Rosh Hashanah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection: If indeed the matter occurred while the Temple was standing:

why derive this?

It would have sufficed for that day to be a day of rejoicing because

it was the day on which Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed!

For even before they abolished the mention of the Name from documents, that day was already a day of rejoicing, since while the Temple was standing they practiced rejoicing on the day on which Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed!

Rabbi said

—he answered:

It was necessary

—the Sages did not need to establish this day in Megillat Ta'anit—

but

in order

to prohibit

even

the

day

before it [the second of Tishrei].

For it is written in Megillat Ta'anit: These days themselves, and the days before them and after them, are prohibited for fasting [or for eulogizing].

And had the Sages not established this day in Megillat Ta'anit, the day before it would have been permitted for fasting, and therefore they reestablished it.

Below, the Gemara asks that even without this, the day before it would have been prohibited, because it is the day before the Fast of Gedaliah.]

And we raise an objection: The day

before it—

also

would have been prohibited for fasting, even had they not reestablished it as a festival day. For

why derive this?

It would have sufficed

that

it was the day after the New Moon

of Tishrei. And the New Moon is a mo'ed, and therefore even the day after it should be prohibited for fasting! And we answer:

The New Moon

is a mo'ed

by Torah law

.

And

a mo'ed

by Torah law—

does not require reinforcement.

There is no need to reinforce the prohibition against fasting on it by prohibiting the days adjacent to it, because it is mandated by Torah law.

But festivals that are rabbinic in nature: had the Sages not prohibited fasting near them, there would be concern that people might come to fast on the festival itself.

And the Gemara proves from a beraita that Torah-law festivals do not require reinforcement:

As it was taught: These days written in Megillat Ta'anit are prohibited both on the days before them and on the days after them.

But

Shabbatot and festivals

only

they themselves are prohibited

for eulogizing and fasting, but

the days before and after them are permitted.

What is the difference between these and those?

These,

Shabbatot and festivals, are

matters of Torah, and matters of Torah do not require reinforcement.

But

those,

the festivals written in Megillat Ta'anit, are

matters of the Scribes

[the Sages],

and matters of the Scribes require reinforcement.

And the Gemara returns to challenge what we said: that the day on which mention of the Name was abolished from documents occurred while the Temple was standing, and that they had to reestablish it in order to prohibit the day before it:

And we raise an objection:

Why derive that it was the day before the day on which Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed!

After all, in any event the second of Tishrei was prohibited, because it is the day before the third of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah was killed, and during the time of the Temple they practiced rejoicing on that day.

And this day is not observed by Torah law. If so, the question returns: Why did they need to reestablish the third of Tishrei as a day of rejoicing?

Rabbi said

—he answered:

Rav Ashi:

The day on which

Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed is a day of rejoicing mentioned in

the

Words of Tradition

[in the books of the Prophets];

it is.

And the Words of Tradition

are

considered like matters of Torah,

which do not require reinforcement, and the day before it was not prohibited on its account.

Rav Tovi bar Mattana raises an objection

to the view of those who say that Megillat Ta'anit was annulled, from Megillat Ta'anit itself:

It is stated in Megillat Ta'anit:

On the twenty-eighth thereof

, on the twenty-eighth of Adar,

good tidings came to the Jews that they would not be uprooted from the Torah.

Good tidings came to the Jews that they would no longer have to depart from what is written in the Torah.

For

before this,

the government issued a decree that they should not

study Torah, circumcise their sons, or desecrate Shabbatot.

What did Judah ben Shamua and his colleagues do?

They went and sought counsel from one matron

a distinguished woman

whom all the nobles of Rome frequented. She said to them: Come and demonstrate at night!

They went and demonstrated at night,

so that the ministers would hear and have mercy on them, and

they said:

O heavens,

for the sake of the Almighty! Are we

not your brothers!?

And

are we

not the children of one father!?

And

are we

not the children of one mother!?

That government was descended from Esau, and he was the son of our father Isaac and our mother Rebecca.

How are we different from every nation and tongue, that you issue harsh decrees against us?

And the demonstration was effective, and

they annulled

the decrees.

And that day

[the twenty-eighth of Adar]—

they made it a festival day.

And the Gemara understood that this incident occurred in the present era, and from here there is a difficulty for those who hold that Megillat Ta'anit was annulled:

And if it enters your mind,

if you would think that

Megillat Ta'anit was annulled,

there is a difficulty:

If

the earlier ones were annulled,

the initial days listed in Megillat Ta'anit as festival days because of miracles that occurred in the past, even though they had been observed during the time of the Temple, the Sages annulled them.

The later ones—

are they adding them!?

Is it appropriate now to add other days on which rejoicing had never previously been practiced?!

And if you would say,

and if you wish to answer that

here too,

this incident also occurred

while the Temple

was

standing,

there is a difficulty:

But Judah ben Shamua,

who went out to demonstrate with his colleagues,

was a student of Rabbi Meir

.

And Rabbi Meir—

was only later,

he lived after the Destruction, for he was among the students of the students of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who lived at the time of the Destruction.

And the proof that Judah ben Shamua was a student of Rabbi Meir is what we learned concerning the ritual impurity of vessels.

An impure vessel that broke, thereby ceasing to be a vessel, loses its original impurity. But the Sages issued a decree concerning metal vessels: if they were repaired, they return to their original impurity, even though they did not become impure anew.

Impure glass vessels that broke do not return to their original impurity even if they were repaired. This is because glass vessels do not contract impurity by Torah law at all, but only by rabbinic law; therefore, the Sages did not decree that if they were repaired they would return to their original impurity [Shabbat 16a–b].

As it was taught

in tractate Shabbat [15b]:

Glass vessels that

became impure and afterward

were pierced,

they were pierced in order to purify them from their impurity by removing them from the status of a “vessel,”

and

after they were pierced and became pure,

he dripped lead into them,

lead, in order to seal the opening, and it once again became a vessel.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:

The Sages disputed the question of whether the vessel returned to its original impurity.

Judah ben Shamua declares it impure in the name of Rabbi Meir.

Because the lead is one of the types of metal, and since it is what causes the glass to return to the status of a vessel, they gave the vessel the legal status of a metal vessel, and it returns to its original impurity.