Beitzah 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Eliezer sought

to make it ownerless

for him

for the poor, since it was difficult for him to take the produce up to Jerusalem, and he wanted the poor to gather it and take it up to Jerusalem in his place, in order to gain free produce.

His disciples said to him: Rabbi! Your colleagues have already convened concerning you and permitted it

—they permitted fourth-year vineyard produce to be redeemed and its value to be taken up to Jerusalem. Since Jerusalem was destroyed and its Jewish inhabitants were exiled, and gentiles settled there in their place, there was no longer any reason to adorn the markets of Jerusalem for the gentiles. You yourself can take the redemption money for the fourth-year vineyard up to Jerusalem and eat the produce there, since the sanctity of Jerusalem still applies .

And Rav Yosef further infers:

Who are “your colleagues”?

Who is considered Rabbi Eliezer’s colleague? It is none other than

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,

who was Rabbi Eliezer’s teacher before the destruction. When this incident occurred, Rabbi Eliezer had already grown and become a student-colleague of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai. [Rav Yosef inferred this from the wording “his disciples,” who called him a “colleague,” because the incident occurred after the destruction, when the reason for the enactment had already ceased to apply—Penei Yehoshua.]

And Rav Yosef further infers:

The reason—

that they convened

to annul the enactment that one may not redeem the produce but must take it up to Jerusalem, and they permitted its redemption—is that it is therefore permitted to redeem it.

Had they not convened—

No!

Rather, the enactment prohibiting redemption remained in force, despite the fact that the reason for adorning the markets of Jerusalem had ceased to apply .

The Gemara now explains Rav Yosef’s proofs from the verses he cited:

What

is Rav Yosef saying when he states,

“And it says

‘Throughout the blast of the shofar they may ascend the mountain’”? How can one derive anything from the verse “Return to your tents,” and what addition is there in the second verse, in which it says, “Throughout the blast of the shofar they may ascend the mountain”?

This is what

Rav Yosef is saying:

Since—

for

it is written

[Exodus 19:15]

“Be ready after three days; do not approach a woman,”

meaning that marital relations were prohibited during the three days preceding the giving of the Torah. If so, after the giving of the Torah had ended, and God said to Moses [Deuteronomy 5:27],

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

meaning that marital relations were now permitted to you—

why do I need it?

What need is there for this permission? Was not the entire instruction to abstain from marital relations intended to enable them to arrive in purity at the revelation at Sinai, and had that revelation not already

ended?

Rather,

infer from here: Anything established by a quorum—

requires another quorum to permit it.

From God’s practice of personally returning to permit what He had prohibited once the reason for the prohibition had ceased, we learn with regard to the enactments of the Sages that anything established by a quorum requires another quorum to permit it .

There is still a need for a teaching from an additional verse. For:

And if you would say

that “Return to your tents” was not necessary to permit marital relations, since the prohibition would have lapsed automatically when its reason ceased, but rather

it came for the mitzva of marital obligation,

commanding them not now to diminish the marital obligation they owed their wives ,

Therefore,

come and hear

from an additional verse: It is stated [Exodus 19:13],

“Throughout the blast of the shofar

[when the prolonged blast of the shofar is heard, which is the final blast]—

they may ascend the mountain.”

That is, when the Divine Presence departs from the mountain, a prolonged blast is sounded, and from that point they are permitted to ascend Mount Sinai, since until then they had been instructed not to ascend the mountain.

And now the Gemara explains how Rav Yosef derived from this verse that any matter established by a quorum requires another quorum to permit it.

For ostensibly, this is difficult:

once

it is already

written

that when Moses our teacher ascended to receive the second Tablets [Exodus 34]:

“The sheep and the cattle shall not graze opposite that mountain,”

the meaning is to limit the first instruction prohibiting ascent to the mountain to the period of its sanctity; but after the sanctity departs, it is permitted to ascend it.

And since the Divine Presence rested upon the mountain from the time the first Tablets were given until the Tabernacle was erected, and throughout that entire period it was prohibited to ascend it, if so, the instruction permitting ascent that was stated with regard to the first Tablets,

“when the ram’s horn is sounded,”

“they may ascend the mountain”—that is, it is permitted to ascend the mountain when an extended blast is sounded—

why is it necessary?

What need is there for it?

Rather, Rav Yosef proves:

Conclude from this: Any matter established by a quorum

requires another quorum to permit it.

Therefore, the verse “opposite that mountain” would not have sufficed, because it merely teaches us that the sanctity prevents ascent to the mountain as long as it exists; but it does not explicitly permit the annulment of the earlier instruction prohibiting ascent to the mountain once the Divine Presence has departed from it.

And if you would say: This applies—

to matters of Torah law, but not to matters of rabbinic law;

that one need not convene again in order to permit them—therefore Rav Yosef added and said:

Come and hear: The second tithe vineyard.

And this is how he precisely inferred it from the incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and his student:

But

to bring up the produce of

a second-tithe vineyard

rather than redeem it was only a rabbinic enactment,

and nevertheless

his students said to him,

the students of Rabbi Eliezer:

“Your colleagues have already convened concerning you and permitted it,”

which indicates that only because they convened and permitted it was Rabbi Eliezer able to redeem it; but had they not convened concerning it, he would have been obligated to bring it up, even though the reason for the enactment had lapsed. It necessarily follows that even a rabbinic enactment is not annulled unless a quorum convenes concerning it in order to annul it.

Rav Yosef concludes that this is why he prohibited the egg on the second day of Rosh HaShana, even after the enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai to receive witnesses throughout the entire day.

And if you would say

that concerning

the egg as well, we convened

and convened

concerning it,

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

and permitted it.

This cannot be said, since

when we convened,

when Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and his court convened, they convened only

with regard to the testimony

concerning the new moon, to receive it even after the afternoon prayer.

But

with regard to the egg,

we did not convene

to permit it.

Abaye said to him,

to Rav Yosef:

Is that so?

Was the prohibition of

the egg

at the outset, when they enacted that witnesses not be received after the afternoon prayer and that the two days be observed with definite sanctity,

established by a quorum?

Was the enactment prohibiting the egg also established by a quorum?

But surely the prohibition of

the egg depends on the testimony.

And if so, there is reason to permit it, because at the time when

the acceptance

of

testimony

from the afternoon prayer onward was prohibited and the two days were established with definite sanctity,

the egg was prohibited,

since the two days are like one long sanctified day.

But from the time when Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and his court convened and

permitted

the acceptance of

testimony

even from the afternoon prayer onward, and the two days were observed only because of uncertainty,

the egg was permitted

as well

by this.

b.

Rav Adda and Rav Shalman, both from the house of Kaluhit, said: Even from the time of the enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai onward—

the egg is prohibited.

What is the reason?

The Temple may soon be rebuilt,

and the enactment will return that testimony not be received from the afternoon prayer onward, so that the Levites would not become confused in the song of the daily offering at twilight; and once again the two days would be certainly sanctified, like one long day, and an egg born on the first day would be prohibited for eating on the second day.

And

one must be concerned lest people err and

say,

the people:

“Last year, did we not eat an egg on the second Festival day?

And if so,

this year as well, let us eat it.”

And they will not know

those mistaken people

that last year

the two days,

two sanctities

separate because of uncertainty,

were,

with one being a weekday and the other a sacred day.

And

if

this year,

after the Temple has been rebuilt,

there is one sanctity.

And in order to prevent such an error, the egg remains prohibited even today.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that there is concern that people will err when the Temple is rebuilt,

testimony

concerning sighting the moon, in order to sanctify the month,

should likewise not be received

from the afternoon prayer onward!

What is the reason?

The Temple may soon be rebuilt,

and people will say: “Last year, did we not receive testimony concerning the new month throughout the entire day? This year as well, let us receive it.”

And the Gemara answers:

Can this be compared!?

What is the comparison?!

There,

testimony is entrusted to the court,

and they will not come to make such an error.

But eating

an egg

is entrusted to everyone,

and since every person relies on his practice, we are concerned that even when the Temple is rebuilt they will rely on their practice from the previous year and come to transgress a prohibition.

c.

Rava said: Even from the time of the enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai onward—

it still remains that

the egg is prohibited.

Because

does

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai not agree

that

even

if witnesses arrived from the afternoon prayer onward,

and they accepted them in accordance with his enactment and made that day sacred,

they observe

also

that day as sacred, and

also

the following day as sacred!

That is, Rabban Yohanan did not annul the enactment that two Festival days should always be observed; this is a fixed and definite practice. He merely enacted that witnesses be received from the afternoon prayer onward, and that the dates of Yom Kippur and Sukkot be counted from the first day.

And Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rav’s ruling in these three matters,

the laws Rav stated concerning an egg born on a Festival day,

both for leniency and for stringency.

These are: a. When Shabbat and a Festival day are adjacent to one another, Rav prohibited an egg born on the first day from being eaten on the second [folio 4a]. b. On the two Festival days observed in the Diaspora, Rav permitted an egg born on the first day to be eaten on the second [folio 4b]. c. On the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, Rav prohibited an egg born on the first day from being eaten on the second [folio 4b].