Eruvin 40a — the Talmud in English

Rather

this was the incident:

it came from outside the Shabbat limit

through a gentile who had brought it for the reish galuta on that day, and it is forbidden to a Jew like all the other Shabbat prohibitions that were performed for a Jew. And here, the one who disagrees and the one who agrees disagree over this:

The one who ate reasoned:

an object

that comes

from outside the Shabbat limit

for this Jew,

there is a prohibition against eating it only for him, but

it is permitted to another Jew,

since the laws of limits are rabbinic, [Mishna Berura, section 276].

And

the one who did not eat—

Rav Sheshet—

reasoned:

since it was brought for the reish galuta, we say that

everything that comes to the house of the reish galuta

comes with the intention of being for all the Sages,

since they were frequent in his house, and therefore they are all considered as ones for whom it was brought, and it is forbidden for them to eat it.

And we raise a difficulty against Rav Ashi:

But Rav Sheshet encountered Rabbah bar Shemuel and said to him:

Have you, Master, taught anything concerning the sanctities?

And according to Rav Ashi, why did he ask him whether they are one sanctity or two sanctities? For according to Rav Ashi, it is obvious to everyone that they are two sanctities [so Rashi explained; and see Rashash].

And we answer:

These matters

were never said—these matters that we said concerning Rav Sheshet and Rabbah bar Shemuel—

ever!

That turnip

[a turnip]

that came to Mehoza

Rava’s city, on Yom Tov, through gentiles.

Rava went out and saw that it was withered

[Rava went out and saw that they were withered], and therefore

Rava permitted buying from him

on Yom Tov, because

Rava said:

since it was withered,

this has certainly been uprooted since yesterday.

What are you saying

to forbid it, since in any event it is forbidden because

it came from outside the Shabbat limit

today?

It is not so.

For an object

that comes for this Jew, it is permitted for another Jew to eat.

And all the more so this one, since

it

came with the intention of being for gentiles

[it was for gentiles]

it came!

когда Рава увидел,

However,

when Rava saw

Rava subsequently

that they were increasing

the gentiles

and bringing them

[that the gentiles were bringing more for Jews], after they learned that Jews too were buying,

he forbade them

Rava forbade Jews to buy from the gentiles, for now it had been brought outside the Shabbat limit for their sake.

Those sons of the canopy-makers

[those who tie canopies for bridegrooms and place myrtle there]

for whom myrtles had been cut

[the gentiles had cut myrtles for them]

on the second day of Yom Tov.

In the evening

[on the evening after Yom Tov]

Ravina permitted them to smell it

[to smell them]

immediately,

since we do not require “the time needed for it to be done” on the second day of Yom Tov, which is lenient, [Milchamot and Ran according to Rashi’s approach].

Rava bar Tahlifa said to Ravina: Let the Master prohibit them

for the time needed for it to be done [Milchamot],

because they are not

those sons of the canopy-makers—

people learned in Torah,

and they may come to treat the second day of Yom Tov lightly. [Rashi. Or, they may come to permit this even on the first day, Milchamot according to Rashi’s version].

Rav Shemaya challenged him: The reason is that they are not people learned in Torah; but if they were people learned in Torah,

would they be

permitted?!

But we require the time needed for it to be done

even on the second day of Yom Tov?!

They went and asked Rava.

He said to them: We require the time needed for it to be done,

even on the second day of Yom Tov, which is lenient [Milchamot and Ran, according to Rashi’s approach].

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Dosa

son of Harkinas

says,

the one who passes before the ark on Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah says: “This day of the New Moon.” And the Sages did not agree with him.

Rabbah said: When we were in the academy of Rav Huna, we had a question: What is the law regarding mentioning that of the New Moon in the

prayer of

Rosh Hashanah

and saying: “This day of the New Moon and this day of remembrance”?

And the sides of the question are:

Since they are distinct in the additional offerings,

for they offer the additional offerings of Rosh Hashanah as well as the additional offerings of the New Moon, as it is written in the passage of the additional offering of Rosh Hashanah: “Besides the burnt offering of the New Moon,”

we say

and mention that of the New Moon besides Rosh Hashanah.

Or perhaps,

since he says “this day of remembrance” [for the Merciful One called Rosh Hashanah “remembrance,” as it is written: “a remembrance of the blast”], and the New Moon too is called “remembrance,” as it is written in the passage concerning the trumpets [Numbers 10:10]: “And on the day of your joy and on your festivals and on your New Moons, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings, and they shall be for you as a ‘remembrance’ before your God.” If so,

does one remembrance suffice for here and there?

And

Rav Huna told us

Rav Huna:

You can derive it

from our Mishna, for according to the Sages one does not mention that of the New Moon at all, as we learned:

Rabbi Dosa says: The one who passes before the ark

and so on, “And the Sages did not agree with him,”

what does “did not agree with him” mean?

They did not agree with him that one must

mention

that of the New Moon.

And we reject this:

No,

the Sages disagree not about mentioning it, but about whether one must

stipulate. Rather, he should say without a stipulation: “And likewise, the following day.” [Rashi]

И действительно, это представляется логичным.

And we support what we explained:

This too is logically evident.

For since it is taught in a beraita: “And this is also what Rabbi Dosa used to do”

—that he would stipulate—

“on the New Moons of the entire year, and the Sages did not agree with him”

the Sages.

Granted, if you say

that they did not agree that one must

stipulate; for that reason they did not agree with him

concerning the other New Moons.

But if you say

that they did not agree that one must

mention—

why did they not agree with him

concerning the other New Moons, where one certainly mentions it, that one must stipulate?

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

But rather, what

have you come to explain on the basis of this support, that they disagree about

stipulating?

If so,

why do I need the disagreement to be stated in two cases:

the New Moon that occurs on Rosh Hashanah, and the New Moons of the entire year?!

And if so, on the contrary, the opposite is proven: since in the Mishna they do not disagree about stipulating, for they hold that there is no need to mention it at all, then in the beraita they again disagree about stipulating, concerning the New Moons of the entire year.

And we reject this: In truth, they disagree about stipulating and not about mentioning.

And regarding what is difficult for you—why do I need two cases—

it is necessary!

For if he had taught us

their disagreement concerning stipulating only in

Rosh Hashanah, I would have said: In this

case

the Sages say not

to stipulate

because it will lead to treating it lightly

[every Rosh Hashanah, according to the gloss], since they hold it to be a doubt, and therefore we say simply, “And likewise, the following day,” and “we regard them as one sanctity” [Rashi; and see Maharsha].

But concerning the New Moons of the entire year,

when work is permitted and there is no concern of treating it lightly,

I might say that they agree with Rabbi Dosa

that one must stipulate; therefore it teaches us otherwise.

And if it was stated

that their disagreement, Rabbi Dosa and the Sages, was only

in this case

[concerning the New Moons of the entire year], I would have said:

In this case

—where there is no concern of treating it lightly—

Rabbi Dosa says

that one should stipulate.

But in that case

[on Rosh Hashanah], since there is concern of treating it lightly,

I might say that he agrees with the Sages,

therefore

it is necessary

to state these two cases, and in truth they disagree concerning stipulating.

He raises an objection

to what we have now established, that they disagree only concerning stipulating, but agree that one must mention that of the New Moon, from what was taught:

When Rosh Hashanah occurs on Shabbat, the School of Shammai says: He recites ten

blessings in the additional prayer of Rosh Hashanah, consisting of three initial and three final blessings, and a blessing for Shabbat by itself, making seven, and a blessing for the sanctity of the day, including kingships with it, and a blessing for remembrances and a blessing for shofarot, making ten!

And the School of Hillel says: He recites nine

blessings, including Shabbat and the sanctity of the day in one blessing [and concluding: “Who sanctifies Shabbat, Israel, and the day of remembrance,” Rashi].

And now this is difficult:

And if it is so

that one mentions that of the New Moon, certainly, since according to the School of Shammai each one requires a blessing by itself, the same applies to the New Moon: it requires a blessing by itself.

And if so, this is difficult:

The School of Shammai says:

He recites

eleven—

it should have been required?!