Taanit 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

And Abaye said: In accordance with whom

—in accordance with whose view, according to which approach—

do the priests nowadays drink wine

?

In accordance with the

view of

Rabbi,

who is not concerned that perhaps the Temple will be rebuilt.

By inference,

it follows

that the Sages prohibit

—that the Sages prohibit priests from drinking wine even nowadays. If so, why are priests not prohibited from letting their hair grow wild nowadays?

And the Gemara answers:

What is the reason

for which they are prohibited from drinking wine? It is because we hope that

the Temple will soon be rebuilt, and we will require

and need

a priest fit for the service.

And

if the priest has drunk wine, then

there is no

priest fit for service .

This is not so

here,

with regard to the prohibition against letting the hair grow wild, for there is no concern. For even if the Temple is suddenly rebuilt,

perhaps he can cut his hair and enter

the service immediately .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

if this is the reason that priests are permitted to let their hair grow nowadays,

one who has drunk wine as well

should likewise be permitted, since the same reason applies to one who has drunk wine. For when the Temple is speedily rebuilt in our days,

perhaps he can sleep a little—

and enter

the Temple,

as

Rami

bar Abba

said:

Walking on a

road

whose length is

a mil

—two thousand cubits—,

and

likewise

sleep

for any length of time,

dispel

the effects of

wine!

And we reject this:

Was it not stated concerning it

—was the following teaching not stated concerning the words of Rami bar Hama?

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

that walking and sleep dispel the effects of wine

only when he drank

wine in merely

the measure of a revi’it .

But

if

he drank more than a revi’it,

not only will walking and sleep fail to dispel the wine; on the contrary,

all the more so, walking disturbs him, and sleep intoxicates him!

And since this is so, priests are prohibited from drinking wine nowadays. For there is concern that he may drink more than a revi’it, and then, if the Temple is suddenly rebuilt, he will be unable to perform the service and will not even be able to dispel the effects of the wine quickly.

Rav Ashi said

there is another distinction between drinking wine, which is prohibited nowadays, and letting the hair grow wild, which is permitted:

Those who have drunk wine, as they invalidate the service

—as they invalidate the service if they perform it while intoxicated—as it is stated: “Do not drink wine or strong drink,” and immediately afterward it is written: “To distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” meaning, between service that is invalidated and service that is not invalidated; if he performs the service while intoxicated, he has invalidated the service,

because of the severity of the matter

the Sages issued a decree concerning them,

and prohibited drinking even nowadays .

But

those whose hair is grown wild, who do not invalidate the service

—who do not invalidate the service if they perform it with their hair grown wild—for no expression of invalidation was stated with regard to this matter [as it does not appear to constitute invalidation]—

the Sages did not issue a decree concerning them,

and therefore they are permitted nowadays.

The Gemara raises an objection: And these are liable for death

at the hand of Heaven: Priests who performed the service in the Temple while

intoxicated by wine, and

who likewise performed it while

their hair was grown wild.

And now we must clarify:

Granted,

with regard to priests who performed the service while

intoxicated by wine, it is explicitly written concerning them

that their punishment is death. As it is stated:

“Do not drink wine or strong drink, you or your sons, lest you die.”

But those whose hair is grown wild—

from where do we know

that they are liable for death?

It must be that we derive this matter from the fact that those whose hair is grown wild are juxtaposed to those intoxicated by wine.

As it is written

in the Book of Ezekiel:

“They shall not shave their heads, nor let their hair grow wild,” and it is written afterward:

“And no priest shall drink wine when they enter the inner court.”

And

we see that

are juxtaposed

in the verse:

those whose hair is grown wild

to those intoxicated by wine.

And this is how we expound the juxtaposition:

Just as

priests who performed the service while

intoxicated by wine

are liable

for death, so too those whose hair is grown wild

are liable

for death.

And from it

—from that same juxtaposition—we learn also with regard to invalidating the service, for the juxtaposition was stated with regard to every matter. And it may be stated as follows:

If

priests who performed the service while

intoxicated by wine

invalidate the service,

then

so too

those who perform it while

their hair is grown wild

invalidate the service.

Thus, we have established that even priests who performed the service with their hair grown wild invalidated their service, contrary to Rav Ashi’s statement that specifically those intoxicated by wine invalidate their service, whereas those whose hair is grown wild do not.

And the Gemara concludes:

This is difficult!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This matter,

that we learned from the Book of Ezekiel, that priests whose hair was grown wild and who performed the service are liable for death,

before Ezekiel came

and uttered his prophecy,

who stated it?

That is, priests performed the service in the Tabernacle and in the Temple long before Ezekiel’s prophecy; how did they know this law then? We do not find it stated in the Torah!

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said:

And according to your reasoning,

according to your argument and approach, this difficulty arises concerning

that which Rav Ḥisda said: This matter

that follows

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses

, but

only

from the words of the Prophets.

And what is that law?

It is stated in the Book of Ezekiel:

“No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My Sanctuary.”

“Uncircumcised in heart” refers to an apostate priest. He is called a “foreigner” because his deeds have become foreign to his Father in Heaven.

“Uncircumcised in flesh” refers to an uncircumcised priest whose brothers died as a result of circumcision [and therefore he was not circumcised because of the danger].

These two types of priests are prohibited from entering the Temple to perform the service.

And now,

this

law,

before Ezekiel came, who stated it

before Ezekiel came and uttered these words, who stated them? This matter is not stated in the Torah!

Rather,

it must necessarily be said that

it was learned as a received tradition

—this law was transmitted to Moses at Sinai—

and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse,

as he stated this matter in his prophecy.

Here too,

with regard to those intoxicated by wine and those whose hair is grown wild, indeed

it was learned as a received tradition

—it is a law transmitted to Moses at Sinai—

and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse.

We learned in our Mishna:

With regard to every day written in Megillat Ta'anit as a day on which it is prohibited to eulogize, before it the prohibition applies, and after it the prohibition does not apply.

The Sages taught: These are the days on which one may not fast,

the following days, on which one does not fast,

and some of them are days on which one may not eulogize:

From the first of Nisan until the eighth of it, the daily offering was established.

From Rosh Hodesh Nisan until the eighth of Nisan, the daily offering was restored and placed on its proper footing.

For the Sadducees used to say that an individual may voluntarily bring the daily offering. For we find singular language in the command concerning its preparation: “You shall prepare the one lamb in the morning, and so forth.” By contrast, the Sages maintain that only the community brings the daily offering. The Sages debated and argued with them about this matter for eight days, until they brought proof from the verse stated concerning the daily offering: “You shall safeguard My offering, My bread for My fires”—in the plural . This means that the daily offerings come from the appropriation of the chamber, which comes from communal funds. And the Sadducees conceded to the Sages [Rabbenu Gershom].

And because the Sages defeated the Sadducees with their arguments, they instituted that these days be observed with exceptional joy. Not only is it prohibited to fast on them, but also

one may not eulogize on them.

And on the days that follow during the month of Nisan as well, one does not eulogize, because of what occurred on them, as follows:

From the eighth of it,

from the eighth day of Nisan, until

the end of the Festival,

until the end of the Festival, Passover,

the Festival of Weeks was restored.

It was restored and placed on its proper footing.

For the Boethusians used to say that the Festival of Weeks always falls on Sunday, immediately after Shabbat. They interpreted the verse, “And you shall count for yourselves from the day after Shabbat, from the day that you bring the omer of the waving; seven complete weeks shall there be,” according to their superficial understanding, that it refers to the day after Shabbat. That is, beginning on Saturday night at the start of Passover, one begins counting seven weeks, and then the Festival of Weeks falls.

Accordingly, since the Festival of Weeks falls seven weeks later, the Festival would always fall immediately after Shabbat. [But the Sages said that the verse does not refer to Shabbat but to a Festival day. That is, one begins counting on the night following the first Festival day of Passover.]

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai confronted them and said to them: Fools! From where do you derive this, that the verse refers specifically to the day after Shabbat? What reason is there to begin counting specifically on the night following Shabbat?!

No one was able to answer him, except for one elderly man who babbled in opposition to him and said: Moses our teacher loved Israel and knew that the Festival of Assembly is only one day. He therefore arose and instituted that the Festival always fall after Shabbat, so that Israel would enjoy two consecutive days: Shabbat and Sunday.

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai answered him as he did, and defeated them [the entire matter appears in tractate Menaḥot 65b].

And because of that joy, that they defeated the Boethusians and gave them a decisive answer, the Sages instituted

that one may not eulogize on those days

—that one may not eulogize on those days .

The Master said: From the first of Nisan until the eighth of it, the daily offering was established; one may not eulogize.

And the Gemara wonders:

Why is it necessary

to institute that one may not eulogize or fast

from the first of the month

because of that event?

Let us say from the second of Nisan

—let it be stated that the enactment prohibits eulogizing and fasting only from the second day of Nisan!

And

there is no need to institute joy and Festival status from Rosh Hodesh, since

Rosh Hodesh itself

—itself—

is a Festival day.

As it is stated in the Scroll of Lamentations: “He proclaimed an appointed time against me to crush my young men,” meaning Rosh Hodesh Av; thus Rosh Hodesh is called a “Festival” .

And

consequently it is

prohibited

to eulogize and fast on it!

Rav said:

Indeed, on the first day of the month it is prohibited to eulogize and fast because of the day itself, since Rosh Hodesh is a Festival day.

And what we learned in Megillat Ta'anit, that one may not eulogize from Rosh Hodesh, is not needed with regard to Rosh Hodesh itself. Rather,

it is not needed

—the statement is not needed

except

in order

to prohibit

even

the day preceding it,

the day preceding Rosh Hodesh, with regard to fasting and eulogizing. For this is the general rule: A Festival day on which it is prohibited to eulogize and fast also prohibits the day preceding it.

And the Gemara wonders:

And

for the sake of the day

preceding it as well,

why was it necessary to establish the first day of Nisan as a day of joy and a Festival because of what occurred on it? Even without this,

derive it

—draw this conclusion in a simpler manner—because

the

day preceding the first of Nisan

would be the day preceding Rosh Hodesh,

and because of Rosh Hodesh itself the day preceding it should have to be prohibited, as is the case with all days preceding Festival days, on which eulogizing and fasting are prohibited!

And the Gemara answers:

Rosh Hodesh

differs from the other Festival days mentioned in Megillat Ta'anit.

For the reason that the days preceding those festivals are prohibited for eulogy and fasting is in order to reinforce observance of those festivals. For if it were permitted to fast and deliver eulogies on the day preceding them, we are concerned that people might come to fast and grieve on the festival itself.

And this applies specifically to those festivals, which are enactments of the Sages; therefore they require reinforcement.

But Rosh Chodesh, a festival that is

of Torah origin

[It is of Torah origin, as it is derived from Scripture].

And

a festival that is

of Torah origin,

which is more stringent,

does not require

[does not need]

reinforcement;

therefore, the day preceding it is not prohibited for fasting and eulogy.

As it is taught: These days

the good

ones, recorded in the Scroll of Fasts,

even on the days

preceding them and

the days

following them it is prohibited

to fast and deliver eulogies.

But

Shabbatot and festivals,

only

they

themselves

are prohibited.

But the days

preceding them and following them—

are permitted.

And what is the distinction

[What is the difference]

between these

[between the days mentioned in tractate Ta'anit and Shabbatot and festivals]?

These,

Shabbatot and festivals,

are words of Torah

[from the Torah].

And words of Torah do not require reinforcement,

and therefore it was not necessary to prohibit the days preceding and following them.

Whereas

these,

the days mentioned in the Scroll of Fasts,

are words of the Scribes

[an enactment of the Sages]

they are.

And words of the Scribes—

require reinforcement;

therefore the Sages prohibited even the days preceding and following them, so that one would not come to fast on the festivals themselves.

The Master said: From the eighth of it until the end of the festival

the festival of Shavuot was established as a time on which one may not deliver eulogies.

Why is it necessary

[Why did the Sages need] to prohibit fasting and eulogy from the eighth of Nisan

until the end

of the

festival? Let us say

[let them say] that it is prohibited only

until

the beginning of

the festival, and

there is no need to enact anything beyond that, since

the festival itself

[itself]

is a festival—

and it is prohibited

for eulogy and fasting!