Previous daf

1)

(a) When, with regard to the 'Amru Lo', who permit blowing in any town with a fixed Beis-Din, Rav Huna adds 've'Im Beis-Din' - he means that they must blow (even) in front of Beis-Din (and it goes without saying, when they were in session).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah writes 've'*Od* Zos Haysah Yerushalayim Yeseirah al Yavneh', suggesting an extra leniency (over and above the fact that Yavneh requires a Beis-Din). He could not possibly have meant that, whereas in Yerushalayim, every individual had to blow, in Yavneh, the Beis-Din blew for everyone - because of the testimony of Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, who described how so many people blew after the Sheli'ach Tzibur had blown, that one could not hear oneself breathing. Clearly then, every individual was permitted to blow for himself in Yavneh, too.

(c) We then refute the contention (which would have disproved Rav Huna's statement) that the Tana meant that, whereas in Yerushalayim, they blew at any time of day, in Yavneh they only blew when Beis-Din were in session (from which we infer 'but not necessarily in front of Beis-Din') - by explaining the Tana to mean that, whereas in Yerushalayim they could blow anywhere (even not in front of Beis-Din), in Yavneh they had to blow in front of Beis-Din (conforming with the statement of Rav Huna).

(a) Others quote Rav Huna on the Beraisa which, commenting on the Pasuk "be'Yom ha'Kipurim Ta'aviru Shofar be'Chol Artzechem" - says 'to teach us that every individual is obligated to blow Shofar on Yom Kipur of the Yovel'; to which Rav Huna adds 've'Im Beis-Din' - meaning at the time when Beis-Din are in session (but not necessarily in front of Beis-Din).

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa obligates blowing the Shofar on Shabbos Yom Kipur of the Yovel, adding 'Ish u'Veiso'. This cannot mean that his wife is obligated to blow too - because women are not obligated to observe the Mitzvos that are time-related.

(c) 'We therefore amend the phrase 'Ish *u*'Veiso' to read 'Ish *be*'Veiso' - meaning that it is not necessary to blow in front of Beis-Din.

(d) This does not incorporate times when Beis-Din are not in session - when one is not permitted to blow in the Yovel.

(a) In listing the differences between Yovel and Rosh Hashanah, the Tana writes that, whereas in Yovel, even the individuals had to blow, on Rosh Hashanah, they did not. This statement cannot be understood literally - because of the same episode (of Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef's testimony) that we mentioned earlier, where many individuals blew in Yavneh.

(b) So we initially explain the Beraisa to mean - that in Yovel, the individuals would blow even when Beis-Din was *not* in session (a Kashya on Rav Huna), whereas on Rosh Hashanah (in Yavneh) they would blow only when they *were*.

(c) We finally interpret it to mean - that whereas in the Yovel, individuals would blow whether they were in front of Beis-Din or not (though Beis-Din *did* have to be in session), on Rosh Hashanah, they would only blow in front of Beis-Din (vindicating both versions of Rav Huna).

5)

(a) Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted that ...

1. ... one should take Lulav - for all seven days even outside the Beis- Hamikdash (to commemorate the Beis-Hamikdash). The Torah-law in this regard is - that it was only taken for *seven days inside the Beis Hamikdash* (because the Torah writes in Emor "u'Semachtem *Lifnei Hashem Shiv'as Yamim", but (following the obvious inference from that Pasuk) only *one day outside* it.
2. ... one may not eat Chadash until the seventeenth of Nisan (although min ha'Torah, when the Beis Hamikdash is not standing, it is already permitted on the morning of the sixteenth).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Ki A'a'leh Aruchah Lach ... Tzi'on Hi Doresh Ein Lah" - that one needs to do things to commemorate the Beis Hamikdash.

(a) Raban Yochanan ben Zakai forbade the eating of Chadash on the sixteenth of Nisan - in case the Beis-Hamikdash will be rebuilt the following year, and people will say that, in the same way as we ate last year on the morning of the sixteenth, so too, we will eat this year (without realizing that, this year, when there is a Beis-Hamikdash, and the Korban Omer is due to be brought, Chadash remains forbidden until the Omer has been brought.

(b) Raban Yochanan cannot have been concerned that perhaps the Beis- Hamikdash will be built ...

1. ... on the *sixteenth* of Nisan - because, in that case, what is the problem, seeing as Chadash will in fact have become permitted from the morning of the sixteenth.
2. ... on or before the *fifteenth* - because then, why would he have forbidden Chadash until the *seventeenth*? He should have permitted it already from mid-day on the sixteenth, from which time on, it is always permitted anyway (even when the Omer is brought) because we assume that, by then, the Kohanim (who are alert) will have already brought the Omer, permitting Chadash?

(c) Raban Yochanan's concern is - that maybe it will be built some time between dusk of the night following the fifteenth up to the morning, delaying the cutting of the barley for the Omer, and forcing the Omer to be brought late, perhaps even after mid-day (due to the lengthy processes connected with the reaping, heating, grinding, sifting and offering of the barley.

(d) We contend with the possibility that the Beis-Hamikdash might be built on Shabbos or at night-time, despite the fact that we are not permitted to build it on Shabbos or at night-time - because that is confined to the previous Batei-Mikdash that were built by man, whereas the third Beis- Hamikdash will come down already built (out of fire - as we say in 'Nacheim' on Tish'ah be'Av) by Hashem. *That* can take place even on Shabbos, and even at night-time.

7)

(a) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Raban Yochanan ben Zakai forbids eating Chadash on the sixteenth of Nisan min ha'Torah, like (his grand- Talmid's Talmid) Rebbi Yehudah - who learns this from the Pasuk in Emor (regarding the prohibition of Chadash) "ad Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh".

(b) This interpretation of the Pasuk revolves around the principle 'Ad ve'ad bi'Ch'lal' - meaning that the word "Ad" is inclusive, and includes the sixteenth in the prohibition.

(c) When Rebbi Yehudah himself asked how, according to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, the prohibition can be mi'de'Rabbanan, when really it ought to be mi'd'Oraysa, he did so - because he misunderstood Raban Yochanan ben Zakai's meaning, says Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. But the truth of the matter is, that Raban Yochanan meant to say exactly what Rebbi Yehudah is saying.

(d) When the Tana of our Mishnah writes *Hiskin* Raban Yochanan ben Zakai - he does not mean literally 'Hiskin, mi'de'Rabbanan (as the term Hiskin usually means - which incidentally, is probably the source of Rebbi Yehudah's misunderstanding, too). What he meant was that he Darshened the Pasuk, and instituted the Isur (since, until then the Omer had permitted Chadash from mid-day onwards).

(a) Raban Yochanan also instituted that Beis-Din were permitted to receive the witnesses all day (on Rosh Chodesh Tishri) - even after Minchah.

(b) It happened once when the witnesses came after Minchah - that the Levi'im did not sing the right Shir for the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim.

(c) Chazal had instituted - that, if the witnesses arrived after the Korban Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim had been brought, they would not be accepted.

(a) In Bavel, they explained the error that occurred that year, to have been the fact that the Levi'im did not sing Shirah at all. Rebbi Zeira says - that on the assumption that the witnesses would no longer arrive, they sang the Shirah that was normally sung on a weekday.

(b) Rebbi Zeira quoted a Beraisa, which he instructed his son Ahavah to show the B'nei Bavel: 'They instituted not to receive the witnesses after Minchah, in order that there should be sufficient time in the day to bring the Temidin, the Musafin and the drink-offerings *without mishap*'. Does 'without mishap' not imply that, unlike the Levi'im on that fateful day, who sang the wrong Shir, they took steps to ensure that they would in future, sing it without mishap?

(c) We refute his proof - by pointing out that there is no bigger mishap than not singing the Shir at all.

(a) On the morning of the thirtieth of Elul - the Levi'im would generally sing the regular Shir of whichever day it was, due to the fact that a. the witnesses did not usually arrive by then, and b. it may not even turn out to be Rosh Hashanah at all. Consequently, Chazal fixed the ordinary weekday Shir for then (as long as the witnesses did not in fact, arrive earlier).

(b) They would sing ...

1. ... at Musaf, if that day was declared Rosh Hashanah - "Harninu" (The Shir shel Yom for Thursday).
2. ... at Minchah (together with the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim) - "Kol Hashem Yachil Midbar" (i.e. "Havu la'Hashem B'nei Eilim").
3. ... at Shachris, if the witnesses came *before* the Tamid shel Shachar, and it was a Thursday morning - "Hasirosi" (the second half of "Harninu"). This is in order to avoid repeating the same Shir twice on the same day, where it could be avoided.
4. ... at Musaf, in the same case, if the witnesses came *after* the Tamid shel Shachar - "Harninu" (even though it meant repeating it - because it was unavoidable).

(c) There is no proof for Rebbi Zeira (that when there is a doubt, one says the weekday Shir (rather than refraining from saying anything) from the Beraisa, which says that if the thirtieth fell on a Thursday, they would sing "Harninu" (and repeat it should witnesses arrive before Minchah) - because that is the Shir that is fitting to say in the morning (even on Rosh Hashanah); whereas the Shir of the Tamid shel Bein ha'Arbayim is a Safek (and if it turns out to be Rosh Hashanah, then the weekday Shir is not appropriate). Consequently, maybe there, the Tana of the Beraisa will agree that it is better to remain silent and say nothing (because of the principle 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh Adif.