Rosh Hashanah 31b — the Talmud in English

D.

And from Yavneh to Usha,

during the days of Rabban Gamliel the Nasi, the Sanhedrin was exiled to the place of his residence, which was in Usha.

E.

And from Usha

they returned

to Yavneh.

F.

And from Yavneh

they returned

to Usha,

during the days of Rabban Shimon, the son of Rabban Gamliel. [And because he lived in Usha, the Sanhedrin was exiled after him]].

G.

And from Usha to Shefar'am.

H.

And from Shefar'am

they were exiled

to Beit She'arim,

where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived [who was called “Rabbi”]].

I.

And from Beit She'arim

they were exiled

to Sepphoris.

When Rabbi became ill, they brought him to Sepphoris, and the Sanhedrin was exiled after him.

J.

And from Sepphoris

the Sanhedrin was exiled

to Tiberias.

When Rabbi moved to live there [during the days of Antoninus the Roman]].

And Tiberias was the deepest of them all.

That is, when they were exiled to Tiberias, the Sanhedrin was more humbled than it had been during all its other journeys.

As it is stated [Isaiah 29]:

“And you shall be humbled

when you are humbled to Tiberias, then

you shall speak from the earth, and from the dust your speech shall be low.”

Rabbi Elazar says: They underwent six exiles

the Sanhedrin.

As it is stated [Isaiah 26]:

“For He has brought low the inhabitants of the high place.

The lofty city He shall humble.

He shall humble it to the earth.

He shall bring it to the dust.”

And every expression of humbling in the verse is expounded as referring to one exile:

“He has brought low”—this is one exile.

“He shall humble it”—this is a second exile.

“He shall humble it”—this is a third exile.

“To the earth”—this is a fourth exile.

“He shall bring it to the dust”—these are two additional exiles: for Scripture could have said, “He shall humble it to the earth and dust,” and the word “He shall bring it” is superfluous; therefore they expounded:

“He shall bring it”—this is a fifth exile.

“To the dust”—this is a sixth exile.

Rabbi Yohanan said: And from there,

from the final exile in Tiberias, concerning which it was stated above, “and from the dust your speech shall be low”—

they are destined to be redeemed!

As it is stated [Isaiah 52]:

“Shake yourself from the dust

from Tiberias,

arise, sit.”

Mishna:

Our Mishna brings an additional enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai concerning the sanctification of the new moon:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said: And this also did Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enact: that even if the head of the court

is

in any place

outside the place where the Sanhedrin sits, and the principal sanctification of the new moon depends upon him. And as we learned above [24a], that at the time of the sanctification of the new moon the head of the court would say, “Sanctified.”]

Nevertheless, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted

that the witnesses should go only to the place of assembly.

To the place where the Sanhedrin sits.

And the Sanhedrin shall sanctify the new moon without the head of the court.

Gemara:

The Gemara brings an incident from which it is learned that the enactment of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai stated in our Mishna applies only to testimony concerning the new moon:

There was a certain woman whom they summoned for judgment before Ameimar in Nehardea.

There was an incident involving a woman who was summoned for judgment in the court of Ameimar, which was in Nehardea.

Ameimar went to Mehoza, but she did not go after him.

At that time Ameimar [who was the head of the court] went to Mehoza, while the woman remained in Nehardea and did not go after him to litigate before him in Mehoza.

He wrote a petiha against her,

Ameimar wrote a writ of excommunication against that woman.

He said

he challenged

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But we learned in our Mishna,

for did we not learn in our Mishna: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted that

even if the head of the court is in any place, the witnesses should go only to the place of assembly!

And if so, even though you [Ameimar] were in Mehoza, the woman need go only to your court, which is in Nehardea!

Ameimar said to him

in reply to Rav Ashi:

These words,

the words of our Mishna apply only

to testimony concerning the new moon.

And the reason for the matter is

that if so,

if you trouble the witnesses to go after the head of the court—

you will cause them to fail in the future,

so that they will not come to testify at all.

But here,

in the matter of monetary law, it is stated [Proverbs 22]:

“A borrower is a slave to the lender.”

And against his will the borrower is obligated to come to judgment, and therefore he is obligated to go after the head of the court.

The Sages taught: The priests are not permitted to ascend to the platform in their sandals.

And this is one of the nine enactments that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted.

It is clear from the words of the beraita that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted nine enactments. And we explain which they are:

Six—

of this chapter.

