Rosh Hashanah 22a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“An incident occurred in which more than forty pairs passed through, and Rabbi Akiva detained them”

in Lod

etc.

It was taught in a beraita: 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, Zephyr, the head of Geder, detained them, and Rabban Gamliel sent [word], and they removed him from his greatness.

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 with one another

for a single testimony [since relatives are not fit to testify with one another].

Rather

in order

that if one of them is disqualified,

if one of them should fail in his speech when the court examines him,

the second may join with another.

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

who are disqualified for the other testimonies

are fit for testimony concerning the new moon.

Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred with Toviah the physician, who saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he, his son, and his freed slave.

And the priests accepted him and his son [

as Rabbi Shimon, who holds that relatives are fit].

And they disqualified his slave

who had been freed, because they thought that the witnesses had to be of distinguished lineage.

And when they came before the court, they accepted him and his slave

who had been freed, whose legal status is that of an Israelite,

and they disqualified his son,

in accordance with the view of the Sages, who disqualify relatives for testimony concerning the new moon.

Gemara:

Rav Levi said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

As it is written [Exodus 12]:

[Шмот, 12]:

“And the Lord said to Moses and to 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 of one another.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, interpret the verse:

This testimony [

testimony concerning the new moon]

shall be entrusted to you,

for you are the important people of the generation.

For I entrust the important people of the generation with accepting testimony and sanctifying the new moon. And the verse did not come to qualify relatives.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: An incident occurred with Toviah the physician.

From this incident it is evident that the court in Jerusalem held in accordance with the view of the first tanna, and not like Rabbi Shimon.

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

Rav Huna said to Rav Hanan bar Rava:

Behold,

Rabbi Yosei

holds like the first tanna,

and

even the

incident

that he cited proves the words of the first tanna.

And

if

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

Rav Hanan bar Rava said to him:

Rav Hanan bar Rava

said: “Many times I said before Rav

—did I not say many times before Rav that

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

Rav

anything” [

nothing].

He said to him

Rav Huna:

“How did you learn it?”

How do you recite the words of our Mishna?

He said to him

Rav Hanan bar Rava:

“In reverse!” “

Rabbi Yosei says: A father and his son and all the relatives are fit for testimony concerning the new moon; Rabbi Shimon said: An incident occurred with Toviah the physician.”

He said to him

Rav Hanan bar Rava: Indeed, according to the way you recite it, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, for the incident proves the view of the first tanna,

for that reason,

therefore

Rav did not say to you

Rav

anything [

nothing].

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

Mishna:

These are the ones who are disqualified

for testimony.

A.

One who plays with dice.

One who regularly participates in a dice game in which they wager money, and he is disqualified for testimony because he takes money from his fellow unlawfully, for “an asmakhta does not acquire.”

That is, money given by a person who relied on the fact that he would win does not reflect complete resolve, and the money is not acquired by his fellow.

And he is like a robber, who is disqualified for testimony, as it is stated [Exodus 23]: “Do not place your hand with a wicked person to be a violent witness.” And the Sages expounded: “Do not place [yourself as] a violent witness” [a robber]. And by Torah law, a robber is disqualified for testimony only when he takes money from his fellow without his consent, as it is akin to what is stated: “And he robbed [snatched] the spear from the hand of the Egyptian” [II Samuel 23]. But one who plays with dice, who does not snatch his fellow’s money, is fit for testimony by Torah law; only the Sages disqualified him.

B.

And those who lend with interest,

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

C.

And pigeon flyers.

One who participates in a gambling game involving pigeons, saying: If your pigeon arrives before my pigeon, the money is given to you. And this is akin to playing with dice. D.

And merchants of the Sabbatical produce,

who conduct commerce with produce of the Sabbatical year and transgress what is stated [Leviticus 25]: “And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours to eat.” And the Sages expounded: “For eating,” and not for commerce. And all these are disqualified by rabbinic law, because the Sages suspected them: just as they are accustomed to transgress the religion for the sake of monetary gain, so too they will testify falsely for the sake of money and bribery.

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 for testimony [as explained in Bava Kamma 88a].

This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is fit —

they too,

the disqualified persons mentioned in our Mishna,

are not fit for it.

Gemara:

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

And we infer:

This

testimony for which

a woman is fit,

such as testifying concerning a chained woman that her husband has died, or testifying concerning a sota that she became defiled, so that she will not drink from the bitter waters

they too are fit for it!

Rav Ashi said: This is to say,

it can be proved from our Mishna that

a robber by their words [

such as one who plays with dice, pigeon flyers, lenders with interest, and merchants of Sabbatical produce, who were mentioned in the Mishna]

is fit for testimony concerning a woman.

But specifically a robber disqualified by rabbinic law; whereas a robber disqualified by Torah law, who is so brazen as to rob publicly, the Sages did not qualify him for testimony concerning a woman, even though they qualified the woman and the slave, who are disqualified by Torah law.

Mishna:

One who saw the new moon,

the renewal of the moon, on Shabbat,

and is unable to walk

to the court on his feet —

they transport him on a donkey.

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

And even on a litter

they carry him, despite the fact that the litter is a burden!

And if there are pursuers lying in wait for them,

if there are ambushers on the road [and these are the Boethusians and Samaritans, who would lie in wait for them in order to detain them so as to 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 road was distant —

they take provisions in their hands.

Since

for a journey of “a night and a day”,

in a manner that will suffice for them to reach Jerusalem while it is still daytime on Shabbat, and the court will be able to sanctify the month at its proper time,

they desecrate Shabbat, and go out for testimony concerning the new moon.

As it is stated [

Leviticus 23]:

“These are the appointed times of the Lord,

holy convocations,

which you shall proclaim at their appointed time.”

The verse warned that the proclamation of the appointed times as holy convocations should be at their appointed time and not afterward. And the matter depends upon the sanctification of the new moon by the court.

We shall return to you, chapter “Four Heads of Years.”

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to deal with testimony concerning the new moon:

If

the court that sanctifies the new moon

does not recognize him,

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

sends another with him to testify concerning him,

to testify concerning him that he is fit for testimony.

At first,

the court

would accept testimony concerning the new moon from every person,

even if they had not recognized him.

When the Boethusians corrupted matters [

the Gemara will explain ], they

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

And therefore we learned above that the court in his city had to send another with him to testify concerning him.

Gemara:

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

And we raised an objection concerning it:

What

what is the nature of the

“another”

whom they send with him? — One witness,

one.

And it implies that one witness is trustworthy to declare him fit!