Rosh Hashanah 26a — the Talmud in English

Some of them became witnesses,

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

Rather, they should testify before their colleagues,

and some of them

before their colleagues,

become judges; these are the words of Rabbi Tarfon.

Rabbi Akiva says: All of them become witnesses,

since they are fit to testify,

and “a witness does not become a judge”!

According to Rabbi Akiva, seemingly even in our Mishna the judges should be disqualified from sanctifying the new moon, since they saw the renewal of the moon and are fit to testify about it.

And we conclude:

Even you may say [that is, you may say] that our Mishna is like

that our Mishna is like

Rabbi Akiva,

the words of our Mishna can be reconciled:

For

Rabbi Akiva said only there,

there, that 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 assembly shall judge, [that is, the court,]

the court,

and the assembly shall save.”

From here, that the court must seek the merit of the one being judged and attempt to save him.

And since they saw him kill a person—

they cannot see merit in him.

For since they saw him kill a person, they will not be able to find merit for him and save him from death; therefore Rabbi Akiva disqualified them from judging.

But here,

with the sanctification of the new moon, where there is no need to seek the merit of any person,

even Rabbi Akiva concedes

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

This is 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 blowing the shofar:

All shofarot are fit

for blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, whether a ram’s shofar [a male sheep] or that of a wild goat.

Except for

a shofar

of a cow,

which is disqualified,

because it is

called

a “horn,”

and not a “shofar.”

And concerning the blowing on the day of Yom Kippur of the Jubilee it is said, “And you shall sound a shofar blast,” and the blowing of Rosh Hashanah is learned from the blowing of the Jubilee by means of a gzera shava, since in both of them 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 said [Joshua 6]:

[Joshua 6]:

“When they draw with the horn of the Jubilee.”

And the Jubilee is a ram, as explained in the Gemara. Thus, although the ram’s horn is called a horn, nevertheless it is fit for blowing the shofar; if so, the cow’s horn too should be fit for blowing the shofar.

Gemara:

And we ask: Indeed,

Rabbi Yosei has said well

that the cow’s horn is fit for blowing. For he proved his position; and what will the Rabbis answer him?

And we answer:

And the Rabbis

will answer:

All the shofarot

also

are called [that is, are called]

“shofar” and

“shofar,” and

also

are called “horns.”

But

the cow’s horn

only

is called a horn,

but

is not called a shofar.

As it is written [Deuteronomy 33]:

[Deuteronomy 33]:

“His firstborn bull—

majesty

there is

for him.

And

like

the horns of a wild ox,

they are

his horns

of his firstborn bull.”

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

And Rabbi Yosei could say to you:

The horn

of a cow also

we find that it

is called a shofar.

As it is written [Psalms 69]:

[Psalms 69]:

“And it will be pleasing to the Lord

my prayer -

more than a bull.”

And one must ask: Why is both “bull” and “ox” stated?

If

“bull”

“bull,”

why

is

“ox” stated?

And if ox,

why

is

“bull?” stated

Rather,

necessarily,

what

is the meaning of

“from”

“bull ox?”

It is as though it said

“from a shofar!”

That is, my prayer will be more pleasing to the Lord than the blowing of the shofar of an ox, concerning which Scripture spoke according to the plain meaning of the verse [Maharsha].

And from here, that even the horn of an ox is called a shofar.

And this is difficult for the position of the Rabbis, who hold that the horn of an ox is not called a shofar at all.

And we explain the position of the Rabbis:

And the Rabbis,

they hold

in accordance with Rav Mattana.

For Rav Mattana said: What is “bull ox”?

To say that the bull mentioned in the verse, although it is only “one day old,” is already called an “ox,”

for it is as large as an ox

three years old, and it is the bull of the act of Creation, which was created at its full stature.

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

Ulla said: This is the reason of the Rabbis,

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 in golden garments into the innermost place

into the Holy of Holies [on Yom Kippur]

to perform

in them

the service,

as he performs in them throughout the entire year?

Because an accuser cannot become a defender.

And gold is an accuser, because the Israelites made a golden calf for idolatry when they departed from Egypt; therefore it does not 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 ].

And therefore, even the shofar of the calf cannot become a defender through the blowing of the shofar, and the horns of the ox and the cow are the horns of calves that grew; therefore they are disqualified.

And we ask:

And

why

not

can an accuser become a defender?!

But there is

the

blood of the

the

ox,

which they sprinkled in the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur; and it is an accuser, for it recalls the sin of the calf, and nevertheless it becomes a defender!

And we answer:

Since it has changed, it has changed.

Since the appearance of the blood has changed, and it is not recognizable in it that it is from the ox, its law has also changed, and it is fit for offering inside.

And we ask further:

But there is

in the Temple

an Ark, an Ark-cover, and a cherub,

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

And we answer:

“A sinner—

he must not offer” is what we say.

Specifically, a person may not offer the 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 there without a person offering it; therefore there were an Ark, an Ark-cover, and cherubim of gold there.

