(30a:1)ועם בית דין מאי ועם ב"ד בפני בית דין לאפוקי שלא בפני בית דין דלא
(30a:1)And they would sound the shofar on Shabbat with the court. Rav Huna’s brief statement is obscure, and therefore the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: With the court? It means: In the presence of the court, i.e., in the place where the court convenes. This comes to exclude any place that is not in the presence of the court, as the shofar is not sounded there.
(30a:2)מתיב רבא ועוד זאת היתה ירושלים יתירה על יבנה וכו' מאי ועוד זאת אילימא כדקתני זאת מיבעי ליה אלא דבירושלים תוקעין יחידין וביבנה אין תוקעין יחידין
(30a:2)§ Rava raised an objection from the mishna: And Jerusalem had this additional superiority over Yavne. What is the meaning of the phrase: And this additional? If we say that it is referring only to that which it teaches in the mishna, it should have simply said: This, without mentioning that it is an additional superiority. Rather, it indicates that in Jerusalem even private individuals sound the shofar on Shabbat, whereas in Yavne individuals do not sound it, but only agents of the court.
(30a:3)וביבנה אין תוקעין יחידין והא כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר כי מסיים שליחא דציבורא תקיעה ביבנה לא שמע איניש קל אוניה מקל תקועיא [דיחידאי]
(30a:3)And this too is difficult: Don’t individuals sound the shofar in Yavne? But when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. After the leader of the congregation finished sounding on behalf of the entire community, many individuals would take out their shofars and blast them, which created a loud noise. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar on Shabbat even in Yavne.
(30a:4)אלא לאו דבירושלים תוקעין בין בזמן ב"ד ובין שלא בזמן ב"ד וביבנה בזמן ב"ד אין שלא בזמן ב"ד לא הא בזמן ב"ד מיהא תוקעין ואפילו שלא בפני ב"ד
(30a:4)Rather, is it not the case that in Jerusalem they sound the shofar both when the court was in session, i.e., until midday, and when the court was not in session. And by contrast, in Yavne, when the court was in session, yes, they would sound the shofar, whereas when the court was not in session, no, they would not sound it. If so, this indicates that when the court was in session they would in any case sound the shofar in Yavne, even though this was not in the presence of the court. This contradicts Rav Huna’s opinion that in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the presence of the court.
(30a:5)לא דאילו בירושלים תוקעין בין בפני ב"ד בין שלא בפני בית דין וביבנה בפני ב"ד אין שלא בפני ב"ד לא
(30a:5)The Gemara rejects this argument. No, the term additional can be explained to mean that whereas in Jerusalem they would sound the shofar on Shabbat both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court, with regard to Yavne, in the presence of the court, yes, they would indeed sound it, but if it was not in the presence of the court, no, they would not sound the shofar.
(30a:6)איכא דמתני להא דרב הונא אהא דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ט) ביום הכפורים תעבירו שופר בכל ארצכם מלמד שכל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע אמר רב הונא ועם בית דין מאי ועם ב"ד בזמן ב"ד לאפוקי שלא בזמן בית דין דלא
(30a:6)§ Some teach this statement of Rav Huna not with regard to this mishna, but rather with regard to this baraita that deals with the Jubilee Year. As it is written: “On Yom Kippur you shall proclaim with the shofar throughout all your land” (Leviticus 25:9). This teaches that each and every individual is obligated to sound the shofar. In this connection Rav Huna said: And they sound it with the court. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: With the court? The Gemara explains: When the court is in session. This serves to exclude a case when the court is not in session, that the shofar is not sounded.
(30a:7)מתיב רבא תקיעת ראש השנה ויובל דוחה את השבת בגבולין איש וביתו מאי איש וביתו אילימא איש ואשתו איתתא מי מיחייבא והא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא היא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות
(30a:7)Rava raised an objection from a baraita: The sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShana and on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year overrides the prohibitions of Shabbat even in the outlying areas outside the Temple, every man and his house. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: Every man and his house? If we say that it means, as usual: Every man and his wife, is a woman obligated to sound the shofar? Isn’t sounding the shofar a positive, time-bound mitzva, i.e., one that can be performed only at a certain time of the day, or during the day rather than during the night, or only on certain days of the year? And the principle is that with regard to any positive, time-bound mitzva, women are exempt.
(30a:8)אלא לאו איש בביתו ואפילו שלא בזמן ב"ד לא לעולם בזמן ב"ד
(30a:8)Rather, is it not the case that this phrase means: Every man in his house, and even at a time when the court is not in session? This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No; actually it means that every man may sound the shofar in his house, but only at a time when the court is in session.
(30a:9)מתיב רב ששת שוה היובל לראש השנה לתקיעה ולברכות אלא שביובל תוקעין בין בב"ד שקידשו בו את החדש ובין בב"ד שלא קידשו בו את החדש וכל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע ובר"ה לא היו תוקעין אלא בב"ד שקידשו בו את החדש ואין כל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע
(30a:9)Rav Sheshet raised an objection from another baraita: Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year is the same as Rosh HaShana with regard to both the shofar sounding and the additional blessings recited in the Amida prayer. However, the difference is that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they sound the shofar both in the court where they sanctified the month and in a court where they did not sanctify the month, and each and every individual is obligated to sound the shofar. Conversely, on Rosh HaShana they sound the shofar only in the court where they sanctified the month, and each and every individual is not obligated to sound it.
(30a:10)מאי אין כל יחיד ויחיד חייב לתקוע אילימא דביובל תוקעין יחידין ובראש השנה אין תוקעין יחידין והא כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר כי הוה מסיים שליחא דציבורא תקיעתא ביבנה לא שמע איניש קל אוניה מקל תקועיא [דיחידאי]
(30a:10)The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the clause: Each and every individual is not obligated to sound it? If we say that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year individuals sound the shofar, whereas on Rosh HaShana individuals do not sound it at all, this is difficult: But when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar even on Rosh HaShana.
(30a:11)אלא לאו [דאילו] ביובל תוקעין בין בזמן ב"ד בין שלא בזמן ב"ד ובר"ה בזמן ב"ד אין שלא בזמן ב"ד לא קתני מיהת ביובל בין בזמן ב"ד בין שלא בזמן ב"ד
(30a:11)Rather, is it not the case that whereas on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they sound the shofar both when the court is in session and when the court is not in session, on Rosh HaShana, when the court was in session, yes, they would indeed sound it, but at a time when the court was not in session, no, they would not sound the shofar. In any event, the baraita is teaching that on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year they would sound the shofar both when the court was in session and when the court was not in session. This presents a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Huna.
(30a:12)לא לעולם בזמן בית דין והכי קתני ביובל בזמן ב"ד תוקעין בין בפני בית דין בין שלא בפני ב"ד בר"ה תוקעין בזמן ב"ד ובפני ב"ד איתמר נמי א"ר חייא בר גמדא א"ר יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי אין תוקעין אלא כל זמן שבית דין יושבין
(30a:12)The Gemara rejects this argument. No; actually they sound the shofar only when the court was in session, and this is what the baraita is teaching: On Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year, when the court was in session they sound the shofar both in the presence of the court and not in the presence of the court; however, on Rosh HaShana they sound it only when the court was in session, and even then only in the presence of the court. It was also stated that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: They sound the shofar only throughout the period when the court is sitting in session, and only in its presence.
(30a:13)בעי ר' זירא ננערו לעמוד ולא עמדו מהו ב"ד יושבין בעינן והא איכא או דלמא זמן ב"ד בעינן וליכא תיקו:
(30a:13)Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: If the members of the court stirred themselves to rise at the end of the session, but there was some delay and they did not actually rise, what is the halakha? Do we require that the court be seated, and that is the case here, as the judges are still sitting? Or perhaps we require that the shofar must be sounded when the court is in session, and that is not the case, as they have stirred to rise. No relevant sources were found in this regard, and therefore the Gemara states that the question shall stand unresolved.
(30a:14)ועוד זאת היתה ירושלים יתירה על יבנה וכו': רואה פרט ליושבת בנחל
(30a:14)§ The mishna stated: And Jerusalem had this additional superiority over Yavne. Any city that could see Jerusalem and hear the sounding of the shofar there, and was nearby, and people could come from there, they would sound the shofar there as well. The Gemara clarifies these requirements: The clause that the city had to be able to see Jerusalem comes to exclude a city that sits in a deep valley, from which one can hear but cannot see Jerusalem from afar.
(30a:15)שומעת פרט ליושבת בראש ההר קרובה פרט ליושבת חוץ לתחום ויכולה לבוא פרט למפסיק לה נהרא:
(30a:15)When the mishna states that the city must be able to hear, this serves to exclude a city sitting on a mountaintop, from where one can see Jerusalem but cannot hear sounds from it. As for the requirement that the city must be near, this comes to exclude a place sitting beyond the Shabbat limit of Jerusalem, even if one can see and hear from that place. And with regard to the statement that one can come, this serves to exclude a city that is separated from Jerusalem by a river, which renders it impossible for people to come to the city, even if it is close by.
(30a:16)מתני׳ בראשונה היה הלולב ניטל במקדש שבעה ובמדינה יום אחד משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהא לולב ניטל במדינה שבעה זכר למקדש
(30a:16)MISHNA: After the previous mishna mentioned Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s ordinance that applies to the sounding of the shofar, this mishna records other ordinances instituted by the same Sage: At first, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple all seven days of Sukkot, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple, it was taken only one day, on the first day of the Festival. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country all seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.
(30a:17)ושיהא יום הנף כולו אסור:
(30a:17)And for similar reasons, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, i.e., the sixteenth of Nisan, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. By Torah law, when the Temple is standing the new grain may not be eaten until after the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, usually early in the morning. When the Temple is not standing it may be eaten from the time that the eastern horizon is illuminated at daybreak. However, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted a prohibition against eating the new grain throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan, until the seventeenth, to commemorate the Temple.
(30a:18)גמ׳ ומנלן דעבדינן זכר למקדש דאמר קרא (ירמיהו ל, יז) כי אעלה ארוכה לך וממכותיך ארפאך נאם ה' כי נדחה קראו לך ציון היא דורש אין לה מכלל דבעיא דרישה:
(30a:18)GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one performs actions in commemoration of the Temple? As the verse states: “For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, said the Lord; because they have called you an outcast: She is Zion, there is none who care for her” (Jeremiah 30:17). This verse teaches by inference that Jerusalem requires caring through acts of commemoration.
(30a:19)ושיהא יום הנף כולו אסור: מ"ט מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא אכלנו בהאיר מזרח עכשיו נמי ניכול
(30a:19)§ The mishna taught: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai also instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? The reasoning is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn’t we eat from the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan, as the new crop was permitted immediately? Now too, let us eat the new grain at that time.
(30a:20)ולא ידעי דאשתקד לא הוה עומר האיר מזרח התיר השתא דאיכא עומר עומר מתיר
(30a:20)And they do not know that last year, when there was no omer, the eastern horizon illuminating, i.e., the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan, served to permit the consumption of the new grain immediately. However, now that the Temple has been rebuilt and there is an omer offering, it is the omer that permits the consumption of the new grain. When the Temple is standing, the new grain is not permitted until the omer offering has been sacrificed.
(30a:21)דמיבני אימת אילימא דאיבני בשיתסר הרי האיר מזרח התיר
(30a:21)The Gemara clarifies: In this scenario, when is it that the Temple was built? If we say that it was rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, then the Temple was not standing in the morning and therefore the eastern horizon illuminating indeed rendered eating the new grain permitted, as it was not yet possible to bring the omer offering.
(30a:22)אלא דאיבני בחמיסר מחצות היום ולהלן לשתרי דהא תנן הרחוקין מותרין מחצות היום ולהלן לפי שאין ב"ד מתעצלים בו
(30a:22)Rather, you must say that it was rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illumination of the eastern horizon. In that scenario, from midday onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as didn’t we learn in a mishna in tractate Menaḥot: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday onward, because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer offering and would certainly have sacrificed it by midday. If so, now too, it should be permitted to eat the new grain beginning at that time. Why did Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai prohibit it for the entire day?
(30a:23)לא נצרכא דאיבני בחמיסר סמוך לשקיעת החמה אי נמי דאיבני בליליא
(30a:23)The Gemara answers: This ordinance was necessary only in a case where the Temple was rebuilt on the fifteenth adjacent to sunset. Alternatively, in a situation where the Temple was rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. In either case there is insufficient time to complete all the preparations so that the offering can be sacrificed by noon the next day. If people eat the new grain at midday, they will have retroactively transgressed a prohibition. Therefore, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain should be prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth.
(30a:24)(אמר) רב נחמן בר יצחק רבן יוחנן בן זכאי
(30a:24)Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That is not the reason. Rather, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai
(30b:1)בשיטת ר' יהודה אמרה דאמר (ויקרא כג, יד) עד עצם היום הזה עד עצמו של יום וקסבר עד ועד בכלל
(30b:1)stated his decree in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: When the verse states: “And you shall eat neither bread nor parched corn, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14), this does not teach that it is permitted to eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth when the eastern horizon is illuminated. Rather, it is prohibited until the essence [atzmo] of the day. And he holds that when the verse says: Until that day, it means until and including this date. If so, by Torah law, eating the new grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth, unless the omer offering was sacrificed, in which case it is permitted to eat the new grain immediately afterward.
(30b:2)ומי סבר לה כוותיה והא מפליג פליג עליה דתנן משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהא יום הנף כולו אסור א"ר יהודה והלא מן התורה הוא אסור [דכתיב עד עצם היום הזה]
(30b:2)The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in a mishna (Sukka 41a): After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, eating the grain of the new crop is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn’t it prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: “Until this selfsame day”? This indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai.
(30b:3)התם ר' יהודה הוא דקא טעי איהו סבר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מדרבנן קאמר ולא היא מדאורייתא קאמר
(30b:3)The Gemara rejects this argument. There, it was Rabbi Yehuda who erred in his understanding. He thought that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai was saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan is prohibited by rabbinic law. But that is not so; he was actually saying that it is prohibited by Torah law.
(30b:4)והא התקין קתני מאי התקין דרש והתקין:
(30b:4)The Gemara raises a difficulty. But it is taught in the mishna: Instituted. This term is referring to a rabbinic ordinance, not a Torah law. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the term instituted? It means that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai interpreted the verse, and instituted that this is how one should act from now onward. When the Temple was standing there was no need for this halakha, as it was permitted to eat the new grain after the sacrificing of the omer.
(30b:5)מתני׳ בראשונה היו מקבלין עדות החדש כל היום פעם
(30b:5)MISHNA: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month throughout the entire thirtieth day from the beginning of the month of Elul, before Rosh HaShana, and if witnesses arrived from afar and testified that they had sighted the New Moon the previous night, they would declare that day the Festival.
(30b:6)אחת נשתהו העדים מלבוא ונתקלקלו הלוים בשיר התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין אלא עד המנחה
(30b:6)Once, the witnesses tarried coming until the hour was late, and the Levites erred with regard to the song, i.e., the psalm that they were supposed to recite, as they did not know at the time whether it was a Festival or an ordinary weekday. From that point on, the Sages instituted that they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only until minḥa time. If witnesses had not arrived by that hour, they would declare Elul a thirty-day month and calculate the dates of the Festivals accordingly.
(30b:7)ואם באו עדים מן המנחה ולמעלה נוהגין אותו היום קודש ולמחר קודש
(30b:7)And if witnesses came from minḥa time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the Festivals would begin from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day, on which the witnesses arrived, as sacred, so that in future years they would not treat the entire day as a weekday and engage in labor from the morning on the assumption that the witnesses will arrive only after minḥa time. And they would also observe the following day as sacred. On the second day, they observed Rosh HaShana in full, both by sacrificing its offerings as well as by calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date.
(30b:8)משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהו מקבלין עדות החדש כל היום:
(30b:8)After the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer any reason for this ordinance, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that they would once again accept testimony to determine the start of the month the entire day.
(30b:9)גמ׳ מה קלקול קלקלו הלוים בשיר הכא תרגימו שלא אמרו שירה כל עיקר רבי זירא אמר שאמרו שירה של חול עם תמיד של בין הערבים
(30b:9)GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What error did the Levites make with regard to the song they were supposed to recite? The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they interpreted that they did not recite any song at all, as they did not know which psalm should be sung, the one for an ordinary weekday or the special one for the Festival. Rabbi Zeira said: Their mistake was that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday with the daily afternoon offering. After the witnesses testified, it became clear that they should have recited the psalm of the Festival.
(30b:10)אמר לו רבי זירא לאהבה בריה פוק תני להו התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין עדות החדש אלא כדי שיהא שהות ביום להקריב תמידין ומוספין ונסכיהם ולומר שירה שלא בשיבוש אי אמרת בשלמא אמור שירה דחול היינו דאיכא שיבוש אלא אי אמרת לא אמור כלל מאי שיבוש איכא
(30b:10)Rabbi Zeira said to his son Ahava: Go out and teach the following baraita to the Sages of Babylonia: They instituted that on Rosh HaShana the court would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only if there was enough time left in the day to sacrifice the daily offerings and the additional offerings of the Festival and their libations, and to recite the appropriate song without a mistake. Granted, if you say that they recited the song of an ordinary weekday, this is a case in which there is a mistake. However, if you say that they did not recite any psalm at all, what mistake is there? The term: Mistake, indicates the performance of an incorrect action.
(30b:11)כיון דלא אמור כלל אין לך שיבוש גדול מזה
(30b:11)The Gemara explains: Since they did not recite any psalm at all, you do not have a mistake greater than this. The failure to recite the appropriate psalm disrupts the entire sacrificial service.
(30b:12)מתיב רב אחא בר הונא תמיד של ראש השנה שחרית קרב כהלכתו במוסף מהו אומר (תהלים פא, ב) הרנינו לאלהים עוזנו הריעו לאלהי יעקב במנחה מהו אומר (תהלים כט, ח) קול ה' יחיל מדבר
(30b:12)Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection from a baraita: With regard to the daily offering on Rosh HaShana, in the morning it is sacrificed in accordance with its regular halakhot, i.e., the Levites recite the regular psalm for that day of the week. When it comes to the additional offering of Rosh HaShana, what psalm does one recite? The psalm that includes the verse: “Sing aloud to God our strength; shout to the God of Jacob” (Psalms 81:2). With regard to the daily afternoon offering, what psalm does one recite? The psalm that includes the verse: “The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness” (Psalms 29:8).
(30b:13)ובזמן שחל ראש השנה להיות בחמישי בשבת שהשירה שלו הרנינו לאלהים עוזנו לא היה אומר בשחרית הרנינו מפני שחוזר וכופל את הפרק
(30b:13)And when Rosh HaShana occurs on a Thursday, whose regular psalm even on an ordinary weekday is: “Sing aloud to God our strength,” and the witnesses came before the daily morning offering was sacrificed, one would not recite: “Sing aloud to God our strength; shout to the God of Jacob” with the daily morning offering, because one goes back and repeats that section at the time of the additional offering.
(30b:14)אלא מהו אומר (תהלים פא, ז) הסירותי מסבל שכמו ואם באו עדים אחר תמיד של שחר אומר הרנינו אע"פ שחוזר וכופל את הפרק
(30b:14)Rather, what does one recite? “I removed his shoulder from the burden” (Psalms 81:7), which is referring to Joseph, who was set free from prison on Rosh HaShana. In other words, the second half of Psalm 81 was recited with the morning offering, while the first half was recited with the additional offering. And if the witnesses came on a Thursday after the daily morning offering had already been sacrificed, one recites: “Sing aloud to God” at the additional offering, even though this means that one goes back and repeats that section again. This concludes the baraita.
(30b:15)אי אמרת בשלמא כל היכא דמסתפקא אמרינן שירה דחול היינו דקאמר אומרו וכופלו אלא אי אמרת לא אמור כלל מאי אומרו וכופלו
(30b:15)The Gemara explains the objection from this baraita: Granted, if you say that anywhere there is a doubt with regard to what to say, one recites the song of an ordinary weekday, this is the meaning of that which the tanna states: One recites the psalm for an ordinary weekday and then repeats it. However, if you say that in a case of doubt no psalm is recited at all, what is the meaning of the clause: One recites it and repeats it?
