you” they expounded that if you delay bringing the offering, there will be sin only in you,

and not

will there be

sin in your offering,

for although one who delays paying his offering transgresses a prohibition, the offering is not thereby disqualified.

And we object:

But,

is this matter

derived from here

that it is learned from here?!

But

from

the words of

“Others” it is derived!

For this matter should be learned from the exposition that Rabbi Meir [who is also called “Others”] expounded:

For it was taught: Others say:

It is a mitzva to offer the firstborn in the first year of its life.

For it is stated [Deuteronomy 15:20] concerning the firstborn: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year.” The meaning of the verse is that you should offer the firstborn and eat it in its first year.

And since it is a mitzva to offer the firstborn within its year, I

could

say that

the

law of a

firstborn whose year passed

without his having offered it

would be like

the law of

“disqualified consecrated animals”,

offerings that became blemished,

and it would become disqualified

for offering.

The verse therefore says, [Deuteronomy 14]:

“

And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the firstborn of your cattle and your flocks.”

The verse compares

the

firstborn to the tithe

of grain, to tell you that their laws are equal:

Just as,

just as

the tithe

of grain

is not disqualified

if it remains

from one year

to

the next.

For it is stated [Deuteronomy 14:28]: “At the end of three years [in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle], you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce. And the Levite shall come.” If he had still not given the tithes of the first and second years, he gives them in the third year. And the tithes are not disqualified once their year has passed.

Even

an offering,

a firstborn is not disqualified

if it remains

from one year

to

the next.

And since we learned from this verse that a firstborn whose year passed is not disqualified from being offered, it is now difficult: why did the verse need, concerning bal te’acher, to say “And there shall be sin in you,” in order to teach “and not sin in your offering”?

And we answer:

It was necessary.

The verse needed to teach us that even when one delays paying the other offerings, the offerings are not thereby disqualified, and we could not have learned this matter from the firstborn.

For

it might have entered your mind to say,

it might have entered your mind to say that although the verse taught that the firstborn is not disqualified from one year to the next, nevertheless,

these words

refer specifically to

the firstborn, which is not “an offering of appeasement”,

for its offering is not performed in order to bring appeasement before the Most High; rather, it is an obligation by virtue of the sanctity of the firstborn that took effect upon it at its birth.

But

the other

consecrated offerings, which are offerings of appeasement,

whose offering is performed in order to bring appeasement, such as a burnt offering, which atones for one who violates a positive mitzva, and likewise peace-offerings, which are a gift to establish peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven,

say that they do not bring appeasement.

For since a transgression [bal te’acher] was committed with them, they are not fit to bring appeasement for their owners, and they are disqualified.

It teaches us

the verse that nevertheless they are valid after the fact.

And we object:

And still,

the verse “And there shall be sin in you” is not yet needed to teach that an offering whose payment he delayed is not thereby disqualified.