Rosh Hashanah 29b — the Talmud in English

The blessing over bread, "

the One Who brings forth bread from the earth,"

for

eating

matza

on the night of Passover, which one recites before eating it.

And

likewise

the blessing over wine of the daytime Kiddush,

which one recites before the Kiddush—

what is it

that he should recite, and discharge others with them:

With the blessing "over the eating of matza," or with the blessing of the Kiddush, "Who sanctifies Israel and the times," there is no doubt that even though he has already fulfilled his obligation, he discharges his fellow, for they are obligatory blessings.

But concerning the blessing "Who brings forth" in the eating of matza, and the blessing over wine in the Kiddush, one must be uncertain:

Whether

since

this blessing

is an obligation,

for a person is obligated to eat matza on the night of Passover and to drink wine in the Kiddush, and against his will he must recite a blessing before them; therefore, the law of mutual responsibility applies to them, and

he discharges,

and thus he discharges his fellow, even though he himself has already fulfilled his obligation.

Or perhaps

since

the blessing

over bread and over wine

is not an obligation

in its own right

it is,

but rather he recites it because he derives benefit, these blessings are judged like the other blessings over enjoyment. And the Gemara brings a proof to resolve the uncertainty:

Come and hear,

that these blessings too are treated as obligatory blessings, and even if he has already fulfilled his obligation, he discharges others:

For Rav Ashi said: When we were at the house of Rav Pappi,

when we were in the house of Rav Pappi,

he would recite Kiddush for us,

he would recite Kiddush and discharge us from our obligation.

And when his tenant farmers would come from the fields,

and later, when the tenant farmers of Rav Pappi arrived from the fields,

he would recite Kiddush for them.

He would recite Kiddush again in order to discharge them from their obligation.

And from here it follows that even though he fulfilled his obligation with Kiddush, he recites it again and discharges others even with the blessing "Who creates the fruit of the vine." And likewise concerning "Who brings forth" over matza, for their laws are equal.

The Sages taught: A person should not break a piece for guests,

and recite "Who brings forth" in order to discharge them, for they are not obligated in the matter, since they can refrain from eating,

unless

he

eats with them,

for then he is obligated in the matter.

But he may break a piece for his sons and the members of his household,

and recite "Who brings forth" in order to discharge them,

in order to train them in mitzvot.

Since the prohibition against a blessing in vain is only rabbinic, they permitted doing this for the purpose of training.

And in

the blessing of the

Hallel and

in

the blessing

of the

Megilla—

even

though he has already fulfilled his obligation, he discharges [others],

for everyone is obligated in them, and all Israel are mutually responsible for one another.

We shall return to you, chapter "The court saw him."

The chapter before us continues to deal with the laws of sounding the shofar, and with the matter of reciting the verses of kingships, remembrances, and shofarot.

Likewise, several enactments of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai are clarified in this chapter, in addition to his enactment concerning sounding the shofar on Shabbat.

Mishna:

1.

The Yom Tov of Rosh Hashana that occurred to be on Shabbat—

In the Temple they would sound the shofar.

But not

would they sound

in the country,

in Jerusalem and in the other places.

And in the Gemara the reason for this matter will be explained.

[There are those who say that all of Jerusalem is included in the Temple. And “the country” means outside Jerusalem.]

2.

After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted that they should sound the shofar in every place where there is a court.

Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai did not enact

that they should sound on Shabbat

except in Yavne alone,

for there was in his days a Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one elders, and likewise in every place to which the Great Sanhedrin was exiled.

But in a place where there was only a small Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges, they would not sound on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat.

They said to him

the Sages:

One is Yavne and one is every place where there is a court

they sound in it [and this will be explained in the Gemara].

3. Here a passage from the words of the Mishna is missing, concerning a special advantage that Jerusalem had over Yavne. And it will be explained in the Gemara.

4.

And furthermore [

apart from the advantage that Jerusalem had, which will be explained in the Gemara]—

Jerusalem was,

while it was standing,

superior to Yavne,

with regard to sounding on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat:

That every city that sees,

from which Jerusalem can be seen,

and

also

hears

the sound of the shofar in Jerusalem,

and

also

is close

to Jerusalem,

and

also

can come,

from which they can reach Jerusalem, and no river separates it from Jerusalem—they would

sound

in it on Shabbat.

[And this is speaking before the destruction, after the Sanhedrin had been exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and had sat in the city of Jerusalem. At that time they sounded throughout all Jerusalem, and even in the towns close to it. But when the Sanhedrin sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, according to Rashi they would sound only in the Temple, as explained at the beginning of the Mishna.] Ritba.

And

if it were

in Yavne, they would not sound

on Shabbat

except in the court alone.

Gemara:

And we raise it:

From where are these words,

from where did we learn the law of our Mishna, that they do not sound in the country on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat?

Rabbi Levi bar Lahma said that Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: One verse says [Leviticus 23] concerning Rosh Hashana:

[Leviticus 23] concerning Rosh Hashana:

“A cessation, a remembrance of sounding”,

and it implies that they do not actually sound with a shofar, but rather mention verses in which sounding is mentioned.

And one verse says [Numbers 29] concerning Rosh Hashana:

[Numbers 29] concerning Rosh Hashana:

“It shall be a day of sounding for you”,

and it implies that they sound with a shofar.

And seemingly the verses contradict one another!

Rather,

it is not difficult.

Here,

the first verse, “a remembrance of sounding,” speaks

of the Yom Tov

of Rosh Hashana

that occurred to be on Shabbat,

and it is forbidden to sound and to raise the sound, and therefore they mention only verses of shofarot.

Whereas

here,

the second verse, “a day of sounding,” speaks

of the Yom Tov

of Rosh Hashana

that occurred to be on

a

weekday.

And then they sound with a shofar.

And since we learned from the verse that they do not sound with a shofar on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat, this “enactment” is a law from the Torah.

Rava said:

It is impossible to say that this enactment is a law from the Torah!

For

if it is from the Torah,

if from the Torah they do not sound with a shofar on Rosh Hashana that occurred to be on Shabbat—

how did they sound in the Temple!?

How did they permit desecrating Shabbat and sounding in the Temple?

Furthermore,

is it possible to say that sounding with a shofar

is a labor,

so that

a verse was needed to exclude it,

that the verse had to exclude that Shabbat is not desecrated through it [when Rosh Hashana occurs on Shabbat]?!

And the proof that sounding the shofar is not a labor:

For the school of Samuel taught: It is stated [Numbers 29]:

It is stated [Numbers 29]:

“You shall not perform any labor of work.”

Sounding the shofar and removing bread from the oven went out, for they are skill, and not labor,

of work or creation, and therefore there is no prohibition in them from the Torah!

Rather, Rava said:

From the Torah,

even on Shabbat,

it is entirely permitted,

it is permitted to sound on Shabbat.

And

only

the Sages decreed concerning it,

the Sages decreed that they should not sound on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat,

in accordance with Rabbah,

for the reason of Rabbah:

For Rabbah said: Everyone is obligated in sounding the shofar [

even unlearned people].

But not everyone is expert [

skilled]

in sounding the shofar.

And therefore the Sages enacted

a decree,

and prohibited sounding on Shabbat, because of the concern

lest

one who is not expert

take it

the shofar

in his hand and go to the expert,

in the mitzva of sounding the shofar and in its laws,

to learn

to sound and the laws of sounding,

and carry it

the shofar

four cubits in the public domain.

And he would violate the prohibition against carrying four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat.

And this is the reason for lulav.

For this reason, lest he carry it four cubits in the public domain, the Sages likewise prohibited taking the lulav on Shabbat.

And this is the reason for the Megilla.

And for this reason they also prohibited reading the Megilla on Purim that occurred on Shabbat [lest he take it to the expert to learn the order of taking the lulav and reading the Megilla, and carry them four cubits in the public domain].

But they permitted sounding in a place where there is a court, because the court warns the people not to carry the shofar in the public domain.

We learned in the Mishna:

“After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted”

that they should sound in every place where there is a court.

The Gemara brings a beraita describing how it happened that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted this enactment:

The Sages taught:

Once,

when the Sanhedrin was exiled from Jerusalem to Yavne,

Rosh Hashana occurred to be on Shabbat.

And all the cities

around Yavne

were gathering

there to hear the sounding of the shofar from the agents of the court, just as they were accustomed to do when the Sanhedrin was in Jerusalem.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira,

who were the great men of the generation:

Let us sound

as they used to sound in Jerusalem.

They said to him

the sons of Beteira: First

let us deliberate

about the matter, whether indeed sounding is permitted here!

For it is possible that even in a place where there is a court one must decree lest a person take the shofar in his hand, go to an expert, and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

He said to them

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: First of all

let us sound. And

only

afterward let us deliberate

about the matter. And they sounded with the shofar.

After they sounded, they said to him

the sons of Beteira to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: Now

let us deliberate

about the matter. In another year, when Rosh Hashana occurs on Shabbat, do they sound in the court?

He said to them: The horn has already been heard

the shofar

in Yavne, and one does not respond after the deed!

It is disgraceful that we retract our words and say that we erred concerning the matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted only in Yavne alone.”

For there was a Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one elders.

They said to him

the Sages:

One is Yavne and one is every place where there is a court

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted that they should sound in them.

And we challenge: The first tanna already said, “Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted that they should sound in every place where there is a court,” and he did not say, “in every place where there is a Sanhedrin.”

And according to his words, even in a place where there is no Great Sanhedrin, but only a court of twenty-three, they would sound with the shofar.

And if so, this that

“They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Elazar: One is Yavne and one is every place where there is a court” —

means

they are precisely the same words that

the first tanna said.

And why does the Mishna repeat and teach the words of an additional tanna, in the language, “The Sages said to him, to Rabbi Elazar”?

And we answer: Indeed, they are two disputing opinions: the opinion of the first tanna, and the opinion of the tanna who teaches, “They said to him.”

And

there is a difference between them—

a court established incidentally.

There is a difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of “They said to him” concerning a court that is found incidentally in a city and does not sit there permanently.

According to the first tanna, they sound there, since there is a court there; whereas according to “They said to him,” the court in that place must resemble Yavne, in that it is permanently established in the place.

And thus they said: One is Yavne, and one is every place where there is a court resembling Yavne in its permanence—they sound there, but not in a place where a court sits incidentally.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They said to him: One is Yavne and one is every place where there is a court.”

Rav Huna said: