Parallel
עירובין 40:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but it arrived from without the permitted festival limit. He who ate it was of the opinion that if anything arrived for one Israelite it is permitted to another israelite, and he who did not eat it held that all foodstuffs that arrived at the Exilarch's house were intended for all the Rabbis. but did not R. Shesheth meet Rabbah b. Samuel and ask him [a question on sanctities]? — That in fact never happened. A load of turnips once arrived at Mahuza [on a festival day]. Raba went out and observed that they were withered. He therefore permitted the people to buy them, saying: ‘These turnips were undoubtedly pulled out from the ground yesterday. What other objection could be raised? That they arrived from without the permitted festival limit? But anything that arrives for one Israelite is permitted to another Israelite to eat, and much more so are these [turnips permitted] since they were intended for gentiles’. When, however, he observed that [the gentile vendors] were bringing in additional supplies of these turnips he forbade all further buying. Certain gardeners once cut myrtles on the second day of the festival and Rabina permitted people to smell their odour in the evening immediately [after the termination of the festival]. Said Raba b. Tahlifa to Rabina, ‘The Master should really forbid this to them since they are not learned men’. To this R. Shemaiah demurred: ‘Is the reason then that they are not learned men, but if they had been learned men this would have been permitted? But, surely, is It not necessary [to allow time] enough for their preparation?’ They, therefore, proceeded to ask this question of Raba, and he told then; that it was necessary [to allow time] enough for their preparation. R. DOSA RULED: THE PERSON WHO ACTS AS CONGREGATIONAL READER etc. Rabbah stated: When we were at R. Huna's we raised the following question: ‘Is it necessary to mention the New Moon in [the prayers of] the New Year? Is it necessary to mention it because different additional offerings were ordained for the two celebrations or is rather one mention of "memorial" sufficient for both?’ And he told us, ‘You have learnt It: R. DOSA RULED: THE PERSON WHO ACTS AS CONGREGATIONAL READER etc. Does not [this disagreement apply] to the mention [of the New Moon]?’ — No; [it may refer] to the conditional form of the prayer. Logical reasoning also Supports this. For in a Baraitha it was taught: ‘And so did R. Dosa proceed on the New Moons throughout the year but they did not agree with him’. Now if you admit [that their objection was] to his conditional form of prayer one can well understand why they did not agree with him; but if you maintain [that their objection was] to the mention of the New Moon why [it may be asked] did they not agree with him? — What then [would you suggest? That their objection was] to his conditional form of prayer? But what purpose [it could be retorted] was served by expressing disagreement In the two cases? — [Both were] necessary. For if we had been informed [of their disagreement In the case of] the New Year Only it might have been presumed that only in this case did the Rabbis maintain that no [conditional form of prayer should be introduced] because people might come to regard the day with disrespect, but that in the case of the New Moons throughout the year they, it might have been presumed — agree with R. Dosa. And if [their disagreement with R. Dosa] had been expressed in the latter case Only, it might have been presumed that R. Dosa maintained his view only in that case but that in the other case he agrees with the Rabbis. [Hence it is that both cases were] necessary. An objection was raised: If the New Year festival fell on a Sabbath, Beth Shammai ruled: One shall recite ten benedictions, and Beth Hillel ruled: One only recites nine. Now if that were so should it not have been necessary according to Beth Shammai [to order] eleven benedictions?
—