Rosh Hashanah 19a — the Talmud in English

And we ask: if indeed the matter occurred at the time when the Temple was standing:

then let it emerge for him,

it is enough that it be a day of rejoicing because

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

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

He said

he answered

Rav: it was necessary,

the Sages did not need to establish this day in the Scroll of Fasts,

but rather

in order

to prohibit

even

the

day

preceding it [2 Tishrei].

For it is written in the Scroll of Fasts: These days themselves, and the days before them and after them, are prohibited for fasting [or for eulogizing].

For it is written in the Scroll of Fasts: These days themselves, and those preceding them and those following them, are prohibited for fasting [or eulogizing].

And had the Sages not established this day in the Scroll of Fasts, the day preceding it would have been permitted for fasting, and therefore they established it anew. [Ensuing, the Gemara asks that even without this, the day preceding it would have been prohibited, because it is the day preceding the Fast of Gedaliah].

And we challenge this: The day

And we ask: the day

preceding it—

also

was prohibited for fasting, even without their reestablishing it as a festival day. For

let it emerge for him,

it is sufficient that

it was the day following the New Moon

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

the New Moon—

a festival

by Torah law

it is.

And

and

a festival by Torah law—

does not require strengthening.

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

But festivals that are by rabbinic law: if the Sages had not prohibited fasting adjacent to them, there would be concern lest people come to fast on the festival itself.

And the Gemara proves from a beraita that festivals by Torah law do not require strengthening:

For it was taught in a beraita: These days written in the Scroll of Fasts are prohibited both before them and after them.

But

Shabbatot and festival days,

only

they are prohibited

for eulogizing and fasting, but

before them and after them, they are permitted.

What is the difference between this and that?

These,

Shabbatot and festival days, are

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

But

these,

the festivals written in the Scroll of Fasts—

the words of the Scribes [the Sages]

they are,

and the words of the Scribes require strengthening.

And the Gemara returns to challenge what we said: that the day on which the mention of the Name was abolished from the documents was at the time of the Temple, and they needed to establish it anew in order to prohibit the day preceding it:

And we ask:

Then let it emerge for him that it was the day preceding the day on which Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed!

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

And this day is not observed by Torah law, and if so the question returns: Why did they need to establish the third of Tishrei anew as a day of rejoicing?

He said

he answered

Rav Ashi:

the day on which

Gedaliah ben Ahikam

a day of rejoicing mentioned in

the words of tradition [in the books of the Prophets]

And the words of tradition

it is.

And the words of tradition

are

considered like matters of Torah,

which do not require strengthening, and the day preceding it was not prohibited on its account.

Rav Tovi bar Mattana raises an objection

contradicting the words of those who say that the Scroll of Fasts was annulled, from the words of the Scroll of Fasts itself:

It is stated in the Scroll of Fasts:

On the twenty-eighth of it,

on the twenty-eighth of Adar,

good news came to the Jews that they would not depart from the Torah.

Good news reached the Jews that they did not need to depart from what is written in the Torah.

the kingdom issued a decree that they should not

For, before this,

the kingdom decreed a decree that they should not

study Torah, that they should not circumcise their sons, and that they should profane Shabbatot.

What did Judah ben Shammua and his companions do?

They went and took counsel from a noblewoman

an important lady

one, whom all the great men 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 Heaven,

for the sake of the Holy One, blessed be He! Is it that

we are not your brothers!?

And are we

And are we

not the children of one father!?

And

And are we

not the children of one mother!?

for that kingdom was of the descendants of Esau, and he was the son of our father Isaac and our mother Rebecca.

How are we different from every nation and language, that you decree harsh decrees upon us?

And the demonstration helped, and

they annulled them

the decrees.

And that day [the twenty-eighth of Adar]—

And if it enters your mind

they made it a festival day.

And the Gemara understood that this event occurred in the present period, and from here there is a difficulty for those who hold that the Scroll of Fasts was annulled:

And if it enters your mind,

If

that the Scroll of Fasts was annulled,

there is a difficulty:

If

the earlier ones were annulled,

the earlier days, enumerated in the Scroll of Fasts as festival days for miracles that occurred in the past, even though they were observed at the time of the Temple, the Sages annulled them.

the later ones—

are they adding!?

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

And if you would say,

and if you wish to answer that

here too,

this event also occurred

at the time when the Temple

was

standing,

there is a difficulty:

But Judah ben Shammua,

who went out to demonstrate with his companions—

was a disciple of Rabbi Meir

he was.

And Rabbi Meir—

was afterward,

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

And the proof that Judah ben Shammua was a disciple of Rabbi Meir is from what we learned concerning the impurity of vessels.

An impure vessel that broke and ceased to be a vessel: its initial impurity was nullified. But the Sages decreed concerning metal vessels that if one repaired them, they return to their initial impurity, even though they did not become impure anew.

Impure glass vessels that broke—even if one repaired them, they do not return to their initial impurity. This is because glass vessels do not receive impurity by Torah law at all, but only by rabbinic law, and therefore they did not decree concerning them that if one repaired them, they would return to their initial impurity [Shabbat 16a–b].

For it was taught in a beraita

in tractate Shabbat [15b]:

and

glass vessels that became impure, and afterward

were perforated,

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

and

and, after they perforated them and they became pure,

he poured lead into them,

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

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:

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

Judah ben Shammua deems 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 law of a metal vessel, and it returns to its initial impurity.