Eruvin 40a (מ.) — 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 exilarch that day, and it was prohibited to a Jew, like all prohibitions of Shabbat performed for a Jew. And here, the one who ate and the one who did not eat disagree about this:

The one who ate reasoned:

An item

brought

from outside the Shabbat limit

for this Jew

is prohibited only for him to eat, but

it is permitted for another Jew,

since the prohibition of תחומין is rabbinic. [Mishna Berura, section 276].

And

the one who did not eat—

Rav Sheshet—

reasoned:

Since it was brought for the exilarch, we say that

everything that comes to the house of the exilarch

comes with all the Sages in mind,

since they were frequent visitors in his house. Therefore, they are all considered as though it had been brought for them, and it is prohibited for them to eat it.

And we raise an objection to Rav Ashi:

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

Have you learned anything concerning two sanctities?

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

And we answer:

These matters—

which we stated concerning Rav Sheshet and Rabba bar Shemuel—

never occurred!

That turnip

[a turnip]

that came to Meḥoza,

Rava’s city, on Yom Tov through gentiles.

Rava went out and saw that it had withered

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

Rava permitted buying them from him

on Yom Tov, because

Rava said:

Since it had withered,

it had certainly been uprooted the previous day.

What are you saying

by prohibiting it, since in any event it should be prohibited because

it came from outside the Shabbat limit

today?

That is not so.

For an item

brought for this Jew is permitted for another Jew to eat.

And all the more so this one,

since

it came with gentiles in mind

[for gentiles],

it came!

However,

when Rava saw

afterward

that they were increasing

the gentiles

and bringing them

[that the gentiles were bringing more for Jews, after they learned that Jews also purchased them],

Rava prohibited them

from buying from the gentiles, for now they had been brought outside the Shabbat limit for their sake.

There were these grooms’ attendants

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

for whom myrtle had been cut

[the gentiles had cut myrtle for them]

on the second day of Yom Tov.

That evening

[the evening after Yom Tov]

Ravina permitted them to smell it

[to smell it]

immediately,

since we do not require “the time needed to perform it” after the second day of Yom Tov, which is lenient. [Milḥamot and Ran, following Rashi’s approach].

Rava bar Taḥlifa said to Ravina: Let the Master prohibit it for them

for the time needed to perform it [Milḥamot],

because they are not—

those grooms’ attendants—

people learned in Torah,

and they may come to treat the second day of Yom Tov lightly. [Rashi. Alternatively, they may come to permit this even on the first day, according to the version of Rashi in Milḥamot].

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

would it

be permitted?!

But we require the time needed to perform it

even on the second day of Yom Tov?!

They went and reported this to Rava.

He said to them: We require the time needed to perform it,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Dosa

son of Horkinas

says:

The one who passes before the ark on Rosh HaShana says: “This day of the New Moon.” But the Sages did not agree with him.

Rabba said: When we were in the study hall of Rav Huna, we raised the question: What is the ruling concerning mentioning the New Moon in the

prayer of

Rosh HaShana,

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

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Since the additional offerings are distinct,

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

we say

and mention the New Moon in addition to Rosh HaShana.

Or perhaps,

since one says “this Day of Remembrance”—for the Merciful One called Rosh HaShana a remembrance, as it is written: “A memorial of the blast”—and the New Moon is also called a remembrance, as it is written in the passage concerning the trumpets [Numbers 10:10]: “And on the day of your gladness, and on your appointed festivals, and on your New Moons, you shall sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over your sacrifices of peace offerings; and they shall be a remembrance for you before your God.” If so,

does one remembrance suffice for both?

And

Rav Huna said to us:

You can derive it

from what we learned

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

Rabbi Dosa says: The one who passes before the ark

and so on: “But the Sages did not agree with him.”

What, is it not

that they did not agree with him that he must

mention

the New Moon?

And we reject this:

No.

The Sages disagree not concerning mentioning it, but concerning whether he must

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

And we support the explanation we gave:

This is also reasonable.

For it is taught in a beraita: And this is what Rabbi Dosa would do—

he would stipulate—

on all the New Moons throughout the entire year, but 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 he must stipulate?

And we raise a difficulty concerning this:

But what then

have you come to explain on the basis of this support—that they disagree concerning

stipulating?

If so,

why was it necessary to state the dispute in two cases:

the New Moon that occurs on Rosh HaShana and the New Moons throughout the entire year?!

And if so, on the contrary, the opposite is proven: Since in the Mishna they do not disagree concerning stipulating, as they hold that one need not mention it at all, they must again disagree in the beraita concerning stipulating, with regard to the New Moons throughout the entire year.

And we reject this: They always disagree concerning stipulating, and not concerning mentioning it.

And regarding what is difficult for you—why is it necessary to state both cases—

it is necessary!

For had it taught us

their dispute concerning stipulating only with regard to

Rosh HaShana, I would have said: It is in this case

that

the Sages say that one should not

stipulate,

because this may lead to treating it lightly

[every Rosh HaShana, according to the marginal gloss], since they regard it as doubtful. Therefore, they say it without an explicit stipulation: “And likewise, the following day,” and “regard them as one sanctity.” [Rashi; see Maharsha].

But with regard to all the New Moons throughout the entire year,

when labor is permitted and there is no concern that it will be treated lightly,

I might say that they agree with Rabbi Dosa

that one must stipulate; therefore, it teaches us otherwise.

And had it been stated

that their dispute—Rabbi Dosa and the Sages—concerns only

this

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

It is in this case,

where there is no concern that it will be treated lightly, that

Rabbi Dosa says

that he should stipulate.

But in that case

[Rosh HaShana], since there is concern that it will be treated lightly,

I might say that he agrees with the Sages;

therefore

it is necessary

to state both cases. And in all circumstances, they disagree concerning stipulating.

The following objection was raised

against what we have now established—that they disagree only concerning stipulating, but agree that one must mention the New Moon—from what is taught in a beraita:

When Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: One recites ten

blessings in the additional prayer of Rosh HaShana: the three first blessings and the three final blessings, and a blessing for Shabbat by itself, making seven; a blessing for the sanctification of the day, including kingship verses in it; a blessing for remembrances; and a blessing for shofarot—making ten!

And Beit Hillel say: One recites nine

blessings, as he includes Shabbat and the sanctification of the day in a single blessing [and concludes: “Who sanctifies Shabbat, Israel, and the Day of Remembrance,” Rashi].

And now this is difficult:

But if it is so

that one mentions the New Moon, then certainly, according to Beit Shammai, who require a separate blessing for each one, the same applies to the New Moon: it requires a separate blessing.

And if so, this is difficult:

Beit Shammai say:

One recites

eleven—

should this not have been required?!