Rosh Hashanah 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

d.

And from Yavne to Usha

: During the days of Rabban Gamliel the Nasi, the Sanhedrin was exiled to Usha, the place where he lived.

e.

And from Usha

they returned

to Yavne.

f.

And from Yavne

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 known as “Rabbi”].

i.

And from Beit She'arim

they were exiled

to Sepphoris.

When Rabbi fell ill, they took 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 lower than all of them.

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

As it is stated [Isaiah 29]:

“And you shall be brought low

[when you are brought low to Tiberias, then]

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

Rabbi Elazar says: They underwent six exiles

the Sanhedrin.

As it is stated [Isaiah 26]:

“For the inhabitants of the high place are brought low.

The lofty city He brings low.

He brings it low to the earth.

He brings it to the dust.”

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

“He brings low” — this is one exile.

“He brings low” — this is a second exile.

“He brings it low” — this is a third exile.

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

“He brings it to the dust” — these are two additional exiles: The verse could have said, “He brings it low to the earth and dust,” and the word “brings” would then be superfluous; therefore they expounded:

“He brings it” — this is a fifth exile.

“To the dust” — this is a sixth exile.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And from there,

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

they are destined to be redeemed!

As it is stated [Isaiah 52]:

“Shake yourself from the dust

[from Tiberias],

arise and sit.”

Mishna:

Our Mishna presents another ordinance instituted by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai concerning the sanctification of the new month:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted this further ordinance: Even if the head of the court

is found

in any place

outside the place where the Sanhedrin sits, and the sanctification of the new month depends primarily upon him. As we learned above [24a], at the time of the sanctification of the new month, the head of the court would say, “Sanctified.”

Nevertheless, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted

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

To the place where the Sanhedrin sits.

And the Sanhedrin would sanctify the new month without the head of the court.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites an incident from which it can be inferred that the ordinance of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai mentioned in our Mishna applies only to testimony concerning the new month:

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

There was an incident involving a woman who was summoned to court before Ameimar in Nehardea.

Ameimar went to Meḥoza, but she did not follow him.

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

He wrote a summons of excommunication against her,

Ameimar wrote a document of excommunication against that woman.

He said,

he challenged

Ameimar: But didn’t we learn in the Mishna,

that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted

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

If so, even though you [Ameimar] were in Meḥoza, the woman need go only to your court in Nehardea!

Ameimar said to him,

in reply to Rav Ashi:

This applies,

the statement of our Mishna applies only

with regard to testimony concerning the new month.

The reason is

that if so,

if you compel the witnesses to follow the head of the court —

you will cause them to fail in the future,

as they will not come to testify at all.

But here,

with regard to monetary law, it is stated [Proverbs 22]:

“The borrower is a servant to the lender.”

And the borrower is obligated to come to court against his will; therefore, he is obligated to follow the head of the court.

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

And this was one of the nine ordinances instituted by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.

It is evident from the statement of the beraita that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted nine ordinances. And we explain which they were:

Six —

of this chapter.

Six ordinances have been taught in this chapter thus far:

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

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

b. That they should sound the shofar in the court on Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat.

c. That the lulav should be taken everywhere on all seven days of Sukkot.

d. That the day of the waving of the omer [16 Nisan] should be entirely prohibited with regard to the new grain in the present era.

e. From the time the Temple was destroyed, witnesses should be accepted on Rosh HaShana throughout the entire day. [And even after the afternoon prayer].

f. That witnesses testifying concerning the new month should not follow the head of the court, but should go to the place of the assembly [the seat of the Sanhedrin].

And one

another ordinance

from the first chapter,

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

g. That in the present era witnesses testifying concerning the new month desecrate Shabbat only for Nisan and Tishrei.

And the other,

another ordinance mentioned in the following beraita:

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

These are the four things that our forefathers did when they entered the covenant:

[a] Circumcision. [b] Immersion. [c] Presentation of blood [sprinkling blood on the altar]. [d] Sprinkling blood upon the people.

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

[This is demonstrated by the Gemara in Keritot 9a. Although immersion is not mentioned in the verse, nevertheless, since the sprinkling of blood is mentioned, there can be no sprinkling without immersion. It follows that immersion was performed there as well].

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

The cost of the pair of birds was a quarter-shekel, which is half a dinar. And concerning this matter Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance:

As it was taught: A convert who converts in the present era,

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

must set aside a quarter

of a shekel

for

the purpose of

his pair of birds,

in order to purchase a pair of birds with it.

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

Rabbi

Shimon

ben Elazar said: The court of

the

Rabban Yoḥanan

ben Zakkai

already convened concerning it

and nullified this halakha

because of the possibility of misuse.

Perhaps people would come to benefit from that money and commit sacrilege with consecrated property.

i.

And the other,

concerning the ninth ordinance, there is a

dispute [

controversy]

between Rav Pappa and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

as to what that ordinance was:

Rav Pappa said:

That ordinance concerned

fourth-year vineyards.

