Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 27 - Highlights

MOUTHPIECE

The Mishna states that the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of a wild goat and its mouthpiece should be coated with gold. Abaye explains that the gold should not be placed where the mouth actually rests since that would be considered as if the blower is not blowing with the shofar and it would not be valid. It should be placed near where the mouth would rest. (27a)

EXPLANATION OF THE MISHNA
The Mishna states that there shall be two trumpets blowing at the sides of the shofar. The shofar is blown longer since the mitzvah of the day is with the shofar. The Gemora asks that two sounds issued concurrently are not discernible from each other. The Gemora answers that this is the reason why the shofar sound is longer than the trumpet.

It emerges from this explanation that one who hears just the beginning of the shofar blast or only the ending will have fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora asks on this from a Mishna. A Mishna rules that if one blew a very long tekiah, it is regarded as one tekiah even though it was extended for the duration of two tekios. If one can fulfill his obligation by hearing the beginning or the end, why can’t an extended tekiah be reckoned as two independent tekios? The Gemora answers that a tekiah cannot be split into two parts.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states that if one blows a shofar into a pit and someone heard the sound of the echo, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If one can fulfill his obligation by hearing the beginning or the end, why can’t he fulfill his obligation by listening to the beginning of the tekiah before the echo joins the sound of the shofar?

The Gemora retracts from its original assumption and states that one does not fulfill his obligation by hearing just the beginning or the end of a tekiah. The reason he has discharged his obligation of hearing the shofar even though the trumpets are blowing simultaneously is because one can discern the sound of the shofar from the sound of the trumpets when there are two people blowing. Two sounds issued from one person are not discernible.

The Gemora compares this to a braisa which states that one person can recite hallel and another person can read the Megillah and the listener can hear them both. The reason is that since hallel and the Megillah are recited infrequently, they are dear to people and they will be able to focus and hear both readers. The same is true with the sound of the shofar. (27a)

MOUTHPIECES
 The Gemora offers two reasons why the mouthpiece of a shofar on Rosh Hashanah is made out of gold and the mouthpiece for the shofar on a fast day is made out of silver. The first reason presented is that whenever we assemble the people, it is done with silver just as the trumpets used to gather the people together was made out of silver. An alternative reason is because the Torah has compassion on Klal Yisroel’s money. On Rosh Hashanah, it can be made from gold because we want to honor the Tom Tov. (27a)

SHOFAR AND TRUMPETS
 Rava teaches us that shofars and trumpets are only blown together in the Beis Hamikdosh. The Gemora cites a braisa proving this. The braisa states that outside of the Beis Hamikdosh, whenever there is an obligation for shofar (Rosh Hashanah), there are no trumpets and whenever there is an obligation for trumpets (fast days), a shofar is not blown. The Chachamim said that the only time shofaros and trumpets are blown is by the Eastern gates of the Temple Mount. The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse proving this. It is written in Tehillim “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar, raise your voices before the King, the Lord.” (Judaica Press) Only when it is before Hashem, in the Beis Hamikdosh, are the shofar and the trumpets blown. (27a)



STRAIGHT SHOFAR OR BENT

 The Mishna states that the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of a wild goat. Its mouthpiece should be coated with gold and there shall be two trumpets blowing at the sides of the shofar. The shofar is blown longer since the mitzvah of the day is with the shofar. On fast days, they would blow with the horns from a male animal, which were bent. Their mouthpieces would be coated with silver. Two trumpets were blown in the middle and the sound of the trumpets would be longer since the mitzva of the day is with trumpets and not the shofar. The Mishna concludes by stating that the laws of the Yovel year are similar to the laws of Rosh Hashanah. They both would use a straight shofar and there would be nine identical brochos recited by mussaf. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that on Rosh Hashanah, they would use a shofar from a male animal and on Yovel, they would use a shofar taken from a wild goat.

The Gemora explains the argument in the Mishna. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a bent shofar should be used on Rosh Hashanah since a person should bend himself towards the ground when he is praying. The bent shofar mirrors the person’s attitude of deference and humility. On Yom Kippur of the Yovel year, they would blow with a straight shofar since Yovel represents freedom. The Tanna Kamma disagrees and holds that a person should stand up straight when he prays on Rosh Hashanah and therefore a straight shofar is used and on a fast day, he should bow his mind and therefore a bent shofar is preferable. (27a)

DEFECTS IN A SHOFAR
 The Mishna discusses various defects that will invalidate a shofar. A shofar that cracked along its length and was glued together is disqualified from being used as a shofar. If one joined together many pieces of a shofar, it is also unfit for use. The Mishna discusses the halacha of a shofar that that was punctured and then closed up.

One who blows into a pit and hears the sound of the shofar’s echo does not fulfill the mitzva. The Mishna rules that if one happens to hear the sound of the shofar but he was not concentrating on the sound, he does not fulfill his mitzva. (27a – 27b)
MORE HALACHOS
 The Gemora cites a braisa that teaches other halachos regarding a shofar. If a shofar was long and someone shortened it, the shofar may be used for the mitzva. If one scraped the layers of the shofar and only the last layer remained, it is fit for use. If one coated the inside of the shofar with gold, it cannot be used. If one inserted one shofar into another and blew through the inside one, he fulfills his mitzva but if he blew through the outside one, he has not. (27b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 27 - Shofar and the Trumpets

The Mishna in Sukkah (3:12) states that a lulav is taken in the Beis Hamikdosh for seven days and the “medinah” only one day. The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishnayos writes that the explanation of “medinah” is any city in Eretz Yisroel outside of Yerushalayim; however one would have a Biblical mitzvah to take the lulav for seven days in the city of Yerushalayim. Other Rishonim disagree and maintain that the Biblical mitzvah for seven days is only inside the Beis Hamikdosh but Yerushalayim will be like all other cities in Eretz Yisroel that have a Biblical mitzvah for one day and a Rabbinical mitzvah for seven days.

Bikurei Yaakov (658-1) and Reb Shimon Sofer in his sefer Hisorirus L’tshuva both state that according to the Rambam that the possuk “U’smachtem lifnei Hashem” is referring to Yerushalayim, this would apply even nowadays when the Beis Hamikdosh is not in existence. The Ramban rules in Hilchos Beis Habechirah that the sanctity of Yerushalayim exists even after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh. It would emerge that there would be a Biblical mitzvah to take the lulav for seven days in Yerushalayim even nowadays.

Reb Meir Simcha, in his commentary on Sukkah asks many questions on this elucidation of the Rambam. One of them is from the Gemora on our daf where Rava learns from the verse “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar, raise your voices before the King, the Lord.” (Judaica Press) According to the Rambam that “before Hashem” means the entire Yerushalayim, there should exist a mitzvah nowadays of sounding the shofar and the trumpets in Yerushalayim.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in his sefer Minchas Shlomo (57) is bewildered by this question since our Gemora explicitly states that the obligation of blowing the shofar and trumpets only applies by the eastern gate of the Temple Mount and nowhere else. How can Reb Meir Simcha say that it should apply in the entire Yerushalayim according to the Rambam?

It would seem to me that this is precisely Reb Meir Simcha’s point. The Bikurei Yaakov understands the Rambam that whenever the Torah says “lifnei Hashem,” this is referring to the city of Yerushalayim and would even apply nowadays because the sanctity of Yerushalayim still exists. If so, the same way that regarding the mitzvah of lulav, there is a Biblical obligation for seven days in Yerushalayim nowadays, so too there should be a mitzvah to sound the shofar together with the trumpets in Yerushalayim nowadays. Reb Meir Simcha is asking why the mitzva is limited only to the Beis Hamikdosh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 26 - TEFILLAH IS REGARDED AS BEING INSIDE THE HOLY OF HOLIES

The Gemora explained the reason as to why the kohen gadol cannot wear his gold garments into the Holy of Holies when performing the Yom Kippur service. This is based on the rule en kategor na'aseh sanegor - a prosecuting attorney cannot become a defense attorney. The Gemora explains that this principle only applies inside the Holy of Holies for that is where the Shechina resides.

The Ritva writes that one would be permitted to wear on Yom Kippur a tallis that contains gold in it since this is regarded as “outside” and not “inside.” The principle of en kategor na'aseh sanegor only applies “inside.”

Reb Akiva Eiger in his gloss on Shulchan Aruch (O”C 610) quotes from the Pri Megadim that are certain localities that have the custom not to wear gold on Yom Kippur but women and Levi’im are not included in this since they did not donate any gold for the golden calf.

In the sefer, Avodah Berurah, a question is asked that we do not find the principle of en kategor na'aseh sanegor by tefillah since tefillah is regarded as “outside” and not “inside.”

Sefer Chasidim (249) writes that the principle of en kategor na'aseh sanegor does apply by tefillah. He is referring to a case where one wrote a siddur for his friend but he didn’t write the siddur for the sake of Heaven and the friend’s prayers were never answered when using this particular siddur.

Beis Halevi in his droshos (15) explains why the principle of en kategor na'aseh sanegor does apply by tefillah even though the tefillah is not recited inside the Holy of Holies. It is based on the Gemora in Brochos 28b which rules that one who prays should always turn his heart towards the Holy of Holies and therefore tefillah is considered “inside.”

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 26 - Belt of the Kohen Gadol

The Gemora explained the reason as to why the kohen gadol cannot wear his gold garments into the Holy of Holies when performing the Yom Kippur service. This is based on the rule en kategor na'aseh sanegor - a prosecuting attorney cannot become a defense attorney.

The Turei even asks that this does not explain why the avnet, the belt of the kohen gadol on Yom Kippur was different that the one he wore during the year During the year, the belt consisted of wool and linen and on Yom Kippur, it was made only out of linen. Since there wasn’t gold anyway, what was the purpose for the change?

It is written in Vayikra “You shall observe My statutes: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you.” (Judaica Press) The Ramban cites the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim to explain the reason for this prohibition. It was well known that the clothes that the sorcerers used to wear when they were performing their black magic were made out of wool and linen. Their activities were performed for the sake of their idols and demons. The Torah wanted Klal Yisroel to distance themselves from idolatry and therefore prohibited the wearing of clothes that contained wool and linen. The Chinuch uses a similar analogy to explain the prohibition.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita says that it emerges from these Rishonim that one of the concepts behind the prohibition of wearing shatnez is based on idolatry. Perhaps this can explain why the kohen gadol does not wear the belt of shatnez into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. A garment consisting of wool and linen is regarded as a kategor – a prosecutor since it bears resemblance to the idolaters clothing.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 26 - Highlights

FIRST MISHNA – THIRD PEREK
The Mishna states that Beis Din can only declare “It is sanctified” by day and not by night. If only the Beis Din saw the new moon, two of them should stand up and testify in front of the others and the others will proclaim “It is sanctified.” If only the Beis Din saw the new moon but they were only three, two people should be brought to become part of the Beis Din and two of the original three should stand up to testify. (25b)

EXPLANATION OF THE MISHNA
The Gemora states that we can learn from the Mishna that even if all the Jews saw the new moon, the new month does not begin until Beis din sanctifies it.

We also learn that even if Beis din concluded the interrogation of the witnesses before nightfall, they cannot proclaim “It is sanctified” by night.

The Gemora states that the case of the Mishna where Beis Din saw the new moon is referring to where they saw the moon at night. If they would have seen the new moon by day, they would not require any witnesses at all since there is a principle that a judgment based on the hearing of testimony is not better than the judges sighting themselves.

It is learned from the case of the Mishna where a Beis Din of three saw the new moon that an individual judge cannot sanctify the new month by himself. This is learned from a Scriptural verse which states that Moshe could not sanctify Rosh Chodesh until he had others with him.

The Gemora cites a dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva regarding the permissibility of a potential witness to become a judge. Rabbi Tarfon maintains that if the entire Sanhedrin (court of twenty-three) saw one person kill another, some of them can be the witnesses and the others can judge. Rabbi Akiva holds that they all can be witnesses but not judges since a potential witness is disqualified from being a judge. The Gemora concludes that Rabbi Akiva will agree by the sanctifying of the new month that a potential witness can become a judge. He only argues by capital cases where the judge will not be capable of finding any commendable evidence for the accused if he witnesses the incident. (25a – 26a)



SHOFAR OF ROSH HASHANAH
The Mishna teaches us that all shofaros can be used on Rosh Hashanah except for one that comes from a cow, since a cow has a keren - horn - rather than a shofar. Rabbi Yosi permits the use of a cow's horn, arguing that all shofaros are referred to as keren. (26a)
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE DISPUTE IN THE MISHNA
Although the Mishna very specifically teaches the reasoning behind the two opinions on the use of the horn of a cow, two Amoraim nevertheless suggest alternative explanations for the disagreement.

Abaye says that the basic position in the Mishna stems from the Biblical requirement of a single shofar - not two or three shofaros. The horn of a cow is made up of several layers, so it cannot be used (Rabbi Yosi argues that we see the layers as making up a single shofar).

Ula suggests that the basic position of the Mishna is based on the rule en kategor na'aseh sanegor - a prosecuting attorney cannot become a defense attorney. Just like the High Priest cannot wear his gold garments into the Holy of Holies when performing the Yom Kippur service, similarly the horn of a cow cannot be used to call out in defense of the Jewish People. Rashi explains that the cow invokes the Golden Calf and therefore is considered a member of the prosecution. In general, gold is seen as representing vanity and a desire for material wealth, which do not seem appropriate for prayers of forgiveness. (Courtesy of the Aleph Society) (25a)
RABBAN GAMLIEL
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Mishna referred to the ram’s horn as a “yoveil.” The Gemora cites a braisa proving this. Rabbi Akiva traveled to Arabia and he observed that they refer to a ram as a “yuvla.” When he traveled to Galye, he observed that they referred to a niddah (menstruating woman) as a “galmudah.” “Galmudah” is a connotation of the phrase “this one is separated from her husband.” When Rabbi Akiva traveled to Africa, he observed that they would refer to a ma’ah (a certain coin) as a “kesitah.” The Gemora offers other examples of travelers noticing the meaning of strange words. (26a – 26b)
STRAIGHT SHOFAR OR BENT
The Mishna states that the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of a wild goat. Its mouthpiece should be coated with gold and there shall be two trumpets blowing at the sides of the shofar. The shofar is blown longer since the mitzvah of the day is with the shofar. On fast days, they would blow with the horns from a male animal, which were bent. Their mouthpieces would be coated with silver. Two trumpets were blown in the middle and the sound of the trumpets would be longer since the mitzva of the day is with trumpets and not the shofar. The Mishna concludes by stating that the laws of the Yovel year are similar to the laws of Rosh Hashanah. They both would use a straight shofar and there would be nine identical brochos recited by mussaf. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that on Rosh Hashanah, they would use a shofar from a male animal and on Yovel, they would use a shofar taken from a wild goat.

The Gemora explains the argument in the Mishna. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a bent shofar should be used on Rosh Hashanah since a person should bend himself towards the ground when he is praying. The bent shofar mirrors the person’s attitude of deference and humility. On Yom Kippur of the Yovel year, they would blow with a straight shofar since Yovel represents freedom. The Tanna Kamma disagrees and holds that a person should stand up straight when he prays on Rosh Hashanah and therefore a straight shofar is used and on a fast day, he should bow his mind and therefore a bent shofar is preferable. (26b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 26 - Sanctifying in Advance

The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna and in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (2:8,9) explains the first Mishna in the third perek to be referring to a case where witnesses saw the moon on the twenty-ninth day of the month close to sunset but Beis Din did not sanctify the new month on that day nor on the thirtieth and they finally proclaimed “It is sanctified” on the evening of the thirty-first. The Rambam writes that this teaches us a novel halacha that one should not think that the only time the sanctifying of the new month can occur is on the thirtieth because in truth, Beis Din can sanctify the thirtieth day on the twenty-ninth of the month.

Turei Even states the same idea without mentioning the Rambam. He cites proof to this concept from the intercalation of the year, where Beis Din can not add a new month after Adar but they can decide to add an additional month to the year before Adar and even immediately after Tishrei.

Reb Itzele in Zecher Yitzchok (11) questions the Turei Even’s proof. When Beis Din decides that there should be another Adar this year, they are not ruling on the future, rather they are deciding that this year should be a leap year and not a regular year. Sanctifying the upcoming month on the twenty-ninth day of the previous month is considered as ruling on the future since the preceding month has no association to this month.

The Zecher Yitzchok explains the Rambam differently. The reason Beis Din can sanctify the new month on the twenty-ninth is not because they can rule regarding the future but rather it is because they are deciding on the present. Sanctifying the new month is in fact deciding on how many days are contained in the previous month. They can decide on the twenty-ninth day that the thirtieth day will be Rosh Chodesh because in essence they are determining that this month will be comprised of twenty-nine days.

It emerges (and this can be found in sefer Poseach Shaar) that theoretically Beis Din can sanctify the new month anytime before Rosh Chodesh. Practically, it can only transpire on the twenty-ninth since the new moon is not visible until then. This can be relevant to the times that there is no Beis Din and the months are decided through calculation.

Reb Chatzkel Abromsky inquires as to what is the difference between sanctifying the new month and intercalating the year. Why can the sanctifying of the new month take place prior to the new month and the intercalating of the year can only transpire during that year? This is answered according to the Zecher Yitzchok. Beis Din, in sanctifying the new month, is not ruling on the future, rather they are deciding how many days are in the present month. Intercalating the year is a ruling which is only relevant to this year and it cannot be decided on in the preceding year.

Reb Meir Simcha cites proof to this novelty from the Yerushalmi that states the reason for not lighting the torches in Tishrei because it constitutes a desecration of Yom Tov. The halacha in Tishrei is that the messengers cannot be sent out until they hear Beis Din proclaim “It is sanctified.” It is evident from here that they heard Beis Din proclaim on the twenty-ninth that the following day will be Rosh Chodesh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 25 - OBEY THE RABBIS EVEN WHEN RIGHT IS LEFT AND LEFT IS RIGHT

Divrei Beit Hillel

In Devarim 17:10 it says "You shall not turn from the commandment to the right or left."
Rashi explains that this pasuk comes to teach us that we must listen to the Sages in all circumstances, even when they tell us that right is left and left is right.

Does this really mean that we must obey our Rabbis when they are wrong? This seems to clearly contradict the Gemara Yerushalmi in Horiyot, which states: You might think that if the Rabbis say the right is left or the left is right you have to listen to them. Therefore it says, to the right and left: when they tell you that the right is right and the left is left.

This textual tension is assuaged when we refer to the source for Rashi's statement, the Sifrei, which states that one must listen to their commandment, even if IT SEEMS to him that the right is left and the left is right.

Therefore it would appear that the verse is not giving blanket ability to the Rabbis to make mistakes, but rather restricting disobedience of their commandments to select cases in which it is clear that they are wrong. However, where does one draw the line?

Rambam, in his Sefer Mitzvot, draws on Shevuot 39A, which states: How do we know that Bnei Yisrael were bound at Har Sinai to commandments that were yet to come in addition to those that were commanded at Har Sinai? As it says (Esther 9), Kimu VKiblu HaYehudim - the Jews fulfilled and accepted it - they fulfilled that which was already accepted at Har Sinai. He expands on this idea by stating that one who violates a Rabbinic commandment also violates the negative Torah commandment given in our verse "Do not turn to the right or left." How can one risk violating this commandment by perceiving a Rabbinic commandment as fallible? While the Ramban does disagree with the Rambam over the technical violation entailed in such a disobedience, he agrees that one is obligated to obey whatever the Rabbis rule, EVEN if they err. As a support, he cites the mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 25, in which R. Yehoshua is forced to appear with his walking stick and traveling bag on the day he calculated was Yom Kippur in deference to R. Gamliel, the Av Beit Din, who disagreed.

Ramban even seems to indicate that one must listen to the Sanhedrin if they violate the Torah! This he bases on the verse (Tehillim 119:126) Et laasot laHashem - There is a time to do the will of Hashem. Indeed the Sefer HaChinuch states that even if the Sanhedrin erred and we are aware of this, we must do as they have commanded. He explains that this is because it is better to have unity, though we might be wrong, than to promote strife brought on by factionalism.

Still, do the Rabbis really have the right to contradict something in the Torah? The Gemara (Horiyot 4A) states: R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, The Beit Din after teaching a false ruling is not liable to bring a korban until they teach a law that the Sadduccees do not agree with. But if they teach a thing erroneously that the Sadduccees agree with, they are liable. What is the reason? It is a matter that can be learned in school. The point of this Gemara is that an individual is expected to know when a law is clearly in the Torah (the kind that the Sadduccees agree with). Therefore, when Beit Din contradicts this law, the individual should know not to follow them, and is therefore responsible for his own actions. However when the Beit Din teaches Torah Shebeal Peh (which the Sadduccees do not give legitimacy to), they are responsible for what they say. This indicates that one indeed should disobey a Beit Din when it contradicts a Torah law.

Perhaps the Kli Yakar, in his commentary on our pasuk, sheds some light on our understanding of Et laasot. He explains that in many issues, there are reasons one both sides to influence the outcome one way or the other. These issues are normally decided according to the side that is more compelling. However, in special cases, certain issues can be decided according to the other side. A proof of this is the statement by Chazal that a person cannot become a member of the Sanhedrin until he can give 150 reasons to declare a sheretz (dead rodent that is normally tameh) tahor. This does not mean that what is clearly left is being made right. What instead follows is that sometimes things that may seem clearly to the right or left by us, are really ambidextrous, if you will. It is up to the Rabbis to take the gray and decide whether it is black or white. The decision process that they go through is not within our right to disregard, and according to the Rambam, even carries the severity of a negative Torah commandment. (Courtesy of Divrei Beit Hillel – Shoftim)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Roshn Hashana 25 - Highlights

RABBAN GAMLIEL
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Mishna cites a dispute regarding a set of witnesses who testify that in the morning they saw the old moon in the East and later that evening, they saw the new moon in the west. Rabban Yochanan ben Nuri states that these witnesses are false since it there is a twenty-four hour period between the time that the old moon disappears from sight and the time that the new moon appears. It is impossible to see the moon during this time span. Rabban Gamliel disagreed and he accepted these witnesses.

The Mishna cites another case. The witnesses testified that they saw the moon in its appropriate time on the thirtieth but the facts are that on the night of the thirty-first, the moon was not visible at all. Rabban Gamliel accepted these witnesses but Rabbi Dosa ruled that these are false witnesses. Rabbi Dosa compared this case to a case where witnesses testified that a woman gave birth to a child and the following day, she is seen indisputably pregnant. If the new moon cannot be seen now when it should be growing larger, it most certainly could not have been seen previously. Rabbi Yehoshua concurred with Rabbi Dosa that these are false witnesses. Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi, ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him with his walking stick and money on the day that according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculation was Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva found Rabbi Yehoshua distressed over the situation that he would be compelled to desecrate Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva cited Scriptural proof that whatever the Beis din decrees regarding the new month has validity and therefore he should not be concerned. The day that Rabbi Yehoshua thought was Yom Kippur would in fact be the eleventh of Tishrei since the new month is dependent on Rabban Gamliel’s declaration. Rabbi Dosa cited Scriptural proof to Rabbi Yehoshua that w the ruling of Rabban Gamliel cannot be reconsidered. Rabbi Yehoshua came to Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh with his walking stick and his money. Rabban Gamliel stood up, kissed him on his forehead and told him “Come in peace my Rebbe and my student. You are my Rebbe in wisdom and my student that you accepted my words.” (24b – 25a)


ROUTE OF THE MOON
The Gemora cites a braisa where Rabban Gamliel answered the Chachamim that there is times that the moon takes a long route and there are times that it takes a short route. This was said in order to explain why he could accept the witnesses when they testified that they saw the new moon in the evening less than twenty-four hours after the moon was seen in the morning. (25a)

INCIDENT WITH REBBE CHIYA
The Gemora relates that Rebbe Chiya once saw the old moon standing in the sky on the twenty-ninth of the month in the morning. He grabbed a clump of earth and threw it at the moon. He spoke to the moon and said “We are required to sanctify you tonight and you are just standing there. Go and disappear!” Rebbe told Rebbe Chiya to go to the city of Ein Tav, where they did not see the old moon during the day, and sanctify the new month on the thirtieth. After you have completed this task, send me back a message “Dovid, the King of Israel lives and persists,” indicating that the new month has been sanctified. (25a)

RABBI AKIVA
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Gemora cites a braisa which elaborates on the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Yehoshua was distressed and he told Rabbi Akiva that he would accept to be compelled to lie in bed for twelve months rather than being forced to fulfill Rabban Gamliel’s decree of desecrating Yom Kippur (according to his calculation). Rabbi Akiva told Rabbi Yehoshua that he had leaned from Rabbi Yehoshua, his teacher, that the Torah teaches us that if Beis Din chooses the incorrect date for Rosh Chodesh by mistake, deliberately or if they were misled, nevertheless the sanctification is valid. Rabbi Yehoshua felt comforted by Rabbi Akiva’s words. (25a)

RABBAN GAMLIEL
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Gemora brings a braisa which elaborates in further detail on the encounter between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel stood up from his seat, kissed him on his forehead and told him “Peace onto you my Rebbe and my student. You are my Rebbe since you taught me Torah in public and you are my student since you fulfilled the decree just like a student would. Praiseworthy is the generation in which the greater people listen to the authority of the lesser people and certainly when the lesser listen to the greater.” (25b)

Read more!

Rosh Hashana - Daf 23 - View from Above

Good morning AA. At the end of yesterday's daf, the gemara says that the sun never saw the other side of the rainbow so no one will have any arrow-shooting related suspicion.

From an airplane, you can see a full circle rainbow. Here is a photo. It's not that the bow faces the other way -- it is that from the sky, it is not a bow at all. It is a circle...

Good Shabbos@!

Ezra

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Drainbow%2Bcircle%2Bairplane%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=749&h=477&imgurl=www.teachersparadise.com%2Fency%2Fen%2Fmedia%2Ff%2Ff3%2Fglory_kaler_big.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teachersparadise.com%2Fency%2Fen%2Fwikipedia%2Fg%2Fgl%2Fglory__rainbow_.html&size=38.3kB&name=glory_kaler_big.jpg&p=rainbow+circle+airplane&type=jpeg&no=5&tt=6&oid=5f62f426deb81c20&ei=UTF-8

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - Rav Elyashiv on Dolls

There was a report in a newspaper that HaRav Eliyahu ruled that baby dolls are included in the prohibition of owning statues. I have not independently confirmed this ruling, however Rav Elyashiv shlita in his sefer on Rosh Hashanah concurs with this ruling. I quote from the sefer below.

Jerusalem - In a tough break for the children of Orthodox Jewish families, a former grand rabbi of Israel has urged parents to amputate their dolls to avoid the perils of idolatry.

Basing the move on a Biblical ban on the possession of idols, Mordechai Eliyahu, a Sephardic rabbi, broadcast his edict on a religious radio station calling for an arm or a leg to be dismembered.

In the case of a teddy bear or other stuffed animals, the children will see their beloved toys lose an ear or an eye instead.

"It is very important that these toys do not remain intact so as to remove the element of idolatry," said Eliyahu.

His son, Shmuel Eliyahu, himself a rabbi in the northern town of Safed, said that it was inappropriate to own statues or dolls, even to play with or for artistic purposes.

"They need to be amputated or at least altered," he said.

Shmuel revealed that his father had forced one of his followers to snap off the ear of a replica of a statue of Moses by Michelangelo that he had bought at an exorbitant price.

Religious edicts are not legally obliging in Israel. - Sapa-AFP

The Maharit (2:32) states that dolls which are made for the sake of children to play with are considered a temporary action and they are not included in this prohibition. Rav Elyashiv shlita cites Acharonim who disagree with this ruling and state that it is a Biblical question and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Rav Elyashiv rules stringently and he says that one must deface the form of the dolls somewhat in order for it to be permitted to remain in the house.

Here is a summary of some of the conclusions from Harav Ovadia Yossef in regards to idolatry and specifically pertaining to dolls, where he rules that it is permitted.

1. It is forbidden to make a protruding image of a man, and it is forbidden to leave it in one's house. This is only if it is a complete image, but a portrait up to the chest is not forbidden. It is permitted to make dolls for children that look like a full person, and certainly to buy and sell them.

It is permitted to take a photograph and to paint the picture of a person, which is not protruding at all. Some are stringent about this, but the custom is to be lenient.

It is forbidden to make the image of the four forms that were on the Heavenly chariot: the lion, eagle, ox and person. This is only when one makes all four together.

2. A protruding image of a person, in which one only sees one side (a profile) is permitted since this is not a complete image of a person.

3. The Shulhan Aruch writes that one can not make the image of the sun, moon and stars, whether protruding or flat. Rabbi Yosef Hayim explained that it is permitted if one does not make the full picture of the sun. However, a picture of the moon is forbidden even if a part is missing, since that it is how it is seen at times. The Maharam Mirotenberg permitted a picture, made only of colors that is not protruding at all. However, many do not agree with his opinion, and it is best not to rely on it.

4. It is forbidden to build a house in the image of the Bet Hamikdash, in its exact measurements, It is also forbidden to make a shulhan or menorah with seven branches, as existed in the Bet Hamkidash. If the menorah has seven branches but has electric lights on top, with no place for oil, it is permitted.

5. A small model of the Mishkan, for educational purposes, is permitted.

6. A cross, which Christians hang around their necks, does not have the status of Avodah Zarah, since Christians do not bow down to them, and the crosses are only a reminder of their avodah zarah. If a Jew finds one, he may sell it to a gentile. If a medal is given to a Jew by the government on which there cross, he may wear it. It is better that he not do so regularly, but only when he is visiting government officials or on official occasions. (End of summary)

I heard a Shiur from Rabbi Eli Mansour who cited the sefer Halichos Olam (7:281) from HaRav Ovadia Yossef where he rules that it is permitted to buy dolls for the children. He explains the reasoning for this as follows: Everyone knows that the dolls are not intended for worshipping and therefore there is no concern that others will suspect that the dolls are for avoda zora. Secondly, he states, that most of the time, the dolls are mistreated and handled in a degrading manner and therefore it would not be prohibited. He does rule stringently regarding a trophy that is a full image and sits on top of a mantel with honor: there it is a legitimate concern and one should deface it somewhat.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - MENORAH WITH SEVEN STEMS

One is prohibited from building a house in the form of the Beis Hamikdosh. One cannot make a courtyard similar to the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdosh. One is forbidden from creating a menorah corresponding to the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh. He is not allowed to make a menorah that has seven stems even if he constructs it from other metals. Rabbi Yosi maintains that one may not make a menorah out of wood either.

The sefer Shoel U’meishiv wants to answer the famous Beis Yosef’s question with this halacha. The Beis Yosef asks why do we eight days of Chanukah when the miracle was only for seven days? There was enough oil found for one complete day. He answers that it is forbidden to make a menorah with seven stems. This is forbidden even if it is not in the precise dimensions of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. Chanukah could not be seven days since the menorah couldn’t have seven stems.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - The Permissibility of Photographing People

(The Meoros Daf Hayomi from the Kollel Sochitshov issued words of Torah on the Daf. This was taken from their kuntrus on Bava Kamma 5762. It can be found here.)

The Gemora in Bava Kamma describes how already in ancient times it was the custom to honor great people by engraving their likeness on coins. So it was with Dovid and Shlomo, and before them with Avrohom and Yitzchok. Tosfos (S.V. Matbeya Shel Avrohom) contends that it was not their image on the coins, as it is forbidden to forge a human image; rather it was their names that were inscribed.

The source of the prohibition to create a human likeness even for decoration is found in the posuk (Shemos 20:20), “Do not make with me gods of silver and gods of gold” (Rosh Hashana 24b, Rambam Hilchos Acum 3:10, Chinuch Mitzva 39). The Rambam explains the reason for this prohibition is so that a casual observer should not mistakenly reach the conclusion that these images were meant to be avoda zora.

There is a debate amongst the Rishonim as to what comes under the prohibition. According to the Ravad (ibid) and the Ramban (see Tur Y.D.141) included are engraving, embossing, or painting of a human image. However, they do express a lenient ruling as to the ownership of engraved or painted images if they are found; but not an embossed (protruding) image. The Rambam differs and maintains that there is no prohibition to make an image by engraving or painting; the Torah forbade exclusively embossing. Though the Shulchan Oruch (141:4) rules in favor of the Rambam, the Taz insists that in the matter of making human images one should not adopt any leniencies.

When the Gaon R’ Eliezer of Brod was installed as Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, one of the local Jews decided to mark the festive occasion in a unique manner. He issued a commemorative medallion which bore the likeness of the new Rav. The Yavetz writes (responsa Sheilos Yavetz, I:170) that upon seeing this he was shocked to his very core. Though the Shulchan Oruch (ibid 7) forbids only an image of a full human, whereas the image of just a face is permitted, the Yavetz takes the more stringent view of the Smag, the Taz (ibid S.K. 15) and some Rishonim who forbid this as well. The Yavetz further points out that even according to the more lenient poskim it is only a featureless face that is allowed. (See the responsa for how the Yavetz derives this from the Tosafos in our sugya.) In the end, declares the Yavetz triumphantly, the medallion was banned by the Dutch king who viewed the matter as an impingement of his royal status.

The Painting of the Chacham Tzvi: The Yavetz’s father, the Chacham Tzvi, was extremely strict for himself and would not even allow his face to be drawn. We know this from his son who describes with great emotion how, “The true saint, my father and Rebbe, our great master, may Hashem be with him forever… went to visit the Sephardic Kehilla in London. He was greeted with great respect the like of which is unheard of. He was escorted into town in a royal floatilla amidst great jubilation.” The kehilla, relying on the majority of poskim had commissioned an artist to draw his countenance. The Chacham Tzvi due to his “great saintliness and holiness” refused to permit this. The hosts were unable to restrain themselves and the artist managed with great speed and unusual talent to paint an extraordinary painting. So true was his rendition that the Yavet”z declares, “All that is missing is the breath of life.”

What is the halacha regarding taking a snapshot? The Taz’s opinion that even a flat image is forbidden has led Poskim to question the legitimacy of photographing people. A reason to be lenient is explained by R’ Moshe Sternbuch, Shlit”a (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos Vol. III, 263). The prohibition includes only image making formed by direct action. The process of photography and film development does not fit into this category, since the reactions of chemical to light rays cause the picture to appear. He concludes that customarily photography is permitted.

It is interesting to note that many Gedolim for Kabbalistic reasons insisted not to be photographed.Someone drew a picture of the Steipler Gaon,zt’l, during his army service in Russia. The Steipler paid an entire day’s ration for the picture and immediately destroyed it (Toldos Yaakov, p. 30).

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - Highlights

INTERROGATION

When witnesses come to Yerushalayim to testify that they have seen the new moon, Beis Din interrogates them in order to ascertain that they have, in fact, seen the beginning of a new lunar cycle which looks like this

and not just the end of the previous one which looks like this.

These shapes are what the moon looks like in Israel at the beginning and end of each lunar month. The closer one gets to the equator, the flatter the crescent of the moon becomes, until it can look like this.
(Courtesy of the Aleph Society)
(23b – 24a)

POSITIONS OF THE MOON

The Gemora cites conflicting Braisos regarding the position of the moon. One braisa states that if he saw the moon north of the sun, his testimony is valid but if he testified that the moon was to the south of the sun, his testimony is not accepted. Another braisa is cited that rules exactly the opposite. The Gemora answers that the first braisa is referring to the summertime and the latter is referring to the wintertime.
Rashi explains that the sun sets at a different point on the western horizon each day, depending on the season. It sets farther south on the western horizon in the winter, and farther north on the western horizon in the summer. However, at the time of the new moon, the moon always appears at the "south-west corner." (Rashi implies that it appears there slightly before the moment at which the sun sets.) Therefore, on the shortest day of winter (the winter solstice) -- when the sun sets farthest south along the western horizon -- the moon is seen slightly to the north of the sun (that is, ahead of the sun in its circuit around the earth; see Rashi on the Mishnah with regard to "north" and "south" of the sun), since the moon reaches the south-westerly point at which the sun will set slightly before the sun does (i.e., before sunset). Similarly, when the sun sets in the northern side of the western horizon (in the summer) the moon still appears close to the southern corner, and thus it is seen farther south than the sun ("behind" the sun). (Courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf) (24a)

PERHAPS IT WAS A CLOUD

Abaye explains a braisa as teaching the following halacha: If two witnesses testify that they saw the moon incidentally and subsequently tried to see it with intent but could not find it; their testimony is not accepted. The reasoning is because their initial sighting might have just been a sliver of a cloud and not the moon. (24a)

BEIS DIN’S PROCEDURE

The Mishna elaborates on the procedure how Beis Din sanctifies Rosh Chodesh. The head of Beis Din declares “It is sanctified” and all the people there answer him by saying “It is sanctified. It is sanctified.” This procedure applies whether the moon was seen in its proper time or whether it was not seen in its proper time. Rabbi Elozar disagrees and maintains that if it was not seen in its proper time, Beis Din does not sanctify the day since it has already been sanctified by Heaven.

The Gemora cites Scriptural sources proving that the head of Beis Din declares “It is sanctified” and that the people there answer him by stating “It is sanctified. It is sanctified.” (24a)

IMAGES OF THE MOON

The Mishna relates that Rabban Gamliel had models of the moon in various positions in his study, which he would show to the people coming to testify. In this way, conditions that might be complicated to express orally could be discussed with the help of these illustrations.

The Gemora questions as to how Rabban Gamliel was allowed to create these images, when the braisa states that it is forbidden to form heavenly objects like the sun, moon, stars and constellations. The answer offered by the Gemora is that Rabban Gamliel did not make the models himself; they were made by others.

In the course of this discussion, the Gemora learns out other halachos as well. One is prohibited from building a house in the form of the Beis Hamikdosh. One cannot make a courtyard similar to the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdosh. One is forbidden from creating a menorah corresponding to the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh. He is not allowed to make a menorah that has seven stems even if he constructs it from other metals. Rabbi Yosi maintains that one may not make a menorah out of wood either

The Gemora learns out that it is forbidden from making images in the form of the Heavenly angels. One is not allowed to create an image of man. (24a - 24b)

SUSPICIONS OF IDOLATRY

The Gemora relates an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda where others had made for him an image on his signet ring. Shmuel instructed Rabbi Yehuda to mutilate it. It is evident from here that it is forbidden to retain these images even if someone else made it for him. The Gemora answers that it is forbidden to keep images that protrude because that will arouse a suspicion that it is being used for idol worship. The idolaters only worshipped images of people that protrude.

The Gemora rules that only an individual that has these images arouse suspicion but there is no concern if the community has such an image.

The Gemora offers three reasons to explain why Rabban Gamliel, who was an individual, was permitted to have these images. Firstly, since there are many people that come to the Beis din, it is regarded as being a public domain and therefore there is no concern for suspicion. Another answer presented is that the images of the moon were made in sections and they were only assembled for a very brief time and therefore there are no grounds for suspicion. An alternative answer is that these images were made for teaching purposes and in such circumstances, it will be permitted to retain those images and there will be no suspicion. (24b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Ruling Stringently by a Rabbinic Prohibition

Abaye, in explaining the Gemora’s reasoning as to why they didn’t institute to light the torches only on the night of the thirty-first is because this would compel the people of Bavel to cease from work for two days in the beginning of Tishrei. Those residing in Bavel would always refrain from work on the thirtieth of Elul since perhaps that day is Rosh Hashanah and if the torches will not be lit until after the thirty-first day, this would force them to abstain from work another day since perhaps Elul had thirty days and the thirty-first day is Rosh Hashanah. This is Rashi’s explanation.

Tosfos disagrees and understands the Gemora to be referring to every Rosh Chodesh where there is also a prohibition against working.
Turei Even asks that since the prohibition against performing work on Rosh Chodesh is only Rabbinic, shouldn’t we act leniently and allow those that are in doubt regarding the actual day of Rosh Chodesh to work?

He answers that if we would apply the principle of whenever there is a doubt on a Rabbinic matter, we rule leniently, we would be compelled to act in this manner on both days of Rosh Chodesh since there is a doubt on each day. On each day, we would say that the other day is indeed Rosh Chodesh. It will emerge that the prohibition against working will be uprooted completely. In such a circumstance, we do not apply the principle of ruling leniently.

This logic can be found in the Ran in Pesachim. There is a discussion regarding the four cups of wine that we drink on Pesach night. The Gemora is uncertain if there exists an obligation of reclining by the first two cups or the last two. The ruling is that since there is a doubt, we require one to recline by all four cups.

The Ran asks that since the mitzva of reclining by the drinking of the four cups is only Rabbinic, shouldn’t we act leniently? He answers that if we would indeed act leniently, we would be forced to rule that there is no obligation to lean by the first two cups or the last two cups which would result in the mitzva being uprooted completely. The principle of acting leniently does not apply in such situations.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Rosh Chodesh for Women and for Levi

Abaye, in explaining the Gemora’s reasoning as to why they didn’t institute to light the torches only on the night of the thirty-first is because this would compel the people of Bavel to cease from work for two days in the beginning of Tishrei. Those residing in Bavel would always refrain from work on the thirtieth of Elul since perhaps that day is Rosh Hashanah and if the torches will not be lit until after the thirty-first day, this would force them to abstain from work another day since perhaps Elul had thirty days and the thirty-first day is Rosh Hashanah. This is Rashi’s explanation.

Tosfos disagrees and understands the Gemora to be referring to every Rosh Chodesh where there is also a prohibition against working.

We are accustomed to saying that the new Yom Tov of Rosh Chodesh was added for the women as a reward for not willingly participating in the sin of the golden calf. Rav Elyashiv shlita cites one of the Acharonim who adds that according to this, the tribe of Levi also deserved a special Yom Tov since they did not serve the golden calf.

It is written in Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer that each one of the festivals was established in the merit of a specific person. Pesach was on the account of Avraham. Shavuos was because of Yitzchak. Sukkos was established due to Yaakov. The twelve Rosh Chodesh's throughout the year was in the merit of the twelve tribes. Once they sinned by the golden calf, it was taken away from them and given to the women. Since Levi was not involved in the sin, Rosh Chodesh was never taken away from them and it is still regarded as being a special festival for the tribe of Levi.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Techum for the Witnesses

The Halacha on Shabbos is that if one leaves the techum boundary (2000 amos), he is forbidden from taking even one step. Rabban Gamliel instituted that if the witnesses traveled on Shabbos beyond their techum boundary to come to Beis Din, they are still permitted to travel 2000 amos in any direction. This was established in order that the witnesses should be willing to come and testify and not be confined to one specific area the entire Shabbos.

The Minchos Chinuch (24) writes that it is obvious to him that Rabban Gamliel's decree was limited to the Rabbinic techum boundary. If one traveled further than 2000 amos to come to Beis Din he can then walk 2000 amos in any direction. However, if one traveled beyond three parsaos, which is the Biblical techum boundary, he will not be permitted to take even one step. The chachomim are not able to uproot a Biblical prohibition by allowing positive action of walking beyond his boundary. Rabban Gamliel’s decree was still regarded as an accomplishment since most of the witnesses came from within the Rabbinic techum boundary. The Ritva in our Mishna has the same viewpoint as well.

The Ramban in Eruvin (43) disagrees and maintains that Rabban Gamliel’s decree applied even to those that traveled further than the Biblical techum boundary. He proves this from the Mishna which states that the witnesses can travel on Shabbos the entire night and day, providing that they arrive at Beis Din before the conclusion of Shabbos. The Ramban explains that it is only regarded as transgressing the Biblical prohibition if the entire three parsaos was committed illegally, however if this traveling was done with permission, it is not considered as if he left his original resting place. The witnesses who had permission to travel to Beis Din are not regarded as being beyond their boundary and therefore allowing them an additional 2000 amos now is not overriding a Biblical prohibition.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Women working on Rosh Chodesh

by Rabbi Neustadt

Question: Are women obligated to observe the custom of refraining from “working” on Rosh Chodesh?

Discussion: The custom that women refrain from doing certain types of work on Rosh Chodesh — both by day and by night[1] — is an age-old custom, dating back to the days of Moshe Rabbeinu, which is recorded in the Rishonim and Shulchan Aruch and should be upheld by all girls and women.[2] Whenever possible, women should not do “work” on both days of Rosh Chodesh, but if one cannot refrain from doing work on both days, she should do her “work” on the first day and refrain from working on the second.[3]”



Question: Regarding the custom for women to refrain from “working” on Rosh Chodesh, what is considered “work”?

Discussion: Over the centuries, various customs evolved as to exactly what is considered “work” vis-à-vis Rosh Chodesh.[4] Nowadays, women generally refrain from sewing, crocheting and doing laundry on Rosh Chodesh. Ironing, however, is permitted.

Some poskim hold that using a washing machine is permitted, and only washing by hand is prohibited.[5] Others are more stringent and prohibit laundering in washing machines as well.[6]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Working on Rosh Chodesh and Chol Hamoed

Abaye, in explaining the Gemora’s reasoning as to why they didn’t institute to light the torches only on the night of the thirty-first is because this would compel the people of Bavel to cease from work for two days in the beginning of Tishrei. Those residing in Bavel would always refrain from work on the thirtieth of Elul since perhaps that day is Rosh Hashanah and if the torches will not be lit until after the thirty-first day, this would force them to abstain from work another day since perhaps Elul had thirty days and the thirty-first day is Rosh Hashanah. This is Rashi’s explanation.

Tosfos disagrees and understands the Gemora to be referring to every Rosh Chodesh where there is also a prohibition against working.

Rashi in Megillah (22b) states that the women abstained from performing work on Rosh Chodesh.

Turei Even writes that in the times that the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence, there was a prohibition of refraining from work which applied to the men as well. This was due to the korban mussaf which was offered for all of Klal Yisroel on that day. A person is forbidden from doing work on a day that he brings a korban. The Yerushalmi states that in truth, there should be a prohibition against working every day because of the korban tammid which is offered twice daily on behalf of the entire Klal Yisroel but since it is impossible to exist if no one is working; the korban tammid was excluded from this halacha. However, a korban offered on Rosh Chodesh or Yom Tov which is not a daily korban would require that a person should abstain from work.

According to this, it would not be necessary to have a new halacha that work is forbidden on Chol Hamoed (Intermediary Days) since there is the korban mussaf offered on that day. The new halacha teaches us that there is a prohibition against working even at night, when there are no korbanos being brought.

Truas Melech (59) applies this principle to answer why a new reason was necessary to forbid women from working on Rosh Chodesh. They are included in the korban just like a man and they should be prohibited from working on account of the korban. He answers that the women accepted Rosh Chodesh like a festival accomplished that they will refrain from working even at night when the korban cannot be offered.

The Biur Halacha (417) cites Rav Yaakov Emden in sefer Mor U’ktziah that there is no prohibition against a woman working during the night of Rosh Chodesh. Biur Halacha writes that he is unsure as to what the practicing custom is.

The Biur Halacha is also unsure if the prohibition against working on Rosh Chodesh is an established custom and the women are obligated not to work on Rosh Chodesh or is it just that a woman who abstains from work is fulfilling a nice custom.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 22 - Desecrating Shabbos

Tosfos learns that we even allow the confirming witness to desecrate the Shabbos in order that he should come to Beis Din and vouch that the testifying witness is trustworthy.

Turei Even asks that since Biblically every witness is qualified and the only reason confirming witnesses are required is because the Chachamim were concerned on the account of the Baysussim, how could the Chachamim institute that Shabbos can be desecrated outright? He states that it would seem from the Gemora and the Poskim that even a Biblical prohibition is permissible to violate.

The Turei Even answers that after the Chachamim instituted that Beis Din will only accept testimony from recognizable witnesses, the sanctifying of the new month is dependent on the confirming witnesses since without them, there are no valid testifying witnesses. They are therefore included in the general permissibility that the witnesses can desecrate Shabbos in order to be able to make Rosh Chodesh in the proper time and to fix the dates of the festivals accordingly.

The Pnei Yehoshua offers a similar answer regarding a different question. He asks that that the concern for the Baysussim was limited to the month of Nissan (since it was their intention to have the first day of Pesach occur on Shabbos), so why was it permitted for the confirming witnesses to desecrate Shabbos for every month? He answers that since it was established that every month requires recognizable witnesses because of Nissan, it emerges that sanctifying the new month requires the confirming witnesses as well and therefore they can desecrate the Shabbos in order to come to Beis Din.

Sefer Poseach Shaar states that the Ritva at the end of the previous perek seems to learn like this as well. The Mishna stated regarding one who saw the moon but is unable to travel to Beis Din; they may bring him by a donkey or carry him on a bed. This was permitted even on the Shabbos. If they were wary about an ambush, they were allowed to carry sticks with them to be utilized as weapons. The Ritva explains that the permission to desecrate the Shabbos was extended to the witnesses helpers as well since the reason for allowing the desecration of Shabbos was because we are interested in the result of Beis Din sanctifying the new month. Whatever is needed to get the witnesses to Beis Din safely and in a timely fashion is permitted.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 22 - Retroactive Adults

The Mishna lists different types of people that are ineligible to testify regarding the sighting of the new moon. The Minchas Chinuch (4) inquires as to what the halacha would be regarding the ability of a minor to testfy that he saw the new moon. Beis Din does not accept the testimony of a minor, however, what would be the halacha if the minor would become an adult through his testimony. If a boy was born on Rosh Chodesh Nissan and thirteen years later wishes to testify that he witnessed the new moon. At the time of his testimony, he is a minor but if they accept his testimony and sanctify the day as Rosh Chodesh, it would emerge that retroactively, he is already an adult from the night before and therefore his testimony can be accepted.

The Minchas Chinuch states that it would be dependent on two answers of Tosfos in Makkos (2). There is a principle that in order for a testimony to be valid it must be a testimony that has the ability to be disqualified by making them "eidim zom'min" (conspiring witnesses). "Eidim zom'min" means that two witnesses testify regarding a certain incident and another set of witnesses disqualify that testimony by saying that the first set of witnesses were with them in a different place at the time that the first set of witnesses claim that the act took place. The first witnesses are termed "eidim zom'min" . The Torah commands that the second set of witnesses are believed, rather than the first. In general, they would be punished with the punishment they tried to inflict. Tosfos discusses if this principle applies also to the witnesses who are testifying that they saw the new moon.

If minors would testify, we would not be capable of making them "eidim zom'min" since witnesses can only become "eidim zom'min" prior to Beis Din acting on the testimony and in this case, that would be before Beis Din sanctifies the day to be Rosh Chodesh. At that juncture, they are still minors and they could not become "eidim zom'min." However, Tosfos cites an opinion that witnesses testifying on the new moon do not have this requirement and therefore the minor's testimony can be accepted since retroactively they would be regarded as adults at the time in which they testified.

HaRav Elyashiv shlita does not understand the Mibchas Chinuch at all. He comments that if all that would be required is for Beis Din to clarify that this day is Rosh Chodesh, perhaps the clarification can be accomplished through the testimony of minors who retroactively will be adults if it is Rosh Chodesh. However, that is not the case. Beis Din must listen to testimony, analyze their words and issue a decision sanctifying the new month. If these witnesses are minors at the time, Beis Din doesn't even have the ability to listen to them since they are disqualified from offering testimony.

Read more!