Rosh Hashanah 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

Therefore,

it is like the Paschal offering

: its law is like the law of the Paschal offering itself, and at the first Festival he would violate the prohibition of bal te’akher.

This teaches us

: the tanna teaches us that one does not violate bal te’akher with regard to them until three Festivals have passed.

Now the Gemara explains: From where did the beraita learn that the prohibition of bal te’akher applies to all the items mentioned in the beraita above?

From where are these matters

: From where do we know that the prohibition of bal te’akher applies to all the items mentioned in the beraita?

As the Sages taught:

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

The beraita proceeds to interpret the wording of the verse:

The verse states:

“When you make a vow”—

I have

no way to derive from this verse the prohibition of bal te’akher

except

with regard to delaying a

vow

alone; that is, one who says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a certain offering,” but does not bring it in time.

A freewill offering

: one who says, “This animal is consecrated for a certain offering”

—

from where

do we know that “bal te’akher” is stated with regard to this as well? It is stated here

, with regard to bal te’akher,

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

[Leviticus 7:16], with regard to a peace offering:

“And if it is a vow or a freewill offering

of his sacrifice.”

Just as below

, just as with regard to the vow mentioned in the context of the peace offering,

a freewill offering is mentioned with it—

so too the

“vow” mentioned

here

with regard to bal te’akher has

a freewill offering mentioned with it,

and from here we learn that bal te’akher is stated with regard to a freewill offering as well.

The verse also states: “When you make a vow

to the Lord your God.”

These two words are superfluous. The Sages expounded that the verse comes to include anything that a person gives to the Lord, in which the priests have no share:

These are monetary valuations

: one who says, “My value is upon me”; his value is assessed as that of a slave, and he gives his value to the Temple treasury.

And valuations

: one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” and gives to the Temple treasury the fixed valuation prescribed by the Torah according to his age.

And dedicated property

: one who says, “This is dedicated to the Temple maintenance.”

And consecrated property

: one who says, “This is consecrated.”

The verse continues:

“You shall not delay fulfilling it.”

“Fulfilling it” means fulfilling it, and this implies that specifically

it

, the offering itself, is included in the prohibition of bal te’akher,

but not its substitutes!

For if he exchanged the offering for another animal and delayed “fulfilling it,” bringing it and offering it, he does not violate bal te’akher. Below, the Gemara will explain what type of exchange is being discussed here.

The verse continues:

“For He will surely demand it.”

This comes to include offerings that a person is required to bring, since he is obligated to bring them,

namely sin offerings and guilt offerings

, which he is obligated to bring because he sinned.

Burnt offerings

of appearance,

and peace offerings

, the peace offerings of rejoicing, which he is obligated to bring when he ascends for the Festival. ,

The verse continues: “For He will surely demand it

from the Lord your God.”

The last two words are superfluous. At the beginning of the verse it already states, “When you make a vow to the Lord your God”; it should have said, “For He will surely demand it of you,” and it would be self-evident that the continuation of the verse is also speaking of the Lord your God.

And why does it state, “to the Lord your God”?

The verse comes to include additional obligations concerning which “to the Lord your God” is stated, for purposes of bal te’akher:

These are charity

, 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 of your flocks” [ibid. 14].

The verse continues: “For He will surely demand it from the Lord your God

from you.”

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

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

The verse continues:

“And there will be sin in you.”

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 fulfilling his offering violates a prohibition, nevertheless the offering is not disqualified.

This concludes the words of the beraita, and the Gemara explains parts of the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita: It is stated

“You shall not delay fulfilling it,”

and this implies that specifically

it

, the offering itself, is subject to bal te’akher,

but not its substitutes

: if he exchanged the offering for another animal and delayed fulfilling it, he does not violate bal te’akher.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

Substitutes of what?

Of which offering is this speaking?

If

we say that it is speaking of

substitutes for a burnt offering or peace offering

that were lost, and he designated other animals in their place, and ultimately the original animals were found and he offered them, and the verse excludes the case in which he delayed fulfilling the substitutes, so that he does not violate bal te’akher—

This cannot be said.

For these substitutes

are fit for offering

; they are suitable for offering, and this is comparable to one who designates an animal as a burnt offering or peace offering, which certainly is included in “fulfilling it” mentioned in the verse!

If

we say that it is speaking of

a substitute for a sin offering

, a sin offering that was lost, whose owners designated another animal in its place as a sin offering and offered it, and ultimately the first was found, and the verse excludes the case in which he delayed fulfilling it, so that he does not violate bal te’akher—this too cannot be said.

For a substitute for a sin offering

goes to death!

It is placed in a chamber and starved until it dies.

And since it is not offered, it is obvious that bal te’akher is not relevant to it at all, and no exclusion is needed for this!

Rather, what are its substitutes—

the substitute of a thanksgiving offering.

A thanksgiving offering that was lost, for which he designated another animal in its place, and the first was found. Before they had time to offer it, the animals became mixed with one another.

The law of the substitute of a thanksgiving offering differs from that of the thanksgiving offering itself: the thanksgiving offering itself is offered together with forty loaves . But the offering that is “the substitute of the thanksgiving offering” is offered without bread.

When the thanksgiving offering and its substitute become mixed with one another, it is possible to bring forty loaves and say: “This bread is consecrated for whichever of these animals is the thanksgiving offering.” The slaughter of the thanksgiving offering consecrates the bread, as is its law.

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

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

and one of them died—

its companion

, the living animal,

has no remedy

and cannot be offered. For:

What should he do?

How should he proceed?

Offer it, and offer bread with it

: if you say that he should offer the living animal and offer the loaves with it, this cannot be done, since there is a concern

perhaps [

perhaps ]

it is the exchange,

and the exchange of a thanksgiving offering is offered without bread!

Should you say

“offer it without bread,”

that too is forbidden. For there is a concern

perhaps

the

thanksgiving offering

itself

is it,

and the thanksgiving offering itself cannot be offered without bread!

And since the substitute of the thanksgiving offering has no remedy, therefore, if he delayed fulfilling it for three Festivals, he does not violate bal te’akher. And we raise an objection:

But since

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

is not fit for offering,

if so,

why do I need a verse to exclude it—

why!?

Why is a verse needed to exclude it from bal te’akher? Since it cannot be offered, it is obvious that “delay” is not applicable to it!

Rav Sheshet said: In fact

the exposition in the beraita, “it” but not its substitutes, comes

to exclude substitutes for a burnt offering and peace offerings,

so that one who delays fulfilling them for three Festivals does not violate bal te’akher.

And regarding what we challenged above—that substitutes for a burnt offering and peace offerings are offered, and therefore they are included in “You shall not delay fulfilling it,” so it is impossible to say that they are excluded from bal te’akher—

Rav Sheshet answers:

And here, what are we dealing with

—what is the case here?

For example,

already

two Festivals had passed over it

, over the original offering,

and

it had still not been offered,

and

then it

developed a blemish

, a blemish occurred in it,

and he redeemed it onto

an

other

unblemished offering. He said: “Here is the unblemished animal in place of the blemished one.” The unblemished animal assumes the sanctity of the offering, and the blemished animal becomes unconsecrated.

And one Festival passed over it

, over the unblemished animal,

one Festival

, and he did not offer it,

and it might have entered your mind to say

—you might have thought:

Since

this unblemished offering

comes by virtue of

the sanctity of the original offering,

it comes from the first one

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

it is considered as though three Festivals had passed over it

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

This teaches us

that only if three Festivals pass over one offering by itself does he violate bal te’akher; the original offering and its substitute are not combined to constitute a delay of three Festivals.

Nevertheless, a further difficulty remains.

Since Rav Sheshet explained that the exposition “it but not its substitutes” teaches that the offering and its substitutes are not combined to make three Festivals, this can be challenged:

But according to Rabbi Meir, who says

that with regard to every offering,

once one Festival has passed over it, he violates bal te’akher—

what can be said?

How are we to establish the exclusion “it but not its substitutes”? According to Rabbi Meir, there is no need to combine the offering and its substitutes, since in the case of each one, as soon as one Festival passes over it without his offering it, he violates bal te’akher!

He said:

He answered:

Rava:

According to Rabbi Meir,

what are we dealing with here?

What does the verse speak of?

For example, when it became blemished

the first offering

during the pilgrimage Festival,

in the middle of the first pilgrimage Festival,

and

then

he transferred its sanctity onto

another

animal, unblemished,

and there passed over it

the end of

the pilgrimage Festival.

It might enter your mind to say,

you might have thought to say that

since

the sanctity of the second animal

comes by virtue of

the sanctity of the

first,

and it takes its place, when the end of the pilgrimage Festival passed over it

it is considered as though the entire pilgrimage Festival had passed over it,

and it is as though an entire pilgrimage Festival had passed over it, since both animals possess the same sanctity, and an entire pilgrimage Festival passed over the two of them together.

It teaches us

that the verse informs us that only when the period of delay [an entire pilgrimage Festival] passed over one animal by itself does one violate the prohibition of bal te’akher, and the animal and its substitute are not combined. The continuation of the beraita states:

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

there will be

sin in your offering,

for although one who delays bringing his offering violates a prohibition, the offering does not thereby become disqualified.

And we raise an objection:

But

is it so that this matter

is derived from here

that it is learned from here?!

But

from

the words of

“Others” it is derived!

This matter should be learned from the exposition taught by Rabbi Meir [who is also called “Others”]:

As it was taught: Others say:

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

As 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 during its first year.

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

could

have said that

the

status of a

firstborn whose year had passed

without its having been offered would be

like the

status of

“disqualified consecrated animals,”

offerings that became blemished,

and it would become disqualified

for offering.

The verse therefore states, [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 juxtaposes

the

firstborn with the tithe

of produce, teaching you that their laws are equal:

Just as,

just as

the tithe

of produce

does not become disqualified

if it remains

from one year

one

to the next.

As 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. The tithes do not become disqualified once their year has passed.

Likewise,

an

firstborn offering does not become disqualified

if it remains

from one year

one

to the next.

And since we have learned from this verse that a firstborn whose year had passed does not become disqualified for offering, the following difficulty arises: Why did the verse need to state, with regard to bal te’akher, “And there shall be sin in you,” in order to teach “but there shall not be sin in your offering”?

And we answer:

It was necessary.

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

For

it might enter your mind to say,

you might have thought to say that although the verse teaches that a firstborn does not become disqualified from one year to the next, nevertheless,

this applies

only to

a firstborn, which is not fit for acceptance,

for its offering is not performed in order to achieve acceptance before the Всевышний, but is obligatory by virtue of the sanctity of the firstborn that takes effect upon it at birth.

But

other

consecrated offerings, which are fit for acceptance,

whose offering is performed in order to achieve acceptance, such as an olah, which atones for one who transgresses a positive mitzva, and likewise a shelamim offering, which is a gift intended to establish peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven,

perhaps they do not achieve acceptance.

For since a transgression [of bal te’akher] was committed with regard to them, they are not fit to achieve acceptance for their owners, and they are disqualified.

It teaches us

that nevertheless, they are valid after the fact.

And we raise an objection:

And still,

the verse “And there shall be sin in you” is not needed to teach that an offering whose bringing one delayed does not thereby become disqualified.