Rosh Hashanah 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, if you say that

the month of Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient,

why do they desecrate

Shabbat for it? 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 Shabbat was not so that the month would be sanctified at its proper time, but rather

because it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of

the testimony of

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 interpreted the word “this” to mean that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “Like this [renewal of the moon] see, and sanctify.”

There are those who say:

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

Rav Naḥman said: We too have learned

that it can be proven from our Mishna that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient.

For we learned:

For two months they desecrate Shabbat—

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 sighting, and not on the basis of the calculations of the Sages.

Therefore,

it works out well if you say that

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

always deficient,

and

that is why they desecrate

Shabbat, because

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

But 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 they desecrate Shabbat?

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

let us make it full now:

the court should refrain from sanctifying the month now, on the thirtieth day, and it would thereby emerge that the month is made full.

And let us sanctify it tomorrow:

the next day the witnesses would arrive and testify that they saw the renewal of the moon, and the court would sanctify the month on the basis of their sighting.

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

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

If the thirtieth day occurs on Shabbat—

so too,

the witnesses do not desecrate 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 occurs on Shabbat,

and witnesses see the moon on that day. If the witnesses do not come, the month cannot be longer than thirty-one days; therefore, the court will sanctify the month without relying on the sighting.

Therefore, they desecrate Shabbat, because

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

Rav Kahana raised an objection

and challenged

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 Shabbat even for all of them,

for all the months,

because of the regulation concerning the offering,

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

Since it is stated concerning all of them

that the reason they desecrate Shabbat for all the months is

not because

it is a mitzva to sanctify on the basis of

the

sighting,

but rather because of the regulation concerning the offering, so that it could be brought at its proper time, we can learn that

Nisan and Tishrei as well—

the reason they desecrate Shabbat for them is

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

but so that the court will know that the moon was renewed on the thirtieth day and will sanctify the month on that day, rather than 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:

that is why they desecrate

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

But if you say

that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is

always

deficient—

why do they desecrate Shabbat?

Even if the witnesses do not desecrate Shabbat, the court will sanctify Nisan on the thirtieth day.

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta!

Indeed, this presents a refutation of those who maintain that the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient.

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

When

he came,

Ulla

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: They made Elul full!

The court in Jerusalem made Elul thirty days long.

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

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

And we inquire into this:

What is the benefit?

And we answer:

Ulla said: Because of the vegetables.

When the festivals of Tishrei were scheduled immediately adjacent to Shabbat, either before it or after it, they would make the month full. In this way, they would place a weekday between Shabbat and the festival.

They did this to prevent a situation in which two consecutive days of a festival and Shabbat would occur, in which case the vegetables eaten raw would rot, since they had been picked on the eve of the festival or on the eve of Shabbat; and this would detract from the joy of the festival.

[Below, the Gemara will explain why this enactment benefited the people of Babylonia and not the people of Eretz Yisrael].

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: Because of the dead.

Because of the honor of the dead. When Yom Kippur occurred adjacent to Shabbat, it was impossible to bury those who died on one of these days until the conclusion of the second day.

They made the year full because of the honor of the dead, so that they would not decompose [because they remained unburied for two days] in Babylonia.

[Below, the Gemara will explain why the people of Eretz Yisrael did not need this].

And we inquire into this:

What is the difference between them?

What is the practical halakhic difference between the two reasons?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them

with regard to

Yom Kippur that occurs immediately after Shabbat:

The one who says

that they made Elul full

because of 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 is according to

the one who says because of the vegetables,

Yom Kippur is a day on which eating is forbidden, and

when do they need them,

when are the vegetables needed?

In the evening,

at the conclusion of Yom Kippur.

According to his view, there is no need to make Elul full, since

in the evening

one can exert oneself and bring them!

In the evening, one can make the effort to 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 challenge this:

But according to the one who says

that they would make Elul full

because of the vegetables,

although there is no need to make Elul full for the sake of the vegetables when Yom Kippur occurs after Shabbat—

let them make it full

for Elul

because of the dead!

In any event, let the court make it full because of the honor of the dead, so that they will not decompose!

Therefore, the Gemara retracts this explanation and says: According to everyone, Elul is made full when Yom Kippur occurs on the first day of the week:

Rather, there is a difference between them

and 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 rot on the second day and thereby detract from the joy of Shabbat or the festival.

But

if it is according to

the one who says because of the dead,

we do not make it full, since

it is possible

to bury the dead on the festival

through gentiles,

by means of 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 challenge this:

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

although there is no need to make Elul full when a festival occurs adjacent to Shabbat because of the dead, 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 restore the vegetables

with hot water,

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

Therefore, they do not make Elul full because of the vegetables.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if Elul is made 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 way are the people of Babylonia different, such that the year was made full specifically for their sake?

After all,

even for them as well,

even for the needs of the people of Eretz Yisrael, Elul must be made full, since they too have vegetables and dead!

And we answer:

For us—

the climate is hot for us.

For us, the people of Babylonia, it is hot, because Babylonia is low-lying and the air does not circulate there as it does in Eretz Yisrael.

But

for them,

for the people of Eretz Yisrael, whose land consists of mountains and valleys, the air circulates there, and

the climate is not hot for them,

so they do not suffer from the heat.

And we challenge this:

That is not so!

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

And Rabba bar Shemuel taught

a beraita:

There are three reasons for making the year full: First, the grain called “aviv” has not yet grown; if they do not make the year full, it will turn out that Passover will not be in the month of spring. And the Torah states: “Observe the month of spring 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.

In that case, they would make the year full by adding the month of Adar [as explained in Sanhedrin 11b].

And we learned in a beraita:

Perhaps, just as they make the year full when necessary

[for the three matters explained above],

so too they make the month full when necessary

[because of vegetables or the dead]?

The verse states

[Exodus 12]:

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

And the Sages interpreted this:

Like this,

like this renewal of the moon,

see, and sanctify

immediately; do not wait even for a need.

If so, how could Ulla and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say that they make the month of Elul full because of the 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 month when necessary.

Whereas

here,

the beraita that prohibited it is referring

to sanctifying it

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

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

And this is what the tanna said

in the beraita:

Perhaps, just as they make the year full and

also

the month full when necessary, so

too

they sanctify the month

before its proper time

when necessary?

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

See like this,

first see a renewal of the moon like this,

and

only afterward

sanctify.

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

And is this also so concerning what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

The court

intimidates the witnesses

who come to testify about

the moon that was sighted at its proper time,

on the thirtieth day, so that they should not testify, when the court wishes

to make it full.

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

on the thirtieth day, to give false testimony that they saw the moon, even when the court wishes

to sanctify it

before its proper time, when necessary.

And we challenge this:

That is not so!

There is a contradiction to what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said [that the witnesses are not intimidated into giving false testimony on the thirtieth day and saying that they saw the moon’s renewal]:

And Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Ami:

Know that throughout the lifetime of Rabbi Yoḥanan he would teach us: The witnesses are intimidated concerning the moon that was not sighted at its proper time

on the thirtieth day, to give false testimony 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, they should say, “We saw it”!

He said

and explained,

Abaye: It is not difficult:

This—

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

to Nisan and Tishrei,

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

Whereas

this—

what Rabbi Yehoshua 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 any other need.

Because we learned in tractate Arakhin 8b that no fewer than four months in a year may be full, and no more than eight may be full; the reason for this is explained there.

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

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

Rava said:

The statement that we learned in the beraita cited by Rabba bar Shemuel, that the new moon is not sanctified before its proper time, means that it is not sanctified before its proper time, nor is the month extended after its proper time [as is implied by the wording of the beraita]. Nevertheless, this is not a difficulty for Ulla and Rav Aha, who said that Elul may be extended when necessary, because

that which Rabba bar Shemuel taught—

according to the view of

“others,”

whereas the Sages disagree with 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 for four days.

That is, if Shavuot in one year falls on Sunday, then the following Shavuot will fall on Thursday [four days later in the week], and the same applies to Rosh HaShanah.

Because the lunar year is always 354 days: 350

days constitute 50 complete weeks, with four days remaining.

Therefore, Shavuot in the following year is four days later than this Shavuot.

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

Because the lunar conjunction occurs every 29 and a half days, this amounts to 59 days in two months. Therefore, one month is made full and one month deficient, and together they total 59 days. The total number of days in the year is thus 354. According to their view, no month is ever extended or shortened in the year, even when necessary.

And if it was a leap year,

there are between Shavuot in that year and Shavuot in the following year

five days,

because a deficient month is added in that year, and it adds one day beyond the complete weeks [28 days constitute four complete weeks, with one additional day].

This is the view of Others.

However, the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi follows the Sages. Therefore, he said that the witnesses are intimidated in order to extend the month, but not in order to sanctify it.

Rav Dimi of Nehardea taught

the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

in the opposite manner:

The witnesses are intimidated concerning a new moon that was not seen at its proper time,

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

to sanctify it

before its proper time.

But the witnesses are not intimidated concerning a new moon that was seen at its proper time,

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

to extend it.

What is the reason?