More Discussions for this daf
1. Two days of Rosh Hashanah 2. Rosh Hashanah - 1 Day or 2 3. The Bais ha'Mikdash will...
4. Rosh Hashanah 5. Insights: Annuling an enactment of Beis Din 6. Akravas and Eilat
7. Mistake in Outlines 8. bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel 9. Niskalkelu ha'Leviyim b'Shir
10. Ha Lan Ha Lehu 11. When did the witnesses see the new moon 12. "Meherah Yibaneh"
13. Pushing off Rosh Chodesh 14. Two days of Rosh Hashanah, two Dinim 15. Egg laid on two days of ...
16. Saying the wrong Shir Shel Yom 17. Expiration of a Takanah 18. Covering an Egg
19. מהרה יבנה בית המקדש

Moishe Schwerd asked:

What does the Zohar (Bamidbar 231) mean that there are two different types of Dinim on the two days of Rosh Hashanah, harsh on the first and light on the second? Who explains it?


The Kollel replies:

I looked a bit for the source that discussed the two types of Dinim that I mentioned to you earlier, and found a reference to it in the Shem mi'Shemuel (Moadim, p. 27). He brings the Arizal, who interprets the Zohar to mean that on the first day one is judged for his spiritual lot, while on the second he is a judged for his physical lot. The Shem mi'Shemuel adds some of his own insights to that. (If you would like me to fax or email it to you I can.)

BTW, I always wondered how there can be a Din of the "second day" if the second day is just held out of a Safek (v'Chi Ika Safek Kamei Shemaya?), which doesn't even apply in the Mikdash. The Zohar must somehow be related to the idea of Yoma Arichta; i.e. even in the Mikdash there were two days. But on the other hand, the simple reading of the Gemara (in BEitzah 5 etc) is that the second day is the real day of Rosh Hashanah when there are two days in the Mikdash, so how can there be a Din on the first day? The Midrash makes it clear that Hash-m decides to begin the justice on the day that the Beis Din sits and declares the new moon . So how can there be a strict justice on the first of the two days?

Upon reflection I decided that the Zohar supports the view of Rashi (bottom of Beitzah 5b) who seems to learn that aside from the Takanah not to accept witnesses after Minchah time on Rosh Hashanah, there was another Takanah to keep a second day even if the first day was Rosh Hashanah . This is why Beitzah she'Noldah b'Rishon is Asur according to Rashi (see Tosfos; what I said answers his question). The Zohar might be supporting that view, and that is how there can be a second day of justice. (Even though the second day is d'Rabanan, the Rabanan only added it becuase they knew that in Shamayim it was a day on which some part of the justice was being meted in any case...)

Best wishes for a Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah and a Gut Gebenched Yahr,


Moishe Schwerd replied:

Thanks. I saw the Shem Meshmuel but in Netzavim. I am not sure that I fully grasp how the 2 dinim differ in reality. I will look at the cites in Moadim.

I believe that the Medrash is difficult on this whole pshat. If you see the Mectav MEliyaho (vol 2 pages 72-74) he (or maybe it was the Bnai Yissascher (tishrai 2:2)is clear that the 2 days of din occurred when the edim came late. I believe that is what you meant by tying it into yoma arichta. Other sources seem to imply it also applied when they came on the second day. See Moadim UZmanim (chelek 6 seeman 9) who explains how according to Rashi holds that even if the edim come on the 2nd day, Yom Kippur is calculated off of the first day (based on the Rambam). Seemingly, there is significance to day one even if the edim only come on day 2. I admit the medrash is still difficult. What do you think?


The Kollel replies:


(a) I think the place to look is in the Kisvei ha'Ari, which seems to be the source. Based on the citation, I understood that the two Dinim are (a) What a person's physical lot is (Mi Yichyeh etc.) and (b) What level of understanding of Hash-m's ways, and His Torah, the person will be able to attain. Best is if you can find the source in Arizal; if you can't then get back to me and I should be able to get help finding it.

(b) As far as the two days occuring when the Eidim were delayed, it would seem a bit hard to accept for two reasons: 1) The Eidim never came late (except for that one time...). 2) When they came late, the first day was less distinquished than the second, since the second was Rosh Chosesh, as you pointed out.

I guess you might answer that the two Dinim were for CHutz l'Aretz, where the first day is the more important, and there are always two days. But there remains another problem: The entire Takanah of Sheneihem Kodesh was only instituted during the second temple period, and towards the end of that period. So even in Chutz l'Aretz (or the rest of Israel) the second day was only held as a Safek.

I guess the most logical explanation is that indeed the Zohar is referring to the second day of Safek Rosh Hashanah, which was held everywhere except for the Mikdash, and the Zohar is contending that Hash-m knew that Klal Yisrael would have no choice but to hold a second day of Safek, and He made the holiday that way because there remained some "light justice" on that day, so He wanted people to obeserve Rosh Hashanah then. But in the Mikdash, perhaps there is no extra day of light justice (since the Mikdash is a place of Din, strict justice, and awe, Nora E' miMikdashecha).

(c) As for the Rashi in Menachos, I saw the Moadim u'Zemanim. The opinion that the first day is Kadosh is that of the Ra'avad, cited by the Rashba in Eruvin 39b. However, I did not think that opinion would solve the matter, since it seems clear from the Gemara there that the Ra'avad is only proposing that according to Rebbi Yehudah, who argues with Rebbi Yosi (and says shtei kedushos hen). That, however, is not the Halachic opinion. As for Rashi in Menachos, the simple understanding would be that he is following his opinion in Beitzah, that I mentioned in my letter below. He maintains that there was an early Takanah not to do Melachah on the second day even if Edim came early on the first day (and certainly if they came late), despite the fact that only the first day was Rosh Hashanah.

My suggestion was the the Zohar supports the opinion of Rashi, which is not the same as that of the Ra'avad. What I wrote below was my (original?) understanding of the Rashi, according to which the Zohar's theme would be more easy to understand.

Be well, Mordecai