Rosh Hashanah 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

There was an incident in which more than forty pairs passed by, and Rabbi Akiva detained them

in Lod

etc.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid that Rabbi Akiva detained them,

for one must be concerned that perhaps they would not come in the future [as Rabban Gamliel said].

Rather, Zafer, the head of Geder, detained them; and Rabban Gamliel sent word, and they removed him from his position of eminence.

Mishna:

A father and his son who saw the new moon,

the renewal of the moon —

shall go

to Jerusalem to testify.

Not

because

they join one another

for a single testimony [as relatives are not fit to testify together].

Rather,

in order

that if one of them is disqualified,

that is, if one of them errs in his account when the court examines him,

the second can join with another witness.

Rabbi Shimon says: A father and his son, and all relatives

who are disqualified for other testimony,

are fit to testify concerning the new moon.

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Toviyya the physician, who saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he, his son, and his emancipated slave.

And the priests accepted his testimony and that of his son [כרבי שמעון שהקרובים כשריםas Rabbi Shimon holds, that relatives are fit].

And they disqualified his

emancipated slave, because they thought that the witnesses had to be of unblemished lineage.

And when they came before the court, they accepted his testimony and that of his

emancipated slave, whose legal status is that of a Jew,

and they disqualified his son,

in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, who disqualify relatives from testimony concerning the new moon.

Gemara:

Rav Levi said: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?

As it is written [Shemot 12]:

“And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month shall be for you.”

We learn from the word “for you” that

this testimony,

testimony concerning the new moon,

shall be valid through you,

Moses and Aaron, even though you are relatives.

And the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, interpret the verse as follows:

This testimony [עדות החדשtestimony concerning the new moon]

shall be entrusted to you,

as you are the distinguished members of the generation.

For I entrust it to the distinguished members of the generation, so that they will accept testimony and sanctify the new moon. The verse did not come to render relatives fit.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Toviyya the physician.

It is apparent from this incident that the court in Jerusalem held in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, and not that of Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Huna said to Rav Ḥanan bar Rava:

But

Rabbi Yosei

holds in accordance with the first tanna,

and

even the

incident

that he cited proves the words of the first tanna.

And

if

you said: “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon”?

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava

said to him:

But many times I said before Rav

indeed, I repeatedly said before Rav that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and he did not say to me

Rav

anything [כלוםat all].

Rav Huna said to him

Rav Huna:

How did you learn it?

How do you recite the words of our Mishna?

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said to him

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava:

The reverse! “

Rabbi Yosei says: A father and his son, and all relatives, are fit to testify concerning the new moon. Rabbi Shimon said: There was an incident involving Toviyya the physician.”

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said to him

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava: Indeed, according to the way you recite it, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who cited proof in support of the opinion of the first tanna,

and for this reason,

therefore

Rav did not say to you

Rav

anything [כלוםat all].

Tavi, son of Mari Tavi, said that Mar Ukva said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Mishna:

These are those who are disqualified

for testimony.

a.

One who plays dice.

One who regularly participates in a dice game in which money is wagered; he is disqualified from testimony because he takes money from another unlawfully, as “an asmakhta does not effect acquisition.”

That is, when money is given by a person who relied on the expectation that he would win, this does not constitute full resolve, and the money is not acquired by the other.

He is therefore like a robber, who is disqualified from testimony, as it is stated [Shemot 23]: “Do not join your hand with the wicked to be a corrupt witness.” And the Sages expounded: “Do not join a corrupt witness” [a robber]. By Torah law, a robber is disqualified from testimony only when he takes money from another without his consent, as in the verse: “And he robbed [snatched] the spear from the Egyptian’s hand” [II Samuel 23]. But one who plays dice, who does not snatch another’s money, is fit for testimony by Torah law; only the Sages disqualified him.

b.

And those who lend at interest,

who are disqualified by rabbinic law and not by Torah law, because the borrower gave the interest to the lender willingly.

c.

And those who make pigeons fly,

one who participates in a gambling game involving pigeons, saying: If your pigeon outruns my pigeon, the money is yours. This is similar to playing dice. d.

And merchants dealing in produce of the Sabbatical year,

who trade in produce of the Sabbatical year and violate what is stated [Leviticus 25]: “And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours to eat.” The Sages expounded: “For you to eat,” and not for commerce. All these are disqualified by rabbinic law, because the Sages suspected that just as they are accustomed to violate religion for monetary gain, so too they would testify falsely for money and bribes.

e.

And slaves

Canaanite slaves are disqualified by Torah law, because the legal status of a slave is like that of a woman. And a woman is disqualified from testimony [as explained in Bava Kamma 88a].

This is the general rule: Any testimony for which a woman is not fit —

they too,

those disqualified persons mentioned in our Mishna,

are not fit for it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: This is the general rule: Any testimony for which a woman is not fit, they too are not fit for it.

And we infer:

But

testimony for which

a woman is fit,

such as testifying concerning an aguna that her husband died, or testifying that a sota became defiled, so that she will not drink the bitter waters —

they too are fit for it!

Rav Ashi said: This indicates

we can prove from our Mishna that

one who is a robber by rabbinic law [כגון משחק בקוביא ומפריחי יונים, מלוי בריבית וסוחרי שביעית, שהוזכרו במשנהsuch as one who plays dice, one who makes pigeons fly, one who lends at interest, and a merchant dealing in Sabbatical-year produce, who were mentioned in the Mishna] —

is fit to testify concerning a woman.

This applies specifically to one who is a robber by rabbinic law. But a robber by Torah law, who is so brazen as to rob publicly, was not rendered fit by the Sages to testify concerning a woman, even though they rendered a woman and a slave, who are disqualified by Torah law, fit for such testimony.

Mishna:

One who saw the new moon,

the renewal of the moon, on Shabbat,

and cannot walk

to the court on his own feet —

they bring him on a donkey.

And even though it is prohibited to transport a load on an animal on Shabbat, and a sick person who cannot walk on his feet is considered like a load.

And even on a bed

they carry him, despite the fact that the bed is a load!

And if there are ambushers lying in wait for them,

if there are people lying in wait along the road [these were the Boethusians and the Cutheans, who lay in wait for them in order to delay them and mislead the Sages] —

they take sticks in their hands,

even though they are carrying objects in their hands in the public domain.

And if the journey was a long one —

they take provisions in their hands.

Since

for a journey of “one night and one day”,

in a manner that will enable them to reach Jerusalem while it is still Shabbat, so that the court will be able to sanctify the new moon at its proper time,

they desecrate Shabbat and set out to testify concerning the new moon.

As it is stated [Leviticus 23]:

“These are the appointed times of the Lord,

sacred convocations,

which you shall proclaim at their appointed time.”

The verse cautioned that the proclamation of the appointed times as sacred convocations must take place at their appointed time and not afterward. This depends on the sanctification of the new moon by the court.

We will return to you, chapter “The Four New Years.”

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to discuss testimony concerning the new moon:

If

the court that sanctifies the new month

does not recognize him,

the witness who goes up to Jerusalem on Shabbat, the court in his city

sends another person with him to testify about him,

to testify that he is fit to give testimony.

Initially,

the court

would accept testimony concerning the new moon from anyone,

even if they did not recognize him.

When the Boethusians corrupted matters [

the Gemara will explain this ]

they instituted that they would accept testimony only from those whom they recognized.

Therefore, we learned above that the court in his city had to send another person with him to testify concerning him.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If they do not recognize him, they send another person with him to testify concerning him.

And we raised a difficulty:

What

what is the nature of the

“other”

person whom they send with him? — One

single witness.

This implies that one witness is trusted to establish that he is fit!