Taanit 17b — the Talmud in English

And Abaye said: According to whom

according to which person, according to which approach

do the priests nowadays drink wine

the priests drink wine nowadays —

according to

the approach of

Rabbi,

who is not concerned lest the Temple be rebuilt.

By implication,

it follows,

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: Behold,

what is the reason

what is the reason that they are prohibited from drinking wine? Because we hope that

the Temple will soon be rebuilt, and we will require

and will need

a priest fit for the service.

And

if the priest will be intoxicated with wine, then

there is no

there will not be a priest fit for service.

Unlike

here,

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

it is possible that he will cut his hair and enter

the priest can cut his hair and enter the service immediately.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

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

one intoxicated with wine as well

behold, the same reason applies also to one intoxicated with wine, for when the Temple is rebuilt speedily in our days,

it is possible that he will sleep a little —

and enter

he can sleep a little and enter the Temple, and

as

says

Rami bar Abba.

For Rami bar Abba said:

Walking on a

road

whose length is

a mil

two thousand cubits,

and

likewise

sleep

for a duration of

any amount dispel

the effect of

the wine!

And we reject this:

Was it not stated concerning it

the following teaching was not stated concerning the words of Rami bar Ḥama:

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: They taught

that a road and sleep dispel the wine

only when he drank

wine only the

measure of a revi'it?

But

if

he drank more than a revi'it,

not only will a road and sleep not dispel the wine, but, on the contrary,

all the more so, a road troubles 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 not be able to serve, and he will not even be able to dispel his wine quickly.

Rav Ashi said

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

Those intoxicated with wine, who invalidate the service

who invalidate the service if they serve while intoxicated, as it is said: “Do not drink wine or strong drink,” and it is written immediately after this: “to distinguish between the holy and the profane,” that is, between an invalidated service and a service that is not invalidated—for if he served while intoxicated, he invalidated the service,

because of the severity of the matter

the Sages decreed concerning them,

and prohibited drinking even nowadays.

But

those with untrimmed heads, who do not invalidate the service

who do not invalidate the service if they served with untrimmed heads, for no language of invalidation was stated concerning this matter [for this does not appear as an invalidation] —

the Sages did not decree concerning them,

and therefore they are permitted nowadays.

It was objected: And these are liable to death

at the hands of Heaven: priests who served in the Temple while

intoxicated with wine, and

who likewise served while

with untrimmed heads.

And now, we must clarify:

Granted

that priests who served while

intoxicated with wine, it is explicitly written concerning them

that their judgment is death. As it is stated:

“Wine and strong drink you shall not drink, you and your sons with you, lest you die.”

But those with untrimmed heads —

from where do we know

that they are liable to death?

Perforce, we learn this matter from the fact that those with untrimmed heads were juxtaposed to those intoxicated with wine.

For it is written

in the book of Ezekiel:

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

and it is written later, after this:

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

And

we see that

they were juxtaposed

were juxtaposed and linked in Scripture,

those with untrimmed heads —

to those intoxicated with wine.

And this is how we expound the juxtaposition:

Just as

priests who served while

intoxicated with wine —

their judgment is

death, so too those with untrimmed heads —

their judgment is

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 we say as follows:

If

priests who served while

intoxicated with wine —

who invalidate the service

invalidate their service,

then also

those who serve while

with untrimmed heads —

invalidate the service

invalidate their service.

It follows for us that even priests who served with untrimmed heads invalidated their service. And not in accordance with the words of Rav Ashi, who said that specifically those intoxicated with wine invalidate their service, but those with untrimmed heads do not.

And the Gemara concludes:

The difficulty remains unresolved!

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This,

this matter that we learned from the book of Ezekiel, that those with untrimmed heads who served are liable to death,

before Ezekiel came

before Ezekiel came and stated his prophecy,

who stated it

who stated it?

That is, priests served in the Tabernacle and in the Temple long before Ezekiel’s prophecy, and from where did they know this law then? For we do not find it in the Torah!

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

And according to your reasoning

and according to your words and your approach, according to this line of thought, there is a difficulty from

this that Rav Ḥisda said: This matter

the following matter

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses

, and

only

from the words of Kabbala did we learn it.

And what is that law —

which is stated in the book of Ezekiel:

“Any foreign son, uncircumcised of heart and uncircumcised of flesh, shall not enter My Sanctuary.”

“A foreign son, uncircumcised of heart” — this means an apostate priest. And he is called “a foreign son” because his deeds have estranged themselves from his Father in Heaven.

“Uncircumcised of flesh” — this means an uncircumcised priest whose brothers died because 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,

this law,

before Ezekiel came, who stated it

before Ezekiel came and stated these words, who stated them? For this matter was not stated in the Torah!

Rather,

perforce, it must be said that

the tradition was learned

this halakha was stated to Moses at Sinai,

and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse

and Ezekiel came and supported the matter through the Writings, stating this matter in his prophecy.

So too here

also here, with regard to those intoxicated with wine and those with untrimmed heads, in truth

the tradition was learned

it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse.

We learned in our Mishna:

Everything written in the Scroll of Fasts as not to eulogize: before it is prohibited; after it is permitted.

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

these days, which follow, are days on which one does not fast,

and on some of them one does not eulogize

and on some of them, not only does one not fast, but one also does not eulogize:

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

From the beginning of the month of Nisan until the eighth day of Nisan, the daily offering was established and set in its proper place.

For the Sadducees said that an individual may voluntarily bring the daily offering. For we find in the command concerning its making the singular wording: “The one lamb you shall make in the morning, etc.” In contrast, the Sages maintain that only the community brings the daily offering. And the Sages debated and argued with them concerning the matter for eight days, until they brought proof from the verse stated concerning the daily offering: “My offering, My bread for My fires, you shall take care of” — wording in the plural. That is, the daily offerings come from the Chamber Donation, which comes from the money of the public. And the Sadducees conceded to the Sages [Rabbeinu Gershom].

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

not to eulogize on them

not to eulogize on them.

And even on the days that follow afterward in the month of Nisan, one does not eulogize, because of what happened on them, as follows:

From the eighth of it

from the eighth day of the month of Nisan, until

the end of the Festival

until the end of the Festival, the Festival of Passover,

the Festival of Weeks was restored

the Festival of Weeks was restored and established in its proper place.

For the Boethusians used to say that the Festival of Weeks always falls on Sunday, immediately after Shabbat. For they expounded the verse, “And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the Shabbat, from the day that you bring the omer of the wave-offering; seven complete weeks shall there be, etc.,” according to their superficial understanding, that the intention is the day after Saturday. That is, from the conclusion of the Shabbat at the beginning of the Festival of Passover, they begin counting seven weeks, and then the Festival of Weeks falls.

And if so, since the Festival of Weeks falls seven weeks afterward, the Festival would always fall on the conclusion of Shabbat. [But the Sages said that the verse does not intend Shabbat, but a Festival. That is, they begin counting at the conclusion of the first Festival day of Passover.]

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai confronted them and said to them: Fools! From where do you derive this matter, that the intention is literally the day after Shabbat? What reason is there to begin the counting specifically at the conclusion of Shabbat?!

And there was no person who could answer him anything. Except for one elderly man who babbled against him and said: Moses our Master loved Israel, and knew that the Festival of Assembly is only one day. He arose and instituted that the Festival should always fall after Shabbat, so that Israel would enjoy two consecutive days: Shabbat and Sunday.

And Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai answered them with what he answered, and defeated them [the entire matter is brought in tractate Menahot 65b].

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

not to eulogize on them

not to eulogize on those days.

The Master said: From the beginning of Nisan until the eighth of it, the daily offering was established, not to eulogize.

And the Gemara is astonished:

Why do I need

to institute not to eulogize and not to fast

from the beginning of the month

from the beginning of Nisan because of that event?

Let us say from the second of Nisan

let it be said that the enactment is that one does not eulogize or fast only from the second day of the month of Nisan!

And

there is no need to institute joy and a Festival from the beginning of the month, for

the beginning of the month itself

itself

is a Festival

as it is stated in the Scroll of Lamentations: “He summoned an appointed time against me to crush my young men,” that is, the beginning of the month of Av, and it follows that the beginning of the month is called a “Festival”

and

automatically

it is prohibited

to eulogize and fast!

Rav said:

In truth, on the first day of the month one is prohibited from eulogizing and fasting because of the day itself, for the beginning of the month is a Festival.

And what we learned in the Scroll of Fasts, that one does not eulogize from the beginning of the month, is not necessary with regard to the beginning of the month itself. Rather,

it was necessary

the matter is necessary

only

in order

to prohibit

also the

day preceding it

the day preceding the beginning of the month, from fasting and eulogizing. For this is the rule: a Festival on which it is prohibited to eulogize and fast—the day preceding it is also prohibited.

And the Gemara is astonished:

And

for the sake of the day

preceding it as well

why did they need to establish the first day of the month of Nisan as a day of joy and a Festival because of what happened on it? Even without this,

let it emerge

take it out; that is, let us derive this matter more simply, because

that

same day preceding the first of Nisan

was the day preceding the beginning of the month,

and because of the beginning of the month itself, its preceding day must be prohibited, like all the days preceding Festivals, which are prohibited for eulogizing and fasting!

And the Gemara answers:

The beginning of the month

differs from the other Festivals mentioned in the Scroll of Fasts.

The reason that eulogies and fasting are prohibited on the days preceding those holidays is to strengthen observance of those holidays. If it were permitted to fast and deliver eulogies on the day before them, we are concerned that people might come to fast and grieve on the holiday itself.

This applies specifically to those holidays, which are rabbinic enactments; therefore, they require strengthening.

But as for Rosh Chodesh, a festival that is

mandated by the Torah [

that is, it is a matter of Torah law, as it is derived from a biblical verse].

And

a festival that is

mandated by the Torah,

and is stringent—

does not require [

it does not need]

strengthening,

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

As it is taught: The days

of the holidays

listed in the Scroll of Fasts,

even on the days that

precede them and

on the days that

follow them, fasting is prohibited

and eulogies.

But

Shabbat and holidays,

only

they

themselves

are prohibited.

But the days that

precede them and follow them—

are permitted.

And what is the difference [

what is the distinction]

between these [

between the days mentioned in tractate Ta'anit and Shabbat and holidays]?

These,

Shabbat and holidays,

are words of Torah [

from the Torah].

And words of Torah do not require strengthening,

and therefore it was unnecessary to prohibit the days preceding and following them.

Whereas

these,

the days mentioned in the Scroll of Fasts,

are words of the Sages [

a rabbinic enactment]

.

And words of the Sages—

require strengthening,

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

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

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

Why is it necessary [

why did the Sages need] to prohibit fasting and eulogies from the eighth of Nisan

until the end of

the

festival? Let us say [

that they should say] that it is prohibited only

until

the beginning of

the festival, and

there is no need to enact anything beyond that, because

the festival itself [

itself]

is a holiday—

and is prohibited

for eulogies and fasting!