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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 27, 2014 | 讻状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讚

Masechet Rosh Hashanah is dedicated anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

  • 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.

Rosh Hashanah 19

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 19


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讗转 砖诇驻谞讬讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if this was at the time that the Temple was standing, derive the prohibition against fasting on the third of Tishrei from the fact that it is the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed. During the time of the Temple the biblical fast days were celebrated as days of joy. Rav said: It was only necessary to include the third of Tishrei in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit in order to prohibit fasting on the preceding day as well. Fasting was forbidden not only on the actual days listed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, but also on the preceding day and the following day.

砖诇驻谞讬讜 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专 专讗砖 讞讚砖 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽

The Gemara raises another difficulty: With regard to the prohibition against fasting on the preceding day, the second of Tishrei, also derive it because it is the day after the New Moon, and fasting is forbidden not only on festive days, but also on the preceding day and the following day. The Gemara rejects this argument: The New Moon is by Torah law, and festive days that are by Torah law do not require reinforcement. Therefore no decree was ever enacted prohibiting fasting on the days before and after.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讬谉 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽

As it is taught in a baraita: These days that are written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit are days on which fasting is prohibited, as are both the day before them and the day after them. With regard to Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on them is forbidden, but on the day before them and the day after them fasting is permitted. What is the difference between this class of days and that class of days? These days, Shabbatot and Festivals, are by Torah law, and Torah laws do not need reinforcement, and therefore even if a fast day were decreed on the day before or after them, the Festival itself would not be nullified; whereas those days mentioned in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit are by rabbinic law, and rabbinic laws need reinforcement, and therefore fasting is prohibited even on the day before and the day after.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬 讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 讛讜讗 讜讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 讻讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚诪讜

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: The prohibition against fasting on the second of Tishrei, derive it from the fact that it is the day before the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed, and since in Temple times the fast of Gedaliah was celebrated as a festive day, fasting should also be prohibited on the preceding day. Rav Ashi said: The fast of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, is derived from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, and as the texts of the tradition are treated like Torah statements for this purpose, they too do not need reinforcement.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 诪转谞讛 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗转转 讘砖讜专转讗 讟讘转讗 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讬注讬讚讜谉 诪讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 讙讝专讛 砖诇讗 讬注住拽讜 讘转讜专讛 讜砖诇讗 讬诪讜诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讜砖讬讞诇诇讜 砖讘转讜转 诪讛 注砖讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 讛诇讻讜 讜谞讟诇讜 注爪讛 诪诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 讗讞转 砖讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 专讜诪讬 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇讛

Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta鈥檃nit was nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden. And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.

讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讘讜讗讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讛诇讻讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讞讬讻诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讜诇讗 讘谞讬 讗讘 讗讞讚 讗谞讞谞讜 讜诇讗 讘谞讬 讗诐 讗讞转 讗谞讞谞讜 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬谞讜 诪讻诇 讗讜诪讛 讜诇砖讜谉 砖讗转诐 讙讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬谞讜 讙讝讬专讜转 拽砖讜转 讜讘讬讟诇讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讟诇讛 诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讟讜诇 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 诪讜住讬驻讬谉

She said to them as follows: Come and cry out [hafgginu] at night in the streets and markets. They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heavens! Are we Jews not your brothers; are we not children of one father; are we not children of one mother? How are we different from every other nation and tongue that you issue such harsh decrees against us? And indeed the decrees were annulled, and the Sages made that day a festive day. And if it enters your mind to say that Megillat Ta鈥檃nit has been nullified, can you say that the first prohibitions against fasting they annulled, and then later ones were added?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讜讛讗 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘转专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 讜讛讟讬祝 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

And if you say that here too it is referring to the time when the Temple was standing, there is a difficulty, as Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after the destruction of the Temple. And proof that Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir may be brought, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to glass vessels that had holes in them, which afterward were filled in with lead, the Sages dispute whether the utensil is considered a whole utensil, which can become ritually impure, or whether it is considered a broken utensil, which does not. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehuda ben Shammua declares that it becomes impure, in the name of Rabbi Meir;

讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉

whereas the Sages declare it pure. According to them, it is still considered a broken utensil. Rabbi Meir himself lived after the destruction of the Second Temple. The festive day commemorating the annulling of the decree of Rome was instituted as a result of an incident involving his student, Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua. From this, it is clear that Megillat Ta鈥檃nit had not yet been nullified.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讛讻转讜讘讬谉 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖砖诪讞讛 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讘诇 讛讜讗 诇讛诐

The Gemara answers: The question whether or not Megillat Ta鈥檃nit has been nullified is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: These days, which are written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, both when the Temple is standing and when the Temple is not standing, are days on which fasting is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: When the Temple is standing, these days are prohibited for fasting because these days are a source of joy for Israel. But when the Temple is not standing, these days are permitted for fasting because these days are a source of mourning for them.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讟诇讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讜驻讜专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 讬讜诪讬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that these days were nullified, and the halakha is that they were not nullified. The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as one halakha contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, it is referring to Hanukkah and Purim. These Festival days were never nullified, and Hanukkah is listed among the Festivals of Megillat Ta鈥檃nit. There, the halakha is referring to the rest of the days listed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, all of which were nullified.

注诇 讗诇讜诇 诪驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注诇 转砖专讬 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛诪讜注讚讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讬 诇讛讜 讗讗诇讜诇 讗转砖专讬 诇诪讛 诇讛讜

搂 The mishna taught: Messengers go out to inform about the sanctification of the New Moon in Elul, due to Rosh HaShana, and in Tishrei, due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei. The Gemara asks: Once the messengers have gone out in the month of Elul to inform the people when the New Moon was declared, why do they need to go out again in Tishrei, as the New Moon of Tishrei always falls on the thirtieth day after the New Moon of Elul?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇诪讗 注讘专讜讛 诇讗诇讜诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬诪讜转 注讝专讗 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讗诇讜诇 诪注讜讘专

And if you say that messengers must go out for Tishrei as well, as perhaps the court added another day to the month of Elul, so that Rosh HaShana occurs on the thirty-first day after the New Moon of Elul, there is a difficulty. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nnana bar Kahana say that Rav said: From the days of Ezra and onward, we have never found that the month of Elul had an additional day. Consequently, it is simple to calculate the days on which the Festivals of Tishrei occur, and there should be no need to send out messengers in Tishrei.

诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讛讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪注讘专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: When we say: We have not found that the month of Elul ever had an additional day, this does not mean that Elul cannot have an additional day, but only that it never happened because it was not necessary to add a day. But if it had been necessary, they would have added an additional day. Since it is possible that the month of Elul could have had another day added, there is reason to send out messengers for the month of Tishrei, so that all will know when to celebrate the Festivals.

讛讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪讜讟讘 转讬拽诇拽诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬转拽诇拽诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讜注讚讜转

The Gemara asks: But if Elul has an additional day Rosh HaShana will be ruined, because people will celebrate it thirty days after the New Moon of Elul, when its real date is on the thirty-first day. The Gemara answers: Better that Rosh HaShana be ruined, and all the Festivals, i.e., Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and the Eighth Day of Assembly, not be ruined.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇 转砖专讬 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛诪讜注讚讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Messengers go out in the month of Tishrei due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the correct understanding.

讜注诇 讻住诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 讞谞讜讻讛 讜注诇 讗讚专 诪驻谞讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 谞转注讘专讛 讛砖谞讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讗讚专 砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转注讘专讛 讛砖谞讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讛驻讜专讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: Messengers go out in Kislev, due to Hanukkah, and in Adar, due to Purim. Whereas, it is not taught: If the year was a leap year, with an additional month of Adar, the messengers go out also in the second Adar due to Purim, which is celebrated in the second Adar. This indicates that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the year was a leap year, the messengers go out also in the second Adar, due to Purim.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛谞讜讛讙讜转 讘砖谞讬 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛谞讜讛讙讜转 讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this. One Sage, the author of this mishna, holds that all the mitzvot observed in the second Adar, i.e., the special Torah readings and the mitzvot of Purim, are also observed in the first Adar. If they were observed in the first Adar and not in the second, the people have fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, there is no need to send messengers in the second Adar. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that all the mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed in the first. It is therefore necessary to send messengers in the second Adar, so that people will know when to keep the mitzvot of Adar.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讜转 讛谞讜讛讙讜转 讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讚砖

