English translation — כ' אב

A.

One has already many times spoken¹

about the day of "Twenty Av",

that this is one of the nine times of "the wood-offering of the priests and the people"²,

as the Gemara³

relates,

"When the exiles ascended they found no wood in the chamber" certain families donated wood for the altar "from their own".

And therefore it was instituted,

that each of the families should have that day annually - for bringing wood for the arrangement,

and one should use their wood for the altar "even if the chamber is full of wood"; that day was for them a holiday and they brought then also a "wood-offering"⁴.

When one of the times - for example: Twenty Av - occurs on Shabbat,

when one cannot offer the wood-offering

(because it does not override Shabbat)

- it states in the Mishnah⁵

that "they postpone and do not advance"; and so is also the law in other cases,

as the Mishnah enumerates

There it says "Tisha B'Av, Chagigah, and Hakhel"⁶.

Regarding the last enumerated cases, the Gemara⁵

explains why "they delay and do not advance" — "Tisha B'Av: we do not advance calamity,

Chagigah and Hakhel: because the time of their obligation has not yet arrived"; but regarding the wood of the priests and the people, the Gemara does not state any reason⁷.

one finds in this a change

(and seemingly — a contradiction)

between Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud and Rashi’s commentary to the Rif<sup>8</sup>

In the Gemara Rashi explains: “The time of their obligation has not yet arrived,

and if they perform it early they will not fulfill their obligation <b>and likewise </b>the wood of the priests, which has a fixed time fixed in Nedarim.”

That is,

that also by the wood of the priests the reason is because “the time of their obligation has not yet arrived”<sup>9</sup>.

But in Rashi on the Rif it states,

that "they delay until after Shabbos because the entire day of Erev Shabbos is time for bringing wood until now and they do not want them to enter at their time

to bring wood and the wood-offering while the time of the earlier ones is still to bring"¹⁰

(and therefore the Gemara does not need to state regarding "the time of the wood-offering of the priests and the people" the reason why "they delay and do not advance" - because here it is a "simple matter",

for the aforementioned reason).

And according to this reason it turns out,

that if the one who brings wood until now had not required that another family bring wood and the wood-offering in his time,

one would have been able to advance the wood-offering to before Shabbos,

even though "the time of their obligation has not yet arrived"¹¹.

B.

The practical difference between the two explanations of Rashi — whether in this case one says "they do not advance" because "the time of their obligation has not yet arrived" or not — also pertains to other matters:

In the Yerushalmi¹²

there is a dispute among Amoraim,

whether a charity collector needs to lend money when "there is nothing in the pocket" for a needy poor person

(and pay it from the charity funds that will come in later).

Says the Rogatchover¹³,

that the reason of the one who says in "one may borrow" is connected with Rashi¹⁴

to the aforementioned Talmud,

where one sees that "one who says he will bring a sacrifice for a certain time, if he brought it earlier he has not fulfilled his obligation" - and similarly in the above matter of charity:

That which the charity collector may not lend

(when there is nothing in the pocket)

is,

because one may not use the charity money that one will <b>later</b> pledge

(and receive)

to pay off the debt from <b>earlier</b>,

because then it will turn out that "the charity was fulfilled before the time of the fixed vow"¹⁵

- the commandment of charity was performed before the time that the giver fixes and vows the money for charity,

and consequently, with the paying off of the earlier debt - the person does not fulfill his vow for charity.

According to this, it turns out,

that according to Rashi for the Rif - that were it not for this that the earlier family does not want "that they should enter at their time",

one <b>would have been permitted</b> to bring forward the wood-offering

(even though this is "before the time of the fixed vow" - "the time of their obligation has not arrived")

- the aforementioned reason of the one who says "one does not say ..

to lend" falls away.

3.

will one understand this with an introduction of a difficulty in Rashi on the Rif mentioned above - that one does not bring forward the wood-offering to before Shabbos because this is the time of the "one who brings wood until now <b>and they do not want</b>

that they should enter at their time" - which at first glance is not understood:

What is relevant here the will of the previous family - the fixed time of the wood-offering was established by the prophets¹⁶

(the opinion of <b>the court</b>),

and whether there is a place to bring forward the wood-offering to erev Shabbos,

should one not take into account the will of the previous family?

4.

And one must explain,

that the two explanations of Rashi are not contradictory to each other,

but rather on the contrary - one complements the other,

and with an introduction:

The obligation of the families in the "time of the wood of the priests and the people" in bringing the wood-offering is from the law of a vow¹⁷,

that by a vow one must reckon as it was the intention of the vower¹⁸

at the time he made the vow.

And since it is a common thing and especially that one or several of the nine times fall on Shabbos¹⁹

- certainly the donors had from the outset

In the opinion²⁰

When it should be the offering of the sacrifice when it falls on Shabbat - earlier or later.

And this is what the commentary of Rashi on the Rif adds explanation in this commentary of Rashi on the Talmud²¹

: That which the time of the wood-offering of the priests and the people is "not yet has the time of their obligation arrived" is it not

(Rather)

Because it is before the day of <b>Shabbat</b>

(The time of obligation of the other years),

Rather in this case the "time of their obligation" begins only <b>after</b> Shabbat.

Because since the previous family does not want "that they should enter at their time",

Is the intention of the vower

(The later family)

From the outset was²²

That when his time will fall on Shabbat,

One should bring the wood-offering <b>after</b> Shabbat,

(Because of the greatness of peace and especially in matters of the altar and sacrifice²³).

(And on the contrary - were it not that the previous family is not satisfied "that they should enter at their time",

it is plausible to say that the intention of the vower would have been that they should specifically <b>advance</b> their wood-offering - to erev Shabbos,

because:

(a)

"A commandment that comes to your hand do not let it become stale"²⁴.

(b)

If you say that the use of their <b>wood</b>

(for the communal offering)

was at its time

(on the twentieth of Av

(and the like))

even when it falls on Shabbos²⁵,

it turns out,

that when they postpone

the wood-offering until after Shabbos,

a day passes during which they do not thank the Almighty for the merit of bringing the wood).

And therefore the case is a "simple matter" that "they delay and do not advance"

(and the Gemara does not need to prove it at all,

as above section a)

- even when the previous family is once in agreement that they should bring it at their time - because that which here is "the time of their obligation has not yet arrived" is because the obligation

(- the mind of the vower)

is from the outset for - delaying.

And based on this, in my humble opinion there is also no proof from this law to the dispute whether we say to borrow

(as the Rogatchover says,

as above section b)

- because that which "they do not advance" in our case,

is because the mind of the vower is from the outset to delay,

one cannot learn from there regarding another case,

when the vower did not take into consideration an unusual thing

(as such)

- repayment of a debt from his money - whether one may do the charity "before the time of the fixed vow"²⁶.

5.

From this also emerges regarding a yahrtzeit that falls on Shabbos,

that one is accustomed to give charity on the day of the yahrtzeit

(and regarding this there is the custom in several places to fast on the day of the yahrtzeit²⁷)

- that this is indeed a matter of a vow²⁸

- one can ponder²⁹,

whether one should advance it to erev Shabbos,

or postpone it to Sunday.

According to the aforementioned Rogatchover it would seemingly have to come out,

that one must postpone it³⁰

until after the time of "fixing of the vow"³¹.

According to what is explained above, however, it is understandable,

that since one knows from the outset that the yahrtzeit will fall

(in several years)

on the day of Shabbos,

the vow is from the outset³²

in a manner that is closer to the teaching of Chazal that "a mitzvah that comes to your hand, do not let it become stale"²⁴,

that one should <b>advance</b> the giving of the charity to erev Shabbos,

be one who advances to a matter of mitzvah³³.

20th Menachem Av,

5727)