Rosh Hashanah 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

This is difficult:

One —

is he trusted?!

Is one witness indeed trusted to testify concerning the witness that he is fit to testify?!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

There was an incident in which he came

himself,

the witness came before the court on Shabbat to testify concerning the renewal of the moon,

and his witnesses

came

with him to testify concerning him,

that he was reliable.

Since two witnesses had to come with him on Shabbat, this proves that one witness is not trusted!

Rav Pappa said,

in answer:

What [

what is meant by ]

“another”

mentioned in the Mishna? —

Another pair.

This too is necessarily so.

This also emerges from the wording of the Mishna:

For if you do not say so,

for if you do not say this, but say that “another” means one person, how will you explain the beginning of the Mishna, where we learned:

“If they do not recognize him”?

What is meant by “him”?

If we say it means that one witness,

if we say that “him” refers to the single witness, the following difficulty arises:

And one —

is he trusted?

Is one witness indeed trusted to testify concerning the new moon?!

But

“judgment” is written with regard to it,

in the context of sanctifying the new month it is stated: “For it is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob” [Psalms 81

And “judgment” refers to monetary law, and testimony in monetary law is valid only when given by two witnesses!

Rather, what is meant by “him”?

That pair.

If so,

likewise,

also with regard to what we learned, “They send another person with him to testify concerning him,”

what is meant by “another”?

Another pair!

In any event, the Gemara concluded that one witness is not trusted to testify that another witness is fit.

We were astonished:

But

is one

witness not trusted?!

But it was taught

in a beraita:

There was an incident involving Rabbi Nehorai, who went to the witness to testify concerning him on Shabbat in Usha,

when the Sanhedrin was sitting there and sanctifying the new month. This proves that Rabbi Nehorai was trusted for this purpose, even though he was only one witness!

They said

in answer:

Rabbi Nehorai —

another witness was with him.

Another witness was with Rabbi Nehorai.

And the reason he was not counted,

why did the tanna not mention him? —

For the honor of Rabbi Nehorai.

The tanna mentioned Rabbi Nehorai only in order to prove that it is permitted to do this on Shabbat, since even Rabbi Nehorai acted permissively in this matter; and it would not be respectful to derive our proof also from his colleague, who was lesser than he.

Rav Ashi said,

another answer:

Rabbi Nehorai —

there was another witness in Usha,

and Rabbi Nehorai knew that there was another witness in Usha who also recognized this witness.

And Rabbi Nehorai went to join him,

and Rabbi Nehorai went to Usha in order to join him, so that the two of them would testify concerning the matter.

And we object:

If so —

what does it teach us?!

If there was another witness there, what did the tanna intend to teach us?

And we answer:

Lest you say that we do not desecrate Shabbat on the basis of uncertainty,

I might have said that we must be concerned that perhaps that witness is not at home, and we do not desecrate Shabbat on the basis of uncertainty.

It teaches us

that the tanna teaches that we do desecrate it. The Gemara cites a testimony concerning the sanctification of the new month that is exceptional, in that even one witness is trusted to testify about it:

When Ulla came,

when Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said: They sanctified the month in the West.

They sanctified the month in Eretz Yisrael on the thirtieth day.

Rav Kahana said: It is not necessary to say

that concerning

Ulla, who is a great man and is trusted.

Rather, even an ordinary person,

even another person,

is also trusted.

What is the reason?

With regard to any matter that is destined to become known, people do not lie about it!

Concerning something that will eventually become known to everyone, people do not lie, so that they will not acquire a reputation as liars.

It was also taught likewise: If one came from the end of the world and said, “The court sanctified the new month,” he is trusted.

We learned in the Mishna:

Initially, they would accept testimony

concerning the new moon from anyone;

when the Boethusians corrupted matters, they instituted that they would accept testimony only from those whom they recognized.

The Sages taught:

What corruption did the Boethusians cause?

On one occasion the Boethusians sought to mislead the Sages.

They hired two men for four hundred zuz, one

was

from our side [

from among the Pharisees ], whom the court did not recognize,

and one

was

from their side [

from among the Boethusians ].

The witness

from their side testified to his testimony

as usual,

and left.

And the witness

from our side, they said to him,

the court said to him:

Tell us, how did you see the moon?

He said to them: I was ascending the Ma’aleh Adumim pass, and I saw it [

the moon ]

lying between two rocks; its head resembled that of a calf, its ears resembled those of a kid, its horns resembled those of a gazelle, and its tail lay between

its thighs. I glanced at it, recoiled, and fell backward.

And if you do not believe me —

here are two hundred zuz tied up in my cloak,

which I received in order to give false testimony [half of the four hundred zuz that the two witnesses received together

They said to him:

Since you did not give false testimony,

what compelled you to do so,

to give this testimony?

He said to them: I heard that the Boethusians sought to mislead the Sages.

Therefore

I said: I will go,

to testify,

and inform them

that the testimony was false.

For if I had not gone,

perhaps unsuitable people would come and mislead the Sages.

The Sages said to him:

Although you accepted payment from the Boethusians in order to give false testimony, and did not do so [and a person who accepts money as payment is obligated to fulfill his condition], nevertheless,

these two hundred zuz

are given to you as a gift!

For the court has the authority to impose a fine from a person’s property.

And the one who hired you

to mislead the Sages —

shall be stretched out on the post

for lashes [for this is how a person liable for lashes is flogged: his two hands are bound to the post, as explained in Tractate Makkot 22b].

At that time they instituted that they would accept

the testimony concerning the new moon

only from those whom they recognized.

Mishna:

Our Mishna presents another institution enacted by the Sages because of the corruption caused by the Kutim:

Initially,

they did not send messengers to the Diaspora to inform them of the establishment of the month. Rather,

they would light signal fires,

carrying torches near the court, so that the inhabitants of the nearby cities would see them and understand that the new month had been sanctified; in those cities they would again light torches, until the signal reached the Diaspora [as explained below].

When the Kutim corrupted matters,

the court would light signal fires only when it sanctified the new month on the thirtieth day, in which case it would light them that evening; and when it did not light signal fires on the evening of the thirtieth day, everyone knew that the court had made the month full.

On one occasion the court made the month full, and therefore did not light signal fires on the evening of the thirtieth day. The Kutim lit fires on the mountains where they lived, misleading the inhabitants of the Diaspora and causing them to treat the month as deficient.

From then on,

they instituted that messengers would go out.

And

how did they light the signal fires

initially?

They

would bring long poles of cedar,

so that when they kindled a fire at their tops, the fire would be visible from a distance,

and reeds, olive wood, and flax tow,

all of which increase the flame.

And they would wrap

them

with a cord [

a type of thread ] at the tops of the poles.

And he would ascend to the top of the mountain and kindle the fire with them.

And he would move the signal fires back and forth, raise them, and lower them

[so that people would not mistakenly think it was a star. Jerusalem Talmud].

Until he saw his colleague,

who was standing on another mountain,

doing the same thing at the top of the second mountain.

And likewise

was it done

at the top of the third mountain,

and so on.

And from where,

from which mountains

were signals lit?

From the Mount of Olives [(

from the Mount of Olives) they began, as it is near Jerusalem],

to Sartaba,

until they saw that they were doing so also at Sartaba,

and from Sartaba to Grofina, and from Grofina to Hauran, and from Hauran to Beit Baltin.

And from Beit Baltin they did not move from there; rather, they would carry up and bring down

the signals

until he could see

the

entire Diaspora before him like a bonfire

(as explained in the Gemara).

The Gemara:

And we raise this objection:

What indicates that the expression “masi'in” denotes kindling?

From where do we learn that the expression “lighting signals” means “kindling of fire"?

And we answer:

as it is written [(

II Samuel 5)]:

“And David and his men set them ablaze.”

And we translate it: “And David set them ablaze”

[burned them]

David.

The Sages taught: Signals are lit only for the new moon

[the renewal of the moon]

that is seen at its proper time

on the thirtieth day.

And when are signals lit? —

At the light of its intercalation.

On the thirtieth day at night, which is the night at the beginning of the thirty-first day.

[“Light” is an expression referring to the night. The thirtieth day is called the day of intercalation because it is added to the previous month].

This implies,

that the beraita teaches us

that we act when the month is deficient, but we do not act when it is full,

that signals were lit only when the previous month was deficient, and not when it was full, in which case the new month was sanctified on the thirty-first day.

What is the reason?

Rabbi Zeira said: It is a decree, because of a deficient new month,

a new month established on the thirtieth day of the previous month [and thereby making the previous month deficient],

that occurs on Friday eve,

and it is forbidden to light signals on the following night, since it is Shabbat.

When do they do it,

when are they able to light the signals?

At the conclusion of Shabbat,

on Saturday night.