Commentary for Eruvin 78:1

ורבנן התם כי היכי דלא לזלזולי ביה:

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could they maintain their view in face of R. Jose's argument (cf. previous note) ?');">¹</span> - There [the reason for the observance]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the first day also, where the witnesses came in the afternoon.');">²</span> is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not because it is actually holy and forms together with the day following it one entity of holiness.');">³</span> that people shall not treat it with disrespect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is in fact not holy; but if, where witnesses came in the afternoon, that day (the 30th of Elul) had not been treated to the end as a holy day, the public might on the next occasion come to regard the entire day with equal disrespect and would, in consequence, permit themselves to carry on their usual occupations and work all that day as if it had been one of the ordinary working days. Such laxity, however, would result in the actual desecration of a holy day where the witnesses happened to come before noon and that day (the one following the 29th of Elul) had been declared as the one and only day of the New Year festival. In order, therefore, to avoid such possible desecration It was ordained that the day following the 29th of Elul shall always be treated as a holy day irrespective of the time of day at which the witnesses appeared. Where, however, the witnesses did come in the afternoon, though that day is continued to be observed as a holy day for the reason stated, it is in fact an ordinary weekday, the second day only being actually holy and the New Year day.');">⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 78:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.