Save "Kiddush Hachodesh
"
Kiddush Hachodesh

הַחֹ֧דֶשׁ הַזֶּ֛ה לָכֶ֖ם רֹ֣אשׁ חֳדָשִׁ֑ים רִאשׁ֥וֹן הוּא֙ לָכֶ֔ם לְחָדְשֵׁ֖י הַשָּׁנָֽה׃

This month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you.

(א) (ב) הזה. נִתְקַשָּׁה מֹשֶׁה עַל מוֹלַד הַלְּבָנָה, בְּאֵיזוֹ שִׁעוּר תֵּרָאֶה וְתִהְיֶה רְאוּיָה לְקַדֵּשׁ, וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ בְּאֶצְבַּע אֶת הַלְּבָנָה בָּרָקִיעַ וְאָמַר לוֹ כָּזֶה רְאֵה וְקַדֵּשׁ (שם). וְכֵיצַד הֶרְאָהוּ? וַהֲלֹא לֹא הָיָה נִדְבָּר עִמּוֹ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם? שֶׁנֶּ' "וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר ה'" (שמות ו'), "בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ" (ויקרא ז'), "מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' וָהָלְאָה" (במדבר ט"ו)? אֶלָּא סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה נֶאֶמְרָה לוֹ פָרָשָׁה זוֹ וְהֶרְאָהוּ עִם חֲשֵׁכָה:

(1) החדש הזה — He showed him the moon in the first stage of its renewal, and He said to him, “The time when the moon renews itself thus, shall be unto you the beginning of the month”. (The translation therefore is: “This stage of renewal (חדש) shall be the moment of beginning the months”; cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:2:2). But no Scriptural verse can lose its literal meaning, and He really spoke this in reference to the month Nisan: this month shall be the beginning in the order of counting the months, so that Iyar shall be called the second, Sivan the third. (2) הזה THIS [STAGE OF RENEWAL] — Moses was in perplexity regarding the Molad of (the exact moment when begins) the new moon — how much of it must be visible before it is proper to consecrate it as new moon: He therefore pointed it out to him in the sky with the finger and said to him, “Behold it like this, and consecrate it” (i. e., when you see the moon in a stage of renewal similar to this which you now behold you may proclaim that a new month has begun). But how could He point it out to him, for did He not conserve with him only by day, as it is said, (Exodus 6:28) “And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spake [unto Moses]”; (Leviticus 7:38) “On the day when he commanded”; (Numbers 15:23) “From the day that the Lord commanded and henceforward”? But the explanation is: This chapter was spoken to him close to sunset and He pointed it out to him at nightfall (more lit., near darkness) (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:2:1).

גמ׳ א"ר לוי מאי טעמא דר"ש דכתיב (שמות יב, א) 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.

מעשה שבאו שנים ואמרו ראינוהו שחרית במזרח וערבית במערב א"ר יוחנן בן נורי עדי שקר הם כשבאו ליבנה קיבלן רבן גמליאל

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, and that same day we saw the new moon in the evening in the west. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: They are false witnesses, as it is impossible to see the new moon so soon after the last sighting of the waning moon. However, when they arrived in Yavne, Rabban Gamliel accepted them as witnesses without concern. And there was another incident in which two witnesses came and said: We saw the new moon at its anticipated time, i.e., on the night of the thirtieth day of the previous month; however, on the following night, i.e., the start of the thirty-first, which is often the determinant of a full, thirty-day month, it was not seen. And nevertheless Rabban Gamliel accepted their testimony and established the New Moon on the thirtieth day.

דמות צורות לבנות היו לו לרבן גמליאל כו': מעשה שבאו שנים ואמרו ראינוהו שחרית כו': ושמא תחשוב באמרם ראינוהו שחרית במזרח וערבית במערב מה שחושבין הטפשים שהאמינם בשני הדברים והיה אצל רבן גמליאל אפשר שיראה הירח במזרח קודם הנץ החמה ובו ביום שיראה בעצמו במערב אחר שקיעת החמה זהו מן הנמנע בתכלית המניעות לא יתחייב בשום פנים ואין מאמין זה אלא אדם עם הארץ טפש בתכלית הטפשות לא ירגיש מן הגלגל אלא כמו שירגיש השור והחמור וכל מה שנפל בדמיונם ...ורבן גמליאל לפי שדקדק זה הענין ידע שאפשר שיראה באותו הלילה וקיבל דבריהם באמרם ראינוהו ערבית במערב ולא השגיח לאמרם שחרית במזרח כי התורה לא הטריח אותנו לשאל העדיות על ראייתו שחרית ולא היתה אמונתו שכזבו אבל האמין שנראה להם דבר בדמות ירח ולא היה כן כי מן הנמנע ראייתו בבקרו של אותו היום ולפעמים יצטייר באויר צורת ירח :

ולפי מדרשו לכם לומר שקדוש החדש צריך בית דין מומחין (ר''ה כה:) ולכך לא נאמר בתחלה ''דברו אל כל עדת ישראל'', שאין בקדוש החדש אלא משה ואהרן וכיוצא בהם.

(1) This month shall be unto you the beginning of months is the first commandment which the Holy One Blessed Be He commanded Israel through Moses, and therefore [the previous verse] says "in the land of Egypt," for the remaining commandments of the Torah were [give] at Mount Sinai. Or it means to say in the land of Egypt, and not in a city of Egypt, as our Sages said (Mekhilta 12:1:4), "outside of a town."
It would have been fitting for [the verse] to say first, "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying," [and then] "This month shall be unto you" and the remainder of the section, but Moses and Aaron stand in place of Israel, and [the verse] says "unto you," referring to all the generations of Israel, and then it returns and says "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel," that [Moses] should command them in the one-off command of taking the Passover sacrifice of [the generation of] Egypt on the tenth [of the month of Nisan].
According to its drash, "unto you" means that sanctification of the month requires a court of expert [judges] (Rosh Hashanah 25b), and therefore it was not written earlier, "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel," for sanctification of the month applies only to Moses and Aaron and [experts] of their kind. And the reason for, "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months" is that Israel will count the first month, and from there will count all the months as second and third until the completion of the year with the twelfth month, so that this will be a reminder of a great miracle, for any time that the months will be mentioned the miracle will be remembered, and therefore the months have no names in the Torah, but rather it says, "in the third month" (Exodus 19:1), and, "in the second year in the second month...that the cloud was taken up" (Numbers 10:11), and, "in the seventh month on the first of the month, etc." (Numbers 29:1) and so with all of them [i.e. all verses mentioning dates].
And just as the Sabbath Day is remembered by our counting from it the first [day] from the Sabbath and the second [day] from the Sabbath, as I will explain (Ramban on Exodus 20:8:1), so too the Exodus from Egypt is remembered by our counting of the first month and the second and the third from our redemption, for this counting is not for [numbering] the year, for the start of our year is in Tishrei, as it is written (Exodus 34:22), "and the feast of ingathering [i.e. Sukkot] at the turn of the year," and it is written (Exodus 23:16), "(and the feast of ingathering), at the end of the year." If so, then when the month of Nisan is called the first [month] and Tishrei the seventh, the solution is that [Nisan is] the first [month] from redemption and [Tishrei is] the seventh. This is the reason for, "it shall be the first...to you," for it is not the first in the year, but it is the first for you, for such is it called as a remembrance of our redemption.
And our Sages have already mentioned this topic, and said that the names of the months came with us from Babylonia (Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah 6a), for at the start we had no names. The reason for this is that at the start the order of [the months] was as a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, but when we left Babylonia and the verse was fulfilled (Jeremiah 16:14-15), "that it shall no more be said: 'As the LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but: ‘As the LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north," we returned to calling the months by the names by which they were called in Babylonia, as a reminder that there we stood and from there the Lord drew us out. For the names Nisan, Iyar, and the others are Persian names and are only found in the books of the Babylonian prophets (Zechariah 1:7, Ezra 6:15, Nehemiah 1:1) and in Megilat Esther (3:7). Therefore the verse says, "In the first month, which is the month Nisan," similar to, "They cast pur, that is, the lot" (ibid.). And until today the nations in the lands of Persia and Media call [the months] Nisan and Tishrei and all the rest like us. And these [names] recall through the months the second redemption just as we did until now for the first one.

אמר שמואל יכילנא לתקוני לכולה גולה

§ Shmuel said: I am able to fix the calendar for the entire Diaspora without witnesses. Shmuel was an expert on the movement of the celestial bodies and on the principles governing leap years and additional days added to months.
יכילנא לתקוני - בלא ראיית עדים כי בקי אני בתולדות הלבנה והילוכה וסדר המזלות:

ר"ג כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא אין חדושה של לבנה פחותה מעשרים ותשעה יום ומחצה ושני שלישי שעה וע"ג חלקים

The Sages taught in a baraita: Once the sky was covered with clouds, and the form of the moon was visible on the twenty-ninth of the month. The people thought to say that the day was the New Moon, and the court sought to sanctify it. However, Rabban Gamliel said to them: This is the tradition that I received from the house of my father’s father: The monthly cycle of the renewal of the moon takes no less than twenty-nine and a half days, plus two-thirds of an hour, plus seventy-three of the 1,080 subsections of an hour.

כיצד בודקין את העדים זוג שבא ראשון כו': ן. ... ומה שהיו סומכין על החשבון אם תראה אם לא תראה היא כמו שבארתי לך לא שיסמכו על החשבון בלבד ויעשו ראש חדש על פי החשבון אע"פ שמצד החשבון תראה. וסוד העיבור שמסר לו הקב"ה למשה בסיני הוא ענין חשבון שיודעין בו קצת הראייה באמת ובעלי החשבון מכל האומות והפילוסופים חולקין בו ועד הנה נמשך הדבר ועדיין לא נתברר אצלם שיעורו באמת. וזה החשבון שיש בידינו היום הוא חלק מאותו החשבון ותחלתו לפי שהוא מנין הקבוץ האמצעי בלבד. ...

וְדָבָר זֶה הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי הוּא. שֶׁבִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ סַנְהֶדְרִין קוֹבְעִין עַל פִּי הָרְאִיָּה וּבִזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם סַנְהֶדְרִין קוֹבְעִין עַל פִּי הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן הַזֶּה שֶׁאָנוּ מְחַשְּׁבִין בּוֹ הַיּוֹם וְאֵין נִזְקָקִין לִרְאִיָּה. אֶלָּא פְּעָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיֶה יוֹם שֶׁקּוֹבְעִין בּוֹ בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן זֶה הוּא יוֹם הָרְאִיָּה אוֹ קוֹדֵם לוֹ בַּיּוֹם אוֹ אַחֲרָיו בַּיּוֹם. וְזֶה שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אַחַר הָרְאִיָּה בְּיוֹם פֶּלֶא הוּא וּבַאֲרָצוֹת שֶׁהֵן לְמַעֲרַב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

And this matter is a law of Moses from Sinai: That at a time that there is a Sanhedrin, we set [the new month] by sighting; and when the Sanhedrin does not exist, we set [it] according to this calculation that we [use] to calculate today, and we are not concerned about the sighting. Rather, sometimes the day we set with this calculation will be the day of sighting; [and sometimes it will be] a day before it, or a day after it. And that it will be after the sighting by a day is a wonder (i.e. very rare), and [only] in lands that are to the west of the Land of Israel.

(ח) וְאַחַר כָּךְ אַחַר שֶׁתִּתְקַיֵּם הָעֵדוּת רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין אוֹמֵר מְקֻדָּשׁ וְכָל הָעָם עוֹנִים אַחֲרָיו מְקֻדָּשׁ מְקֻדָּשׁ. וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנִּרְאֶה בִּזְמַנּוֹ:

(8) Thereupon, when the evidence has been sustained, the chief justice of the court proclaims Mekuddash! [the new moon is sanctified], and after him all the people present respond: Mekuddash! Mekuddash! Only a court of three may carry out the calculation and the sanctification of the new moon. The formal sanctification of the new moon is proclaimed only when the new moon has been observed in its proper time; and this must be done at daytime. If it was done at night, the sanctification is not valid. And even if the court and all of Israel saw it, but the court didn't say, "[It is] sanctified," until it became dark on the night of the thirty-first; or they investigated the witnesses and the court didn't manage to say, "[It is] sanctified," until it became dark on the night of the thirty-first – they don't sanctify it; and the month will be intercalated, and Rosh Chodesh (the first of the month) will only be on the thirty-first – even though it was seen on the night of the thirtieth. For it is not the sighting that sets [it], but rather it is the court saying, "[It is] sanctified," that sets [it].

שם ... הא דדחינן משום אד"ו היינו היכא שלא באו עדי ראייה דאפ"ה היו יכולין לקדש באותו יום כיון שידעו הב"ד ע"פ חשבון שראוי לקדש כיון שאפשר לראות הלבנה ועדי ראייה לא מעכבי דידיעה הוי כראייה בכל מקום וקרינן ביה כזה ראה וקדש אלא דמצוה מן המובחר ראוי להמתין עד סמוך לחשיכה שמא עדיין יבואו עדים ...

וענין ... כי לא נצטוינו בתורה לקבוע החדשים על פי ראית הלבנה כי אם על פי החשבון....שכל ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר היה הענן מכסה אותם ביום ועמוד האש לילה ולא ראו בכלם שמש ביום ולא ירח בלילה..., אלא בודאי עקר המצוה בכתוב על פי החשבון.והנה מסורת בידינו לעולם כי י"ב חדשי השנה ה' חדשים מהם כל אחד ל' יום וה' חדשים מהם כל אחד מהם כ"ט יום, ושנים מהם פעמים שניהם ל' יום ופעמים שהם כ"ט כ"ט, פעמים אחד מהם ל' והשני כ"ט, ושני חדשים הללו הם מרחשון כסלו, ומסורת בידינו כי ר"ח תשרי ראש השנה לשנים וכי לכל חדש הלכה למשה מסיני כ"ט יום ומחצה ותשצ"ג חלקים ...וכן תמצא מדברי דוד ליהונתן שאמר (שמואל א כ) הנה חדש מחר ואנכי ישב אשב עם המלך ומהיכן היה יודע דוד שמחר חדש לולא שעל פי החשבון היו קובעים,..., הלא הדבר מוכיח שהיו באותו החדש שני ימים של ר"ח כמנהגנו עד עכשו בהיות החדש יוצא כך היו נוהגים כל ישראל לקבוע חדשים על פי החשבון אלף ומאה שנים מימות משה רבינו ועד אנטיגנוס ראש גולה וראש סנהדרין, והיו בכלל תלמידיו שנים והם צדוק וביתוס ו... ויצאו לתרבות רעה והתחילו לעורר בזה בקביעות הירח ואמרו כי אין עקר המצוה לקבוע חדשים על פי החשבון כי אם בראית הלבנה והוא הדבר הצודק והמכוון, והוצרכו חכמי הדור להכחיש דבריהם ולהודיע להם בראיות גמורות וכן אמרו ז"ל כך אמר רבן גמליאל אל תחושו לראית הירח החשבון הוא העקר כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא שאין חדשה של לבנה פחותה מכ"ט יום ומחצה ותשצ"ג חלקים.והנה דבריו הללו מוכיחין שלא היה רבן גמליאל סומך על ראית הלבנה כי אם על פי החשבון, ועוד משנה שלמה היא ראוהו ב"ד וכל ישראל וחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשכה הרי זה מעובר זו ראיה גדולה שלא היתה בידם עקר ראית הלבנה, שאלו היתה בידם עקר ובראיה היו מקדשין איך אחרי ראיתה מעברים אותו, ועוד גדולה מזו באו שנים ואמרו ראינוה בזמנה והוא אור שלשים ובליל עבורו שהוא מוצאי יום שלשים לא נראה וקבלם ר"ג, ואלו היה ר"ג סומך על ראית הלבנה ולא על החשבון בודאי שנתברר שכיון שלא נראה בליל עבורו שהם עדי שקר אלא ודאי ר"ג על החשבון סמך ולא על העדאת העדים. ומה שתמצא לרז"ל דמות צורות לבנות היו לר"ג בעליתו על הטבלא בכותל שבהן היה מראה את ההדיוטות, הכונה בזה כי ר"ג עשה צורות הללו לבאר לתלמידי צדוק וביתוס ידיעתו במהלך הלבנה בכל חדש וחדש, וכי הוא יודע בכל חדש וחדש באיזו צורה תולד אם ארוכה אם קצרה וכמה תהיה גבוה בגלגל ולאיזה צד תהיה נוטה והיה בכל חדש וחדש מבאר לתלמידים ואמר להם הלבנה בזה החדש צורתה כך וכך ונטיתה לצד כך וכך וכאותה צורה שהיה מראה לתלמידיו בה היו מעידים העדים בכל חדש וחדש, וכיון שראו כך חדש אחר חדש שנה אחר שנה נתברר להם שאין העקר אלא החשבון ובטלו דברי החולקים, ואע"פ שהיו מקבלים העדים זכר לדבר לא היתה סמיכת בית דין כי אם על החשבון, ....

When the Torah writes here: “this month shall be for you the head of the months,” the meaning is not that we must watch carefully if the new moon is clearly visible and that we are to establish the new moon or extend the last month according to the sighting of the new moon. Determining the need for an extra month does not depend on the sighting of the moon but on calculations.

(ז) רֹאשׁ בֵּית דִּין אוֹמֵר מְקֻדָּשׁ, וְכָל הָעָם עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו מְקֻדָּ מְקֻדָּשׁ. בֵּין שֶׁנִּרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ, מְקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא נִרְאָה בִזְמַנּוֹ, אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁכְּבָר קִדְּשׁוּהוּ שָׁמָיִם:

(1) If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability]. Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court].

(2) Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out.

(3) How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.

(4) At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.

(5) There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come. Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction.

(6) How do they test the witnesses?The pair which arrives first, they test them first. They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].

(7) The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.” Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.

(8) Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.

(9) Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.

דתניא פלימו אומר בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו שלא בזמנו מקדשין אותו רב אשי אמר לעולם חישוב קתני ומאי עיבור חישוב דעיבור ואיידי דקבעי למיתני עיבור שנה תנא נמי עיבור חודש חישוב חודש אין קידוש חודש לא מני ר' אליעזר היא דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר בין בזמנו בין שלא בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא כה, י) וקדשתם את שנת החמשים שנה שנים אתה מקדש ואי אתה מקדש חדשים:

Let the court strike him with twenty-one lashes, and if he dies with this last one, let him die. According to the medical evaluation, he will still be alive after the twentieth lash. There would be no concern of flogging a dead man, as when the court strikes him with the twenty-first lash, it is upon the back of a living man that the court is striking. If so, why should he not receive the last blow? Rav Ashi said to him: The verse states: “Then your brother will be dishonored before your eyes.” The verse means: Even after he is hit, I need him to remain your brother; and if he dies, he is no longer your brother. § The mishna teaches: The intercalation of the month is performed by a panel of three judges. The Gemara extrapolates: The tanna does not teach: The calculation to determine if the month must be extended is performed by three judges, and he does not teach: The sanctification of the new month is performed by three judges; rather, he teaches: The intercalation of the month, referring to the decision to extend the month by an extra day and begin the following month on the thirty-first day instead of the thirtieth, is performed by a panel of three judges. The Gemara asks: Why are judges necessary to extend the month? Simply do not sanctify the new month, and let the previous month be intercalated by itself. When the thirtieth day of any month is not declared the first day of the new month, the earlier month is extended by default. Why, then, does the mishna specify: Intercalation? Abaye said: Emend the text of the mishna and teach: The sanctification of the new month is performed by three judges. This is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): The sanctification of the new month and the intercalation of the year is performed by three judges; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rava said in objection to Abaye’s explanation: But the mishna teaches: Intercalation, not sanctification. Rather, Rava said: Explain the mishna this way: If there will be sanctification of the new month on the thirtieth day of the first month, which is the day that would otherwise be the intercalation, this is done by three judges. But after the day of the intercalation, i.e., if the month is sanctified on the thirty-first day, there is no active sanctification necessary. And in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok, as it is taught in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 24a): Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok says: If the new moon was not seen at its anticipated time, the court does not formally 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. Taking the opposite opinion, Rav Naḥman says: In the instance of sanctification of the new moon after the intercalation of the month through the addition of a thirtieth day to the previous month, the sanctification is performed by three judges. But if the New Moon is declared on the day of the intercalation, so that the previous month is left with only twenty-nine days, there is no active sanctification. This is the standard time for the New Moon, and no intervention is necessary. And in accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Peleimu, as it is taught in a baraita: Peleimu says: If the new moon was reported at its anticipated time, the court does not sanctify the New Moon. But if the new moon was reported not at its anticipated time, the court sanctifies the New Moon. Rav Ashi said: Actually, the mishna teaches that three judges are necessary for the calculation to determine when the New Moon should be declared. And what is the term: Intercalation, that is mentioned in the mishna? It is the calculation of the intercalation. And although the wording of the mishna is imprecise, it is written this way for a reason: Since the mishna needed to teach the number of judges necessary for the intercalation of the year, the mishna also taught: The intercalation of the month, so as to describe the similar processes of adding to the year and adding to the month with the same verb. The Gemara notes: With regard to the calculation of the month, yes, this requires three judges. But with regard to the sanctification of month, this does not require three judges. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Whether it was reported in its anticipated time or whether it was reported not in its anticipated time, we do not sanctify the New Moon formally, as it is stated: “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year” (Leviticus 25:10), which teaches: You must formally sanctify years, but you do not formally sanctify months, as they are sanctified automatically. In any case, calculation, when necessary, is performed by three judges. § The mishna teaches: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that intercalation is performed in stages: The deliberations begin with three judges, they debate the matter with five judges, and they conclude the matter with seven judges. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:1): How does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say the intercalation is to be conducted? The court begins the deliberation with three judges, and they debate the matter with five, and they conclude with seven. At first, three judges convene for a preliminary discussion with regard to the necessity of adding a month to the year. If one says it is necessary to sit and deliberate the question of intercalation and two say that there is not a need to sit and continue, the single opinion in favor of intercalation is negated in its minority, i.e., it is the minority opinion, and the process ends. The baraita continues: If two say to sit and one says not to sit, the majority decision causes the process to move to the next stage, and the court then adds another two judges to them and all five debate the matter. If two say: The year needs the extra month, and three say: It does not need it, the opinions of the two are negated in their minority. If three say: The year needs it, and two say: It does not need it, the court adds to them another two judges, as the quorum for declaring an intercalation may not be fewer than seven. The Gemara asks: Corresponding to what was it determined that the intercalation procedure should incorporate these numbers of three, five, and seven judges? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one other Sage who was with him disagree about this. And who is that other scholar? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say that this was a matter of dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one other scholar who was with him. And who is that other scholar? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani. One said: These numbers correspond to the number of Hebrew words in each of the three verses of the priestly benediction (see Numbers 6:24–26). And one said: Three corresponds to the three guards of the door (see II Kings 25:18), five corresponds to five of the officers who saw the king’s face (see II Kings 25:19), and seven corresponds to seven officers who saw the king’s face (see Jeremiah 52:25). Since these numbers represent appointments of distinction, the Rabbis saw fit to employ them in the composition of the court as well. Similarly, Rav Yosef taught a baraita: These numbers: Three, five, and seven members of the court for intercalation, are adopted from different numbers of the king’s servants. Three corresponds to: Guards of the door; five corresponds to: Of those officers who saw the king’s face, mentioned in the book of II Kings; and seven corresponds to: Officers who saw the king’s face, mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. When Rav Yosef taught this, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the reason that until now the Master did not explain the matter to us this way, although you have taught this material before? Rav Yosef said to Abaye and the others with him: I did not know that you needed this information, as I thought that you were already familiar with the baraita. Have you ever asked me something and I did not tell you? § The Gemara presents a mnemonic device for several other sources cited with regard to the intercalation of the year: Zeman, Nasi, tzarikh, gedi. The Sages taught in a baraita: The year may be intercalated only

אָמַר רַב עָנָן אָמַר רַב: טָעָה וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ עַרְבִית — אֵין מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם.

in Neharde’a, where there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual who was not praying in a prayer quorum. Shmuel’s conduct was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Yet this opinion was not universally accepted. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, sat before Rabbi Yannai, and he sat and he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and read your verses outside, as that halakha is not accepted by the Sages in the study hall, and it belongs outside, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rabbi Yannai, who prayed and then prayed again. Presumably, his first prayer was the morning prayer and his second prayer was the additional prayer. Apparently, he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rather, he holds that even when not part of a prayer quorum, an individual must recite the additional prayer. Later on, when this story was related in the study hall, Rabbi Yirmeya said to his teacher, Rabbi Zeira: What proof is there that the second prayer was the additional prayer? Perhaps initially he did not focus his mind on his prayer and ultimately he focused his mind, i.e., he repeated the morning prayer in order to do so with proper concentration. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Look at who the great man is who is testifying about him. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly observed carefully before relating what he witnessed. Regarding prayers of the Sages, the Gemara further relates that, although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would only pray between the columns where they studied, as prayer is beloved in the eyes of God, specifically in a place of Torah. It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the morning prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the morning prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the additional prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the additional prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the afternoon prayer? Omitting mention of the New Moon does not require one to repeat the Amida prayer. Consequently, that was not the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed a second time. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Wasn’t it stated about that baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this baraita specifically with regard to prayer in a communal framework? However, an individual who fails to mention the New Moon is required to pray again? That is why Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed twice. Stemming from the discussion about individuals who recite two prayers consecutively, the Gemara asks: How long should one wait between the first prayer and the second prayer? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda agreed about this in principle, but they formulated their opinions differently (Rashi). One said that an individual must wait long enough so that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], enabling him to recite the second prayer as a plea. One of them said: Long enough so that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel], enabling him to beseech God in his second prayer. The Gemara points out that both Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda based their positions on the prayers of Moses. The one who said: So that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], as it is written: “And I pleaded [va’etḥanan] before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And the one who said: So that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel] as it is written: “And Moses besought [vayeḥal] the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). The Gemara resumes the above discussion with regard to omission of the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer. Rav Anan said that Rav said: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because the court only sanctifies the new month by day, and the prayer of the New Moon, which parallels the court’s sanctification of the new month, belongs in the daytime prayer. Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Since Rav states a reason for his statement, what difference is there to me if the month is short, and what difference is there to me if it is full? Rather, there is no difference. Rav based his opinion on the parallel drawn between the sanctification of the month and the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer; the sanctification of the month is not relevant at night. May we return unto thee : The morning Tefillah ! MISHNA: One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission. There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that prayer should be undertaken in an atmosphere of gravity. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: They are derived from the verses describing the prayer of Hannah, mother of Samuel, as the verse states: “And she felt bitterness of soul, and she prayed to the Lord and she wept and wept” (I Samuel 1:10). The Gemara rejects this proof: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Hannah is different, as her heart was extremely embittered, her prayer was embittered as well. This does not prove that everyone must pray in that frame of mind. Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, it can be proved from here, as David said: “But as for me, by Your abundant loving-kindness I will enter Your house, at Your Holy Temple I will bow in reverence for You” (Psalms 5:8). Entering into prayer like entering the Holy Temple must be performed reverentially. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps David is different, as he would excessively afflict himself in prayer in order to atone for his transgression with Bathsheba. Consequently, his cannot serve as a paradigm for proper conduct in prayer. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, it can be derived from here, from this verse that David said, not about his own worship, but about worship of God in general: “Give, unto the Lord, the honor of His name, bow to the Lord in the beauty of holiness [behadrat kodesh]” (Psalms 29:2). Do not read: In the beauty of [behadrat] holiness. Rather read: In trembling of [beḥerdat] holiness; one must enter into prayer from an atmosphere of gravity engendered by sanctity. The Gemara rejects this too: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I would say to you that it should be read as it is written: Specifically, “in the beauty,” and it means that one should pray in beautiful clothing, as in the case of Rav Yehuda who would adorn himself and then pray. Rav Yehuda believed that one who comes before the King must wear his most beautiful clothing. The Gemara has yet to find a source for the halakha that one must approach prayer from an atmosphere of gravity. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said it can be derived from here, from this verse: “Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Having cited this verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of rejoice with trembling? Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rabba said: One may not experience unbridled joy; even where there is rejoicing, there should be trembling. On that note, the Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before his teacher Rabba, and Rabba saw that he was excessively joyful. He said to Abaye: It is written: Rejoice with trembling, one’s joy should not be unrestrained. Abaye said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries now and as long as they are upon me they ensure that the fear of God is upon me. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira. He saw that Rabbi Yirmeya was excessively joyful. He said to him: It is written: “In all sorrow there is profit” (Proverbs 14:23); sorrow is appropriate, not excessive joy. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous.

לפי שאין מקדשין את החדש כו' - ... וי"מ דוקא בלילה ראשונה אין מחזירין אותו לפי שאין מקדשין החדש בלילה אבל בלילה שניה מחזירין אותו שכבר מקודש מיום שלפניו ולא נראה לחלק: