ראש השנה 18

18:1

: One text speaks of God's attitude before the final sentence, the other of his attitude after the final sentence!’ — Here too the case is that of an individual. On the question of the final sentence of an individual there is a difference between Tannaim, as it has been taught: R. Meir used to say: Two men take to their bed suffering equally from the same disease, or two men are before a criminal court to be judged for the same offence; yet one gets up and the other does not get up, one escapes death and the other does not escape death. Why does one get up and the other not? Why does one escape death and the other not? Because one prayed and was answered, and the other prayed and was not answered. Why was one answered and the other not? One prayed with his whole heart and was therefore answered, the other did not pray with his whole heart and was not answered. R. Eleazar, however, said: The one man was praying before his final sentence had been pronounced [in heaven], the other after his final sentence had been pronounced. R. Isaac said: Supplication is good for a man whether before the final sentence has been pronounced or after. But can the final sentence on a community be rescinded? Have we not one text which says, Wash they heart from wickedness, and another which says, For though thou wash thee with nitre and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, and does not the one text apply before the final sentence is pronounced and the other after? — No; both apply after the final sentence has been pronounced, yet there is no contradiction; in the one case the final sentence has been accompanied by an oath, in the other it has not been accompanied by an oath. This accords with the dictum of R. Samuel b. Ammi. For R. Samuel b. Ammi (or, as some say R. Samuel b. Nahmani) said in the name of R. Jonathan: How do we know that a final sentence accompanied by an oath is never rescinded? Because it says, Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated with sacrifice nor offering. Raba said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but it can be expiated with Torah. Abaye said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but it can be expiated with Torah and charitable deeds . Rabbah and Abaye were of the house of Eli. Rabbah who devoted himself to the Torah lived forty years, Abaye who devoted himself both to the Torah and to charitable deeds lived sixty years. The Rabbis taught: There was a family in Jerusalem the members of which used to die at the age of eighteen. They came and told Rabban Johanan b. Zaccai. He said to them, Perhaps you are of the family of Eli, to whom it was said, and all the increase of thy house shall die young men. Go and study the Torah and you may live. They went and studied the Torah and lived, and they used to call that family the family of Rabban Johanan after his name. R. Samuel b. Inia said in the name of Rab: Whence do we know that the final sentence on a community is never sealed? — Never sealed , [you say]? Is it not written, Thine iniquity is marked before me? What he should say is, [How do we know that] although it is sealed it can yet be rescinded? Because it says, as the Lord our God is whenever we call upon him. But it is written, Seek ye the Lord while he may be found? — This verse speaks of an individual, the other of community. When can an individual [find God]? — Rabbah b. Abbuha said: These are the ten days between New Year and the Day of Atonement. And it came to pass after the ten days that the Lord smote Nabal. How come these ten days here? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: They correspond to the ten dishes which Nabal gave to the servants of David. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: These are the ten days between New Year and the Day of Atonement. ON NEW YEAR ALL MANKIND PASS BEFORE HIM LIKE CHILDREN OF MARON. What is the meaning of the expression ‘like children of Maron’? — In Babylon it was translated, ‘like a flock of sheep’. Resh Lakish said: As [in] the ascent of Beth Maron. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Like the troops of the house of David. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: [All the same] they are all viewed with a simple glance. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We also have learnt the same idea: He that fashioneth the hearts of them all, that considereth all their doings. What does this mean? Shall I say that it means this, that [God] has created all creatures and unites all their hearts together? But we see that this is not so! No; what it means is this: ‘The Creator sees their hearts together and considereth all their doings’. MISHNAH. THERE ARE SIX NEW MOONS TO REPORT WHICH MESSENGERS GO FORTH [FROM JERUSALEM TO THE DIASPORA]. [THE NEW MOON] OF NISAN ON ACCOUNT OF PASSOVER, OF AB ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAST, OF ELUL ON ACCOUNT OF NEW YEAR, OF TISHRI FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE FESTIVALS, OF KISLEV ON ACCOUNT OF HANUKAH, AND OF ADAR ON ACCOUNT OF PURIM. WHEN THE TEMPLE STOOD, THEY USED ALSO TO GO FORTH TO REPORT IYAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE LESSER PASSOVER. GEMARA. Why should they not also go forth to report Tammuz and Tebeth32

—

18:2

seeing that R. Hanah b. Bizna has said in the name of R. Simeon the Saint: ‘What is the meaning of the verse, Thus had said the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness? The prophet calls these days both days of fasting and days of joy, signifying that when there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness, but if there is not peace they shall be fast days’! — R. Papa replied: What it means is this: When there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness; if there is persecution, they shall be fast days; if there is no persecution but yet not peace, then those who desire may fast and those who desire need not fast. If that is the case, the ninth of Ab also [should be optional]? — R. Papa replied: The ninth of Ab is in a different category, because several misfortunes happened on it, as a Master has said: On the ninth of Ab the Temple was destroyed both the first time and the second time, and Bethar was captured and the city [Jerusalem] was ploughed. It has been taught: R. Simeon said: There are four expositions among those given by R. Akiba with which I do not agree. [He said]: ‘The fast of the fourth month’ — this is the ninth of Tammuz, on which a breach was made in the walls of the city, as it says, On the fourth month on the ninth of the month the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land, and a breach was made in the city. Why is it called fourth? As being fourth in the order of months. ‘The fast of the fifth month’: this is the ninth of Ab, on which the House of our God was burnt. Why is it called fifth? as being fifth in the order of months. ‘The fast of the seventh month’: this is the third of Tishri on which Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was killed. Who killed him? Ishmael the son of Nethaniah killed him; and [the fact that a fast was instituted on this day] shows that the death of the righteous is put on a level with the burning of the House of our God. Why is it called the seventh? As being the seventh in the order of months. ‘The fast of the tenth month’: this is the tenth of Tebeth on which the king of Babylon invested Jerusalem, as it says, And the word of the Lord came unto me in the ninth year in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, saying, Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this selfsame day; this selfsame day the king of Babylon hath invested Jerusalem. Why is it called the tenth? As being the tenth in the order of months. [It might be asked], should not this have been mentioned first? Why then was it mentioned in this place [last]? So as to arrange the months in their proper order. I, however, [continued R. Simeon], do not explain thus. What I say is that ‘the fast of the tenth month, is the fifth of Tebeth on which news came to the Captivity that the city had been smitten, as it says, And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth month, in the fifth day of the month, that one who had escaped out of Jerusalem came to me saying, The city is smitten, and they put the day of the report on the same footing as the day of burning. My view is more probable than his, because I make the first [mentioned by the prophet] first [chronologically] and the last last, whereas he makes the first last and the last first, he, however, following [only] the order of months I [also follow] the order of calamities. It has been stated [elsewhere]: Rab and R. Hanina hold that the Megillath Ta'anith has been annulled, whereas R. Johanan and Resh Lakish hold that the Megillath Ta'anith, has not been annulled. Rab and R. Hanina hold that the Megillath Ta'anith has been annulled, interpreting the words of the prophet thus: ‘When there is peace, these days shall be for joy and gladness, but when there is no peace, they shall be fasts’, and placing the days mentioned in the Megillath Ta'anith, on the same footing. R. Johanan and Resh Lakish hold that the Megillath Ta'anith has not been annulled, maintaining that it was those others [mentioned by the prophet] that the All-Merciful made dependent on the existence of the Temple, but these [mentioned in Megillath Ta'anith] remain unaffected. R. Kahana cited the following in objection: ‘On one occasion a fast was decreed in Lydda on Hanukah and R. Eliezer went down there and bathed and R. Joshua had his hair cut, and they said to the inhabitants, Go and fast in atonement for having fasted [on this day]’! — R. Joseph said: Hanukah is different, because there is a religious ceremony [attached to it] Said Abaye to him: Let it be abolished and its ceremony with it? — R. Joseph thereupon [corrected himself and] said: Hanukah is different because it commemorates publicly a miracle. R. Aha b. Huna raised an objection [from the following]: ‘On the third of Tishri the mention [of God] in bonds was abolished: for the Grecian Government had forbidden the mention of God's name by the Israelites, and when the Government of the Hasmoneans became strong and defeated them, they ordained that they should mention the name of God even on bonds, and they used to write thus: ‘In the year So-and-so of Johanan, High Priest to the Most High God’, and when the Sages heard of it they said, ‘To-morrow this man will pay his debt and the bond will be thrown on a dunghill’, and they stopped them, and they made that day a feast day. Now if you maintain that the Megillath Ta'anith has been annulled, [is it possible that] while the former [prohibitions of fasting] have been annulled, new ones should be added? — With what are we here dealing? With the period when the Temple was still standing

—