Rosh Hashanah 25b — the Talmud in English

And

pisanie

govorit [Tehilim 99]:

«

Moshe i Aharon sredi ego koenov, a Shmuel — sredi prizivayushchih ego imya,

oni prizivayut Gospoda, i On otvechaet im». Pisanie postavilo Shmuela v odin ryad s Moshe i Aharonom.

Otsyuda vidno, chto

pisanie postavilo trekh «naimenshih iz velikih»

, Gidona, Yiftaha i Shimshona,

s

redi

trekh «velichayshih iz velikih»

[pravednikov vseh pokoleniy] — Moshe, Aharona i Shmuela.

Eto uchit nas:

Yerubaal

[Gideon]

v svoem pokolenii —

kak Moshe v svoem pokolenii.

Bedan

[Shimshon]

v svoem pokolenii —

kak Aharon v svoem pokolenii.

Yiftah v svoem pokolenii —

kak Shmuel v svoem pokolenii.

Eto uchit tebya: dazhe

tot, kto

byl samym neznachitelnym iz neznachitelnyh i byl naznachen rukovoditelem obshchiny —

otnyne on

srazu

podoben samomu velikomu iz velikih.

I

pisanie

govorit [Devarim 17]:

«

I pridesh k koenam-levitam i k sudye, kotoryy budet v te dni

, i sprosish, i oni soobshchat tebe sudebnoe reshenie».

I sleduet sprosit: pochemu v stikhe skazano: «sudye, kotoryy budet v te dni»?

Razve mozhno podumat, chto chelovek poydet k sudye, kotorogo ne bylo v ego dni?

Net,

pisanie prihodit uchit tebya, chto

ty ne dolzhen idti

[iskat]

nikuda, krome kak k sudye, kotoryy zhivet v tvoe vremya.

I skazano [Kohelet 7]:

«

Ne govori: “Pochemu prezhnie vremena byli luchshe etih?”

Potomu chto ty ne iz mudrosti sprosil ob etom».

Ne govori: «Poskolku prezhnie pokoleniya byli luchshe i pravednee poslednih pokoleniy, poetomu prezhnie vremena byli luchshe etih!»

Otsyuda vidno, chto poslednie pokoleniya ne mogut byt takimi zhe velikimi, kak prezhnie.

My uchim v Mishne, osnovnom svode ustnogo zakona:

vzyal

Rabbi Yehoshua

svoy posoh i denezhnuyu sumku v ruki

i tak dalee.

Mudretsy uchili v barayte — tannayskom istochnike, ne vklyuchennom v Mishnu:

Kogda Rabban Gamliel uvidel ego

,

on vstal so svoego kresla i potseloval ego v golovu.

On skazal emu: «Mir tebe, “moy uchitel” i “moy uchenik”.»

«Moy uchitel» —

potomu chto ty uchil menya Tore na glazah u mnogih.

A «moy uchenik» —

potomu chto ya vydal tebe postanovlenie, a ty ego vypolnil, kak uchenik.

Schastlivo pokolenie, v kotorom velikie slushayutsya malyh!

Po vyvodu po printsipu «tem bolee»

eto oznachaet, chto

malye

slushayutsya

velikih.

Gemara — talmudskoe obsuzhdenie Mishny — predpolagaet, chto iz vyvoda po printsipu «tem bolee» sleduet skazat: «Schastlivo pokolenie, v kotorom malye slushayutsya velikih».

Poetomu Gemara udivlyaetsya: razve pravilno govorit, chto tolko dostoinstvo pokoleniya zaklyuchaetsya v tom, chto

po vyvodu po printsipu «tem bolee»

v nem malye slushayutsya velikih?

Ved

eto obyazannost!

Malyye dolzhny v polnoy mere slushatsya velikih, i eto ne dostoinstvo, iz-za kotorogo sleduet govorit o dannom pokolenii: «Schastlivo pokolenie».

I otvechaem:

no

, vot chto skazal Rabban Gamliel:

iz-za togo, chto velikie slushayutsya malyh —

malye sami delayut vyvod po printsipu «tem bolee»

, chto oni dolzhny ispolnyat svoyu obyazannost.

My zavershili traktat «Esli ne uznayut».

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 examined

in court and were found to be true witnesses.

And the court did not have enough time

the court

to say, “Sanctified,” until it became dark,

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

behold,

the month

is intercalated,

a thirty-day month. And the new month will be only on the following day, on the thirty-first day.

The court alone saw it,

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

two shall stand

from among the judges

and testify before them

before the other judges

and say, “Sanctified,” “Sanctified.”

And this refers to a case in which there are three judges besides the two giving testimony. And the reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

And if

three saw it

alone,

and they are the court —

the two shall stand

from among the three for testimony,

and they shall seat

two judges

from their colleagues

who are not from the court

beside the single one,

and there will be three judges in all.

And

the two

shall testify before them, and say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”

And why did they need to add two judges to the single one?

Because

the single one is not trusted by himself

to say “Sanctified.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The court and all Israel saw it, and did not have enough time to say “Sanctified” until it became dark; behold, it is intercalated.

And we raise an objection:

Why was it necessary for him 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 they could sanctify the 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

[it might occur to you to say] that when all Israel also saw it, the law changes.

For

since the court and all Israel saw it —

it became publicized, and they should not intercalate it!

It became publicized that the moon had been seen on the thirtieth day, and it is proper that the month be sanctified by virtue of this publicity, and they should not intercalate it.

Therefore

he teaches us

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

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

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

And we raise an objection:

And since he taught it,

since we learned

“The court and all Israel saw it,”

then

“the witnesses were examined” —

why is it necessary?

Why was it necessary to examine the witnesses? Is it not known to everyone that their testimony is correct? And we answer:

This is what he is saying,

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

Alternatively,

or the court did not see it, but witnesses did, and

the witnesses were examined, and they did not have enough time to say ‘Sanctified’ until it became dark —

behold, it is intercalated.

And we wonder:

And since he taught,

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

until it became dark, behold, it is intercalated —

why was it necessary for him to teach it

the

examination of the witnesses at all!?

Why did the tanna need to teach that even when the witnesses’ testimony was examined, the law is so?

For 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 when it became dark, all the more so when only the witnesses were examined, and it became dark, that they sanctify only during the day!

And we answer:

It was necessary

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

For

it might enter your mind,

it might occur to you to say that

the examination of

the

witnesses is like the beginning of judgment, and

the saying

“Sanctified,” “Sanctified,” is like the conclusion of judgment.

And

since the beginning of the judgment was during the day, they should not intercalate the month, but should complete the judgment at night, and

sanctify at night.

They should sanctify the new month at night, and say that it is sanctified retroactively on the thirtieth day, and on the basis of this calculation they should establish the appointed times.

Just as is the case with monetary laws,

just as this is the law concerning monetary cases, as follows:

For we learned

[Sanhedrin 32a] concerning monetary cases:

Monetary cases are judged during the day, and

once they began to judge during the day —

they complete

them even

at night.

And therefore it could have been said that

here too, they sanctify at night.

That also concerning the sanctification of the new month, when the testimony was examined during the day, they would sanctify the month at night, retroactively.

He teaches us

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 month at night?

And let us say, here too,

that indeed the sanctification of the new month should be equal 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.”

And this verse was expounded above [8b] concerning 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 judgment!

And the Merciful One calls it “judgment,”

that is, the beginning of judgment. To teach you:

Just as “judgment

is only

during the day, so too here,

the conclusion of the judgment of sanctifying the new month is performed only

during the day!

We learned in the Mishna:

The court saw it

alone; even though all the judges saw it, nevertheless

two shall stand

from among the judges

and testify before them

before the other judges.

And we raise an objection:

And why,

why should two stand and testify? They all saw it, so let them all sanctify it on the basis of their seeing it!

For

it

is not possible that

hearing

that the court hears testimony from others is

greater

[more important]

than seeing,

when they saw it themselves.

For concerning the sanctification of the new month it was not said in the Torah that testimony is required; rather, it was said, “This month” [Exodus 12], and we expound [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 month at night.

And on the following day, when they come to sanctify the new month, they do not see the moon then. Therefore, they need them to testify before them.

We learned in the Mishna:

Three saw it

alone,

and they are the

entire

court

—

two shall stand

from the judges and testify.

And they shall seat from among their colleagues

other judges

beside the single one.

And so on.

And we wonder:

And why?

Why do two need to stand and testify?

Here too, let us say,

here too let us say that they should all sanctify it on the basis of their seeing. For

it

is not possible that

the hearing

of the witnesses is

greater than the seeing

that the court itself saw!

And if you would say,

and if you wish to answer that

here too

it refers to

a case where they saw it at night.

If so, this is difficult:

This is —

the same!

For this is exactly like what we learned above: The court saw it; two shall stand!

And why did the tanna need to add and repeat: “Three saw it, and they are the court”?

And we answer: Indeed, here too it refers to a case where they saw it at night.

And

the final clause was necessary for him.

Because of the end of this passage [which speaks of only three judges], the tanna taught the entire passage.

For this is what we learned in the final clause:

“For the single one

[the judge who remained alone from his two colleagues who testify]

is not trusted by himself.”

It might enter your mind,

it might occur to you to say:

Since it was taught: Monetary cases are [judged] by three

judges,

and if there were

a

specialist judge,

experienced and known for his wisdom

to the many

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

judges even alone.

Therefore

here too,

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

let us sanctify it

the month

alone

as a specialist.

Therefore,

he teaches us

the tanna teaches us that one specialist is not sufficient for the sanctification of the new month.

And we raise an objection: Why indeed is one specialist not sufficient for the sanctification of the new month?

And let us say, here too,

that one specialist sanctifies the month alone, just as he judges monetary cases alone!

And we answer:

You have no specialist

who is known

to the many in Israel more than Moses our master.

And

nevertheless

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

Do not sanctify the 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 the matter, and you will sanctify the month.

And since a court is not made even-numbered, so that if the judges become divided in their opinions there will not be a situation in which each side is equal to the other, therefore one additional judge is added to them, and they are three. [Tosafot, Ritba].

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

to say

[to say]

that “a witness becomes a judge.”

For even one who saw testimony concerning the matter, and can 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 examine it:

Let us say,

can one say that

our Mishna

is

not in accordance with

the view of

Rabbi Akiva,

which follows below?

For it was taught: The Sanhedrin saw

a man

who killed a person.