Rosh Hashanah 26a (כו.) — the Talmud in English

Some of them became witnesses,

and even if they saw the matter during the day, they cannot rule on the basis of their sight alone, because it is stated [Deuteronomy 17]: “By the mouth of two witnesses shall the one who is to die be put to death.” [Rashi].

Rather, they should testify before their colleagues,

and some of them

from among their colleagues

become judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.

Rabbi Akiva says: They all become witnesses,

since they are fit to testify,

and “a witness cannot become a judge”!

According to Rabbi Akiva, apparently the judges in our Mishna would likewise be disqualified from sanctifying the new moon, since they saw the renewal of the moon and are fit to testify concerning it.

And we conclude:

Even if you say [that is,

say] that our Mishna is according to

Rabbi Akiva,

the statement of our Mishna can nevertheless be explained:

For

Rabbi Akiva said this only there,

in that case, where one who is fit to testify is disqualified from judging,

but

only

in capital cases.

Because

the Merciful One said concerning capital cases [Numbers 35]:

with regard to capital cases [Numbers 35]:

“And the congregation shall judge, [that is,

the court,]

and the congregation shall save.”

This indicates that the court must seek grounds in favor of the accused and attempt to save him.

And once they saw that he had killed someone—

they cannot find a merit for him.

Since they saw him commit murder, they would be unable to find grounds in his favor and save him from execution; therefore Rabbi Akiva disqualified them from judging.

But here,

in the sanctification of the new moon, where there is no need to seek grounds in favor of anyone,

even Rabbi Akiva agrees

that one who is fit to testify is fit to judge.

This is so if he did not actually testify. But two witnesses who testify are not fit to sit with their colleagues and say, “Sanctified” [Rashi].

Mishna:

From this Mishna until the end of the chapter, the Mishna deals with the laws of sounding the shofar:

All shofarot are fit

for sounding on Rosh HaShana, whether a ram’s horn [that is, the horn of a male sheep] or the horn of a ya’el.

Except for

the horn

of a cow,

which is disqualified,

because it is

called a

“horn,”

and not a “shofar.”

Regarding the sounding on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, it is stated: “And you shall sound the shofar blast,” and the sounding on Rosh HaShana is derived from the sounding of the Jubilee by means of a gzera shava, since in both cases the Torah says “seventh” [below, 34a].

Rabbi Yosei said: Is it not the case that all shofarot are called “horns,”

and even a ram’s shofar is called this,

as it is stated [

Joshua 6]:

“When they draw out with the ram’s horn.”

And “Jubilee” refers to a ram, as the Gemara explains. Thus, although a ram’s horn is called a horn, it is nevertheless fit for sounding the shofar; if so, a cow’s horn should also be fit for sounding the shofar.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection: Indeed,

Rabbi Yosei stated his argument well,

that a cow’s horn is fit for sounding. He has proved his position; so what will the Rabbis answer him?

And we answer:

And the Rabbis

will answer:

All shofarot

are also

called [that is,

called]

a shofar and

also

called a horn.

Whereas

a cow’s horn

is only

called a horn,

but

is not called a shofar.

As it is written [

Deuteronomy 33]:

“His firstborn bull”—

majesty

is

his.

And

like the

horns of the wild ox,

they are

his horns,

the horns of his firstborn bull.”

The same law applies to a cow’s horn, since it is the female of the bovine species.

And Rabbi Yosei can say to you: The

horn

of a cow also

is found to be

called a shofar.

As it is written [

Psalms 69]:

“May my prayer be pleasing to the Lord

than -

an ox and a bull.”

And one must ask: Why does the verse mention both an ox and a bull?

If

it had

said “ox,”

why

would it have

said “bull”?

And if “bull,”

why

would it have

said “ox”?

Rather,

necessarily,

what

is the meaning of

“

an ox and a bull”?

It is as though it had said

“from a shofar”!

That is, my prayer will be more pleasing to the Lord than the sounding of a cow’s shofar, with regard to which the verse speaks according to its plain meaning [Maharsha].

It follows that even the horn of a bull is called a shofar.

This presents a difficulty for the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the horn of a bull is not called a shofar at all.

And we explain the opinion of the Rabbis:

And the Rabbis

hold

in accordance with Rav Mattana.

For Rav Mattana said: What is the meaning of “an ox and a bull”?

