Rosh Hashanah 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

And together with the court

they sound the shofar specifically.

We explain:

What does “

together with

the court” mean?

In the presence of the court!

To exclude

the case

where it is not in the presence of the court, in which case they do not

sound the shofar, even though there is a court in that place.

Rava raises an objection

to Rav Huna’s words:

We learned in the Mishna:

“Furthermore, Jerusalem had an advantage over Yavne,

for every city that sees, hears, is near, and can come would sound the shofar. But in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in a court.”

And one may ask about our Mishna:

What does “Furthermore”

mean? The words of the Mishna imply that Jerusalem had an additional advantage over Yavne.

If you say that it is as it is taught,

if we say that all the advantages Jerusalem had over Yavne are those taught in the Mishna, then only this one advantage was taught in it.

If so,

“This”

was the advantage Jerusalem had over Yavne—

it should have said

that, and not used the wording “Furthermore”!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the tanna used the wording “Furthermore” because

in Jerusalem

there was an additional advantage over Yavne: in Jerusalem they would

sound the shofar

also

as individuals, while

if it were

in Yavne, individuals would not sound the shofar

but only the messengers of the court. This is the advantage missing from the Mishna, and this is how we would have to explain it.

That is not correct. Since:

And

is it possible to say that

in Yavne individuals would not sound the shofar!?

For when

Rabbi

Yitzhak bar Yosef

came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: When

the

communal prayer leader finishes sounding the shofar in Yavne,

no person hears the sound of his ear from the sound of the individual soundings.

No one heard any other sound in his ears, because of the multitude of soundings performed by individuals who were late and did not hear the sounding of the communal prayer leader [Rav Hai Gaon].

This proves that even in Yavne individuals sounded the shofar!

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that this advantage must be added to the words of our Mishna:

In Jerusalem they sound the shofar both during the time

that

the court

is sitting, during the first six hours of the day,

and when it is not the time of the court.

And

if it were

in Yavne:

only

during the time of the court; they do not

sound the shofar, but

when it is not the time of the court

they do not

sound the shofar.

Rava infers:

This

implies that

during the time of the court, at least,

they

would sound the shofar

in Yavne,

even

as individuals—

not in the presence of the court!

From here Rava brought a contradiction to Rav Huna’s words, for Rav Huna said that in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the presence of the court.

We answer:

No!

Do not add this interpretation to the words of our Mishna, and consequently there will be no contradiction to Rav Huna.

Rather, this advantage must be added to the words of our Mishna:

For in Jerusalem they sound the shofar both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court, but in Yavne:

only

in the presence of the court; they do

sound the shofar.

But

not in the presence of the court—

they do not

sound the shofar.

And this is in accordance with Rav Huna’s statement.

There are those who teach this statement of Rav Huna

as follows: Some say that Rav Huna, who said “and together with the court,” was not referring at all to our Mishna, but said it

about this which is written

[Leviticus 25]:

“And you shall proclaim the shofar blast.

On Yom Kippur

of the Jubilee

you shall proclaim the shofar throughout your land.”

And the beraita explains this verse:

For it was taught: The verse that says “you shall proclaim the shofar” in the plural

teaches that every individual is obligated to sound the shofar.

And concerning this

Rav Huna said: And together with the court

specifically do the individuals sound the shofar.

And

what

is the meaning of

“and together with the court”?

During the time of the court,

during the first six hours of the day, when the court sits; that is the time when individuals sound the shofar on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year.

Here one cannot interpret the phrase as meaning “in the presence of the court,” as we explained above regarding sounding the shofar when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat. For the verse explicitly says, “throughout your land,” implying that individuals sound the shofar even not in the presence of the court. Rashi.

To exclude

the case of

not during the time of the court—

they do not

sound the shofar at that time on Yom Kippur.

Rava raises an objection

to Rav Huna’s words:

We learned in a beraita:

Sounding the shofar of the Jubilee overrides Shabbat in the provinces

[outside the Temple],

“a man and his household.”

What does “a man and his household” mean?

If you say

that we interpret it as

“a man and his wife,”

it is impossible to interpret it this way. For one must ask:

And is

a woman—

is she obligated!?

Is a woman obligated in sounding the shofar on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee?!

But it is a positive, time-bound mitzva

[for this time—that is, Yom Kippur of the Jubilee—is what causes the mitzva of sounding the shofar].

And women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzva

[as explained in tractate Kiddushin 29a]!

Rather, is it not

that the tanna of the beraita said as follows:

“A man

sounds the shofar

in his house,” even when it is not the time of the court!?

We reject this:

No,

that is not what the tanna intended to say.

Rather,

indeed

his intention is that an individual sounds the shofar in his house

during the time of the court!

Rav Sheshet raises an objection

to Rav Huna’s words from another beraita:

For it was taught:

The Jubilee is equivalent to Rosh HaShana with regard to sounding the shofar and the blessings.

However,

there is a difference between them:

For on

Yom Kippur of the

Jubilee—

1.

They sound the shofar both in a court that sanctified the

new moon and in a court that did not sanctify the new moon.

2.

And every individual is obligated to sound the shofar.

And

if it were

on Rosh HaShana

that falls on Shabbat [when the law of Shabbat and the law of Yom Kippur are equal with regard to the prohibition of labor]—

1.

They would sound the shofar only in a court that had sanctified the new moon

alone.

That is, in the Great Sanhedrin, for they were the ones who sanctified the new moons. And this beraita was taught by Rabbi Eliezer [who holds this view in our Mishna].

2.

And not every individual is obligated to sound the shofar.

And one may ask:

What

is the explanation of

“not every individual is obligated to sound the shofar”

when Rosh HaShana falls on Shabbat?

If you say,

if you wish to say that the difference between Yom Kippur of the Jubilee and Rosh HaShana is that

on the Jubilee individuals sound the shofar, whereas on Rosh HaShana

when it falls on Shabbat

individuals do not sound the shofar,

It is impossible to say so. For:

And when

he came

Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said:

When the communal prayer leader finished sounding the shofar in Yavne,

when the prayer leader finished sounding the shofar before the court in Yavne, on Rosh HaShana that fell on Shabbat,

no one could hear the sound of his ear from the sound of the individual blasts.

No person could hear any other sound with his ears, because of the great number of blasts sounded by the individuals, who had delayed and had not heard the blasts of the communal prayer leader.

And from here it follows that even on Rosh HaShana that fell on Shabbat, individuals would sound the shofar!

Rather, no,

the beraita must necessarily be explained as follows: There is a distinction between the Jubilee and Rosh HaShana with regard to this matter:

For whereas

on Yom Kippur

of the Jubilee, they sound the shofar

the individuals

both when the court is in session and when the court is not in session.

And

whereas

on Rosh HaShana

that fell on Shabbat:

when the court is in session, they do not,

only then would the individuals sound the shofar. But

when the court is not in session, they do not

the individuals sound the shofar.

And now this contradicts the statement of Rav Huna, who said: Individuals sound the shofar on Yom Kippur only when the court is in session:

As

it nevertheless teaches,

in any event we learned: They sound the shofar

on the Jubilee, both when the court is in session and when the court is not in session!

And we reject this:

No.

The beraita does not intend to distinguish between Yom Kippur of the Jubilee and Rosh HaShana with regard to the time when the court is in session.

Rather,

actually,

even on Yom Kippur, individuals sound the shofar only

when the court is in session.

And this is what it teaches:

This is the distinction that the beraita makes between Yom Kippur and Rosh HaShana that falls on Shabbat: On Yom Kippur,

on the Jubilee: when the court is in session—

they sound the shofar both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court.

But

on Rosh HaShana

that fell on Shabbat:

they sound the shofar

only

when the court is in session, and

specifically

in the presence of the court.

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, who said that even on Yom Kippur one sounds the shofar only when the court is in session.

It was also stated:

A statement was said in the study hall that supports Rav Huna:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: They sound the shofar

individuals on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee

only as long as the court is sitting

in its place, at which time the individuals sound the shofar throughout the entire city.