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that the mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed on the first, and here they disagree about the length of the additional month in the leap year, as it is taught in a baraita: How long is the additional month in a leap year? Thirty days. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A month. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and since the additional month does not have a fixed number of days, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar, so that people will know when to celebrate Purim. However, according to the first tanna, since the first Adar is always a fixed length, there is no need to send messengers.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬讚注讬 讞讚砖 谞诪讬 讬讚注讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚砖 专爪讛 讞讚砖 专爪讛 砖诇砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about thirty days? It is different because people can count thirty days and know when the month ends and when Purim occurs. A month also, people know the length of it. The term month implies that it is a month of twenty-nine days, and based on that they know when to celebrate Purim. Rav Pappa said: The one who said that a month is added does not mean necessarily a month of twenty-nine days. Rather, if the judges of the court wish, they add a month of twenty-nine days; and if it wishes, they add thirty days. Therefore, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讛诇讗 拽讚讬砖讗 讚讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注诇 砖谞讬 讗讚专讬诐 砖诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗讜转诐 讘讬讜诐 注讬讘讜专讬讛谉

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi testified in the name of the holy community of Jerusalem about the two months of Adar, that they are sanctified on the day that could have been added to make them a full month, i.e., the thirtieth day after the previous New Moon. That is to say, the thirtieth day after the New Moon of the first Adar is always the New Moon of the second Adar, and thirty days after the New Moon of the second Adar is always the New Moon of Nisan.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞住专讬谉 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪诇讗讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讞住讚讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讙讬 讝讻专讬讛 讜诪诇讗讻讬 注诇 砖谞讬 讗讚专讬诐 砖讗诐 专爪讜 诇注砖讜转谉 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讞住专讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讞讚 诪诇讗 讜讗讞讚 讞住专 注讜砖讬谉 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讙讜诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讗诪专讜 诇注讜诇诐 讗讞讚 诪诇讗 讜讗讞讚 讞住专 注讚 砖讬讜讜讚注 诇讱 砖讛讜拽讘注 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜

The Gemara comments: That is to say that they make the two months of Adar short months, of twenty-nine days, but they do not make them full months, of thirty days. This is to the exclusion of what Rav Na岣an bar 岣sda taught, as Rav Na岣an bar 岣sda taught: Rabbi Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi about two months of Adar in a leap year, that if the members of the court wish to make them both full, they may do so; and if they wish to make them both short, they may do so; and if they wish to make one full and one short, they may do so. And this is what they would do in the Diaspora, when they did not know which day was established as the New Moon. And in the name of our teacher, Rav, they said: The two months of Adar are always observed, one full and one short, unless it is known to you that the New Moon was fixed in its proper time, i.e., the first Adar is also short.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗讚专 讛住诪讜讱 诇谞讬住谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞住专

A ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia: The Adar that immediately precedes Nisan is always short, both in a regular year and in a leap year. But the first Adar in a leap year, which does not immediately precede Nisan, is sometimes full.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注诇 砖谞讬 讞讚砖讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 注诇 谞讬住谉 讜注诇 转砖专讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讝诪谞讬谉 诪诇讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讞住专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an raised an objection from what was taught in a mishna: Witnesses who saw the new moon may desecrate Shabbat for the fixing of the New Moon of two months, for the month of Nisan and for the month of Tishrei, due to the important Festivals that occur in them. Granted, if you say that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is sometimes full and sometimes short, due to that reason the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat, as if the witnesses come on the thirtieth, the month will be made short and that day will be declared the New Moon; otherwise, the month will be made full and the next day will be declared the New Moon.

Masechet Rosh Hashana 聽is dedicated anonymously in honor of聽Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

  • 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

Rosh Hashanah: 18-24 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how they sanctified each month during the Temple period. Witnesses came to testify in Jerusalem,...

Rosh Hashanah 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 19

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讗住讜专 讗转 砖诇驻谞讬讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if this was at the time that the Temple was standing, derive the prohibition against fasting on the third of Tishrei from the fact that it is the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed. During the time of the Temple the biblical fast days were celebrated as days of joy. Rav said: It was only necessary to include the third of Tishrei in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit in order to prohibit fasting on the preceding day as well. Fasting was forbidden not only on the actual days listed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, but also on the preceding day and the following day.

砖诇驻谞讬讜 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专 专讗砖 讞讚砖 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讘注讬 讞讬讝讜拽

The Gemara raises another difficulty: With regard to the prohibition against fasting on the preceding day, the second of Tishrei, also derive it because it is the day after the New Moon, and fasting is forbidden not only on festive days, but also on the preceding day and the following day. The Gemara rejects this argument: The New Moon is by Torah law, and festive days that are by Torah law do not require reinforcement. Therefore no decree was ever enacted prohibiting fasting on the days before and after.

讚转谞讬讗 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讬谉 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讗住讜专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛诐 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讛诐 砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛谉 讜诇讗讞专讬讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讛 讛驻专砖 讘讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽 讛诇诇讜 讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讞讬讝讜拽

As it is taught in a baraita: These days that are written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit are days on which fasting is prohibited, as are both the day before them and the day after them. With regard to Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on them is forbidden, but on the day before them and the day after them fasting is permitted. What is the difference between this class of days and that class of days? These days, Shabbatot and Festivals, are by Torah law, and Torah laws do not need reinforcement, and therefore even if a fast day were decreed on the day before or after them, the Festival itself would not be nullified; whereas those days mentioned in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit are by rabbinic law, and rabbinic laws need reinforcement, and therefore fasting is prohibited even on the day before and the day after.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讜诐 砖诇驻谞讬 讬讜诐 砖谞讛专讙 讘讜 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讙讚诇讬讛 讘谉 讗讞讬拽诐 讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 讛讜讗 讜讚讘专讬 拽讘诇讛 讻讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚诪讜

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: The prohibition against fasting on the second of Tishrei, derive it from the fact that it is the day before the day that Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed, and since in Temple times the fast of Gedaliah was celebrated as a festive day, fasting should also be prohibited on the preceding day. Rav Ashi said: The fast of Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, is derived from the texts of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings, and as the texts of the tradition are treated like Torah statements for this purpose, they too do not need reinforcement.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讟讜讘讬 讘专 诪转谞讛 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转诪谞讬讗 讘讬讛 讗转转 讘砖讜专转讗 讟讘转讗 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讬注讬讚讜谉 诪讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讙讝专讛 诪诇讻讜转 讛专砖注讛 讙讝专讛 砖诇讗 讬注住拽讜 讘转讜专讛 讜砖诇讗 讬诪讜诇讜 讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讜砖讬讞诇诇讜 砖讘转讜转 诪讛 注砖讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 讛诇讻讜 讜谞讟诇讜 注爪讛 诪诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 讗讞转 砖讻诇 讙讚讜诇讬 专讜诪讬 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讗爪诇讛

Rav Tovi bar Mattana raised an objection against the opinion that Megillat Ta鈥檃nit was nullified, from that which is written in it: On the twenty-eighth of Adar the good tidings came to the Jews that they should not turn away from the Torah, and on that day fasting is forbidden. And this is explained: For the wicked kingdom issued a decree against Israel that they should not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and took advice from a certain matron [matronita] whom all the prominent men of Rome would visit regularly, thinking that she would know how to annul the decree.

讗诪专讛 诇讛诐 讘讜讗讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讛诇讻讜 讜讛驻讙讬谞讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诪专讜 讗讬 砖诪讬诐 诇讗 讗讞讬讻诐 讗谞讞谞讜 讜诇讗 讘谞讬 讗讘 讗讞讚 讗谞讞谞讜 讜诇讗 讘谞讬 讗诐 讗讞转 讗谞讞谞讜 诪讛 谞砖转谞讬谞讜 诪讻诇 讗讜诪讛 讜诇砖讜谉 砖讗转诐 讙讜讝专讬谉 注诇讬谞讜 讙讝讬专讜转 拽砖讜转 讜讘讬讟诇讜诐 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 注砖讗讜讛讜 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讟诇讛 诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讟讜诇 讗讞专谞讬讬转讗 诪讜住讬驻讬谉

She said to them as follows: Come and cry out [hafgginu] at night in the streets and markets. They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heavens! Are we Jews not your brothers; are we not children of one father; are we not children of one mother? How are we different from every other nation and tongue that you issue such harsh decrees against us? And indeed the decrees were annulled, and the Sages made that day a festive day. And if it enters your mind to say that Megillat Ta鈥檃nit has been nullified, can you say that the first prohibitions against fasting they annulled, and then later ones were added?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讜讛讗 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘转专 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讚转谞谉 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 砖谞讬拽讘讜 讜讛讟讬祝 诇转讜讻谉 讗讘专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖诪讜注 诪讟诪讗 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

And if you say that here too it is referring to the time when the Temple was standing, there is a difficulty, as Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Meir was after the destruction of the Temple. And proof that Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua was a student of Rabbi Meir may be brought, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to glass vessels that had holes in them, which afterward were filled in with lead, the Sages dispute whether the utensil is considered a whole utensil, which can become ritually impure, or whether it is considered a broken utensil, which does not. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Yehuda ben Shammua declares that it becomes impure, in the name of Rabbi Meir;

讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉

whereas the Sages declare it pure. According to them, it is still considered a broken utensil. Rabbi Meir himself lived after the destruction of the Second Temple. The festive day commemorating the annulling of the decree of Rome was instituted as a result of an incident involving his student, Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua. From this, it is clear that Megillat Ta鈥檃nit had not yet been nullified.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讗诇讜 讛讻转讜讘讬谉 讘诪讙讬诇转 转注谞讬转 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖砖诪讞讛 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讘诇 讛讜讗 诇讛诐

The Gemara answers: The question whether or not Megillat Ta鈥檃nit has been nullified is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: These days, which are written in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, both when the Temple is standing and when the Temple is not standing, are days on which fasting is prohibited; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: When the Temple is standing, these days are prohibited for fasting because these days are a source of joy for Israel. But when the Temple is not standing, these days are permitted for fasting because these days are a source of mourning for them.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讟诇讜 讜讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讘讟诇讜 拽砖讬讗 讛诇讻转讗 讗讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞谞讜讻讛 讜驻讜专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 讬讜诪讬

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that these days were nullified, and the halakha is that they were not nullified. The Gemara asks: This is difficult, as one halakha contradicts the other halakha. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, it is referring to Hanukkah and Purim. These Festival days were never nullified, and Hanukkah is listed among the Festivals of Megillat Ta鈥檃nit. There, the halakha is referring to the rest of the days listed in Megillat Ta鈥檃nit, all of which were nullified.

注诇 讗诇讜诇 诪驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜注诇 转砖专讬 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛诪讜注讚讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽讬 诇讛讜 讗讗诇讜诇 讗转砖专讬 诇诪讛 诇讛讜

搂 The mishna taught: Messengers go out to inform about the sanctification of the New Moon in Elul, due to Rosh HaShana, and in Tishrei, due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei. The Gemara asks: Once the messengers have gone out in the month of Elul to inform the people when the New Moon was declared, why do they need to go out again in Tishrei, as the New Moon of Tishrei always falls on the thirtieth day after the New Moon of Elul?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诇诪讗 注讘专讜讛 诇讗诇讜诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬诪讜转 注讝专讗 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讗诇讜诇 诪注讜讘专

And if you say that messengers must go out for Tishrei as well, as perhaps the court added another day to the month of Elul, so that Rosh HaShana occurs on the thirty-first day after the New Moon of Elul, there is a difficulty. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nnana bar Kahana say that Rav said: From the days of Ezra and onward, we have never found that the month of Elul had an additional day. Consequently, it is simple to calculate the days on which the Festivals of Tishrei occur, and there should be no need to send out messengers in Tishrei.

诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讚诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讛讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诪注讘专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: When we say: We have not found that the month of Elul ever had an additional day, this does not mean that Elul cannot have an additional day, but only that it never happened because it was not necessary to add a day. But if it had been necessary, they would have added an additional day. Since it is possible that the month of Elul could have had another day added, there is reason to send out messengers for the month of Tishrei, so that all will know when to celebrate the Festivals.

讛讗 诪讬拽诇拽诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪讜讟讘 转讬拽诇拽诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬转拽诇拽诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 诪讜注讚讜转

The Gemara asks: But if Elul has an additional day Rosh HaShana will be ruined, because people will celebrate it thirty days after the New Moon of Elul, when its real date is on the thirty-first day. The Gemara answers: Better that Rosh HaShana be ruined, and all the Festivals, i.e., Yom Kippur, Sukkot, and the Eighth Day of Assembly, not be ruined.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 注诇 转砖专讬 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛诪讜注讚讜转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Messengers go out in the month of Tishrei due to the need to establish the correct dates on which to celebrate the Festivals of Tishrei. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, conclude from here that this is the correct understanding.

讜注诇 讻住诇讬讜 诪驻谞讬 讞谞讜讻讛 讜注诇 讗讚专 诪驻谞讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讜 谞转注讘专讛 讛砖谞讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讗讚专 砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 谞转注讘专讛 讛砖谞讛 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 诪驻谞讬 讛驻讜专讬诐

搂 The mishna taught: Messengers go out in Kislev, due to Hanukkah, and in Adar, due to Purim. Whereas, it is not taught: If the year was a leap year, with an additional month of Adar, the messengers go out also in the second Adar due to Purim, which is celebrated in the second Adar. This indicates that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: If the year was a leap year, the messengers go out also in the second Adar, due to Purim.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛谞讜讛讙讜转 讘砖谞讬 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛谞讜讛讙讜转 讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this. One Sage, the author of this mishna, holds that all the mitzvot observed in the second Adar, i.e., the special Torah readings and the mitzvot of Purim, are also observed in the first Adar. If they were observed in the first Adar and not in the second, the people have fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, there is no need to send messengers in the second Adar. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that all the mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed in the first. It is therefore necessary to send messengers in the second Adar, so that people will know when to keep the mitzvot of Adar.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讜转 讛谞讜讛讙讜转 讘砖谞讬 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 注讬讘讜专 砖谞讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讞讚砖

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, everyone agrees that the mitzvot observed in the second Adar are not observed on the first, and here they disagree about the length of the additional month in the leap year, as it is taught in a baraita: How long is the additional month in a leap year? Thirty days. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A month. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and since the additional month does not have a fixed number of days, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar, so that people will know when to celebrate Purim. However, according to the first tanna, since the first Adar is always a fixed length, there is no need to send messengers.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬讚注讬 讞讚砖 谞诪讬 讬讚注讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讚砖 专爪讛 讞讚砖 专爪讛 砖诇砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is different about thirty days? It is different because people can count thirty days and know when the month ends and when Purim occurs. A month also, people know the length of it. The term month implies that it is a month of twenty-nine days, and based on that they know when to celebrate Purim. Rav Pappa said: The one who said that a month is added does not mean necessarily a month of twenty-nine days. Rather, if the judges of the court wish, they add a month of twenty-nine days; and if it wishes, they add thirty days. Therefore, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar.

讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 拽讛诇讗 拽讚讬砖讗 讚讬专讜砖诇讬诐 注诇 砖谞讬 讗讚专讬诐 砖诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗讜转诐 讘讬讜诐 注讬讘讜专讬讛谉

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi testified in the name of the holy community of Jerusalem about the two months of Adar, that they are sanctified on the day that could have been added to make them a full month, i.e., the thirtieth day after the previous New Moon. That is to say, the thirtieth day after the New Moon of the first Adar is always the New Moon of the second Adar, and thirty days after the New Moon of the second Adar is always the New Moon of Nisan.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讞住专讬谉 注讘讚讬谞谉 诪诇讗讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讞住讚讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 住讬诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讞讙讬 讝讻专讬讛 讜诪诇讗讻讬 注诇 砖谞讬 讗讚专讬诐 砖讗诐 专爪讜 诇注砖讜转谉 砖谞讬讛谉 诪诇讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 讞住专讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讞讚 诪诇讗 讜讗讞讚 讞住专 注讜砖讬谉 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讙讜诇讛 讜诪砖讜诐 专讘讬谞讜 讗诪专讜 诇注讜诇诐 讗讞讚 诪诇讗 讜讗讞讚 讞住专 注讚 砖讬讜讜讚注 诇讱 砖讛讜拽讘注 专讗砖 讞讚砖 讘讝诪谞讜

The Gemara comments: That is to say that they make the two months of Adar short months, of twenty-nine days, but they do not make them full months, of thirty days. This is to the exclusion of what Rav Na岣an bar 岣sda taught, as Rav Na岣an bar 岣sda taught: Rabbi Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi about two months of Adar in a leap year, that if the members of the court wish to make them both full, they may do so; and if they wish to make them both short, they may do so; and if they wish to make one full and one short, they may do so. And this is what they would do in the Diaspora, when they did not know which day was established as the New Moon. And in the name of our teacher, Rav, they said: The two months of Adar are always observed, one full and one short, unless it is known to you that the New Moon was fixed in its proper time, i.e., the first Adar is also short.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讗讚专 讛住诪讜讱 诇谞讬住谉 诇注讜诇诐 讞住专

A ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Mar Ukva, the Exilarch in Babylonia: The Adar that immediately precedes Nisan is always short, both in a regular year and in a leap year. But the first Adar in a leap year, which does not immediately precede Nisan, is sometimes full.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 注诇 砖谞讬 讞讚砖讬诐 诪讞诇诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 注诇 谞讬住谉 讜注诇 转砖专讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讝诪谞讬谉 诪诇讗 讝诪谞讬谉 讞住专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讞诇诇讬谞谉

Rav Na岣an raised an objection from what was taught in a mishna: Witnesses who saw the new moon may desecrate Shabbat for the fixing of the New Moon of two months, for the month of Nisan and for the month of Tishrei, due to the important Festivals that occur in them. Granted, if you say that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is sometimes full and sometimes short, due to that reason the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat, as if the witnesses come on the thirtieth, the month will be made short and that day will be declared the New Moon; otherwise, the month will be made full and the next day will be declared the New Moon.

Scroll To Top