Beitzah 5a — the Talmud in English

And the Levites became confused in the song:

for they said it over the regular offering of the afternoon. For every year the witnesses would arrive before the offering of the afternoon, and they would sing over it the song of Rosh Hashanah; but this time they sang over it a weekday song, because they thought that the witnesses would not come at such a late hour. And they would establish Rosh Hashanah for the following day.

And with the morning regular offering they established that a weekday song should be sung, even if witnesses came before it, because usually the witnesses arrived after the morning regular offering, and it was sufficient for them to say the song of Rosh Hashanah with the afternoon regular offering [Meiri]. Therefore there was no “confusion” in this.

Therefore

the Sages instituted that

the Sages

would accept the witnesses only until the afternoon offering,

the time of the offering of the afternoon regular offering, on the thirtieth day of Elul.

And if witnesses came from the afternoon offering onward,

they would intercalate the month of Elul, and the month of Tishrei would be sanctified only on the following day.

But since until the afternoon offering they would conduct themselves with the sanctity of uncertainty, lest witnesses come and the day be sanctified, even if the time of the afternoon offering had arrived and it was now certain to us that the witnesses would not be accepted, but that Rosh Hashanah would be sanctified only by Torah law on the following day, nevertheless they did not permit treating that day lightly, permitting labor on it as on a weekday, because they had already practiced sanctity on it because of the uncertainty.

Rather, the Sages instituted a fixed and certain enactment, that they would

conduct themselves

on

that entire day as holy, and

also

the following day as holy. [They needed to institute this enactment because of the enactment that witnesses would not be accepted after the afternoon offering. If they had permitted labor after the afternoon offering, the following year people would treat the sanctity of the day lightly at its beginning, saying: Last year we practiced sanctity for no reason, for after the afternoon offering we returned to conducting ourselves according to weekday practice.]

Accordingly, the enactment of the two days of Rosh Hashanah itself was an enactment of the court, and they did not observe it because of uncertainty resulting from lack of knowledge. Rather, when they sanctified according to sighting, they sanctified the thirtieth day of Elul as Rosh Hashanah in every case; if witnesses came on that day, they observed only one day. But if witnesses did not come until after the afternoon offering, they observed two days even in the court itself, whose members knew that witnesses would no longer be accepted that day.

And likewise, in those places where they did not know whether the thirtieth day had been sanctified, they observed the enactment of two days, which, as stated, was a certain enactment and not because of uncertainty.

Therefore, an egg laid on the first day is forbidden on the second, since both days are holy because of uncertainty, and it is impossible to say “whichever way it is.”

Rabba said: From the enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai onward—

an egg

laid on the first Festival day of Rosh Hashanah is

permitted

on the second Festival day.

Since

we learned

[there]:

when the Temple was destroyed,

and there was no concern that the Levites would become confused in the song over the offering,

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that

the matter should return to its original state, before the enactment, and

they should

accept

testimony concerning the new moon all day. And once Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted this, the enactment to make the two days certainly holy was also annulled, for it was no longer necessary. For it turned out that the court would again not certainly observe two days, whereas those distant from the court would practice sanctity because of uncertainty on the thirtieth day of Elul throughout the entire day, lest witnesses come at the end of the day and it become sanctified retroactively, as with the two Festival days of the Diaspora.

And since from then on they observed the two days only because of uncertainty, the “whichever way it is” returns to permit the egg on the second day, for if witnesses did not come throughout the entire day, it becomes clear retroactively that the first day was a weekday.

Abaye said to him

to Rabba:

But Rav and Samuel,

who lived after the Destruction, nevertheless

both say: An egg

laid on the first day is

forbidden

on the second!?

He said to him

Rabba to Abaye:

I am telling you,

I told you my position according to

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

who is a tannay,

and

you

would

have

told me

to refute me

from the words of

Rav and Samuel,

who are amoraim!? And now the Gemara itself asks:

And for Rav and Samuel,

who forbid the egg—

there is a difficulty from the Mishna,

in which it is explained that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted returning the situation to its original state, as it was before the enactment; then they practiced sanctity on the first day because of uncertainty and not as a certain enactment, and the egg was permitted by “whichever way it is” on the second day. This is how one must practice even today, and not according to the words of Rav and Samuel, who forbid it!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

Here it is for us,

for us, the people of the Diaspora, the enactment to observe two days remained as a fixed enactment, for we never ceased it and observed only one day.

Therefore, even when Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored in the Land of Israel the earlier practice, to accept witnesses throughout the entire day, the enactment still remained with us in the Diaspora to observe the two days as one long and certain sanctity, and not as the practice of uncertainty on each of the two days.

And therefore Rav and Shmuel said to us that the egg is forbidden on the second day.

But for them,

for the people of the Land of Israel, when Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the acceptance of witnesses until evening, the enactment to observe the two days with certain sanctity was nullified of itself.

For if the witnesses came even after the afternoon offering, only that one day would be sanctified; and if they did not come, indeed that day was not sanctified, but only the following day was sanctified, and their entire observance of sanctity on the first day was only on account of the uncertainty.

Accordingly, in the Land of Israel, if an egg had been laid on the first day, on which they observed sanctity because of uncertainty, and the month was not sanctified on it, the egg would have been permitted on the next day.

And the Gemara brings the view of three amoraim who disagreed with Rabba,

1.

And Rav Yosef said: Even from the time of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s enactment onward, the egg is forbidden.

If they observed two days, even in the Land of Israel, and even in the place of the court, where they observe two days only because of uncertainty, and it turns out that the first day was an ordinary weekday, nevertheless an egg laid on it is forbidden on the second day.

What is the reason? -

The prohibition of the egg

on the second day, by force of the first decree to observe two days with certain sanctity [when they enacted not to accept witnesses from the afternoon offering onward]

is a matter

that was established by a count.

That is, the court convened a count and established it as an enactment of the Sages.

And every “matter that was established by a count”

requires another count

that another court convene a count concerning it

to permit it.

Even if the permission follows automatically, and there is no need for the court to deliberate upon it, nevertheless the court must explicitly permit it.

The court never convened a count to permit the egg on the second day. Therefore the egg is forbidden even after Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted that the witnesses should be accepted throughout the entire day.

Rav Yosef said: From where do I say this

that every matter established by a count requires another count to permit it, even if the reason for the first enactment has ceased —

for it is written

Deuteronomy 5:27

“Go, say to them: Return to your tents.”

And it says:

Exodus 19

“When the ram’s horn is sounded, they shall ascend the mountain.”

And below it will be explained how these verses are expounded.

And

Rav Yosef brings another proof that it requires another count to permit it, from the fact that

we learned in a Mishna

in tractate Maaser Sheni [5:2]: the grapes of “fourth-year vineyard produce” [the produce of the fourth year, after the three years of orla have been completed] must be brought up and eaten in Jerusalem, or redeemed with money, and the money brought up to Jerusalem, and food purchased with it and eaten there.

And the Sages enacted, so that there would be abundant produce in Jerusalem, that the places near Jerusalem should not redeem their produce with money, but should come with the produce itself to Jerusalem.

Fourth-year vineyard produce —

was brought up to Jerusalem

without being redeemed, from all the places surrounding Jerusalem, at a distance of

a one-day journey, in every direction.

And this is its boundary,

the boundary of the distance from which they had to bring up the produce itself:

Eilat from the south, Akraba from the north, Lod from the west, and the Jordan from the east.

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the reason

they enacted that the produce should not be redeemed, but should be brought up to Jerusalem? —

In order to adorn the markets of Jerusalem with produce .

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer had fourth-year vineyard produce east of Lod, beside Kefar Tavi.

Within the boundary of a one-day journey around Jerusalem.