Vol 19.16 - Chof-Av Spanish French Audio Video
|Hebrew Text: Talmud- Megillah Talmud- Megillah-Rif|
(5740) The time of the Wood-Festival of the Priests and of the People (Atzei kohanim) when it occurs on Shabbat (Tal. Megillah 5a) and the merging there between Rashi on Shas and Rashi on the Rif
(a) Zman Atzei Kohanim v'ha'Am comprised nine fixed days in the year - on which certain designated families donated wood each year for the Korbanos, together with which they would bring a Korban of wood.
1. On the first of Nisan the family of Arah of the tribe of Yehuda brought the offering of wood;
2. On the twentieth of Tammuz the family of David of the tribe of Yehuda;
3. On the fifth of Av the family of Parosh of the tribe of Yehuda;
4. On the seventh of the same month, the family of Jonadab of the Rechabites;
5. On the tenth of the same month the family of senaah of the tribe of Benjamin;
6. On the fifteenth of the same month the family of Zattu of the tribe of Yehuda,
and with them were the priests and Levites and all those who were not certain of their tribe and the Bene Gonbe ‘ali and the Bene Koze kezi'oth;
7. On the twentieth of the same month the family of Pahath Moab of the tribe of Yehuda;
8. On the twentieth of Elul the family of Adin of the tribe of Yehuda;
9. On the first of Tevet the family of Parosh a second time;
On the first of Tevet there was no Ma'amad for thereon there was hallel, musaf-offering and the wood-festival.
1. We have spoken many times concerning the day of "Chof Av" that this is one of the nine Wood-Festivals of the Priests and of the People (Atzei kohanim v'HaAm).
This is as the Talmud states that
“When the exiles returned they did not find wood in the chamber”.
Therefore, certain families contributed wood for the Altar from "their own resources". It was therefore enacted that each of the families be allotted that date (that they had brought wood) every year - to bring wood for the Altar fire (ma’aracha) - and that they should use their wood for the Altar "even if the chamber is filled with wood".
This day was considered a Yom Tov (for that family) and they also brought a "Wood Offering" (korban Aitzim).
When one of these days - for example, Chof Av, fell on Shabbat, when one cannot offer the Wood Offering (since it does not defer Shabbat) - the Mishnah states:
"We postpone its observance until after Shabbat and do not advance its observance to before Shabbat".
This is also the law with regard to other situations as the Mishnah accounts there:
"Tisha B’Av, Chagigah and Hakhel".
Concerning the latter cases, the Talmud explains why “we postpone and do not precede" –
However, with regard to the Wood Offering (Atzei kohanim v'HaAm), the Talmud does not state any reason why it is postponed.
We find a difference in this (and seemingly - a contradiction) between Rashi's commentary on Talmud versus Rashi's commentary on the Rif (R’ Yitzchak Alfasi):
In the Talmud Rashi explains:
"The time of their obligation has not yet arrived, and if we advance it, they will not have fulfilled their obligation. The same applies to the Atzei kohanim, which they set a specific time with vows".
Thus the reason for the Atzei kohanim is also because “it’s time of obligation has not arrived”.
However, in Rashi's commentary on the Rif he states:
"We postpone it till after Shabbat because the entire day of Erev Shabbat until now is the time (of the previous family) to offer it, and the (previous family) does not want them (new family) to bring wood and a korban while it is still their term, to offer it”.
(Therefore the Talmud does not need to state concerning the "time of the Atzei kohanim v'HaAm", the reason why "we postpone and do not precede" - since it is a "simple thing" (-to understand) according to the aforementioned reason).
According to this reason, it follows that if the “current family whose term is to bring the wood-offering" were not bothered if a second family brought wood and a wood-offering in the first family's term, then one could indeed offer the wood-offering on Erev Shabbat even though "The time of their obligation time has not yet arrived".
2. The difference between the two explanations of Rashi, namely whether we say in this case, “we do not advance” since "the time of their obligation time has not yet arrived" or we do not say so – also applies to other things:
In the Talmud Yerushalmi, there is a debate among the Amoraim whether a Gabbai Tzedaka (Charity Collector) must lend (לייען) money, “that is not available” (כשאין בכים), to a needy poor person (and later get reimbursed from Tzedaka monies which will be collected later).
The Rogotchover Gaon states that reason for the one who maintains that we do not say that he should lend, is connected with the aforementioned commentary of Rashi on the Talmud. There, we see that “if one says that he will bring a korban at an appointed time, if he brings it before that time, he has not fulfilled his obligation”. Similarly, this also applies to the aforementioned case of charity.
The reason that the Gabbai Tzedaka must not lend (when the money is not available) is, since one must not use Tzedaka money which will be donated (and received) later to pay a previous debt. For then it would result that “the Tzedaka was fulfilled before the time of the setting of the vow” (נתקיים הצדקה קודם זמן קביעות הנדר). In other words, the Mitzvah of Tzedaka was performed before the appointed time that was set and vowed upon by the donor to give the funds to Tzedaka. Therefore, by using it to pay a prior debt, the person does not fulfill the vow of Tzedaka.
According to this, it comes out that according to Rashi’s commentary on the Rif, that if this were not so, namely that the previous family does not want “them to encroach on their term”, that the second family would be allowed to advance their “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim)
(Even though this is “before the time of the setting of the vow”- "the time of their obligation time has not yet arrived").
Therefore, the aforementioned reason of the Amorah who maintains “we do not say . . to lend”, is not relevant (פאלט אפ).
3. One can understand this by prefacing a puzzlement in the aforementioned Rashi’s commentary on the Rif. Namely, that one does not advance the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) to Erev Shabbat since this is the time of the “previous family’s term and they do not want the following family to impinge on their time” for seemingly, it is not understood:
What does the will of the previous family matter? The setting of the time of the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) was enacted through the Prophets.
(Which is the understanding of “Beit Din” (דעת ב״ד)).
Therefore, if there is a reason to advance the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) to Erev Shabbat, one must not take into account the desire of the previous family?
4. One could explain, that the two comments of Rashi do not contradict one another, but on the contrary, complement each other.
The obligation of the families in the "time of the Atzei kohanim v'HaAm", in bringing the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) is based on the law of vows. Concerning a vow, one must take into account the mindset of the one making the vow, at the time that he made the vow.
Since, it is a common and frequent thing that one, or many of the nine terms, occur on Shabbat – the donors, at the very onset, certainly had an opinion (בדיעה) that if the date of the offering occurred on Shabbat – whether they would offer it in advance or to postpone it.
This is why Rashi’s commentary on the Rif, adds an explanation to Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud:
The reason that the "time of the Atzei kohanim v'HaAm" has not begun (“it’s time of obligation has not arrived”) is not (just) since it is before Shabbat (the start-time of the obligation of the other years). Rather in this case the “time of their obligation” really begins after Shabbat.
For since the previous family does not want them to “encroach on their term”, Therefore, the mindset of the one who made the vow (the latter family), at the very onset, was that when the date of their term occurs on Shabbat, that they would bring the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) after Shabbat
(For great is peace (גדול השלום), and this is especially so with regard to the aspects of the altar and Korbanot).
(On the contrary. If the previous family would not mind that they “encroach on their term”, it is probable to say that the mindset of the one who made the vow, would be to specifically advance their offering of the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) – namely to Erev Shabbat.
(On the twentieth of Av (and so forth), even when it occurs on Shabbat),
it therefore comes out that when we postpone the “Wood Offering” (korban Aitzim) till after Shabbat, that an entire day has passed where they have not thanked G-d for the merit of bringing the wood).
Therefore, in this case it is a “simple matter” that “we postpone and do not precede”
(and the Talmud does not need to cite it , at all, as aforementioned in Par. 1)
even when the previous family would sometimes agree for the latter family to bring the korban, during their term. For the reason that here, it is “it’s time of obligation has not arrived”, is because the obligation (the mindset of the one who makes the vow) is, from the very onset, to postpone.
According to this, there is, in my opinion (לפענ׳ד), also no proof from this law to the debate whether we say that one should lend (like the Rogotchover says, previously in par 2).
For the reason that “we do not advance” in our case, is because the mindset of the one making the vow is, from the very onset, to postpose. Therefore, one cannot learn from this, with regard to other cases, namely when the one making the vow did not take into consideration (such) an uncommon thing - namely the paying of a debt with his money – whether one may give the Tzedaka “before the time of the setting of the vow”.
5. From this one can also learn with regard to a yahrzeit that occurs on Shabbat, when one is accustomed to give Tzedaka on the day of the yahrzeit (similarly, there is a custom to fast on the day of the yahrzeit) - which is an aspect of a vow.
One can clarify whether one should advance the giving of the Tzedaka to Erev Shabbat or whether to postpone it until Sunday.
According to the aforementioned Rogotchover’s comment, it must seemingly come out that one must postpone it until after the time of the “setting of the vow”.
However, according to what has been explained previously, it is understood, that since one knows at the onset, that the yahrzeit will occur (in many years) on Shabbat, that the vow, at the onset, is in a manner that it is closer to the ruling of the Sages, that “A Mitzvah which comes into your hands, do not allow it to become sour”. Namely, that one should advance the giving of the Tzedaka to Erev Shabbat, in order to be one who precedes and hastens to do a Mitzvah (זיין א מקדים לדבר מצוה)
MSichas Shabbat Parshat Eikev, Chof Menachem Av, 5727
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|