Beitzah 5

ונתקלקלו הלוים בשיר התקינו שלא יהו מקבלים את העדים אלא עד המנחה

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 minḥa 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.

ואם באו עדים מן המנחה ולמעלה נוהגין אותו היום קדש ולמחר קדש

And if witnesses came from minḥa 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.

אמר רבה מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואילך ביצה מותרת דתנן משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהו מקבלין עדות החדש כל היום

Rabba said: From the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.

אמר ליה אביי והא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו ביצה אסורה אמר ליה אמינא לך אנא רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואת אמרת לי רב ושמואל

Abaye said to him: But didn’t 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 Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, and you say to me a ruling of the amora’im Rav and Shmuel?

ולרב ושמואל קשיא מתניתין לא קשיא הא לן והא להו

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, isn’t 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 Yoḥanan 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.

ורב יוסף אמר אף מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואילך ביצה אסורה מאי טעמא הוי דבר שבמנין וכל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו

And Rav Yosef said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yoḥanan 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.

אמר רב יוסף מנא אמינא לה דכתיב לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואומר במשך היבל המה יעלו בהר

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say my opinion? As it is written, after the Jews received the Torah: “Go, say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:26), where “your tents” is referring to your wives. And it says, before the revelation at Sinai: “When the ram’s horn sounds long, they may come up to the mount” (Exodus 19:13). And it is stated: “Be ready for the third day, do not come near a woman” (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.

(ותניא) כרם רבעי היה עולה לירושלים מהלך יום אחד לכל צד וזו היא תחומה (עלת) מן (הצפון) ועקרבת מן (הדרום) לוד מן המערב וירדן מן המזרח

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’s 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.

ואמר עולא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מה טעם כדי לעטר שוקי ירושלים בפירות

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

ותניא כרם רבעי היה לו לרבי אליעזר במזרח לוד בצד כפר טבי

And it was further taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a student of Rabban Yoḥanan 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,

ובקש להפקירו לעניים אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כבר נמנו עליך חבריך והתירוהו מאן חבריך רבן יוחנן בן זכאי

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 Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

טעמא דנמנו הא לא נמנו לא

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.

מאי ואומר הכי קאמר מכדי כתיב היו נכונים לשלשת ימים אל תגשו אל אשה לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם למה לי שמע מינה כל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו

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: “Be ready for the third day, do not come near a woman” (Exodus 19:15), why do I need the verse “Go, say to them: Return to your tents” (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.

וכי תימא למצות עונה הוא דאתא תא שמע במשך היבל המה יעלו בהר

And if you say an alternative explanation, that the instruction to “return to your tents” 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: “When the ram’s horn sounds long, they may come up to the mount” (Exodus 19:13).

מכדי כתיב גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר ההוא במשך היבל למה לי שמע מינה דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו

Now since it is written: “Neither shall the flocks nor the herds feed before that mount” (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 “When the ram’s horn sounds long”? Why is a special signal required? Conclude from this that any matter established by a vote requires another vote to permit it.

וכי תימא הני מילי בדאורייתא אבל בדרבנן לא תא שמע כרם רבעי והא כרם רבעי דרבנן וקאמרי ליה כבר נמנו עליך חבריך והתירוהו

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.

וכי תימא ביצה נמי אמנו עלה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ושריוה כי אמנו אעדות אביצה לא אמנו

And if you say: In the case of the prohibition of an egg also, Rabban Yoḥanan 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.

אמר ליה אביי אטו ביצה במנין מי הואי ביצה בעדות תליא מלתא אתסר עדות אתסר ביצה אשתרי עדות אשתרי ביצה

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’t 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’s observation is therefore incorrect.

רב אדא ורב שלמן תרוייהו מבי כלוחית אמרי אף מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואילך ביצה אסורה מאי טעמא מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא אכלנו ביצה ביום טוב שני השתא נמי ניכול ולא ידעי דאשתקד שתי קדושות הן והשתא קדושה אחת היא

Rav Adda and Rav Shalman, who both came from Bei Keloḥit, said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yoḥanan 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 minḥa time will be restored, and people will say: Last year, didn’t 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.

אי הכי עדות נמי לא נקבל מאי טעמא מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא קבלנו עדות החדש כל היום כולו השתא נמי נקבל

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’t we accept testimony to determine the start of the month all day? Now, too, we will accept the testimony of witnesses even after minḥa time.

הכי השתא התם עדות מסורה לבית דין ביצה לכל מסורה

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.

רבא אמר אף מתקנת רבן יוחנן בן זכאי ואילך ביצה אסורה מי לא מודה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שאם באו עדים מן המנחה ולמעלה שנוהגין אותו היום קדש ולמחר קדש

Rava said: Even from the time of the ordinance of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and onward, an egg remains prohibited. Rava explained his reasoning: Doesn’t Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai concede that if witnesses came from minḥa 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 Yoḥanan ben Zakkai the new year was counted from the first day.

ואמר רבא הלכתא כותיה דרב בהני תלת בין לקולא בין לחומרא

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.