Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2021 | 讻状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Beitzah 5

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored anonymously for the yahrzeit of Shaul ben Kish, Shaul Hamelech and Gershon Chaim Alter ben Shaul George Rosenberg, Rhona Plunka鈥檚 father.

An egg laid on the first day of Rosh Hashanah – is it permitted on the second day? Are two days of Rosh Hashanah one sanctity or two? Rav and Shmuel forbid the egg. To their understanding, because they kept instituted in the time of the Temple that they would not accept witnesses after the mincha offering was brought, two days of Rosh Hashanah became one long holiday 鈥 one sanctity. If so, an egg born on the first day would be forbidden on the second. Rabba disagrees and points out that after the ordinance of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, after the destruction, that witnesses will be received after mincha, it became a matter of doubt again and an egg born on the first day would be permitted on the second. The Gemara bring three more opinions – of Rav Yosef, Rabbi Ada and Rabbi Shalman, and Rava who all hold that despite the change of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the egg is still forbidden. According to Rav Yosef, something determined by a vote of the Rabbis needs a new vote to repeal it and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai changed the matter of setting the date but not the issue of the egg. From where does Rav Yosef prove this issue about repealing? Rav Ada and Rav Shalman forbid the egg because of concern the when the Temple will soon be built and we will return to the previous regulation that we do not accept witnesses from mincha, then again two days of Rosh Hashanah will be one sanctity and people will err and think that the egg is still allowed as it was the year before. Rava forbids because Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai only amended his regulation regarding determining the date but still the first regulation remains that they kept two days as was practiced in the time of the Temple. Raba stated that we rule like Rav in three cases regarding an egg and one of them is in the above case, that an egg laid on the first day of Rosh Hashana is forbidden on the second day.

讜谞转拽诇拽诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐 讘砖讬专 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬诐 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 注讚 讛诪谞讞讛

and the Levites erred in the song. They were unsure whether to sing the weekday song or that of Rosh HaShana during the sacrifice of the afternoon daily offering, as it was unclear whether or not witnesses would arrive that day. From that point on, the court instituted that they would accept witnesses who came to testify that that day was Rosh HaShana only up to min岣 time, i.e., when the daily afternoon offering was sacrificed. If witnesses had not arrived by then, they would declare Elul a thirty-day month and calculate the dates of the Festivals accordingly.

讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖

And if witnesses came from min岣 time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the Festivals began only from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day on which the witnesses arrived as sacred, and they would also observe the following day as sacred. On the second day, they observed Rosh HaShana in full, both by sacrificing its offerings as well as calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date. It is evident that the observance of two days of Rosh HaShana did not stem from uncertainty in the Diaspora as to when the Festival began. Rather, the Sages instituted that the two days of Rosh HaShana are one unit due to the inherent difficulty in determining the date of a Festival that is celebrated on the first of the month.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转 讚转谞谉 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐

Rabba said: From the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai onward, an egg laid on one day of Rosh HaShana is permitted on the other. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 30b): After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the court should once again accept testimony to determine the start of the month all day. Since the concern about errors was no longer relevant, they reverted to the original custom. As the court was aware of the exact date based on the testimony of the witnesses, those in proximity to the court kept only one day of Rosh HaShana. Those who lived far from the court observed two days merely due to uncertainty, and as one of those days was certainly a weekday, an egg laid on the first day was permitted on the second.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗谞讗 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇

Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say that an egg is prohibited? Rabba said to him: Your question is out of place; I say to you a statement in the name of the distinguished tanna Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, and you say to me a ruling of the amora鈥檌m Rav and Shmuel?

