Rosh Hashanah 30a — the Talmud in English

And with the court

specifically do they sound.

And we explain:

What is “

with”

the court—

in the presence of the court!

To exclude [

to exclude]

that when not in the presence of the court they do not

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

Rava raised an objection

against Rav Huna’s words:

We learned in the Mishna:

“And furthermore, Jerusalem was superior to Yavne”,

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

And one must ask about our Mishna:

What is “and furthermore”?

For it implies from the words of the Mishna that there was an additional advantage of Jerusalem over Yavne.

If you say as it teaches,

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

And if so,

“this”

“Jerusalem was superior to Yavne”—

it should have said

to say! And not as it stated in its wording, “and furthermore”!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the tanna used the expression “and furthermore,”

for in Jerusalem

there was an additional advantage over Yavne, in that in Jerusalem they would

sound

also

as individuals, and

if

in Yavne they do not sound as individuals,

but only the agents of the court. And this is the advantage missing from the Mishna, and therefore this is how we must explain the Mishna.

This is not correct. Since:

And

is it possible to say that

in Yavne they do not sound as individuals!?

But when [

when he came]

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: When [

when]

the communal agent finishes the sounding in Yavne—

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

No person heard any other sound in his ears, because of the great number of soundings that the individuals sounded, who delayed and did not hear the sounding of the communal agent [R. Hananel].

And from here, it follows that even in Yavne the individuals sounded!

Rather, is it not

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

That in Jerusalem they sound both during the time

that

the court

sits, during the first six hours of the day,

and both not during the time of the court.

And

if

in Yavne:

only

during the time of the court, they do

sound, but

not during the time of the court—

not

would they sound.

And Rava infers:

This

implies from here that

during the time of the court, at least,

in any event, they

sound

in Yavne,

even

the individuals—

not in the presence of the court!

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

And we answer:

No!

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

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

That if in Jerusalem, they sound 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

thus sound.

But

not in the presence of the court—

not

do they sound.

And this accords with Rav Huna’s words.

There are those who teach this statement of Rav Huna,

there are those who say that Rav Huna, who said “and with the court,” did not refer in his words at all to our Mishna, but said them

about that which is written [Leviticus 25]:

“You shall sound a shofar of sounding.

“Then you shall sound a shofar blast.

On the Day of Atonement

of the Jubilee

you shall sound a shofar throughout all your land.”

And the beraita explains this verse:

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

teaches that every single individual is obligated to sound.

And concerning this

Rav Huna said: And with the court

specifically do the individuals sound.

And

what

and what is the meaning of

“and with the court”—

during the time of the court,

during the first six hours of the day, when the court sits; this is the time when individuals sound on the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee year.

[And here it cannot be explained as “in the presence of the court,” as we explained above concerning sounding on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat. For the verse explicitly says: “throughout all your land,” and it implies that individuals sound even not in the presence of the court. Rashi.]

To exclude [

to exclude]

not during the time of the court—

for they do not

sound as individuals on the Day of Atonement at that time.

Rava raised an objection

against Rav Huna’s words:

We learned in a beraita:

The sounding of the Jubilee overrides Shabbat in the provinces [

outside the Temple],

“a man and his household.”

What is “a man and his household”?

If you say,

if we explain it as:

a man and his wife.

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

And is

a woman—

is she obligated!?

Is a woman obligated in sounding the shofar of the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee?!

But it is a positive commandment whose performance is determined by time [

for this time, namely the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee, causes the commandment of sounding the shofar].

And women are exempt from every positive commandment whose performance is determined by time [

as explained in tractate Kiddushin 29a]!

Rather, is it not

that the tanna said this in the beraita:

“A man

sounds

in his house,” and even not during the time of the court!

And we reject this:

No,

this is not what the tanna intends to say.

Rather,

in truth

his intention is to say that the individual sounds in his house—

during the time of the court!

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

against Rav Huna’s words from the words of another beraita:

For it was taught:

The Jubilee is equal to Rosh Hashana with regard to sounding and blessings.

Rather,

there is a difference between them:

For on

the Day of Atonement of the

Jubilee—

a.

They sound both in a court in which they sanctified the

new moon, and in a court in which they did not sanctify the new moon.

b.

And every single individual is obligated to sound.

And

if

on Rosh Hashana

that occurred to be on Shabbat [for the law of Shabbat and the law of the Day of Atonement are equal with regard to the prohibition of labor]—

a.

They would sound only in a court in which they 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 way in our Mishna].

b.

And not every single individual is obligated to sound.

And one must ask:

What,

what is the explanation of

“not every single individual is obligated to sound”

on Rosh Hashana that occurred on Shabbat?

If you say,

if you wish to say that there is a difference between the Day of Atonement of the Jubilee and Rosh Hashana in this way:

On the Jubilee they sound as individuals, but on Rosh Hashana

that occurred on Shabbat

they do not sound as individuals.

It is impossible to say so. For:

But when

when

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef

came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said:

When the communal emissary finished the blasts in Yavneh,

when the communal emissary finished sounding before the court that was in Yavneh, on Rosh HaShana that fell on Shabbat—

no person heard with his ear any sound because of the sound of the blasts of the individuals.

No person could hear any other sound with his ears, because of the multitude of blasts that the individuals sounded, having delayed and not heard the blasts of the communal emissary.

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

Rather, is it not

necessary to explain the beraita in this way: there is a difference between the Jubilee and Rosh HaShana regarding this matter:

For if

on Yom Kippur

of the Jubilee: they sound

the individuals

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

But

if

on Rosh HaShana

that fell on Shabbat:

when the court is in session, yes,

only then would the individuals sound. But

when the court is not in session, no,

the individuals would not sound.

And now there is a contradiction to the words of Rav Huna, who said that the individuals sound the shofar on Yom Kippur only when the court is in session:

For

in any event it teaches,

in any event we learned: they sound

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

And we reject this:

No.

The intention of the beraita is not to distinguish between Yom Kippur of the Jubilee and Rosh HaShana with regard to the time of the court.

Rather,

actually,

even on Yom Kippur the individuals sound only

when the court is in session.

And this is what it teaches,

this is the distinction that the beraita made between Yom Kippur and Rosh HaShana that fell on Shabbat: on Yom Kippur

of the Jubilee: when the court is in session—

they sound both before the court and not before the court.

But

on Rosh HaShana

that fell on Shabbat:

they sound

only

when the court is in session, and

specifically

before the court.

And this is in accordance with the words of Rav Huna, who said that even on Yom Kippur they sound only when the court is in session.

It was also stated;

a statement supporting Rav Huna was said in the beit-midrash:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Gamda said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul, who said in the name of Rabbi: They do not sound

the individuals on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee

except as long as the court is sitting

in its place, for then the individuals sound throughout the entire city.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question

and was uncertain,

Rabbi Zeira:

if already

they have stirred,

the judges have risen from their seats in order

to stand

and go from there,

but

still

they have not stood

to go—

what is the ruling

to sound then?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does

the requirement that the court be sitting apply,

meaning, is it necessary only that the court be sitting in its place in order to sound,

and that is present.

And this is present here, since this condition exists as long as they have not actually stood.

Or perhaps

perhaps

the time of the court is required,

it is necessary that they sound during the “time of the court,”

and it is absent.

And this condition does not exist here, because once the elders rose from their seats in order to stand and go, the time of the court’s sitting has already passed [for this is why they rose, to stand and go].

And we conclude:

Let it stand!

We learned in the Mishna:

And in this further respect Jerusalem had an advantage over Yavneh

that every city that sees and hears.

Etc.

They sound.

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

“Sees”—

excluding

a city that

sits in a valley,

in a valley, and cannot see the city, for even though it is near and hears, they did not sound there.

“Hears”—

excluding one that sits at the top of the mountain.

For even though it sees Jerusalem, they do not sound in it, since it does not hear the sound of the shofar from Jerusalem.

“Near”—

excluding one that sits outside the boundary [

two thousand cubits].

“And can come”—

excluding one for which a river intervenes.

Excluding a city between which and Jerusalem a river intervenes, for even though it is near and sees and hears, they do not sound there.

Mishna:

Since we learned in the previous Mishna a regulation instituted by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, our Mishna [and the Mishna following it] brings the rest of the regulations of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai:

a.

At first, the lulav was taken in the Temple

on the festival of Sukkot throughout 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, branches of a date palm, the branch of a braided tree, and willows of the brook. And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”

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

But

if

in the country

there is a Torah mitzva to take the four species

one day

only.

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

After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken in the country

all

seven

days of the festival of Sukkot—

in remembrance of the Temple!

b.

And

Rabban Yohanan 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 it, 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 of your harvest to the priest.

And he shall wave the omer before the Lord on the morrow of the day of rest [on the morrow of the first day of Passover].

And bread, roasted grain, and fresh ears you shall not eat until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God.”

And the last 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 the new grain, once the eastern horizon has brightened, on the sixteenth of Nisan.

