Rosh Hashanah 6A

מדבן עזאי נפקא, דתניא: בן עזאי אומר: ״אותו״

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 3rd day, it should not be accepted, neither should it be imputed to him who offers it, it should be piggul” (Leviticus 7:18).

מה תלמוד לומר? לפי שנאמר: ״לא תאחר לשלמו״, שומע אני אף מאחר נדרו ב״בל ירצה״, תלמוד לומר: ״אותו״⁠ — אותו ב״לא ירצה״, ואין מאחר נדרו ב״לא ירצה״,

For what purpose does the verse state the word “it”? Since elsewhere it states: “When you should vow a vow to YHWH your God, you should not delay paying it; for YHWH 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 should not be accepted. Therefore, the verse states “it.” It, an offering disqualified by improper intention [piggul], is included in the halakha of: “It should not be accepted,” but the animal of one who is late in paying his vow is not included in the halakha of: “It should not be accepted.”

אלא: ״בך חטא״⁠ — ולא באשתך חטא.

The Talmud 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.

סלקא דעתך אמינא: הואיל ואמר רבי יוחנן, ואי תימא רבי אלעזר: אין אשתו של אדם מתה אלא אם כן מבקשין ממנו ממון ואין לו, שנאמר: ״אם אין לך לשלם למה יקח משכבך מתחתיך״, אימא בהאי עון ד״בל תאחר״ נמי אשתו מתה, קא משמע לן.

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 R' Yoḥanan said, and some say that it was R' 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 Talmud 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 should 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.