Saturday, December 16, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashanah 11 - AVROHOM’S BRIS

Tosfos cites a Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer that the bris milah of Avrohom occurred on Yom Kippur.

A question is asked that since the bris of Avrohom did not take place on the eighth day, it should be considered a “shelo b’zmano” – a bris that is not in its proper time. The halacha is that only a bris which is done in the correct time can override Shabbos or Yom Kippur. How could he have done the bris on Yom Kippur?

In the sefer Yehuda Yaaleh (Y”D 253) it is written that since Avrohom wasn’t commanded to have a bris until now, it was regarded as a bris in its proper time and therefore the obligation will override Yom Kippur.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashanah 11 - WHY IS ROSH HASHANAH IN TISHREI ACCORDING TO RABBI YEHOSHUA?

The Gemora brings a dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer if the world was created in Nissan or in Tishrei. The Ran cites a Mishna on daf 16a that on Rosh Hashanah the entire world pass in front of Hashem and get judged. The Ran asks that this makes sense according to Rabbi Eliezer that the world was created in Tishrei and that is why this is the day that the world is judged on but why was this day chosen according to Rabbi Yehoshua who maintains that the world was created in Nissan. He answers that Hashem with His infinite compassion wanted Klal Yisroel to be judged favorably and therefore He chose the first of Tishrei to judge them which is a time that is designated for forgiveness and atonement.

Aruch Lener cites Tosfos on 27a that quotes from Rabbi Elozar Hakalir who established a prayer that has the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in it and he explains because both viewpoints are the words of Hashem. He further explains that Hashem’s will was to create the world in Tishrei however it wasn’t actually created until Nissan. Since there is a principle that a thought is like an action, the Day of Judgment is Tishrei even according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashanah 11 - Highlights

Rabbi Eliezer learned in a braisa that there were many events that took place in the month of Tishrei. The world was created in Tishrei. The Patriarchs (Avrohom and Yaakov) were born and died in Tishrei. Yitzchak, however, was born on Pesach. It was decreed on Rosh Hashanah that Sarah, Rochel and Chanah would give birth to children. Yosef was released from prison on Rosh Hashanah. Our forefathers were removed from servitude in Egypt on Rosh Hashanah. Klal Yisroel was redeemed from Egypt in the month of Nissan and the final redemption will be in Tishrei.

...Read more

Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the world was created in Nissan. The Patriarchs were born and died in Nissan. Yitzchok was born on Pesach. It was decreed on Rosh Hashanah that Sarah, Rochel and Chanah would give birth to children. Yosef was released from prison on Rosh Hashanah. Our forefathers were removed from servitude in Egypt on Rosh Hashanah. Klal Yisroel was redeemed from Egypt in the month of Nissan and the final redemption will be in Nissan. (10b – 11a)

The Gemora sites Scriptural verses proving that the world was created in Tishrei like Rabbi Eliezer and in Nissan in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites a verse in Bereishis which indicates that Hashem at Creation created everything in their full maturity, according to their will and according to their desire. (All creatures were notified that they would be created and they accepted. They were able to choose the forms that they preferred.)

The Gemora cites Scriptural verses proving the birth month of the Patriarchs. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree that they died in the same month in which they were born. This is derived from a possuk regarding Moshe Rabbeinu which teaches us that Hashem guarantees the righteous that their years will be full. This means that they will die on the same month and day in which they were born.

The Gemora cites the source proving that Yitzchok was born on Pesach. Hashem told Avrohom “At the festival I will return to you… and Sarah will have a son.” Our Gemora understands this verse to mean that Avrohom was told at one festival that Sarah will have a son on the next festival. It is evident that Avrohom was informed on Sukkos that Sarah will have a son on Pesach. The other festivals are too close together for the possibility of conceiving and giving birth. The Gemora questions this since there are only six months between Sukkos and Pesach when a viable pregnancy necessitates at least seven months. The Gemora cites a braisa which states that the year of Sarah’s pregnancy was a leap year and therefore there were seven months.

The Gemora sites Scriptural verses proving that it was decreed on Rosh Hashanah that Sarah, Rochel and Chanah would give birth to children.

The Gemora sites Scriptural verses proving that Yosef was released from prison on Rosh Hashanah.

The Gemora sites Scriptural verses proving that our forefathers were removed from servitude in Egypt on Rosh Hashanah.

The Gemora sites Scriptural verses proving that Klal Yisroel were redeemed from Egypt in the month of Nissan and the final redemption will be in Tishrei according to Rabbi Eliezer and that it was and will be Tishrei according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Read more!

Friday, December 15, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashanah 11 - Lekavod Shabbos

The Gemara states that just like the Jewish People were redeemed from Egypt in the month of Nissan, so too will we be redeemed in the future in the month of Nissan. The Gemara states further that on the first night of Pesach, the Jewish People are protected from harmful agents. It is noteworthy that the Gemara in Shabbos states that if the Jewish People were to observe one Shabbos properly, then we would be redeemed. Furthermore, the Medrash states that if one guards the Shabbos, the Shabbos will protect the person. Thus, Pesach and Shabbos are similar in that they both portend the redemption, and on Pesach and on Shabbos the Jewish People earn a special protection from all harmful influences.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 10 - NOT A FACTUAL DISPUTE

The Gemora cites a Mishna which states that if one plants a tree within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah prior to a Shemitah year, the tree must be uprooted. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a tree takes root within three days. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon hold that a tree takes root within two weeks of its being planted.

The Chasam Sofer (Y”D 284) comment that this is not a factual dispute as to how many days it takes for a tree to take root for everyone holds that it takes root in three days or less and the facts can attest to this. The argument is regarding a case where for some reason the tree did not take root. After how long can it be stated with a certainty that the tree will not take root any longer.

Interestingly, the Chazon Ish (Shvi’is 17:28) explains exactly the opposite. He also comments that there is no factual dispute amongst the Tannaim and everyone agrees that a tree can only begin to take root within three days. The argument is if that little bit is considered taking root or is a much firmer attachment to the ground necessary.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh hashana 10 - HOW SHOULD WE RULE?

The Gemora cites a Mishna which states that if one plants a tree within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah prior to a Shemitah year, the tree must be uprooted. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a tree takes root within three days. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon hold that a tree takes root within two weeks of its being planted.

The Rambam and other poskim all rule in accordance with Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon. The Sfas Emes questions as to why the Rambam does not rule regarding lands outside of Eretz Yisroel in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda who holds that three days is sufficient. There is a principle that we rule outside of Eretz Yisroel in accordance with the viewpoint which is most lenient in Eretz Yisroel.

The Shagas Aryeh (14) and the Noda Beyehuda (kamma Y”D 88) answer that whenever the Gemora rules explicitly like the Tanna who is stringent, the principle of ruling in Chutz La’aretz in accordance with the lenient opinion does not apply.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 10 - Highlights

ORLAH

The Mishna had stated that the First of Tishrei is the New Year in regards to the laws of orlah. One is prohibited to eat or derive pleasure from fruits during the first three years of its growth. The Gemora cites a source proving that the years of a tree’s growth are not counted by the date it was planted, rather by the first of Tishrei. (9b)

ADDING FROM THE ORDINARY ONTO THE HOLY

The Gemora cites a braisa regarding one who plants a tree in the year before Shemitah; If it is planted more than thirty days before the first of Tishrei, it will be considered a complete year in respect to orlah when Rosh Hashanah arrives and will not be regarded as produce grown during Shemitah. If however, it was planted within thirty days from Rosh Hashanah, when the first of Tishrei arrives, it will not be considered a year in respect to orlah and it will be regarded as produce grown during Shemitah.
...Read more

The braisa continues discussing the case where the tree was planted more than thirty days before Rosh Hashanah. Even though we have learned that the first of Tishrei accomplishes that the tree has completed its first year, this is only regarding fruits that emerge after the fifteenth of Shevat. Regarding the fruits that emerge before the fifteenth of Shevat, they will still be considered orlah until the third fifteenth of Shevat arrives. If the tree was planted within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah, the fruits will remain in an orlah status until three more Rosh Hashanahs, seven and a half months after the other fruits (those emerging from the tress planted more than thirty days before Rosh Hashanah). The Gemora cites the sources for these halachos. (10a)

LESS THAN A YEAR
CAN BE REGARDED
AS A COMPLETE YEAR

The braisa had stated that the time frame to be considered a full year is thirty days. The Gemora examines this further.

When the Torah states that one can offer a bull as a korban, it is agreed upon that the bull must be in its third year. Rabbi Meir maintains that the bull must be at least twenty-four months and one day old. Rabbi Elozar disagrees and holds that the bull must be at least twenty-four months and thirty days old. The Gemora assumes that the Tanna of our braisa cannot be Rabbi Meir since he maintains that one day constitutes a year and it is not necessary to have thirty days.

The Gemora responds and states that perhaps there is a distinction between the beginning of the year and the conclusion of the year. Rabbi Meir would maintain that one day at the end of the year constitutes a year but to be considered a year in the beginning, thirty days would be required.

Rava objects to this distinction and proves that the logic should be exactly the opposite from a halacha regarding the Biblical laws of a niddah. In order for a niddah to purify herself by immersing in the mikvah, she must wait for nightfall after the seventh day is complete; yet the first day counts as a complete day even if her flow began towards the end of the day. If Rabbi Meir holds that one day at the end is considered a year, he should certainly regard one day in the beginning of the year as a year.

The Gemora considers that perhaps the Tanna of our braisa is Rabbi Elozar who holds that thirty days constitutes a year pertaining to animals used for a korban, so too the tree must be planted thirty days before Rosh Hashanah to be considered a year.

The Gemora cites a Mishna proving that a tree needs thirty days to become rooted in the ground. The Mishna states that if one plants a tree within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah prior to a Shemitah year, the tree must be uprooted. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a tree takes root within three days. Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon hold that a tree takes root within two weeks of its being planted. Rav Nachman rules in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha that according to all these opinions, you must add an additional thirty days to satisfy the requirement of adding from the ordinary onto the holy.

In conclusion the Gemora is asking that our braisa which stated that if the tree is planted thirty days before Rosh Hashanah, when the first of Tishrei arrives, the first year is completed. This is not consistent with any of the opinions cited above.

The Gemora concludes that our Tanna must be Rabbi Meir who holds that thirty days are required for the tree to take root. The Gemora questions this since an additional day is needed for it to be considered a complete year. The Gemora answers that the tree takes root on the beginning of the thirtieth day and the remainder of the day is the one day that would constitute the first year.

The Gemora cites Scriptural proofs that less than a year can be regarded as a complete year. (10a – 10b)

Read more!

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 9 - EATING ON THE NINTH

Rabbi Akiva, who derived the principle of adding from the ordinary onto the holy from a different verse, uses the verse “And you shall afflict yourself on the ninth” to teach that anyone who eat and drinks on the ninth, it is considered as if he fasted on the ninth and the tenth.

Rashi in Yoma 81 explains that by eating on the ninth, one will be able to fast better on the tenth. In Shibolei Haleket it is written exactly the opposite logic. Eating a lot the day before a fast makes you fell the withdrawal from eating even more the second day, and so the hunger pangs are increased, making your fast equivalent to a two day fast. Rabbeinu Yonah (shaar daled) writes that it would be proper to have a meal on Yom Kippur since it is also a Yom Tov and since that isn’t possible; there is an obligation to eat on the day prior to Yom Kippur. There are other reasons mentioned in the Rishonim.

The Ksav Sofer (O”C 112) wonders regarding one who is sick and will not be fasting, if he has an obligation to eat on the ninth. The Netziv learns from the language of the Sheiltos that eating on the ninth is a component of the mitzva of afflicting oneself on Yom Kippur and therefore one who is not required to fast does not have a mitzva to eat on the ninth.

