Rosh Hashanah 6b (ו:) — the Talmud in English

For example

that

the offspring

was ill on Shavuot,

and it was therefore forbidden to sacrifice it at that time. It is as though the festival had not yet passed for it.

Rav Ashi said

another resolution:

What

is the meaning of Rabbi Pappeyas’s statement

“And we ate the offspring of the peace-offering on the Festival,” as it is taught

in the beraita? It means: “

And we ate the offspring of the peace-offering on

the Festival of Shavuot!”

Indeed, they did not delay it even for one Festival.

But as for the other

—Rava, who did not resolve the matter in accordance with Rav Ashi—he did not find it plausible to explain that “the Festival” refers to the Festival of Shavuot, because

wherever the tanna teaches Passover, he

teaches Shavuot.

Whenever the Mishna mentions Passover and Shavuot, the tanna calls the Festival of Shavuot Atzeret, rather than “the Festival.”

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 without his sacrificing it does he transgress the prohibition; rather, from that point onward he is obligated to sacrifice it every day, and if he does not sacrifice it, he transgresses “Do not delay.”

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rava’s statement from a beraita:

We learned in a beraita:

Both a firstborn animal and all sacrificial offerings—

Once a year has passed over them

in its entirety, even

without

three

Festivals [

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.

In such a case

he transgresses “Do not delay.”

The one who brought the objection [the contradiction] to Rava’s statement from the beraita did not explain why, in his view, the beraita contradicts Rava.

Therefore the Gemara wonders:

And this—

what is its objection!?

How does this beraita contradict Rava’s statement?

Rav Kahana said: The one who raises the objection

—the one who brought a proof from the beraita to refute Rava’s statement—

has raised a valid objection,

and this was the force of his question:

Granted,

the

tanna

was seeking all the prohibitions.

The tanna was seeking every prohibition that he could find,

as implied by his wording: Once a year has passed over them without three Festivals, or three Festivals without a year.

And if we accept Rava’s view, that after three Festivals have passed one transgresses “Do not delay” every day, the difficulty is:

Let the tanna teach,

it would have been appropriate for the tanna to teach

“Each and every day

he transgresses ‘Do not delay.’”

This would teach us that a person incurs additional prohibitions on each and every day.

Rather, it must be that one does not transgress “Do not delay” every day!

This was the intention of the one who asked the question, bringing an objection to Rava’s statement from this beraita.

The Gemara explains Rava’s statement:

But as for the other,

Rava himself [and likewise the Gemara that earlier asked, “And this, what is its objection?” ], maintains that one cannot prove from this beraita that one does not transgress “Do not delay” every day.

For the

tanna

was only

seeking to establish the time at which the prohibition begins,

as the tanna was seeking only all the times at which “Do not delay” begins to apply to a person.

But to impose upon one who delays

additional prohibitions—

he was not seeking that!

The tanna was not seeking to enumerate all the many prohibitions transgressed by a person who delays.

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 moment that “Do not delay” begins to apply to a person, he transgresses it from then on every day.

With regard to the essential matter.

The Gemara now discusses the body of the beraita cited above:

We learned in a beraita:

Both a firstborn animal and all sacrificial offerings: Once a year has passed over them without

three

Festivals,

or three

Festivals without a year,

in such a case

he transgresses “Do not delay.”

The difficulty is:

Granted,

it is indeed possible that

there are Festivals without a year—

one can find such a case.

For example, if one made a vow before Passover, 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 one find such a case!?

How can we find such a situation? Once a complete year has passed, surely three Festivals have already passed!

The Gemara explains that this difficulty does not apply according to everyone, but only according to the Sages:

This works according to the one who holds that they must occur in their proper order,

the words of the beraita are consistent with the view of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that one does not transgress “Do not delay” unless three Festivals have passed in their proper order [with the Festival of Matzot first]. According to his view,

one can find such a case

in which a complete year has passed and the three Festivals have not yet passed in their proper order.

For example, one made a vow after Passover, and when a complete year passes, the three Festivals have not passed over him in their proper order.

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

But according to the one who does not hold that they must occur in their proper order,

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

if so,

how can one find such a case,

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

The Gemara adds and explains that even the difficulty we raised according to the Sages depends on another dispute, and does not apply according to everyone:

Granted, according to

the view of

Rabbi,

who does not include the intercalated month as part of the year, but counts only 365 days,

one can find such a case

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

in an intercalated year.

The Gemara continues its explanation:

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

If the seller returns the price of the house to the purchaser, the house returns to him, even against the purchaser’s will.

But if he does not redeem the house during the first year, the house becomes the purchaser’s absolute property, and it does not return to the seller’s possession even in the Jubilee [Leviticus 25:29–30; and Rashi there].

And so the Torah states: “But if he does not redeem it by the completion of a full year, the house that is in the walled city shall remain permanently the property of the one who bought it, throughout his generations.”

The Sages and Rabbi disagree concerning the meaning of the “full year” mentioned in the verse:

As it is taught in a beraita: “A full year”—

what does this mean?

Rabbi says: He counts 365 days, corresponding to the number of days

in the

solar year.

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

According to Rabbi, the year mentioned in the Torah is the solar year, and the Torah does not refer to the number of days in the year as we count it 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 was intercalated,

meaning that the court added a second Adar,

it is intercalated for him,

to the seller’s benefit, so that he can redeem the field for thirteen months, until the second of Nisan arrives.

Likewise, wherever the Torah states “year,” we learn from the law of houses in walled cities that it means a “full 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 disagree with regard to the counting of the year mentioned concerning a firstborn animal and other sacred offerings, with regard to “Do not delay”:

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

According to the Sages, one counts according to the number of days in a lunar year, and if the year is intercalated, he does not transgress “Do not delay” until thirteen months have passed.

The Gemara now discusses how to reconcile the words of the beraita cited above [which states that there can be a year without three Festivals] with the views of Rabbi and the Sages.

The Gemara now continues what it began to say before citing the beraita, “Granted, according to Rabbi, one can find such a case in an intercalated year”:

One can find such a case according to Rabbi,

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

where he consecrated it after the Festival of Matzot,

meaning that he consecrated the animal after Passover.

For when the end of the second Adar arrives,

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

a complete year

of the solar year, which consists of 365 days, has passed. Whereas

three Festivals

have

not yet passed [

been completed].

But according to the Sages,

who maintain that an intercalated year is considered one entire year with regard to “Do not delay,” there is a difficulty:

how can one find such a case?

How can one find a year without three Festivals having passed 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 after the rest day [from the day after the first Festival day of Passover], seven complete weeks. Until the morrow after the seventh week you shall count fifty days. And you shall proclaim on that very day a sacred occasion.”

From here it follows that the Festival of Shavuot is established on the fiftieth day from the bringing of the Omer [and the Omer is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan].

Therefore, the Festival of Shavuot did not always fall on the same date in the month of Sivan, since 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,

the Festival of Shavuot would fall on

the fifth

of Sivan.

For from the sixteenth of Nisan until the end of Nisan there are 15 days, plus 30 days of Iyar, plus 5 days of Sivan, making a total of 50 days.

And if

both were deficient,

the Festival of Shavuot would fall on

the seventh

of Sivan.

For from the sixteenth of Nisan until the end of Nisan there are 14 days, plus 29 days of Iyar, plus 7 days of Sivan, making a total of 50 days.

And if

one was full, and

the other month

was deficient,

Shavuot would fall on

the sixth

of Sivan.

For from the sixteenth of Nisan until the end of Iyar there are 44 days, plus 6 days of Sivan, making a total of 50 days.

Accordingly, we can find a year without three Festivals. For example, Shavuot fell on the fifth of Sivan [when Nisan and Iyar were both full], and on the following day, the sixth of Sivan, he consecrated an animal as an olah. 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 not yet passed [since Shavuot had not yet arrived for him].

The beraita under discussion—“Both a firstborn animal and all sacrificial offerings: Once a year has passed over them without Festivals, one transgresses ‘Do not delay’”—is taught in the Tosefta of Arakhin [3:9].

At the beginning of the beraita, the words of the Sages are cited, as they maintain that one transgresses “Do not delay” after three Festivals, as well as the words of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that one transgresses “Do not delay” only if the three Festivals occurred in their proper order. Their statements do not mention a situation in which one transgresses “Do not delay” without three Festivals having passed but after a year has passed.

Therefore, the Gemara understands that the tanna at the beginning of the beraita does not accept this law. In his view, it is impossible for there to be a year without three Festivals.

It must be that he disagrees with the beraita cited by Rav Shemaya, which states that Shavuot does not fall on a fixed date. According to him, Shavuot always falls on the same date.

And we raised this difficulty:

And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rav Shemaya?

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

Others.

As it is taught in a beraita: Others say:

When we divide the days of the year into complete weeks, we find that

there is never between Shavuot

of one year

and Shavuot

of the following year, and likewise

there is never between Rosh HaShana

of one year

and Rosh HaShana

of the following year,

except

for a difference of

four days

alone.

According to Others, there is a fixed order to the months. One month is full and the following month is deficient [Tishrei is full, Heshvan is deficient, and so forth]. One never makes a deficient month full, nor a full month deficient, even when there is a need to do so.

Therefore, every year contains 354 days. When we divide the year into complete weeks, we find that it contains 50 weeks, plus four additional days.

Consequently, if Shavuot occurred on a Sunday in one year, Shavuot will occur on Thursday in the following year. The same applies with regard to Rosh HaShana.

And if it was

that

a leap year,

then between Shavuot in one year and Shavuot in the following year there are

five

days, and likewise between Rosh HaShana and Rosh HaShana.

This is because the intercalated month [the second Adar] is always deficient, meaning that it has 29 days, which are four complete weeks plus one additional day.

When this day is added to the four additional days in an ordinary year, we find that in a leap year there is a difference of five days between one Shavuot and the next, and between one Rosh HaShana and the next.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma:

He was uncertain:

An heir

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

what

is his status with regard to violating

the prohibition against delaying,

if he delayed offering it for three Festivals?

Is it perhaps said that, with regard to the prohibition against delaying,

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

But

this heir

did not

make

the vow;

rather, his father did. Therefore, he does not violate the prohibition against delaying.

Or perhaps

it may be said that, as 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, is

obligated

to come to the Temple on the Festival. Therefore, he is also obligated to bring his burnt-offerings, even though it was not he who vowed to consecrate them; and if he did not bring them, he violates the prohibition against delaying! The Gemara brings a proof in order to resolve the dilemma:

Come and hear

a proof from that

which Rabbi Hiyya taught

in a beraita:

It is stated with regard to the prohibition against delaying [Deuteronomy 23:22]: “When the Lord your God demands it of you.”

Since the word “of you” is superfluous, the Sages expounded it to mean: Specifically,

“of you,”

the Lord demands it

excluding an heir,

who does not violate the prohibition against delaying.

And we raise an objection:

But

is not

this “of you”

superfluous! For

it is needed

for the exposition cited above [5b]: “

Of you”—

this refers to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field

[which are the portion of the poor, concerning whom the verse says: “The poor with you” (Exodus 22)]!

If so, how can it also be expounded here to exclude an heir?

And we answer:

Read in it

and expound

“with you”

[referring to the poor, concerning whom it is stated: “The poor with you”] to include gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

And read in it

and also expound

“of you,”

based on the additional letter mem, to exclude an heir. [For the verse could have said “with you,” but instead it says “of you,” providing an additional exposition].

Rabbi Zeira raised another dilemma:

He asked:

A woman

what is she

what is her status

with

regard to

the prohibition against delaying;

is she also commanded regarding this prohibition?

The sides of the dilemma are as follows:

Do we say

that she should be exempt from the prohibition against delaying, because

she is not obligated in appearing before the Lord?

Do we say that the prohibition against delaying applies only to those people who are obligated to appear in the Temple courtyard on the Festival, and upon whom the obligation to bring their sacrifices when they come is incumbent?

But a woman, who is not obligated to appear in the Temple courtyard on the Festival [as it is stated: “Three times in the year all your males shall appear” (Deuteronomy 16)—your males, but not females], since she is not obligated to ascend on pilgrimage, is not included in the prohibition against delaying?

Or perhaps

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

she is included in the mitzva of 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. In order to eat the meat of the peace-offerings on the Festival, she must ascend on pilgrimage. Therefore, a woman, too, is included in the prohibition against delaying.

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira:

Why are you uncertain about this matter?

And let him derive it,

let him learn that she is obligated from the fact that

she is included in the mitzva of rejoicing,

for she is commanded in the rejoicing of the Festival, and she is obligated to ascend in order to fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing by eating the peace-offerings of rejoicing; certainly she, too, is subject to the prohibition against delaying!

We question Abaye’s statement:

But did Abaye really say this!?

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

But Abaye said,

and yet Abaye himself said:

“A woman—her husband gladdens her

in Babylonia with colored garments, and in Eretz Yisrael with pressed linen garments” [because those garments were considered valuable in their respective places]!

It follows that a woman’s rejoicing on the Festival is not with the meat of peace-offerings, and therefore she is not obligated to ascend to Jerusalem on pilgrimage!

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

in accordance with Rabbi Zeira’s position,

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

was speaking.

According to Rabbi Zeira, a woman is included in the prohibition against delaying.

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

The Gemara now discusses from when one begins counting its year.

Is it perhaps said that since the verse says “you shall eat it year by year,” the “year” of the firstborn means a complete year during all of which the firstborn is fit to be eaten? Since the firstborn is fit to be offered only from the eighth day onward, and its meat may be eaten only once its blood has been accepted on the altar, the year ends only after a year and eight days have elapsed from its birth?

Or does the “year” of the firstborn begin from the time it is born and end at the completion of the year from its birth, including even the period during which it is not fit to be eaten?

They raised a dilemma before them:

A question was posed to the members of the academy:

The firstborn

from when does one count its year?

Abaye said: From the time it is born.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: From the time it becomes fit

for acceptance.

From the eighth day onward, as it is stated [Leviticus 22:27]: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother; and from the eighth day onward it shall be acceptable as an offering made by fire to the Lord.”

From the eighth day onward, one counts a complete year for it.

And they do not disagree.

Abaye and Rav Aha bar Yaakov are not in disagreement; everyone agrees that one begins counting the year only from the time the firstborn becomes fit to be eaten. Rather, each one spoke of a different case:

This one,

Rav Aha, who said that one counts for it from the eighth day, was speaking

with regard to

a firstborn that is

unblemished,

which is destined for acceptance [i.e., for sacrifice]. Therefore, one counts for it from the eighth day, when it becomes fit for acceptance.