Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE EXCLUSION OF "VEHAYAH B'CHA CHAIT" (cont'd)

(a) Question: But this exclusion could be inferred from the Pasuk cited by Ben Azai!?

1. (Ben Azai) "Lo S'acher" implies that even one who brings a Neder late has not accomplished anything.
2. "Oso" therefore teaches us that it is only with Pigul that no endearment is accomplished, but with other Korbanos, although there is a sin of Bal T'acher, the Korban is not disqualified!

(b) Answer: "Vehayah B'cha Chait" rather excludes one's wife from accountability:

1. (R. Yochanan/ R. Elazar) A man's wife dies if he has no money for his promises.
2. One might think that she also dies if her husband is late with his Korban; thus, the Pasuk excludes her from accountability.

(a) A Beraisa derives laws from the Pasuk of "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor" (as listed).
(b) Question: Why do we need "Motza Sefasecha" to create a positive Mitzvah to keep to one's word - we have learned it from "u'Va'asa Shamah"!
(c) Question: Why do we need "Tishmor" to create a negative prohibition if this is transgressed - We have learned it from "Lo Se'acher"!
(d) Question: Why do we need "v'Asisa" to instruct Beis Din to force a person to abide by his word - we have learned it from the Beraisa of "Yakriv Oso":

1. (Beraisa) "Yakriv Oso" teaches us to force him.
2. "Le'Retzono" teaches us that he must bring it willingly.
3. The reconciliation of these instructions is that we force him until he is willing to bring it.

(e) Answer: One set of exegeses is needed for a case where he proclaimed that he would bring a Korban, but did not set one aside, and another set is needed for a case where he set an animal aside but did not bring it.

1. They are each needed to avoid possible errors:

i. We might think that he is accountable because he did not keep to his word; but if he set it aside, it belongs to Hashem wherever it is, and we would think that he is not accountable.
ii. We might think that he is accountable because he is withholding a Korban; but if he only proclaimed that he would bring a Korban and did not set one aside, we would think that he has done nothing and is not accountable.

2. Question: How can one Pasuk be referring to a case where he proclaimed that he would bring a Korban and did not set one aside - surely it refers to a Nedavah, which is an animal that has been set aside:

i. (Mishnah) A Neder means one committing oneself to bring a Korban.
ii. A Nedavah means one committing a specific animal as a Korban.
iii. A distinction occurs where the animal dies or was stolen (only a Neder must be replaced).

3. Answer (Rava): It refers to a case where he proclaimed that he would bring a Korban with no liability (and because of that aspect alone it is referred to as a Nedavah, even though no animal has been set aside).

(f) (Rava) "b'Fichah" obligates one to fulfill one's promises of charity (immediately, because there are always poor people who await it).

1. Question: This is obvious!
2. Answer: One might think that since this teaching is in the context of Korbanos, it has a three-festival period as with Korbanos; therefore we must be told that since the poor people await it, the obligation beings immediately.

(a) (Rava) After one festival has elapsed, one transgresses a positive Mitzvah if one has not yet brought the Korban.
(b) Question: A Mishnah shows otherwise!?

1. (R. Yehoshua and R. Papayas) The offspring of an animal that was pregnant whilst consecrated as a Shelamim is itself a Shelamim.
2. (R. Papayas) A Shelamim was eaten on Pesach, and its calf was eaten on Chag i.e. Sukos.
3. The calf wasn't brought on Pesach as it was too young.
4. How could they have avoided bringing it on Shavuos, if one transgresses a positive Mitzvah in bringing it late?

(c) Answer (R. Zvid citing Rava): It may have been sick on Shavuos.

(d) Answer #2 (R. Ashi): The Chag being referred to is Shavuos, not Sukos (while the one who asked the question held that when Shavuos is mentioned after Pesach, it is called Atzeres, not Chag).

(a) (Rava) When three festivals have passed, every day is a transgression of Bal T'acher.
(b) Question: But the Mishnah teaches that whether with a Bechor or other Korbanos, one transgresses Bal T'acher after a year (even without three festivals) or three festivals (even in less than a year) have passed!?
(c) Answer: How does that present a question?
(d) Question (R. Kahana): Since the Tana is discussing negative prohibitions, he would have stated that one is incurred every day if that were the case!
(e) Answer: The Tana's goal is to establish that there is a prohibition, not to list the number of prohibitions.

(a) The aforementioned Mishnah stated that Bal T'acher is transgressed after three festivals even in less than a year - that is straightforward (Pesach through Sukos is just over six months)
(b) Question: But how can there be a year without three festivals?
(c) Answer: It would work according to Rebi, in the case of a leap year:

1. (Rebi) The year is calculated as 365 days.
2. (Chachamim) It is calculated to the same day of the same month; the extra month in a leap year is counted in his favor.
3. According to Rebi, therefore, if he consecrated it after Pesach, then after 365 days (including Adar Sheini) three festivals will not have passed.

(d) Question: But how are we to understand a year without three festivals according to the Chachamim?
(e) Answer: According to the (detailed) calculation of R. Shemayah (who argues with Acherim) there can be 365 days without three Regalim.

(a) Question (R. Zeira): Can a Yoresh (heir) be liable for Bal T'acher?

1. Do we consider that the Torah applies it only to "one who makes a Neder," and he didn't make it?
2. Or do we consider that the Torah's instruction that it be brought applies equally to him?

(b) Answer (R. Chiya): "Me'imcha" excludes a Yoresh.

1. Question: We established earlier that "Me'imcha" refers to Leket, Shikcha and Peyah!
2. Answer: "Imcha" refers to these things; the prefix "Me" excludes a Yoresh.

(a) Question (R. Zeira): Is a wife liable for Bal T'acher?

1. Do we consider that since she has no Mitzvah of seeing the Beis haMikdash, she is not liable?
2. Or do we consider that since she has the Mitzvah of Simchah on a festival (through eating the Korban), she is liable?

(b) Answer (Abaye): Since she has the Mitzvah of Simchah on a festival, she is liable.

1. Question: But Abaye taught that her Mitzvah of Simchah is fulfilled through her husband buying her clothing!?
2. Answer: Abaye was speaking according to R. Zeira's view that her Mitzvah of Simchah is through eating a Korban.

(a) Question: From which point does one count a year (and become liable for Bal T'acher) for a Bechor?
(b) (Abaye) From when it is born.
(c) (R. Acha bar Yakov) From when it is suitable for a Korban - the eighth day.
(d) This is not an argument - R. Acha is referring to a flawless animal, and Abaye is referring to a blemished animal (which can only be slaughtered outside the Beis haMikdash anyway, which can be done as soon as it is born).

1. Question: Surely it is forbidden to eat a blemished animal (as it might be premature and classified as a stillborn) unless it survives eight days!?
2. Answer: It refers to a case where it was established that it was not premature.