Sanhedrin 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

And if so, this is difficult:

he should be flogged twenty-one times

so that he will receive the full twenty lashes that they assessed him as able to withstand,

and if he dies from this one

the twenty-first blow,

let him die

from this blow,

for when you strike

when he is being flogged,

you strike a living person,

as he is still alive.

And Rav Ashi answers:

He said to him: The verse says: “And your brother shall be degraded before your eyes,”

teaching that

“after he has been flogged

your brother” must be before your eyes.

It is necessary that the person remain alive even at the completion of the flogging, and not only in the middle of the lashes.

We learned in our Mishna:

The intercalation of the month is performed by three.

a. A lunar month consists of twenty-nine days plus half a day and 793 parts [29 days, 12 hours, and 793/1080 of an hour].

b. If we know the time of the molad of the previous month, we can calculate the time of the next molad by adding this amount.

c. A “month,” for the purpose of calculating the dates of the Torah, must consist of complete days and not half-days.

Since there is always an additional half-day between one molad and the next, we must attach that additional half-day to one month, on the one hand, and subtract half a day from the following month, on the other. Thus the order of the months is established: one “full” month of thirty days, called an “intercalated” month, to which the half-day was added, followed by one “deficient” month of twenty-nine days.

When the months were sanctified on the basis of observation, with witnesses coming to testify before the Sanhedrin that they had seen the new moon, the court would sit and await the witnesses.

If witnesses came on the thirtieth day and testified that they had seen the new moon on the night between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth days, the court would sanctify the thirtieth day as the New Moon, and it would be the first day of the following month. It would then emerge that the previous month had been deficient.

But if witnesses did not come on the thirtieth day, the previous month would be full, and only on the following day, the thirty-first day, would the New Moon of the following month occur.

Our Mishna can be interpreted in three ways:

a. Calculation of the month: The three judges mentioned in our Mishna are tasked with performing the calculations [as will be explained] whether to intercalate or to make the month deficient.

If we interpret it this way, three are required only for the calculation, and not for anything else.

b. Sanctification of the month: The three judges are tasked with receiving the testimony from the witnesses on the thirtieth day and sanctifying it; that is, the head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people respond after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For the sanctity of the month and the Festivals comes through the declaration of a court of three.

c. Intercalation of the month: As we explained regarding the sanctification of the month, except that the declaration is made only if they did not sanctify it on the thirtieth day and they intercalate the month; then the court must sanctify it through a declaration.

“Calculation of the month” means that even if witnesses came on the thirtieth day, they might nevertheless sometimes delay accepting their testimony and intercalate the month. [And conversely, even if there are no witnesses, they sometimes sanctify the thirtieth day on the basis of false witnesses [see Rosh HaShana 20a], because of various calculations.

These are: “because of the vegetables and because of the dead”—that is, so that Yom Kippur will not occur on either Friday or Sunday. For if two days of rest occurred consecutively, all the vegetables would wither during the hot days, and a person who died on Yom Kippur could not be buried on the Shabbat immediately afterward. Likewise, one who died on Shabbat could not be buried on Yom Kippur immediately afterward, and the corpse would become putrid. Therefore, it is proper to advance them to Thursday, thereby making the previous month deficient, or to postpone them to Monday, thereby intercalating the previous month.

There is another calculation: Although it is proper to make all the months alternately one full and one deficient, so that the New Moon will actually occur on the day of the molad, and to make six full months and six deficient months, sometimes, because the witnesses did not see the moon on the thirtieth day, or did not come to testify for whatever reason, or because of the vegetables and the dead, they make more intercalated months than is proper. It then emerges that the new moon will be seen on the twenty-eighth or twenty-ninth day of the previous month, and this will appear false, as the people have already seen the new moon whereas the court has still not sanctified it. Therefore, they must calculate so as not to make an excessive number of intercalated months. They do not make more than seven intercalated months [or, at most, eight, if they made too many deficient months in the previous year]. These calculations, and others like them, are called calculation of the month.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Calculation

of the month

is not taught

in the Mishna; it is not written there. Likewise,

sanctification

of the month

is not taught; rather, intercalation

is written in the Mishna. And this is difficult: Why does a court need to make a declaration of intercalation?

Let it not sanctify

the thirtieth day,

and automatically

the previous month

will be intercalated.

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said: Teach

that the Mishna should be altered

to read: Sanctification of the month.

According to this version, three judges are required to sanctify every month of the year, whether the previous month was full or deficient.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with the version proposed by Abaye:

The sanctification of the month and the intercalation of the year are performed by three—

these are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rava objects that although this is what is taught in the beraita, it is difficult to say that the Mishna means sanctification:

Rava said

to Abaye:

But it teaches intercalation,

although a tanna sometimes omits a word, he does not normally replace one version with another, as you have said—that he confused sanctification with intercalation.

Rather, Rava said:

The explanation of the Mishna is:

Sanctification on the day, intercalation,

if the court wishes to sanctify the following month on the thirtieth day, which is the day that is sometimes intercalated into the previous month, then they require

three,

but if they did not sanctify it on the day of intercalation, and the New Moon of the following month will be on the thirty-first day, which is

after intercalation,

they do not require three, because

there is no sanctification at all;

they do not need to declare concerning it, “Sanctified, sanctified.”

According to this explanation, the tanna of our Mishna does not hold like Rabbi Meir of the beraita, for Rabbi Meir

holds that even New Moons following full months require a court to sanctify them, whereas the tanna of the Mishna holds that sanctification is required only when they sanctify the month on the thirtieth day.

And whose opinion is this?

And the Mishna is the opinion of which tanna?

It is that of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok.

As we learned

in a Mishna [Rosh HaShana 20a]:

Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says: If the month was not seen

on

its proper time,

on the thirtieth day,

they do not sanctify it

on the thirty-first day,

as it has already been sanctified in Heaven

by the court Above on the previous day [meaning: When the court Above sees that the court of the Sanhedrin will not sanctify it on the thirtieth day, it sanctifies it on the thirty-first day, since certainly it will not defer it to another day].

Rav Naḥman explains the Mishna: The tanna of our Mishna holds, on the contrary, that on the thirtieth day no court sanctification and declaration of “Sanctified” is required, whereas on the thirty-first day it is required.

Rav Naḥman said: Sanctification after intercalation

—after the thirtieth day, which is the day of intercalation—

requires three.

But

if

on the day of intercalation,

on the thirtieth day itself,

there is no sanctification,

they do not need to sanctify it.

And whose opinion is this?

And the Mishna is the opinion of which tanna?

It is that of Pillemo, as it was taught: Pillemo says: At its proper time,

in a deficient month, which is sanctified on the thirtieth day,

they do not sanctify it;

the court does not require sanctification, since no declaration is needed to establish that the day is the New Moon, as it is its proper time. But

not at its proper time,

if it is deferred to the thirty-first day,

they sanctify it,

in order to establish that the day is the New Moon.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, it teaches calculation,

meaning that our Mishna intends that the court must perform calculations,

and what

is the meaning of

intercalation? It means

the calculation of intercalation,

calculating whether to intercalate—the matter is entrusted to a court of three.

And why did the Mishna not write “the calculation of intercalation”?

And since it needed to teach the intercalation of the year,

because it is taught together with the intercalation of the year, therefore

it also taught

in a similar formulation

the intercalation of the month.

For regarding the intercalation of the year, it is not sufficient for the court to decide that the year needs to be intercalated. Rather, they must intercalate it through a declaration that the following month is the second Adar, because if they do not declare this, it will automatically be Nisan. Therefore, we learned “intercalation,” meaning that after performing all the calculations, they must intercalate it through a declaration. It follows that “the intercalation of the year” essentially means calculation, and therefore, regarding the intercalation of the month as well, the intention is calculation.

And according to this opinion:

calculation of the month—

yes,

a court is required for this; whereas

sanctification of the month, no,

a court is not required, whether they make the month deficient or intercalate it.

Whose opinion is this,

the Mishna is the opinion of which tanna?

—

It is that of Rabbi Eliezer,

whether they calculate to make the New Moon

at its proper time,

on the thirtieth day,

or not at its proper time,

on the thirty-first day.

They do not sanctify it;

the court does not need to sanctify it, and the court’s role is only to calculate and decide whether to make the month deficient or intercalate it,

as it is stated

in the passage concerning the Jubilee:

“And you shall sanctify the fiftieth

year.”

And Rabbi Eliezer expounds: Only the

years,

the Jubilee year,

shall you sanctify

by sounding the shofar of the blast.

But you shall not sanctify the months,

and it is not necessary to sanctify months, whether full or deficient.

It follows that there are three interpretations of the Mishna: a. sanctification of the month; b. intercalation of the month; c. calculation of the month.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They begin with three, deliberate with five, and conclude with seven; and if they concluded with three, it is intercalated.

The Gemara explains the procedure of the deliberation.

It was taught: How did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say that they begin with three, deliberate with five, and conclude with seven?

At first, three judges who are members of the Sanhedrin sit and deliberate [a preliminary discussion] whether there are reasons to consider intercalating the year, and they discuss the matter among themselves. If they disagree,

one says to sit,

meaning that there are reasons to sit and deliberate about intercalation,

and two say not to sit,

meaning that there is no uncertainty here and certainly no reason to intercalate, the law is:

the individual is nullified by the minority,

and they do not sit to examine and deliberate.

But if

two say to sit, and one says not to sit,

the individual is nullified,

and two more are added to them

from among the judges,

and they deliberate on the matter,

because deliberation concerning the intercalation of the year must be conducted by five.

If their opinions are divided,

two say it is necessary

to intercalate this year,

and three say it is not necessary—

the two are nullified by the minority,

and they do not intercalate, but stand and go away. But if

three say it is necessary

to intercalate,

and two say it is not necessary—

they follow the majority, and their decision to intercalate is final. Nevertheless, they

add two more to them,

because

the number

for intercalation may be

no fewer than seven.

And the Gemara explains:

These three, five, and seven correspond to what?

According to what order are these numbers established?

The amoraim Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one who was with him disagreed about this,

and another amora was with him,

and who was he?

Who was he?

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi.

And

other students

said it to him

and transmitted the teaching in this formulation:

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one who was with him,

and another amora was with him,

and who was he?

Who was he?

Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani:

One

of the two amoraim

said: They correspond to the Priestly Blessing.

It consists of three verses: the first has three words, “May the Lord bless you and safeguard you”; the second has five words, “May the Lord illuminate His countenance to you and grant you grace”; and the third has seven words, “May the Lord lift His countenance to you and grant you peace.” The procedure of the judges for the intercalation of the year is arranged correspondingly.

And one

of these two amoraim

said

that they correspond to the protocols of royalty, for we find degrees of proximity to the king, and the intercalation of the year is among the protocols of the heavenly Kingdom, arranging the years in their proper order. They are:

three—

corresponding to the keepers of the threshold,

as it is written concerning King Zedekiah [II Kings 25];

five—

corresponding to the five who see the king’s face,

as it is also written there;

seven—

corresponding to

those who see the king’s face,

as it is stated [Esther 1]: the seven ministers of Persia and Media.

Rav Yosef taught: These three, five, and seven: three corresponding to the guards of the threshold, five corresponding to those who behold the king’s face, seven [corresponding to] those who behold the king’s face.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

Until now, what is the reason that my master did not explain it to us—

Rabbi! Until now, why did you not explain this matter to us.

He said to them

Rav Yosef answered his students:

I did not know that you needed it

I did not know that you needed this matter,

Did you ever ask me for a matter and I did not tell you?

Did such a thing happen, that you asked me and I did not answer?!

The time of the Nasi requires a kid goat as a sign

[They are signs for the reports that follow, except ... [unclear: the wording of the gloss is corrupt].]