Rabbi Zeira raised

the following uncertainty:

Rabbi Zeira

If they have already

roused themselves,

the judges have risen from their seats in order

to stand

and leave there,

and

they have still

not stood

to leave—

what

is the halakha regarding sounding the shofar then?

The two sides of the uncertainty are:

Does

the court need to be sitting

—is it necessary only that the court be sitting in its place in order to sound the shofar?

And there is

this condition here, since it remains in effect as long as they have not actually stood.

Or perhaps

perhaps

we need the time when the court is in session,

it is necessary that they sound the shofar during the “time when the court is in session,”

and there is not

such a condition here, since once the elders have risen from their seats in order to stand and leave, the time of the court’s sitting has already passed [as evidenced by the fact that they have therefore risen in order to stand and leave].

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

And Jerusalem had this further advantage over Yavne

that every city that sees and hears [the sounding of the shofar in Jerusalem].

Et cetera.

They sound the shofar.

And the Gemara now explains all the expressions mentioned in our Mishna:

“Sees”—

excluding

a city that

is situated in a valley,

in a low place, and cannot see Jerusalem; although it is close and hears, they did not sound the shofar there.

“Hears”—

excluding one situated on the mountaintop.

Although it sees Jerusalem, they do not sound the shofar there, since it cannot hear the sound of the shofar from Jerusalem.

“Close”—

excluding one situated outside the Shabbat boundary

[two thousand cubits].

“And can come”—

excluding one for which a river intervenes.

This excludes a city separated from Jerusalem by a river; although it is close and sees and hears, they do not sound the shofar there.

Mishna:

Since in the previous Mishna we learned the enactment instituted by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, our Mishna [and the Mishna that follows it] presents the other enactments of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai:

a.

At first, the lulav was taken in the Temple

during the festival of Sukkot on all

seven

days of the festival.

As it is stated [Leviticus 23]: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day: the fruit of a beautiful tree, date-palm branches, a branch of a braided tree, and willows of the brook. And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.”

And the Sages interpreted that the rejoicing “before the Lord your God” takes place in the Temple, meaning that it is a mitzva to rejoice there by taking the four species throughout “seven days.”

And

whereas

outside the Temple

there is a mitzva by Torah law to take the four species

one day

only.

As it is stated at the beginning of the verse: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day.”

After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken outside the Temple

all

seven

days of the festival of Sukkot—

in remembrance of the Temple!

b.

And

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai further instituted, after the Temple was destroyed:

that the day of the waving

of the omer, which is the sixteenth of Nisan,

should be entirely forbidden

to eat from the new grain on that day, as follows:

It is stated [Leviticus 23]: “When you come into the land that I give you, and reap its harvest.

And you shall bring the omer of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest.

And he shall wave the omer before the Lord on the day after the Shabbat [the day after the first festival day of Passover].

And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh ears, until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your God.”

And the final verse requires explanation:

For from the beginning of the verse, “You shall not eat until this very day,” it appears that the day itself permits eating from the new grain, from sunrise, on the sixteenth of Nisan.

Whereas the conclusion of the verse, “until you have brought the offering of your God,” indicates that even after sunrise it is forbidden to eat from the new grain, and it becomes permitted only once the omer offering has been brought!

How is this to be understood?

In the time of the Temple, the omer permits the new grain.

And in the present time, when there is no omer offering, the day itself permits it.

And Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of the waving of the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, should be forbidden by rabbinic decree in the present time [and the reason for this will be explained in the Gemara].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken outside the Temple for seven days, in remembrance of the Temple.

And we raised a question about it:

From where do we know

the source

that we perform

that we do

“in remembrance of the Temple”?

And we answer:

As the verse states [

Jeremiah 30]:

“For I will bring healing to you

[to Jerusalem].

And I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord.

For “rejected”—

they called you,

Zion, she is sought—

there is none for her.”

And

from

the words of the prophet Jeremiah, who laments that there is no one who seeks [remembers] Zion, we learn

that

Zion

requires seeking!

