Beitzah 5b — 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.

поскольку ему было трудно доставить эти плоды в Иерусалим, и он хотел, чтобы бедняки собрали их и вместо него доставили в Иерусалим, чтобы получить плоды бесплатно.

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 learned from this verse that anything established by a count requires another count to permit it.

For seemingly one should wonder,

since

it is already

written

when Moses our teacher went up to receive the second tablets [Exodus 34:

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

whose meaning is to limit the first instruction not to ascend the mountain only for the duration 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 of the giving of the first tablets until the erection of the Tabernacle, and throughout all that time it was forbidden to ascend it, if so, the instruction of permission that was said with the first tablets,

“at the drawing of the yovel”

“they shall ascend the mountain,” meaning that it is permitted to ascend the mountain when a prolonged blast is sounded—

why is it needed?

What need is there for it?

Rather, Rav Yosef proves:

Learn from it: anything established by a count

requires another count to permit it.

Therefore, the verse “opposite that mountain” was not sufficient, for it only informs us that the sanctity prevents ascending the mountain as long as it exists, but it does not contain an explicit instruction of permission to annul the earlier instruction not to ascend the mountain when the Divine Presence has departed from it.

And if you would say: these words apply—

to matters of Torah law, but with matters of rabbinic law, no

need to count again in order to permit it; therefore Rav Yosef added and said:

Come and hear: fourth-year vineyard.

And so he inferred from the incident involving Rabbi Eliezer and his student:

But

to bring up

a fourth-year vineyard

and not redeem it was only a rabbinic ordinance,

and

nevertheless

they said to him

Rabbi Eliezer’s students:

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

and it follows that only because they counted and permitted it could Rabbi Eliezer redeem it; but had they not counted concerning this, he would have been obligated to bring it up, even though the reason for the ordinance had ceased. Necessarily, even a rabbinic ordinance is not annulled unless they count concerning it in order to annul it.

And Rav Yosef concludes that for this reason he prohibited the egg on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, even after the ordinance of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai to receive witnesses throughout the entire day.

And if you would say

that concerning

the egg as well we counted

counted

concerning it

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

and permitted it.

It is impossible to say so, since

when we counted,

when Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and his court counted—they counted only

concerning the testimony

of the month, to receive it also after the afternoon prayer.

But

concerning the egg—

we did not count

to permit it.

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

Is it so

that the prohibition of

the egg

at the beginning, when they instituted not to receive witnesses from the afternoon prayer onward and to conduct the two days with definite sanctity—

was it by a count?

Was the ordinance of prohibiting the egg also by a count?

But surely the prohibition of the

egg depends on the testimony.

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

it was prohibited

to receive

testimony

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

the egg was prohibited,

since the two days are like one long sacred day.

But from the time Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and his court counted and

permitted

the receiving of

testimony

even from the afternoon prayer onward, and they conducted the two days only because of uncertainty,

it was permitted

through this also

the egg.

b.

Rav Adda and Rav Shalman, both from Bei Kalohit, said: Even from the ordinance of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai onward—

the egg is prohibited.

What is the reason?—

The Temple will soon be rebuilt,

and the ordinance will return not to receive testimony from the afternoon prayer onward, so that the Levites will not be disrupted in the song of the daily offering at twilight; and again the two days will be certainly sacred, like one long day, and an egg that was born on the first day will be prohibited to eat on the second day.

And

one must be concerned lest they err and

say

people:

“Last year, did we not eat an egg on the second day of the festival,

and if so,

this year as well, let us eat.”

And they will not know

those mistaken people

that last year

the two days

were two sanctities

separate because of uncertainty

—

when one is profane and the other sacred.

And

if

this year

after the Temple is rebuilt—

it is one sanctity.

And so that such an error should not occur, the egg continues to be prohibited even today.

And we refute:

If so,

that one must be concerned about error when the Temple is rebuilt—

testimony

concerning the sighting of the moon to sanctify the month

we should also not receive

from the afternoon prayer onward!

What is the reason?—

The Temple will soon be

rebuilt, and they will say: “Last year, did we not receive testimony of the new moon the entire day? This year as well, let us receive it.”

And the Gemara answers:

Is it comparable now!?

What is the comparison?!

There—

testimony is entrusted to the court,

and they will not come to such an error.

But the eating of

an egg—

is entrusted to everyone,

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

c.

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

still

the egg is prohibited.

For

who

is it—does

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai not agree that

even

if witnesses came from the afternoon prayer onward,

and they received them in accordance with his ordinance and made that day sacred,

they conduct

also

that day as sacred, and

also

the following day as sacred!?

That is, Rabban Yohanan did not annul the ordinance that they should always observe two festival days, which is a fixed and certain practice. He only instituted that they should receive the witnesses from the afternoon prayer onward, and count the dates of Yom Kippur and Sukkot festivals from the first day.

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

laws that Rav stated concerning an egg born on Yom Tov,

both for leniency and for stringency.

Вот эти три случая: а. Если Шабат и праздничный день следуют один за другим, Рав запретил есть во второй день яйцо, снесенное в первый [лист 4а]. б. В два праздничных дня за пределами Земли Израиля Рав разрешил есть во второй день яйцо, снесенное в первый [лист 4б]. в. В два праздничных дня Рош ха-Шана Рав запретил есть во второй день яйцо, снесенное в первый [лист 4б].

And these are they: a. When Shabbat and Yom Tov are adjacent to one another, Rav prohibited an egg born on the first day from being eaten on the second [page 4a]. b. On the two festival days of the Diaspora, Rav permitted an egg born on the first day to be eaten on the second [page 4b]. c. On the two festival days of Rosh Hashanah, Rav prohibited an egg born on the first day from being eaten on the second [page 4b].