But the conclusion of the verse, “until you bring the offering of your God,” implies that even though the eastern horizon has brightened, it is forbidden to eat from the new grain, and only once the omer offering has been brought is it permitted!

How is this so?

When the Temple exists, the omer permits the new grain.

And nowadays, when there is no omer, the day itself permits it.

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

Gemara:

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

And we raised a question about it:

And from where do we know

the source

that we make

that one makes

“a remembrance of the Temple”?

And we answer:

For the verse says [

Jeremiah 30]:

“For I shall bring healing up for you [

for Jerusalem].

and from your wounds I shall heal you, says the Lord.

For “an outcast”—

they called you.

“Zion, she is the one sought—

there is none for her.”

And

from the implication

of the words of the prophet Jeremiah, who complains that there is no one seeking [remembering] Zion, we learn

that

Zion—

requires seeking!

That is, Jerusalem needs to be remembered.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai further instituted,

that the day of the waving should be entirely forbidden.

And we raised a question about it:

What is the reason?

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

And we answer: for

the Temple may speedily be rebuilt.

And

then

the people will say

the people:

last year,

in the previous year, when the Temple was destroyed,

did

and indeed

we not eat

from the new grain immediately

when

at the time that

the

the

east

although the omer had not been brought?!

If so, also

now,

after the Temple has been rebuilt,

let us also eat,

let us also now eat from the time that the eastern horizon brightens, even before the bringing of the omer!

And they would not know,

and they would not know

that last year,

that

there was no omer,

then

the eastern horizon brightened [

on the sixteenth of Nisan]

and permitted

the new grain for eating.

But

now,

now

that there is

the offering of the

omer—

only the

omer permits

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

And we raised a question about it:

If it is rebuilt—

when?

With regard to what time did Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai fear that the Temple would be rebuilt and people would come to err, and because of this concern did he forbid the entire day to them, rather than suffice with forbidding it until midday?

If you say that it is a case where it is rebuilt on the sixteenth,

if it is said that he feared that the Temple might be rebuilt the following year on the sixteenth of Nisan.

It is impossible to say so. For:

Behold,

at the time that the eastern horizon brightened on that day, the Temple was still destroyed. And if so,

“the eastern horizon brightened”

on the sixteenth already

permitted!

And what concern is it to me that they eat new grain before the omer has been brought?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the concern is in the case

where it is rebuilt on the fifteenth,

perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan, which is the first festival day of Passover, and it follows that on the sixteenth the Temple will already have been rebuilt, and then the new grain is not permitted except after the omer is brought.

And although the building of the Temple does not override Shabbat, as explained in tractate Shevuot [15b], all this applies to building by human hands, but the future Temple will be built by Heaven.

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

This is not correct.

For according to this it is difficult: why did Rabbi Yohanan decree a prohibition for the entire day?

But

from midday onward—

should it not be permitted!?

For even if the Temple is already standing, behold, from midday onward the new grain will be permitted in all places, since by then the omer offering will certainly already have been brought!

For we learned [

Eruvin 32a]: when the Temple existed,

those distant

from the Temple, who do not know at what time the omer was brought on the sixteenth—they are

permitted

to eat the new grain

from midday onward.

Because the court does not delay it,

in bringing the omer, and it has certainly already been brought by that time.

Therefore, although we are concerned that perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan, or earlier, nevertheless the court will certainly have enough time to reap from the new grain on the evening following the festival day and bring it by midday.

Therefore, even if they say, “Last year we ate from midday,” it is of no consequence, for this year too they are permitted to do so from midday, because the omer has certainly already been brought!

And we answer: the regulation of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

was necessary only

for the case

where it is rebuilt on the fifteenth,

because of the concern that the Temple might be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan

near sunset.

And they will then be occupied with its building and will delay reaping the omer, and until they reap and prepare it, there is concern that the bringing will be after midday.

Alternatively,

or

where it is rebuilt at night.

Perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt during the night between the fifteenth and the sixteenth of Nisan, at midnight or near dawn. And then they will not have sufficient time until midday to reap the omer, roast it in a tube, grind it into fine flour, sift it [in order to remove the refuse], and bring it.

And the bringing of the omer will be delayed beyond midday.

And if Israel will be accustomed to eating new grain nowadays from midday onward, there is concern that on that day as well they will eat beginning from midday onward, and violate the prohibition of eating new grain before the omer is brought.

And the Gemara brings another opinion regarding the reason for the regulation of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

who instituted that the day of the waving [the sixteenth of Nisan] should be entirely forbidden, did not institute this regulation because of a decree.