Sanhedrin 12b — the Talmud in English

And the proof that he sought mercy for himself is from what is stated there:

“For they had eaten the Passover not as written, for Hezekiah prayed for them, saying: ‘The good Lord shall make atonement for’”

and it explains: in a manner that was not written in the Torah—that is, not according to the halakha.

And the beraita continues:

Rabbi Shimon says: If they intercalated it because of impurity—

it is intercalated. Rather, why did he seek mercy for himself?

Since

one intercalates only

the month of

Adar, and he

King Hezekiah,

intercalated Nisan in Nisan,

after they had already sanctified the first of the month of Nisan, he regretted the sanctification of the month of Nisan and made it a second Adar.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

He never intercalated the year. And why did he seek mercy for himself?

Because he caused Israel to make a Second Passover.

And further on the Gemara will explain what his reasoning was and why he retracted.

And now the Gemara explains the beraita and the view of all the tannaim.

Introduction

It is stated in the Torah [Numbers 9]: “If any man becomes impure through contact with a human corpse, and he shall perform the Passover for the Lord in the second month.” And we expound as follows [Pesachim 66b]: An individual is deferred to the Second Passover, but the community is not deferred to the Second Passover; rather, they perform the First Passover in impurity. That is, only when isolated individuals were impure, who were a minority of the community, did they offer the Passover offering in the month of Iyar. But when the entire community or the majority of the community was impure, they offered the First Passover offering even in impurity.

This ruling, that the community performs the Passover in impurity, can be understood in two ways: one, that impurity is “deferred” for the community—that it is a constrained ruling, and the Torah permitted it only with difficulty, and therefore they must endeavor not to reach this situation. And the second, that impurity is “permitted” for the community, and they need not endeavor to perform the Passover in purity.

And the Gemara explains that this uncertainty depends upon the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disputed concerning the ritzui tzitz.

It is stated in the Torah, in the section of the garments of the kohanim [Exodus 28]: “And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things.” That is, the garments of the kohanim atone and effect acceptance between Israel and their Father in Heaven. And we learned in tractate Yoma [7a]: “For what does the tzitz effect acceptance? For the blood, the flesh, and the fat [of holy offerings] that became impure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, whether through compulsion or willingly, whether in an individual offering or in a communal offering.”

That is, the acceptance of the tzitz applies to impurity that occurred to the offering at the time of the offering. But if impurity is permitted for the community [when the kohanim or the service vessels are impure, or when the people are impure with corpse impurity in the Passover offering], there is no need at all for the acceptance of the tzitz.

And the tannaim disputed whether the tzitz effects acceptance even when the High Priest is not wearing it.

The Master said,

above we learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They intercalate

the year because of impurity, so that if the community was impure, they allowed them to become pure by intercalating the year, so that they would not offer the Passover in impurity. And since Rabbi Yehuda said that one must endeavor not to offer the Passover offering in impurity,

apparently,

this proves

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

that he maintains

impurity is deferred for the community,

and therefore, if it is possible to offer it in purity, they offer it specifically in purity, and for this purpose they intercalate the year.

And concerning this it is difficult, for we learned in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says, impurity is permitted for the community.

But it was taught: The tzitz—

whether it is on his forehead,

at the time when the High Priest wears it at the time of the impurity,

whether it is not on his forehead—

it effects acceptance.

These are

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Only

while it is on his forehead—

it effects acceptance; if it is not on his forehead, it does not effect acceptance.

Rabbi Shimon said to

Rabbi Yehuda:

The High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove it,

for the High Priest offers offerings on that day,

when it is not on his forehead,

for on Yom Kippur he did not wear the tzitz during the special service of Yom Kippur; rather, he wore only white garments then—

and

nevertheless, if impurity occurred to one of the offerings,

it effects acceptance,

the tzitz. Thus the tzitz effects acceptance even when it is not on his forehead.

Rabbi Yehuda said to

Rabbi Shimon:

Leave Yom Kippur,

and do not prove from its service

that

the impurity of its offerings does not require the acceptance of the tzitz, because they are communal offerings,

and impurity is permitted for the community

like complete purity; and the acceptance of the tzitz is needed only for individual offerings.

But Rabbi Shimon maintains that impurity is deferred for the community, and they still require the acceptance of the tzitz.

Thus Rabbi Yehuda maintains that impurity is permitted for the community. If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is difficult: why did Hezekiah need to intercalate because of impurity?

And the Gemara answers—

And according to your reasoning,

according to your reasoning, that you maintain that this is the version of the beraita, and therefore you raised a contradiction from Rabbi Yehuda’s words elsewhere,

the very matter itself should be difficult for you;

you could have raised a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s words within the beraita itself, in which it is stated:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They intercalate, and

on the other hand

Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Hezekiah, king of Judah, who intercalated the year because of impurity and sought mercy for himself.

And if they intercalate, why did he seek mercy for himself!?

Rather,

in order

that

the contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s words should not be difficult, whether from the beraita itself or from another beraita, we are compelled to say that

something is missing from the text,

the version of the beraita contains an omission and corruption,

and this is what it teaches,

and this is the true version: The First Tanna maintains:

They do not intercalate the year because of impurity,

but after the fact,

if they intercalated it, it is intercalated.

Whereas

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not intercalated,

according to his view that impurity is permitted for the community and there is no need to intercalate it, and therefore he brings proof:

And Rabbi Yehuda said, etc.

that King Hezekiah sought mercy for himself because he intercalated the year without need.

And the Gemara asks:

If so,

if even the First Tanna maintains that if they intercalated it, it is intercalated, then we learned further in the beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: If they intercalated it because of impurity—

it is intercalated,

and it is difficult:

This is

not these the words of

the First Tanna,

and what legal distinction is there between the First Tanna and Rabbi Shimon?

The Gemara answers:

Rava said:

The issue of whether they intercalate

ab initio is the difference between them;

there is a distinction between them, for the First Tanna maintains: one does not intercalate ab initio , whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that they intercalate even ab initio . But since he heard that Rabbi Yehuda says that it is not intercalated even after the fact, he answered him with the expression “it is intercalated,” which is an expression applying to after the fact; but in truth he maintains that they intercalate even ab initio.

And now the Gemara brings another beraita in which the words of Rava are stated.

It was also taught so

and likewise we learned:

They do not intercalate the year ab initio

these are the words of the First Tanna.

Rabbi Shimon says: They intercalate

ab initio,

but

if so,

why did he seek

Hezekiah

mercy for himself,

because

one intercalates only Adar,

and he intercalated Nisan in Nisan.

And it follows that in Adar they intercalate—even ab initio—because of impurity.

Thus we have three views:

A. According to Rabbi Shimon, they intercalate even ab initio.

B. According to the First Tanna, ab initio they do not intercalate, but after the fact it is intercalated.

C. According to Rabbi Yehuda, even after the fact it is not intercalated.

The Gemara continues to explain the beraita.

The Master said,

we learned in the beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Hezekiah sought mercy for himself because

one intercalates only Adar, and he intercalated Nisan in Nisan.

And the Gemara asks:

Does Hezekiah not hold

the exposition of what is stated in the Torah:

“This month is for you

the beginning of months,” and we expound:

“This” is Nisan,

only it shall be for you the first of the months of the year,

and there is no

month

after Nisan.

For once they have sanctified Nisan, it is impossible to make it the month of Adar. If so, how did Hezekiah intercalate Nisan in Nisan?

And the Gemara answers: The meaning is not that they had actually already sanctified it as the month of Nisan, for then even Hezekiah would not have intercalated; rather, Hezekiah

erred in

the ruling

of Samuel,

the amora Samuel, who ruled:

Samuel said: They do not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar,

even though the court had not yet sanctified that day as the first of the month of Nisan,

since it is fit to establish it as Nisan,

for it is fit to sanctify it as the first of the month of Nisan .

These are Samuel’s words,

and he

Hezekiah, at first

held: “Since it is fit

to establish it as Nisan”—

we do not say [this],

and therefore he intercalated it, but ultimately he acknowledged Samuel’s ruling, and therefore sought mercy for himself.

The Gemara brings a beraita in which Samuel’s ruling was taught.

It was also taught so: They do not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is fit to establish it as Nisan.

The Gemara continues to explain the beraita.

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Because he caused Israel to make a Second Passover.

And the Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

—how is it possible that at first he caused this, and ultimately retracted and sought mercy for himself?

Introduction

If the majority of the community was impure, they performed the Passover in impurity in the month of Nisan. But if the majority was pure, only the pure performed the First Passover, and the minority of the impure performed the Second Passover in the month of Iyar.

The tannaim disputed whether women are obligated to be registered for and eat the Passover offering at the First Passover, or whether it is optional for them to join and be registered for the Passover offering, but they are not obligated to eat it.

This dispute concerning women does not affect only the women themselves; it also affects the males. For if they are obligated, they join the count of the pure men—if they are pure—and they join the count of the impure men—if they are impure.

And they join in determining that if the majority, together with them, is impure, they all perform the First Passover in impurity.

Or, if the majority together with them is pure and the minority is impure, the impure are deferred to the Second Passover.

But if they are not obligated in the Passover offering, they do not determine the matter, neither for the majority nor for the minority, neither for the pure nor for the impure.

And the Gemara explains:

Rav Ashi said:

The incident involving Hezekiah refers to

a case in which the

males of

Israel

in this Passover of Hezekiah were

half impure and half pure.

And the intention is not exactly half and half; rather, there were more impure males than pure males.

And the women

were mostly pure,

completing the pure and exceeding them,

for if the women too are counted, there is a majority of pure people, but if they are not counted, there is a majority of impure males.

At first he held,

at the outset he held according to the view that says

“women at the First Passover are obligated,”

and therefore the women joined the pure, making them the majority, and they performed the First Passover.

For they were a minority impure, and their minority was deferred to the Second Passover,

and this is the meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s words, “because he caused Israel to make a Second Passover”: he caused a minority of the people to do so—even though they were a great multitude, and not isolated individuals.

And ultimately

he retracted

and held

according to the view that says

“women at the

First

Passover are permitted,”

and the women do not join,

so that

the males, the

impure, were the majority, and the majority

of the people

is not deferred to the Second Passover,

and he should have instructed them to bring the offering in impurity; therefore he sought mercy for himself.

The Gemara discusses the case where they intercalated the year after the fact on the thirtieth day of Adar.

The matter itself: Samuel said: They do not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is fit to establish it as Nisan.

And the Gemara is uncertain: If

they intercalated it

on the thirtieth day,

what

is the law—whether the year is intercalated or not.

Ulla said: They do not sanctify the month,

and the court does not proclaim on that day “sanctified,” to say that it is the first of the month of Second Adar; since that day is fit to establish Nisan, it is impossible to establish it as Adar, as we learned: “This is Nisan, and there is no other Nisan”; rather, they remain silent, and they sanctify the following new moon as Nisan [see the notes] .

And the Gemara asks: If nevertheless

they sanctified

it, the court, as the first of the month—

what

is the law, whether the year is intercalated or not.

Rava said: The intercalation is nullified,

for since they sanctified it as the first of the month, it is Nisan, and we learned: “This is Nisan, and there is no other Nisan.”

This is Rava’s view, and Rav Nahman disagrees.

Rav Nahman said: It is intercalated and sanctified

the year is intercalated, and the thirtieth day is the first of the month of Second Adar.

Rava asks Rav Naḥman: How is it possible at all to intercalate the year during the final days of Adar, after Purim?

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Since

that is,

from Purim until Pesach

from Purim until Pesach

there are thirty days

there are thirty days,

and from Purim we expound the laws of Pesach

and from Purim we already begin teaching the people the laws of Pesach, as

it was taught

as we learned in a tannaitic source,

“One inquires into the laws of Pesach thirty days before Pesach,”

and this is the view of the Sages. But

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

it is sufficient to begin on the first day of Nisan and expound

for two weeks.

Now there is a difficulty: If they did not intercalate the year before Purim, and the people have already begun hearing teachings about the laws of Pesach,

when the beginning of the month arrives

and the first day of the month arrives,

they will push it away

they will inform the people that Pesach has been postponed to the following month, but they will not believe the messengers of the court who come to announce the intercalation—and

this

will result in

their treating chametz lightly

so that in the following month, when the actual Pesach occurs, they will eat leavened food during Pesach . Rav Naḥman answers him that there is no such concern.

He said to him

Rav Naḥman said to Rava:

They know

the people know

that the intercalation of the year depends on calculation

that adding a month to the year depends on calculations—for the people also understand that the solar year is always compared with the lunar year—and even if they have already begun teaching the laws of Pesach,

they say

the people say:

“The Sages have not completed the calculation until now.”

They had not completed the court’s calculations until the end of Adar, and the people will believe the court’s messenger and will not treat chametz lightly, because although they had prepared for Pesach, they knew that a change was possible.

Introduction to the discussion of the calculation of the seasons

We learned in a beraita that one of the reasons for which the year is intercalated is the tekufa, the season.

The solar year is divided into four seasons: the season of Nisan, the season of Tammuz, the season of Tishrei, and the season of Tevet.

Rashi explained there: This refers either to the season of Tammuz, when it is delayed and extends into Tishrei, so that the season of Tishrei does not begin until after Sukkot, or to the season of Tevet, whose period extends until the sixteenth of Nisan, so that the offering of the omer would be brought during the season of Tevet.

Other early authorities [see the note there] explain that it refers to the season of Tishrei, which is delayed until after the festival.

According to Shmuel, each season is

approximately

ninety-one days, seven hours, and half an hour. Once we know on which day and at what time one season occurred, we can add this number of days and hours to it, and from then on begin counting another season, and likewise the second and third seasons, forever.

Rav Adda calculated with greater precision, using smaller units and moments, and according to his approach the calculation is more exact. The Rambam wrote that the Sanhedrin relied on this calculation.

Our discussion deals with the season of Tishrei. [At the end of the discussion, the season of spring, which is the season of Nisan, is also discussed].

The Torah says, “The festival of ingathering, at the turn of the year.” The meaning of the verse is that the Torah commands the Sanhedrin to ensure that Sukkot falls specifically during the season of Tishrei. Therefore, if the season of Tishrei occurs before Sukkot, there is certainly no need to intercalate the year because of the season. If the season occurs after all the days of Sukkot have ended, then according to all opinions the year certainly must be intercalated because of the season. Our discussion concerns a case in which the season occurs during the days of Sukkot, on one of the festival days: must the year be intercalated, or need it not be intercalated? There are several opinions on this matter.

As we explained, the season does not necessarily occur at the beginning of the day; it usually occurs during one of the hours of the day. Regarding the day on which the season occurs, one may say that it is the final day of the previous season, in the language of the Gemara, “the day of the season completes,” or one may say that it is the first day of the following season: “the day of the season begins.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: We do not intercalate the year

because of the season if the season of Tishrei occurs before Sukkot,

unless

the court calculates and finds

that there was a season

of Tammuz that was deficient, that had not yet ended, and that would continue for

most of the month

of Tishrei [as will be explained.

And how many

days are

most of a month?

There are two opinions here:

Sixteen days,

this is

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda,

that is, the first day of the intermediate days of the festival.