Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa splits up the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Motzei Sefasecha Tishmor" into two Mitzvos - making "Motzei Sefasecha" an Asei, and "Tishmor", a Lo Sa'aseh.

(b) The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "ve'Asisa" - that Beis-Din actually force someone who is lax to fulfill his Neder, and bring his Korban.
2. ... "be'Ficha" - that Tzedakah is incorporated in the Din of 'Bal Te'achar'.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra ...

1. ... "Yakriv Oso" - that a person who refuses to bring his Korban is made to bring it by force, if need be.
2. ... "li'Retzono" - that he must bring his Korban of his own free-will? Consequently, Beis-Din use force if necessary, until he says that he is willing to fulfill his obligation (This is called 'of his own free-will', because in his heart of hearts, a Jew really wants to fulfill the Mitzvos, and all he really needs, is a little persuasion from time to time, to beat the devil out of him. If someone does not fit this bill, his Neshamah is probably from the Eirev Rav).

(b) Even though we already know the Asei and the Lo Sa'aseh, as well as Beis-din's right to enforce from "u'Vasa Shamah ve'Heveisem Shamah" and "Lo Se'achar Leshalmo" and "Yakriv" respectively, we nevertheless need the current set of Pesukim ("Motzei Sefasecha" etc.) to teach us these things - one for when he promised but was lax in separating the animal; the other, for when he designated it but was lax in bringing it.

(c) We need a Pasuk for ...

1. ... someone who has separated his obligation, even though we already have a Pasuk for someone who has promised but not yet separated it - because, whereas, in the latter case, he has done nothing about fulfilling his promise, in the former case, he has. In fact, having separated his Korban, wherever it is, it is 'in Hashem's storehouse'.
2. ... someone who has *not* yet separated his obligation, even though we already have a Pasuk for someone who *has* - because, whereas in the latter case, we are afraid that he may leave it by him, and come to use it for his own needs, in the former case (where he has done nothing but promise), this fear does not exist.

(d) Both Pesukim include a Nedavah, not a regular Nedavah (which is not possible by an animal that was separated but not yet brought - because then it would be a Neder) - but a (technical) Neder (where he said 'Harei Alai') by which he stipulated that he does not accept responsibility.

(a) The Beraisa includes someone who undertakes to give Tzedakah in the Isur of Bal Te'acher. Rava rules that one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' immediately - because there are poor people available to whom to give it.

(b) This is not obvious at all - because we would otherwise have said that, since 'be'Ficha' is written in the Parshah of Korbanos, it should be subject to three Regalim like the Korbanos.

(a) After testifying together with Rebbi Yehoshua, that the baby of a Shelamim is brought as a Shelamim, Rav Papayas added that they once ate a Shelamim on Pesach and its baby on 'the Chag'.

(b) That caused a problem with Rebbi Meir, in whose opinion one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' already after *one* Yom-Tov - because (assuming 'Chag' to mean Sukos), how could they delay bringing the baby until Sukos, as this would have entailed the transgression of an Asei (the moment Shavu'os passed), in the process?

(c) Rav Z'vid quoting Rava answers that the Beraisa speaks when the baby was sick on Shavu'os. According to Rav Ashi - 've'Achalnu Shelamim be'Chag' means on the Chag of Shavu'os.

(d) Rava does not answer like Rav Ashi - because, in his opinion, 'Chag' always means Sukos.

5)

(a) Rava teaches us - that, once three Regalim have passed, every day that passes, one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher' again.

(b) The Beraisa says that both as regards a Bechor and as regards other Kodshim - if a year passed without Regalim or Regalim without a year, one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher'.

(c) The mere fact that the Beraisa (which is concerned with finding as many transgressions as possible regarding 'Bal Te'acher') does not state that one transgresses every day - implies that that is not so.

(d) Rava will answer that the Tana *is* only concerned with finding as many new La'avin as possible, but *not* with listing La'avin that are repetitive.

(a) Regalim without a year presents no problem (according to any of the opinions on Daf 4). According to Rebbi Shimon, who requires the three Regalim to have passed in their right order before one transgresses 'Bal Te'acher', it is equally easy to find a year without Regalim.

(b) We establish the Beraisa even according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon (who require three Regalim in any order), by establishing it like Rebbi. According to Rebbi (with regard to the sale of a house in a walled city, which becomes permanent after one year) - we count three hundred and sixty five days from the day of the sale, even in a leap-year. Consequently, it is possible for a year to pass without three Yamim-Tovim, if someone made a Neder immediately after Pesach in a year that preceded a leap-year. Three hundred and sixty five days later, towards the end of Adar Sheini, one year will have passed, but not three Regalim.

(c) The Rabbanan hold that one reckons twelve months (in a leap-year, thirteen) from day to day. Consequently, every year must contain three Regalim. So the problem remains according to them - how can there ever be a year without three Regalim?

(a) Rav Sh'mayah (quoting a Beraisa) maintains that Shavu'os falls, sometimes on the *fifth* of Sivan - if both Nisan and Iyar are full months (of thirty days); sometimes on the *sixth* (if one of them is full and one of them, short (twenty-nine days), and sometimes on the *seventh* (if both months are short).

(b) According to Rav Sh'mayah, we have a case of a year without Regalim according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi - if he made a Neder to bring a Korban on the *sixth* of Sivan in a year when Shavu'os fell on the *fifth*, and when Shavu'os on the following year fell on the *seventh*. The year will terminate on the sixth of Sivan, although only two Regalim will have occurred in the course of the year.

(a) Acheirim disagree with Rav Sh'mayah's Tana. According to Acheirim (who is generally Rebbi Meir) - there are always four days between one Shavu'os and the next or between one Rosh Hashanah and the next.

(b) Acheirim's reasoning is - that it is not permitted to change the length of any month: Nisan is always full, Iyar short, Sivan full and Tamuz short etc. and so on until the end of the year.

(c) There are always three hundred and fifty four days in a year according to Acheirim - fifty weeks and *four* days (explaining the four days discrepancy of any given day in the year from year to year).

(d) In a leap-year, there are always five days between one year and the next - because Adar Sheini is always lacking (i.e. a twenty-nine day month - four weeks and *one* day), so one simply adds the one day to the four of an ordinary year.

(a) Rebbi Zeira might learn from ...

1. ... "Ki Sidor Neder" - that someone who inherits his father's Korban, will *not* be subject to 'Bal Te'acher', since he did not make the vow to bring it.
2. ... "u'Vasa Shamah va'Haveisem Shamah" - that he will be subject to 'Bal Te'acher', because whoever is obligated to go to Yerushalayim is obligated to bring the Korban (and will therefore transgress the Asei of 'va'Haveisem Shamah' - and presumably the La'av of Bal Te'acher too).

(b) We resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa "me'Imach", 'Prat le'Yoresh'. The *Beraisa* above (on Daf 5b.) which uses "me'Imach" to incorporate Leket, Shikchah and Pei'ah in the Din of Bal Te'acher - learns that from "(me)'*Imach*", whereas *we* are precluding Yoresh from "*me*('Imach)".

(a) Rebbi Zeira also asked whether a woman is included in Bal Te'acher. She may well *not* be included, because she is *exempt* from the Mitzvah of Re'iyah. She might, on the other hand, *be included* - because she *is *obligated* to participate in the Mitzvah of Simchah.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Kol Zechurcha" - that only men are obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of Re'iyah (appearing in the Beis Hamikdash), but not women.
2. ... "ve'Samachta be'Chagecha" - that in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, there was a Mitzvah to eat the meat of Shelamim on Yom-Tov, in which case, a woman should also be subject to 'Bal Te'acher'.

(c) Abaye was surprised at Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah - because he considered the second side of the She'eilah to be obvious (since she is obligated to bring Shalmei Simchah - obligating her to fulfill the Mitzvah of "u'Vasa Shamah", and subsequently, also in "va'Haveisem Shamah".

(d) Abaye himself disagrees with Rebbi Zeira. According to him, a woman is not obligated to bring Shalmei Simchah; her husband however, is obligated to buy her new clothes for Yom-Tov (see also Tosfos DH 'Ishah'). Consequently - since, according to Abaye, she has neither the Mitzvah of Re'iyah, nor that of Simchah, it would appear obvious that she is not subject to 'Bal Te'acher'.

(a) According to Abaye, the year in which a Bechor must be brought begins from the moment it is born - according to Rav Acha Bar Ya'akov, it is only from the time that it is fit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach (i.e. the eighth day).

(b) In fact, they do not argue - Abaye is speaking about an animal that was born blemished (see Tosfos DH 'Ha'), which is fit to be eaten the moment it is born; whereas Rav Acha Bar Ya'akov is speaking about an animal that was *not* born blemished.

(c) It is possible to eat it on the day that it is born - if they knew with certainty that it was born after a full five months (and was therefore not a still-born baby - even before it survived seven days).