And we ask further:

But there is

also

a spoon and a firepan

made of gold, which the High Priest brought into the Holy of Holies [on Yom Kippur] for the burning of the incense; from here, a sinner is permitted to 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

“a sinner—

he must not adorn himself” is what we say.

All that we said—that an accuser cannot become a defender—we said only concerning golden garments, which are an adornment for a person, and it is not fitting for a sinner to adorn himself with them.

And likewise, one who blows the shofar should not blow a cow’s shofar, because he adorns himself and finds favor with his Master through it.

And we challenge:

But there are golden garments outside,

for the High Priest serves in the Temple in golden garments outside the Holy of Holies; why do we not say concerning this, “An accuser cannot become a defender”?

And we answer:

Inside—

is what we say.

Specifically concerning the services inside the Holy of Holies did we say that it is not fitting for an accuser to become a defender.

And we ask: If so, how did Ulla say that the reason of the Rabbis for not blowing a cow’s shofar is because an accuser cannot become a defender?

For the blowing of a

shofar, too—

is outside!

And we answer:

Since it is for remembrance,

since the blowing of the shofar is performed for remembrance before the Holy One, blessed be He, to bring Israel’s prayer before Him —

it is considered like inside!

It is like a service inside the Holy of Holies.

And we challenge Ulla’s answer:

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

is what he said!

Was it not the tanna who taught our Mishna that he explained that its reason is because the cow’s shofar is called a “horn,” and not as Ulla said, that its reason is because an accuser cannot become a defender?

And we answer:

He said “one [reason], and another.”

The tanna said that there are two reasons to disqualify the cow’s horn:

One [one reason]:

because

an accuser cannot become a defender.

And another

reason:

because it is

called

a horn.

It follows according to Ulla that the reason mentioned in the Mishna—that a cow’s shofar is disqualified because it is called a horn—is a weak reason by itself; therefore he added another reason to strengthen the matter.

And Rabbi Yosei,

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

could say to you

an answer to both of the Rabbis’ claims:

a.

That which you said,

that which you claimed, that

an accuser cannot become a defender,

can be rejected, because

these words apply inside,

the matter applies only in the Holy of Holies.

And this shofar—

is outside.

b.

And that which you said,

that which you claimed, that a cow’s shofar is disqualified

because it is

called

a “horn,”

can be rejected, for

all the shofarot also are called [that is, are called]

“horns,”

“horns.”

As above.

Abaye said: This is the reason of the Rabbis,

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

Because

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

But

the horn

of a cow, since it stands in layers,

for each year something like a separate layer is added to it—

appears

the one blowing it appears

as though

he is blowing

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 ask against Abaye:

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

is what he said”!

Was not the reason of the Rabbis explicit in our Mishna, “Because it is a horn,” and not because it resembles two or three shofarot?

And we answer:

He said “one [reason], and another.”

The tanna said that there are two reasons to disqualify the cow’s horn:

One—

because the Merciful One said one shofar, and not two or three shofarot

as one, and the 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 blowing the shofar,

could say to you

an answer to both of the Rabbis’ claims:

a.

That which you said,

that which you claimed, that

“the Merciful One said one shofar, and not two or three shofarot”

can be rejected: although the cow’s horn is made of layers upon layers, nevertheless,

since they are joined to one another,

for the layers are joined to one another—one

shofar it is!

b.

And that which you said,

that which you claimed, that a cow’s shofar is disqualified

because it is a horn,

can be rejected, for

all the shofarot also are called

“horns,”

horns,

as above.

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

And we inquire into it:

From where is it indicated that this “Jubilee” is an expression for “male”?

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

And we answer:

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

[a ram]

“yuvla.”

And the Gemara now brings the continuation of the beraita:

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

What is “galmuda”?

“Separated”—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 explain

that

“one hundred kesita” in the Torah

means one hundred denarii.

To explain “one hundred kesita,” which is mentioned in the Torah [Genesis 33], that they are one hundred coins.

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

which a person sells

“kira.”

What practical difference does it make?

To explain,

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

which I bought for myself,”

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

And incidentally, the Gemara brings further accounts, in order to explain difficult words from the Hebrew Bible:

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:

For “bride,” “ninfei”—

what verse?

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

The verse [Psalms 48]:

“Beautiful—

of appearance—

the joy of all the earth,”

and the reference is to the beauty of a bride.

And what Resh Lakish said:

“And for a rooster, ‘shakhvi’” -

what verse is explained by this?

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

what verse is explained by this?

The verse [Job 38]:

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

And this is the explanation of the verse:

“Who placed wisdom in the hidden parts

among the “divisions”

[of them]”—

these are the kidneys,

which are divided into lobes, lobes.

“Or who gave understanding to the rooster”—

this is the rooster,

which knows, while it is still night, to discern the approaching arrival of morning.

And another incident:

Levi happened to come

unexpectedly

to a certain place.

to one location.

A man came before him,

a certain man came before him, and

said to him: