Talmud - Eruvin 40a עירובין מ׳ א׳

rather, it had already been caught beforehand, but it came to the Exilarch’s house on the Festival from outside the Shabbat limit and was slaughtered on that day. The one who ate from it, namely, Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda, holds: Something that comes from outside the Shabbat limit for one Jew is permitted to another Jew. Since the deer was brought for the Exilarch, the Sages at his table were permitted to eat from it, and we do not prohibit them to derive benefit from something that a gentile did for another Jew.

And the one who did not eat from it, Rav Sheshet, holds: Anything that comes to the house of the Exilarch comes with all the Sages in mind, as it is known that the Exilarch invites them to dine with him on Festivals. Therefore, just as it was prohibited to the Exilarch himself, as it was brought from outside the Shabbat limit, so too, it was prohibited to all his guests.

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Sheshet meet Rabba bar Shmuel and say to him what he said, indicating that the issue is related to the question of whether the two days are considered distinct sanctities? The Gemara answers: According to Ameimar’s version of the story, that encounter never happened.

The Gemara relates that a delivery of turnip was once brought to the town of Meḥoza by gentile merchants from outside the Shabbat limit on a Festival in the Diaspora. Rava went out to the market and saw that the turnips were withered, and therefore he permitted people to buy them immediately without having to wait the amount of time needed to bring similar items from outside the limit after the Festival. He said: These turnips were certainly uprooted from the ground yesterday, and no prohibited labor was performed with them today.

What might you say; that they came from outside the Shabbat limit and should therefore be prohibited? The accepted principle is: Something that comes for one Jew is permitted to be eaten by another Jew, and all the more so with regard to this delivery of turnip, which came with gentiles in mind, i.e., for their sake rather than for the sake of Jews. Therefore, if they are purchased by Jews, no prohibition is violated.

The Gemara adds: Once Rava saw that the gentile merchants started to bring increased quantities of turnips on Festival days for the sake of their Jewish customers, he prohibited the inhabitants of Meḥoza to buy them, for it was evident that they were now being brought for Jews.

The Gemara relates that certain canopy makers, who would braid myrtle branches into their canopies, once cut myrtles on the second day of a Festival, and in the evening Ravina permitted people to smell them immediately at the conclusion of the Festival. Rava bar Taḥalifa said to Ravina: The Master should prohibit them to do this, as they are not knowledgeable in Torah, and therefore we should be stringent with them lest they come to treat the sanctity of the second Festival day lightly.

Rav Shemaya strongly objects to this: The reason given here is that they are not knowledgeable in Torah; but if they were knowledgeable in Torah, would it be permitted? Don’t we require them to wait the time needed for the myrtle’s preparation, i.e., the time it takes to cut them? They went and asked Rava. He said to them: We require them to wait the time needed for the myrtle’s preparation.

The mishna cited Rabbi Dosa’s version of the Rosh HaShana prayer: Rabbi Dosa says: He who passes before the ark and leads the congregation in prayer on the first day of the festival of Rosh HaShana says: Strengthen us, O Lord our God, on this day of the New Moon, whether it is today or tomorrow.

Rabba said: When we were in the house of study of Rav Huna, we raised the following dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is proper to mention the New Moon during prayer on Rosh HaShana? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since they have separate additional offerings, as one additional offering is brought for the New Moon and another for Rosh HaShana, we mention them separately in prayer as well? Or perhaps one remembrance counts for both this and that? The Torah is referring to both Rosh HaShana and the New Moon as times of remembrance, and therefore perhaps simply mentioning that it is a Day of Remembrance should suffice.

Rav Huna said to us: You have already learned the answer to this question in the mishna, which states that Rabbi Dosa says: He who passes before the ark and leads the congregation in prayer on the first day and on the second day of Rosh HaShana mentions the New Moon in a conditional manner: On this day of the New Moon, whether it is today or tomorrow. But the Rabbis did not agree with him. What, is it not that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Dosa about the need to mention the New Moon during prayer on Rosh HaShana?

The Gemara refutes this proof: No, they disagree about whether to make a condition. The novelty in Rabbi Dosa’s teaching was not that mention must be made of the New Moon, but that a condition must be made due to the day’s uncertain status. The Rabbis disagree about that.

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that the dispute between Rabbi Dosa and the Rabbis relates to the condition and not to the very mention of the New Moon. This can be ascertained from the fact that it was taught in a baraita: And so too, Rabbi Dosa would do this on all the New Moons for which two days are kept out of doubt the entire year; and the Rabbis did not agree with him.

Granted, if you say that the disagreement was about whether to make a condition, that is why they did not agree with him with regard to the New Moon throughout the year, as they did not accept the whole idea of a conditional prayer. But if you say the main point of contention was whether to mention the New Moon at all, why didn’t they agree with him that the New Moon should be mentioned during prayer the rest of the year?

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the disagreement about, whether or not to make a condition? Why do I need them to disagree in two cases? The issue is the same on Rosh HaShana as on any other New Moon. The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach both cases, as, if he had only taught us the halakha with regard to Rosh HaShana, I might have said that only in this case did the Rabbis say that one should not mention the New Moon in a conditional manner because people might come to demean the day and perform prohibited labor. But in the case of an ordinary New Moon throughout the year, I might say that perhaps they agree with Rabbi Dosa, since labor is not prohibited on the New Moon, and therefore there is no reason for concern lest people come to treat it lightly.

And if the disagreement had only been stated in this case, in the case of an ordinary New Moon, one might say that only in this case did Rabbi Dosa say that a condition may be made. But in that other case of Rosh HaShana, I might say that he agrees with the Rabbis, due to concern lest people will come to treat the Festival lightly. It was therefore necessary to state the disagreement in both cases.

The Gemara raises an objection based on the Tosefta that states that in the case of Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat, Beit Shammai say: One prays an Amida that contains ten blessings, including the nine blessings ordinarily recited on Rosh HaShana and an additional blessing in which Shabbat is mentioned. And Beit Hillel say: One prays an Amida that contains nine blessings, as Shabbat and the Festival are mentioned in the same blessing. And if there were an opinion that held that the New Moon must be separately mentioned in the Rosh HaShana prayer, then it should say that according to Beit Shammai, one must recite eleven blessings, i.e., nine for Rosh HaShana, one for Shabbat, and one for the New Moon.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 40a explores whether food brought from outside the Shabbat boundary for one person may be eaten by others, illustrated by the deer and turnip cases.