Bagian Terkait Ulangan 16:16

If he separated⁶⁵He designated an animal from his herd as his sacrifice for the coming pilgrimage. Since it does not say “he dedicated”, the designation is not a formal dedication. Nevertheless, Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7 states that a promise to Heaven is to be enforced like delivery to a person. his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen⁶⁶Since the deceased is buried, the designation becomes void.. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death⁶⁷Ex. 34:20. There seems to be no reason why the redemption of the first-born is mentioned in the same verse as the prohibition to appear in the Temple empty-handed. It is explained that just as the redemption of the first born is an obligation not eliminated by the absence of a father, so the obligation of the sacrifice of appearance is not eliminated by the death of the votary.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there⁶⁸Mishnah Qinnim2:5., “A woman⁶⁹After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev. 12:1–8.) who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice⁶⁹After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev. 12:1–8.).” Samuel said, if it was separated⁷⁰Since a purification sacrifice in all cases is a personal obligation, at the death of the person any purification sacrifice already dedicated as such can neither be sacrificed nor redeemed. If it is not yet dedicated it cannot be dedicated. Therefore it is technically impossible for the heirs to bring her purification sacrifice.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate⁷¹By strict talmudic rules only real estate is subject to claims by creditors. The extension of liens to movables is Gaonic, not relevant here. The rule of Mishnah Qiddušin 1:7 creates a lien on the estate only if it contains real estate. Since the woman’s obligation was created at the moment of childbirth, there seems to be no reason why Samuel could limit the obligation., does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables⁷²In the absence of real estate, according to the rule explained in the preceding Note the obligation should be unenforceable even for R. Joḥanan., does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it⁷³The Temple authorities are required to insist on prompt liquidation of all dues to the Temple. The verse (Deut. 23:22) require prompt payment of all vows. By rabbinic interpretation this means before the passing of the next three festivals of pilgrimage. Since there is a time limit, the officers of the Temple are required to ask for the prompt fulfillment of the vow and are entitled to take pledges from the votary to enforce their demand. But since the heirs did not make any vow, the time limit cannot be applied to them and the powers of the Temple officials are limited; for Samuel they are eliminated but not for R. Joḥanan.; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not]⁷⁴There seems to be no justification for the corrector’s addition. According to Samuel, Qiddušin 1:7 declares that a promise to Heaven is the equivalent of a civil contract; if the contract would become unenforceable, so is the obligation to Heaven. According to R. Joḥanan the obligation can be enforced since the equivalent of the sacrifice was Heaven’s property and as such could not be part of the estate. taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.