Sukkah, Daf Het, Part 2



Another new mishnah, again about vows.


משנה. אין בין נדרים לנדבות אלא שהנדרים חייב באחריותן, ונדבות אינו חייב באחריותן.


Mishnah: There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.


Vowed offerings are stated using the language Behold, I will bring an animal as an offering. If a person sets aside an animal to be a vowed offering and the animal cannot for whatever reason be sacrificed (for instance, it gets lost or dies) he must bring a substitute. However, if he makes a freewill-offering using the language, I will bring this animal as a sacrifice and the animal is lost, he need not bring another. In all other respects, there is no difference between the two types of offerings.


גמרא. הא לענין בל תאחר – זה וזה שוין.


GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of not delaying they are the same.


No matter how one phrases his vow, he is still responsible for not delaying in bringing it. There are differences of opinion among tannaim as to how long one has to bring the sacrifice before he has transgressed the prohibition of "do not delay."


תנן התם: אי זהו נדר – האומר הרי עלי עולה. איזו היא נדבה – האומר הרי זו עולה. ומה בין נדרים לנדבות? נדרים, מתו או נגנבו או אבדו – חייב באחריותן, נדבות, מתו או נגנבו או אבדו – אינו חייב באחריותן.


What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah."

And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah."

What is the [practical] difference between vows (neder) and freewill offerings (nedavah)?

In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement;

But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.


This mishnah (taken from Kinim 1:1), like the mishnah in Megillah, explains the difference between a vow offering (a neder) and a freewill offering (a nedavah). A neder is when one promises to bring a certain type of offering, either an olah or a shelamim (wellbeing offering). For example if he promises to bring a bird olah, he must bring two birds as an olah. If he sets aside a bird and it is lost or stolen before it can be sacrificed, he must bring a replacement. The case of the nedavah is different. In this case, one points at an animal and promises to bring that animal as a sacrifice. For instance, he points at a sheep and promises to bring it. If the sheep is lost or dies, he is not responsible for its replacement because he was only responsible to bring that sheep as long as it was alive or available.


מנהני מילי? דתנו רבנן: +ויקרא א’+ ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, רבי שמעון אומר: את שעליו חייב באחריותו, ואת שאינו עליו אינו חייב באחריותו.

מאי משמע? – אמר רבי יצחק בר אבדימי: כיון דאמר עלי – כמאן דטעין אכתפיה דמי.


Whence is this rule derived? As our Rabbis have taught: "And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him" (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is "upon him" he is obligated to replace but that which is not "upon him" he is not obligated to replace.

How is that implied [from the verse]?

R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi replied: Since he has said "[I take] it upon myself," it is as if he had taken it upon his shoulder.


The Talmud now provides a prooftext for the mishnah’s halakhah. R. Shimon reads the verse from Leviticus as saying that any sacrifice he is liable to bring, he is responsible for if it is lost or stolen. But if he is not liable to bring it, then he is not responsible for it.

R. Yitzchak b. Avdimi explains that once a person says "I take it upon myself" to bring a certain sacrifice, it is as if it is already on his shoulders. In other words, just saying that one will bring a sacrifice is sufficient to make one obligated to bring it.