讜诇专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, isn鈥檛 it true that the mishna is difficult, as it indicates that the special status of Rosh HaShana has been revoked? The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This ruling is for us, those who live outside of Eretz Yisrael, who have kept the ancient custom of observing two Festival days, and therefore Rosh HaShana is still considered one long day and constitute a single sanctity. Conversely, that ruling of the mishna is for them, the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael. Since Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the court should once again accept testimony all day concerning the new moon, then even if circumstances dictate that Rosh HaShana would be observed for two days, each day is considered an independent sanctity.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪谞讬谉 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

And Rav Yosef said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai onward, an egg remains prohibited. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Yosef? It is that the decree prohibiting an egg laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana on the second day of Rosh HaShana is a matter that was established by a vote of the Sanhedrin, after that occasion on which the witnesses failed to arrive on time, and any matter that was established by a vote requires another vote to permit it. A new vote must be taken to render the prohibited item permitted, as the prohibition does not lapse even if the reason for the decree no longer applies.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讱 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 砖讜讘讜 诇讻诐 诇讗讛诇讬讻诐 讜讗讜诪专 讘诪砖讱 讛讬讘诇 讛诪讛 讬注诇讜 讘讛专

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say my opinion? As it is written, after the Jews received the Torah: 鈥淕o, say to them: Return to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:26), where 鈥測our tents鈥 is referring to your wives. And it says, before the revelation at Sinai: 鈥淲hen the ram鈥檚 horn sounds long, they may come up to the mount鈥 (Exodus 19:13). And it is stated: 鈥淏e ready for the third day, do not come near a woman鈥 (Exodus 19:15). In other words, although the original prohibition served a particular purpose, in this case the giving of the Torah, it was nevertheless necessary to explicitly render the prohibition permitted.

(讜转谞讬讗) 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讻诇 爪讚 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 转讞讜诪讛 (注诇转) 诪谉 (讛爪驻讜谉) 讜注拽专讘转 诪谉 (讛讚专讜诐) 诇讜讚 诪谉 讛诪注专讘 讜讬专讚谉 诪谉 讛诪讝专讞

And this idea was likewise taught in a baraita: The fruit of a fourth-year grapevine have the status of second-tithe fruits, and therefore their owner would ascend to Jerusalem and eat them there. If he was unable to do so, due to the distance involved or the weight of the load, he could redeem the fruits with money where he was, and later redeem that money for other fruits in Jerusalem. However, the Sages decreed that fruit from the environs of Jerusalem should not be redeemed, but that the owners should bring the fruit itself to Jerusalem. The environs of Jerusalem for this purpose were defined as a day鈥檚 walk in each direction. And this is its boundary: Eilat to the north; Akrabat to the south; Lod to the west; and the Jordan to the east.

讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讻讚讬 诇注讟专 砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘驻讬专讜转

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: For what reason did the Sages institute this ordinance, that someone who lived near Jerusalem must bring his fruit there? In order to adorn the markets of Jerusalem with fruit, as this decree ensured that there was always an abundance of fruit in Jerusalem for people to eat.

讜转谞讬讗 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘诪讝专讞 诇讜讚 讘爪讚 讻驻专 讟讘讬

And it was further taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a student of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, had a fourth-year grapevine located between Lod and Jerusalem, to the east of Lod alongside the village of Tavi. The grapevine was within the environs of Jerusalem for the purpose of this halakha. Rabbi Eliezer could not bring the fruit to the Temple, as it had been destroyed,

讜讘拽砖 诇讛驻拽讬专讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻讘专 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讱 讞讘专讬讱 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜 诪讗谉 讞讘专讬讱 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬

and he sought to render the fruit ownerless in favor of the poor, for whom it would be worth the effort to bring the fruit to Jerusalem. His students said to him: Rabbi, there is no need to do so, as your colleagues have already voted for you and permitted it. The members of the Sanhedrin have already taken a vote and permitted the redemption of the fruit of a fourth-year grapevine even near Jerusalem. The reason is that after the destruction of the Temple there is no need to adorn the markets of Jerusalem. The Gemara explains: Who are: Your colleagues? This is referring to Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai.

讟注诪讗 讚谞诪谞讜 讛讗 诇讗 谞诪谞讜 诇讗

The Gemara infers from the baraita: The reason is that they explicitly voted to annul the decree, which indicates that if they had not voted, the ordinance would not have lapsed on its own, despite the fact that its justification was no longer applicable. Similarly, the prohibition of a laid egg is not nullified, as it was never explicitly permitted.

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讛讬讜 谞讻讜谞讬诐 诇砖诇砖转 讬诪讬诐 讗诇 转讙砖讜 讗诇 讗砖讛 诇讱 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 砖讜讘讜 诇讻诐 诇讗讛诇讬讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪谞讬谉 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

The Gemara to seeks to clarify why Rav Yosef cited two verses as proof. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for: And it says? Why does Rav Yosef find it necessary to quote a second verse? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying. Now since it is written: 鈥淏e ready for the third day, do not come near a woman鈥 (Exodus 19:15), why do I need the verse 鈥淕o, say to them: Return to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:26)? After three days the prohibition would lapse in any case. Conclude from this that any matter established by a vote requires another vote to permit it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇诪爪讜转 注讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘诪砖讱 讛讬讘诇 讛诪讛 讬注诇讜 讘讛专

And if you say an alternative explanation, that the instruction to 鈥渞eturn to your tents鈥 was not given to permit the men to return home to their wives, but rather it came as a special command to fulfill the mitzva of conjugal rights, i.e., the obligation of a man to engage in periodic marital relations with his wife, then it was to refute this possibility that Rav Yosef continued: Come and hear a different proof from another verse: 鈥淲hen the ram鈥檚 horn sounds long, they may come up to the mount鈥 (Exodus 19:13).

诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讙诐 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讘拽专 讗诇 讬专注讜 讗诇 诪讜诇 讛讛专 讛讛讜讗 讘诪砖讱 讛讬讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪谞讬谉 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

Now since it is written: 鈥淣either shall the flocks nor the herds feed before that mount鈥 (Exodus 34:3), this indicates that the prohibition applies only when the Divine Presence is revealed on the mountain, and it is permitted immediately afterward. If so, why do I need the verse 鈥淲hen the ram鈥檚 horn sounds long鈥? Why is a special signal required? Conclude from this that any matter established by a vote requires another vote to permit it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讜讛讗 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讘专 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讱 讞讘专讬讱 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

And if you say: That statement, that a specific vote is necessary, applies only to matters prohibited by Torah law, but in the case of a matter prohibited by rabbinic law, no, this halakha does not apply, come and hear the baraita concerning a fourth-year grapevine. The halakha that the fruit of a fourth-year grapevine must be brought to Jerusalem and may not be redeemed is by rabbinic law, and they nevertheless said to Rabbi Eliezer: Your colleagues have already voted for you and permitted it. This indicates that without a vote, the prohibition would not be abrogated.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讗诪谞讜 注诇讛 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜砖专讬讜讛 讻讬 讗诪谞讜 讗注讚讜转 讗讘讬爪讛 诇讗 讗诪谞讜

And if you say: In the case of the prohibition of an egg also, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai took a vote on it and permitted it; the Gemara answers: When they took a vote, it was with regard to testimony to determine the start of the month; they did not take a vote to annul the prohibition of an egg.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讘讬爪讛 讘诪谞讬谉 诪讬 讛讜讗讬 讘讬爪讛 讘注讚讜转 转诇讬讗 诪诇转讗 讗转住专 注讚讜转 讗转住专 讘讬爪讛 讗砖转专讬 注讚讜转 讗砖转专讬 讘讬爪讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that an egg was prohibited by a vote? Did the court take a special vote to render prohibited an egg laid on Rosh HaShana? Isn鈥檛 the halakha of an egg dependent on the matter of testimony? When testimony in the late afternoon was prohibited, the eating of an egg laid on Rosh HaShana was thereby prohibited as well, and when this testimony was permitted, the eating of an egg was automatically permitted. Rav Yosef鈥檚 observation is therefore incorrect.

专讘 讗讚讗 讜专讘 砖诇诪谉 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讘讬 讻诇讜讞讬转 讗诪专讬 讗祝 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 讘讬爪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜讛砖转讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

Rav Adda and Rav Shalman, who both came from Bei Kelo岣t, said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai and onward, an egg remains prohibited. What is the reason? May the Temple speedily be built, and the ordinance that testimony is accepted only until min岣 time will be restored, and people will say: Last year, didn鈥檛 we eat an egg laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana on the following day, the second Festival day of Rosh HaShana? Now, too, we will eat it, like last year. And they will not know the significant difference in halakha between the two cases, as last year the two days of Rosh HaShana were two sanctities, and now they are one long sanctity.

讗讬 讛讻讬 注讚讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞拽讘诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 拽讘诇谞讜 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞拽讘诇

The Gemara challenges this: If so, that this is the concern, we also should not accept testimony nowadays. What is the reason? May the Temple speedily be built, and the people will say: Last year, didn鈥檛 we accept testimony to determine the start of the month all day? Now, too, we will accept the testimony of witnesses even after min岣 time.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 注讚讜转 诪住讜专讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬爪讛 诇讻诇 诪住讜专讛

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to witnesses, testimony is entrusted to the court, and the court is capable of distinguishing between the reasons for decrees. An egg, however, is entrusted to all, and as not all people will consult a Sage about the status of their eggs, there is a legitimate concern about error.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖

Rava said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai and onward, an egg remains prohibited. Rava explained his reasoning: Doesn鈥檛 Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai concede that if witnesses came from min岣 time and onward, even after the destruction of the Temple, then one observes that day as a holy day and also the following day as a holy day? The only difference is that during the time of the Temple any testimony delivered on the first day was not taken into account at all, which meant the second day was considered the first of the new year, whereas during the time of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai the new year was counted from the first day.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

As far as the sanctity of the Festival is concerned, however, the second day was also treated as sacred, which proves that when two days were observed in Eretz Yisrael, they were considered a single sanctity rather than two. And Rava said in summary: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in these three cases, whether the ruling is lenient, or whether the ruling is stringent.

Masechet Beitzah is dedicated by new friends of Hadran in appreciation of all who find new ways to be marbitzei Torah ba-Rabim ve Rabot.

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Rabbi Lisa Malik in honor of her daughter, Rivkah Wyner, who recently made aliyah, and in memory of Rivkah's namesake, Lisa's grandmother, Regina Post z"l, a Holocaust survivor from Lubaczow, Poland who lived in Brooklyn, NY.

And for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Beitzah 2-6 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This Masechet will be dealing with laws pertaining to the Festivals. In particular, we will be learning about permissible food...
alon shvut women

One or Two days RH

Beitza 5 Thoughts By Susan Suna Rava鈥檚 rules that even after the Takana of Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai, that he...

Beitzah 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Beitzah 5

讜谞转拽诇拽诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐 讘砖讬专 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬诐 讗转 讛注讚讬诐 讗诇讗 注讚 讛诪谞讞讛

and the Levites erred in the song. They were unsure whether to sing the weekday song or that of Rosh HaShana during the sacrifice of the afternoon daily offering, as it was unclear whether or not witnesses would arrive that day. From that point on, the court instituted that they would accept witnesses who came to testify that that day was Rosh HaShana only up to min岣 time, i.e., when the daily afternoon offering was sacrificed. If witnesses had not arrived by then, they would declare Elul a thirty-day month and calculate the dates of the Festivals accordingly.

讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖

And if witnesses came from min岣 time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the Festivals began only from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day on which the witnesses arrived as sacred, and they would also observe the following day as sacred. On the second day, they observed Rosh HaShana in full, both by sacrificing its offerings as well as calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date. It is evident that the observance of two days of Rosh HaShana did not stem from uncertainty in the Diaspora as to when the Festival began. Rather, the Sages instituted that the two days of Rosh HaShana are one unit due to the inherent difficulty in determining the date of a Festival that is celebrated on the first of the month.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 诪讜转专转 讚转谞谉 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐

Rabba said: From the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai onward, an egg laid on one day of Rosh HaShana is permitted on the other. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 30b): After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the court should once again accept testimony to determine the start of the month all day. Since the concern about errors was no longer relevant, they reverted to the original custom. As the court was aware of the exact date based on the testimony of the witnesses, those in proximity to the court kept only one day of Rosh HaShana. Those who lived far from the court observed two days merely due to uncertainty, and as one of those days was certainly a weekday, an egg laid on the first day was permitted on the second.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗谞讗 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇

Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 Rav and Shmuel both say that an egg is prohibited? Rabba said to him: Your question is out of place; I say to you a statement in the name of the distinguished tanna Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, and you say to me a ruling of the amora鈥檌m Rav and Shmuel?

讜诇专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, isn鈥檛 it true that the mishna is difficult, as it indicates that the special status of Rosh HaShana has been revoked? The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This ruling is for us, those who live outside of Eretz Yisrael, who have kept the ancient custom of observing two Festival days, and therefore Rosh HaShana is still considered one long day and constitute a single sanctity. Conversely, that ruling of the mishna is for them, the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael. Since Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the court should once again accept testimony all day concerning the new moon, then even if circumstances dictate that Rosh HaShana would be observed for two days, each day is considered an independent sanctity.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讬 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪谞讬谉 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

And Rav Yosef said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai onward, an egg remains prohibited. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav Yosef? It is that the decree prohibiting an egg laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana on the second day of Rosh HaShana is a matter that was established by a vote of the Sanhedrin, after that occasion on which the witnesses failed to arrive on time, and any matter that was established by a vote requires another vote to permit it. A new vote must be taken to render the prohibited item permitted, as the prohibition does not lapse even if the reason for the decree no longer applies.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讱 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 砖讜讘讜 诇讻诐 诇讗讛诇讬讻诐 讜讗讜诪专 讘诪砖讱 讛讬讘诇 讛诪讛 讬注诇讜 讘讛专

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say my opinion? As it is written, after the Jews received the Torah: 鈥淕o, say to them: Return to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:26), where 鈥測our tents鈥 is referring to your wives. And it says, before the revelation at Sinai: 鈥淲hen the ram鈥檚 horn sounds long, they may come up to the mount鈥 (Exodus 19:13). And it is stated: 鈥淏e ready for the third day, do not come near a woman鈥 (Exodus 19:15). In other words, although the original prohibition served a particular purpose, in this case the giving of the Torah, it was nevertheless necessary to explicitly render the prohibition permitted.

(讜转谞讬讗) 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讛诇讱 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇讻诇 爪讚 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 转讞讜诪讛 (注诇转) 诪谉 (讛爪驻讜谉) 讜注拽专讘转 诪谉 (讛讚专讜诐) 诇讜讚 诪谉 讛诪注专讘 讜讬专讚谉 诪谉 讛诪讝专讞

And this idea was likewise taught in a baraita: The fruit of a fourth-year grapevine have the status of second-tithe fruits, and therefore their owner would ascend to Jerusalem and eat them there. If he was unable to do so, due to the distance involved or the weight of the load, he could redeem the fruits with money where he was, and later redeem that money for other fruits in Jerusalem. However, the Sages decreed that fruit from the environs of Jerusalem should not be redeemed, but that the owners should bring the fruit itself to Jerusalem. The environs of Jerusalem for this purpose were defined as a day鈥檚 walk in each direction. And this is its boundary: Eilat to the north; Akrabat to the south; Lod to the west; and the Jordan to the east.

讜讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讛 讟注诐 讻讚讬 诇注讟专 砖讜拽讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘驻讬专讜转

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: For what reason did the Sages institute this ordinance, that someone who lived near Jerusalem must bring his fruit there? In order to adorn the markets of Jerusalem with fruit, as this decree ensured that there was always an abundance of fruit in Jerusalem for people to eat.

讜转谞讬讗 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘诪讝专讞 诇讜讚 讘爪讚 讻驻专 讟讘讬

And it was further taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a student of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai, had a fourth-year grapevine located between Lod and Jerusalem, to the east of Lod alongside the village of Tavi. The grapevine was within the environs of Jerusalem for the purpose of this halakha. Rabbi Eliezer could not bring the fruit to the Temple, as it had been destroyed,

讜讘拽砖 诇讛驻拽讬专讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬讜 专讘讬 讻讘专 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讱 讞讘专讬讱 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜 诪讗谉 讞讘专讬讱 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬

and he sought to render the fruit ownerless in favor of the poor, for whom it would be worth the effort to bring the fruit to Jerusalem. His students said to him: Rabbi, there is no need to do so, as your colleagues have already voted for you and permitted it. The members of the Sanhedrin have already taken a vote and permitted the redemption of the fruit of a fourth-year grapevine even near Jerusalem. The reason is that after the destruction of the Temple there is no need to adorn the markets of Jerusalem. The Gemara explains: Who are: Your colleagues? This is referring to Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai.

讟注诪讗 讚谞诪谞讜 讛讗 诇讗 谞诪谞讜 诇讗

The Gemara infers from the baraita: The reason is that they explicitly voted to annul the decree, which indicates that if they had not voted, the ordinance would not have lapsed on its own, despite the fact that its justification was no longer applicable. Similarly, the prohibition of a laid egg is not nullified, as it was never explicitly permitted.

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讛讬讜 谞讻讜谞讬诐 诇砖诇砖转 讬诪讬诐 讗诇 转讙砖讜 讗诇 讗砖讛 诇讱 讗诪讜专 诇讛诐 砖讜讘讜 诇讻诐 诇讗讛诇讬讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪谞讬谉 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

The Gemara to seeks to clarify why Rav Yosef cited two verses as proof. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for: And it says? Why does Rav Yosef find it necessary to quote a second verse? The Gemara explains that this is what he is saying. Now since it is written: 鈥淏e ready for the third day, do not come near a woman鈥 (Exodus 19:15), why do I need the verse 鈥淕o, say to them: Return to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 5:26)? After three days the prohibition would lapse in any case. Conclude from this that any matter established by a vote requires another vote to permit it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇诪爪讜转 注讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 转讗 砖诪注 讘诪砖讱 讛讬讘诇 讛诪讛 讬注诇讜 讘讛专

And if you say an alternative explanation, that the instruction to 鈥渞eturn to your tents鈥 was not given to permit the men to return home to their wives, but rather it came as a special command to fulfill the mitzva of conjugal rights, i.e., the obligation of a man to engage in periodic marital relations with his wife, then it was to refute this possibility that Rav Yosef continued: Come and hear a different proof from another verse: 鈥淲hen the ram鈥檚 horn sounds long, they may come up to the mount鈥 (Exodus 19:13).

诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讙诐 讛爪讗谉 讜讛讘拽专 讗诇 讬专注讜 讗诇 诪讜诇 讛讛专 讛讛讜讗 讘诪砖讱 讛讬讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讘专 砖讘诪谞讬谉 爪专讬讱 诪谞讬谉 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

Now since it is written: 鈥淣either shall the flocks nor the herds feed before that mount鈥 (Exodus 34:3), this indicates that the prohibition applies only when the Divine Presence is revealed on the mountain, and it is permitted immediately afterward. If so, why do I need the verse 鈥淲hen the ram鈥檚 horn sounds long鈥? Why is a special signal required? Conclude from this that any matter established by a vote requires another vote to permit it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讘诇 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讜讛讗 讻专诐 专讘注讬 讚专讘谞谉 讜拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讻讘专 谞诪谞讜 注诇讬讱 讞讘专讬讱 讜讛转讬专讜讛讜

And if you say: That statement, that a specific vote is necessary, applies only to matters prohibited by Torah law, but in the case of a matter prohibited by rabbinic law, no, this halakha does not apply, come and hear the baraita concerning a fourth-year grapevine. The halakha that the fruit of a fourth-year grapevine must be brought to Jerusalem and may not be redeemed is by rabbinic law, and they nevertheless said to Rabbi Eliezer: Your colleagues have already voted for you and permitted it. This indicates that without a vote, the prohibition would not be abrogated.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讘讬爪讛 谞诪讬 讗诪谞讜 注诇讛 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜砖专讬讜讛 讻讬 讗诪谞讜 讗注讚讜转 讗讘讬爪讛 诇讗 讗诪谞讜

And if you say: In the case of the prohibition of an egg also, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai took a vote on it and permitted it; the Gemara answers: When they took a vote, it was with regard to testimony to determine the start of the month; they did not take a vote to annul the prohibition of an egg.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讘讬爪讛 讘诪谞讬谉 诪讬 讛讜讗讬 讘讬爪讛 讘注讚讜转 转诇讬讗 诪诇转讗 讗转住专 注讚讜转 讗转住专 讘讬爪讛 讗砖转专讬 注讚讜转 讗砖转专讬 讘讬爪讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that to say that an egg was prohibited by a vote? Did the court take a special vote to render prohibited an egg laid on Rosh HaShana? Isn鈥檛 the halakha of an egg dependent on the matter of testimony? When testimony in the late afternoon was prohibited, the eating of an egg laid on Rosh HaShana was thereby prohibited as well, and when this testimony was permitted, the eating of an egg was automatically permitted. Rav Yosef鈥檚 observation is therefore incorrect.

专讘 讗讚讗 讜专讘 砖诇诪谉 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讘讬 讻诇讜讞讬转 讗诪专讬 讗祝 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 讘讬爪讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讛谉 讜讛砖转讗 拽讚讜砖讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗

Rav Adda and Rav Shalman, who both came from Bei Kelo岣t, said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai and onward, an egg remains prohibited. What is the reason? May the Temple speedily be built, and the ordinance that testimony is accepted only until min岣 time will be restored, and people will say: Last year, didn鈥檛 we eat an egg laid on the first day of Rosh HaShana on the following day, the second Festival day of Rosh HaShana? Now, too, we will eat it, like last year. And they will not know the significant difference in halakha between the two cases, as last year the two days of Rosh HaShana were two sanctities, and now they are one long sanctity.

讗讬 讛讻讬 注讚讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 谞拽讘诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 拽讘诇谞讜 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞拽讘诇

The Gemara challenges this: If so, that this is the concern, we also should not accept testimony nowadays. What is the reason? May the Temple speedily be built, and the people will say: Last year, didn鈥檛 we accept testimony to determine the start of the month all day? Now, too, we will accept the testimony of witnesses even after min岣 time.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 注讚讜转 诪住讜专讛 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬爪讛 诇讻诇 诪住讜专讛

The Gemara rejects this challenge: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to witnesses, testimony is entrusted to the court, and the court is capable of distinguishing between the reasons for decrees. An egg, however, is entrusted to all, and as not all people will consult a Sage about the status of their eggs, there is a legitimate concern about error.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗祝 诪转拽谞转 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讜讗讬诇讱 讘讬爪讛 讗住讜专讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 诪谉 讛诪谞讞讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 拽讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 拽讚砖

Rava said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai and onward, an egg remains prohibited. Rava explained his reasoning: Doesn鈥檛 Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai concede that if witnesses came from min岣 time and onward, even after the destruction of the Temple, then one observes that day as a holy day and also the following day as a holy day? The only difference is that during the time of the Temple any testimony delivered on the first day was not taken into account at all, which meant the second day was considered the first of the new year, whereas during the time of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai the new year was counted from the first day.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘讛谞讬 转诇转 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

As far as the sanctity of the Festival is concerned, however, the second day was also treated as sacred, which proves that when two days were observed in Eretz Yisrael, they were considered a single sanctity rather than two. And Rava said in summary: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in these three cases, whether the ruling is lenient, or whether the ruling is stringent.

Scroll To Top