Six enactments have been taught in this chapter up to this point:

A. The enactment in this beraita—that the priests should not ascend to the platform in their sandals.

And the following five enactments were taught in the Mishnayot above:

B. That they should sound the shofar in the court on Rosh Hashanah that falls on Shabbat.

C. That the lulav should be taken everywhere, all seven days of Sukkot.

D. That the entire day of the waving of the omer [16 Nisan] should be forbidden with regard to the new grain in the present time.

E. From the time the Temple was destroyed, they receive witnesses on Rosh Hashanah throughout the entire day. [And even after Minhah].

F. That the witnesses of the new moon should not go after the head of the court, but only to the place of assembly [the sitting of the Sanhedrin].

And one

one additional enactment

of the first chapter,

which we learned in the first chapter [above, 21b]:

G. That in the present time the witnesses of the new moon override Shabbat only for Nisan and Tishrei.

And the other,

another enactment is mentioned in the following beraita:

H. A convert who converts does not enter the covenant of the Holy One, blessed is He, and is not permitted to eat of sacred offerings, until he does as our forefathers did when the Holy One, blessed is He, entered into a covenant with them [as explained in Exodus 24].

And these are the four things that our forefathers did when they entered into the covenant:

A. Circumcision. B. Immersion. C. Presentation of blood [sprinkling blood on the altar]. D. Sprinkling of blood upon the people.

That is, the convert too must have blood sprinkled upon him.

Thus the Gemara proves in Keritot 9a. And although immersion was not mentioned in the verse, nevertheless, since the sprinkling of blood was mentioned, there is no sprinkling without immersion. From here, immersion too was there.

And in order to carry out the sprinkling of the blood and its sprinkling, the convert must bring at least two turtledoves or two young pigeons as burnt offerings.

The cost of the nest was a quarter-shekel, which is half a dinar. And concerning this matter Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted an enactment:

For it was taught: A convert who converts in the present time

when the Temple is destroyed [and it is impossible to bring an offering, sprinkle its blood, and have it sprinkled]—

must set aside a quarter

of a shekel

for

that purpose

his nest,

to purchase a nest with it.

That is, two turtledoves or young pigeons as burnt offerings—for the future.

Rabbi

Shimon

ben Elazar said: The court of

the court of

Rabban Yohanan

ben Zakkai

already deliberated upon it

this ruling

and nullified it, because of the mishap.

Perhaps they would come to benefit from that money and commit misuse with consecrated property.

I.

And the other,

with regard to the ninth enactment, there is

a dispute [a disagreement]

between

Rav Pappa and Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak,

as to what that enactment was:

Rav Pappa said:

That enactment concerned

fourth-year vineyard produce.

A vineyard in the fourth year after its planting requires that its fruit be brought up to Jerusalem and eaten there. And if this is difficult for him, he may redeem it and bring its value up to Jerusalem, purchase food with it, and eat it there.

And Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted an enactment concerning this matter, as follows.

But

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

That enactment concerned

the strip of crimson,

which would turn white on Yom Kippur when they pushed the sent-away goat from the cliff at Azazel. And as follows.

And the Gemara explains what those two enactments were concerning which they disagreed:

Rav Pappa said: He enacted fourth-year vineyard produce

he enacted—

For we learned: Fourth-year vineyard produce would go up

itself

to Jerusalem.

They enacted that he would be obligated to bring the fruit up to Jerusalem, and not its redemption money, if the vineyard was within a distance of

a day’s journey

from Jerusalem

in every direction.

And although outside Jerusalem it is permitted by Torah law to redeem the fruit, the Sages enacted that they should not redeem it near Jerusalem, within a distance of a day’s journey in every direction. [The reason will be explained below].

And this is its boundary: Eilat to the south.

And Akrabat to the north.

Lod to the west.

And the Jordan to the east.

And Ulla said, and some say

perhaps

Rabba bar Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

What

the

reason

for this enactment?

In order to adorn

the

markets of Jerusalem with fruit.

Therefore they prohibited redeeming the fruit that is close to Jerusalem, within a day’s journey, but obligated bringing it up to Jerusalem.

And it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer had fourth-year vineyard produce east of Lod,

between Jerusalem and Lod [for we learned above that Lod is west of Jerusalem, and from here Jerusalem is east of Lod],

beside Kefar Tabi.

And

since it was forbidden to redeem the fruit in that place, and it was difficult for Rabbi Eliezer to bring the fruit up to Jerusalem, therefore,

Rabbi Eliezer wished to declare it ownerless for the poor.

His students said to him: Rabbi! Your colleagues have already deliberated concerning it,

concerning the prohibition against redeeming the fruit close to Jerusalem,

and permitted it!

They permitted redeeming it, because Jerusalem had been destroyed, and therefore there was no need to adorn it with fruit.

And Rav Pappa said:

Who are “your colleagues”,

who are Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues, who were mentioned in the beraita?

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

and his court!

And this is the ninth enactment that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted.

And the Gemara explains the view of Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

The ninth enactment concerned

the strip of crimson.

For it was taught: At first they would tie the strip of crimson to the entrance of

the

Hall from the outside,

and when they pushed the goat from the cliff at Azazel, the strip would turn white.

As it is stated: “If your sins be like scarlet [like red wool]—they shall become white as snow.”

If the strip

turned white, the people

the people

would rejoice

because this was a sign that their sins had been atoned for.

And if

it did not turn white, they would grieve.

Therefore

they enacted that they should tie it to the entrance of the Hall from inside,

so that the people would not see it and would not grieve if it did not turn white.

But they would still peer and see.

If

it turned white—

they would rejoice. It did not turn white—

they would grieve.

They enacted that they should tie half of it to the rock

that was at Azazel,

and half of it between the horns of the sent-away goat,

and only the one who sent the goat to Azazel would see whether that strip had turned white.

And the beraita does not explain who enacted this enactment. And the view of Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak is that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai and his court enacted this enactment.

And we raise an objection against the view of Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, for what reason [why]

[why]

did he not say as Rav Pappa,

that the enactment that we learned concerning fourth-year vineyard produce was enacted by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai?

And we answer:

He could say to you,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak:

If it enters your mind,

if it enters your mind to say that

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

enacted the enactment that we learned concerning fourth-year vineyard produce, there is a difficulty:

Why did Rabbi Eliezer’s students say to him, “Your colleagues have already deliberated concerning it and permitted it”?

But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai—

was he Rabbi Eliezer’s colleague?!

Were Rabban Yohanan and his court Rabbi Eliezer’s colleagues?!

For Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was

his teacher

of Rabbi Eliezer

!

And from here Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak learned that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai did not enact the enactment that we learned concerning fourth-year vineyard produce.

And the other,

Rav Pappa, who holds that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted this enactment, will answer Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak’s claim:

Since

those who said to Rabbi Eliezer

were students

his

they were, it is not proper to say to his teacher—

“Your teacher”!

It is not proper conduct for a student to say to his teacher: “So-and-so your teacher said.”

And therefore, out of proper conduct, they said to him: “Your colleagues have already deliberated.”

And we raise an objection against the view of Rav Pappa:

And Rav Pappa—

for what reason did he not say as Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak [who holds that the enactment taught concerning the strip of crimson was enacted by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai]?

who maintains that the ordinance taught concerning the strip of crimson wool was instituted by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai?

And we answer:

He could say to you,

Rav Pappa:

If it enters your mind,

if it enters your mind to say that

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

enacted this enactment, there is a difficulty:

In the days of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

when Rabban Yohanan was teaching halakhot and enacting enactments—

was there,

was there

a strip of crimson that turned white?!

And it was taught: All the years of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s life were one hundred and twenty years

they were.

For forty years he engaged in commerce [in merchandise].

[trade].

For forty years he studied Torah.

And

forty

years

he taught

students.

And it was taught

in another beraita:

For forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the strip of crimson did not turn white, but rather became red.

And we learned

in the Mishna above [30b]:

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

And from here, Rabban Yohanan lived even after the destruction.

And if so, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s final forty years [during which he taught others and enacted enactments] were within those final forty years before the destruction, and during those years the strip of crimson never turned white.

But concerning the enactment of the strip of crimson we learned: “If it turned white, they would rejoice; if it did not turn white, they would grieve; they enacted.”

And from here, at the time of the enactment the strip still sometimes turned white.

And from here, this enactment was enacted before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was a teacher of rulings and an enactor of enactments!

And the other,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, who holds that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai enacted this enactment, will answer:

Those forty years [in the middle of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s life]

that were in the middle of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s life

when he studied

he was a student sitting before his teacher.

And he said a matter,

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said before his teacher that it was proper to enact that they should not tie the strip to the entrance of the Sanctuary,

and his reasoning appeared sound

and his reasoning appeared sound to his teacher.