Reb Akiva Eiger (16) speculates if women will be included in this mitzva. Do we say that it is a positive commandment governed by time and therefore women will be exempt from this obligation? Or perhaps since the mitzva is learned from the possuk which teaches the requirement of affliction on Yom Kippur and women are included in that mitzva, they would be obligated to eat on the ninth as well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 9 - AN ABBREVIATED CYCLE

The Gemora presents a dispute regarding the counting of Yovel. The Chachamim hold that Yovel is the fiftieth year in the cycle and the following year is the first year of the next cycle. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the fiftieth year is reckoned for both cycles. It is the fiftieth year of the previous cycle and the first year of the forthcoming cycle.

The Turei Even poses an interesting question according to the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehuda. In the first Shemitah cycle after a Yovel, there will only be five field working years between Yovel and Shemitah since during Yovel one is not permitted to work his field.

In a normal Shemitah cycle, each of the six years has a designated tithing that one is required to separate from his field. One is obligated to take maaser sheini (he would bring one tenth of his produce to Yerushalayim to be eaten there) on the first, second, fourth and fifth years. He would separate maaser oni (given to the poor) on the third and sixth years. The Turei Even wonders what the arrangement would be according to Rabbi Yehuda in the first cycle following a Yovel, where there is only five years.

The Netziv and the Sfas Emes state that in the third year, one would separate maaser oni and regarding the remaining years, he would take maaser sheini. This is because the Torah states that maaser oni should be separated every three years; however the Torah does not prescribe set years for maaser sheini. A year that does not have a requirement for maaser oni, automatically has an obligation for maaser sheini.

Read more!

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 9 - Highlights

COUNTING YOVEL

The Gemora presents a dispute regarding the counting of Yovel. The Chachamim hold that Yovel is the fiftieth year in the cycle and the following year is the first year of the next cycle. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the fiftieth year is reckoned for both cycles. It is the fiftieth year of the previous cycle and the first year of the forthcoming cycle. (8b – 9a)

ADDING FROM THE ORDINARY ONTO THE HOLY

Rabbi Akiva cites a verse in the Torah and expounds from it: “Six days a week you shall work and on the seventh day you shall rest; at the plowing and the reaping you shall rest.” Rabbi Akiva learns that the second part of the possuk is teaching a halacha regarding Shemitah. One must abstain from plowing prior to the seventh year if it will benefit the seventh year and one must accord Shemitah sanctity for the harvesting of the seventh year from produce that is still growing in the eighth year.
...Read more



Rabbi Yishmael learns that one must add from the ordinary onto the holy from a different verse. It is written regarding Yom Kippur “And you shall afflict yourself on the ninth” – it is clear that the obligation to fast is on the tenth of Tishrei and yet the Torah states that one should begin the fast on the ninth. We learn from here that there is a requirement to add from the ordinary onto the holy and one should begin to fast from the ninth. Another verse teaches us that one should add to the conclusion of Yom Kippur as well. The Gemora concludes that this obligation applies to Shabbos and all of the festivals. (9a)

EATING ON THE NINTH

Rabbi Akiva, who derived the principle of adding from the ordinary onto the holy from a different verse, uses the verse “And you shall afflict yourself on the ninth” to teach that anyone who eat and drinks on the ninth, it is considered as if he fasted on the ninth and the tenth. (9a – 9b)


YOVEL TAKING EFFECT

The halacha is that during Yovel, one is not allowed to work the land. The Tannaim disagree as to the criteria required for this halacha to take effect. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that Yovel takes effect even if they did not blow shofar on Yom Kippur and even if they did not return their fields to the ancestral owners. However, if they did not liberate their slaves, the laws of Yovel do not take effect. Rabbi Yosi disagrees and holds that Yovel will only not take effect if they did not blow the shofar on Yom Kippur. The Chachamim maintain that all three halachos are vital to the realization of Yovel status.

Rabbi Yosi explains his reasoning that the blowing of the shofar prevents Yovel from taking effect and not the freeing of the slaves. Firstly, there can always be a possibility that there are no slaves to be liberated but highly improbable that there will not be a shofar available to blow. Rabbi Yosi understands that Yovel will be reliant on something that is always possible. Secondly, the obligation of sounding the shofar is dependent on Beis Din whereas the releasing of the slaves is not in Beis Din’s control to execute. It is assumed that Yovel will be dependent on something whose authority is given over to Beis Din. (9b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 8 - IMMINENT JUDGMENT

It is written in Teshuvos Maharil (33) that one should not begin Maariv or Kiddush before nightfall on Rosh Hashana. This is due to the principle of not bringing judgment on oneself earlier than the time allotted for it.

The commentators ask on this ruling from the words of Chazal and the ruling in Shulchan Aruch (C”M 5:2) that there is no judgment by night. Why is there a concern for bringing about an early judgment when the judgment will not be until daytime anyway?

Sheorim Mitzuyanim B’halacha answers that when reciting Maariv and Kiddush, one declares that it is now the “Day of remembrance” and the “Day of the Shofar.” He is indicating that he is not afraid of the approaching judgment. This is a carefree attitude that will not serve him well.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 8 -HEAVENLY COURT IS WAITING FOR US

The Gemora learns from a verse in Tehillim that the Heavenly court will not sit in judgement until the court on earth has sanctified the month.

There were many times that Beis Din was not able to sanctify the new month in the early morning on Rosh Hashana and there were times that the witnesses did not arrive until later in the day. Does that mean that the Heavenly court will not begin to judge until then? Furthermore, it is stated in Chazal that Hashem judges the world in the first three hours of the day. How would that be consistent with that which we are learning here?

The Sfas Emes explains that the world is judged in the beginning of the day always. The meaning of our Gemora is that the Heavenly court has permission to judge at the commencement of the day based on the knowledge that Beis Din will sanctify the month later in the day.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 8 - Highlights

NEW YEAR FOR THE CROPS
A different braisa is cited which states that the sixteenth of Nissan is considered the New Year for the Omer and the sixth of Sivan is regarded as the New Year for the two loaves. In the times of the Beis Hamikdosh, all new grain was forbidden to eat until the korban omer was brought. The new grain could not be used for any flour offerings until the two loaves were offered. The Gemora questions as to why these two New Years were not included in the Mishna.

Rav Pappa answers that the Mishna lists the New Years that take effect from the night, however the New Years for the grain does not take effect until the day, when those korbanos are brought and therefore they are not enumerated in the Mishna.

The Gemora states that the New Year for the festivals which pertains to the prohibition against delaying begins on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan even though one cannot technically bring the korbanos which he vowed until the morning. The first of Tishrei which is the New Year for the Yovel also commences by night.

Rav Shisha answers that the New Years for the grain are not mentioned in the Mishna since the Mishna only includes the New Years that are not contingent on any action but these New Years require an action – i.e. the offering of these korbanos.

Rav Ashi answers that the Mishna only counts the New Years that begin on the first of the month and since these two New Years are on the sixth and the fifteenth of their respective months, they are not included in the listing. The New Year for the festivals, which is on the fifteenth of Nissan is only mentioned in the Mishna because the first of Nissan is the New Year for the kings. (7b – 8a)

...Read more


ANIMAL TITHING
The Mishna cited two opinions regarding the New Year for animal tithing. Rabbi Meir maintains that the New Year is on the first day of Elul and Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Shimon hold that the New Year is on the first day of Tishrei.

Rabbi Yochanan explains their dispute based on a verse in Tehillim which discusses the times of the year that sheep become pregnant. Rabbi Meir maintains that the sheep become pregnant in Adar and give birth in Av since the gestation time of small animals is five months. It is logical that the dividing time between the old and the new animals should be on the first of Elul. Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Shimon disagree and hold that the sheep become pregnant in Nissan, thereby giving birth in Elul. The following month, Tishrei is the New Year for the animal tithing.

The Gemora rejects this explanation and Rava presents an alternative one. The verse in Devarim repeats the word ‘tithe’ when discussing the tithing of the grain. All agree that the Torah is referring to both animal tithing and the tithing of the grain and they agree that the Torah is teaching us that the two halachos are comparable. Rabbi Meir maintains that the analogy should be as follows: Just like the tithing of the grain is taken close to the time of its completion, so too in regards to animal tithing, it should be taken close to the time of the animal’s completion and since the sheep are born in Av, the tithing should take place in Elul. Rabbi Elozar and Rabbi Shimon compare the two as follows: Just like the first day of Tishrei is the New Year for the tithing of the grain, so too it should be the New Year for the animal tithing as well. (8a)

FIRST OF TISHREI
The Mishna had stated that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for the years. Rav Pappa explains this to be referring to contracts. Contracts are dated using the year of the king’s reign and since we have learned that predated contracts are disqualified, it is essential to have a fixed manner of counting the years in order to establish if the contract is predated. The Gemora states that this is referring to the counting of the gentile kings whereas Nissan is the New Year for the Jewish kings.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok explains this to be referring to the day of judgement. This is the day that Hashem decides what will happen to the entire world in the upcoming year. (8a – 8b)

OTHER LESSONS
The Gemora learns from a verse in Tehillim that the Heavenly court will not sit in judgement until the court on earth has sanctified the month.

Another lesson derived from this verse is that both the Jews and other nations of the world are judged on the first of Tishrei, however the Jews are judged first. This can be explained according to Rav Chisda who rules that when a king and members of the public need to be judged, the king is given precedence. Two reasons are given: Either it is not proper for the king to be waiting outside or because it is preferable that the king be judged first before Hashem’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community. These are the reasons that the Jews are judged before the other nations.

The Gemora provides a source proving that the first of Tishrei is the New Year in regards to the laws of Shemitah. (8b)

YOVEL
The Mishna had stated that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for the halachos of Yovel. The Gemora states that this is in accordance with the viewpoint of Rabbi Yishmael who maintains that the slaves would begin their freedom from the first of Tishrei. Their freedom would be complete with the sound of the shofar on Yom Kippur. The Rabbis disagree and hold that all laws of Yovel do not take effect until Yom Kippur. (8b)

Read more!

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 7 - BLESSING OF THE NEW MONTH


The Gemora had stated that Nissan is considered the New Year regarding the counting of the months. There are different verses throughout the Prophets and the Writings which indicate that Nissan is the first month of the year.

We have previously discussed the opinion of the Chasam Sofer and other commentators based on the Ramban in Parshas Bo, who state that there is an obligation to count the months in relationship to Nissan to remind ourselves of the Exodus from Egypt and not to count using the secular months like the other nations of the world.

The Binyan Shlomo learns differently and states that the obligation to count the months according to the Exodus from Egypt was only given to the Beis Din when they were sanctifying the new moon. The Beis din was required to proclaim that they are sanctifying the first month, second month etc.

Binyan Shlomo continues that according to this, it should be instituted that when we are reciting the blessing for the new month on the Shabbos preceding Rosh Chodesh, we should announce the number of the month relative to Nissan since the blessing of the new month is a remembrance for Beis Din’s sanctifying the new moon. He concludes that in truth, our custom is not like this but he’s not sure why.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 7 - Highlights

A BECHOR’S YEAR

We learned before that a bechor must be eaten within a year. The Gemora presents two opinions as to when this year begins and the Gemora concludes that there is no disagreement. Rav Acha bar Yaakov is referring to a bechor without a blemish and its year begins at the age of eight days since then it is fit to be brought on the mizbeach as a korban. Abaye is referring to an animal with a blemish that cannot be offered as a korban and therefore its year begins on the day it was born since that it when it is fit to be eaten. (6b – 7a)

THE FIRST OF NISSAN IS THE NEW YEAR FOR OTHER MATTERS

The Gemora cites a braisa which lists the importance of the first of Nissan in regards to other matters (besides for the prohibition of delaying one’s korbanos). Nissan is considered the New Year regarding the counting of the months. There are different verses throughout the Prophets and the Writings which indicate that Nissan is the first month of the year. (7a)
...Read more



LEAP YEAR

The braisa states that the first of Nissan is the New Year for the calculations for a leap year. The Gemora questions this from a different braisa which states explicitly that these calculations would be done as close to the month of Adar as possible and certainly not by Nissan. The Gemora answers that our braisa is referring to the last possible time that a leap year can be proclaimed. There is a dissenting opinion cited in a Mishna in Eduyos that the leap year must be announced before Purim. (7a)

SEPARATION OF SHEKALIM

The braisa states that the first of Nissan is considered the New Year for the separation of the shekalim. Every Nissan, they would start to purchase animals for the korbanos from the donated shekalim. Rav Yehuda learned in the name of Shmuel that public offerings that were brought on the first of Nissan from the funds of the previous year are valid but the mitzvah was not done in the best manner. Public offerings which were purchased using money which was sincerely donated to the public by an individual are valid. (7a – 7b)

RENTING HOUSES

The braisa cited an opinion that maintains that Nissan is regarded as the New Year for the rental of houses. If one rents a house to another person and he stipulates that the lease was for this year, the lease terminates on the first of Nissan. The Gemora explains as to why Nissan was chosen to be the New Year for the renting of houses and not Tishrei because generally a person anticipates renting a house for the entire winter season, which is until Nissan. (7b)

FOUR OR FIVE?

The Mishna had stated that there are four New Years when actually there are five. The first of Nissan is the New Year for the kings. The fifteenth is the New Year in regards to the prohibition against delaying one’s vows. The first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithing. The first of Tishrei is the New Year for Shemitah and Yovel. The fifteenth of Shevat is the New Year for the trees. Why does our Mishna state that there are four when in fact there seems to be five New Years?

Rava answers that there are at least four New Years according to all Tanaim. Rabbi Meir does not hold of the fifteenth of Nissan being the New Year for the festivals since he maintains that one is subject to the prohibition against delaying at the first festival that passes. Rabbi Shimon does not agree that the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithing. He holds that the New Year for animal tithing is the first of Tishrei and that is already counted as one of the New Years. According to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon, there are only four New Years.

Rav Nachman answers that the Mishna means that there are four months which contain in them many New Years. (7b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 7 - Using Secular Dates

The Gemora cites a braisa that Nissan is the first month of all the months. This issue has been discussed a few times already here but I just found an excellent article written by Rav Aryeh Lebowitz regarding this topic and I could not pass it up. here it is.

Read more!

Monday, December 11, 2006

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 6 - Rochel's Death and More

Since the Parsha of the week discussed the death of Rochel Imeinu and according to Medrash, one of the reasons she died was because of a vow that Yaakov made, I would like to share with you some of the insights from the Kollel Iyun HaDaf. Please look there for more.

Kollel Iyun Hadaf

1) AGADAH: HIS WIFE WILL NOT DIE FOR HIS SIN OF "BAL TE'ACHER"
QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that the verse, "v'Hayah Becha Chet" -- "It shall be a sin for you" (Devarim 23:22), teaches that the prohibition of Bal Te'acher (delaying the fulfillment of a Neder) affects only the transgressor and not his wife.
TOSFOS (DH Ela Im Ken) adds that when the Gemara in Shabbos (32b) says that one's wife may be punished if he fails to fulfill his Neder, it refers only to a situation in which the husband never fulfills his Neder. If he eventually fulfills it, his wife will not be punished for his delay.
The Midrash relates that Rachel Imenu died on the way to Eretz Yisrael because Yakov Avinu delayed the fulfillment of his pledge to bring a libation of oil (Nisuch Shemen) to the Mizbe'ach in Beis-El. Many years earlier, when he left Eretz Yisrael to travel to the house of Lavan, he vowed to offer a libation on the Mizbe'ach upon his return (Bereishis Rabah 81:2, Vayikra Rabah 37:1, Tanchuma Vayishlach 8, Zohar Bereishis 175a; see also Rashi to Bereishis 35:1). Yakov Avinu eventually fulfilled his Neder (before Rachel died), as the Torah relates (Bereishis 35:6-7).
The Midrash clearly implies that Yakov Avinu's wife died as a result of his transgression of Bal Te'acher, even though he eventually fulfilled his Neder. How is the Midrash to be reconciled with the Gemara here? (KOHELES YAKOV (Rav Algazi); CHIDA in NITZOTZEI OROS to the Zohar loc cit.)
ANSWERS:

(a) The PERASHAS DERACHIM (Derush #3, DH uva'Zeh Yuvan; see also PARDES YOSEF, end of Bereishis 35:1) explains that the Midrash indeed argues with the Gemara (see TOSFOS DH mid'Ben, and SEFAS EMES here). The Tana'im of the Midrash maintain that transgressing the prohibition of Bal Te'acher does affect one's wife, as the Midrash states explicitly (in Vayikra Rabah loc cit.): "One who vows and delays his vow buries his wife."
(b) The KLI CHEMDAH (beginning of Vayishlach) suggests that the Midrash does not argue with the Gemara. Rather, Rachel Imenu died during childbirth, a life-threatening condition (as the Gemara mentions in Shabbos 32a). Since the attribute of strict justice is manifest at life-threatening moments, Rachel was unprotected from the ramifications of her husband's transgression of Bal Te'acher. Under normal circumstances, however, one's wife is not punished for her husband's sin of Bal Te'acher alone. (The Kli Chemdah offers another, intricate answer ("Pilpul").)
(c) An original solution may be suggested based on the words of the MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Vayetzei 31:13; see also Meshech Chochmah to Vayishlach 35:8). In his Neder (Bereishis 28:22), Yakov Avinu promised that upon his safe return he would offer Nesachim on the same "Matzeivah" that he had set up on his way to Lavan. When he finally returned, however, Hash-m told him to erect a new "Mizbe'ach" and not to use the original Matzeivah (Bereishis 35:1 and 7).
The Torah forbids making a Matzeivah today because it is something which Hash-m "has come to despise" (Devarim 16:22). Rashi explains that although the Avos built Matzeivos and brought offerings upon them, the practice became despicable to Hash-m when the idol-worshippers imitated the practice and adopted it for the service of their idols. Consequently, one may make only a Mizbe'ach and not a Matzeivah. A Mizbe'ach is comprised of several stones, while a Matzeivah is comprised of a single stone.
Perhaps the idolaters adopted the practice of building a Matzeivah after they saw Yakov build his Matzeivah for Hash-m when he was on his way to the house of Lavan. This explains why Yakov Avinu was permitted to make a Matzeivah when he left Eretz Yisroel but he was not permitted to use it upon his return. By the time he returned 22 years later, the building of Matzeivos had become a common practice among idolaters. (The verse which mentions the building of a Matzeivah in the context of Yakov's return is merely a flashback to Yakov's initial journey to Lavan; see Ramban and Seforno there.)
According to this explanation, one may propose that had Yakov Avinu returned earlier to fulfill his Neder he might have been able to pour oil on the Matzeivah, because the idolaters had not yet adopted the practice. In the time that he delayed, the idolaters began to use Matzeivos in their idol-worship, and, as a result, he was unable to fulfill his Neder in its entirety (since he could not make a Matzeivah). His wife was punished not because he delayed his Neder, but because he was unable to fulfill it in its entirety.
2) ONE WHO HAS NO MONEY TO GIVE TO THOSE WHO ASK
QUESTIONS: The Gemara concludes that the verse, "v'Hayah Becha Chet" -- "It shall be a sin for you" (Devarim 23:22), teaches that the prohibition of Bal Te'acher (delaying the fulfillment of a Neder) affects only the transgressor and not his wife. One might have thought that his wife should die for that sin just as one's wife dies when people ask him for money and he has none to give them, as Rebbi Eliezer derives from a verse in Mishlei. The verse of "v'Hayah Becha Chet" teaches that a wife does not die because of her husband's transgression of Bal Te'acher.
(a) To what situation does Rebbi Eliezer refer when he says that a man's wife dies when he has no money to give to those who ask?
(b) Why should a woman die because of her husband's sins?
ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI and TOSFOS disagree about what Rebbi Eliezer means when he says that a man's wife dies when he has no money to give to those who ask.
1. RASHI in Zevachim (29b, DH Mevakshin) says that Rebbi Eliezer refers to one who stole money or other property. When the rightful owner comes to claim his money, the thief has no money to pay back.
2. TOSFOS (DH Ela Im Ken) says that Rebbi Eliezer refers to a man who pledged to give a donation to charity and failed to fulfill his pledge. Rebbi Eliezer's statement is consistent with the Gemara in Shabbos (32b) which says that a man's wife dies as a result of his violation of his vows (see previous Insight; see also MARGOLIYOS HA'YAM, Sanhedrin 22a, #20).
(b) According to the explanations of both Rashi and Tosfos, why should a woman die because of her husband's sin?
1. RAV CHAIM SHMUELEVITZ zt'l in SICHOS MUSAR (5732, #32, and 5733, #1) explains that the woman is punished only when she also has sins for which she deserves to die. Why, then, does the Gemara attribute her punishment to her husband's sins?
It is known that Hash-m does not punish an individual when the punishment will significantly affect those who are close to him and who are not deserving of punishment themselves. The Gemara here means that Hash-m punishes the man by causing his wife to die as punishment for her sins when he is also guilty of a severe sin. Rebbi Eliezer derives from the verse in Mishlei that the sin of violating one's vow is enough to make a man deserve the anguish of losing his wife.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz also explains why the punishment of the death of one's wife is a fitting punishment for the transgression. He explains that there never exists a situation in which a person "has no money" to pay back his debts. A person who acknowledges that he owes money will always find a way to pay. If one refuses to acknowledge his debt, it is a sign that he does not feel that he is a Ba'al Chov, a debtor. The punishment for this is that his wife is punished for her sins and he has to suffer the consequences. The reason his wife is taken from him is because the most important person to whom a person is indebted is his wife. It is his wife who ceaselessly stands by his side and serves as his devoted helpmate in life. A man who demonstrates a lack of a sense of indebtedness to others who help him in his business affairs is also likely to lack appreciation for his wife as well. Hash-m therefore does not prevent his wife from being punished for her sins and being taken away from him.
2. The SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Zevachim suggests another explanation. He says that Rebbi Eliezer refers to a man who tells his creditors that he cannot pay his debts with the property that he owns because the property is already a lien towards the payment of his wife's Kesuvah. The man's wife supports his claim. She is punished for her involvement in preventing the creditors from collecting their money. (See also BEN YEHOYADA to Sanhedrin 22a and Insights to Zevachim 29:2.) (Y. Montrose)
3) THE OMISSION OF THREE KORBANOS FROM THE BERAISA OF "BAL TE'ACHER"
QUESTION: The Gemara cites a Beraisa which derives the prohibition of Bal Te'acher from the verses, "When you make a Neder... do not delay in fulfilling it.... That which comes out of your mouth you must observe and do, just as you vowed to Hash-m your G-d..." (Devarim 23:22-24). The Gemara learns from the words "to Hash-m your G-d" that Bal Te'acher applies to Korbenos Chata'os, Ashamos, Olos, and Shelamim. The Gemara earlier (end of 4a) cites another Beraisa which adds Bechor, Ma'aser (Ma'aser Behemah), and the Korban Pesach. Why does the Beraisa here omit these three Korbanos?
ANSWER: The Gemara concludes that the second Beraisa discusses a situation of "Amar v'Lo Afrish" -- the person promised to bring a Korban but did not designate a specific animal as the Korban. Such a situation can exist only in the case of a Korban Chatas, Asham, Olah, or Shelamim. In contrast, a Bechor becomes Kadosh immediately at birth, regardless of one's verbal commitment to sacrifice the animal. Similarly, in the case of Ma'aser Behemah, the tenth animal becomes Ma'aser immediately as it exits the stable. Therefore, the Beraisa here mentions neither Bechor nor Ma'aser.
The Beraisa here does not mention the Korban Pesach for one of two reasons. According to one opinion earlier (5a), the first Beraisa mentions the Korban Pesach only because it mentions Bechor and Ma'aser (these three Korbanos are always mentioned together). Since the Beraisa here has grounds to omit Bechor and Ma'aser, there is no reason for it to mention the Korban Pesach. According to the other opinion there which says that "Pesach" in the Beraisa refers to the Shalmei Pesach (a Korban Pesach that was lost and then found), the case of "Amar v'Lo Afrish" obviously does not apply because the Korban of Shalmei Pesach was already designated as a Korban.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 6 - Highlights

The Gemora learns that one who delays in bringing a korban has committed a sin but there will not be a sin in his wife. Rav Yochanan stated that a man’s wife will die a premature death if he is asked for money that he stole from others and he does not have the money to repay. One might have thought that his wife will die for the sin of delaying as well. The Torah teaches us that this is not the case.

