ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafBeitzah 5
(a) Since Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted after the Churban Beis
Hamikdash, that they would accept the witnesses all day, says Rabah, the
Takanah of two days became Batel - in which case Rosh Hashanah became like
every other Yom-Tov, and an egg that is laid on the first day, is permitted
on the second.
(b) Abaye queried this from Rav and Shmuel - who lived after the Churban,
yet they ruled that it is forbidden.
(c) We reconcile Rav and Shmuel with Raban Yochanan ben Zakai - by
establishing the latter by the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, and the former to the
B'nei Chutz la'Aretz, whose Minhag to keep two days was never broken, and
who therefore continue to keep Yom-Tov as a Takanah (and not merely as a
(a) Rav Yosef disagrees with Rabah - according to him, even after Raban
Yochanan ben Zakai rescinded the Takanah of two days by Rosh Chodesh, the
Takanah of two days by an egg remains, because it was a 'Davar
she'be'Minyan' (something that was decided by a majority ruling), and a
Davar she'be'Minyan cannot be rescinded by a second Beis-Din unless they are
superior in knowledge and in number.
(b) Rav Yosef learns from the Pasuk in Yisro ...
1. ... "Lech Emor Lahem, Shuvu Lachem le'Oholeichem" (following "Heyu
Nechonim li'Sheloshes Yamim, Al Tigshu el Ishah") - that something that was
forbidden through a Beis-Din (in this case, it is Hashem who issued the
decree, and who then rescinded it) does not automatically become permitted,
even when the reasons for the decree become obsolete, but need to be
(c) The indication that the prohibition to ascend the mountain ought not to
apply anyway after the departure of the Shechinah (but which is
nevertheless not automatically dissolved) - lies in the words "Gam ha'Tzon
ve'ha'Bakar Al Yir'u el Mul *ha'Har Hahu*", which implies that it is only
forbidden to graze on the mountain as long as it is *that mountain* (i.e.
whilst the Shechinah is on it, but not once It has departed).
2. ... "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel, Heimah Ya'alu va'Har" (following "Gam ha'Tzon
ve'ha'Bakar Al Yir'u el Mul *ha'Har ha'Hu*" - the same Derashah as we
learned from "Lech Emor Lahem, Shuvu Lachem le'Oholeichem". The proof from
"Lech Emor Lahem ... " however, is inconclusive, since Hashem's command
there, might have been issued in the form of a command (to fulfill the
Mitzvah of Onah with their wives - whereas the Heter to return to them did
not perhaps, require a specific command).
(d) We learn that it is not the *place* of a person that honors *him*, but
the *person* who honors the *place* - from the same Pesukim of "el Mul
ha'Har ha'Hu" and "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel, Heimah Ya'alu ba'Har", from which we
see that Har Sinai was only holy as long as Hashem's Shechinah was on it,
but that the moment It departed, the Kedushah departed from the mountain,
(a) The Torah gives the owner of Kerem Reva'i the option of - either
bringing his fruit to Yerushalayim and eating it there be'Taharah, or of
redeeming it, and of taking the money to Yerushalayim and spending it there.
(b) We learn this Din from a Gezeirah-Shavah "Kodesh" "Kodesh" from Ma'aser
(c) Chazal instituted that - people who lived within a radius of one day's
journey from Yerushalayim were obligated to take the fruit itself to
Yerushalayim, and not to redeem it. The reason for this was in order to
adorn the markets of Yerushalayim with fruit.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer wanted to declare his vineyard Hefker for the poor -
because the vineyard in question was east of Lud (which was the western
extremity of one day's radius from Yerushalayim), and he could not take the
trouble to take all the grapes to Yerushalayim.
(b) His disciples told him that his colleagues (meaning Raban Yochanan ben
Zakai - his Rebbe) had already rescinded the decree to bring all the fruit
to Yerushalayim (and that it was therefore unnecessary to declare the
(c) We deduce from their words - that despite the fact that, after the
Churban of the Beis Hamikdash, the reason for the decree no longer applied,
it was nevertheless necessary to specifically rescind it (and that it was
not automatically dissolved).
(d) We need this *third* proof that 'Davar she'be'Minyan, Tzarich Minyan
Acher le'Hatiro' - to teach us that this principle extends even to
Rabbinical decrees, too.
(a) The egg remain Asur, according to Rav Yosef - because Raban Yochanan ben
Zakai only rescinded the Takanah of *Eidus* (when the witnesses arrived
after Minchah-time), but not that of the egg.
Rava disagrees with Rabah, who contended that we should permit the egg
nowadays from Raban Yochanan ben Zakai's second Takanah, because - even if
he did reinstate accepting the witnesses after Minchah, who said that if
they came after Minchah, the *first* day was Kodesh and not the *second*?
The truth of the matter is, that even after the Takanah - in order not to
break with the original Takanah completely, they would still treat the
second day as Yom-Tov (Lechumra - even though originally, when this
happened, it was the *second* day that was declared the *real* Yom-Tov, and
the *first* day that was Yom-Tov only *Lechumra*).
(b) Abaye objects to this, on the grounds that there was no specific decree
regarding an egg - only that of testimony, and the Din of egg follows that
of testimony. Consequently, once the decree of testimony has been rescinded,
the egg on Rosh Hashanah automatically adopts the same Din as on every other
Yom-Tov (like Rabah argues on Amud a).
(c) Rav Ada and Rav Salmon agree with Abaye, but rule like Rav Yosef,
(though not for the same reason as him) - because, they say, we are worried
that if we permit the egg *this year* when there is *no Beis Hamikdash*,
then perhaps by *next year*, the *Beis Hamikdash* will be built, and people
will think that just as last year, the egg was permitted on the second day,
so too, will it be permitted this year. They will not of course realize that
last year, since there was no Beis Hamikdash, the two days of Rosh Hashanah
had *two* Kedushos, whereas this year, now that the Beis Hamikdash has been
rebuilt, it only has *one* Kedushah.
(d) We are not by the same token, worried that if, at the time when there is
no Beis Hamikdash (and there is therefore no Shir in which to err), the
witnesses are permitted to testify all day, they may do the same after the
Beis Hamikdash has been rebuilt - because testimony (unlike the Din of egg,
which lies in the hands of each individual) is controlled by Beis-Din (who
are unlikely to err).