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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 8, 2021 | 讚壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讘

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 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 30

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Laura Shechter in loving memory of Cili Tzivia bat Moshe in honor of her 1st yahrtzeit. 鈥淪he may have been my husband’s grandmother in blood, but I loved her like my own. I know she would be proud of my continued learning of the daf, since she herself had the legacy of her grandmother teaching Torah weekly in her village in Czechia. I love you and miss you, Savta, and hope to honor your memory always.鈥澛

In what places can shofar be blown on Shabbat once the Temple is destroyed? The rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Elazar hold that either in Yavne or any place where there is a beit din. Rav Huna says it must be done with the beit din. This means in front of the beit din. Rava raises a question from the Mishna but it is answered. Others hold that Rav Huna was referring to the shofar blown on Yom Kippur in the jubilee year and 鈥渨ith beit din鈥 meant the time that the beit din met. Rava raises a question on this as well from a braita, but the question is answered. Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty as well and it is resolved. Some other things that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted after the destruction were that the lulav would be taken all seven days and that the day that the new crop of wheat would be forbidden for the entire day of the 16th of Nissan (the day that in the Temple the Omer sacrifice was brought). The lulav was as a remembrance that in the time of the Temple, the lulav was taken all seven days. Why was the new crop not permitted midday of the 16th of Nissan as was done in the time of the Temple for those living farther away who would not be able to know exactly when the sacrifice was brought? The concern is that if the Temple would be rebuilt on the 15th toward the end of the day or the night of the 16th, there will not be enough time to do prepare the Omer sacrifice by midday. They originally accepted the testimony of witnesses on the thirtieth day of Elul all day in the Temple to determine that it was Rosh Hashanah. But once witnesses came after mincha and the Levites said the wrong song as they hadn鈥檛 known it was Rosh Hashanah. As a result, they would no longer allow witnesses after mincha. When the Temple was destroyed Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai returned it to the original way and accepted witnesses all day. What had the Levites messed up 鈥 had they not said any song or had they said the wrong song 鈥 the song of the weekday? There is a debate between the Babylonians and Rabbi Zeira and attempts are brought to prove Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 side that they said the wrong song.

讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诇讗

And they would sound the shofar on Shabbat with the court. Rav Huna鈥檚 brief statement is obscure, and therefore the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: With the court? It means: In the presence of the court, i.e., in the place where the court convenes. This comes to exclude any place that is not in the presence of the court, as the shofar is not sounded there.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬讘谞讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讝讗转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讚讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉

Rava raised an objection from the mishna: And Jerusalem had this additional superiority over Yavne. What is the meaning of the phrase: And this additional? If we say that it is referring only to that which it teaches in the mishna, it should have simply said: This, without mentioning that it is an additional superiority. Rather, it indicates that in Jerusalem even private individuals sound the shofar on Shabbat, whereas in Yavne individuals do not sound it, but only agents of the court.

讜讘讬讘谞讛 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻讬 诪住讬讬诐 砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 转拽讬注讛 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 砖诪注 讗讬谞讬砖 拽诇 讗讜谞讬讛 诪拽诇 转拽讜注讬讗 讚讬讞讬讚讗讬

And this too is difficult: Don鈥檛 individuals sound the shofar in Yavne? But when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. After the leader of the congregation finished sounding on behalf of the entire community, many individuals would take out their shofars and blast them, which created a loud noise. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar on Shabbat even in Yavne.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讛讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬讛讗 转讜拽注讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, is it not the case that in Jerusalem they sound the shofar both when the court was in session, i.e., until midday, and when the court was not in session. And by contrast, in Yavne, when the court was in session, yes, they would sound the shofar, whereas when the court was not in session, no, they would not sound it. If so, this indicates that when the court was in session they would in any case sound the shofar in Yavne, even though this was not in the presence of the court. This contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion that in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the presence of the court.

诇讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this argument. No, the term additional can be explained to mean that whereas in Jerusalem they would sound the shofar on Shabbat both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court, with regard to Yavne, in the presence of the court, yes, they would indeed sound it, but if it was not in the presence of the court, no, they would not sound the shofar.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专 讘讻诇 讗专爪讻诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诇讗

Some teach this statement of Rav Huna not with regard to this mishna, but rather with regard to this baraita that deals with the Jubilee Year. As it is written: 鈥淥n Yom Kippur you shall proclaim with the shofar throughout all your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9). This teaches that each and every individual is obligated to sound the shofar. In this connection Rav Huna said: And they sound it with the court. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: With the court? The Gemara explains: When the court is in session. This serves to exclude a case when the court is not in session, that the shofar is not sounded.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 转拽讬注转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讬讜讘诇 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讗讬砖 讜讘讬转讜 诪讗讬 讗讬砖 讜讘讬转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转讜 讗讬转转讗 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讜讛讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: The sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana and on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat even in the outlying areas outside the Temple, every man and his house. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Every man and his house? If we say that it means, as usual: Every man and his wife, is a woman obligated to sound the shofar?Isn鈥檛 sounding the shofar a positive, time-bound mitzva, i.e., one that can be performed only at a certain time of the day, or during the day rather than during the night, or only on certain days of the year? And the principle is that with regard to any positive, time-bound mitzva, women are exempt.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讬砖 讘讘讬转讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, is it not the case that this phrase means: Every man in his house, and even at a time when the court is not in session? This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No; actually it means that every man may sound the shofar in his house, but only at a time when the court is in session.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 砖讜讛 讛讬讜讘诇 诇专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇转拽讬注讛 讜诇讘专讻讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讬讜讘诇 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讜 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜 讘讜 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讜讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讜 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注

Rav Sheshet raised an objection from another baraita: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana with regard to both the shofar sounding and the additional blessings recited in the Amida prayer. However, the difference is that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they sound the shofar both in the court where they sanctified the month and in a court where they did not sanctify the month, and each and every individual is obligated to sound the shofar. Conversely, on Rosh HaShana they sound the shofar only in the court where they sanctified the month, and each and every individual is not obligated to sound it.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讬讜讘诇 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪住讬讬诐 砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 转拽讬注转讗 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 砖诪注 讗讬谞讬砖 拽诇 讗讜谞讬讛 诪拽诇 转拽讜注讬讗 讚讬讞讬讚讗讬

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Each and every individual is not obligated to sound it? If we say that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year individuals sound the shofar, whereas on Rosh HaShana individuals do not sound it at all, this is difficult: But when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar even on Rosh HaShana.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讬讜讘诇 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, is it not the case that whereas on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they sound the shofar both when the court is in session and when the court is not in session, on Rosh HaShana, when the court was in session, yes, they would indeed sound it, but at a time when the court was not in session, no, they would not sound the shofar. In any event, the baraita is teaching that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they would sound the shofar both when the court was in session and when the court was not in session. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬讜讘诇 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉

The Gemara rejects this argument. No; actually they sound the shofar only when the court was in session, and this is what the baraita is teaching: On Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year, when the court was in session they sound the shofar both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court; however, on Rosh HaShana they sound it only when the court was in session, and even then only in the presence of the court. It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: They sound the shofar only throughout the period when the court is sitting in session, and only in its presence.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞谞注专讜 诇注诪讜讚 讜诇讗 注诪讚讜 诪讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: If the members of the court stirred themselves to rise at the end of the session, but there was some delay and they did not actually rise, what is the halakha? Do we require that the court be seated, and that is the case here, as the judges are still sitting? Or perhaps we require that the shofar must be sounded when the court is in session, and that is not the case, as they have stirred to rise. No relevant sources were found in this regard, and therefore the Gemara states that the question shall stand unresolved.

讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬讘谞讛 讜讻讜壮 专讜讗讛 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘转 讘谞讞诇

搂 The mishna stated: And Jerusalem had this additional superiority over Yavne. Any city that could see Jerusalem and hear the sounding of the shofar there, and was nearby, and people could come from there, they would sound the shofar there as well. The Gemara clarifies these requirements: The clause that the city had to be able to see Jerusalem comes to exclude a city that sits in a deep valley, from which one can hear but cannot see Jerusalem from afar.

砖讜诪注转 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘转 讘专讗砖 讛讛专 拽专讜讘讛 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇讘讜讗 驻专讟 诇诪驻住讬拽 诇讛 谞讛专讗

When the mishna states that the city must be able to hear, this serves to exclude a city sitting on a mountaintop, from where one can see Jerusalem but cannot hear sounds from it. As for the requirement that the city must be near, this comes to exclude a place sitting beyond the Shabbat limit of Jerusalem, even if one can see and hear from that place. And with regard to the statement that one can come, this serves to exclude a city that is separated from Jerusalem by a river, which renders it impossible for people to come to the city, even if it is close by.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 讛诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘注讛 讜讘诪讚讬谞讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 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 砖讬讛讗 诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪讚讬谞讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

MISHNA: After the previous mishna mentioned Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 ordinance that applies to the sounding of the shofar, this mishna records other ordinances instituted by the same Sage: At first, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple all seven days of Sukkot, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple, it was taken only one day, on the first day of the Festival. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country all seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专

And for similar reasons, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, i.e., the sixteenth of Nisan, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. By Torah law, when the Temple is standing the new grain may not be eaten until after the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, usually early in the morning. When the Temple is not standing it may be eaten from the time that the eastern horizon is illuminated at daybreak. However, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted a prohibition against eating the new grain throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan, until the seventeenth, to commemorate the Temple.

讙诪壮 讜诪谞诇谉 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讗注诇讛 讗专讜讻讛 诇讱 讜诪诪讻讜转讬讱 讗专驻讗讱 谞讗诐 讛壮 讻讬 谞讚讞讛 拽专讗讜 诇讱 爪讬讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讜专砖 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘注讬讗 讚专讬砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one performs actions in commemoration of the Temple? As the verse states: 鈥淔or I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, said the Lord; because they have called you an outcast: She is Zion, there is none who care for her鈥 (Jeremiah 30:17). This verse teaches by inference that Jerusalem requires caring through acts of commemoration.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 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 讘讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 注讻砖讬讜 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇

搂 The mishna taught: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai also instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? The reasoning is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn鈥檛 we eat from the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan, as the new crop was permitted immediately? Now too, let us eat the new grain at that time.

讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讜诪专 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛转讬专 讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诪专 注讜诪专 诪转讬专

And they do not know that last year, when there was no omer, the eastern horizon illuminating, i.e., the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan, served to permit the consumption of the new grain immediately. However, now that the Temple has been rebuilt and there is an omer offering, it is the omer that permits the consumption of the new grain. When the Temple is standing, the new grain is not permitted until the omer offering has been sacrificed.

讚诪讬讘谞讬 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘砖讬转住专 讛专讬 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛转讬专

The Gemara clarifies: In this scenario, when is it that the Temple was built? If we say that it was rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, then the Temple was not standing in the morning and therefore the eastern horizon illuminating indeed rendered eating the new grain permitted, as it was not yet possible to bring the omer offering.

讗诇讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘讞诪讬住专 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诇砖转专讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛专讞讜拽讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚谉 诪转注爪诇讬诐 讘讜

Rather, you must say that it was rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illumination of the eastern horizon. In that scenario, from midday onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna in tractate Mena岣t: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday onward, because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer offering and would certainly have sacrificed it by midday. If so, now too, it should be permitted to eat the new grain beginning at that time. Why did Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai prohibit it for the entire day?

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘讞诪讬住专 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗

The Gemara answers: This ordinance was necessary only in a case where the Temple was rebuilt on the fifteenth adjacent to sunset. Alternatively, in a situation where the Temple was rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. In either case there is insufficient time to complete all the preparations so that the offering can be sacrificed by noon the next day. If people eat the new grain at midday, they will have retroactively transgressed a prohibition. Therefore, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain should be prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is not the reason. Rather, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai

讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注讚 注爪诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讜拽住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

stated his decree in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: When the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread nor parched corn, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14), this does not teach that it is permitted to eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth when the eastern horizon is illuminated. Rather, it is prohibited until the essence [atzmo] of the day. And he holds that when the verse says: Until that day, it means until and including this date. If so, by Torah law, eating the new grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth, unless the omer offering was sacrificed, in which case it is permitted to eat the new grain immediately afterward.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 诪驻诇讬讙 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 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 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in a mishna (Sukka 41a): After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn鈥檛 it prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil this selfsame day鈥? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai.

讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讗讬讛讜 住讘专 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument. There, it was Rabbi Yehuda who erred in his understanding. He thought that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai was saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan is prohibited by rabbinic law. But that is not so; he was actually saying that it is prohibited by Torah law.

讜讛讗 讛转拽讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讛转拽讬谉 讚专砖 讜讛转拽讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But it is taught in the mishna: Instituted. This term is referring to a rabbinic ordinance, not a Torah law. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the term instituted? It means that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai interpreted the verse, and instituted that this is how one should act from now onward. When the Temple was standing there was no need for this halakha, as it was permitted to eat the new grain after the sacrificing of the omer.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐

MISHNA: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month throughout the entire thirtieth day from the beginning of the month of Elul, before Rosh HaShana, and if witnesses arrived from afar and testified that they had sighted the New Moon the previous night, they would declare that day the Festival.

驻注诐 讗讞转 谞砖转讛讜 讛注讚讬诐 诪诇讘讜讗 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 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注讚 讛诪谞讞讛

Once, the witnesses tarried coming until the hour was late, and the Levites erred with regard to the song, i.e., the psalm that they were supposed to recite, as they did not know at the time whether it was a Festival or an ordinary weekday. From that point on, the Sages instituted that they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only until min岣 time. If witnesses had not arrived by that hour, 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 拽讜讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 拽讜讚砖

And if witnesses came from min岣 time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the Festivals would begin from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day, on which the witnesses arrived, as sacred, so that in future years they would not treat the entire day as a weekday and engage in labor from the morning on the assumption that the witnesses will arrive only after min岣 time. 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 by calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date.

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

After the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer any reason for this ordinance, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that they would once again accept testimony to determine the start of the month the entire day.

讙诪壮 诪讛 拽诇拽讜诇 拽诇拽诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐 讘砖讬专 讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 砖诇 讞讜诇 注诐 转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What error did the Levites make with regard to the song they were supposed to recite? The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted that they did not recite any song at all, as they did not know which psalm should be sung, the one for an ordinary weekday or the special one for the Festival. Rabbi Zeira said: Their mistake was that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday with the daily afternoon offering. After the witnesses testified, it became clear that they should have recited the psalm of the Festival.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讛讘讛 讘专讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讛讜 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇讛拽专讬讘 转诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪讜住驻讬谉 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讜诇讜诪专 砖讬专讛 砖诇讗 讘砖讬讘讜砖 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗诪讜专 砖讬专讛 讚讞讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬讘讜砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪讜专 讻诇诇 诪讗讬 砖讬讘讜砖 讗讬讻讗

Rabbi Zeira said to his son Ahava: Go out and teach the following baraita to the Sages of Babylonia: They instituted that on Rosh HaShana the court would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only if there was enough time left in the day to sacrifice the daily offerings and the additional offerings of the Festival and their libations, and to recite the appropriate song without a mistake. Granted, if you say that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday, this is a case in which there is a mistake. However, if you say that they did not recite any psalm at all, what mistake is there? The term: Mistake, indicates the performance of an incorrect action.

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗诪讜专 讻诇诇 讗讬谉 诇讱 砖讬讘讜砖 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The Gemara explains: Since they did not recite any psalm at all, you do not have a mistake greater than this. The failure to recite the appropriate psalm disrupts the entire sacrificial service.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 转诪讬讚 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 砖讞专讬转 拽专讘 讻讛诇讻转讜 讘诪讜住祝 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讛专谞讬谞讜 诇讗诇讛讬诐 注讜讝谞讜 讛专讬注讜 诇讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘 讘诪谞讞讛 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 拽讜诇 讛壮 讬讞讬诇 诪讚讘专

Rav A岣 bar Huna raised an objection from a baraita: With regard to the daily offering on Rosh HaShana, in the morning it is sacrificed in accordance with its regular halakhot, i.e., the Levites recite the regular psalm for that day of the week. When it comes to the additional offering of Rosh HaShana, what psalm does one recite? The psalm that includes the verse: 鈥淪ing aloud to God our strength; shout to the God of Jacob鈥 (Psalms 81:2). With regard to the daily afternoon offering, what psalm does one recite? The psalm that includes the verse: 鈥淭he voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness鈥 (Psalms 29:8).

讜讘讝诪谉 砖讞诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讞诪讬砖讬 讘砖讘转 砖讛砖讬专讛 砖诇讜 讛专谞讬谞讜 诇讗诇讛讬诐 注讜讝谞讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讞专讬转 讛专谞讬谞讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜讝专 讜讻讜驻诇 讗转 讛驻专拽

And when Rosh HaShana occurs on a Thursday, whose regular psalm even on an ordinary weekday is: 鈥淪ing aloud to God our strength,鈥 and the witnesses came before the daily morning offering was sacrificed, one would not recite: 鈥淪ing aloud to God our strength; shout to the God of Jacob鈥 with the daily morning offering, because one goes back and repeats that section at the time of the additional offering.

讗诇讗 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讛住讬专讜转讬 诪住讘诇 砖讻诪讜 讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗讞专 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讗讜诪专 讛专谞讬谞讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜讝专 讜讻讜驻诇 讗转 讛驻专拽

Rather, what does one recite? 鈥淚 removed his shoulder from the burden鈥 (Psalms 81:7), which is referring to Joseph, who was set free from prison on Rosh HaShana. In other words, the second half of Psalm 81 was recited with the morning offering, while the first half was recited with the additional offering. And if the witnesses came on a Thursday after the daily morning offering had already been sacrificed, one recites: 鈥淪ing aloud to God鈥 at the additional offering, even though this means that one goes back and repeats that section again. This concludes the baraita.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪住转驻拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讬专讛 讚讞讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讗讜诪专讜 讜讻讜驻诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪讜专 讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讜 讜讻讜驻诇讜

The Gemara explains the objection from this baraita: Granted, if you say that anywhere there is a doubt with regard to what to say, one recites the song of an ordinary weekday, this is the meaning of that which the tanna states: One recites the psalm for an ordinary weekday and then repeats it. However, if you say that in a case of doubt no psalm is recited at all, what is the meaning of the clause: One recites it and repeats it?

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 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

alon shvut women

Shofar – Where and When

Rosh Hashanah, Daf 30, Teacher: Susan Suna https://youtu.be/dKplFHBUuzg  

Rosh Hashanah 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 30

讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诇讗

And they would sound the shofar on Shabbat with the court. Rav Huna鈥檚 brief statement is obscure, and therefore the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: With the court? It means: In the presence of the court, i.e., in the place where the court convenes. This comes to exclude any place that is not in the presence of the court, as the shofar is not sounded there.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬讘谞讛 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讝讗转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讚讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉

Rava raised an objection from the mishna: And Jerusalem had this additional superiority over Yavne. What is the meaning of the phrase: And this additional? If we say that it is referring only to that which it teaches in the mishna, it should have simply said: This, without mentioning that it is an additional superiority. Rather, it indicates that in Jerusalem even private individuals sound the shofar on Shabbat, whereas in Yavne individuals do not sound it, but only agents of the court.

讜讘讬讘谞讛 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻讬 诪住讬讬诐 砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 转拽讬注讛 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 砖诪注 讗讬谞讬砖 拽诇 讗讜谞讬讛 诪拽诇 转拽讜注讬讗 讚讬讞讬讚讗讬

And this too is difficult: Don鈥檛 individuals sound the shofar in Yavne? But when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. After the leader of the congregation finished sounding on behalf of the entire community, many individuals would take out their shofars and blast them, which created a loud noise. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar on Shabbat even in Yavne.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讛讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬讛讗 转讜拽注讬谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, is it not the case that in Jerusalem they sound the shofar both when the court was in session, i.e., until midday, and when the court was not in session. And by contrast, in Yavne, when the court was in session, yes, they would sound the shofar, whereas when the court was not in session, no, they would not sound it. If so, this indicates that when the court was in session they would in any case sound the shofar in Yavne, even though this was not in the presence of the court. This contradicts Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion that in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the presence of the court.

诇讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘讬讘谞讛 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this argument. No, the term additional can be explained to mean that whereas in Jerusalem they would sound the shofar on Shabbat both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court, with regard to Yavne, in the presence of the court, yes, they would indeed sound it, but if it was not in the presence of the court, no, they would not sound the shofar.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 转注讘讬专讜 砖讜驻专 讘讻诇 讗专爪讻诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讜注诐 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚诇讗

Some teach this statement of Rav Huna not with regard to this mishna, but rather with regard to this baraita that deals with the Jubilee Year. As it is written: 鈥淥n Yom Kippur you shall proclaim with the shofar throughout all your land鈥 (Leviticus 25:9). This teaches that each and every individual is obligated to sound the shofar. In this connection Rav Huna said: And they sound it with the court. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: With the court? The Gemara explains: When the court is in session. This serves to exclude a case when the court is not in session, that the shofar is not sounded.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 转拽讬注转 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讬讜讘诇 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讗讬砖 讜讘讬转讜 诪讗讬 讗讬砖 讜讘讬转讜 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讬砖 讜讗砖转讜 讗讬转转讗 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘讗 讜讛讗 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 砖讛讝诪谉 讙专诪讗 谞砖讬诐 驻讟讜专讜转

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: The sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana and on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat even in the outlying areas outside the Temple, every man and his house. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Every man and his house? If we say that it means, as usual: Every man and his wife, is a woman obligated to sound the shofar?Isn鈥檛 sounding the shofar a positive, time-bound mitzva, i.e., one that can be performed only at a certain time of the day, or during the day rather than during the night, or only on certain days of the year? And the principle is that with regard to any positive, time-bound mitzva, women are exempt.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讗讬砖 讘讘讬转讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, is it not the case that this phrase means: Every man in his house, and even at a time when the court is not in session? This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No; actually it means that every man may sound the shofar in his house, but only at a time when the court is in session.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 砖讜讛 讛讬讜讘诇 诇专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇转拽讬注讛 讜诇讘专讻讜转 讗诇讗 砖讘讬讜讘诇 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讜 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜 讘讜 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讜讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗 讛讬讜 转讜拽注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讜 讗转 讛讞讚砖 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注

Rav Sheshet raised an objection from another baraita: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana with regard to both the shofar sounding and the additional blessings recited in the Amida prayer. However, the difference is that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they sound the shofar both in the court where they sanctified the month and in a court where they did not sanctify the month, and each and every individual is obligated to sound the shofar. Conversely, on Rosh HaShana they sound the shofar only in the court where they sanctified the month, and each and every individual is not obligated to sound it.

诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讻诇 讬讞讬讚 讜讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘 诇转拽讜注 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讘讬讜讘诇 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讬讞讬讚讬谉 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪住讬讬诐 砖诇讬讞讗 讚爪讬讘讜专讗 转拽讬注转讗 讘讬讘谞讛 诇讗 砖诪注 讗讬谞讬砖 拽诇 讗讜谞讬讛 诪拽诇 转拽讜注讬讗 讚讬讞讬讚讗讬

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Each and every individual is not obligated to sound it? If we say that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year individuals sound the shofar, whereas on Rosh HaShana individuals do not sound it at all, this is difficult: But when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar even on Rosh HaShana.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬诇讜 讘讬讜讘诇 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rather, is it not the case that whereas on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they sound the shofar both when the court is in session and when the court is not in session, on Rosh HaShana, when the court was in session, yes, they would indeed sound it, but at a time when the court was not in session, no, they would not sound the shofar. In any event, the baraita is teaching that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they would sound the shofar both when the court was in session and when the court was not in session. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬讜讘诇 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 转讜拽注讬谉 讘讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讘驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讙诪讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬谉 转讜拽注讬谉 讗诇讗 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉

The Gemara rejects this argument. No; actually they sound the shofar only when the court was in session, and this is what the baraita is teaching: On Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year, when the court was in session they sound the shofar both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court; however, on Rosh HaShana they sound it only when the court was in session, and even then only in the presence of the court. It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: They sound the shofar only throughout the period when the court is sitting in session, and only in its presence.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞谞注专讜 诇注诪讜讚 讜诇讗 注诪讚讜 诪讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讝诪谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讘注讬谞谉 讜诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: If the members of the court stirred themselves to rise at the end of the session, but there was some delay and they did not actually rise, what is the halakha? Do we require that the court be seated, and that is the case here, as the judges are still sitting? Or perhaps we require that the shofar must be sounded when the court is in session, and that is not the case, as they have stirred to rise. No relevant sources were found in this regard, and therefore the Gemara states that the question shall stand unresolved.

讜注讜讚 讝讗转 讛讬转讛 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讬转讬专讛 注诇 讬讘谞讛 讜讻讜壮 专讜讗讛 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘转 讘谞讞诇

搂 The mishna stated: And Jerusalem had this additional superiority over Yavne. Any city that could see Jerusalem and hear the sounding of the shofar there, and was nearby, and people could come from there, they would sound the shofar there as well. The Gemara clarifies these requirements: The clause that the city had to be able to see Jerusalem comes to exclude a city that sits in a deep valley, from which one can hear but cannot see Jerusalem from afar.

砖讜诪注转 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘转 讘专讗砖 讛讛专 拽专讜讘讛 驻专讟 诇讬讜砖讘转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讬讻讜诇讛 诇讘讜讗 驻专讟 诇诪驻住讬拽 诇讛 谞讛专讗

When the mishna states that the city must be able to hear, this serves to exclude a city sitting on a mountaintop, from where one can see Jerusalem but cannot hear sounds from it. As for the requirement that the city must be near, this comes to exclude a place sitting beyond the Shabbat limit of Jerusalem, even if one can see and hear from that place. And with regard to the statement that one can come, this serves to exclude a city that is separated from Jerusalem by a river, which renders it impossible for people to come to the city, even if it is close by.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 讛诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘注讛 讜讘诪讚讬谞讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 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 砖讬讛讗 诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪讚讬谞讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

MISHNA: After the previous mishna mentioned Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 ordinance that applies to the sounding of the shofar, this mishna records other ordinances instituted by the same Sage: At first, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple all seven days of Sukkot, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple, it was taken only one day, on the first day of the Festival. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country all seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专

And for similar reasons, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, i.e., the sixteenth of Nisan, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. By Torah law, when the Temple is standing the new grain may not be eaten until after the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, usually early in the morning. When the Temple is not standing it may be eaten from the time that the eastern horizon is illuminated at daybreak. However, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted a prohibition against eating the new grain throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan, until the seventeenth, to commemorate the Temple.

讙诪壮 讜诪谞诇谉 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讗注诇讛 讗专讜讻讛 诇讱 讜诪诪讻讜转讬讱 讗专驻讗讱 谞讗诐 讛壮 讻讬 谞讚讞讛 拽专讗讜 诇讱 爪讬讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讜专砖 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘注讬讗 讚专讬砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one performs actions in commemoration of the Temple? As the verse states: 鈥淔or I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, said the Lord; because they have called you an outcast: She is Zion, there is none who care for her鈥 (Jeremiah 30:17). This verse teaches by inference that Jerusalem requires caring through acts of commemoration.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 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 讘讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 注讻砖讬讜 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇

搂 The mishna taught: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai also instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? The reasoning is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn鈥檛 we eat from the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan, as the new crop was permitted immediately? Now too, let us eat the new grain at that time.

讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讜诪专 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛转讬专 讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诪专 注讜诪专 诪转讬专

And they do not know that last year, when there was no omer, the eastern horizon illuminating, i.e., the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan, served to permit the consumption of the new grain immediately. However, now that the Temple has been rebuilt and there is an omer offering, it is the omer that permits the consumption of the new grain. When the Temple is standing, the new grain is not permitted until the omer offering has been sacrificed.

讚诪讬讘谞讬 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘砖讬转住专 讛专讬 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛转讬专

The Gemara clarifies: In this scenario, when is it that the Temple was built? If we say that it was rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, then the Temple was not standing in the morning and therefore the eastern horizon illuminating indeed rendered eating the new grain permitted, as it was not yet possible to bring the omer offering.

讗诇讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘讞诪讬住专 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诇砖转专讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛专讞讜拽讬谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚谉 诪转注爪诇讬诐 讘讜

Rather, you must say that it was rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illumination of the eastern horizon. In that scenario, from midday onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna in tractate Mena岣t: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday onward, because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer offering and would certainly have sacrificed it by midday. If so, now too, it should be permitted to eat the new grain beginning at that time. Why did Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai prohibit it for the entire day?

诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘讞诪讬住专 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗

The Gemara answers: This ordinance was necessary only in a case where the Temple was rebuilt on the fifteenth adjacent to sunset. Alternatively, in a situation where the Temple was rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. In either case there is insufficient time to complete all the preparations so that the offering can be sacrificed by noon the next day. If people eat the new grain at midday, they will have retroactively transgressed a prohibition. Therefore, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain should be prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is not the reason. Rather, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai

讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注讚 注爪诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讜拽住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

stated his decree in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: When the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread nor parched corn, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14), this does not teach that it is permitted to eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth when the eastern horizon is illuminated. Rather, it is prohibited until the essence [atzmo] of the day. And he holds that when the verse says: Until that day, it means until and including this date. If so, by Torah law, eating the new grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth, unless the omer offering was sacrificed, in which case it is permitted to eat the new grain immediately afterward.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 诪驻诇讬讙 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 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 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in a mishna (Sukka 41a): After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn鈥檛 it prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil this selfsame day鈥? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai.

讛转诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讗讬讛讜 住讘专 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara rejects this argument. There, it was Rabbi Yehuda who erred in his understanding. He thought that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai was saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan is prohibited by rabbinic law. But that is not so; he was actually saying that it is prohibited by Torah law.

讜讛讗 讛转拽讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讛转拽讬谉 讚专砖 讜讛转拽讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty. But it is taught in the mishna: Instituted. This term is referring to a rabbinic ordinance, not a Torah law. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the term instituted? It means that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai interpreted the verse, and instituted that this is how one should act from now onward. When the Temple was standing there was no need for this halakha, as it was permitted to eat the new grain after the sacrificing of the omer.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讻诇 讛讬讜诐

MISHNA: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month throughout the entire thirtieth day from the beginning of the month of Elul, before Rosh HaShana, and if witnesses arrived from afar and testified that they had sighted the New Moon the previous night, they would declare that day the Festival.

驻注诐 讗讞转 谞砖转讛讜 讛注讚讬诐 诪诇讘讜讗 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 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讗诇讗 注讚 讛诪谞讞讛

Once, the witnesses tarried coming until the hour was late, and the Levites erred with regard to the song, i.e., the psalm that they were supposed to recite, as they did not know at the time whether it was a Festival or an ordinary weekday. From that point on, the Sages instituted that they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only until min岣 time. If witnesses had not arrived by that hour, 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 拽讜讚砖 讜诇诪讞专 拽讜讚砖

And if witnesses came from min岣 time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the Festivals would begin from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day, on which the witnesses arrived, as sacred, so that in future years they would not treat the entire day as a weekday and engage in labor from the morning on the assumption that the witnesses will arrive only after min岣 time. 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 by calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date.

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

After the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer any reason for this ordinance, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that they would once again accept testimony to determine the start of the month the entire day.

讙诪壮 诪讛 拽诇拽讜诇 拽诇拽诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐 讘砖讬专 讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 砖诇讗 讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 砖讗诪专讜 砖讬专讛 砖诇 讞讜诇 注诐 转诪讬讚 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What error did the Levites make with regard to the song they were supposed to recite? The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted that they did not recite any song at all, as they did not know which psalm should be sung, the one for an ordinary weekday or the special one for the Festival. Rabbi Zeira said: Their mistake was that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday with the daily afternoon offering. After the witnesses testified, it became clear that they should have recited the psalm of the Festival.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗讛讘讛 讘专讬讛 驻讜拽 转谞讬 诇讛讜 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 诪拽讘诇讬谉 注讚讜转 讛讞讚砖 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇讛拽专讬讘 转诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪讜住驻讬谉 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讜诇讜诪专 砖讬专讛 砖诇讗 讘砖讬讘讜砖 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗诪讜专 砖讬专讛 讚讞讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讬讘讜砖 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪讜专 讻诇诇 诪讗讬 砖讬讘讜砖 讗讬讻讗

Rabbi Zeira said to his son Ahava: Go out and teach the following baraita to the Sages of Babylonia: They instituted that on Rosh HaShana the court would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only if there was enough time left in the day to sacrifice the daily offerings and the additional offerings of the Festival and their libations, and to recite the appropriate song without a mistake. Granted, if you say that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday, this is a case in which there is a mistake. However, if you say that they did not recite any psalm at all, what mistake is there? The term: Mistake, indicates the performance of an incorrect action.

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗诪讜专 讻诇诇 讗讬谉 诇讱 砖讬讘讜砖 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The Gemara explains: Since they did not recite any psalm at all, you do not have a mistake greater than this. The failure to recite the appropriate psalm disrupts the entire sacrificial service.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 转诪讬讚 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 砖讞专讬转 拽专讘 讻讛诇讻转讜 讘诪讜住祝 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讛专谞讬谞讜 诇讗诇讛讬诐 注讜讝谞讜 讛专讬注讜 诇讗诇讛讬 讬注拽讘 讘诪谞讞讛 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 拽讜诇 讛壮 讬讞讬诇 诪讚讘专

Rav A岣 bar Huna raised an objection from a baraita: With regard to the daily offering on Rosh HaShana, in the morning it is sacrificed in accordance with its regular halakhot, i.e., the Levites recite the regular psalm for that day of the week. When it comes to the additional offering of Rosh HaShana, what psalm does one recite? The psalm that includes the verse: 鈥淪ing aloud to God our strength; shout to the God of Jacob鈥 (Psalms 81:2). With regard to the daily afternoon offering, what psalm does one recite? The psalm that includes the verse: 鈥淭he voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness鈥 (Psalms 29:8).

讜讘讝诪谉 砖讞诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘讞诪讬砖讬 讘砖讘转 砖讛砖讬专讛 砖诇讜 讛专谞讬谞讜 诇讗诇讛讬诐 注讜讝谞讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讞专讬转 讛专谞讬谞讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讜讝专 讜讻讜驻诇 讗转 讛驻专拽

And when Rosh HaShana occurs on a Thursday, whose regular psalm even on an ordinary weekday is: 鈥淪ing aloud to God our strength,鈥 and the witnesses came before the daily morning offering was sacrificed, one would not recite: 鈥淪ing aloud to God our strength; shout to the God of Jacob鈥 with the daily morning offering, because one goes back and repeats that section at the time of the additional offering.

讗诇讗 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讛住讬专讜转讬 诪住讘诇 砖讻诪讜 讜讗诐 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讗讞专 转诪讬讚 砖诇 砖讞专 讗讜诪专 讛专谞讬谞讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讜讝专 讜讻讜驻诇 讗转 讛驻专拽

Rather, what does one recite? 鈥淚 removed his shoulder from the burden鈥 (Psalms 81:7), which is referring to Joseph, who was set free from prison on Rosh HaShana. In other words, the second half of Psalm 81 was recited with the morning offering, while the first half was recited with the additional offering. And if the witnesses came on a Thursday after the daily morning offering had already been sacrificed, one recites: 鈥淪ing aloud to God鈥 at the additional offering, even though this means that one goes back and repeats that section again. This concludes the baraita.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪住转驻拽讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖讬专讛 讚讞讜诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讗讜诪专讜 讜讻讜驻诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪讜专 讻诇诇 诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讜 讜讻讜驻诇讜

The Gemara explains the objection from this baraita: Granted, if you say that anywhere there is a doubt with regard to what to say, one recites the song of an ordinary weekday, this is the meaning of that which the tanna states: One recites the psalm for an ordinary weekday and then repeats it. However, if you say that in a case of doubt no psalm is recited at all, what is the meaning of the clause: One recites it and repeats it?

Scroll To Top