The Gemora cites two verses to teach us that there is a positive commandment for one to fulfill his vow. There are also two verses teaching a negative commandment not to avoid fulfilling one’s vow. There are two verses to teach us that Beis Din should force a person to fulfill his vow. The Gemora questions the necessity for the two verses for each of those halachos.

...Read more


The Gemora answers that the two verses are referring to two different cases. One verse is discussing a case where one made a vow to offer a korban but he did not designate it and the other verse is referring to a case where he designated the animal but he did not yet bring it as a korban. The Gemora explains why both cases must be taught and why we wouldn’t be able to learn one from the other.

The Gemora questions this explanation by citing a Mishna in Kinnim which explains the difference between a neder and a nedovah. A neder is where one makes a vow obligating himself to bring a korban. A nedovah is where he designates a specific animal as a korban. There would be a difference in halacha if after the designation, the animal would die or get stolen. If he made a neder, he would be required to bring another one but if it was a nedovah, he would not be obligated to bring another one since his vow was that this animal would be a korban. How can we explain one of the verses to be referring to a case that he vowed to bring a korban but did not designate one, when both of the verses explicitly state nedovah and nedovah is where he designates the animal.

Rava answers that there can be a case of nedovah where he does not designate the animal and that is where he explicitly vowed to bring a korban with the stipulation that he will not be responsible if it dies or gets stolen. This vow would have the status of a nedovah.

Rava rules that one who vows to give charity is subject to the prohibition of delaying instantly, even before the passage of any of the festivals. The reason given for this is because the poor people are standing in front of us and it is essential that they receive the charity immediately.

Rava rules that one who vows to bring a korban and has not brought it after one festival has violated a positive commandment. The Gemora questions this from a testimony from Rabbi Pepayes. Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pepayes ruled that if one consecrates a pregnant cow for a shelamim or he consecrates a cow for a shelamim and it subsequently becomes pregnant, the offspring should be brought as a shelamim. Rabbi Pepayes testified that he ate a shelamim on Pesach and its offspring on Sukkos. The Gemora understands that he did not bring the offspring as a shelamim on Pesach since it might not have been old enough for a korban at the time (less than eight days old is considered premature), but why wasn’t the offspring brought as a shelamim on the Festival of Shavuos? Delaying until Sukkos would be violating the positive commandment of bringing the korban on the first festival. Rav Zvid answers that the offspring was sick on Shavuos and could not be brought. Rav ashi answers that when the Gemora stated that it was brought on the ‘Chag,’ it is referring to Shavuos and not to Sukkos.

Rava rules that once the three festivals have passed, he is liable every single day for the prohibition against delaying the bringing of the korban.

A braisa is cited which states that one who vows to bring a korban and a year passes by without three festivals or three festivals pass by without a year will be liable for transgressing the prohibition against delaying. We can understand how it’s possible to have three festivals pass by without a year but how can a year pass by without three festivals? The Gemora answers that if we hold that the prohibition of delaying is only if three festivals pass in sequence, then it is understandable how we can have a year pass before the three successive festivals; however if we maintain that the prohibition is even when the three festivals are not in sequence, how can a year pass without three festivals.

This question can be answered according to Rebbe who maintains that a year in halacha is 365 days even if there is a leap year. If one consecrated an animal after Pesach and the following year is a leap year, after 365 days the year will be complete but the three festivals are not.

According to the Chachamim who disagree with Rebbe and maintain that a year is not complete by counting 365 days, rather a year is not complete until the anniversary of the same day next year, there can still exist a case where a year can be completed before the three festivals are. We have learned in a braisa that Shavuos can sometimes be on the fifth of Sivan, sometimes the sixth and at times can fall out on the seventh of Sivan. Shavuos is always the fiftieth day after we begin counting the Omer. The reason the day will vary is because there are times that Nissan and Iyar will both contain thirty days. There can be times that they both consist of twenty-nine days. Sometimes, one will have thirty and one will be twenty-nine. If Shavuos was on the fifth of Sivan and a person made a vow on the sixth of Sivan to bring a korban, the year is completed the following year on the sixth of Sivan. If the following year, Shavuos was on the seventh of Sivan, the year will be completed before the three festivals.

Rabbi Zeira inquires if an inheritor is subject to the prohibition against delaying. An heir is obligated to bring the korbanos for his father. The Gemora is questioning that perhaps he is not subject to this prohibition since he was not the person who made the vow or since he is nonetheless required to bring the korban, he is included in the prohibition.

Rabbi Zeira inquires if a woman who made a vow to bring a korban is subject to the prohibition against delaying. A woman is not obligated to appear in the Beis Hamikdosh on the festivals and therefore she should not be included in the prohibition against delaying. Or since she is obligated in the mitzva of simcha and partake in the korbanos that are brought on the festivals, perhaps we can say that she is included in this prohibition.

Read more!

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Daf Yomi - Response Regarding Months and Days of the Week

We have just posted a response we received from Kollel Iyun Hadaf regarding the question of using the Persian names for counting the months. Once again, the Kollel does an excellent job of clarifying the issue. Read it here. Enjoy!!

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 5 - WHY DELAYING MIGHT DISQUALIFY THE KORBAN

The Gemora cites several sources to teach us that even if one delays on the bringing of a korban, the korban is still valid.

The commentators all ask as to what would be the logic of invalidating the korban? While it is true that the owner committed a transgression by not bringing the korban in the proper time but why would the korban become unfit to be brought?

There are many answers on this question and we will cite several of them.

The Shitah Mekubetzes in Zvachim (29a) answers that this would be compared to a korban which is passed its time limitation. The same way that the korban is invalid, perhaps if the person passes his time limitation, the korban becomes disqualified as well.

Turei Even answers that there is a principle by kodoshim that if the Torah repeats a law twice, this indicates that the kodoshim is unfit to be used. In our Gemora, there were several verses cited to prove that one is not allowed to delay the offering of the korban and therefore there is a legitimate reason to believe that the korban will become disqualified.

The Pnei Yehoshua answers that since the possuk states “Do not delay like you vowed,” one might think that if you will delay, that will annul the vow.

Minchas Oni (son-in-law of the Noda Beyehuda) answers that Rava states that whenever the Torah commands that something should not be done, if it is done, it is not valid. The Torah warns us that one should not delay in bringing the korban, so one might think that if you do procrastinate, the korban will be disqualified.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 5 - Kohen Gadol Must Reside in Yerushalayim

The Gemora explains the reason why the Torah compares the Festival of Sukkos to Pesach. Just like on Pesach, there is an obligation for a person to stay overnight in Yerushalayim; so too there is the same requirement on Sukkos.

Tosfos cites a Sifri that anytime someone offers a korban, there is an obligation to stay overnight in Yerushalayim.

The Rambam in Hilchos Kli Hamikdosh (5:7) rules that the kohen gadol should live in Yerushalayim and not leave. This halacha is a bit perplexing as there is no source in Chazal for it.

The Minchas Chinuch (136) quotes from one of his students that perhaps the source for the Rambam is the Sifri that states that one who brings a korban is required to stay overnight in Yerushalayim. The kohen gadol offers a mincha (flour offering) every morning and perhaps this is the reason he must reside in Yerushalayim.

Rav Yosef Engel in Gilyonei Hashas here challenges this explanation from a Gemora in Sanhedrin (18b) that states that a kohen gadol is allowed to be a member of the Sanhedrin. Perhaps the Sanhedrin will be required to leave the city to measure boundaries for the halachos of eglah arufah or to add on to the city? The kohen gadol would be prohibited from leaving Yerushalayim and will therefore be unable to rule on these matters.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita does not understand the question. The requirement for staying overnight does not prohibit one from leaving the city at all. One would be permitted to leave on a temporary basis and this obligation should not preclude the kohen gadol from being a member of the Sanhedrin.

Furthermore, it is possible that he brought the mincha through an agent and then there is no obligation to be in Yerushalayim at all.

I found the following from
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Menachos 050: Vacation for the Kohen Gadol
s. katz asked:
Daf 50 B - We learn about the Chavitai Cohen Gadol, that has to be brought every day, both in the morning and the afternoon. We also learn in a Mishna in Tamid 31B , that it was a regular Cohen who placed it on the fire of the Mizbaiach. The question is, did the Cohen Hagadol have to be present at each of his Mincha Offerings , or could he have a Shaliach bring it for him ? In other words, did the Cohen Hagadol ever get to go on a vacation, and leave town ??? ( we know regarding all the other Avodahs in the Beis Hamikdash, he had first right to do them, but if he didn't want too, he didn't have to , except for Yom Kippur, of course ) Now if he always had to be present at his own offerings he would never be able to leave Yerushalaim for more than a few hours at a time, But if someone else could bring it for him, He could go on that vacation he desperately needed ???? ( I was told that Rav Eliyushiv, shlita, has never left Yerushalim his entire life ).
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
Regarding the Kohen Gadol going on vacation, the Rambam writes (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 5:3) that the Kohen Gadol must live un Yerushalayim. The Acharonim offer different reasons for this Halachah. The Minchas Chinuch writes that since he brings Chavitim every day, he must sleep over the following night in Yerushalayim (Linah). Regarding his status of owner of the Korban, the Mikdash David (30:20) writes that the Kohen Gadol is not the Ba'al ha'Korban in the classic sense, for we see that if there is no Kohen Gadol, the Tzibur must bring it. Rather, it is considered a Korban Tzibur that is incumbent upon the Kohen Gadol to bring. Therefore, since he is not actually the one who owns the Korban who gets Kaparah from it, he may not need to be present.
D. Zupnik

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 5 - Highlights

COMPENSATION FOR SHAVUOS

The Gemora explains the reason why the Torah compares the Festival of Sukkos to Pesach. Just like on Pesach, there is an obligation for a person to stay overnight in Yerushalayim; so too there is the same requirement on Sukkos.

The Gemora cites another source teaching that Shavuos has a seven day compensation period for anyone that didn’t bring the korban on the first day. Rabbah bar Shmuel taught a braisa that states the following: The Torah stated that one should count days and sanctify Rosh Chodesh and it is written in the Torah to count days and sanctify Shavuos. Just as Rosh Chodesh is sanctified for the same amount of time as the unit by which it is counted (one day), so too Shavuos in sanctified for the same amount of time that it is counted by (a week). This teaches us that if one did not bring the korban on Shavuos, he has another six days to compensate.
...Read more



The Gemora asks on this that we count days to Shavuos as well and therefore its sanctity should be only one day and not seven. Rava answers that there is an obligation to count days and weeks to Shavuos and therefore we can learn that there is a seven day compensation period. Furthermore, the Torah explicitly refers to the festival as Shavuos, meaning ‘weeks.’ (4b – 5a)

The Gemora cites the sources for all the different obligations that are subject to the prohibition against delaying. (5b)

DELAYING THE
SUBSTITUTE KORBAN

We learn that there is an obligation for delaying a korban but not for delaying its substitute. The Gemora thinks initially that this is referring to a korban that was lost and another was selected in its place. The Gemora rejects this explanation and concludes that we are referring to a case where two festivals passed and the korban became blemished and he subsequently sanctified another korban in its place. One might think that if another festival passes without him bringing the korban, he will have transgressed the prohibition against delaying since the second korban is a substitute of the first one and they are considered one korban. The Torah teaches us that he does not violate the prohibition until he delays for three festivals on each individual korban.

The Gemora cites several sources to teach us that even if one delays on the bringing of a korban, the korban is still valid. (5b)

Read more!