That is, Jerusalem requires that people remember it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai further instituted

that the entire day of the waving should be forbidden.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason?

Why did Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai institute that the entire day should be forbidden?

And we answer: Since

the Temple may be rebuilt very soon.

And

then

the people will say:

the people:

Last year,

last year, when the Temple was destroyed,

why

and is it the case that

we did not eat

from the new grain immediately

when

the

east

the

horizon

brightened, even though the omer had not been sacrificed?!

If so,

now

after the Temple has been rebuilt,

we should likewise eat,

we should also now eat from sunrise, even before the omer has been sacrificed!

And they would not know,

and would not know

that last year,

when

there was no omer offering,

then

the east horizon brightened

[on the sixteenth of Nisan] and

permitted

the new grain to be eaten.

But

now,

at present,

when there is

the offering of the

omer—

only the

omer permits

the new grain from the time it is sacrificed, and not the day itself.

And we raised a question about it:

If it is rebuilt—

when?

For what time did Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai fear that the Temple would be rebuilt and people would err, and on account of this fear did he prohibit the entire day, rather than suffice with prohibiting the new grain until midday?

If you say that it will be rebuilt on the sixteenth,

if we say that he feared that the Temple might be rebuilt in the following year on the sixteenth of Nisan,

It is impossible to say so. For:

Behold,

when the east horizon brightened on that day, the Temple was still destroyed. And if so,

“the east horizon brightened”

on the sixteenth had already

permitted

the new grain! Why should it matter that they eat the new grain before the omer has been sacrificed?

Rather,

if you will say that the concern is in a case

where it is rebuilt on the fifteenth,

perhaps the Temple might be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan, which is the first festival day of Passover, with the result that on the sixteenth the Temple would already be rebuilt, and the new grain would then be permitted only after the omer had been sacrificed.

[Although the building of the Temple does not override Shabbat, as explained in tractate Shevuot [15b], this applies to construction by human beings; but the Temple of the future will be built by Heaven].

And, naturally, the same concern applies if the Temple is rebuilt earlier, during the year.

This is not correct.

For according to this, the following difficulty arises: Why did Rabbi Yoḥanan decree that the entire day be prohibited?

For

from midday onward—

let it be permitted!?

Even if the Temple has already been built, from midday onward the new grain should be permitted everywhere, since by then the omer offering will certainly already have been sacrificed!

As we indeed learned [

Eruvin 32a]: When the Temple was standing,

those distant

from the Temple, who did not know at what time the omer had been sacrificed on the sixteenth,

were permitted

to eat the new grain

from midday onward.

Because the court does not delay it,

the sacrifice of the omer, and it had certainly already been sacrificed by that time.

Therefore, although we are concerned that the Temple might be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan, or earlier, the court would certainly have enough time to reap the new grain on the night following the festival day and sacrifice it by midday.

Therefore, even if they were to say, “Last year we ate from midday,” that would make no difference, since this year as well they would be permitted to do so from midday, because the omer would certainly already have been sacrificed!

And we answer: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s enactment

was necessary

only in a case

where it is rebuilt on the fifteenth,

out of concern that the Temple might be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan,

close to sunset.

They would then be occupied with its construction and delay reaping the omer, and by the time they reaped and prepared it, there is concern that the sacrifice would take place after midday.

Alternatively,

or

where it is rebuilt at night.

Perhaps the Temple might be built during the night between the fifteenth and sixteenth of Nisan, at midnight or close to dawn. Then they would not have sufficient time before midday to reap the omer, singe it in a tube, grind it into fine flour, sift it [to remove the refuse], and sacrifice it.

And the sacrifice of the omer would be delayed until after midday.

And if the Jewish people were accustomed to eat the new grain at this time from midday onward, there would be concern that on that day as well they would eat from midday onward and transgress the prohibition against eating the new grain before the omer had been sacrificed.

And the Gemara brings another opinion concerning the reason for Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s enactment:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,

who instituted that the entire day of the waving [the sixteenth of Nisan] should be forbidden, did not institute this enactment as a preventive decree.