It means that the ox mentioned in the verse, although it is only a “one-day-old” ox, is already called a “bull,”

as it is as large as a bull

three years old, like the ox of the act of Creation, which was created at its full height.

But an ordinary ox is not called a bull before its third year.

Ulla said: This is the reason for the Rabbis’ opinion,

this is the reason of the Rabbis who say that a cow’s shofar is disqualified,

in accordance with Rav Hisda,

as follows:

For Rav Hisda said: Why does the High Priest not enter wearing golden garments into the innermost place

of the Holy of Holies [on Yom Kippur]

to perform

in them

the service,

as he performs in them throughout the rest of the year?

Because an accuser cannot become a defender.

Gold is an accuser, because when the Jewish people left Egypt they made a golden calf for idolatry; therefore gold cannot become a defender to atone for their sins through the services performed in the Holy of Holies. [For it recalls the sin of the calf ].

Accordingly, even the shofar of the calf cannot become a defender through the sounding of the shofar, and the horns of a bull and a cow are likewise the horns of grown calves; therefore they are disqualified.

And we raise an objection:

And

if

not

can an accuser become a defender?!

But there is

the

blood

of the

bull,

which was sprinkled in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. It is an accuser, since it recalls the sin of the calf, and yet it becomes a defender!

And we answer:

Since it has changed, it has changed.

Since the appearance of the blood changes and it is not recognizable as blood from a bull, its legal status also changes, and it is fit to be offered in the innermost place.

And we raise another objection:

But there is

in the Temple

the Ark, the cover, and the cherub,

all of which are made of gold, and we do not say concerning them, “An accuser cannot become a defender”!

And we answer:

“The sinner—

he shall not offer”—is what we said.

Specifically, a person may not offer gold to the Temple because he sinned with it. Therefore, the priest does not enter wearing golden garments. But it is permitted for gold to be present there without a person offering it; therefore, there were a golden Ark, cover, and cherubim.

And we raise another objection:

But there is

the

golden spoon and coal pan,

which the High Priest brought into the Holy of Holies [on Yom Kippur] for burning the incense. This shows that a sinner may bring gold into the Holy of Holies!

And we answer: It is permitted for a person to bring gold into the Holy of Holies with his hands, even though the gold is an accuser, because

“the sinner—

he shall not adorn himself”—is what we said.

Everything we said concerning an accuser becoming a defender applies only to golden garments, which serve as adornment for a person, and it is not fitting for a sinner to adorn himself with them.

Likewise, it is not fitting for one who sounds the shofar to sound a cow’s shofar, because he adorns himself with it and thereby seeks to appease his Master.

And we challenge this:

But there are golden garments worn outside,

for the High Priest performs the Temple service wearing golden garments outside the Holy of Holies. Why do we not say in this regard, “An accuser cannot become a defender”?

And we answer:

The innermost place—

is what we said.

We said that an accuser is not fit to become a defender specifically with regard to the services performed inside the Holy of Holies.

And we raise an objection: If so, how could Ulla say that the reason for the Rabbis’ opinion—that one does not sound a cow’s shofar—is that an accuser cannot become a defender?

After all, the sounding of the

shofar also—

takes place outside!

And we answer:

Since it is for remembrance,

since the sounding of the shofar is performed as a remembrance before the Holy One, blessed be He, to bring the prayer of Israel before Him —

it is considered like the innermost place!

It is like a service performed inside the Holy of Holies.

And we challenge Ulla’s answer:

But the tanna says, “Because it is a horn”—

that is what he said!

The tanna who taught our Mishna explained that its reason is that a cow’s shofar is called a “horn,” and not, as Ulla said, that its reason is that an accuser cannot become a defender!

And we answer:

He stated “one reason, and another.”

The tanna gave two reasons for disqualifying a cow’s horn:

One

[one reason]: because

an accuser cannot become a defender.

And another

reason:

because it is

called a

horn.

Ulla understands that the reason mentioned in the Mishna—that a cow’s shofar is disqualified because it is called a horn—is a weak reason on its own; therefore, he added another reason to strengthen the matter.

And Rabbi Yosei,

who permits a cow’s horn for sounding the shofar,

can say to you

in response to the Rabbis’ two claims:

1.

When you say,

this claim of yours, that

an accuser cannot become a defender,

it can be rejected, because

that applies only to the innermost place,

the statement applies only to the Holy of Holies.

But this shofar—

is outside.

2.

And when you say,

this claim of yours that a cow’s shofar is disqualified

because it is

called a

“horn,”

it can be rejected, since

all shofarot are also called [that is,

called]

“horns.”

As stated above.

Abaye said: This is the reason for the Rabbis’ opinion,

this is the reason of the Rabbis who disqualify a cow’s shofar:

Because

“the Merciful One said ‘a shofar,’ and not two or three shofarot.”

But

the horn

of a cow, since it stands in layers,

since each year something resembling a separate layer is added to it—

appears

that the one sounding it

as if

he is sounding

two or three shofarot

joined to one another.

For at the end of one shofar, the second shofar begins, and at the end of the second, the third continues.

And we raise an objection to Abaye:

But the tanna says, “Because it is a ‘horn’”—

that is what he said!

The reason of the Rabbis is explicitly stated in our Mishna: “Because it is a horn,” and not because it resembles two or three shofarot!

And we answer:

He stated “one reason, and another.”

The tanna gave two reasons for disqualifying a cow’s horn:

One—

the Merciful One said that there must be one shofar, and not two or three shofarot

as one, and a cow’s shofar is like two or three shofarot.

And another—

because it is

called a

“horn”

and not a shofar.

And

if

Rabbi Yosei,

who permits a cow’s horn for sounding the shofar,

can say to you

in response to the Rabbis’ two claims:

1.

When you say,

this claim of yours that

“the Merciful One said that there must be one shofar, and not two or three shofarot,”

it can be rejected, since although a cow’s horn is made of layers, nevertheless

since they are joined to one another,

the layers being joined to one another, it is

one shofar!

2.

And when you say,

this claim of yours that a cow’s shofar is disqualified

because it is a horn,

it can be rejected, since

all shofarot are also called

called

horns,

as stated above.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Yosei said: Is it not the case that all shofarot are called horns, including a ram’s shofar, as it is stated: “When they draw out with the ram’s horn”? And “Jubilee” refers to a ram.

And we inquire:

From where is it understood that this “yuvala” is a term for a male animal?

How did we learn from this verse that the “Jubilee” mentioned in it refers to a ram?

And we answer:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva said: When I went to Arabia, they called a male animal [

a ram]

“yuvala.”

The Gemara now cites the continuation of the beraita:

And Rabbi Akiva said: When I went to Gallia, they called a menstruating woman “galmuda.”

What is the meaning of “galmuda”?

“Separated from this one”—

separated

from her husband.

And Rabbi Akiva said: When I went to Africa, they called a coin “kesita.”

What practical difference does it make?

To interpret

that

“one hundred kesita,” in the Torah—

one hundred dinars.

To interpret “one hundred kesita,” mentioned in the Torah [Genesis 33], as one hundred coins.

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When I went to the coastal cities, they called a sale

what a person sells

“kira.”

What practical difference does it make?

To interpret,

to interpret what is stated in the verse [Genesis 50]: “In the grave

that I bought for myself,”

that is, the one that I purchased for myself from the seller.

Incidentally, the Gemara cites additional accounts intended to clarify difficult words in the Tanakh:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: When I went to the region of “Ken Nishraya,”

they called a bride “ninfei,” and a rooster “shakhvi.”

And we explain:

“A bride, ninfei”—

what verse does this clarify?

What verse is explained by what Resh Lakish heard, that they called a bride “ninfei”?

The verse [Psalms 48]:

“Beautiful—

the bride—

the joy of all the earth,”

referring to the beauty of a bride.

And concerning what Resh Lakish said,

“and a rooster, shakhvi” -

what verse is explained by this?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, and if you wish, say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What verse

is thereby explained?

The verse [Job 38]:

“Who placed wisdom in the hidden parts, or who gave understanding to the shakhvi?”

And this is the explanation of the verse:

“Who placed wisdom in the hidden parts [in “divisions”]

wisdom”—

these are the kidneys,

which are divided into lobes,

each lobe separate from the others.

“Or who gave understanding to the shakhvi”—

this is a rooster,

which knows, while it is still night, that morning is soon to arrive.

And there is another incident:

Levi happened to come

to

a certain place

in one location.

A man came before him,

and one person came before him and

said to him: