Rosh Hashanah 6b — the Talmud in English

For example ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact location on the page")

that

the offspring

was ill on Shavuot,

and it was then forbidden to offer it. And this is as though a festival had not passed for it.

Rav Ashi said

another answer:

What,

what is the meaning of the words of Rabbi Pappias

“and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival,” as he teaches

in the beraita—it is as follows: “

and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on

Shavuot”!

And indeed, they did not delay it even one Festival.

But the other one,

Rava, who did not answer as Rav Ashi did, did not find it appropriate to explain that “the Festival” means Shavuot, because

wherever [the Mishna] teaches Passover,

it teaches Shavuot.

Whenever the Mishna mentions Passover and Shavuot, the tanna calls Shavuot “Atzeret,” and not “the Festival

And Rava said: Once three Festivals have passed over it,

”.

And Rava said: Once three Festivals have passed over it— each and every day he transgresses

anew

the prohibition of “Do not delay.”

That is, not only on the day when three Festivals have passed over it and he did not offer it does he transgress the prohibition, but from then onward, each day he is obligated to offer it, and if he does not offer it, he transgresses “Do not delay.”

An objection was raised

a contradiction to Rava’s words from a beraita:

We learned in a beraita:

both a firstborn and all the sacred offerings—

once a year has passed over them

a complete year, even

without

three

Festivals [and below the Gemara will explain how such a thing is possible].

and below the Gemara will explain how such a situation is possible].

And likewise, if three

Festivals have passed over them,

even

without

a

year having passed.

This person

transgresses “Do not delay.”

And the one who brought the tiyu vta [the contradiction] to Rava’s words from the beraita did not explain why, in his view, the beraita contradicts Rava’s words.

Therefore the Gemara wonders:

And this—

what is its contradiction!?

In what way does this beraita contradict Rava’s words?

Rav Kahana said: The one who raises the objection,

the one who brought proof from the beraita to refute Rava’s words,

raises the objection properly,

indeed he brought a valid contradiction. And this was his intention in asking:

Since,

after all, the

tanna—

is searching for prohibitions.

For the tanna is searching for every prohibition that he can find,

as is implied by his wording: once a year has passed over them without Festivals, and Festivals without a year.

And if we say according to Rava’s view, that after three Festivals have passed one transgresses “Do not delay” every day, then it is difficult:

Let him teach,

it would have been appropriate for the tanna to teach

“each and every day—

he transgresses ‘Do not delay.’”

And let him inform us that there are additional prohibitions upon a person each and every day.

Rather, necessarily, one does not transgress “Do not delay” each and every day!

And this was the intention of the one who asked, who brought a tiyu vta to Rava’s words from this beraita.

The Gemara explains Rava’s words:

But the other one,

Rava himself [and likewise the Gemara, which asked above, “And this, what is its contradiction ?” ], holds that it cannot be proved from this beraita that one does not transgress “Do not delay” each and every day.

For the

tanna

only

searches for establishing it as a prohibition,

for the tanna searches only for all the times at which “Do not delay” begins to apply to a person.

But to obligate the one who delays

with additional prohibitions—

he does not search!

The tanna is not searching for the count of all the many prohibitions that the one who delays transgresses.

That is, the tanna came only to inform us of all the times at which the law of “Do not delay” begins, and did not come to inform us that there are many prohibitions in “Do not delay.” Rather, in truth, from the time that “Do not delay” begins to apply to a person, from that point onward he transgresses it each and every day.

With regard to the matter itself.

Now the Gemara comes to discuss the substance of the beraita’s words that we brought above:

We learned in a beraita:

both a firstborn and all the sacred offerings, once a year has passed over them without

three

Festivals,

or three

Festivals without a year,

this person

transgresses “Do not delay.”

And it is difficult:

Granted,

indeed, the possibility that

Festivals without a year

can be found.

For we can find such a case. For one who vows before Passover has three Festivals pass over him after the Festival of Sukkot, while a complete year has not yet passed.

But a year without Festivals—

how can it be found!?

How can we find such a thing? After all, once a complete year has passed, surely the three Festivals have already passed!

The Gemara explains that this question is not difficult according to everyone, but only according to the Sages:

This works for the one who holds that they must be in their order,

the words of the beraita are tenable according to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one does not transgress “Do not delay” unless three Festivals have passed in their order [with the Festival of Matzot first]; according to his words,

it can be found

that a complete year has passed, while the three Festivals have still not passed in their order.

For example, he vowed after Passover, and when a complete year passes, it turns out that the three Festivals have not passed over him in their order.

And although Rabbi Shimon himself holds that one does not transgress “Do not delay” unless three Festivals have passed in their order, and not when a year has passed, nevertheless, one may say that the tanna of the beraita disagrees with him on this detail, but agrees with him concerning the order of the Festivals.

But for the one who does not hold that they must be in their order,

according to the Sages, who hold that three Festivals cause a person to transgress “Do not delay,” even if they were not in their order,

if so,

how can it be found,

how can we find a year in which there are not three Festivals?

The Gemara adds and explains that the question we asked according to the Sages is likewise dependent upon another dispute, and is not difficult according to everyone:

Granted, according to

the view of

Rabbi,

who does not count the intercalated month as part of the year, but counts only three hundred sixty-five days,

it can be found,

it is possible to find a complete year without three Festivals,

in an intercalated year.

The Gemara continues explaining:

One who sells a house to his fellow in a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun may redeem the house from him only during the first year.

For if the seller returns the price of the house to the buyer, the house returns to him, even against the will of the buyer.

And if he did not redeem the house during the first year, the house becomes the buyer’s complete acquisition, and it does not return to the seller’s possession even in the Jubilee [Leviticus 25:29–30; and Rashi there].

And so it is stated in the Torah: “But if he does not redeem it until a complete year has elapsed for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand permanently for the one who purchased it, throughout his generations

” The Sages and Rabbi disagreed as to what the “complete year” mentioned in the verse is:

For it was taught: “A complete year”—

what is it?

Rabbi says: He counts three hundred sixty-five days, corresponding to the number of days of the

year of the

sun.

The solar year is longer than the lunar year. For the lunar year is 354 days, whereas the solar year is 365 days.

And according to Rabbi, the year mentioned in the Torah is the solar year, and the Torah does not refer to the count of the days of the year that we count according to the moon.

And the Sages say: He counts twelve months

of lunar months

from day to day.

For example, if he sold the field on the second of Nisan, the year ends on the first of Nisan of the following year.

And if the year became intercalated,

for the court added a second Adar—

it became intercalated for him,

for the benefit of the seller, who can redeem the field for thirteen months, until the second of Nisan arrives.

And likewise, wherever “year” is stated in the Torah, we learn from houses in walled cities that the intention is a “complete year,” namely, 365 days according to Rabbi.

And according to the Sages, twelve lunar months from day to day.

Accordingly, Rabbi and the Sages also disagreed concerning the count of the days of the year mentioned with regard to a firstborn and other sacred offerings in relation to “Do not delay”:

According to Rabbi: one always counts 365 days, whether the year is intercalated or whether it is not intercalated.

According to the Sages: one counts according to the number of days of lunar years, and if the year became intercalated, he does not transgress “Do not delay” until after thirteen months.

And now the Gemara discusses how it is possible to explain the words of the beraita above [that there can be a year without Festivals] according to the words of Rabbi and the Rabbis.

The Gemara now continues what it began to say before it brought the beraita: “Granted, according to Rabbi, it can be found in an intercalated year

” According to Rabbi, it can be found,

according to Rabbi it is possible to find a year without three Festivals in an intercalated year, in a case

where he consecrated it after the Festival of Matzot,

where he consecrated the animal after the Festival of Matzot.

For when the end of the latter Adar arrives,

and when the end of the month of the second Adar arrives, already

a full year

has passed for it, for the solar year, which is 365 days, is already complete. But

three Festivals—

still

have not been completed [they have not yet been completed].

been completed].

But according to the Rabbis,

who hold that an intercalated year is entirely considered one year with regard to “Do not delay,” it is difficult:

how can it be found?

How can you find a year without there being three Festivals in it?

And we answer: it is possible for a year to pass without three Festivals,

as Rav Shemaya taught:

Shavuot—

sometimes

it falls on

the fifth

of Sivan.

sometimes

on

the sixth

of Sivan.

sometimes

on

the seventh

of Sivan.

How so?

It is stated [Leviticus 23:15–21]: “And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Sabbath [from the morrow of the first Festival day of Passover], seven complete weeks shall they be. Until the morrow of the seventh Sabbath you shall count fifty days. And you shall proclaim on that very day a holy convocation

” From here, Shavuot is established on the fiftieth day from the bringing of the Omer [and the bringing of the Omer is on the sixteenth of Nisan].

.]]Therefore Shavuot did not always fall on the same date in the month of Sivan, for sometimes the months of Nisan and Iyar were full [30 days], and sometimes they were deficient [29 days].

If

both

Nisan and Iyar

were full,

Shavuot would fall on

the fifth

of Sivan.

For from the sixteenth of Nisan until the end of Nisan there are fifteen days, plus thirty days in Iyar, plus five days in Sivan, for a total of fifty days.

And if

both were deficient,

Shavuot would fall on

the seventh

of Sivan.

For from the sixteenth of Nisan until the end of Nisan there are fourteen days, plus twenty-nine days in Iyar, plus seven days in Sivan, for a total of fifty days.

And if one month was

full, and

one

month was deficient,

Shavuot would fall on

the sixth

of Sivan.

For from the sixteenth of Nisan until the end of Iyar there are forty-four days, plus six days in Sivan, for a total of fifty days.

Accordingly, we can find a year without three Festivals. For example, Shavuot fell on the fifth of Sivan [in a case where Nisan and Iyar were full], and on the following day, the sixth of Sivan, he consecrated an animal as a burnt-offering; whereas in the following year Nisan and Iyar were deficient, and Shavuot fell on the seventh of Sivan.

]It follows that when the sixth of Sivan arrived, a complete year had already passed, while three Festivals had still not passed [for Shavuot had still not passed over it].

.]]The beraita that we are discussing—“both a firstborn and all the sacred offerings: once a year has passed over them without Festivals, he transgresses ‘Do not delay’”—is taught in the Tosefta of Arakhin [3:9].

At the beginning of the beraita, the words of the Sages were brought, who hold that after three Festivals one transgresses “Do not delay,” and the words of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that one transgresses “Do not delay” specifically if the three Festivals were in their order. It was not mentioned in their words that there is a case in which one transgresses “Do not delay” without three Festivals having passed over him, when a year has passed.

Therefore it is implied to the Gemara that the tanna at the beginning of the beraita does not hold this law. And according to him, a year without three Festivals is impossible.

.]]Necessarily, he disagrees with the beraita brought by Rav Shemaya, that Shavuot does not fall on a fixed date. According to him, Shavuot always falls on the same date.

And we raised it in connection with this:

And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rav Shemaya?

Who is the tanna who disagrees with the beraita brought by Rav Shemaya? And we answer: The beginning of the beraita is in accordance with the view of

Others.

For it was taught: Others say:

When we divide the days of the year into complete weeks, it follows that always

there is not between Atzeret

of one year

and Atzeret

of the following year, and likewise

there is not between Rosh Hashana

of one year

and Rosh Hashana

of the following year

except

a difference of

four days

only.

According to Others, there is a fixed order for the months. One month is full and the month after it is deficient [Tishrei is full, Heshvan is deficient, and so on], and one never intercalates a deficient month, nor makes a full month deficient, even if there is a need for it.

And therefore every year has 354 days. And when we divide the year into complete weeks, it follows that it contains 50 weeks, and another 4 additional days.

And therefore, if in one year Atzeret was on Sunday, then in the following year Atzeret will be on Thursday. And likewise with regard to Rosh Hashana.

And if it was

that

year a leap year,

then between Atzeret of one year and Atzeret of the following year there are

five

days, and likewise between Rosh Hashana and Rosh Hashana.

Because the intercalated month [the second Adar] is always deficient, that is, 29 days, which are 4 complete weeks, and another one additional day.

And when we add this day to the 4 additional days in an ordinary year, it follows that in a leap year there is a difference of 5 days between one Atzeret and the next, and between one Rosh Hashana and the next.

He asked,

Rabbi Zeira was uncertain:

an heir

who inherited from his father an animal that had been consecrated [by his father] as an offering—

what

is his status with regard to transgressing

“Do not delay,”

if he delayed offering it for three Festivals?

Should we say that concerning bal te'acher

“When you vow a vow,” the Merciful One said.

But

this heir

did not

himself

make the vow,

but rather his father. And therefore he does not transgress bal te'acher.

Or perhaps,

perhaps we should say: Behold, it is written [Deuteronomy 12]:

“And you shall come there

[to the Temple on the Festival]

and you shall bring there

your burnt offerings.”

But

this heir too, behold, he

is obligated

to come to the Temple on the Festival. And therefore he is also obligated to bring his burnt offerings, even though he was not the one who vowed to consecrate them; and if he did not bring them, he transgresses bal te'acher! And the Gemara brings a proof to resolve the uncertainty:

Come and hear

a proof from that

Rabbi Hiyya taught

in a beraita:

It is stated concerning bal te'acher [Deuteronomy 23:22]: “For the Lord your God will surely demand it from you.”

And since the word “from you” is superfluous, the Sages expounded: Specifically

“from you”

will the Lord demand it—

to exclude an heir,

who does not transgress bal te'acher.

And we object:

But

behold,

this “from you”

is not superfluous! For

it is needed,

it is needed for the exposition that we expounded above [5b]:

“From you”—

this is gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner

[which are the poor person’s portion, concerning whom Scripture said, “the poor person with you.” Exodus 22]!

And if so, how is it possible to expound from here also to exclude an heir?

And we answer:

Read in it,

expound in it

“with you”

[which refers to the poor person, concerning whom it was stated, “the poor person with you”] to include gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner.

And read in it,

and expound in it also

“from you,”

from the addition of the letter mem, to exclude an heir. [For Scripture could have said “with you,” but it said “from you,” for an additional exposition].

He asked

Rabbi Zeira asked:

A woman—

what is she,

what is her status

with

regard to

“Do not delay,”

is she also commanded regarding this prohibition?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say

that we exempt her from bal te'acher, because

she is not obligated in appearing.

Do we say that the prohibition of bal te'acher applies only to those people who are obligated to appear in the Temple courtyard on the Festival, upon whom rests the obligation to bring their offerings when they come?

But a woman, who is not obligated to appear in the Temple courtyard on the Festival [as it is stated [Deuteronomy 16], “Three times in the year all your males shall appear,” your males and not the females], since she is not obligated to make the pilgrimage, is she not included in “Do not delay”!

Or perhaps,

perhaps even though she is not commanded to appear in the Temple courtyard on the Festivals, nevertheless

she is included in rejoicing,

she is included in the mitzva of “And you shall rejoice on your Festival” [Deuteronomy 16]. And while the Temple is standing, there is no rejoicing except with the meat of peace offerings. And in order to eat from the meat of the peace offerings on the Festival, she must make the pilgrimage. Therefore, a woman too is included in “Do not delay.”

Abaye said to him

to Rabbi Zeira: Why are you uncertain about the matter?

And let it follow,

learn that she is obligated from the fact that

she is included in rejoicing,

for she is commanded in the rejoicing of the Festival, and she is obligated to make the pilgrimage in order to fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing by eating peace offerings of rejoicing; and certainly she too is subject to bal te'acher!

And we were astonished at Abaye’s words:

Did Abaye say this!?

Does Abaye hold that a woman is commanded to eat the meat of peace offerings because of the rejoicing of the Festival?!

But Abaye said,

for Abaye himself said:

“A woman—her husband makes her rejoice

in Babylonia with colored garments, and in the Land of Israel with ironed linen garments” [for those garments were esteemed in their places]!

Behold, the woman’s rejoicing on the Festival is not with the meat of peace offerings, and if so she is not obligated to go up to Jerusalem on the Festival! .

And we answer: Indeed, according to Abaye a woman is not obligated to eat from the meat of peace offerings on the Festival. And Abaye—

according to the words of Rabbi Zeira,

who said that a woman is obligated to eat from the meat of peace offerings on the Festival,

said it.

For according to Rabbi Zeira, a woman is included in bal te'acher.

The Gemara mentioned above [5b, 6b] that it is a mitzva to offer the firstborn and to eat it within its first year. For it is stated [Deuteronomy 15:20] concerning the firstborn: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it year by year.”

And now the Gemara discusses: From when do we begin counting its year?

Should we say that since “you shall eat it year by year” was mentioned in the verse, the meaning of the “year” of the firstborn is a complete year that is entirely fit for eating the firstborn. And since the firstborn is fit for offering only from the eighth day onward, and its meat is permitted to be eaten only once its blood has been accepted on the altar—the year will end only at the completion of one year and eight days from its birth.

Or perhaps the “year” of the firstborn begins from the time it is born and ends at the completion of the year from its birth, and it includes even the time during which it is not fit for eating.

They raised a question before them:

A question was posed to the members of the academy:

A firstborn—

from when do they count its year?

Abaye said: From the time it is born.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: From the time it is seen

for acceptance.

From the eighth day onward, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:27]: “An ox or a sheep or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother, and from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted as an offering made by fire to the Lord.”

And from the eighth day onward they count a complete year for it.

And they do not disagree,

Abaye and Rav Aha bar Yaakov do not disagree; rather, all agree that they begin counting the year only from the time the firstborn is fit for eating. But each one spoke of a different case:

This one,

Rav Aha, who said that they count for it from the eighth day, spoke

of a

firstborn that is

unblemished,

which stands ready for acceptance [offering], and therefore they count for it from the eighth day, for then it is seen as ready for acceptance.