ראש השנה 19 — Soncino English Talmud

¹. But [if that is so], cannot the prohibition [of the third of Tishri] be derived from the fact that it was the day on which Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was killed? — Rab replied: Its [insertion in the Megillath Ta'anith] was required only to prohibit the day before it also. But the prohibition of the day before it can also be derived from the fact that it is the day after New Moon? — New Moon is ordained by the Written Law, and the ordinances of the Written Law do not require reinforcement, as it has been taught: ‘These days which are mentioned in Megillath Ta'anith are forbidden [for fasting on] along with both the day before them and the day after them. As to Sabbaths and New Moons, they themselves are forbidden, but the days before and after them are permitted. What is the difference between one set and the other? The one set are ordained by the Torah, and the words of the Torah require no reinforcement, whereas the other are laid down by the Scribes, and the words of the Scribes require reinforcement’. But cannot the prohibition [of the second of Tishri] be derived from the fact that it is the day before the day on which Gedaliah the son of Ahikam was killed? — R. Ashi replied: The fast of Gedaliah the son of Ahikam is laid down in the later Scriptures, and the words of the later Scriptures are on the same footing as those of the Torah. R. Tobi b. Mattenah raised the following objection [against the statement that Megillath Ta'anith has been annulled]: ‘"On the twenty-eighth thereof [of Adar] came glad tidings to the Jews that they should not abandon the practice of the Law". For the Government [of Rome] had issued a decree that they should not study the Torah and that they should not circumcise their sons and that they should profane the Sabbath. What did Judah b. Shammu'a and his colleagues do? They went and consulted a certain matron whom all the Roman notables used to visit. She said to them: "Go and make proclamation [of your sorrows] at night time". They went and proclaimed at night, crying, "Alas, in heaven's name, are we not your brothers, are we not the sons of one father and are we not the sons of one mother? Why are we different from every nation and tongue that you issue such harsh decrees against us?" The decrees were thereupon annulled, and that day was declared a feast day’. Now if you maintain that the Megillath Ta'anith was annulled, [is it possible that] after the earlier prohibitions had been annulled they should add new ones? And should you reply that this also was in the period when the Temple was still standing, [this cannot be], because Judah b. Shammu'a was the disciple of R. Meir, and R. Meir was after the destruction of the Temple. We know [that R. Judah was R. Meir's disciple] because it has been taught: ‘If holes were made in a vessel of glass and filled up with lead, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel reports that R. Judah b. Shammu'a in the name of R. Meir declares it unclean,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ

^ᵃnote:On which, as established above, fasting was prohibited in the period of the Temple.
^ᵇnote:V. infra.
^ᶜnote:The Pentateuch.
^ᵈnote:And the days before and after are prohibited lest one should come to fast on the actual day.
^ᵉnote:Cf. p. 75, n. 1.
^ᶠnote:Viz., Zechariah. Lit., ‘words of Kabbalah. V. supra p., 23 n. 10.
^ᵍnote:[Probably the widow of Tineius Rufus (v. A.Z. 20a) whose home was in Caesarea, (Graetz, Geschichte IV, p. 169)].
^ʰnote:[Graetz, loc. cit. refers this to the withdrawal of the Hadrianic edicts by his successor Antonius Pius in 139 — 140. For other views v. Lichtenstein op. cit. p. 279].
^ⁱnote:I.e., those days that were inserted in the list before the destruction of the Temple.
^ʲnote:Supposing it had been unclean, it now reverts to the uncleanness which it had lost when it was broken, v. Shab. 15b. Or it may mean ‘becomes capable of receiving uncleanness’. V. Rashi a.l. and Tosaf. s.v. vsuvh .

²whereas the Sages declare it clean’! — There is a difference of opinion between Tannaim [as to whether the Megillath Ta'anith, has been annulled], as it has been taught: ‘These days which are mentioned in the Megillath Ta'anith are prohibited [to be kept as fast days] whether in the period when the Temple is standing or in the period when the Temple is not standing. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: In the period when the Temple is standing they are prohibited, because they [Israel] have cause for rejoicing; in the period when the Temple is not standing they are permitted, because they have cause for mourning’. The law is that these prohibitions are annulled and the law is that they are not annulled. There is a contradiction, is there not, between these two laws? — There is no contradiction: the one relates to Hanukah and Purim, the other to the other days. OF ELUL ON ACCOUNT OF NEW YEAR, OF TISHRI FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE FESTIVALS. Once the messengers have gone forth to report [the new moon of] Elul, why should they be required to do so for Tishri? Should you reply that [the reason is because] perhaps Elul has been prolonged, [this cannot be], because R. Hinena b. Kahana has said in the name of Rabbi: ‘From the days of Ezra onwards we have found no instance of Elul being prolonged’! — [Exactly so]: ‘We find no instance’, because there was no reason [to prolong it]; where, however, there is a special reason, we do prolong it. But in that case New Year is interfered with? — It is better that New Year should be interfered with than that all the festivals should be interfered with. There is also an indication [that this view is correct in the language of the Mishnah], which states, OF TISHRI FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE FESTIVALS. This is clear proof. OF KISLEV ON ACCOUNT OF HANUKAH AND OF ADAR ON ACCOUNT OF PURIM. [The Mishnah], however, does not say, ‘When the year is prolonged, messengers go forth to report [the new moon of] the second Adar also on account of Purim’. [This shows that] our Mishnah does not agree with Rabbi, since it has been taught: ‘Rabbi says that if the year has been prolonged, messengers go forth to report also regarding the second Adar on account of Purim’. Shall we say that the point on which they join issue is this, that one authority holds that all the ceremonies observed in the second Adar are observed also in the first, while the other holds that the ceremonies observed in the second are not observed in the first? — No. Both hold that the ceremonies observed in the second are not observed in the first, and here they differ on the question of the prolongation of the year, as it has been taught: ‘How long is the period of the prolongation of the year? Thirty days. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says a month’. But why should only [the one who says] thirty days [require no messengers to be sent]? Because, you say, people in this case know when the month ends? If the period is a month, they also know! — R. Papa said: The one who said ‘a month’ holds that [the Beth din may prolong the year] either by thirty days or by a month at their option. R. Joshua b. Levi testified on behalf of the holy community of Jerusalem concerning the two Adars, that they are sanctified on the day of their prolongation. This is equivalent to saying that we make them defective but we do not make them full, and excludes the statement made in a discourse by R. Nahman b. Hisda; [for R. Nahman b. Hisda stated in a discourse]: ‘R. Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi concerning the two Adars that if they [the Beth din] desired they could make both of them full, and if they desired they could make both of them, defective, and if they desired they could make one full and the other defective; and such was their custom in the Diaspora. In the name of our teacher, however, they said: One is always to be full and the next defective, unless you have been informed that New Moon has been fixed at its proper time’. They sent [from Palestine] to Mar ‘Ukba to say: The Adar which precedes Nisan is always defective. R. Nahman raised an objection [from the following]: ‘For the fixing of two New Moons the Sabbath may be profaned, for those of Nisan and of Tishri’. Now if you say that [the Adar before Nisan] is sometimes full and sometimes defective, I can understand how occasions arise for profaning the Sabbath^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵏnote:That fasting is prohibited.
^ˡnote:I.e., made to last thirty days, and therefore the Diaspora may make a mistake about the Day of Atonement and Tabernacles.
^ᵐnote:The ‘special reason’ is discussed infra, 20a.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘spoilt’. The Diaspora will keep it one day too soon.
^ᵒnote:I.e., made to consist of thirteen months, by the insertion of a second Adar.
^ᵖnote:Including in particular Purim.
^ᵠnote:And therefore the observance of Purim in the first Adar is really sufficient for religious purposes, and so there is no need to send out messengers to fix the date of the second.
^ʳnote:And therefore it is important that Purim in the second Adar should be kept on the right day, v. Meg. 6b.
^ˢnote:I.e., the [days of the month of the first Adar which is inserted to prolong the year (Rashi).
^ᵗnote:I.e., twenty-nine days. This is apparently the opinion of Rabbi also.
^ᵘnote:When the first Adar ends and the second Adar begins.
^ᵛnote:And therefore it is necessary to keep the public informed. (9) [Regarded by some as a survival of an Essene community, v. J.E V. p. 226].
^ʷnote:The thirtieth day is known as the day of prolongation ( ruchg ouh ) as it is the day which is added to make the preceding month full (v. supra p. 21, n. 7). In the case of the two Adars the thirtieth day of each is sanctified as the New Moon of the next month.
^ˣnote:Rab.
^ʸnote:I.e., that the Beth din is Jerusalem fixed the New Moon of Adar II on the thirtieth day of the first Adar, the thirtieth day always being regarded as the ‘proper time’ of New Moon.
^ᶻnote:By the watchers for the new moon, who are allowed to exceed the two thousand cubit limit in order to report their observation to the Beth din in Jerusalem. V. infra 23b.