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

Baruch Dickman asked:

Why doesn't the Gemara point out that this is a Taanic argument (with reference to Rosh Hashanah) found in the Mishnah and Gemara on Eruvin 39a and resolved for the two festival days based on the Baraissa found on the bottom of 39b?

Baruch Dickman, New York, USA

The Kollel replies:

The RASHBA and RITVA in Eruvin (39) ask your question. They explain that the Mishnah in Eruvin is recording the practice when the Beis ha'Mikdash stood, before the Takanah of Raban Yochanan ben Zakai that we accept the Edim all day (as Tosfos here explains). The question of the Gemara in Beitzah is whether the Beitzah is Asur today , after the Takanah of Raban Yochanan ben Zakai.

Be well,

M. Kornfeld

Baruch Dickman asks further:

Thank you for your response. I believe you meant the Mishnah in Eruvin.

However, I have a number of problems with your answer.

1) I find it very difficult to believe that R' Yose and R' Yehudah are arguing about Mikdash times without telling the Halacha during their days when the issue also existed (unless they never had two days of Rosh Hashanah).

2) The starting point of the Gemara in Beitzah should have been the Taanic argument in Eruvin. At the very least, the Gemara should have pointed out the Taanic argument and asked whether it also applied after the Mikdash.

3) The Gemara on the bottom of Eruvin 39b brings a Baraissa that says that R' Yose agrees with R' Yehudah with regard to the two days of Yom Tov (not R"H) in Galus. However, this is the Gemara's very question on Beitzah 4B. The Takanah of R' Yochanan ben Zakai is irrelevant in this case.

Have a happy and healthy New Year.

Dr. Baruch Dickman

The Kollel replies:

Thank you for the correction, yes, I meant the Mishnah in Eruvin.

1) Tosfos (Beitzah 5a) is also bothered by this question. He explains that the Mishnah discussed the Halachah in the Mikdash only because it had ramifications in their own days as well. The question is whether the ramifications were that Beitzah she'Noldah ba'Zeh Asurah ba'Zeh only in Chutz la'Aretz, as Rabah argues, or even in Eretz Yisrael, as Rava contends, 5b. (According to Rava the law never changed, so Rebbi Yosi was discussing both the times of the Mikdash and afterwards as well.)

2) The Tanaic argument is not pertinent. Since we rule like Rebbi Yosi (the Mishnah calls him "Chachamim", and besides, "Nimuko Imo"), he is the only Halachic opinion. Rav and Shmuel cite instead the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, in order to show the logic behind Rebbi Yosi's opinion (which affects whether or not it applies today, according to Rabah).

3) The Gemara in 39b brings two seemingly conflicting Beraisos regarding the opinion of Rebbi Yosi on Yomim Tovim Shel Galuyos. One seems to say it is Asur, the other says it is Mutar. We prefer the latter partially on logical grounds (since it is too illogical a Chumra for a respectable Posek like Rebbi Yosi to prohibit Beitzah on the two Yomim Tovim shel Galuyos, see Rashi there EDH Amar Rav Asi). Bringing the Beraisos would just confuse the Halachic issue.

A question does remain, though. Rav Asi himself sides that Beitzah is Asurah mi'Safek on two days of Galuyos in Beitzah 4b, yet he himself unequivocally defends the lenient opinion in Eruvin 39b. However, the Rishonim in Eruvin there (see RABEINU CHANANEL, RASHBA) are Gores "Rav Ashi" (and not Rav Asi), which resolves this question.

Best wishes for a Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah,

M. Kornfeld

Baruch Dickman wrote back:

While I find your comments interesting, you still have not answered the basic question: if R' Yose is the key to the Gemara's questions in Beitzah, how come he is never mentioned in Beitzah? The whole answer to the Gemara's questions revolve around for what era was R' Yose was saying his laws and did they include Yom Tov.

I have no answer. What amazes me is that it seems that no one has asked what I consider a simple and obvious question.

Dr. Baruch Dickman, New York, USA

The Kollel replies:

Although the commentaries in Beitzah do not address your question (of why the Gemara does not bring in Rebbi Yosi when it discusses the two days of Rosh Hashanah), at least the RASHBA and RITVA in Eruvin (39) address it.

And although even they do not touch on your second question (why the Gemara does not cite the Beraisas that discuss Rebbi Yosi's opinion when it discusses the two days of other Yomim Tovim), I found that the commentary of the BEN HA'RAMBAN on Beitzah does ask the question. (They answer both questions in the manner mentioned in the previous message.) So I hope that offers some solace.

Best wishes for a Gemar Chasimah Tovah,

Mordecai Kornfeld