Rosh Hashanah 30b — the Talmud in English

Rather,

he stated it according to the method of Rabbi Judah.

For we find Rabbi Judah, who was the disciple of the disciple of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

who said:

It is forbidden by Torah law to eat the hadash nowadays throughout the entire day of the sixteenth of Nisan.

As it is stated [Leviticus 23]: “And bread and parched grain and fresh grain you shall not eat

until this very day itself.”

And its meaning is:

until the very essence of the day.

And he holds that

Rabbi Judah, wherever it is stated “until,” the intention is

“until, and including.”

And here the intention of the verse is to say that it is forbidden to eat of the hadash until this very day itself, and that very day itself is also included in the prohibition.

And below the Gemara will explain why we learned that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai “instituted,” when in fact the law is so by Torah law!

And we raise an objection:

But does

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

hold

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

like him,

like Rabbi Judah, that the entire day is forbidden by Torah law if the omer was not offered?!

But he explicitly disagreed with him,

for we learned in tractate Sukkah [41a] that Rabbi Judah disagreed with Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in this matter.

For we learned: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of the waving should be forbidden.

Rabbi Judah said: But it is forbidden by Torah law,

as it is written: “until this very day itself,”

and there is no need for an enactment concerning the matter!

And we answer: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai too holds that the entire day is forbidden by Torah law.

And

there,

what is implied by the aforementioned Mishna, that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai holds that by Torah law it is permitted already at the beginning of the day—

it is Rabbi Judah

who

erred,

for he erred in the words of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.

For

he,

Rabbi Judah,

held that

that

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

said an enactment

of rabbinic status,

to decree concerning the matter, out of concern lest the Temple be rebuilt.

But it is not so,

and the matter is not thus.

Rather, even Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai—the prohibition

he stated was by Torah law!

For it is forbidden by Torah law to eat of the hadash throughout the entire day.

And we object:

But “he instituted”

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

it teaches!

And it implies that by Torah law it is permitted to eat even earlier, and Rabban Yohanan instituted an enactment to prohibit the hadash throughout the entire day! And how did you say that according to him it is forbidden by Torah law?!

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “he instituted”?

He expounded

to the people the verse “until this very day itself,” that it means “until, and including.”

And he instituted

that they should conduct themselves according to the prohibition by Torah law, in accordance with what he expounded to them from the verse.

And he had to take care to institute this, because as long as the Temple stood, they would eat hadash immediately after midday, since by then the omer had certainly been offered.

But after the Temple was destroyed, and the omer was no longer offered, the entire day became forbidden to eat by Torah law. Yet they were not accustomed to this, since during the time of the Temple they would eat of the hadash after midday.

Therefore, Rabban Yohanan had to institute the matter and establish for them that the prohibition by Torah law extends throughout the entire day.

Mishna:

In our Mishna another enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai is brought:

3.

At first they would accept testimony concerning the new moon

of the new moon of Tishrei, which is Rosh HaShanah, throughout

the entire day

[the thirtieth day of the month of Elul].

And if the witnesses arrived even toward the end of that day, that day would retroactively be sanctified as Rosh HaShanah.

Therefore, even before the witnesses arrived, beginning from the start of the night preceding the thirtieth day of Elul, they would refrain from performing labor on it. For perhaps witnesses would arrive that very day, and it would then be sanctified retroactively, from the time the thirtieth day began.

And when witnesses did not arrive throughout the entire day, they would also observe the following day as a Festival, and they would make Elul a full month.

Once, the witnesses were delayed in coming,

beyond the time at which they were accustomed to arrive.

For ordinarily they would arrive before the time of offering the afternoon daily offering, whereas this time they arrived after the time of its offering.

And at the time of offering the afternoon daily offering, the Levites were uncertain:

Would the witnesses still arrive that day, after the offering, and would Rosh HaShanah be sanctified retroactively, so that now it would be Rosh HaShanah, and it would be necessary to sing for the daily offering the song of a Festival?

Or perhaps the witnesses would not arrive, so that now it would be an ordinary weekday, and it would be necessary to sing for the daily offering the song of an ordinary weekday?

