Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 1, 2014 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื“

Masechet Rosh Hashanah is dedicated anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Rosh Hashanah 24

Study Guide Rosh Hashanah 24


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื’ื™ืจื™ ืงื ืžืฉื“ื™ื™ื

that the sun is shooting arrows at those who deny its divinity, using the rainbow as its bow. The concave side of the rainbow always faces away from the sun, so that it does not look like a bow held by the sun.

ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื’ื‘ื•ื” ื•ืœืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื˜ื” ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ื—ื“ื ืœืฆืคื•ื ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื“ืจื•ืžื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืคื›ื ืœื“ืจื•ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœืฆืคื•ื ื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

ยง The mishna taught that the examination of the witnesses included the following questions: How high was the moon over the horizon, and in which direction did it tilt? It was taught in one baraita: If the witness testifies that he saw the moon to the north of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says that he saw it to its south, he has not said anything of significance, as this is impossible. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t the opposite taught in a different baraita: If he testifies that he saw the moon to the south of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says he saw it to its north, he has not said anything.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื’ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the summer, when the moon is to the south of the sun; there, in the first baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the rainy season, when the moon is to the north of the sun.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืฉืชื™ ืžืจื“ืขื•ืช ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉื” ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื˜ื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœืขื“ื•ืช ืื—ืจืช

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one witness says that he saw the moon two plow handles high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three plow handles high, their testimony is valid, as a small discrepancy of this kind is reasonable. However, if one says that he saw the moon three plow handles above the horizon, and the other one says it was five plow handles high, their testimony is void, as that discrepancy is unacceptable. However, this does not mean that the witnesses themselves are disqualified, as either of them may join with another testimony, i.e., he may combine his account with that of another witness who testifies likewise.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื‘ืžื™ื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื‘ืขืฉืฉื™ืช ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืžื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉืฉื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื•

The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: We did not actually see the moon, but we saw it reflected in the water, or we saw it reflected in a glass lantern, or we saw it through thin clouds, they may not testify about it, as only a direct sighting of the moon is acceptable. If they say: We saw half of the moonโ€™s reflection in the water, or we saw half of it through the clouds, or we saw half of it in a lantern, they still may not testify about it.

ื”ืฉืชื ื›ื•ืœื• ืืžืจืช ืœื ื—ืฆื™ื• ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืžื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืจืงื™ืข ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืจืงื™ืข ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉืฉื™ืช ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืจืงื™ืข ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Now, if when one sees the entire moon in this manner, you said that this is not valid testimony, is it necessary to teach that one may not testify when he sees only half of it? Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses saw half of the moonโ€™s reflection in water and half of it directly in the sky, or half of it through the clouds and half of it in the sky, or half of it in a lantern and half of it in the sky, although they saw half of the moon directly, they may not testify about it until they see the entire moon in the sky.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื•ืฉื•ื‘ ืœื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื–ื• ืœื” ื•ืื–ืœื™

The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: One moment we saw the new moon, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. The Gemara asks: Must they go on watching it to such an extent, i.e., why should they have to see it for a long period of time?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืžืืœื™ื ื• ื•ืฉื‘ื ื• ืœืจืื•ืชื• ืžื“ืขืชื ื• ื•ืœื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื›ื•ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ืขื™ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื–ื™

Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses say: We saw the moon on our own accord, i.e., by chance, without looking for it, and then we returned to look for it on purpose, to deliver precise testimony about it, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. What is the reason? Because one can say that the first time it was merely a small round white cloud that they saw, which they mistook for the moon, and that is why when they looked for it again they could not find it.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจืืฉ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•

MISHNA: After the witnesses have been examined and their testimony accepted, the head of the court says: It is sanctified. And all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified. Whether the moon was seen at its anticipated time, on the thirtieth day of the previous month, or whether it was not seen at its anticipated time, in which case witnesses are not necessary to establish the following day as the New Moon, the court sanctifies it and formally proclaims the day as the New Moon.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืœื ื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื”ื• ืฉืžื™ื

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day, as the celestial court in Heaven has already sanctified it, precluding the need for the additional sanctification by the earthly court.

ื’ืžืณ ืจืืฉ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ืžื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžื•ืขื“ื™ ื”ืณ ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืจืืฉ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the head of the court says: It is sanctified. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the court must sanctify the New Moon, derived? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the verse states: โ€œAnd Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 23:44). From here it is derived that the head of the court says: It is sanctified, as it is evident from the verse that Moses, whose status was equivalent to that of the head of the Great Sanhedrin, declared the appointed times of the Festivals and New Moons in a formal manner.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืชืงืจืื• ืื•ืชื ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืืชื ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืืœื” ื”ื ืžื•ืขื“ื™ ื”ื ื™ืืžืจื• ืžื•ืขื“ื™

ยง The mishna further teaches that after the head of the court says: It is sanctified, all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: โ€œWhich you shall proclaim them [otam] to be sacred convocationsโ€ (Leviticus 23:2). Instead of otam, read into the verse: You [atem], as though the verse stated: Which you shall proclaim, you. This superfluous word you teaches that the month must be proclaimed not only by the head of the court, but also by you, the people. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said that it is derived from the phrase: โ€œThese are [hem] My appointed seasonsโ€ (Leviticus 23:2). The term hem can also mean: They, which indicates that they, the people, should likewise say and announce My appointed seasons.

ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืจืื™ ืงื•ื“ืฉ

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the people to declare: It is sanctified; it is sanctified, twice? The Gemara answers that the reason is that it is written: โ€œSacred convocationsโ€ (Leviticus 23:2) in the plural, which indicates that they must announce it twice.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืœื ื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืชื ื™ื ืคืœื™ืžื• ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉืœื ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•

ยง The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day. The Gemara cites other opinions in this regard: It is taught in a baraita that the Sage Palaimo says: If the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon, as the new moon appeared as expected and there is no need for any special sanctification. However, if the new moon was seen not at its anticipated time, the court must sanctify the New Moon.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืงื“ืฉืชื ืืช ืฉื ืช ื”ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ืืชื” ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงื“ืฉ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, the court does not sanctify the New Moon formally, as it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall sanctify the fiftieth yearโ€ (Leviticus 25:10), from which it is derived: You must formally sanctify years in court, but you do not have to formally sanctify months, as they are sanctified automatically by Heaven. Rather, it is enough merely to announce to the public that a certain day was established as the New Moon. Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, that if the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court sanctifies the new month; however, if it was not seen at its anticipated time, they do not sanctify it.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ืจืื•ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื—ืงืจื• ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื• ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืขื“ ืฉื—ืฉื™ื›ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœื

Abaye said: We, too, learn in a mishna: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, and the witnesses were interrogated, but the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month. This indicates that full, yes; i.e., in this case, it is necessary to extend the previous month. However, sanctified, no; there is no need to formally sanctify the month, as the New Moon does not occur on its anticipated date in this case.

ืžืขื•ื‘ืจ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ืคืจืกืžื ื•ืœื ืœื™ืขื‘ืจื•ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here, as it was necessary for the mishna to mention that the month is rendered a full, thirty-day month. The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that since the court and the entire Jewish people saw the new moon, it has become public knowledge and therefore there is no need to render the previous month a full, thirty-day month. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the previous month must be extended. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the New Moon must be formally sanctified on the following day.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ืžื•ืช ืฆื•ืจื•ืช ืœื‘ื ื” ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืœื ื•ื‘ื›ื•ืชืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ืชื• ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืจืื” ืืช ื”ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ื–ื” ืจืื™ืช ืื• ื›ื–ื”

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel had a diagram of the different forms of the moon drawn on a tablet that hung on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the laymen who came to testify about the new moon but were unable to describe adequately what they had seen. And he would say to them: Did you see a form like this or like this?

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to create these types of forms? Isnโ€™t it written: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of goldโ€ (Exodus 20:19), which is interpreted as teaching: You shall not make images of My attendants, i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืืคืฉืจ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื›ืžื•ืชืŸ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืช ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืื›ืกื“ืจื” ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ืื•ืœื ื—ืฆืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืขื–ืจื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื”

ยง Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only the images of those attendants with regard to which it is possible to reproduce an item in their likeness. Since it is impossible for anyone to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these objects. As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact form of the Sanctuary, nor a portico in the exact form of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the candelabrum in the Temple. However, one may fashion

ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืขืฉื• ืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืฉืžื•ื ืื™

a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight lamps. But one may not fashion a candelabrum with seven lamps even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, as in exigent circumstances the candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Also, one may not fashion a candelabrum of wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned it. When they first purified the Temple they had to prepare the candelabrum out of wood, as no other material was available. Since this candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืฉื ืจืื™ื™ื” ืฉืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื‘ืจื–ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื—ื™ืคื•ื ื‘ื‘ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื—ื–ืจื• ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘

The other Sages said to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda: From there you seek to bring a proof? There the branches of the candelabrum were comprised of spits [shippudin] of iron and they covered them with tin. Later, when they grew richer and could afford a candelabrum of higher-quality material, they fashioned them from silver. When they grew even richer, they fashioned them from gold. Still, Abaye proves from this baraita that the prohibition against forming an image applies only to items that can be reconstructed in an accurate manner. Since this is not possible in the case of the moon, Rabban Gamlielโ€™s forms were permitted.

ื•ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื›ืžื•ืชืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ืžืจื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื“ืžื•ืช ืืจื‘ืขื” ืคื ื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™

The Gemara asks: And is it really permitted to form images of those attendants concerning which it is impossible to reproduce their likeness? Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that the verse: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silverโ€ (Exodus 20:19), comes to teach: You shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high. Apparently, this includes the sun and the moon. Abaye said: This does not include the sun and the moon, as the Torah prohibited only the fashioning of an image of all four faces of the creatures of the Heavenly Chariot together (see Ezekiel, chapter 1). However, all other images, which are not the likeness of the ministering angels, are permitted.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืคืจืฆื•ืฃ ืื“ื ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืชืฉืชืจื™ ืืœืžื” ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืคืจืฆื•ืคื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืคืจืฆื•ืฃ ืื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืงื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžื™ืขื ืœื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืื•ืชื™

The Gemara raises a difficulty: However, if that is so, let the fashioning of an image of a human face [partzuf ] alone be permitted. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: All faces are permitted for ornamental purposes, except for the face of a person? Rav Huna, son of Rav Idi, said: From a lecture of Abaye I heard that there is a different reason why one may not form an image of a human face, as the verse states: โ€œYou shall not make with Me [iti]โ€ (Exodus 20:19). This can be read as: You shall not make Me [oti]. Since man is created in the image of God, it is prohibited to form an image of a human being.

ื•ืฉืืจ ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ืžืจื•ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืื•ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉืจืคื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื•ืช ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืžื“ื•ืจ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to form images of other attendants? Isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita that the verse: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silverโ€ (Exodus 20:19), teaches that you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high, for example, ofanim and seraphim and the sacred แธฅayyot and the ministering angels. Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only those attendants that are found in the upper Heaven, i.e., the supreme angels in the highest firmament, but not the celestial bodies, e.g., the sun and the moon, despite the fact that they too are located in heaven.

ื•ืฉื‘ืžื“ื•ืจ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ืžื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื•ืžื–ืœื•ืช ืžืžืขืœ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ืœืขื‘ื“ื

The Gemara raises another difficulty: And is it permitted to form images of those bodies found in the lower heaven? Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: โ€œYou shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earthโ€ (Exodus 20:3). The phrase โ€œthat is in heavenโ€ comes to include the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations. The term โ€œaboveโ€ serves to include the ministering angels. Apparently, it is prohibited to form an image even of the celestial bodies found in the lower Heaven. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is in reference to the prohibition against worshipping them. However, there is no prohibition against forming an image in their likeness.

ืื™ ืœืขื‘ื“ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœืฉื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฅ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืจื™ื ื•ื’ื‘ืขื•ืช ื™ืžื™ื ื•ื ื”ืจื•ืช ืืคื™ืงื™ื ื•ื’ืื™ื•ืช ืžืชื—ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If that baraita is referring to the prohibition against worshipping them, then even a tiny worm should also be prohibited. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, as it is taught in the same baraita with regard to the continuation of the verse, โ€œin the earthโ€ comes to include mountains and hills, seas and rivers, streams and valleys; โ€œbeneathโ€ comes to include a tiny worm. If so, it is indeed possible to explain that the entire baraita is referring to the prohibition against idol worship.

ื•ืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื’ืจื™ื“ืชื ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื—ืžื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื•ืžื–ืœื•ืช

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And is the mere fashioning of images of the celestial bodies permitted? Isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silverโ€ (Exodus 20:19). This verse teaches that you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me, for example the sun, the moon, the stars and the constellations. This is explicit proof that it is prohibited to form images of the sun and the moon; consequently, the solution proposed by Abaye is rejected, leaving the difficulty with Rabban Gamlielโ€™s diagram unresolved.

ืฉืื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ืœื• ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ืœื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ื ื ื ืกืžื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara proposes an alternative resolution: The case of Rabban Gamliel is different, as others, i.e., gentiles, fashioned those images for him, and it is prohibited only for a Jew to fashion such images; there is no prohibition against having them in oneโ€™s possession. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of Rav Yehuda, as others fashioned for him a seal in the form of a human being, and Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, who was his student: Sharp-witted one, blind this oneโ€™s eyes, i.e., disfigure the image, as it is prohibited even to have the image of a human being in oneโ€™s possession.

ื”ืชื ื—ื•ืชืžื• ื‘ื•ืœื˜ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฉื“ื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื—ื•ืชืžื• ื‘ื•ืœื˜ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื”ื ื™ื—ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื—ืชื•ื ื‘ื” ื—ื•ืชืžื• ืฉื•ืงืข ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื”ื ื™ื—ื” ื•ืืกื•ืจ ืœื—ืชื•ื ื‘ื”

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rav Yehuda, his was a protruding seal, i.e., the image projected from the ring, and Shmuel prohibited it due to the potential suspicion that he had an object of idol worship in his hand. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a ring, if its seal protrudes it is prohibited to place it on oneโ€™s finger, due to the suspicion of idol worship, but it is permitted to seal objects with it. In this case, the act of sealing creates an image that is sunken below the surface, which is not prohibited. However, if its seal is sunken, it is permitted to place it on oneโ€™s finger, but it is prohibited to seal objects with it, as that creates a protruding image.

ื•ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื—ืฉื“ื ื•ื”ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื“ืฉืฃ ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื™ื” ืื ื“ืจื˜ื ื•ื”ื•ื• ืขื™ื™ืœื™ ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืœื•ื™ ื•ืžืฆืœื• ื”ืชื ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ ืœื—ืฉื“ื ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉืื ื™

The Gemara asks: And are we concerned about arousing suspicion in a case of this kind? But what about that certain synagogue that had been destroyed in Eretz Yisrael and its stones were relocated and it was rebuilt so that it sat in Nehardeโ€™a, and there was a statue [andarta] of the king in it. And nevertheless Rav and Shmuel and Shmuelโ€™s father and Levi would all enter and pray there and they were not concerned about arousing suspicion. The Gemara answers: When many Jews are present it is different, as a large group is not suspected of having idolatrous intentions. Rather, it is assumed that the statue is there exclusively for purposes of ornamentation.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ืคืจืงื™ื ื”ื•ื”

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t Rabban Gamliel an individual? According to this reasoning, his images of the moon should have been prohibited, as they would have aroused suspicion. The Gemara answers: Since he is the Nasi, the head of the Great Sanhedrin, many people were always found with him, and therefore there was no room for suspicion. The Gemara suggests an alternative answer: If you wish, say that these images were not whole; rather, they were formed from pieces of images that had to be put together. Only complete images are prohibited.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืœื”ืชืœืžื“ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืœืžื“ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืœืžื“ ืœื”ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื•ืจื•ืช

The Gemara suggests yet another answer: If you wish, say: Rabban Gamliel did this to teach himself, which is not prohibited, as it is written: โ€œYou shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nationsโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:9), which indicates: However, you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, it is permitted to do certain things for the sake of Torah study which would otherwise be prohibited.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ืื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืืžืจื• ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืฉื—ืจื™ืช ื‘ืžื–ืจื—

MISHNA: There was an incident in which two witnesses came to testify about the new moon, and they said: We saw the waning moon in the morning in the east,

Masechet Rosh Hashana ย is dedicated anonymously in honor ofย Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Rosh Hashanah: 18-24 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how they sanctified each month during the Temple period. Witnesses came to testify in Jerusalem,...

Rosh Hashanah 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 24

ื’ื™ืจื™ ืงื ืžืฉื“ื™ื™ื

that the sun is shooting arrows at those who deny its divinity, using the rainbow as its bow. The concave side of the rainbow always faces away from the sun, so that it does not look like a bow held by the sun.

ื›ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื’ื‘ื•ื” ื•ืœืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื˜ื” ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ื—ื“ื ืœืฆืคื•ื ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื“ืจื•ืžื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืคื›ื ืœื“ืจื•ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœืฆืคื•ื ื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

ยง The mishna taught that the examination of the witnesses included the following questions: How high was the moon over the horizon, and in which direction did it tilt? It was taught in one baraita: If the witness testifies that he saw the moon to the north of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says that he saw it to its south, he has not said anything of significance, as this is impossible. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t the opposite taught in a different baraita: If he testifies that he saw the moon to the south of the sun, his statement is valid. However, if he says he saw it to its north, he has not said anything.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื’ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the summer, when the moon is to the south of the sun; there, in the first baraita mentioned above, it is referring to the rainy season, when the moon is to the north of the sun.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืฉืชื™ ืžืจื“ืขื•ืช ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืงื™ื™ืžืช ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœืฉื” ื•ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉื” ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ื˜ื™ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœืขื“ื•ืช ืื—ืจืช

The Sages taught in a baraita: If one witness says that he saw the moon two plow handles high above the horizon, and the other one says it was three plow handles high, their testimony is valid, as a small discrepancy of this kind is reasonable. However, if one says that he saw the moon three plow handles above the horizon, and the other one says it was five plow handles high, their testimony is void, as that discrepancy is unacceptable. However, this does not mean that the witnesses themselves are disqualified, as either of them may join with another testimony, i.e., he may combine his account with that of another witness who testifies likewise.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื‘ืžื™ื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื‘ืขืฉืฉื™ืช ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืžื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉืฉื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื•

The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: We did not actually see the moon, but we saw it reflected in the water, or we saw it reflected in a glass lantern, or we saw it through thin clouds, they may not testify about it, as only a direct sighting of the moon is acceptable. If they say: We saw half of the moonโ€™s reflection in the water, or we saw half of it through the clouds, or we saw half of it in a lantern, they still may not testify about it.

ื”ืฉืชื ื›ื•ืœื• ืืžืจืช ืœื ื—ืฆื™ื• ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืžื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืจืงื™ืข ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขื‘ื™ื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืจืงื™ืข ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืขืฉืฉื™ืช ื—ืฆื™ื• ื‘ืจืงื™ืข ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: Now, if when one sees the entire moon in this manner, you said that this is not valid testimony, is it necessary to teach that one may not testify when he sees only half of it? Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses saw half of the moonโ€™s reflection in water and half of it directly in the sky, or half of it through the clouds and half of it in the sky, or half of it in a lantern and half of it in the sky, although they saw half of the moon directly, they may not testify about it until they see the entire moon in the sky.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ื•ืฉื•ื‘ ืœื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื›ืœ ื”ื›ื™ ื—ื–ื• ืœื” ื•ืื–ืœื™

The Sages taught in another baraita that if the witnesses say: One moment we saw the new moon, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. The Gemara asks: Must they go on watching it to such an extent, i.e., why should they have to see it for a long period of time?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืžืืœื™ื ื• ื•ืฉื‘ื ื• ืœืจืื•ืชื• ืžื“ืขืชื ื• ื•ืœื ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืขื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื›ื•ื‘ื™ืชื ื“ืขื™ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื—ื–ื™

Abaye said that this is what the baraita is saying: If the witnesses say: We saw the moon on our own accord, i.e., by chance, without looking for it, and then we returned to look for it on purpose, to deliver precise testimony about it, but we did not see it again, they may not testify about it. What is the reason? Because one can say that the first time it was merely a small round white cloud that they saw, which they mistook for the moon, and that is why when they looked for it again they could not find it.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจืืฉ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•

MISHNA: After the witnesses have been examined and their testimony accepted, the head of the court says: It is sanctified. And all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified. Whether the moon was seen at its anticipated time, on the thirtieth day of the previous month, or whether it was not seen at its anticipated time, in which case witnesses are not necessary to establish the following day as the New Moon, the court sanctifies it and formally proclaims the day as the New Moon.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืœื ื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืงื™ื“ืฉื•ื”ื• ืฉืžื™ื

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day, as the celestial court in Heaven has already sanctified it, precluding the need for the additional sanctification by the earthly court.

ื’ืžืณ ืจืืฉ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ืžื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฉื” ืืช ืžื•ืขื“ื™ ื”ืณ ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืจืืฉ ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the head of the court says: It is sanctified. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the court must sanctify the New Moon, derived? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Gamda said that Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that the verse states: โ€œAnd Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 23:44). From here it is derived that the head of the court says: It is sanctified, as it is evident from the verse that Moses, whose status was equivalent to that of the head of the Great Sanhedrin, declared the appointed times of the Festivals and New Moons in a formal manner.

ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืฉืจ ืชืงืจืื• ืื•ืชื ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ืืชื ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืืœื” ื”ื ืžื•ืขื“ื™ ื”ื ื™ืืžืจื• ืžื•ืขื“ื™

ยง The mishna further teaches that after the head of the court says: It is sanctified, all the people respond after him: It is sanctified; it is sanctified. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: โ€œWhich you shall proclaim them [otam] to be sacred convocationsโ€ (Leviticus 23:2). Instead of otam, read into the verse: You [atem], as though the verse stated: Which you shall proclaim, you. This superfluous word you teaches that the month must be proclaimed not only by the head of the court, but also by you, the people. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said that it is derived from the phrase: โ€œThese are [hem] My appointed seasonsโ€ (Leviticus 23:2). The term hem can also mean: They, which indicates that they, the people, should likewise say and announce My appointed seasons.

ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืจืื™ ืงื•ื“ืฉ

The Gemara further asks: Why do I need the people to declare: It is sanctified; it is sanctified, twice? The Gemara answers that the reason is that it is written: โ€œSacred convocationsโ€ (Leviticus 23:2) in the plural, which indicates that they must announce it twice.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ืื•ืžืจ ืื ืœื ื ืจืื” ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืชื ื™ื ืคืœื™ืžื• ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉืœื ื‘ื–ืžื ื• ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื•

ยง The mishna taught that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon on the following day. The Gemara cites other opinions in this regard: It is taught in a baraita that the Sage Palaimo says: If the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon, as the new moon appeared as expected and there is no need for any special sanctification. However, if the new moon was seen not at its anticipated time, the court must sanctify the New Moon.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ืฉื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืงื“ืฉืชื ืืช ืฉื ืช ื”ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ืืชื” ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงื“ืฉ ื—ื“ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, the court does not sanctify the New Moon formally, as it is stated: โ€œAnd you shall sanctify the fiftieth yearโ€ (Leviticus 25:10), from which it is derived: You must formally sanctify years in court, but you do not have to formally sanctify months, as they are sanctified automatically by Heaven. Rather, it is enough merely to announce to the public that a certain day was established as the New Moon. Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, that if the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court sanctifies the new month; however, if it was not seen at its anticipated time, they do not sanctify it.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ืจืื•ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื—ืงืจื• ื”ืขื“ื™ื ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืงื• ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืขื“ ืฉื—ืฉื™ื›ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืขื•ื‘ืจ ืžืขื•ื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœื

Abaye said: We, too, learn in a mishna: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, and the witnesses were interrogated, but the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month. This indicates that full, yes; i.e., in this case, it is necessary to extend the previous month. However, sanctified, no; there is no need to formally sanctify the month, as the New Moon does not occur on its anticipated date in this case.

ืžืขื•ื‘ืจ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ื›ื ืœื™ื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจืื•ื”ื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ืคืจืกืžื ื•ืœื ืœื™ืขื‘ืจื•ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here, as it was necessary for the mishna to mention that the month is rendered a full, thirty-day month. The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that since the court and the entire Jewish people saw the new moon, it has become public knowledge and therefore there is no need to render the previous month a full, thirty-day month. Consequently, the mishna teaches us that even in this case the previous month must be extended. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the New Moon must be formally sanctified on the following day.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ืžื•ืช ืฆื•ืจื•ืช ืœื‘ื ื” ื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืœื ื•ื‘ื›ื•ืชืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ืชื• ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืจืื” ืืช ื”ื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ื•ืช ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ื–ื” ืจืื™ืช ืื• ื›ื–ื”

MISHNA: Rabban Gamliel had a diagram of the different forms of the moon drawn on a tablet that hung on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the laymen who came to testify about the new moon but were unable to describe adequately what they had seen. And he would say to them: Did you see a form like this or like this?

ื’ืžืณ ื•ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to create these types of forms? Isnโ€™t it written: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silver, or gods of goldโ€ (Exodus 20:19), which is interpreted as teaching: You shall not make images of My attendants, i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon?

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืืคืฉืจ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื›ืžื•ืชืŸ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืช ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ื”ื™ื›ืœ ืื›ืกื“ืจื” ืชื‘ื ื™ืช ืื•ืœื ื—ืฆืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืขื–ืจื” ืฉืœื—ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ืฉืœื—ืŸ ืžื ื•ืจื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืžื ื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ืขื•ืฉื”

ยง Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only the images of those attendants with regard to which it is possible to reproduce an item in their likeness. Since it is impossible for anyone to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these objects. As it is taught in a baraita: A person may not construct a house in the exact form of the Sanctuary, nor a portico in the exact form of the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary, nor a courtyard corresponding to the Temple courtyard, nor a table corresponding to the table in the Temple, nor a candelabrum corresponding to the candelabrum in the Temple. However, one may fashion

ืฉืœ ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืฉื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœ ืฉืืจ ืžื™ื ื™ ืžืชื›ื•ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ืœื ื™ืขืฉื” ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืขืฉื• ืžืœื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืฉืžื•ื ืื™

a candelabrum of five or of six or of eight lamps. But one may not fashion a candelabrum with seven lamps even if he constructs it from other kinds of metal rather than gold, as in exigent circumstances the candelabrum in the Temple may be fashioned from other metals. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Also, one may not fashion a candelabrum of wood, in the manner that the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy fashioned it. When they first purified the Temple they had to prepare the candelabrum out of wood, as no other material was available. Since this candelabrum is fit for the Temple, it is prohibited to fashion one of this kind for oneself.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืฉื ืจืื™ื™ื” ืฉืคื•ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ื‘ืจื–ืœ ื”ื™ื• ื•ื—ื™ืคื•ื ื‘ื‘ืขืฅ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื›ืกืฃ ื—ื–ืจื• ื”ืขืฉื™ืจื• ืขืฉืื•ื ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘

The other Sages said to Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda: From there you seek to bring a proof? There the branches of the candelabrum were comprised of spits [shippudin] of iron and they covered them with tin. Later, when they grew richer and could afford a candelabrum of higher-quality material, they fashioned them from silver. When they grew even richer, they fashioned them from gold. Still, Abaye proves from this baraita that the prohibition against forming an image applies only to items that can be reconstructed in an accurate manner. Since this is not possible in the case of the moon, Rabban Gamlielโ€™s forms were permitted.

ื•ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ื›ืžื•ืชืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ืžืจื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื“ืžื•ืช ืืจื‘ืขื” ืคื ื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื“ื™

The Gemara asks: And is it really permitted to form images of those attendants concerning which it is impossible to reproduce their likeness? Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that the verse: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silverโ€ (Exodus 20:19), comes to teach: You shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high. Apparently, this includes the sun and the moon. Abaye said: This does not include the sun and the moon, as the Torah prohibited only the fashioning of an image of all four faces of the creatures of the Heavenly Chariot together (see Ezekiel, chapter 1). However, all other images, which are not the likeness of the ministering angels, are permitted.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืคืจืฆื•ืฃ ืื“ื ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืชืฉืชืจื™ ืืœืžื” ืชื ื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืคืจืฆื•ืคื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืคืจืฆื•ืฃ ืื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ืžืคืจืงื™ื” ื“ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžื™ืขื ืœื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืื•ืชื™

The Gemara raises a difficulty: However, if that is so, let the fashioning of an image of a human face [partzuf ] alone be permitted. Why, then, is it taught in a baraita: All faces are permitted for ornamental purposes, except for the face of a person? Rav Huna, son of Rav Idi, said: From a lecture of Abaye I heard that there is a different reason why one may not form an image of a human face, as the verse states: โ€œYou shall not make with Me [iti]โ€ (Exodus 20:19). This can be read as: You shall not make Me [oti]. Since man is created in the image of God, it is prohibited to form an image of a human being.

ื•ืฉืืจ ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ืžืจื•ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืื•ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉืจืคื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื•ืช ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืกืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืžื“ื•ืจ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ

The Gemara asks: And is it permitted to form images of other attendants? Isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita that the verse: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silverโ€ (Exodus 20:19), teaches that you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me on high, for example, ofanim and seraphim and the sacred แธฅayyot and the ministering angels. Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only those attendants that are found in the upper Heaven, i.e., the supreme angels in the highest firmament, but not the celestial bodies, e.g., the sun and the moon, despite the fact that they too are located in heaven.

ื•ืฉื‘ืžื“ื•ืจ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื—ืžื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื•ืžื–ืœื•ืช ืžืžืขืœ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ื›ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื”ื”ื™ื ืœืขื‘ื“ื

The Gemara raises another difficulty: And is it permitted to form images of those bodies found in the lower heaven? Isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: โ€œYou shall not make for yourself any graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earthโ€ (Exodus 20:3). The phrase โ€œthat is in heavenโ€ comes to include the sun, the moon, the stars, and the constellations. The term โ€œaboveโ€ serves to include the ministering angels. Apparently, it is prohibited to form an image even of the celestial bodies found in the lower Heaven. The Gemara answers: When that baraita is taught, it is in reference to the prohibition against worshipping them. However, there is no prohibition against forming an image in their likeness.

ืื™ ืœืขื‘ื“ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœืฉื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฅ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืจื™ื ื•ื’ื‘ืขื•ืช ื™ืžื™ื ื•ื ื”ืจื•ืช ืืคื™ืงื™ื ื•ื’ืื™ื•ืช ืžืชื—ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉื•ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ

The Gemara asks: If that baraita is referring to the prohibition against worshipping them, then even a tiny worm should also be prohibited. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, as it is taught in the same baraita with regard to the continuation of the verse, โ€œin the earthโ€ comes to include mountains and hills, seas and rivers, streams and valleys; โ€œbeneathโ€ comes to include a tiny worm. If so, it is indeed possible to explain that the entire baraita is referring to the prohibition against idol worship.

ื•ืขืฉื™ื™ื” ื’ืจื™ื“ืชื ืžื™ ืฉืจื™ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ืืชื™ ืœื ืชืขืฉื•ืŸ ื›ื“ืžื•ืช ืฉืžืฉื™ื™ ื”ืžืฉืžืฉื™ืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื—ืžื” ื•ืœื‘ื ื” ื›ื•ื›ื‘ื™ื ื•ืžื–ืœื•ืช

The Gemara raises yet another objection: And is the mere fashioning of images of the celestial bodies permitted? Isnโ€™t it taught in another baraita: โ€œYou shall not make with Me gods of silverโ€ (Exodus 20:19). This verse teaches that you shall not make images of My attendants that serve before Me, for example the sun, the moon, the stars and the constellations. This is explicit proof that it is prohibited to form images of the sun and the moon; consequently, the solution proposed by Abaye is rejected, leaving the difficulty with Rabban Gamlielโ€™s diagram unresolved.

ืฉืื ื™ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ืœื• ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืื—ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ืœื• ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ื ื ื ืกืžื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื“ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara proposes an alternative resolution: The case of Rabban Gamliel is different, as others, i.e., gentiles, fashioned those images for him, and it is prohibited only for a Jew to fashion such images; there is no prohibition against having them in oneโ€™s possession. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of Rav Yehuda, as others fashioned for him a seal in the form of a human being, and Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda, who was his student: Sharp-witted one, blind this oneโ€™s eyes, i.e., disfigure the image, as it is prohibited even to have the image of a human being in oneโ€™s possession.

ื”ืชื ื—ื•ืชืžื• ื‘ื•ืœื˜ ื”ื•ื” ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื—ืฉื“ื ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื˜ื‘ืขืช ื—ื•ืชืžื• ื‘ื•ืœื˜ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื”ื ื™ื—ื” ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื—ืชื•ื ื‘ื” ื—ื•ืชืžื• ืฉื•ืงืข ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื”ื ื™ื—ื” ื•ืืกื•ืจ ืœื—ืชื•ื ื‘ื”

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of Rav Yehuda, his was a protruding seal, i.e., the image projected from the ring, and Shmuel prohibited it due to the potential suspicion that he had an object of idol worship in his hand. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a ring, if its seal protrudes it is prohibited to place it on oneโ€™s finger, due to the suspicion of idol worship, but it is permitted to seal objects with it. In this case, the act of sealing creates an image that is sunken below the surface, which is not prohibited. However, if its seal is sunken, it is permitted to place it on oneโ€™s finger, but it is prohibited to seal objects with it, as that creates a protruding image.

ื•ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื—ืฉื“ื ื•ื”ื ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื™ ื›ื ื™ืฉืชื ื“ืฉืฃ ื•ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื ื”ืจื“ืขื ื“ื”ื•ื” ื‘ื™ื” ืื ื“ืจื˜ื ื•ื”ื•ื• ืขื™ื™ืœื™ ืจื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ืœื•ื™ ื•ืžืฆืœื• ื”ืชื ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ ืœื—ืฉื“ื ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉืื ื™

The Gemara asks: And are we concerned about arousing suspicion in a case of this kind? But what about that certain synagogue that had been destroyed in Eretz Yisrael and its stones were relocated and it was rebuilt so that it sat in Nehardeโ€™a, and there was a statue [andarta] of the king in it. And nevertheless Rav and Shmuel and Shmuelโ€™s father and Levi would all enter and pray there and they were not concerned about arousing suspicion. The Gemara answers: When many Jews are present it is different, as a large group is not suspected of having idolatrous intentions. Rather, it is assumed that the statue is there exclusively for purposes of ornamentation.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืฉื›ื™ื—ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ืคืจืงื™ื ื”ื•ื”

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t Rabban Gamliel an individual? According to this reasoning, his images of the moon should have been prohibited, as they would have aroused suspicion. The Gemara answers: Since he is the Nasi, the head of the Great Sanhedrin, many people were always found with him, and therefore there was no room for suspicion. The Gemara suggests an alternative answer: If you wish, say that these images were not whole; rather, they were formed from pieces of images that had to be put together. Only complete images are prohibited.

ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืœื”ืชืœืžื“ ืขื‘ื“ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชืœืžื“ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืื‘ืœ ืืชื” ืœืžื“ ืœื”ื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื”ื•ืจื•ืช

The Gemara suggests yet another answer: If you wish, say: Rabban Gamliel did this to teach himself, which is not prohibited, as it is written: โ€œYou shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nationsโ€ (Deuteronomy 18:9), which indicates: However, you may learn to understand and to teach. In other words, it is permitted to do certain things for the sake of Torah study which would otherwise be prohibited.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืขืฉื” ืฉื‘ืื• ืฉื ื™ื ื•ืืžืจื• ืจืื™ื ื•ื”ื• ืฉื—ืจื™ืช ื‘ืžื–ืจื—

MISHNA: There was an incident in which two witnesses came to testify about the new moon, and they said: We saw the waning moon in the morning in the east,

Scroll To Top