Rosh Hashanah 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

The blessing over bread, "

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 the wine of the daytime Kiddush,

which one recites before the Kiddush—

what

should he recite, and discharge others’ obligation through them:

With regard to the blessing “for eating matza,” or the Kiddush blessing “Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons,” there is no doubt that even though he has already fulfilled his obligation, he can discharge his fellow’s obligation, since they are obligatory blessings.

However, concerning the blessing over bread recited when eating matza, and the blessing over wine recited in Kiddush, the matter is uncertain:

Whether

since

this blessing

is obligatory,

because a person is obligated to eat matza on the night of Passover and to drink wine during Kiddush, and he is compelled to recite a blessing before them, therefore the law of mutual responsibility applies to them, and

he discharges

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

Or perhaps

since

the blessing

over bread and wine

is not an obligation

in its own right

it is,

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

Ta shma,

that these blessings too are treated as obligatory blessings, and even if he has already fulfilled his obligation, he can discharge another’s obligation:

For Rav Ashi said: When we were at Rav Pappi’s house,

when we were in the house of Rav Pappi,

he would make Kiddush for us,

he would make Kiddush and discharge our obligation.

And when his sharecroppers would come from the fields,

and later, when Rav Pappi’s sharecroppers arrived from the fields,

he would make Kiddush for them.

He would make Kiddush again in order to discharge their obligation.

And from here it follows that although he had fulfilled his obligation through Kiddush, he would again discharge others’ obligation, even through the blessing “Who creates the fruit of the vine.” And the same applies to the blessing over bread for the matza, since their laws are identical.

The Sages taught: A person should not break bread for guests

and recite the blessing “Who brings forth” in order to discharge their obligation, since they are not obligated in the matter, as they may choose not to eat,

unless

he

is eating with them,

in which case he is obligated in the matter.

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

and recite the blessing “Who brings forth” in order to discharge their obligation,

in order to educate them in the mitzvot.

Since the prohibition against reciting a blessing in vain is only rabbinic, they permitted doing so for the purpose of education.

And

in the blessing of

the Hallel and

in

the blessing

of the

Megilla—

even though

he has fulfilled his obligation, he can discharge another’s obligation,

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

We shall return to you, chapter “They Saw Him, the Court.”

The chapter before us continues to discuss the laws of sounding the shofar, and the matter of reciting the verses of Kingship, Remembrances, and Shofarot.

This chapter also explains several enactments of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, in addition to his enactment concerning sounding the shofar on Shabbat.

Mishna:

1.

When Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat —

in the Temple they would sound the shofar.

But not

would they sound it

in the provinces,

in Jerusalem and in the other places.

The Gemara will explain the reason for this matter.

Some say that all of Jerusalem is included in the category of the Temple, while “the provinces” means outside Jerusalem.

2.

Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that they should sound the shofar everywhere that there is a court.

Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that they should sound the shofar not

on Shabbat

except in Yavne alone,

for in his time there was there 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 lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges, they would not sound the shofar when Rosh HaShana fell on Shabbat.

The Sages said to him

:

Yavne is the same as every place that has a court;

they sound the shofar there [as the Gemara will explain].

3. Here a passage from the words of the Mishna is missing, concerning a special distinction that Jerusalem had over Yavne. The Gemara will explain it.

4.

Furthermore,

[in addition to the distinction that Jerusalem had, which will be explained in the Gemara] —

Jerusalem,

while it was still standing,

had an advantage over Yavne

with regard to sounding the shofar when Rosh HaShana fell on Shabbat:

Every city that sees

—from which Jerusalem can be seen—

and

also

hears

the sound of the shofar in Jerusalem,

and

also

is near

Jerusalem,

and

also

can come

—whose inhabitants can reach Jerusalem, and with no river separating it from Jerusalem—would

sound the shofar

in it on Shabbat.

This refers to the period before the destruction, after the Sanhedrin had been exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and had taken its seat in the city of Jerusalem. At that time they sounded the shofar throughout Jerusalem, and even in the towns near it. But when the Sanhedrin sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, according to Rashi they would sound the shofar only in the Temple, as explained at the beginning of the Mishna. Ritva.

And

if it were

in Yavne, they would not sound the shofar

on Shabbat

except in the presence of a court.

Gemara:

We raise a question concerning this:

From where are these matters

derived? From where did we learn the law of our Mishna, that they do not sound the shofar in the provinces when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat?

Rabbi Levi bar Lahma said that Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: One verse says

[Leviticus 23], concerning Rosh HaShana:

“A rest day, a remembrance of sounding,”

which implies that one does not actually sound the shofar, but rather mentions verses in which sounding is mentioned.

And another verse says

[Numbers 29], concerning Rosh HaShana:

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

which implies that one sounds the shofar.

Apparently, the verses contradict one another!

Rather,

it is not difficult.

Here,

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

of the Festival

of Rosh HaShana

that falls on Shabbat,

when it is prohibited to sound and to blow, and therefore one mentions only the verses of Shofarot.

Whereas

here,

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

of the Festival

of Rosh HaShana

that falls on

a weekday

.

Then one sounds the shofar.

Since we have learned from the verse that one does not sound the shofar when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat, this “enactment” is therefore a Torah law.

Rava said:

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

For

if it is a Torah law,

if according to Torah law one does not sound the shofar when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat—

how could they sound it in the Temple!?

How could they have permitted desecrating Shabbat by sounding the shofar in the Temple?

Furthermore,

is it possible to say that sounding the shofar

is labor,

to the extent

that a verse was needed to exclude it,

so that the verse had to exclude sounding it from the activities that desecrate Shabbat [when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat]?!

The proof that sounding the shofar is not labor is as follows:

For the tanna of the school of Shmuel

said: It is stated [Numbers 29]:

“You shall not perform any labor of work.”

Sounding the shofar and removing bread from an oven, which require expertise, are excluded, for they are skillful acts and not labor

of work or production, and therefore they do not involve a Torah prohibition!

Rather, Rava said:

By Torah law,

even on Shabbat

it is entirely permitted,

to sound the shofar on Shabbat.

And

only

the Sages decreed concerning it,

for the Sages decreed that one should not sound the shofar when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat,

in accordance with Rabba’s

reason, as Rabba said:

For Rabba said: Everyone is obligated in sounding the shofar

[even an ignoramus].

But not everyone is expert

in

sounding the shofar.

Therefore, the Sages instituted

a decree

and prohibited sounding the shofar on Shabbat, out of concern

lest

one who is not expert

take it

the shofar

in his hand and go to an expert

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

to learn

how to sound it and the laws of sounding,

and carry it

the shofar

four cubits in the public domain.

He would thereby violate the prohibition against carrying four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat.

And this is the reason for the lulav.

For this reason—lest one 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.

For this reason they also prohibited reading the Megilla on Purim that falls on Shabbat [lest one take it to an expert to learn the procedure for taking the lulav and reading the Megilla, and carry it four cubits in the public domain].

However, they permitted sounding the shofar 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:

“Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted

that they should sound the shofar everywhere that there is a court.”

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

The Sages taught:

Once,

when the Sanhedrin had been exiled from Jerusalem to Yavne,

Rosh HaShana fell on Shabbat.

All the cities

surrounding Yavne

gathered

there to hear the sounding of the shofar by the messengers of the court, just as they had been accustomed to do when the Sanhedrin was in Jerusalem.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to the descendants of Beteira,

who were the great sages of the generation:

Let us sound the shofar

as they used to sound it in Jerusalem.

They said to him,

the descendants of Beteira: First

let us deliberate

on the matter, to determine whether sounding the shofar is indeed permitted here!

For it is possible that even in a place where there is a court, a decree should be instituted 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 the shofar. And

only

afterward let us deliberate

on the matter. And they sounded the shofar.

After they sounded the shofar, they said to him,

the descendants of Beteira to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: Now

let us deliberate

on the matter. When Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat in another year, should they sound the shofar in a court?

He said to them: The sound of the horn has already been heard

the shofar

in Yavne, and one does not retract after the act!

It is disgraceful for us to reject our ruling and say that we erred in the matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted this only in Yavne.”

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

The Sages said to him

:

Yavne is the same as every place that has a court;

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that they should sound the shofar in those places.

We raise a difficulty: The first tanna already said, “Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that they should sound the shofar everywhere that there is a court,” and he did not say, “everywhere that there is a Sanhedrin.”

According to his words, they would sound the shofar even in a place without a Great Sanhedrin, but only a court of twenty-three.

If so, this statement that

“they said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Elazar: Yavne is the same as every place that has a court”—

means

that they are saying precisely the same thing as

the first tanna.

Why, then, does the Mishna repeat the words of an additional tanna, with the wording, “The Sages said to Rabbi Elazar”?

We answer: Indeed, these are two differing opinions: the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of the tanna who taught “They said to him.”

And

the difference between them

concerns an incidental court.

There is a difference between the opinion of the first tanna and that of “They said to him” with regard to a court that happens to be present in a city but does not sit there permanently.

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

And this is what they said: Yavne is the same as every place that has a court resembling Yavne in its permanence; they sound the shofar there, but not in a place where a court sits only incidentally.

We learned in the Mishna:

“They said to him: Yavne is the same as every place that has a court.”

Rav Huna said: