Sukkah, Daf Mem Aleph, Part 3
Introduction
This section deals with the second of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai’s "takkanot," enactments. I explained this in yesterday’s section, but for convenience I am bringing it again here.
On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest. After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14). Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest. When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began. In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest. Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem. If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered. Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day.
ושיהא יום הנף. מאי טעמא? מהרה יבנה בית המקדש, ויאמרו: אשתקד מי לא אכלנו בהאיר מזרח – השתא נמי ניכול. ואינהו לא ידעי דאשתקד דלא הוה בית המקדש – האיר מזרח התיר, השתא דאיכא בית המקדש – עומר מתיר.
And that the whole day of waving should be prohibited. What is the reason?
The Temple may be rebuilt speedily, and people would say, "Did we not eat [new grain] last year from the time that light appeared in the east? Let us now also eat it [from the same time]" and they would not know that in the previous year, when there was no Temple, once day dawned in the east it was permitted [to eat of the new grain], but now that the Temple is rebuilt, it is only the [waving of the] omer which [begins] the permission to eat new grain.
This takkanah of R. Yohanan was not intended to help people remember the Temple. Rather, it was meant to prevent halakhic mistakes from occurring should the Temple be rebuilt. The explanation here is as I explained in the intro and in yesterday’s section.
דאיבני אימת? אילימא דאיבני בשיתסר – הרי התיר האיר מזרח, אלא דאיבני בחמיסר – מחצות היום ולהלן תשתרי, דהא תנן: הרחוקים מותרין מחצות היום ולהלן, לפי שאין בית דין מתעצלים בו! –
But when [does this assume the Temple to be] rebuilt? If you will say that it is rebuilt on the sixteenth [of Nissan], then obviously it is permitted to eat from the time that day dawned in the East?
If, however, it is rebuilt on the fifteenth why should it not be permitted after midday, for we have learned, Those that lived at a distance were permitted [to eat of the new grain] from midday onwards, because [they knew that] the court would not be negligent in the matter?
The question the Talmud asks is when might the Temple have been rebuilt such that people would mistakenly eat the new grain as soon as dawn broke. If it wasn’t rebuilt until the sixteenth of Nisan (or any time after), then when that day began it was permitted to eat from dawn in any case. Thus there would be no need to declare the entire day permitted.
And if it was rebuilt on the fifteenth, then only half of the day should be forbidden, because even when the Temple stood only half the day was ever forbidden. Those living far away from the Temple could always assume that the court would offer the first Omer sacrifice no later than the middle of the day. So at most R. Yohanan ben Zakkai should have said that the first half of the day was prohibited.
לא צריכא, דאיבני בליליא. אי נמי, סמוך לשקיעת החמה.
This was necessary [only in case] it is rebuilt at night, or [on the fifteenth] close to sunset.
The takkanah was necessary lest the Temple be rebuilt at night. Since it would take them some time to offer the first Omer they might not have time to do so before noon the following day. So if this strange situation should occur, where the Temple was finished being built at night (on Pesah) between the fifteenth and the sixteenth, people might eat before the Omer was brought. Therefore, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai declared that the whole day should be prohibited.
Alternatively, it was rebuilt close to sunset before the fifteenth. This is in essence the same situation as above.
(אמר) רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר: רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בשיטת רבי יהודה אמרה, דאמר: מן התורה הוא אסור, דכתיב +ויקרא כג+ עד עצם היום הזה – עד עיצומו של יום וקסבר: עד – ועד בכלל.
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: R. Yohanan b. Zakkai instituted this in accordance with a principle of R. Judah who holds that from the Torah the whole day is forbidden, since it is written, "Until this very day" (Leviticus 23:14) [which means] until the very day itself, and he is of the opinion that the expression until is meant to include.
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak says that according to R. Yohanan b. Zakai, when the Temple is not standing and the omer sacrifice cannot be offered, it is prohibited to eat the new grain on the whole day of the sixteenth, for the Torah says "until this very day." R. Yohanan b. Zakkai reads this as including the entire day. Therefore, in the absence of the Temple it is prohibited from the Torah to eat on the entire sixteenth of Nisan.
ומי סבר ליה כוותיה? והא מפליג פליג עליה, (דתניא) +מסורת הש"ס: [דתנן]+: משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהא יום הנף כולו אסור.
אמר לו רבי יהודה: והלא מן התורה הוא אסור, דכתיב עד עצם היום הזה – עד עיצומו של יום!
But does he hold like him? Does he not in fact disagree with him, as we have learnt, When the Temple was destroyed, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai enacted that on the whole of the Day of the Waving it should be forbidden [to eat of the new grain]. R. Judah said to him, But is it not forbidden from the Torah, since it is written, Until the very day [which means] until the very day itself?
The problem with the above explanation is that R. Yohanan b. Zakai and R. Judah explicitly disagree in a baraita. R. Judah responds to R. Yohanan b. Zakkai’s takkanah (that found in the mishnah) by saying that such an enactment wasn’t even necessary the Torah itself prohibits eating new grain until the sixteenth of Nisan is over. So how could R. Nahman say that they agree?
רבי יהודה הוא דקא טעי. הוא סבר: מדרבנן קאמר, ולא היא – מדאורייתא קאמר. – והא התקין קאמר! – מאי התקין – דרש והתקין.
It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah
But does it not say, "He instituted"?
What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly.
The difficulty is resolved by claiming that R. Judah didn’t understand R. Yohanan b. Zakkai’s intent. Rabbi Judah thought he meant that the prohibition of eating grain for the whole day was a rabbinic decree lest the Temple be rebuilt. But in reality R. Yohanan meant that it was prohibited from the Torah to eat for the entire day when the Temple no longer stood. Although the baraita says "he instituted" it really means that he first expounded (darash) the Torah where he found a verse that he read as saying said that it was forbidden to eat new grain for the whole day. Then he instituted the law based on this interpretation of the verse.
We should note that this is not the simple meaning of the tannaitic sources the mishnah and the baraita. In both sources R. Yohanan b. Zakai legislates a rabbinic law, not one from the Torah.