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

And Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance concerning this matter, as follows.

But

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

That ordinance concerned

the strip of crimson wool,

which would turn white on Yom Kippur when the scapegoat was pushed from the cliff at Azazel. And so it is explained below.

The Gemara explains the two ordinances over which they disputed:

Rav Pappa said: He instituted

the ordinance concerning

fourth-year vineyards, as we learned: A fourth-year vineyard would ascend

by itself

to Jerusalem.

They instituted that one was obligated to bring the produce to Jerusalem rather than its redemption money if the vineyard was within

a day’s journey

of Jerusalem

in every direction.

Although outside Jerusalem it is permitted by Torah law to redeem the produce, the Sages instituted that one should not redeem it near Jerusalem, within a day’s journey in every direction. [The reason will be explained below].

And this was its boundary: Eilat to the south,

Akrabba 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 Yoḥanan:

What

is the

reason

for this ordinance?

In order to adorn

the

markets of Jerusalem with produce.

Therefore they prohibited redeeming produce that was near Jerusalem, within a day’s journey, and instead required that it be brought to Jerusalem.

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

between Jerusalem and Lod [as we learned above that Lod is west of Jerusalem, which means that Jerusalem is east of Lod],

near Kefar Tavi.

And

since it was forbidden to redeem the produce from that place, and it was difficult for Rabbi Eliezer to bring the produce to Jerusalem, therefore

Rabbi Eliezer sought to declare it ownerless for the poor.

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

concerning the prohibition against redeeming produce near Jerusalem,

and permitted it!

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

And Rav Pappa said:

Who are “your colleagues,”

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

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai

and his court!

[This was the ninth ordinance instituted by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai].

The Gemara explains the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The ninth ordinance concerned

the strip of crimson wool.

As it was taught: At first they would tie a strip of crimson wool on the entrance of

the

Heikhal from the outside,

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

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

If the strip

turned white, the

people

would rejoice,

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

But if it

did not turn white, they would be distressed.

Therefore

they instituted that they should tie it to the entrance of the Heikhal from the inside,

so that the people would not see it and would not become distressed if it failed to turn white.

But they would still peer in and see.

If it

turned white —

they would rejoice. If it did not turn white —

they would be distressed.

They instituted that they should tie it half to the rock

of Azazel,

and half between the horns of the scapegoat,

so that only the person who dispatched the scapegoat to Azazel would see whether the strip had turned white.

The beraita does not explain who instituted this ordinance. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s opinion is that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and his court instituted it.

And we challenge the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, what is the reason

[why]

he did not say in accordance with Rav Pappa,

who maintains that the ordinance concerning fourth-year vineyards that we learned was instituted by Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai?

And we answer:

He could say

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

If it enters your mind,

if you would consider saying that

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai

instituted the ordinance that we learned concerning fourth-year vineyards, one could ask:

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

But Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai —

was he Rabbi Eliezer’s colleague!?

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

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was

his teacher,

Rabbi Eliezer’s,

was he not!

From this Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak inferred that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai did not institute the ordinance that we learned concerning fourth-year vineyards.

And the other,

Rav Pappa, who maintains that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted this ordinance, would answer Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s argument:

Since

those who said this to Rabbi Eliezer were

students

of his,

it would not be proper conduct to say to their teacher —

“Your teacher”!

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

Therefore, out of respect, they said to him: “Your colleagues have already convened concerning it.”

And we challenge the opinion of Rav Pappa:

And Rav Pappa —

what is the reason he did not say in accordance with Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,

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,

Rav Pappa:

If it enters your mind,

if you would consider saying that

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai

instituted this ordinance, one could ask:

During the days of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai,

when Rabban Yoḥanan was teaching halakhot and instituting ordinances —

was there,

was

a strip of crimson wool that turned white?!

But it was taught: All the years of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s life were one hundred twenty years.

They

spent forty years engaged in commerce

[trade].

He studied for forty years

Torah. And

for forty

years he

taught

students.

And it was taught

in another beraita:

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

And we learned

in the Mishna above [30b]:

“From the time the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted.”

It follows that Rabbi Yoḥanan lived even after the destruction.

If so, the final forty years of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s life [during which he taught others and instituted ordinances] occurred within the final forty years before the destruction, and during those years the strip of crimson wool never turned white.

But concerning the ordinance of the strip of crimson wool we learned: “If it turned white, they would rejoice; if it did not turn white, they would be distressed; they instituted.”

It follows that at the time the ordinance was instituted, the strip still sometimes turned white.

And it follows that this ordinance was instituted before Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai began teaching halakha and instituting ordinances!

And the other,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, who maintains that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted this ordinance, would answer:

Those forty years

[in the middle of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s life]

when he studied —

he was a student sitting before his teacher.

And he said a matter,

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said before his teacher that it was proper to institute that the strip should not be tied at the entrance of the Heikhal,

and his reasoning found favor

with his teacher.