The Priestly Watches / Anshei Mishmar (Reservists)
And the Patrilineal Family / Beit Av (Full Time Preists)
...and Wine!
And the Patrilineal Family / Beit Av (Full Time Preists)
...and Wine!
שָׁלֹשׁ תַּעֲנִיּוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר מִתְעַנִּין וְלֹא מַשְׁלִימִין כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר מוּתָּרִין לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן בַּלֵּילוֹת אֲבָל לֹא בַּיָּמִים — שֶׁמָּא תִּכְבַּד הָעֲבוֹדָה עַל אַנְשֵׁי בֵּית אָב, וְיָבוֹאוּ וִיסַיְּיעוּ לָהֶם.
§ The mishna teaches that on the first three fasts, the members of the priestly watch fast but do not complete their fasts until nightfall. The mishna then proceeds to cite other halakhot that deal with the members of the priestly watch and the patrilineal family.
The Sages taught: For what reason did they say that the members of the priestly watch are permitted to drink wine at nights but not during the days? They said this lest on a certain day the Temple service becomes burdensome for the members of the patrilineal family, and the members of the priestly watch are called to come and assist them. Therefore, it is prohibited for them to drink wine during the day, when their help might be needed, so that they do not enter the Temple after drinking wine.
מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי בֵּית אָב לֹא בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא בַּלַּיְלָה — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן עֲסוּקִין תָּמִיד בָּעֲבוֹדָה.
The baraita continues to explain the reason for the mishna’s ruling. For what reason did they say that the members of the patrilineal family may not drink wine, neither by day nor by night? Because they are constantly engaged in the Temple service.
מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁמַּכִּיר מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וּמִשְׁמֶרֶת בֵּית אָב שֶׁלּוֹ, וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבָּתֵּי אֲבוֹתָיו קְבוּעִין שָׁם — אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן כׇּל אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם. בְּמַכִּיר מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וְאֵין מַכִּיר מִשְׁמֶרֶת בֵּית אָב שֶׁלּוֹ, וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבָּתֵּי אֲבוֹתָיו קְבוּעִין שָׁם — אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן כׇּל אוֹתָהּ שַׁבָּת.
From here the Sages stated: Even nowadays, after the destruction of the Temple, with regard to any priest who knows his priestly watch, in which his family served, and the watch of his patrilineal family, and he knows that the family of his forefathers was established as fit for the Temple service there, it is prohibited for him to drink wine that entire day, in the event that the Temple is rebuilt on that day and he will be called to return to the service. In the case of a priest who knows his priestly watch, i.e., the week of the year in which his family served, and does not know the watch of his patrilineal family, the day of the week that his family served, but he knows that the family of his forefathers was established there, it is prohibited for him to drink wine that entire week.
אֵינוֹ מַכִּיר מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ וּמִשְׁמֶרֶת בֵּית אָב שֶׁלּוֹ, וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבָּתֵּי אֲבוֹתָיו קְבוּעִין שָׁם — אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה.
Finally, if he does not know his priestly watch or the watch of his patrilineal family, but he knows that the family of his forefathers was established there, he is prohibited to drink wine that entire year. When the Temple will be rebuilt, his priestly watch might be called upon to serve, and he is unaware of the appointed time for his Temple service.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן לְעוֹלָם, אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁתַּקָּנָתוֹ קַלְקָלָתוֹ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן שָׁתוּ הָאִידָּנָא כָּהֲנֵי חַמְרָא — כְּרַבִּי.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that in accordance with this reasoning it is prohibited for any priest to drink wine at any time, even if he knows his priestly watch, as the order of the watches might change when the Temple is rebuilt, or perhaps all the watches will participate in the rededication of Temple. However, what can I do, as his misfortune is his advantage? The unfortunate fact that so many years have passed since the destruction of the Temple means that this decree prohibiting the priests from drinking cannot be sustained. Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
The Issue of Cutting One's Hair and Priestly Service
אַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר וְאַנְשֵׁי מַעֲמָד אֲסוּרִים לְסַפֵּר וּלְכַבֵּס, וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מוּתָּרִין מִפְּנֵי כְּבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנְסוּ לְמִשְׁמַרְתָּם כְּשֶׁהֵן מְנֻוּוֹלִין.
§ The mishna teaches: It is prohibited for both the members of the priestly watch and the members of the non-priestly watch to cut their hair or launder their garments throughout the week, but on Thursday they are permitted to cut their hair and launder their clothes in deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for these prohibitions? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: These prohibitions were enacted in order to ensure that the priests will cut their hair and launder their clothes during the week before their service, so that they will not enter their priestly watch when they are unkempt.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלֶךְ מִסְתַּפֵּר בְּכׇל יוֹם, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל — מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט — אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. מֶלֶךְ מִסְתַּפֵּר בְּכׇל יוֹם — מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״מֶלֶךְ בְּיׇפְיוֹ תֶּחֱזֶינָה עֵינֶיךָ״. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: הוֹאִיל וּמִשְׁמָרוֹת מִתְחַדְּשׁוֹת.
The Sages taught: A king cuts his hair every day, a High Priest cuts his hair every Friday, and a common priest once every thirty days.
The Gemara clarifies: A king cuts his hair every day. What is the reason for this? Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said that the verse states: “Your eyes shall see the king in his beauty” (Isaiah 33:17), which indicates that a king must always look his best. A High Priest cuts his hair every Friday. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: Since the watches are renewed and changed every Friday, it is fitting for every watch to see the High Priest with his hair perfectly groomed.
(יז) מֶ֥לֶךְ בְּיׇפְי֖וֹ תֶּחֱזֶ֣ינָה עֵינֶ֑יךָ תִּרְאֶ֖ינָה אֶ֥רֶץ מַרְחַקִּֽים׃
(17) When your eyes behold a king in his beauty, when they contemplate the land round about...
כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם — מְנָלַן? אָתְיָא ״פֶּרַע״ ״פֶּרַע״ מִנָּזִיר, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ״, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשִׁים — אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשִׁים.
§ A common priest cuts his hair once every thirty days. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this number? It is derived by a verbal analogy from the word pera with regard to priests and pera in connection with a nazirite. It is written here, concerning priests: “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks [pera] to grow long” (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written there, with regard to a nazirite: “He shall be sacred, he shall let the locks [pera] of the hair of his head grow long” (Numbers 6:5). Just as there, a nazirite who does not specify any other time period cuts his hair after thirty days, so too here, a priest cuts his hair every thirty days.
וְנָזִיר גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: סְתַם נְזִירוּת שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״יִהְיֶה״ — בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תְּלָתִין הָוֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְדִלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: לָא לִירַבּוֹ כְּלָל! אָמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הֲוָה כְּתִב ״לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ פֶּרַע״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ״ — פֶּרַע לֶיהֱוֵי, שַׁלּוֹחֵי הוּא דְּלָא לִישַׁלְּחוּ.
The Gemara asks: And a nazirite himself, from where do we derive that he may not cut his hair for thirty days? Rav Mattana said: It is a principle that an unspecified naziriteship lasts thirty days. The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive this principle? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “He shall be [yihye] sacred” (Numbers 6:5), and the numerical value [gematriya] of yihye is thirty. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: They should not grow their hair at all, as they must cut it every day. Abaye said to him: If it were written: They shall not grow long their locks, I might have explained as you originally said. Now that it is written: “Nor suffer their locks to grow long,” this indicates that they may have locks, but they may not let them grow long.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הָאִידָּנָא נָמֵי! דֻּומְיָא דִּשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן. מָה שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן — בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה הוּא דְּאָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה — שְׁרֵי, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי.
The Gemara asks: If it is so that cutting one’s hair is a necessary preparation for the Temple service by Torah law, then even nowadays priests should cut their hair every thirty days as well, in case the Temple is rebuilt and they must resume their service. The Gemara answers: This issue is similar to the prohibition concerning those who have drunk wine. Just as with regard to those who have drunk wine, it is when one enters the Temple that it is prohibited, whereas when one does not enter the Temple it is permitted to drink wine, here the same also applies.
וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי כֹּהֲנִים אֲסוּרִים לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן לְעוֹלָם, אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁתַּקָּנָתוֹ קַלְקָלָתוֹ. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן שָׁתוּ הָאִידָּנָא כָּהֲנֵי חַמְרָא —
The Gemara questions this conclusion: But isn’t it taught in the aforementioned baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that it is prohibited for all priests to drink wine at any time. However, what can I do, as his misfortune is his advantage? And Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays?
כְּרַבִּי, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן אָסְרִי! מַאי טַעְמָא: מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבָעֵינַן כֹּהֵן הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה וְלֵיכָּא, הָכָא אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְסַפַּר וְעָיֵיל.
It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. From the fact that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permits priests to drink wine, it may be inferred that the Rabbis prohibit it even nowadays. Why, then, isn’t it prohibited for priests to grow their hair as well? The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the prohibition? It is due to the hope: May the Temple be speedily rebuilt, and we will require a priest who is fit for the Temple service, and there will be none available, as they have all imbibed wine. The time that it will take for the effects of the wine to wear off will delay the Temple service considerably. Here, however, with regard to hair, it is possible for a priest to cut his hair and be ready to enter and perform the Temple service with minimal delay.
אִי הָכִי, שְׁתוּי יַיִן נָמֵי — אֶפְשָׁר דְּגָנֵי פּוּרְתָּא וְעָיֵיל, כִּדְרָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא. דְּאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: דֶּרֶךְ מִיל, וְשֵׁינָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — מְפִיגִין אֶת הַיַּיִן! לָאו מִי אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁשָּׁתָה שִׁיעוּר רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל שָׁתָה יוֹתֵר מֵרְבִיעִית — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ מַטְרִידָתוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to those who have drunk wine too, it is possible for him to sleep a little and then enter, in accordance with the opinion of Rami bar Abba, as Rami bar Abba said: Walking a distance of a mil, and similarly, sleeping even a minimal amount, will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. The Gemara rejects this proof: Wasn’t it stated about this halakha that Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They taught this only with regard to one who has drunk the measure of a quarter-log of wine, but with regard to one who has drunk more than a quarter-log, walking this distance will preoccupy and exhaust him all the more, and a small amount of sleep will further intoxicate him. For this reason, it is prohibited for priests to drink wine, lest no suitable priest will be ready for the Temple service.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ, דְּלָא מַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה — לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.
Rav Ashi said that there is a different way to distinguish between these two halakhot. In the case of those who have drunk wine, who desecrate the Temple service, the Sages issued a decree concerning them, that priests should not drink wine even nowadays. However, with regard to those who have long hair, who do not desecrate the Temple service, the Sages did not issue a decree concerning them.
מֵיתִיבִי, וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁהֵן בְּמִיתָה: שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, וּפְרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ. בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן — בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ״, אֶלָּא פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ מְנָלַן?
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: And these are the transgressors who are punished by death at the hand of Heaven: Priests who enter the Temple to serve who have drunk wine, and those priests who have long hair while they serve.
The Gemara asks: Granted, those who have drunk wine are punished by death, as it is explicitly written: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you should not die” (Leviticus 10:9). However, with regard to those priests who have long hair, from where do we derive that they are punishable by death?
דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְיַיִן לֹא יִשְׁתּוּ כׇּל כֹּהֵן בְּבוֹאָם אֶל הֶחָצֵר הַפְּנִימִית״, וְאִיתַּקּוּשׁ פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ לִשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן: מָה שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן בְּמִיתָה — אַף פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ בְּמִיתָה.
The Gemara answers that this is as it is written: “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks [pera] to grow long” (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written immediately afterward: “Neither shall any priest drink wine when they enter the inner courtyard” (Ezekiel 44:21). And in this manner the prohibition concerning those who have long hair is juxtaposed with the prohibition concerning those who have drunk wine, to teach the following: Just as those who have drunk wine and perform the Temple service are subject to death, so too, those who have long hair are punishable by death.
וּמִינַּהּ: אִי מָה שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה — אַף פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה! לָא: כִּי אִיתַּקּוּשׁ — לְמִיתָה הוּא דְּאִתַּקּוּשׁ, אֲבָל לְאַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה — לָא אִתַּקּוּשׁ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: And from this comparison one can also argue as follows: If so, just as those who have drunk wine desecrate the Temple service, so too, those who have long hair desecrate the service. The Gemara rejects this contention: No, when the two cases were juxtaposed, it was with regard to death that they were juxtaposed. However, as for desecrating the Temple service, in this regard they were not juxtaposed. Consequently, Rav Ashi’s distinction concerning the practical application of these two halakhot still applies.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הָא, מִקַּמֵּי דַּאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל, מַאן אַמְרַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, וּמִדִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה לָמַדְנוּ: ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי״ — הָא, מִקַּמֵּי דַּאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל, מַאן אַמְרַהּ?
On this issue, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Before Ezekiel came and stated this halakha, who said it? From where was it derived before Ezekiel that priests may not serve with long hair? This prohibition, which is not mentioned in the Torah, could not have been innovated by Ezekiel, as prophets may not enact new halakhot. Rav Ashi said to him: And according to your reasoning, there is a similar difficulty with that which Rabbi Ḥisda said: This matter, that an uncircumcised priest may not serve in the Temple, we did not learn it from the Torah of Moses, but we learned it from the text of the tradition, i.e., Prophets and Writings: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter my Temple” (Ezekiel 44:9). Before Ezekiel came, who said that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to serve?
אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִ[י] לַהּ, וַאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל וְאַסְמְכַהּ אַקְּרָא. הָכָא נָמֵי: גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִ[י] לַהּ, וַאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל וְאַסְמְכַהּ אַקְּרָא, כִּי גְּמִירִי הֲלָכָה — לְמִיתָה, לְאַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה — לָא גְּמִירִי.
Rather, you must say that it is learned as a definite tradition, like the rest of the Oral Torah, and Ezekiel came and supported it by means of a verse in his book. He did not, however, teach this halakha anew. Here too, with regard to a priest with long hair, it is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and supported it by a verse. And when they learned this halakha, they learned only that one is punishable by death; however, with regard to desecrating the Temple service, they did not learn this halakha.
The Issue of Giving as Hesped / Eulogy
כׇּל הַכָּתוּב בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית ״דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד״ — לְפָנָיו אָסוּר, לְאַחֲרָיו מוּתָּר. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אִלֵּין יוֹמַיָּא דְּלָא לְהִתְעַנָּאָה בְּהוֹן, וּמִקְצָתְהוֹן דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד בְּהוֹן: מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא דְנִיסָן וְעַד תְּמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ אִיתּוֹקַם תְּמִידָא, דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד בְּהוֹן. מִתְּמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ עַד סוֹף מוֹעֲדָא אִיתּוֹתַב חַגָּא דְשָׁבוּעַיָּא, דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד בְּהוֹן.
§ The mishna teaches: Any day concerning which it is written in Megillat Ta’anit not to eulogize on that day, it is also prohibited to eulogize on the day before, but it is permitted to do so on the following day.
The Sages taught in Megillat Ta’anit: These are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibited as well:
- From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month, the proper sacrifice of the daily offering was established, and therefore it was decreed not to eulogize on these dates.
- From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored and it was likewise decreed not to eulogize during this period.
אָמַר מָר: מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא דְנִיסָן עַד תְּמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ אִיתּוֹקַם תְּמִידָא, דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד. לְמָה לִי מֵרֵישׁ יַרְחָא? לֵימָא מִתְּרֵי בְּנִיסָן, וְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ גּוּפֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב הוּא וְאָסוּר! אָמַר רַב: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לֶאֱסוֹר יוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו.
The Gemara seeks to clarify these statements by comparing them to the ruling of the mishna. The Master said above: From the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth of the month, the daily offering was established, and therefore it was decreed not to eulogize on these dates.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need Megillat Ta’anit to say: From the New Moon? Let it say: From the second of Nisan, as the New Moon is itself a holiday, and it is already prohibited to eulogize on that day.
Rav said: It is necessary to mention the New Moon of Nisan only to prohibit eulogizing on the day before, in accordance with the statement in Megillat Ta’anit that fasting on the day before any of the specified commemorative days is also prohibited.
וְשֶׁלְּפָנָיו נָמֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם שֶׁלִּפְנֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ! רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא, וּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא בָּעֵי חִיזּוּק.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the day before the New Moon of Nisan as well, one can derive the prohibition against eulogizing on this day from the fact that it is the day before the New Moon. Since it is prohibited to fast on the New Moon, it is likewise prohibited on the day before. The Gemara answers that as the New Moon is by Torah law and a Torah law requires no reinforcement, it is permitted to fast on the previous day.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה הַכְּתוּבִין בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית — לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִין, שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים, הֵן — אֲסוּרִין, לִפְנֵיהֶן וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶן — מוּתָּרִין. וּמָה הֶפְרֵשׁ בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה? הַלָּלוּ — דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה אֵין צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק, הַלָּלוּ — דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, וְדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים צְרִיכִין חִיזּוּק.
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to these days that are written in Megillat Ta’anit, it is prohibited to fast before them and after them. However, concerning Shabbatot and Festivals, fasting on those days is prohibited, but before them and after them fasting is permitted. And what is the difference between this and that? These, Shabbat and Festivals, are statements of Torah, and statements of Torah do not require reinforcement, whereas these days mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit are statements of rabbinic law, and statements of rabbinic law require reinforcement.
אָמַר מָר: מִתְּמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ עַד סוֹף מוֹעֲדָא אִיתּוֹתַב חַגָּא דְשָׁבוּעַיָּא, דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד. לְמָה לִי עַד סוֹף מוֹעֵד, לֵימָא עַד הַמּוֹעֵד, וּמוֹעֵד גּוּפֵיהּ יוֹם טוֹב הוּא וְאָסוּר! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּדְאָמַר רַב — לֹא נִצְרְכָא
§ The Master said above: From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored and it was decreed not to eulogize.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need Megillat Ta’anit to say: Until the end of the Festival? Let it say: Until the Festival, as it is anyway prohibited to eulogize on the festival of Passover. Rav Pappa said that this, too, should be explained as Rav said: It is necessary to mention the first of Nisan
אֶלָּא לֶאֱסוֹר יוֹם שֶׁלְּפָנָיו, הָכָא נָמֵי — לָא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לֶאֱסוֹר יוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּאָמַר: בֵּין לְפָנָיו וּבֵין לְאַחֲרָיו אָסוּר. אִי הָכִי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה נָמֵי — מַאי אִירְיָא דְּהָוֵי יוֹמָא דְּמִקַּמֵּי יוֹמָא דְּמִיתּוֹקַם תְּמִידָא? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹמָא דְּבָתַר עֶשְׂרִין וּתְמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ!
only to prohibit eulogizing on the day before. Here too, it is necessary to mention Passover only to prohibit eulogizing on the following day.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling?
It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that eulogizing is prohibited both on the day before the date recorded in Megillat Ta’anit and on the following day.
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the twenty-ninth of Adar too, why state specifically that eulogizing is prohibited then because it is the day before the day on which the daily offering was established? Let him derive this prohibition from the fact that it is the day after the twenty-eighth of Adar.
The 28th of Adar / An old day of celebration
דְּתַנְיָא: בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּתְמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ, אֲתָת בְּשׂוֹרְתָּא טָבְתָּא לִיהוּדָאֵי דְּלָא יְעִידוֹן מִן אוֹרָיְיתָא. שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת גָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה שְׁמָד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יַעַסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא יָמוּלוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם, וְשֶׁיְּחַלְּלוּ שַׁבָּתוֹת. מָה עָשָׂה יְהוּדָה בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ וַחֲבֵרָיו? הָלְכוּ וְנָטְלוּ עֵצָה מִמַּטְרוֹנִיתָא אַחַת שֶׁכׇּל גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי מְצוּיִין אֶצְלָהּ.
As it is taught in Megillat Ta’anit: On the twenty-eighth of Adar good tidings came to the Jews, that they would not be restricted from Torah study, and they declared this date a commemorative day. The baraita proceeds to describe the events of this day. As on one occasion the wicked empire, Rome, issued a decree of apostasy against the Jews, that they may not occupy themselves with Torah study, and that they may not circumcise their sons, and that they must desecrate Shabbat. What did Yehuda ben Shammua and his colleagues do? They went and sought the advice of a certain Roman matron [matronita] whose company was kept by all the prominent people of Rome.
אָמְרָה לָהֶם: עִמְדוּ וְהַפְגִּינוּ בַּלַּיְלָה. הָלְכוּ וְהִפְגִּינוּ בַּלַּיְלָה, אָמְרוּ: אֵי שָׁמַיִם! לֹא אַחִים אֲנַחְנוּ, לֹא בְּנֵי אָב אֶחָד אֲנַחְנוּ, לֹא בְּנֵי אֵם אַחַת אֲנַחְנוּ? מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּינוּ מִכׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁאַתֶּם גּוֹזְרִין עָלֵינוּ גְּזֵירוֹת רָעוֹת! וּבִטְּלוּם, וְאוֹתוֹ יוֹם עֲשָׂאוּהוּ יוֹם טוֹב.
She said to them: Arise and cry out [hafginu] at night. They went and cried out at night, saying: O Heaven! Are we not brothers? Are we not children of one father? Are we not the children of one mother? How are we different from any other nation and tongue that you single us out and issue against us evil decrees? Their cries were effective, and the authorities annulled the decrees, and they made that day a commemorative holiday.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְחֹדֶשׁ מְעוּבָּר.
§ Since the twenty-eighth of Adar is also a commemorative day, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, it is also prohibited to fast on the following day. The question therefore remains: Why was it necessary to list the New Moon of Nisan, when the day before was already prohibited? Abaye said: It is necessary to include the New Moon of Nisan only for the case of a full, thirty-day month. If the month of Adar is thirty days long, fasting on the thirtieth day would be prohibited only because it is the day preceding the New Moon, not because it follows the twenty-eighth of Adar.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא לְחוֹדֶשׁ חָסֵר, כׇּל שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו — בְּתַעֲנִית אָסוּר, בְּהֶסְפֵּד מוּתָּר. וְזֶה, הוֹאִיל וּמוּטָל בֵּין שְׁנֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים — עֲשָׂאוּהוּ כְּיוֹם טוֹב עַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּהֶסְפֵּד נָמֵי אָסוּר.
Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that we are dealing with a deficient month, with twenty-nine days, the inclusion of the New Moon of Nisan can still be explained. The reason is that with regard to all days that follow the dates listed in Megillat Ta’anit, fasting is prohibited but eulogizing is permitted. But in this case, since the twenty-ninth of Adar is positioned between two commemorative holidays, the twenty-eighth of Adar and the New Moon of Nisan, the Sages made it like a commemorative holiday in its own right, and it is therefore prohibited even to eulogize on this date.
אָמַר מָר: מִתְּמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ וְעַד סוֹף מוֹעֲדָא אִיתּוֹתַב חַגָּא דְשָׁבוּעַיָּא, דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד. לְמָה לִי לְמֵימַר מִתְּמָנְיָא בֵּיהּ? לֵימָא מִתִּשְׁעָה בֵּיהּ, וּתְמָנְיָא גּוּפֵיהּ אָסוּר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹמָא דְּאִיתּוֹקַם בֵּיהּ תְּמִידָא!
§ The Master said above, in Megillat Ta’anit: From the eighth of Nisan until the end of the festival of Passover, the festival of Shavuot was restored, and it was decreed not to eulogize during this period. The Gemara asks: Why do I need it to say: From the eighth of Nisan? Let the tanna say: From the ninth of Nisan, and the eighth itself will still be prohibited because, as stated earlier, it is the day on which the daily offering was established.
כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִקְּלַע לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא וּבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ לְשִׁבְעָה — תְּמָנְיָא גּוּפֵיהּ אָסוּר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹמָא קַמָּא דְּאִיתּוֹתַב בֵּיהּ חַגָּא דְשָׁבוּעַיָּא.
The Gemara answers: Since if a calamitous event happened and they canceled the seven days commemorating the establishment of the daily offering, the eighth day itself will remain prohibited, as it is the first day on which the festival of Shavuot was restored. Since this date is not merely the last of the series for the daily offering, but it also commemorates the restoration of Shavuot, it is not affected by the cancellation of the previous seven days.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, עֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִיקְּלַע מִילְּתָא וּבַטְּלִינֵּיהּ לְעֶשְׂרִים וּתְמָנְיָא — עֶשְׂרִין וְתִשְׁעָה גּוּפֵיהּ אָסוּר, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹמָא דְּמִקַּמֵּי יוֹמָא דְּאִיתּוֹקַם תְּמִידָא.
The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this conclusion, the same logic can be applied to the twenty-ninth of Adar as well: Since if a calamitous event happened and they canceled the commemoration of the twenty-eighth of Adar, nevertheless, the twenty-ninth day itself will remain prohibited, as it is the first day on which the daily offering was established.
אִיתְּמַר, רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַסִּי אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im: Rav Ḥiyya bar Asi said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that with regard to all the days mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit on which eulogizing is prohibited, it is likewise prohibited to eulogize on the day before and the day after. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, the tanna of the unattributed mishna, who said that although it is prohibited to eulogize on the day before, it is permitted on the day after.
וּמִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכִי? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּהוֹן״ ״בְּהוֹן״ שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים — לוֹמַר לָךְ שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין, לִפְנֵיהֶן וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין. וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: And what is the meaning when Megillat Ta’anit states: On them, on them, twice, in the phrases: Not to eulogize on them, and: Not to fast on them. This phrase is repeated to say to you that fasting and eulogizing on these days themselves is prohibited, but on the days before and on the following days it is permitted. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. How, then, can it be said that Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?
מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא תַּנָּא דְּמֵיקֵל כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אָמַר הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁמְעֵיהּ לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן דְּמֵיקֵל טְפֵי, אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.
The Gemara answers: Initially, Shmuel maintained that since there is no other tanna as lenient as Rabbi Meir, he said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. When he heard that the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was more lenient, he said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Shmuel consistently ruled in the most lenient manner possible on this issue.
וְכֵן אָמַר בָּאלִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְבָאלִי: אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ, כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — אַדְּלָא לְהִתְעַנָּאָה.
And similarly, the Sage Bali said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Bali: I will explain this ruling to you. When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, he was not referring to all matters. Rather, he spoke specifically with regard to the day before those dates concerning which Megillat Ta’anit said: Fasting is prohibited. However, with regard to those days on which it is prohibited to eulogize, he did not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that eulogizing on the following day is permitted.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה. וּתְנַן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ מַקְדִּימִין וְלֹא מְאַחֲרִין,
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say as a principle that the halakha is always in accordance with an unattributed mishna. And we learned in a mishna: Although the Sages said, with regard to reading of the Scroll of Esther, that one may read it earlier but one may not read it later,
מוּתָּרִין בְּהֶסְפֵּד וְתַעֲנִית. אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא בְּנֵי חֲמֵיסַר וְקָא קָרוּ לֵיהּ בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר, וּמִי שְׁרֵי?
as the Sages decreed that in certain places one may read the Scroll of Esther on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth of Adar, nevertheless, it is permitted to eulogize and fast on these days. The Gemara clarifies: When does this ruling apply? If we say that it applies to those in walled cities, who normally read the scroll on the fifteenth of Adar and yet this year they read it on the fourteenth, a day on which they normally are permitted to fast and eulogize, but this cannot be the case, as are they permitted to fast and eulogize at all on these days?
וְהָכְתִיב בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית: יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בּוֹ וְיוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, יוֹמֵי פּוּרַיָּא אִינּוּן דְּלָא לְמִיסְפַּד בְּהוֹן. וְאָמַר רָבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא, אֶלָּא לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה.
But isn’t it written in Megillat Ta’anit: The day of the fourteenth of Adar and the day of the fifteenth of Adar are the days of Purim, on which eulogizing is prohibited. And Rava said: Since these days are already mentioned in the Bible (Esther 9:18–19), it is necessary to state this halakha in Megillat Ta’anit only to prohibit those living in these walled cities from fasting and eulogizing on this date, the fourteenth, and those living in these non-walled cities from fasting and eulogizing on this date, the fifteenth.
Nicanor's Day and Trajan's Day
וְאֶלָּא, בְּנֵי אַרְבֵּיסַר וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ בִּתְלֵיסַר — יוֹם נִיקָנוֹר הוּא! וְאֶלָּא, בְּנֵי אַרְבֵּיסַר וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ בִּתְרֵיסַר — יוֹם טוּרְיָינוֹס הוּא!
The Gemara continues its explanation of the difficulty. But rather, the mishna must be referring to those who normally read on the fourteenth of Adar, but who read the Scroll of Esther early, on the thirteenth. However, it is already prohibited to fast on the thirteenth, as it is Nicanor’s Day, which is a commemorative day in its own right. But rather, you will say that the mishna is referring to those residents of cities who normally read on the fourteenth, but who read it early that year, on the twelfth; however, the twelfth of Adar is also a commemorative day, as it is Trajan’s Day.
אֶלָּא לָאו, דְּקָא קָרוּ לֵיהּ בַּחֲדֵיסַר, וְקָתָנֵי מוּתָּר בְּהֶסְפֵּד וּבְתַעֲנִית!
Rather, isn’t the mishna referring to a case where they read the Scroll of Esther on the eleventh of Adar, and nevertheless that mishna teaches that it is permitted to eulogize and fast on this day, despite the fact that it is the day before Trajan’s Day? The opinion in this unattributed mishna is not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yosei, which means that there is a contradiction between the two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
לָא, בְּנֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וְקָא קָרוּ לֵיהּ בִּתְרֵיסַר. וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ יוֹם טֻרְיָינוֹס הוּא — יוֹם טֻרְיָינוֹס גּוּפֵיהּ בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלוּהּ, הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֶרְגוּ בּוֹ שְׁמַעְיָה וַאֲחִיָּה אֶחָיו. כִּי הָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן גְּזַר תַּעֲנִיתָא בִּתְרֵיסַר, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: יוֹם טוּרְיָינוֹס הוּא! אֲמַר לְהוּ: יוֹם טוּרְיָינוֹס גּוּפֵיהּ בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלוּהּ, הוֹאִיל וְנֶהֶרְגוּ בּוֹ שְׁמַעְיָה וַאֲחִיָּה אָחִיו.
The Gemara answers: No; the mishna is actually referring to those who normally read on the fourteenth, but who read it that year on the twelfth of Adar. And with regard to that which you said, that it is Trajan’s Day, Trajan’s Day itself was annulled and is no longer celebrated, since Shemaya and his brother Aḥiya were killed on that day. We learn this as in the incident when Rav Naḥman decreed a fast on the twelfth of Adar and the Sages said to him: It is Trajan’s Day. He said to them: Trajan’s Day itself was annulled, since Shemaya and his brother Aḥiya were killed on that day.
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ יוֹם שֶׁלִּפְנֵי נִיקָנוֹר! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הַשְׁתָּא אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ בַּטְּלוּהּ, מִשּׁוּם יוֹם נִיקָנוֹר נֵיקוּם וְנִגְזֹר?
The Gemara asks: And let him derive that fasting on the twelfth is prohibited in any case, as it is the day before Nicanor’s Day. Rav Ashi said: Now that with regard to Trajan’s Day itself, they annulled it, will we then arise and issue a decree not to fast on this date due to the following day, Nicanor’s Day?
מַאי נִיקָנוֹר וּמַאי טוּרְיָינוֹס? דְּתַנְיָא: נִיקָנוֹר, אֶחָד מֵאִפַּרְכֵי יְוָונִים הָיָה, וּבְכׇל יוֹם וָיוֹם הָיָה מֵנִיף יָדוֹ עַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאוֹמֵר: אֵימָתַי תִּפּוֹל בְּיָדִי וְאֶרְמְסֶנָּה. וּכְשֶׁגָּבְרָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי וְנִצְּחוּם, קָצְצוּ בְּהוֹנוֹת יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּתְלָאוּם בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאָמְרוּ: פֶּה שֶׁהָיָה מְדַבֵּר בְּגַאֲוָה, וְיָדַיִים שֶׁהָיוּ מְנִיפוֹת עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — תֵּעָשֶׂה בָּהֶם נְקָמָה.
In relation to the above, the Gemara inquires: What is the origin of Nicanor’s Day and what is the origin of Trajan’s Day? As it is taught in a baraita: Nicanor was one of the generals [iparkhei] in the Greek army, and each and every day he would wave his hand over Judea and Jerusalem and say: When will this city fall into my hands, and I shall trample it? And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame the Greeks and emerged victorious over them, they killed Nicanor in battle, cut off his thumbs and big toes, and hung them on the gates of Jerusalem, saying: The mouth that spoke with pride, and the hands that waved over Jerusalem, may vengeance be taken against them. This occurred on the thirteenth of Adar.
מַאי טוּרְיָינוֹס? אָמְרוּ: כְּשֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ טוּרְיָינוֹס לַהֲרוֹג אֶת לוּלְיָנוּס וּפַפּוּס אָחִיו בְּלוּדְקִיָּא, אָמַר לָהֶם: אִם מֵעַמּוֹ שֶׁל חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה אַתֶּם — יָבֹא אֱלֹקֵיכֶם וְיַצִּיל אֶתְכֶם מִיָּדִי, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִצִּיל אֶת חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה מִיַּד נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה צַדִּיקִים גְּמוּרִין הָיוּ, וּרְאוּיִין הָיוּ לֵיעָשׂוֹת לָהֶם נֵס. וּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר מֶלֶךְ הָגוּן הָיָה, וְרָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת נֵס עַל יָדוֹ.
What is the origin of Trajan’s Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.
וְאוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, הֶדְיוֹט הוּא, וְאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲשׂוֹת נֵס עַל יָדוֹ. וְאָנוּ נִתְחַיַּיבְנוּ כְּלָיָה לַמָּקוֹם, וְאִם אֵין אַתָּה הוֹרְגֵנוּ — הַרְבֵּה הוֹרְגִים יֵשׁ לוֹ לַמָּקוֹם, וְהַרְבֵּה דּוּבִּין וַאֲרָיוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ לַמָּקוֹם בְּעוֹלָמוֹ שֶׁפּוֹגְעִין בָּנוּ וְהוֹרְגִין אוֹתָנוּ. אֶלָּא, לֹא מְסָרָנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּיָדְךָ, אֶלָּא שֶׁעָתִיד לִיפָּרַע דָּמֵינוּ מִיָּדֶךָ.
But this wicked man, Trajan, is a commoner, not a real king, and it is not fitting that a miracle be performed through him. Luleyanus and Pappas continued: And we are not wholly righteous, and have been condemned to destruction by the Omnipresent for our sins. And if you do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many other executioners. And if men do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many bears and lions in His world that can hurt us and kill us. Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed us into your hands only so that He will avenge our blood in the future.
אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֲרָגָן מִיָּד. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם, עַד שֶׁבָּאוּ דְּיוֹפָּלֵי מֵרוֹמִי וּפָצְעוּ אֶת מוֹחוֹ בְּגִיזְרִין.
Even so, Trajan remained unmoved by their response and killed them immediately. It is said that they had not moved from the place of execution when two officials [diyoflei] arrived from Rome with permission to remove Trajan from power, and they split his skull with clubs. This was viewed as an act of divine retribution and was established as a commemorative day.