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.

   

  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)

   

   

  INSIGHTS TO THE DAF

   

  KOHEN GADOL

  RESIDING 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.

   

  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.