## Rosh Hashanah Daf 6a

###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:1
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:1)

מִדְּבֶן עַזַּאי נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״אוֹתוֹ״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
as this *halakha* **is derived from** that **which ben Azzai** said, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **ben Azzai says:** The verse states: “And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offering be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who offers **it,** it shall be *piggul*” (Leviticus 7:18).


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:2
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:2)

מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אַף מְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּ״בַל יֵרָצֶה״, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתוֹ״ — אוֹתוֹ בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״, וְאֵין מְאַחֵר נִדְרוֹ בְּ״לֹא יֵרָצֶה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
For **what** purpose does **the verse state** the word “it”? **Since** elsewhere **it states:** “When you shall vow a vow to the Lord your God, **you shall not delay paying it;** for the Lord your God will surely require it from you, and it would be sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:22), **I might have interpreted** from this verse that **even one who is late** in paying **his vow** is included in: **It shall not be accepted.** Therefore, **the verse states “it.” It,** an offering disqualified by improper intention [*piggul*], **is** included in the *halakha* of: **“It shall not be accepted,” but** the animal of **one who is late** in paying **his vow is not** included **in** the *halakha* of: **“It shall not be accepted.”**


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:3
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:3)

אֶלָּא: ״בְּךָ חֵטְא״ — וְלֹא בְּאִשְׁתְּךָ חֵטְא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects what was said above; **rather,** the explanation of the verse is as follows. The phrase: “And it would be **sin in you”** comes to teach that there would be a sin in you, **but** there would **not** be **a sin in your wife.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:4
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:4)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאִי תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֵתָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מְבַקְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ מָמוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם אֵין לְךָ לְשַׁלֵּם לָמָּה יִקַּח מִשְׁכָּבְךָ מִתַּחְתֶּיךָ״, אֵימָא בְּהַאי עָוֹן דְּ״בַל תְּאַחֵר״ נָמֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵתָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was necessary to say that the lateness is not imputed to the other members of one’s household for the following reason: **It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some say** that it was **Rabbi Elazar** who said: **A person’s wife dies only because** others **demand of him money and he does not have** means with which to pay, **as it is stated** about one who commits himself to guarantee a loan: **“If you have nothing with which to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?”** (Proverbs 22:27). The verse warns one who takes a loan that incurring debt may result in one losing the very sheets that he sleeps on to his creditor. The Gemara understands this homiletically: Why should you cause God to take away your wife, i.e., she who shares your bed, so that she dies? Consequently, you might **say that** one’s **wife also dies for this transgression** of the prohibition: **You shall not delay,** in that one fails to fulfill his commitment. Therefore, **the verse teaches us** that this is not so. Rather, this sin is imputed to him alone.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:5
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, ״תִּשְׁמוֹר״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, ״וְעָשִׂיתָ״ — אַזְהָרָה לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁיְּעַשּׂוּךְ, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״ — זֶה נֶדֶר, ״לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״ — אֵלּוּ חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת עוֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים, ״נְדָבָה״ — כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ״ — אֵלּוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, ״בְּפִיךְ״ — זוֹ צְדָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “That which is gone out of your lips you shall keep and do; as you have vowed as a gift to the Lord your God, which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). **“That which is gone out of your lips”; this is a positive mitzva. “You shall keep”; this is a prohibition,** as the phrase “you shall keep” is a warning to keep oneself from sinning. **“And do”;** this is **an admonition to the court to make you** fulfill your vow. **“As you have vowed”; this** is referring to **a vow-offering. “To the Lord your God”; this** is referring to **sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, and peace-offerings,** teaching that one must keep his word and bring them. “As a **gift”;** this is understood **in its literal sense** to be referring to a gift-offering. **“Which you have promised”; this** is referring to **objects consecrated for Temple maintenance. “With your mouth”; this** is referring to vows of **charity,** to which one commits himself with his mouth.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:6
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:6)

אָמַר מָר: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. לְמָה לִי? מִ״וּבָאתָ שָּׁמָּה ... וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה״ נָפְקָא! ״תִּשְׁמוֹר״ — זוֹ מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. לְמָה לִי? מִ״לֹּא תְאַחֵר לְשַׁלְּמוֹ״ נָפְקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the details mentioned in this *baraita*. **The Master said: “That which is gone out of your lips”; this is a positive mitzva. Why do I** need this derivation? **Isn’t** the positive mitzva **derived** from the verse: **“And there you shall come; and there you shall bring** your burnt-offerings and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift-offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:5–6)? The *baraita* continues: **“You shall keep”; this is a prohibition. Why do I** need this derivation; **this is derived** from the verse: **“You shall not delay paying it”** (Deuteronomy 23:22).


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:7
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:7)

״וְעָשִׂיתָ״ — אַזְהָרָה לְבֵית דִּין שֶׁיְּעַשּׂוּךְ. לְמָה לִי? מִ״יַּקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ נָפְקָא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״יַקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. יָכוֹל בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִרְצוֹנוֹ״, הָא כֵּיצַד? כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“And do”;** this is **a warning to the court to make you** fulfill your vow. **Why do I** need this derivation? This rule **is derived** from the verse: **“He shall offer it”** (Leviticus 1:3), **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“He shall offer it,”** which **teaches that he must be forced** to bring his offering. One **might** have thought that he may be forced to bring his offering even **against his will.** Therefore, **the verse states: “In accordance with his will”** (Leviticus 1:3). **How so? The** court **coerces him until he says: I want to** bring the offering. Now, since all of these *halakhot* are already known from other sources, what is the point of this repetition?


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:8
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:8)

חַד, דַּאֲמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ, וְחַד, אַפְרֵישׁ וְלָא אַקְרֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **One** set of verses is referring to a case **where one said** that he vowed to bring an offering **but did not** yet **set aside** a specific animal for his vow, and **one** set of verses is referring to a case **where he set aside** a specific animal for his vow **but did not** yet **sacrifice** it on the altar.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:9
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:9)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אֲמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קַיְּימֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, אֲבָל אַפְרֵישׁ וְלָא אַקְרֵיב, אֵימָא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ — בֵּי גַזָּא דְּרַחֲמָנָא אִיתֵיהּ. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is necessary** to teach the *halakha* in both cases, **as had** the Torah **taught us** only about the *halakha* of the case where **one said** that he vowed to bring an offering **but did not** yet **set aside** a specific animal for his vow, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed **because he did not keep his word; however, if he set aside** a specific animal for his vow **but did not** yet **sacrifice** it on the altar, one might **say** that **anywhere that it is, it is in the treasure house of the Merciful One,** as the world and everything in it belongs to God, and therefore it makes no difference if he delays in bringing it to the Temple. Therefore, **it is necessary** to teach that even when one has set aside a specific animal he transgresses the prohibition.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:10
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:10)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אַפְרֵישׁ וְלָא אַקְרֵיב, דְּקָא מַשְׁהֵי לֵיהּ גַּבֵּיהּ, אֲבָל אָמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ, אֵימָא דִּיבּוּרָא לֹא כְּלוּם הוּא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the Torah **taught us** only about the case where **one set aside** a specific animal for his vow **but did not** yet **sacrifice** it on the altar, one might have said that only in this case has he transgressed **because he is keeping** the animal **for himself. But if he said** that he vowed to bring an offering **but did not** yet **set aside** a specific animal for his vow, one might **say** that his mere **speech is nothing,** and there is no transgression provided he has not actually set aside an animal. Therefore, **it** is **necessary** to teach the *halakha* in both cases.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:11
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:11)

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּאָמַר וְלָא אַפְרֵישׁ? וְהָא נְדָבָה כְּתִיבָא, וּתְנַן: אֵי זֶהוּ נֶדֶר — הָאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה — הָאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **How can you say** that the Gemara is dealing with a case **where one** merely **said** that he vowed to bring an offering **but did not** yet **set aside** a specific animal? **Isn’t a gift-offering mentioned** in the verse, **and we learned** in a mishna: **What is a vow-**offering? It is an offering brought by **one who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt-offering.** And **what is a gift-offering?** It is an offering brought by **one who says,** concerning a particular animal: **I undertake** to bring **this** animal as **a burnt-offering.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:12
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:12)

וּמָה בֵּין נֶדֶר לִנְדָבָה? נֶדֶר, מֵת אוֹ נִגְנַב — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ. נְדָבָה, מֵתָה אוֹ נִגְנְבָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the difference between a vow-**offering **and a gift-offering?** With regard to **vow-**offerings, if the animal **died or was stolen,** the one who took the vow **is obligated** to pay **restitution** for **it.** He undertook to bring a burnt-offering without specifying the animal, and therefore until he brings that offering he is not absolved of his obligation. With regard to **a gift-offering,** however, if the animal **died or was stolen, he is not obligated** to pay **restitution** for **it** because he undertook to bring a specific animal, and that is no longer possible. In the case of a gift-offering, then, a specific animal must have already been set aside as an offering.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:13
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵינִי חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: You** can **find** a case of a gift-offering where a specific animal has not yet been set aside; **for example, where one said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a burnt-offering on the condition that** after I set an animal aside in fulfillment of my vow, **I will not be liable to replace it** should the animal die or be stolen.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:14
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:14)

״בְּפִיךְ״ — זוֹ צְדָקָה. אָמַר רָבָא: וּצְדָקָה — מִיחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ לְאַלְתַּר. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּהָא קָיְימִי עֲנִיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* stated: **“With your mouth”; this** is referring to vows of **charity. Rava said:** In the case of vows of **charity, one is liable immediately** if he is late in distributing the charity that he had promised to give. **What is the reason** for this *halakha*? It is **that poor people** to whom the charity may be given **exist** in all places, and so the charity can be distributed to them immediately, unlike an offering, which must be brought to the Temple.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:15
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:15)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִנְיָינָא דְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת כְּתִיבָא, עַד דְּעָבְרִי עֲלַהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים כְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָתָם הוּא דִּתְלִינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּרְגָלִים, אֲבָל הָכָא לָא — דְּהָא שְׁכִיחִי עֲנִיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It is **obvious** that charity must be given to the poor without delay. The Gemara explains: **Lest you say** that **since** the *halakha* pertaining to vows of charity **is written in the passage dealing with offerings,** perhaps one does not transgress the prohibition against delaying **until three Festivals have passed, as** is the *halakha* with regard to **offerings,** therefore Rava **teaches us** that this is not so. Rather, **there,** with regard to the offerings, **the Merciful One made** the timing of the transgression **dependent upon the** time of the **Festivals,** when one must go on pilgrimage to the Temple. **However, here,** with regard to charity vows, this is **not** so **because poor people** who are ready to accept charity **are found** in all places.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:16
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:16)

אָמַר רָבָא: כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו רֶגֶל אֶחָד — עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Although, according to most opinions one transgresses the prohibition against delaying only after three Festivals have elapsed, **once** even **one Festival has passed** and he has not sacrificed the offerings that he vowed to bring, **he** immediately **violates a positive mitzva.**


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:17
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:17)

מֵיתִיבִי: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס עַל וָלָד שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס: אֲנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַּפֶּסַח, וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from the following mishna: **Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Papeyyas testified about** the **offspring of peace-offerings.** They said **that** if the mother animal was consecrated before it conceived or during its pregnancy, the offspring, too, **must be sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rabbi Papeyyas said: I testify that we** once **had a cow that was sacrificed as a peace-offering, and we ate it on Passover [*beFesaḥ*], and we ate its offspring as a peace-offering on the Festival [*beḤag*],** i.e., on *Sukkot*.


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:18
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:18)

בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּפֶסַח לָא אַקְרְבוּהּ, אֵימוֹר דִּמְחוּסָּר זְמַן הֲוָה. אֶלָּא וַלְדַּהּ בַּעֲצֶרֶת הֵיכִי מַשְׁהִי לֵהּ וְעָבְרִי עֲלֵיהּ בַּעֲשֵׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the details of this story: **Granted, on Passover** itself Rabbi Papeyyas and his family **did not sacrifice** the offspring, as one can **say** that the animal **was lacking** the requisite time, i.e., it was less than eight days old, and it is prohibited to sacrifice such a young animal. **But how could they delay** and not sacrifice the offspring **on *Shavuot*,** the first Festival after Passover, if, according to Rava, **they** would **violate a positive mitzva** as soon as the first Festival passed?


###### Rosh Hashanah 6a:19
[Rosh Hashanah 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Rosh%20Hashanah/r/6a:19)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: כְּגוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: For example,** this occurs