Sanhedrin 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

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

“For they had eaten the Paschal offering contrary to what is written, because Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: ‘May the good Lord atone on behalf of’”

And it explains: in a manner that was not in accordance with what is written in the Torah—that is, contrary to halakha.

And the beraita continues:

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

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

Because

one intercalates only

the month of

Adar, whereas

King Hezekiah

intercalated Nisan during Nisan,

after they had already sanctified the first of Nisan as the New Moon; he regretted the sanctification of Nisan and made it the second Adar.

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

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

Because he caused Israel to perform the second Pesaḥ offering.

And later the Gemara will explain what his reasoning was and why he retracted his ruling.

Now the Gemara explains the beraita and the opinions of all the tannaim.

Introduction

It is stated in the Torah [Numbers 9]: “When a person becomes impure through contact with a dead person, and he performs the Pesaḥ offering to God in the second month.” And we expound it as follows [Pesaḥim 66b]: An individual is deferred to the second Pesaḥ, but the community is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ; rather, it performs the first Pesaḥ in a state of ritual impurity. That is, only when isolated individuals, who constitute a minority of the community, are impure do they offer the Paschal sacrifice in the month of Iyyar. But when the entire community, or the majority of the community, is impure, they offer the first Paschal sacrifice even in a state of ritual impurity.

This ruling—that the community performs the Pesaḥ offering in a state of ritual impurity—can be understood in two ways. One possibility is that ritual impurity is merely “deferred” in the case of the community; this is a strained dispensation, which the Torah permitted only with difficulty, and therefore one must make every effort to avoid reaching such a situation. The other possibility is that ritual impurity is “permitted” in the case of the community, and there is no need to make an effort to perform the Pesaḥ offering in a state of purity.

The Gemara explains that this uncertainty depends on the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, who disagreed concerning the appeasement of the tzitz.

It is stated in the Torah, in the passage concerning the priestly garments [Exodus 28]: “And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred offerings.” That is, the priestly garments atone and secure appeasement between Israel and their Father in Heaven. And we learned in tractate Yoma [7a]: “For what does the tzitz secure appeasement? For the blood, the flesh, and the fats [of sacred offerings] that became impure, whether inadvertently or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly, whether belonging to an individual or to the community.”

That is, the appeasement of the tzitz applies to ritual impurity that occurred to the sacrifice at the time of its offering. But if ritual impurity is permitted in the case of the community [when the priests or the sacred vessels are impure, or when the people are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse in the case of the Paschal offering], there is no need at all for the appeasement of the tzitz.

The tannaim disagreed as to whether the tzitz secures appeasement even when the High Priest is not wearing it.

The Master said,

earlier we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One intercalates

the year because of ritual impurity, so that if the community is impure, they are given the opportunity to become pure through intercalating the year, and thus they will not offer the Pesaḥ offering in a state of ritual impurity. And since Rabbi Yehuda said that one must make every effort not to offer the Paschal sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity,

apparently,

it is evident from this

that Rabbi Yehuda holds

that he maintains

that ritual impurity is deferred in the case of the community,

and therefore, if it is possible to offer the sacrifice in purity, it must specifically be offered in purity; for this purpose, the year is intercalated.

But this is difficult, as we learned in another beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that ritual impurity is permitted in the case of the community.

But it was taught: The tzitz—

whether it is on his forehead,

when the High Priest wears it while the ritual impurity occurs,

or whether it is not on his forehead—

it secures appeasement.

These are

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Only

while it is on his forehead—

it secures appeasement; if it is not on his forehead, it does not secure appeasement.

Rabbi Shimon said to

Rabbi Yehuda:

The High Priest on Yom Kippur proves this,

for the High Priest offers sacrifices on that day

without it being on his forehead,

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

and

nevertheless, if ritual impurity occurred to one of the sacrifices,

it secures appeasement

through the tzitz. Thus, the tzitz secures appeasement even when it is not on his forehead.

Rabbi Yehuda said to

Rabbi Shimon:

Set aside Yom Kippur,

and do not prove your point from its service,

as

the ritual impurity of its sacrifices does not require the appeasement of the tzitz, because they are communal sacrifices,

and ritual impurity is permitted in the case of the community

as though it were complete purity; the appeasement of the tzitz is required only for sacrifices belonging to an individual.

Rabbi Shimon, however, maintains that ritual impurity is deferred in the case of the community, and they still require the appeasement of the tzitz.

It follows that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that ritual impurity is permitted in the case of the community. If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda, why did Hezekiah need to intercalate the year because of ritual impurity?

The Gemara answers—

But according to your reasoning,

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

you should raise a difficulty for yourself from the very matter itself:

you could have raised a contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s words within the beraita itself, for it states:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One intercalates, and

on the other hand

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

And if one intercalates, why did he plead for mercy on himself!?

Rather,

in order

that

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

the text is deficient,

that the version of the beraita contains an omission and a textual corruption,

and this is what it teaches,

and this is the correct version: The first tanna maintains:

One does not intercalate the year because of ritual impurity,

but after the fact,

if they intercalated it, it is intercalated.

Whereas

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not intercalated,

in accordance with his view that ritual impurity is permitted in the case of the community and there is no need to intercalate the year for that reason, and he brings proof:

And Rabbi Yehuda said, etc.,

that King Hezekiah pleaded for mercy on himself because he had intercalated the year without need.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

If so,

if even the first tanna maintains that if they intercalated the year, it is intercalated, then we learned later in the beraita:

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

it is intercalated,

and this is difficult:

This is

not also the statement of

the first tanna?

What difference in law is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon?

The Gemara answers:

Rava said:

The issue of whether one intercalates

ab initio is the difference between them.

There is a distinction between them: The first tanna maintains that one does not intercalate the year ab initio , whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that one intercalates it even ab initio . Since Rabbi Yehuda says that it is not intercalated even after the fact, Rabbi Shimon responded to him with the expression “it is intercalated,” which refers to a ruling after the fact; but in truth, he maintains that one intercalates the year even ab initio.

Now the Gemara cites another beraita that states the ruling in accordance with Rava.

It was taught likewise

and we likewise learned:

One does not intercalate the year ab initio—

these are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Shimon says: One intercalates it

ab initio,

but

if so,

why did Hezekiah plead

Hezekiah

for mercy on himself

because

one intercalates only Adar,

whereas he intercalated Nisan during Nisan.

It follows that in Adar one intercalates the year—even ab initio—because of ritual impurity.

We therefore have three opinions:

A. According to Rabbi Shimon, one intercalates the year even ab initio.

B. According to the first tanna, one does not intercalate the year ab initio, 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 that Hezekiah pleaded for mercy on himself because

one intercalates only Adar, whereas he intercalated Nisan during Nisan.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Does Hezekiah not hold

of the exposition concerning what is stated in the Torah:

“This month shall be for you

the beginning of months,” and we expound:

“This”—Nisan,

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

and there is no

month

after Nisan.

For once Nisan has already been sanctified, it is impossible to make it the month of Adar. If so, how did Hezekiah intercalate Nisan during Nisan?

The Gemara answers: The meaning is not that Nisan had already actually been sanctified as the month of Nisan, in which case even Hezekiah would not have intercalated the year. Rather, Hezekiah

erred in

a ruling

of Shmuel,

the amora Shmuel,

who said: One does not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar,

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

since it is fit to establish it as Nisan,

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

These are Shmuel’s words,

but he

Hezekiah, initially

held that “since it is fit

to establish it as Nisan”— \-

we do not say so,

and therefore he intercalated the year; but ultimately he acknowledged Shmuel’s ruling, and therefore pleaded for mercy on himself.

The Gemara cites a beraita in which Shmuel’s ruling was taught.

It was taught likewise: One does 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 perform the second Pesaḥ offering.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances?

How did he initially cause this, and ultimately retract his ruling and plead for mercy on himself?

Introduction

If the majority of the community was impure, they performed the Pesaḥ offering in a state of ritual impurity in the month of Nisan. But if the majority was pure, only those who were pure performed the first Pesaḥ offering, while the minority who were impure performed the second Pesaḥ offering in the month of Iyyar.

The tannaim disagreed as to whether women are obligated to register for and eat the Paschal sacrifice at the first Pesaḥ, or whether they have the option of joining and registering for the Paschal sacrifice but are not obligated to eat it.

This dispute concerning women affects not only the women themselves; it also affects the males. If the women are obligated, they are included in the count of the pure males—if they are pure—and in the count of the impure males—if they are impure.

They thereby contribute to determining that if, together with them, the majority is impure, they all perform the first Pesaḥ offering in a state of ritual impurity.

Alternatively, if together with them the majority is pure and the minority is impure, those who are impure are deferred to the second Pesaḥ offering.

But if the women are not obligated in the Paschal sacrifice, they do not affect the determination of either the majority or the minority, whether of the pure or of the impure.

The Gemara explains:

Rav Ashi said:

The incident involving Hezekiah refers to a case

where

the male

Israelites

in Hezekiah’s Pesaḥ offering

were half impure and half pure.

This does not mean that they were exactly half and half; rather, there were more impure males than pure males.

And the women

were mostly pure,

completing the number of the pure and exceeding them,

so that if the women are also counted, there is a majority of pure people, whereas without them there is a majority of impure males.

Initially he held

that at first he followed the opinion of the one who says

“Women are obligated at the first Pesaḥ offering,”

and therefore the women joined the pure males, making them the majority, and they performed the first Pesaḥ offering.

For the impure were a minority, and the minority was deferred to the second Pesaḥ offering.

This is the meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s statement that he “caused Israel to perform the second Pesaḥ offering”: he caused a minority of the people to do so, even though they were a very large number and not merely isolated individuals.

But ultimately

he retracted

and held

according to the opinion of the one who says

“Women at the

Pesaḥ

offering are permitted,”

and the women do not join the count.

For the

males were

the majority of the impure, and the majority

of the people

is not deferred to the second Pesaḥ offering.

He should therefore have instructed them to bring the sacrifice in a state of ritual impurity, and for this reason he pleaded for mercy on himself.

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

The substance of the matter: Shmuel said: One does not intercalate the year on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is fit to establish it as Nisan.

The Gemara is uncertain: If

they intercalated it

on the thirtieth day,

what

is the law? Is the year intercalated or not?

Ulla said: They do not sanctify the month,

and the court does not proclaim on that day “Sanctified,” declaring it the first of the month of the second Adar. Since that day is fit to be established as Nisan, it cannot be established 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] .

The Gemara asks: If, nevertheless,

they sanctified

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

what

is the law? Is the year intercalated or not?

Rava said: The intercalation is nullified,

since once 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 opinion, but Rav Naḥman disagrees.

Rav Naḥman said: It is intercalated and sanctified

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

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

Rava said to Rav Naḥman:

For

from Purim until Passover

from Purim until Passover

is thirty days,

there are thirty days,

and from Purim we expound the laws of Passover,

and from Purim the people already begin hearing expositions on the laws of Passover, as

it was taught:

as we learned, that

one inquires into the laws of Passover thirty days before Passover,

so the Sages hold. But

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

It is sufficient to begin on the first day of Nisan, to expound for

two weeks.

Now this is difficult: If they did not intercalate the year before Purim, and the people have begun hearing expositions on the laws of Passover,

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 they have postponed Passover to the following month, but they will not believe the messengers of the court who come to announce the intercalation—and

it

it will be found that

will lead to treating leaven lightly,

for in the following month, when the actual Passover occurs, they will eat leaven on Passover . 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.

The intercalation of the year depends on calculations—for the people also understand that the solar year is constantly being aligned with the lunar year—and even if they have already begun expounding the laws of Passover,

they will say:

the people will say:

The calculation did not work out for the Sages until now.

The court had not completed its calculations until the end of Adar, and they will believe the court’s messenger and will not treat leaven lightly, for although they had prepared for Passover, they knew that a change was possible.

Introduction to the discussion of the calculation of the season

We learned in a beraita that one of the reasons for which the year is intercalated is because of the “season.”

The solar year is divided into the four seasons of the year: 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, which is delayed and extends into Tishrei—so that the season of Tishrei does not arrive until after Sukkot—or to the season of Tevet, whose period extends until the sixteenth of Nisan, with the bringing of the Omer taking place during the season of Tevet.

Other Rishonim [see the note there] explain that this 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 hour one season occurred, we can add to it this total of days and hours, and from that point begin counting another season, and likewise the second and the third, forever.

Rav Adda was more precise in his calculation of the divisions and moments, and according to his method the calculation is more exact. The Rambam wrote that the Sanhedrin relied on this calculation.

Our discussion deals with the season of Tishrei. [And at the end of the discussion they also discuss the season of spring, which is the season of Nisan].

The Torah states: “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 specifically take place 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; and if the season occurs after all the days of Sukkot have ended, then certainly, according to all opinions, the year 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 days of the festival: Is the year intercalated or not? There are several opinions on this matter.

As we explained, the season does not necessarily occur at the beginning of the day; rather, it generally occurs during one of the hours of the day. The day on which the season occurs can be regarded as the final day of the preceding season, in the language of the Gemara, “the day of the season completes”; alternatively, it can be regarded as the first day of the following season: “the day of the season begins.”

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The year is not intercalated

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

unless

the court calculated and found

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, on the first day of the intermediate days of the festival.