דף 30

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That is not the reason. Rather, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai