תלמוד על ראש השנה 1:1
Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim
There12Mishnah 7: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine this year,’ he is forbidden the year and [an eventual] intercalary month. ‘Until the beginning of Adar,’ until the beginning of the First Adar. ‘Until the end of Adar,’ until the end of the First Adar.” The main argument is about the first part of the Mishnah., we have stated: “Until the beginning of Adar, until the beginning of the First Adar. Until the end of Adar, until the end of the First Adar13Even in an intercalary year, when the Second Adar is added as the 13th month, “Adar” without a qualifier means only the month of First Adar which is part of every year. [Halakhah 7 and the Babli (63a/b), supported by the Tosephta (4:7), qualify this statement to apply only if the person making the vow did not know that the year would have a second Adar. If he knew, the vow would extend to Second Adar.].” Does this imply that Nisan is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned14Cf. Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:1. Nisan is biblically counted as the first month and Tishre as the seventh, but in Second Temple practice the year always started in the fall with the first day of Tishre. One does not discuss here the problem of the several calendars of the monarchical period.
Since the Mishnah states that “he is forbidden during the year and its intercalary month”, it seems that the year must be counted from Nisan since, if it were counted from Tishre, the intercalary month would be in the middle of the year and it should be obvious that the person imposes a continuous prohibition on himself.? Tishre is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned. That you should not say, the beginning of Adar should compensate for Ellul and he would be permitted in Ellul15If a person said, I shall not drink wine for a year, it would imply a prohibition for 12 months. But since he said, this year, the prohibition lasts either 12 or 13 months, as the case may be. The statement of the intercalary month is made to underline the difference between “a year” of twelve months and “this year” of possibly 13 months. If somebody says on New Year’s Day of an intercalary year that he will not drink wine for a year, he will in effect be permitted to drink wine on the first of the coming Ellul. But for this year, he has to observe the additional intercalary month without compensation.; therefore, it was necessary to say that “he is forbidden it and its intercalary [month]”.
Since the Mishnah states that “he is forbidden during the year and its intercalary month”, it seems that the year must be counted from Nisan since, if it were counted from Tishre, the intercalary month would be in the middle of the year and it should be obvious that the person imposes a continuous prohibition on himself.? Tishre is the beginning of the year as far as vows are concerned. That you should not say, the beginning of Adar should compensate for Ellul and he would be permitted in Ellul15If a person said, I shall not drink wine for a year, it would imply a prohibition for 12 months. But since he said, this year, the prohibition lasts either 12 or 13 months, as the case may be. The statement of the intercalary month is made to underline the difference between “a year” of twelve months and “this year” of possibly 13 months. If somebody says on New Year’s Day of an intercalary year that he will not drink wine for a year, he will in effect be permitted to drink wine on the first of the coming Ellul. But for this year, he has to observe the additional intercalary month without compensation.; therefore, it was necessary to say that “he is forbidden it and its intercalary [month]”.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Moed Katan
Rebbi Joshua ben Levi sent for a man three times38aSummons to appear in rabbinic court. but he did not come. He sent, saying to him, if I had not ever excommunicated a person, I would have excommunicated this man since for 24 reasons one excommunicates and this is one of them: The entire property of anybody who will not come within three days following the council of ministers and Elders shall be confiscated and he shall be separated from the community of the Diaspora39Ezra 10:8.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, there are many more of these dispersed in the Mishnah40The rules, together with most of procedural law, never were completely fixed. Babli Berakhot19a.. There, we have stated41Mishnah Ta`aniot 3:8.: “Simeon ben Shataḥ sent to him and told him, you should be excommunicated.” 42Copied from Ta`aniot 3:8, Notes 106–108. For if there had been a decision made as it was decided in the days of Elijah, [would you not have caused a desecration of the Name in public? And everybody who causes a public desecration of the Name must be excommunicated. There, we have stated43Added from Ta`aniot by the Venice editor.: Rabban Gamliel sent to him, if you hinder the public you will create a future stumbling block for the public;]44Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:6. would not prevent the public from performing a meritorious act? And any who would hinder the public from performing a meritorious act must be excommunicated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin
Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rebbi Eliezer, as we have stated there59Mishnah Idiut 2:7, formulated as testimony in R. Aqiba’s court in the name of R. Eliezer.: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rebbi Eliezer’s60If this represents a minority opinion, it should have been labelled as such.? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. 61There is a sentence missing here. found in Roš Haššanah: What is meant by “it is everybody’s opinion? That is what R. Yose meant to say:”. It makes clear that one refers to the statement of the Amora R. Yose. The entire discussion does not refer to the Mishnah in Sanhedrin but the one in Roš Haššanah. The text in Roš Haššanah has to be considered as the original. So said Rebbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he62The witnesses mentioned in the Mishnah Roš Haššanah. come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated63Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:10.: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they64The people disqualified in Mishnah Sanhedrin 3:6. are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis65In the anonymous Mishnah.! Do the rabbis follow Rebbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rebbi Huna66In Roš Haššanah: R. Jonah. In Ševuot: R. Huna. in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rebbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement67R. Eliezer and the rabbis, R. Meïr and R. Yose (the Tanna). parallels another disagreement, as it was stated68Tosephta Makkot 1:11, in the name of R. Jehudah (student of R. Eliezer’s student.): A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rebbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rebbi Meïr Rebbi Eliezer.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy