POINT BY POINT OUTLINE OF THE DAF
prepared by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) THE EXCLUSION OF VE'HAYAH BECHA CHET (cont.)
(a) Question: Surely the teaching from 've'Hayah Becha Chet' -that the sin is in the person, but the Korban is not disqualified"-can be inferred from the Beraisa of Ben Azai!
1. (Ben Azai): "Lo S'acher" one might think that one who brings a Neder late has not achieved anything.
2. "Oso" (Vayikra 7,18) therefore teaches us that it is only with regards to Pigul no endearment is achieved, but with regards to other Korbanos, although there is a sin of Bal Te'acher, the Korban is not disqualified!
(b) Answer: "ve'Hayah Becha Chet" comes instead to exclude one's wife from accountability:
1. (R. Yochanan/ R. Elazar): A man's wife dies if he does not pay the money he promises.
2. One might think that she also dies if her husband is late in bringing his Korban; thus, the verse excludes her from accountability.
2) THE BERAISA OF MOTZA SEFASECHA
(a) A Beraisa derives laws from the verse of "Motza Sefasecha Tishmor"(Devarim 23,24);
1. "Motza Sefasecha" - teaches a positive mitzvah to keep to one's word;
2. "Tishmor" - teaches a negative prohibition if this is transgressed;
3. "v'Asisa" - instructs Beis Din to force a person to abide by his word;
4. "Ka'asher Nadarta" - refers to Nedarim;
5. "l'Hashem Elokecha" - includes Chata'os, Ashamos, Olos and Shelamim;
6. "Nedavah" - refers to Nedavos;
7. "Asher Dibarta" - includes Kodshei Bedek haBayis;
8. "b'Ficha" - includes promises of charity.
(b) Question: Why do we need "Motza Sefasecha" to teach a positive Mitzvah to keep to one's word - we have learned it from "u'Va'asa Shamah, veHeve'tem Shama"!(Devarim 11,5-6)
(c) Question: Why do we need "Tishmor" to teach a negative prohibition.-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" (Vayikra 1,3) teaches us to force him to bring his Korban.
2. "Le'Retzono" teaches us that he must bring it willingly.
3. The reconciliation of these two 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 both needed to be written;
i. Had we only been taught the case where he proclaimed that he would bring a Korban, but did not set one aside, we would think that he is accountable because he did not keep to his word; but if he set it aside, it belongs to Hash-m wherever it is, and we would think that he is not held accountable.
ii. Had we only been taught the case where he set an animal aside, we would 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 held accountable.
2. Question: How can one verse be referring to a case where he proclaimed that he would bring a Korban and did not set one aside - surely both sets of verses refer even to a Nedavah, which is an animal that has been set aside:
i. (Mishnah) A Neder means one commits oneself to bring a Korban.
ii. A Nedavah means one designates a specific animal as a Korban.
iii. The difference is where the animal dies or was stolen; only in the case of a Neder is he liable to bring a replacement, whereas with a Nedavah there is no liability.
3. Answer (Rava): One of the verses concerning Nedavah refers to a case where he proclaimed that he would bring a Korban without 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" mentioned in the Beraisa makes one obligated to fulfill his 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 written 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.
3) THE MITZVAS ASEH TO BRING KORBANOS ON TIME
(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 when it was consecrated as a Shelamim is itself a Shelamim.
2. (R. Papayas) A Shelamim was eaten on Pesach, and its calf was eaten on Chag ie Sukkos.
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 by 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.
(e) The one who asked the question held that when Shavuos is mentioned after Pesach, it is called Atzeres, not Chag.
4) THE DAILY TRANSGRESSION OF BAL TE'ACHER
(a) (Rava) Once three festivals have passed, each day he transgresses Bal Te'acher.
(b) Question (from a Mishnah): In the case of a Bechor or other Korbanos, one transgresses Bal Te'acher after a year (even before three festivals have passed) or after three festivals have passed (even in less than a year).
(c) Response: How does that present a question?
(d) (R. Kahana): Since the Tana is discussing negative prohibitions, he should have stated that one has trangressed daily after these times have passed.!
(e) Response: The Tana's goal is only to establish when the prohibition begins, and not to list the additional prohibitions that are accrued daily.
5) YEARS WITHOUT FESTIVALS
(a) The aforementioned Mishnah stated that Bal Te'acher is transgressed after three festivals even in less than a year.This is easily understood as Pesach through Sukos is just over six months
(b) Question: But how can there be a year without three festivals?
(c) It would work according to Rebi, in the case of a leap year:
1. (Beraisa) (Rebi) The year is calculated as 365 day seven in a leap year.
2. (Chachamim) The year is calculated to the same date of the same month; the extra month in a leap year gives him extra time to bring the Korban.
3. According to Rebi, therefore, if he consecrated it after Pesach, then after 365 days (due to Adar Sheni) 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: In accordance with the Mishnah of R. Shemayah:
1. Shavuos can fall on the fifth, sixth or seventh of Sivan:
i. If Nisan and Iyar are full (30 days), then it will be on the fifth.
ii. If Nisan and Iyar are abridged (29 days), then it will be on the seventh.
iii. If one is full and one is abridged, it will fall on the sixth.
2. Thus, if Shavuos was on the fifth and he consecrated his Korban on the next day, and in the next year Nisan and Iyar are full,and Shavuos is on the seventh, then 365 days will have elapsed without three festivals.
(f) The Acheirim argue with R. Shemayah:
1. Every year has six full and six abridged months resulting in festivals always falling on the same date of the month but four days later in the week.
2. However, in a leap year, the difference is five days later.
6) BAL TE'ACHER FOR A YORESH
(a) Question (R. Zeira): Can a Yoresh (heir) be liable for Bal Te'acher?
1. Do we consider that the Torah applies it only to "one who makes a Neder," (Devarim 23,22) and he didn't make it?
2. Or do we consider that the Torah's instruction that it be brought applies equally to him?(Devarim 12,5-6).
(b) Answer (R. Chiya): "Me'imach" excludes a Yoresh (Devarim 23,22).
1. Question: We established earlier that "Me'imach" refers to Leket, Shikcha and Peyah!
2. Answer: "Imach" refers to those things; the prefix "Me" excludes a Yoresh.
7) BAL TE'ACHER FOR A WOMAN
(a) Question (R. Zeira): Is a woman liable for Bal Te'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: Could Abaye have said such a thing? Surely he said 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 achieved through her eating a Korban.
8) COUNTING A YEAR FOR A BECHOR
(a) Question: From which point does one count a year for a Bechor (after which one transgresses Bal Te'acher if it hasn't been brought as a Korban)?
(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, 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 for eight days)!
2. Answer: It refers to a case where it was established that it was not premature.