Rosh Hashanah 22

מעשה שעברו יותר מארבעים זוג ועיכבן רבי עקיבא כו׳ תניא אמר רבי יהודה חס ושלום שרבי עקיבא עיכבן אלא שזפר ראשה של גדר עיכבן ושלח רבן גמליאל והורידוהו מגדולתו

§ It was taught in the mishna: There was once an incident where more than forty pairs of witnesses were passing through on their way to Jerusalem to testify about the new moon, and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod, telling them that there was no need for them to desecrate Shabbat for this purpose. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid that Rabbi Akiva detained them, for he would certainly not have made such an error. Rather, it was that Zefer, the head of the city of Geder, detained them. And Rabban Gamliel sent and they removed him from his high office because he had acted inappropriately.

מתני׳ אב ובנו שראו את החדש ילכו לא שמצטרפין זה עם זה אלא שאם יפסל אחד מהן יצטרף השני עם אחר רבי שמעון אומר אב ובנו וכל הקרובין כשרין לעדות החדש

MISHNA: If a father and his son saw the new moon, they should both go to the court in Jerusalem. It is not that they can join together to give testimony, for close relatives are disqualified from testifying together, but they both go so that if one of them is disqualified, the second may join together with another witness to testify about the new moon. Rabbi Shimon says: A father and his son and all their relatives are fit to combine together as witnesses for testimony to determine the start of the month.

אמר רבי יוסי מעשה בטוביה הרופא שראה את החדש בירושלים הוא ובנו ועבדו משוחרר וקבלו הכהנים אותו ואת בנו ופסלו את עבדו וכשבאו לפני בית דין קבלו אותו ואת עבדו ופסלו את בנו

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident with Toviyya the doctor. When he saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave all went to testify. The priests accepted him and his son as witnesses and disqualified his slave, for they ruled stringently that the month may be sanctified only on the basis of the testimony of those of Jewish lineage. And when they came before the court, they accepted him and his slave as witnesses and disqualified his son, due to the familial relationship.

גמ׳ אמר רבי לוי מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון דכתיב ויאמר ה׳ אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר החדש הזה לכם עדות זו תהא כשרה בכם

GEMARA: Rabbi Levi said: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion permitting relatives to jointly testify about the new moon, despite the fact that relatives are generally disqualified from testifying together? It is as it is written: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you” (Exodus 12:1–2). The words “to you” come to teach that this testimony concerning the new moon will be valid even when it is given by you two, i.e., Moses and Aaron, who are brothers and could not ordinarily testify together.

ורבנן עדות זו תהא מסורה לכם

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and prohibit relatives from testifying together about the new moon, how do they understand this verse? The Gemara answers: They interpret the verse as follows: This testimony is given over to you and others like you. That is to say, the months are to be established by the most outstanding authorities of each generation.

אמר רבי יוסי מעשה בטוביה הרופא כו׳ אמר רב חנן בר רבא הלכתא כרבי שמעון אמר ליה רב הונא לרב חנן בר רבא רבי יוסי ומעשה ואת אמרת הלכתא כרבי שמעון

§ The mishna taught: Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident with Toviyya the doctor. When he saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave all went to testify. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Relatives are permitted to testify together about the new moon. Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava: But Rabbi Yosei, whose position is usually accepted over those of his colleagues, ruled otherwise, and also, there was an incident in which the court actually ruled against Rabbi Shimon, and yet you say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

אמר לו והא זמנין סגיאין אמרית קמיה דרב הלכתא כרבי שמעון ולא אמר לי ולא מידי אמר ליה היכי תנית אמר ליה אפכא אמר ליה משום הכי לא אמר לך ולא מידי אמר טבי בריה דמרי טבי אמר מר עוקבא אמר שמואל הלכתא כרבי שמעון

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said to him: But many times I said before Rav that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon on this matter, and never did he say anything to me to indicate that he disagreed. Rav Huna said to him: How did you teach the mishna? Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said to him: With the opposite attributions, that is say, the position that is attributed in the mishna to Rabbi Yosei, I would teach in the name of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna said to him: Due to that reason, he never said anything to you, for according to your version you ruled correctly. Tavi, son of Mari Tavi, said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

מתני׳ אלו הן הפסולין המשחק בקוביא ומלוי ברבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית ועבדים זה הכלל כל עדות שאין האשה כשירה לה אף הן אינן כשירין לה

MISHNA: The following are unfit to give testimony, as they are considered thieves and robbers: One who plays with dice [kubbiyya] or other games of chance for money; and those who lend money with interest; and those who race pigeons and place wagers on the outcome; and merchants who deal in produce of the Sabbatical Year, which may be eaten, but may not be an object of commerce; and slaves. This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is unfit, these too are unfit. Although in certain cases a woman’s testimony is accepted, e.g., to testify to the death of someone’s husband, in the majority of cases her testimony is not valid.

גמ׳ הא אשה כשירה לה אף הן כשירין לה אמר רב אשי זאת אומרת גזלן דדבריהם כשירין לעדות אשה

GEMARA: This implies that any testimony for which a woman is fit, these too are fit. Rav Ashi said: That is to say, one who is regarded as a robber by rabbinic law, i.e., one who illegally came into possession of money but did not actually steal it from another, is like those mentioned in the mishna. Although they are generally unfit to give testimony, they are fit to give testimony to enable a woman to remarry.

מתני׳ מי שראה את החדש ואינו יכול להלך מוליכים אותו על החמור אפילו במטה ואם צודה להם לוקחין בידן מקלות

MISHNA: With regard to one who saw the new moon but is unable to go to Jerusalem by foot because he is sick or has difficulty walking, others may bring him on a donkey or even in a bed, even on Shabbat if necessary. And if the witnesses are concerned that bandits may be lying in wait for them along the road, they may take clubs or other weapons in their hands, even on Shabbat.

ואם היתה דרך רחוקה לוקחין בידם מזונות שעל מהלך לילה ויום מחללין את השבת ויוצאין לעדות החדש שנאמר אלה מועדי ה׳ אשר תקראו אותם במועדם

And if it was a long journey to Jerusalem, they may take sustenance with them, although it is ordinarily prohibited to carry on Shabbat, since for a distance of a walk of a night and a day, the witnesses may desecrate Shabbat and go out to give testimony to determine the start of the month. This is as it is stated: “These are the Festivals of the Lord, sacred gatherings, which you shall declare in their seasons” (Leviticus 23:4). This teaches that, in all cases, the Festivals must be fixed at their proper times, even if it entails the transgression of Torah prohibitions.

הדרן עלך ארבעה ראשי שנים

מתני׳ אם אינן מכירין אותו משלחין עמו אחר להעידו בראשונה היו מקבלין עדות החדש מכל אדם משקלקלו הבייתוסים התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין אלא מן המכירין

MISHNA: If the members of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are not familiar with that one who saw the new moon, i.e., that he is a valid witness, the members of his local court of twenty-three send another with him to testify about him. The mishna adds: Initially, the court would accept testimony to determine the start of the month from any person, as all are presumed to be qualified witnesses, absent any disqualifying factors. However, when the Boethusians, a sect whose members had their own opinions with regard to the establishment of the Festivals, corrupted the process by sending false witnesses to testify about the new moon, the Sages instituted that they would accept this testimony only from those men familiar to the Sanhedrin as valid witnesses.

גמ׳ מאי אחר חד

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement in the mishna that another would be sent along to testify with regard to the qualification of the witness to the new moon? If it means that one other individual would be sent,

וחד מי מהימן והתניא מעשה שבא הוא ועדיו עמו להעיד עליו אמר רב פפא מאי אחר זוג אחר

but is one witness deemed credible? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident in which one potential witness came to testify, and his witnesses were with him, as they came to testify about him? The use of the plural indicates that two witnesses are required to establish someone as a valid eyewitness. Rav Pappa said: What is the meaning of the term: Another? It means another pair of witnesses.

הכי נמי מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי אם אינן מכירין אותו מאי אותו אילימא אותו חד וחד מי מהימן משפט כתיב ביה אלא מאי אותו אותו הזוג הכי נמי מאי אחר זוג אחר

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, for if you do not say so, then the opening statement of the mishna: If the members of the Great Sanhedrin are not familiar with that one, is problematic. What is the meaning of the term: That one? If we say it is referring to that one witness, is one witness deemed credible? The word: Judgment, is written with regard to the establishment of the New Moon and Rosh HaShana: “For it is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Israel” (Psalms 81:5), and judgments require two witnesses. Rather, what is the meaning of the term: That one? That pair of witnesses. So too here, what is the meaning of the term: Another? Another pair of witnesses.

וחד לא מהימן והתניא מעשה ברבי נהוראי שהלך אצל העד להעיד עליו בשבת באושא

The Gemara asks: And is one witness not deemed credible to testify about the eyewitness who saw the new moon? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Nehorai, who went with the witness to testify about him on Shabbat in Usha? Apparently, Rabbi Nehorai offered his testimony alone.

אמרי רבי נהוראי סהדא אחרינא הוה בהדיה והא דלא חשיב ליה משום כבודו של רבי נהוראי רב אשי אמר רבי נהוראי סהדא אחרינא הוה באושא ואזל רבי נהוראי לאצטרופי בהדיה

The Sages say in explanation of this incident: In fact, two witnesses are necessary, and in the case of Rabbi Nehorai there was another witness with him. And the fact that he was not mentioned is due to the honor of Rabbi Nehorai, so as not to indicate that the other was his equal. Rav Ashi said: In the incident involving Rabbi Nehorai, there was already another witness waiting in Usha and Rabbi Nehorai went to join him.

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מספיקא לא מחללינן שבתא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this incident at all? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that in a case of uncertainty one does not desecrate Shabbat, i.e., perhaps the witness in Usha would not be present that day, which would mean that Rabbi Nehorai desecrated Shabbat for no reason. Therefore, the Tosefta teaches us that for the important purpose of the New Moon, Shabbat may be desecrated even in a doubtful case.

כי אתא עולא אמר קדשוה לירחא במערבא אמר רב כהנא לא מיבעיא עולא דגברא רבה הוא דמהימן אלא אפילו איניש דעלמא נמי מהימן מאי טעמא כל מילתא דעבידא לאגלויי לא משקרי בה אינשי תניא נמי הכי בא אחד בסוף העולם ואמר קדשו בית דין את החדש נאמן

§ When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: They sanctified the New Moon on a certain date in the West, Eretz Yisrael. Although Ulla was the only witness, his testimony was accepted. Rav Kahana said: It is not necessary to say that Ulla, who is a great man, is deemed credible with regard to such testimony. Rather, even an ordinary person is deemed credible in this case, and there is no need for two witnesses. What is the reason for this? With regard to any matter that is likely to be revealed, people do not lie about it.The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita: If one person comes from the other end of the world and says: The court sanctified the new month, he is deemed credible. There is no need for two witnesses.

בראשונה היו מקבלין עדות החדש מכל אדם וכו׳ תנו רבנן מה קלקול קלקלו הבייתוסין פעם אחת בקשו בייתוסין להטעות את חכמים שכרו שני בני אדם בארבע מאות זוז אחד משלנו ואחד משלהם

The mishna taught: Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month from any person, and this continued until the Boethusians began to corrupt the process. The Sages taught a baraita that describes the decisive incident: What was the manner of the corruption in which the Boethusians engaged? Once, the Boethusians tried to mislead the Sages with regard to the day of the new moon. They hired two people for four hundred dinars to testify falsely that they had seen the new moon on the thirtieth day of the month. One of them was from our own, i.e., a member of the Pharisees and the Sages of Israel, and the other was one of theirs.

שלהם העיד עדותו ויצא שלנו אמרו לו אמור כיצד ראית את הלבנה אמר להם עולה הייתי במעלה אדומים וראיתיו שהוא רבוץ בין שני סלעים ראשו דומה לעגל אזניו דומין לגדי קרניו דומות לצבי וזנבו מונחת לו בין ירכותיו והצצתי בו ונרתעתי ונפלתי לאחורי ואם אין אתם מאמינים לי הרי מאתים זוז צרורין לי בסדיני

When they went in to testify, their witness submitted his testimony that he had seen the new moon, and then he left. When our witness came to testify, they said to him, in the customary manner: Say how you saw the moon. He said to them: I was ascending in Ma’ale Adumim and I saw that the new moon was crouched between two rocks. Its head was like that of a calf, its ears were like those of a kid, its horns were like those of a deer, and its tail was lying between its thighs. And I looked at it and was frightened and I fell backward. And if you do not believe me that this is what I saw, there are two hundred dinars wrapped in my cloak that were paid to me to deliver this testimony.

אמרו לו מי הזקיקך לכך אמר להם שמעתי שבקשו בייתוסים להטעות את חכמים אמרתי אלך אני ואודיע להם שמא יבואו בני אדם שאינם מהוגנין ויטעו את חכמים

Realizing that the testimony of the first witness was also false, the Sages said to him: Who persuaded you to act in this manner? He said to them: I heard that the Boethusians were seeking to mislead the Sages, and I said to myself: I will go and hire myself out to give false testimony, and I will inform the Sages of the truth, lest unworthy people come and mislead the Sages.

אמרו לו מאתים זוז נתונין לך במתנה והשוכרך ימתח על העמוד באותה שעה התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין אלא מן המכירין

The Sages said to him: The two hundred dinars that you received from the Boethusians are given to you as a gift. Although you did not carry out your mission, the court is authorized to declare the money ownerless and award it to you. And the one who hired you shall be stretched out on the post for flogging. At that time the Sages instituted that they would accept testimony about the new moon only from those men who were familiar to the Great Sanhedrin as qualified witnesses.

מתני׳ בראשונה היו משיאין משואות משקלקלו הכותים התקינו שיהו שלוחין יוצאין

MISHNA: Initially, after the court sanctified the new month they would light torches on the mountaintops, from one peak to another, to signal to the community in Babylonia that the month had been sanctified. After the Samaritans [Kutim] corrupted and ruined this method by lighting torches at the wrong times to confuse the Jews, the Sages instituted that messengers should go out to the Diaspora and inform them of the start of the month.

כיצד היו משיאין משואות מביאין כלונסאות של ארז ארוכין וקנים ועצי שמן ונעורת של פשתן וכורך במשיחה ועולה לראש ההר ומצית בהן את האור ומוליך ומביא ומעלה ומוריד עד שהוא רואה את חבירו שהוא עושה כן בראש ההר השני וכן בראש ההר השלישי

The mishna asks: How would they light the torches during that earlier period? They would bring items that burn well, e.g., long poles of cedar, reeds, pinewood, and beaten flax, and tie them together with a string. And someone would then ascend to the top of the mountain and light the torch on fire with them, and wave it back and forth and up and down, until he would see his colleague doing likewise on the top of the second mountain. In this manner he would know that the next messenger had received the message and passed it on. And similarly, the second torchbearer would wait for a signal from the one on the top of the third mountain, and so on. In this manner the message would reach the Diaspora.

ומאין היו משיאין משואות מהר המשחה לסרטבא ומסרטבא לגרופינא ומגרופינא לחוורן ומחוורן לבית בלתין ומבית בלתין לא זזו משם אלא מוליך ומביא ומעלה ומוריד עד שהיה רואה כל הגולה לפניו כמדורת האש

And from which mountains would they light the torches? They would transmit the message from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem to Sartava, and from Sartava to Gerofina, and from Gerofina to Ḥavran, and from Ḥavran to Beit Baltin. And from Beit Baltin they would not move to light torches in any other predetermined location. Rather, the one who was appointed for this task would wave the torch back and forth and up and down, until he would see the entire Diaspora before him alight like one large bonfire, as they would light torches to continue transmitting the message from place to place all the way to the farthest reaches of the Diaspora.

גמ׳ מאי משמע דמשיאין לישנא דיקוד הוא דכתיב וישאם דוד ואנשיו ומתרגמינן ואוקדינן דוד

GEMARA: The mishna taught that they would light torches [masi’in]. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the term masi’in is an expression of burning? As it is written: “Vayisa’em David and his men” (II Samuel 5:21), and we translate the verse as: And David and his men burned them.

תנו רבנן אין משיאין משואות אלא על החדש שנראה בזמנו לקדשו ואימתי משיאין לאור עיבורו

The Sages taught in a baraita: Torches were lit only for a new month whose moon was seen at its proper time, i.e., on the thirtieth day of the outgoing month, to sanctify the upcoming New Moon on that date and declare the previous month as containing twenty-nine days. In this case, the thirtieth day would be declared the first day of the following month. And when would they light the torches? It was on the eve of its additional day, the one that would have been added had it been a full, thirty-day month, i.e., on the eve of the thirty-first day of the outgoing month.

למימרא דאחסר עבדינן אמלא לא עבדינן מאי טעמא אמר רבי זירא גזירה משום ראש חדש חסר שחל להיות בערב שבת אימת עבדי באפוקי שבתא דאי אמרת נעביד נמי אמלא אתו

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that for the conclusion of a deficient month of twenty-nine days one performs the sequence of lighting torches, but for a full month one does not perform it? What is the reason for this? Rabbi Zeira said: This is a rabbinic decree that was instituted due to the case of a New Moon following a deficient, twenty-nine-day month that occurs on Shabbat eve. In that case, when do they perform the lighting? At the conclusion of Shabbat, as it is prohibited to light a fire on Friday night. The reason for the decree is that if you say that one performs the lighting of torches for a full, thirty-day month as well, people might come