And the Levites were disrupted in the song.

And the Gemara explains what the disruption was.

Therefore,

the Sages instituted

that

they should not accept

testimony concerning the new moon on Rosh HaShanah

except until the afternoon offering,

which is the time of offering the afternoon daily offering.

And if witnesses arrived from the afternoon offering onward

[and thereafter], they would make the month of Elul full, and the new moon of Tishrei would be sanctified only on the following day.

And although it is now known that they will not sanctify the new moon today, but only tomorrow, nevertheless, since they had already begun to observe the laws of a Festival on it [from the beginning of the night preceding the thirtieth day], therefore

they would observe that day

in its entirety as

sacred.

For if they were to stop observing the sanctity of the Festival from the afternoon offering onward, they would come to treat the sanctity of Rosh HaShanah lightly in the following year. And they would say: Last year we observed the laws of a Festival on it for no reason, since from the afternoon offering onward we returned to observing it as an ordinary weekday.

And

the following day

they observed the laws of

sacredness

by Torah law, for the court had made the year full.

And

after the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that they should accept testimony concerning the new moon throughout the entire day.

For now there was no concern that the Levites would be disrupted in the song, since the daily offering had ceased, and the song of the Levites over it had ceased.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Once, the witnesses were delayed in coming, and the Levites were disrupted in the song.

And we inquire about it:

What disruption did the Levites cause in the song?

Here they explained,

here in Babylonia,

that they did not recite a song

over the afternoon daily offering

at all.

Because they were uncertain whether the court would sanctify the new moon that day, so that now it would be a Festival, or perhaps they would not sanctify it that day, so that now it would be an ordinary weekday. And because they were uncertain which song was appropriate to sing, they refrained and sang no song whatsoever.

But for the morning daily offering the Levites sang the song of an ordinary weekday, because no Festival song had been instituted for it at all, since ordinarily the witnesses concerning the new moon did not arrive before the offering of the morning daily offering.

Therefore, there was no “disruption” in the song of the Levites in its case, even if the day would later be sanctified retroactively. For, as stated, in all years no sacred song had been instituted for it; rather, it remained with the song of an ordinary weekday, as usual.

But regarding the afternoon daily offering, since ordinarily the witnesses concerning the new moon arrived before it was offered, and they knew that it was a Festival, they instituted that a Festival song should be recited over it.

And in that year, when the witnesses were delayed in coming, the Levites were uncertain which song was appropriate to sing, and therefore they did not recite a song at all.

Rabbi Zeira

[who was one of the people of the Land of Israel]

said:

The disruption consisted in this:

they recited the song of an ordinary weekday with the afternoon daily offering.

And in the end they sanctified the new moon that very day, so that they had thereby nullified the Festival song that was appropriate for it.

And Rabbi Zeira brings proof for his words:

Rabbi Zeira said to Ahava his son

[his son]:

Go out and teach them,

go and teach the people of Babylonia, who say that in that year they did not recite a song at all, a beraita that contradicts their words:

For it was taught:

The Sages instituted

that

they should not accept testimony concerning the new moon, except

with

enough time remaining in the day

after they sanctify the new moon—

to offer the daily offerings and the additional offerings and their libations.

—

For before they sanctified the new moon, they could not offer the additional offering of Rosh HaShanah, since perhaps they would not sanctify the month, so that today would be an ordinary weekday, on which there are no additional offerings.

And

there must also be enough time for the Levites to be able

to recite

a song over it

without confusion.

And so Rabbi Zeira argued:

If you grant that

that

they recited,

that the Levites recited over it

the song of

an

ordinary weekday—

this is indeed the confusion!

For this is the confusion mentioned in the beraita.

But if you say that they did not recite at all,

that in that year they did not recite any song at all—

what confusion is there?!

What confusion and error can there be in a song that was not recited at all?

And we reject Rabbi Zeira’s argument:

Since they did not recite at all,

since they did not recite a song in that year at all—

you have no greater confusion than this

itself, in that they did not recite a song.

Rav Aha bar Huna raises an objection

against the words of the people of Babylonia, from a beraita:

For it was taught:

The daily offering of Rosh HaShanah,

which was offered on the thirtieth day of Elul, in

the morning—

is offered according to its law.

For the Levites sang over it according to the order of the song of an ordinary weekday [each day of the week, according to the song customary for it].

And they did not institute that a Festival song be recited for the morning daily offering, because ordinarily the witnesses did not arrive until after the offering, and at that time they did not know whether the day would be sanctified or not.

For

the offering of the

additional offering

of Rosh HaShanah, which was offered after the witnesses arrived and the month was sanctified—

what does he recite?

What did the Levites sing over it?

The psalm that begins with the words

“Sing joyfully to God our strength, sound the shofar to the God of Jacob”

[Psalm 81].

And this is the song recited on Thursday among the ordinary weekdays, and they recite it over the additional offering of Rosh HaShanah because it is the day of sounding.

For the afternoon offering,

for the afternoon daily offering—

what does he recite?

What did the Levites sing?

Psalm 29 in Psalms.

As it is stated in it:

“The voice of the Lord makes the wilderness tremble

the Lord makes the wilderness of Kadesh tremble.” And this psalm speaks of the giving of the Torah in the wilderness, and they recited it in order to recall the merit of the sound of the shofar blasts at the giving of the Torah.

And when it happens that Rosh HaShanah falls on Thursday, whose song,

the song of every Thursday, for the morning daily offering, is the psalm that begins with the words

“Sing joyfully to God our strength.”

[And this is speaking of a case in which the witnesses managed to arrive before the offering of the morning daily offering, or in which witnesses did not arrive, and the month of Elul was made full, and they offer the morning daily offering on the thirty-first day, when it is certain that now is Rosh HaShanah]—

He would not recite in the morning, “Sing joyfully”!

Because

if he were to recite that entire psalm in the morning, it would turn out

that he repeats and doubles the chapter

twice on the same day, since they would also recite it over the additional offering.

Rather, what does he recite

in the morning of Rosh HaShanah that falls on Thursday?

The portion of the psalm beginning with the verse

“I removed his shoulder from the burden”

and onward [in Psalm 81], since on Rosh HaShanah Joseph emerged from prison, and this verse speaks of that.

And if

it falls on Thursday, and

the

witnesses

arrived after

the offering of the

morning daily offering,

and at the time of offering the daily offering they did not know whether they would sanctify Rosh HaShanah that day, then in the morning they recite the entire “Sing joyfully to God.”

And for the additional offering he

recites “Sing joyfully,” even though

he

repeats and doubles the chapter.

And from this beraita Rav Aha proves according to Rabbi Zeira’s method, that because of the uncertainty the Levites recited the song of an ordinary weekday. And he raised an objection from it against the words of the people of Babylonia, who say that the Levites were disrupted and did not recite a song at all that day:

For

if you grant that: Wherever there is uncertainty—

we recite the song of an ordinary weekday.

For wherever they are uncertain which song to recite, they recite that of an ordinary weekday, the words of the tanna are understandable.

For

this is what he said,

this is what the tanna said: If witnesses arrived on Thursday after the morning daily offering, he recites “Sing joyfully” for the additional offering, even though he

recites it and doubles it.

For in the morning they recited “Sing joyfully” because of the uncertainty, as they do on ordinary weekdays, and this accords with Rabbi Zeira’s method: when the witnesses were delayed in coming, the Levites recited over the afternoon daily offering the song of an ordinary weekday because of the uncertainty.

But if you say,

according to the words of the people of Babylonia, that on that day they

did not recite,

the Levites did not recite the song of the day

at all

over the afternoon daily offering because of the uncertainty—

what,

how should we interpret what we learned:

“He recites it and doubles it”?

For when there is uncertainty, according to their view, they do not recite the song of the day at all; and if so, in the morning too, when they still do not know whether the day will be sanctified, they should not recite the song of an ordinary weekday because of the uncertainty.

For there is no reason that the song of the morning should differ from the song of the afternoon. Just as in the afternoon they do not recite a song according to the view of the people of Babylonia, since the matter is uncertain, so too the law should be in the morning: because of the uncertainty they should say nothing.

And if so, we do not find that he repeats and doubles it!