Rosh Hashanah 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

And

the verse

says [Psalms 99]:

:

“Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call upon His Name

who call upon the Lord, and He answers them.” The verse equated Samuel with Moses and Aaron.

From here it follows that

the verse equated three “least significant figures in the world,”

Gideon, Jephthah, and Samson,

with

three

“greatest figures in the world”

[the righteous of the world]—Moses, Aaron, and Samuel.

This is to teach you:

Jerubbaal

[Gideon]

in his generation—

like Moses in his generation.

Bedan

[Samson]

in his generation—

like Aaron in his generation.

Jephthah in his generation—

like Samuel in his generation.

This teaches you that even

one who is

the least significant of the least significant, and is appointed as a leader over the community—

he is

from that point onward

like the mightiest of the mighty.

And

the verse

says [Deuteronomy 17]:

:

“And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge who will be in those days

, and you shall inquire, and they will tell you the word of judgment.”

And one may ask: Why is it stated in the verse: “the judge who will be in those days”?

Would it enter your mind that a person would go to a judge who did not live in his days?

Indeed,

the verse comes to teach you that

you have no reason to go

[to seek]

except to a judge who is in your days.

And it says [Ecclesiastes 7]:

:

“Do not say: Why were the former days better than these?”

for it is not from wisdom that you asked about this.”

So that you should not say: Because the earlier generations were better and more righteous than the later generations, therefore the former days were better than these!

From here it follows that it is impossible for the later generations to be as great as the earlier ones.

We learned in the Mishna:

[he] took

Rabbi Yehoshua

his staff and his money in his hand

etc.

The Sages taught:

When he saw him

Rabban Gamliel,

he rose from his seat and kissed him on the head.

He said to him: Peace be upon you, my “Rabbi” and my “student.”

“Rabbi”—

because you taught me Torah in public.

And “my student”—

because I issue a decree to you, and you fulfill it, like a student.

Fortunate is the generation in which the great heed the small!

A kal va-homer

that

the small

heed

the great.

And the Gemara left unstated that by means of a kal va-homer one could say, “Fortunate is the generation in which the small heed the great.”

And therefore we ask: Is it indeed appropriate to say that it is merely a matter of distinction, derived by means of a

kal va-homer,

that this generation is fortunate because the small heed the great?

But

it is an obligation!

It is an absolute obligation for the small to heed the great, and this is not a matter of distinction, such that one would say of this generation, “Fortunate is the generation.”

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what Rabban Gamliel said:

Because the great heed the small—

the small bear a kal va-homer upon themselves,

that they must fulfill their obligation.

We have returned to you, chapter “If They Do Not Recognize”

The chapter before us deals for the most part with the laws of the shofar, but the first Mishna still deals with the laws of sanctifying the new month:

Mishna:

The court and all Israel saw it,

the renewal of the moon, on the thirtieth day.

Or two witnesses saw it, and

the witnesses were interrogated

in court and found to be truthful witnesses.

And they did not have time

the court

to say, “Sanctified,” before it grew dark,

and the sun set, and the night of the thirty-first arrived—

then

this month

is intercalated,

as a thirty-day month. And Rosh Chodesh will be only on the following day, the thirty-first day.

If only the court saw it,

and there are no other witnesses concerning the matter. Even though all the judges saw it, nevertheless—

two shall stand

from among the judges

and testify before them

the other judges,

and they shall say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”

This refers to a case in which there are three judges besides the two who testify. The Gemara will explain the reason for this.

And if

only three saw it,

alone,

and they are the court—

the two shall stand

from among the three to testify,

and they shall seat

two judges

from among their colleagues

who are not members of the court

next to the sole judge,

so that there will be three judges in all.

And the two shall testify

before them

and say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”

Why were they required to add two judges to the sole judge?

Because

a sole judge is not trusted on his own

to say “Sanctified.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The court and all Israel saw it, and they did not have time to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark; the month is intercalated.

And we raise an objection:

Why was it necessary to teach, “The court and all Israel saw it”?

Why did the Mishna add that all Israel saw it? The court had already seen it, and could have sanctified the new month even without all Israel seeing it!

And we answer:

It was necessary.

The tanna needed to add this because

it might enter your mind

to say that when all Israel also saw it, the law would change.

For

since the court and all Israel saw it—

it became public knowledge, and they should not intercalate it!

It became publicized that the moon had been seen on the thirtieth day, and the month ought to be sanctified on the basis of this publicity, and they should not intercalate it.

Therefore,

it teaches us

that the tanna teaches us that since the court did not say “Sanctified,” the month is not sanctified; rather, they intercalate the month.

We learned later in the Mishna: [The court and all Israel saw it,] the witnesses were interrogated.

The Gemara assumed that all of this is one matter. The Mishna means that all Israel saw it, and witnesses also testified before the court, and their testimony was examined.

And we raise an objection:

Since it taught

since we learned

“The court and all Israel saw it,”

then

“the witnesses were interrogated”—

why is this necessary?

Why was it necessary to examine the witnesses? It is known to everyone that their testimony is correct! And we answer:

This is what it is saying:

This is what the tanna intended to say: “The court and all Israel saw it.”

Alternatively,

perhaps the court did not see it; only witnesses saw it, and

the witnesses were interrogated, but they did not have time to say ‘Sanctified’ before it grew dark—

the month is intercalated.

And we are perplexed:

Since it taught,

since we learned that when the court and all Israel saw it, if they did not have time to say “Sanctified”

before it grew dark, the month is intercalated—

why was it necessary to teach

the matter of

the interrogation of the witnesses at all!?

Why did the tanna need to teach that the law is the same even when the witnesses were interrogated?

It is a kal va-chomer: If, when all Israel saw it and the matter became publicized, they say “Sanctified” only during the day and not after it grew dark, then certainly when only the witnesses were interrogated, and it grew dark, they sanctify only during the day!

And we answer:

It was necessary

to teach us that even when their testimony was examined and it grew dark, they do not sanctify.

For

it might enter your mind,

you might think that

the interrogation of

the

witnesses is like the beginning of the trial, and

the recitation of

“Sanctified, sanctified” is like the conclusion of the trial.

And

since the beginning of the trial took place during the day, they should not intercalate the month; rather, they should conclude the trial at night, and

sanctify it at night.

They should sanctify Rosh Chodesh at night, saying that it had been sanctified retroactively on the thirtieth day, and on the basis of this calculation they would establish the festivals.

Just as is the case with monetary cases,

just as the law operates in this manner with regard to monetary cases, as follows:

As we learned [

Sanhedrin 32a] concerning monetary cases:

Monetary cases are adjudicated during the day, and

since they began adjudicating during the day—

they conclude

them even

at night.

Therefore, one might have said that

here too, they sanctify at night.

Similarly, with regard to the sanctification of the new month, when the testimony was examined during the day, they would sanctify the month at night, retroactively.

It teaches us

that the tanna teaches us that the court does not say “Sanctified” at night.

And we raise an objection: Why does the court not sanctify the new month at night?

But say that here too,

the sanctification of the new month should indeed be comparable to monetary cases!

And we answer:

The verse says [

Psalms 81]

“For it is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob.”

This verse was expounded above [8b] with regard to the sanctification of the new month.

When is it a “statute”?

When is the sanctification of the new month called a “statute”?

Only

at the conclusion of the trial!

And the Merciful One calls it a “judgment,”

that is, the beginning of a trial. This teaches you:

Just as “judgment

is only

during the day, so too here,

the conclusion of the trial concerning the sanctification of the new month takes place only

during the day!

We learned in the Mishna:

If only the court saw it,

even though all the judges saw it, nevertheless

two shall stand

from among the judges

and testify before them,

the other judges.

And we raise an objection:

Why?

Why should two stand and testify? Everyone saw it, so let them all sanctify it on the basis of their sight!

For

it is not

possible that

hearing,

that the court hears testimony from others, should be

greater

[more significant]

than seeing,

when they saw it themselves.

For with regard to the sanctification of the new month, the Torah did not say that testimony is required. Rather, it says, “This month” [Exodus 12], and we derive [above, 20a]: “See this, and sanctify.” And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said:

Our Mishna is speaking of

a case where they saw it

the court

at night,

and they do not sanctify the new month at night.

And on the following day, when they come to sanctify the new month, they no longer see the moon at that time. Therefore, they require testimony to be given before them.

We learned in the Mishna:

If only three saw it,

alone,

and they are the

entire

court

—

two shall stand

from among the judges and testify.

And they shall seat judges from among their colleagues

other judges

next to the sole judge.

And so on.

And we are perplexed:

Why?

Why do two need to stand and testify?

Here too, let us say

that here as well they should all sanctify it on the basis of their sight. For

it is not

possible that

hearing

from the witnesses should be

greater than sight

which the court itself saw!

And if you would say

that you wish to answer that

here too

it is speaking of

a case where they saw it at night—

If so, this is difficult:

This is—

the same!

It is exactly what we learned above: If the court saw it, two shall stand!

Why, then, did the tanna need to add and repeat, “If three saw it, and they are the court”?

And we answer: Indeed, here too it is speaking of a case where they saw it at night.

And

the final clause was necessary for it.

It was because of this final clause [which speaks of only three judges] that the tanna taught the entire passage.

For this is what we learned in the final clause:

“For the sole judge

[the judge who remains alone after his two colleagues testify],

is not trusted on his own.”

It might enter your mind

that you might say:

Since it was taught: Monetary cases are adjudicated by three

judges,

and if there was

a

specialist judge,

one experienced and whose wisdom was known

to the public

[Nimukei Yosef, beginning of Sanhedrin, in the name of the Ittur], then he

adjudicates even alone.

Therefore,

here too,

also here, concerning the sanctification of the new month, if he was a specialist,

let him sanctify it

the month

alone,

as a specialist.

Therefore,

it teaches us

that a single specialist is not sufficient for the sanctification of the new month.

And we raise an objection: Why, in fact, is a single specialist not sufficient for the sanctification of the new month?

But say that here too,

a single specialist should sanctify the month alone, just as he adjudicates monetary cases alone!

And we answer:

You have no specialist

known

to the public in Israel more than Moses our teacher.

And

nevertheless

the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:

Do not sanctify the new month

until Aaron is with you,

until Aaron is with you.

As it is written [

Exodus 12]:

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

This testimony shall be entrusted to you, so that you will be the judges concerning it and sanctify the month.

And since they do not establish an even-numbered court, so that if the judges divide in their opinions there will not be a situation in which each side is equal to the other, they therefore add one more judge, making three in all. [Tosafot, Ritva].

And our Mishna, which said that the judges who saw the renewal of the moon may sanctify the new month, comes

to say

[to state]

that “a witness can become a judge.”

Even someone who saw testimony concerning a matter and is able to testify about it is fit to be a judge in that same case.

For all the judges saw the renewal of the moon. Nevertheless, some of them become judges and say, “Sanctified.”

And we inquire concerning this:

Let us say,

can it be said that

our Mishna

is

not in accordance with

the view of

Rabbi Akiva,

as stated below?

For it was taught: If the Sanhedrin saw

a man

who killed a person.