Rosh Hashanah 20a — the Talmud in English

Rather, if you say

that the Adar adjacent to Nisan

is always deficient, why do we desecrate

the Shabbat for it!? After all, even if the witnesses do not come and testify, in any event the court will sanctify Nisan on the thirtieth day, since the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient!

And we answer: The reason that they desecrated the Shabbat was not so that the month would be sanctified at its proper time, but

because it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of

the testimony of

the sighting,

on the basis of witnesses who saw the renewal of the moon, and not on the basis of the calculations of the Sages.

As it is stated [Exodus 12]: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months.” And the Sages expounded from the word “this” that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “See this [the renewal of the moon], and sanctify.”

There are those who say:

There are those who say that Rav Naḥman came to prove from the following Mishna that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient:

Rav Naḥman said: We too have learned this:

Even from our Mishna it may be proved that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient.

For we learned:

For two months the Shabbat is desecrated—

for Nisan and for Tishrei.

And Rav Naḥman understood that the reason for this is that it is a mitzva to sanctify the month on the basis of the sighting, and not on the basis of the calculations of the Sages.

And therefore,

it works out well if you say:

The Mishna is understandable only if you say that the Adar adjacent to Nisan

is always deficient,

and

for this reason we desecrate

the Shabbat, because

it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of the sighting.

Rather, if you say that it is sometimes full and sometimes deficient,

if you say that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is sometimes full and sometimes deficient—

why do we desecrate [the Shabbat]!?

And why should they not enact that if the moon was sighted on Shabbat, the witnesses should wait until the thirty-first day and not desecrate the Shabbat, but

we will make it full now,

the court will refrain from sanctifying the month now, on the thirtieth day, and it will thereby turn out that the month is full.

And we will sanctify it tomorrow,

for on the following day the witnesses will arrive and testify that they saw the renewal of the moon, and the court will sanctify the month through their sighting!

The Gemara rejects Rav Naḥman’s proof, because it is impossible to prove from here that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient. Rather, it is always sometimes full and sometimes deficient.

And as for Rav Naḥman’s inference—that if it can be full, why do we desecrate the Shabbat for it, since the witnesses can wait until the next day, when it will be full, and it will be sanctified on the following day on the basis of their testimony—the answer is:

If the thirtieth day happened to fall on Shabbat—

so too,

the witnesses do not desecrate the Shabbat. Rather, they wait until the next day and testify on the thirty-first day, and the court sanctifies the month on the basis of their testimony.

But

here, with what are we dealing?

What is being discussed here?—

When the thirty-first day happened to fall on Shabbat,

and witnesses saw the moon on that day. And if the witnesses do not come, there is no month longer than thirty-one days; therefore, the court will sanctify the month without the sighting.

And therefore they desecrate the Shabbat, because

it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of the sighting.

Rav Kahana raised an objection

to what we said, that they desecrate the Shabbat because it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of the sighting, and against the one who says that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient, from the following Mishna [21b]:

Rav Kahana

regarding what we said—that they desecrate Shabbat because it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of sighting—and regarding the one who says that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient, from the Mishna below [21b]:

For we learned:

When

the

Temple was standing,

they would

desecrate [the Shabbat] even for all of them,

for all the months,

because of the ordinance concerning the offering,

so that the additional offerings of the New Moon would be brought at their proper time, on the day the moon was renewed.

Since it says “for all of them”,

from what we learned—that the reason they desecrate the Shabbat for all the months is

not because

it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of

the

sighting,

but because of the ordinance concerning the offering, so that it would be brought at its proper time—we must learn that

Nisan and Tishrei also—

the fact that they desecrate the Shabbat for them is

not because it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of the sighting,

but so that the court would know that the moon was renewed on the thirtieth day and would sanctify the month on that day, and not on the following day.

It works out well if you say that it is sometimes full and sometimes deficient:

if you say that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is sometimes full and sometimes deficient,

for this reason we desecrate

the Shabbat for Nisan, so that the court will sanctify it on the thirtieth day, and not on the thirty-first day.

Rather, if you say

that the Adar adjacent to Nisan

always

is

deficient—

why do we desecrate [the Shabbat]?

After all, even if the witnesses do not desecrate the Shabbat, the court will sanctify Nisan on the thirtieth day!

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta!

Indeed, from here there is a contradiction to the words of those who maintain that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient.

Above, the Gemara proved that the court can make Elul full, and here the Gemara continues to discuss the matter.

When Ulla came,

when

Ulla

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: They made Elul full!

The court in Jerusalem made Elul full and made it thirty days.

Ulla said: Let my Babylonian colleagues know what benefit we provide them!

The people of Babylonia recognize the benefit that we, the people of the Land of Israel, provide them when we make Elul full.

And we inquire about this:

What benefit is this?

And we answer:

Ulla said: Because of the vegetables.

When the festivals of Tishrei were about to occur adjacent to Shabbat, either before it or after it, they would make the month full. In this way they would separate Shabbat and the festival by an ordinary weekday.

And they did this to prevent a situation of two consecutive days of a festival and Shabbat, in which case vegetables that are eaten raw would spoil, since they had been picked on the eve of the festival or on the eve of Shabbat, and this would prevent the joy of the festival.

And below the Gemara will explain why this ordinance was to the benefit of the people of Babylonia and not of the people of the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: Because of the dead.

Because of the honor of the dead. For when Yom Kippur occurs adjacent to Shabbat, it is impossible to bury those who died on one of them until the conclusion of the second day.

And they made the year full because of the honor of the dead, so that they would not decompose [by remaining for two days] in Babylonia.

Below the Gemara will explain why the people of the Land of Israel did not need this.

And we inquire about this:

What is the practical difference between them?

What is the halakhic difference between the two reasons?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

with regard to

Yom Kippur that occurs after Shabbat:

The one who says

that they made Elul full

because of the dead

[the dead], in that case as well

we make it full,

in order to separate the days, so that the dead will not decompose.

But

if it were according to

the one who says because of the vegetables,

Yom Kippur is forbidden for eating, and

when do they need them,

when are the vegetables needed?—

In the evening,

at the conclusion of Yom Kippur.

And according to him there is no need to make Elul full, since

in the evening—

one can take the trouble and bring them!

In the evening one can take the trouble and pick fresh vegetables from the field, and there is no need to gather them on the eve of Shabbat for the conclusion of Yom Kippur. Therefore, according to this reason, there is no need to make Elul full.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to the one who says

that they would make Elul full

because of the vegetables,

indeed, there is no need to make Elul full because of the vegetables when Yom Kippur occurs after Shabbat—but

let them make it full

for Elul

because of the dead!

For nevertheless, let the court make it full because of the honor of the dead, so that they will not decompose!

And therefore the Gemara retracts and says: Indeed, according to everyone they make Elul full when Yom Kippur occurs on the first day of the week:

Rather, there is a difference between them,

the difference between them is elsewhere:

With regard to

a festival adjacent to Shabbat—

whether before it or after it:

According to

the one who says because of the vegetables—

we make it full

so that the produce will not spoil on the second day and the joy of Shabbat or the festival will not be nullified.

But

if it were according to

the one who says because of the dead,

they do not make it full, since

it is possible

to bury the dead on a festival

through gentiles,

[as explained in tractate Beitza 6a].

But on Yom Kippur, whose sanctity is like that of Shabbat, they did not permit burying the dead through gentiles.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to the one who says because of the dead,

indeed, there is no need to make Elul full when a festival occurs adjacent to Shabbat because of the dead, but nevertheless

let them make it full,

let them make it full

because of the vegetables!

And we answer: According to his view,

it is possible

to remedy the vegetables

with hot water,

by soaking them in hot water, and they return to their original state.

And therefore they do not make Elul full because of the vegetables.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

if they make Elul full because of the vegetables or because of the honor of the dead, why did Ulla say that they made the year full for the benefit of the people of Babylonia?

What is different for us,

in what are the people of Babylonia different, that they made the year full specifically for them?

After all,

even for them as well,

even for the needs of the people of the Land of Israel it is necessary to make Elul full, since they too have vegetables and dead!

And we answer:

For us—

the world is hot for us.

For us, the people of Babylonia, it is hot, because Babylonia is low-lying and the air does not prevail there as it does in the Land of Israel.

But

for them,

for the people of the Land of Israel, whose land is a land of mountains and valleys, the air prevails there, and

the world is not hot for them,

it is not hot for them.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is that so!?

There is a contradiction to the words of Ulla and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina, who said that they make Elul full because of the vegetables or the dead:

And Rabba bar Shmuel taught

a beraita:

There is a need to make the year full for three reasons: First, the grain called “aviv” has not yet grown; if they do not make it full, it will turn out that Passover will not be in the month of aviv. And the Torah says: “Observe the month of aviv and perform Passover.”

Second, the season of Nisan according to the solar year has not yet arrived.

Third, the fruit of the trees has not yet grown.

And then they would make the year full by adding the month of Adar [as explained in Sanhedrin 11b].

And we learned in a beraita:

Could it be that just as they make the year full when necessary,

[for the three matters explained],

so too they make the month full when necessary

[because of vegetables or the dead]?

The verse says

[Exodus 12]:

“This month shall be for you the beginning of months.”

And the Sages expounded:

“Like this”,

like this renewal of the moon,

see, and sanctify

immediately, and do not wait even when necessary!

And if so, how did Ulla and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say that they make the month of Elul full because of vegetables or the dead?

Rava said: It is not difficult.

Here,

where Ulla and Rabbi Aḥa permitted it, it is

to make it full,

to turn a deficient month into a full one when necessary.

Whereas

here,

the beraita that prohibited it, refers

to sanctifying it

on the thirtieth day when necessary, when the moon was not sighted on that day.

For if it happened that the moon was not sighted on the twenty-ninth of Elul, they do not sanctify the thirtieth day because of the vegetables or the dead, even though if they do not sanctify it now, Shabbat and Yom Kippur will be adjacent to one another.

And this is what the tanna said

in the beraita:

Could it be that just as they make the year full and

also

the month full when necessary, so

also

they sanctify the month

before its proper time

when necessary?

The verse says: “This month shall be for you”—

See it like this,

first you must see a renewal of the moon like this,

and

only afterward

sanctify.

But to make a deficient month full when necessary is permitted, because when the beginning of the month arrives [on the thirty-first day], the renewal of the moon has already been seen yesterday.

And as for that which Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

The court

intimidates the witnesses

who came to testify about

the moon that was seen at its proper time,

on the thirtieth day, so that they would not testify, when the court wished

to make it full.

But they do not intimidate the witnesses concerning the moon that was not seen at its proper time,

on the thirtieth day, to testify falsely that they saw the moon, even when the court wished

to sanctify it

before its proper time, when necessary.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is that so!?

There is a contradiction to what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said [that they do not intimidate the witnesses to testify falsely on the thirtieth day and say that they saw that the moon was renewed]:

And Rabbi Judah the Prince sent to Rabbi Ami:

Know that throughout all the years of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s life he taught us: They intimidate the witnesses concerning the moon that was not seen at its proper time,

on the thirtieth day, to testify falsely that they saw that the moon was renewed on that day, in order

to sanctify it

on the thirtieth day, before its proper time.

And

even though they did not see it, let them say, “We saw it”!

He said—

he answered—

Abaye: It is not difficult:

This,

what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that they sanctify the month before its proper time, refers

to Nisan and Tishrei,

upon which the festivals depend, and they sanctify them when necessary [because of vegetables or the dead].

Whereas

this,

what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, that they do not sanctify the month before its proper time, refers

to the other months,

which are not needed for the festivals; they do not sanctify them before their proper time for another need.

Because we learned in tractate Arakhin 8b that one does not have fewer than four full months in a year, and one does not have more than eight, and the reason for this is explained there.

And if it happened that eight months had already been made full that year, and now a month arrived in which the moon was not seen on the thirtieth day, it is necessary to make it deficient so that there will not be more than eight full months.

And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi taught that for such a need they do not sanctify the month before its proper time. Rather, only with Nisan and Tishrei do they do this because of the need of the festivals. Rashi].

Rava said:

What we learned in the beraita that Rabbah bar Shmuel brought, that they do not sanctify the month not in its time, means that they do not sanctify it before its time, and they also do not intercalate it after its time [as is implied by the wording of the beraita], and nevertheless there is no difficulty from here against Ulla and Rav Aḥa, who said that they intercalate Elul when necessary: for

that which Rabbah bar Shmuel taught

is in accordance with the view of

“Others,”

but the Sages dispute this:

For it was taught:

Others say: There is no difference between Shavuot

in one year

and Shavuot

in the following year,

and there is no difference between Rosh Hashanah

in one year

and Rosh Hashanah

in the following year,

except four days alone.

That is, if Shavuot in one year falls on Sunday, then the following Shavuot will fall on Thursday [after four days of the week], and likewise with Rosh Hashanah.

Because the lunar year is always 354 days: 350

days; these are 50 complete weeks, and four more days remain.

Therefore, Shavuot in the following year is delayed by four days after this Shavuot.

And according to Others, since the year is 354 days, there are always six deficient months and another six full months in the year—one full month and one deficient month.

Because the birth of the moon is every 29 and a half days. And this is 59 days in two months; therefore, they make one month full and one month deficient, and together they are 59 days. And altogether there are 354 days in the year. And according to them, they do not intercalate or make deficient any month in the year, even when necessary.

And if it was a leap year,

there are between the Shavuot of this year and the Shavuot of the following year

five days,

because in that year they add a deficient month, and it adds one day beyond the complete weeks [28 days are four complete weeks, with one day left over].

This is the view of Others.

But the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is like that of the Sages; therefore, he said that they intimidate the witnesses in order to intercalate the month, but not in order to sanctify it.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea taught

the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

the opposite way:

They intimidate the witnesses concerning a month whose [new moon] was not seen in its time,

so that they testify falsely that the moon was renewed on the thirtieth day, in order

to sanctify it

before its time.

And they do not intimidate the witnesses concerning a month whose [new moon] was seen in its time,

so that they will not testify that they saw the renewal of the moon, in order

to intercalate it.

What is the reason?