Sanhedrin 13a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yose says: Twenty-one days.

When the court sits in the month of Adar, and according to their calculation it emerges that the beginning of the coming tekufa of Tishrei will fall on the seventeenth day of Tishrei, which is the second day of the intermediate days of Sukkot, the first day of the intermediate days of Sukkot will still be in the tekufa of Tammuz. Therefore the court intercalates the year and adds the month of Adar, so that the first day of the intermediate days also falls in the tekufa of Tishrei. This is the opinion of Rabbi Judah. But according to Rabbi Yose, only if the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the twenty-second day of the month of Tishrei, in which case all the days of the intermediate days will be in the tekufa of Tammuz, only then does it intercalate the year.

But if the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the sixteenth of Tishrei, and all the days of the intermediate days will be in the new tekufa, which is the tekufa of Tishrei, then according to Rabbi Judah the year is not intercalated. And likewise, if the new tekufa falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, and it emerges that at least one day of the intermediate days of Sukkot will be in the tekufa of Tishrei, according to Rabbi Yose the year is not intercalated. "

A “deficient tekufa” means that the tekufa of Tammuz is deficient by several days of reaching its proper ending time. For example, instead of the tekufa of Tammuz having to end at the end of the month of Elul, it enters into the month of Tishrei, and thereby the tekufa is delayed.

And how many days is it called a “delayed tekufa”? For Rabbi Judah, when it is delayed by sixteen days; and for Rabbi Yose, by a delay of twenty-one days.

Introduction to the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Judah

The festival of Sukkot is called in the Torah by the name “the festival of gathering,” which is in the “tekufa of the year,” because then is the time when the grain is gathered from the fields, where it dried during the summer days, before the coming of the rains.

The Torah’s intention in calling the festival by this name concerns the intermediate days, on which it is permitted to gather the grain from the fields, in accordance with the law of the intermediate days, during which work involving a loss is permitted. But on the first day of the festival and on Shemini Atzeret, it is forbidden to gather.

And the Sages expounded that the days of the intermediate days must be as the verse states: “in the tekufa of the year,” that is, in the tekufa of Tishrei, which enters at the beginning of the year. However, Rabbi Judah holds that the verse required that all the days of the intermediate days be in the tekufa of Tishrei. Whereas Rabbi Yose holds that it is sufficient for one day of the days of the intermediate days to be in the tekufa of Tishrei.

And both of them,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose,

expounded one verse.

They learned their statements from the same verse, as it is stated:

“The festival of gathering, the tekufa of the year.”

The verse teaches that the intermediate days shall be in the tekufa of Tishrei.

The master,

Rabbi Judah,

holds: the entire festival,

all the days of the intermediate days,

we require.

The Torah required that all the days of the festival be in the tekufa of Tishrei. Therefore he holds that if the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the first day of the intermediate days, namely, on the sixteenth of Tishrei, the year is not intercalated, since in this case all the days of the intermediate days will be in the tekufa of Tishrei. But if the tekufa falls on the seventeenth of Tishrei, and it emerges that the sixteenth of Tishrei [which is the first day of the intermediate days] is in the tekufa of Tammuz, the year is intercalated.

And the master,

Rabbi Yose,

holds:

only

part of the festival,

even one day of the intermediate days,

we require,

it must be in the tekufa of Tishrei. Therefore he holds that even if the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, the year is not intercalated, since one day of the intermediate days remains in the tekufa of Tishrei. Only if it falls on the following day, on the twenty-second, and not even one day of the days of the intermediate days remains in the tekufa of Tishrei, only then is the year intercalated.

And the Gemara discusses:

What do they hold,

what do Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose hold, and over what do they disagree?

If they hold that "

"

the “day of the tekufa,”

the day on which the tekufa falls in the middle of the day,

completes,

it is the final day of the preceding tekufa, and the new tekufa does not begin on that day, but only on the following day,

even otherwise, too, it would not be so!

Even if the tekufa were deficient by only fifteen days, according to Rabbi Judah, and the tekufa fell on the first day of the intermediate days, that day would belong to the tekufa of Tammuz, and all the days of the intermediate days would not be in the tekufa of Tishrei. And likewise, according to Rabbi Yose, even if it were deficient by only twenty days, and the tekufa fell on the twenty-first, that day would belong to the tekufa of Tammuz, and it would emerge that not even one day of the intermediate days would be in the tekufa of Tishrei.

And the conclusion of Samuel’s statement is:

Rather, they hold,

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose, that

the day of the tekufa,

the day in the middle of which the tekufa falls, is the day

that begins

the new tekufa. Therefore, according to Rabbi Judah, if the tekufa falls on the sixteenth, the new tekufa begins on the sixteenth, and all the days of the intermediate days will be in the tekufa of Tishrei. Whereas according to Rabbi Yose, if it falls on the twenty-first, that day will be the first day of the tekufa of Tishrei, and part of the festival will be in the tekufa of Tishrei. And how did they do this? Even when they sanctified the month according to sighting, they were particular about this and arranged the months so that Rosh Hashanah would not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. In the summer months they were particular that one be full and one deficient, and they total 177 days, and already in the winter they arranged that Passover would not fall on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, for if Passover came on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, Rosh Hashanah would fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday—according to the calculation of the 177 days between Passover and Rosh Hashanah. Therefore, in the winter months they advanced or delayed one month, so that Passover would not fall on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday. And how did they do this? Regarding this the law states: “You—even if unwitting,” meaning that if the court saw a need to delay and intercalate one of the winter months for the above-mentioned reason, they did not accept witnesses on the thirtieth day—and the month was consequently intercalated [according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok; or they accepted the witnesses on the thirty-first day, according to Pillemo; see page 10b]—or if they saw a need to sanctify the month on the thirtieth day for the above-mentioned reason, they hired false witnesses to come and testify that they had seen the moon on the thirtieth day. Ordinarily, they also tried that in the winter days one month should be full and one deficient, so that there would be six full months and six deficient months. But because of the above calculation, they sometimes added or subtracted from the six full months and six deficient months during the year. And the law is [Arakhin 8b]: “They do not make fewer than four intercalated months in a year, nor have we found [according to the Sages] more than eight.” That is to say: it is possible to make fewer than six intercalated months, but not fewer than four; and it is possible to make more than six, but not more than eight. If so, the court has many possibilities for arranging the winter days so that Passover will not fall on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, so that Rosh Hashanah will not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. This calculation was practiced by the court from the days of Ezra the Scribe, at the beginning of the Second Temple, and from here derives the basis for what the Sages say [Rosh Hashanah there]: “From the days of Ezra onward we have not found Elul intercalated.” That is, they did not intercalate the month of Elul [even though witnesses did not come on the thirtieth day, as above], because the months were already properly arranged from the beginning of the summer. And concerning our sugya: Rashi raised the difficulty: If the day of the tekufa falls on the seventeenth of Tishrei according to Rabbi Judah, or on the twenty-second of Tishrei according to Rabbi Yose, why is it necessary to intercalate the year for this? It would be enough for us to intercalate the month of Elul [or the other summer months] by one day, and the day of the tekufa would emerge on the fifteenth of Tishrei according to Rabbi Judah and on the twenty-first of Tishrei according to Rabbi Yose. Rashi answers that if so, we would disrupt the entire arrangement. For everything is planned from the winter days so that Rosh Hashanah will fall on Shabbat and not on Sunday, or on Tuesday and not on Wednesday, or on Thursday and not on Friday, as explained; and if we postpone it by one day, Rosh Hashanah will fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday. Even though if Rosh Hashanah falls on Monday it is possible to postpone it to Tuesday, nevertheless, since in most years it is impossible to postpone it, in this year also we do not postpone it. And Rashi continues to explain: one cannot say that they should intercalate two months and postpone it by two days [so that if Rosh Hashanah was supposed to be on Shabbat it would be postponed to Monday, and if on Tuesday it would be postponed to Thursday, and if on Thursday it would be postponed to Shabbat], because it would then emerge that there would be too many intercalated months, and one does not add beyond [seven or] eight intercalated months. [Although eight is written in the Mishna, it is explained there in the Gemara that the intention is seven, and only in special cases is eight permitted, as explained on page 10b.] Rashi raised this difficulty because the Gemara [on the next page] raises this difficulty concerning the spring tekufa during the winter days, as will be explained there. Therefore Rashi wished to say that the same difficulty should also be raised concerning the tekufa of Tishrei: that they should intercalate one of the months. And Rashi explains the distinction: If they postpone by one day at the end of the winter and add another month to the number of intercalated months, this arrangement will not be disrupted, since they can “make up” this day and subtract another month from the summer months, and the arrangement will return to its proper form. But at the end of the summer, or in the middle of the summer, it is impossible to intercalate and postpone, thereby disrupting the arrangement. See Tosafot, s.v. “And Rabbi Yose.” The Baal HaMaor raises a difficulty against Rashi’s explanation and proves that in the times of the tannaim they were not particular about the entire rule that Rosh Hashanah should not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday [see there for his proofs], but only in the later generations of the amoraim did they begin to be particular about this. The Ran answers that Rashi wished to explain the sugya in a manner corresponding to the enactment of the later amoraim. And the Yad Ramah explains that according to the other tannaim who speak of “intercalation because of the tekufa,” it is certain that one of the other two signs—which are spring and fruit—is not in its proper time. Therefore, in any event, they must intercalate the year, and intercalating one day will not help. But according to the Others, who hold that they intercalate only because of the tekufa of Nisan [and this is the opinion of Tosafot according to Rashi’s method, at the end of s.v. “Guard”], the Gemara raises the difficulty according to their view: “Let us intercalate it into Adar.” And likewise the Ran cites this in the name of the Ramban.

And now the Gemara raises a difficulty against Samuel’s statement from two beraitot in which it is written contrary to his statement.

The objection is raised:

from what we learned in a beraita:

The day of the tekufa completes; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: The day of the tekufa begins.

The difficulty is from Rabbi Judah’s statement, since he holds that the day of the tekufa completes. If so, why, if the tekufa falls on the sixteenth, is the year not intercalated? For not all the intermediate days fall in the tekufa of Tishrei!?

And it was additionally taught:

we learned in another beraita:

The year is not intercalated—

unless the tekufa was deficient by most of a month. And how many

days are

most of a month? Sixteen days.

These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Judah says:

if the tekufa is deficient by

two-thirds

two-thirds

of a month,

then they intercalate

. And how many

days are

two-thirds of a month?

Twenty days.

Therefore, if the tekufa falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, they intercalate, because the day of the tekufa completes. Not even one day of the new tekufa is in the intermediate days. But if the tekufa falls on the twentieth, then the twenty-first, which is the minority of the intermediate days, is in the new tekufa.

Already from this part of the beraita, two difficulties against Samuel are evident. One is that in this beraita we learned that Rabbi Judah holds that it is sufficient for part of the festival to be in the new tekufa. And further, in this beraita, as well as in the preceding beraita, we learned that Rabbi Judah holds: the day of the tekufa completes.

And the continuation of the beraita is:

Rabbi Yose says: We calculate.

We make a calculation: if the tekufa of Tevet is deficient by

sixteen

days from its proper time, which is until the month of Nisan,

before Passover,

so that the tekufa of Nisan falls on the seventeenth day of Nisan,

they intercalate

the year, because without the intercalation the tekufa of Tishrei would certainly fall on the twenty-fourth of Tishrei, and not even part of the festival of Sukkot would be in the tekufa of Tishrei.

How so? Each tekufa is ninety-one days [Rashi does not reckon the additional seven and a half hours; see Tosafot].

Two tekufot are 182 days.

From the seventeenth of Nisan until the seventeenth of Tishrei there are 177 days [as we explained in the note]. Add five days to them in order to reach the count of 182 days of the two tekufot, at which point the tekufa of Tishrei will fall; it follows that the tekufa falls on the twenty-second of Tishrei. Although Rabbi Yose holds that the day of the tekufa begins, the twenty-first of Tishrei is the final day of the tekufa of Tammuz, and not even part of the intermediate days is in the new tekufa. Therefore they intercalate. But if the tekufa of Nisan falls on the sixteenth of Nisan, then [possibly; see Tosafot] the tekufa of Tishrei will fall on the twenty-first of Tishrei, and this day is the beginning of the tekufa of Tishrei; it follows that part of the intermediate days will be in the tekufa of Tishrei.

But if the tekufa of Tammuz is deficient by

sixteen

days

before the festival,

Sukkot, so that the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the seventeenth of Tishrei,

they do not intercalate.

These statements appear contradictory, since from the first clause it implies that he holds that it is sufficient for part of the festival, the twenty-first of Tishrei, to be in the tekufa of Tishrei. Whereas from the latter clause it implies that if the new tekufa falls after the seventeenth [on the eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, or twenty-first], they intercalate. And the Gemara will explain.

And the beraita continues and says:

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

if the tekufa of Tammuz is deficient by

sixteen

days

before the festival,

and the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the seventeenth—

they intercalate.

The Gemara will now explain his position, and also how his opinion differs from that of the first tanna.

Others say:

if the tekufa is deficient by

the minority

of a month, they intercalate,

and how many

days are

its minority?

Fourteen days.

The Gemara will explain his position.

Thus far is the beraita. And we learned in it contrary to Samuel, as explained above in Rabbi Judah’s statement.

It is difficult.

The difficulty remains, because Samuel, or his students, did not resolve it.

And now the Gemara explains the opinions of the tannaim in the beraita and the difference between them, in reasoning and in law.

The master said,

we learned in the beraita,

Rabbi Judah says:

if it is deficient by

two-thirds of a month,

which are twenty days, they intercalate, since it is sufficient for part of the intermediate days of Sukkot to be in the tekufa of Tishrei.

And further we learned:

Rabbi Yose says: We calculate,

if

sixteen days before Passover, they intercalate

since it is enough for part of the intermediate days of Sukkot to be in the tekufa of Tishrei. And the Gemara raises the difficulty:

This is Rabbi Judah.

This is indeed Rabbi Judah’s opinion. Over what do Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose disagree?

And the Gemara answers that they disagree over the issue of:

The day of the tekufa completes, and the day of the tekufa begins—

that is the difference between them.

This is their disagreement. Rabbi Judah holds that the day of the tekufa completes. Therefore, if the tekufa falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, they intercalate, because this day belongs to the tekufa of Tammuz, and even part of the intermediate days is not in the tekufa of Tishrei. Whereas Rabbi Yose holds that the day of the tekufa begins. If the tekufa falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, this day is of the tekufa of Tishrei, and it is not necessary to intercalate the year. Therefore he says that if the tekufa of Nisan falls on the sixteenth of Nisan, in which case according to the calculation the tekufa of Tishrei will fall on the twenty-first, they do not intercalate.

And in brief: if the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, according to Rabbi Judah they intercalate, whereas according to Rabbi Yose \-

they do not intercalate.

And now the Gemara continues to explain the beraita: [It has already been explained above that, seemingly, there is a contradiction in Rabbi Yose’s statements.]

The master said,

we learned in the beraita that Rabbi Yose says: if the tekufa is deficient by

sixteen

days before the festival, and the tekufa falls on the seventeenth of Tishrei—

they do not intercalate.

And the Gemara raises the difficulty:

Rather,

if he said:

sixteen

days

before the festival—

it is specifically then that they do not

intercalate, and let us infer:

but if [it is] seventeen,

if the tekufa of Tammuz ends on the seventeenth day of Tishrei, and the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the eighteenth,

and eighteen,

if the tekufa of Tammuz ends on the eighteenth, and the tekufa of Tishrei falls on the nineteenth [and likewise nineteen, and the tekufa falls on the twentieth, and likewise twenty, and the tekufa falls on the twenty-first], Rabbi Yose holds

that they intercalate.

And why should we intercalate,

when he said

for Rabbi Yose himself said in the first clause:

sixteen before Passover—

yes,

then indeed they intercalate, because then the tekufa of Tishrei will fall on the twenty-second of Tishrei, and then not even part of the intermediate days will be in the tekufa of Tishrei. But

less,

less than this, namely, if the tekufa of Nisan falls on the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan,

not

do they intercalate. For then the tekufa of Tishrei will fall on the twenty-first of Tishrei according to the calculation, and that is sufficient, since he holds that it is sufficient for part of the intermediate days to be in the tekufa of Tishrei. And certainly if the tekufa of Nisan falls on the fourteenth of Nisan, on the thirteenth, or on the twelfth, in which case the tekufa of Tishrei will fall on the twentieth, nineteenth, or eighteenth, they do not intercalate. Why, then, did he say in the latter clause that they intercalate?

And the Gemara resolves:

No!

The interpretation in the beraita is not as the questioner understood, but rather,

both this and that,

both in the first clause and in the latter clause, Rabbi Yosei holds:

there is no intercalation.

And indeed, even if the season of Tammuz is deficient by twenty days, and the season of Tishrei begins on the twenty-first of Tishrei, there is no intercalation. And why did he say in the latter clause “the sixteenth,”

and since the tanna taught in the first clause “the sixteenth before Passover”

and there the intention is precisely the sixteenth, and not later, as we explained, therefore

he also taught,

the same way in the latter clause

“the sixteenth before the festival,”

so that the wording would be similar, but this is not precise, for the law would be so even if the season of Tishrei were deficient by twenty days, and the season fell on the twenty-first of Tishrei.

The Gemara continues to interpret the beraita:

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

if the season is deficient by

sixteen

days

before the festival,

that is, so that the season of Tishrei falls on the seventeenth of Tishrei \-

there is intercalation.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

This is the first tanna!

This is the view of the first tanna, and in what does Rabbi Shimon disagree with him!?

And the Gemara resolves: