Ones In Bal Ti-acher

We recently discussed the opinion of the author of the Sefer Ha-aguda who maintains that an אונס ביום האחרון is not a valid אונס. His proof was from the mishna at the end of Arachin. The halacha is that a person who sells his home in a city that was walled from the time of Yehoshua Bin Nun has one year in which he has the right to redeem it  and after which he can no longer do so. When the buyers saw that it was the last day of the year they would hide so that the seller wouldn't be able to find them and they would be able to keep the house forever. Hillel made a decree that the seller could avoid this problem and having to get the FBI involved to find the buyer by simply putting the money in a special chamber and thereby redeem his former home. Asks the Aguda - Why was this decree necessary?? Since he was אנוס in his inability to redeem his home, it should remain his even without a special decree.

AAAHHHH!!!! From here we see that an אונס on the last day is not considered a valid  אונס. Thus, if not for the decree, the house would remain the buyer's.


Rav Amiel [המדות ח"ב עמ' שלב all of the forthcoming is obviously based on my understanding which may be erred - see there for yourself] claims that the Aguda would agree that in the case of בל תאחר [not bringing a korban within 3 regalim] an אונס on the last day would be considered a valid claim of אונס. The reason for this is that in the case of redeeming the home, the reason it becomes the permanent property of the buyer after a year is because the seller refrained from redeeming the field an entire year. How can you claim אונס when you had an entire year [until the אונס at the tail end] to do something?!


In contrast, the prohibition of בל תאחר is only transgressed at the last second of the third regel. The fact that he had the opportunity to bring the korban all year doesn't interest us. What matters is that the aveirah is only being committed at this last second. Since he was אונס at that time, he is off the hook. When a field becomes the seller's permanent property after the year it is NOT because it wasn't redeemed by the seller at the last second of the year but because it was not redeemed by the seller for the entire year. In such an instance the claim of אונס at the last minute is not valid.
.
I believe that Rav Chaim [who we mentioned in the last post] would dispute this assertion. As we said, according to Rav Chaim, there are two types of conditions relating to time. One is where the time frame is just a "book-end" to perform the act. The act must be performed once within that time period, from beginning to end. The other is where the time is part and parcel of the condition and applies every second during the duration of that time frame. In the former instance an אונס at the last second is not considered an אונס because the person had so much time to do the act and shouldn't have waited until the last minute. In the latter instance, since the time frame was part and parcel of the condition and applied every second, if there is an אונס even during the last second, one may claim אונס. The case cited by the Aguda is an example of where the time frame is merely a book-end, circumscribing the time in which the house must be redeemed. Thus, even if there is an אונס on the last day, since he had so much time beforehand to redeem the house, the seller is not considered אונס. So, too, in the case where he made a neder to do something within a certain time period and experienced אונס. [In the case of the get, however, he is essentially saying "If I don't come back every second of the next twelve months then the get should be valid" and we see that there was a time when he desired to return but was prevented from doing so, we rule that the condition was not fulfilled [as he can claim אונס] and the get is invalid.]


It would seem that בל תאחר is in the same category as the house and neder case. He has a book-end of 3 regalim to bring this korban. It is not an act that relates to every second of the year but a one time act. He had all year to do it and not doing it is negligence on is part. The fact that at the last second an אונס occurred is no excuse. R' Amiel's argument is that בל תאחר is a din that applies not to the whole year but only to the last second of the three regalim and therefore an אונס claim would be accepted.
See Minchas Chinuch מצוה תקע"ה and Gvuros Yitzchak of Rav Y. Sorotzkin Rosh Hashana P. 10 .


לרפואת אורה יפה בת חיה מינדל ברכה והצלחה וכל טוב סלה