Sanhedrin 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

The difference between them is:

there is a distinction between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon: one of them holds that

the day of the tekufa begins.

And the other holds that

the day of the tekufa concludes.

That is, both are speaking about the sixteenth of Tishrei, and both hold that “we require the entire Festival” to occur during the tekufat Tishrei. However, one of them holds that the day of the tekufa, which is the sixteenth, begins the tekufat Tishrei. Therefore, the year is not intercalated, because all the days of the intermediate days of the Festival will be during the tekufat Tishrei. Whereas the other tanna holds that the day of the tekufa, namely, the sixteenth, concludes the tekufat Tammuz, and the tekufat Tishrei begins only on the following day, the seventeenth. Thus, not all the intermediate days of the Festival are during the tekufat Tishrei, and therefore the year is intercalated.

And they do not specify:

there is no clear and defined indication as to which of the two said that the tekufa is deficient by sixteen days, and which said that the tekufa falls on the sixteenth.

The Gemara continues to explain the beraita:

We learned in the beraita:

Others say: Its minority—

And how much is its minority? Fourteen days.

The Gemara raises an objection: Even if Others mean to say that the tekufa is deficient by fourteen days and the tekufa falls on the fifteenth, and even if they hold that the day of the tekufa belongs to the tekufat Tammuz, nevertheless, the sixteenth—which is the first day of the intermediate days of the Festival—is already during the tekufat Tishrei. Why, then, must the year be intercalated?

What do they hold,

what do Others hold?

If they hold,

even if they hold that

the day of the tekufa concludes,

which is the fifteenth of Tishrei,

and

if they even hold:

we require the entire Festival,

there is a difficulty:

there is

the entire intermediate period of the Festival during the tekufat Tishrei.

The Gemara answers: Others are not speaking about the tekufat Tishrei, as the questioner understood, but about the tekufat Nisan. They hold that the tekufat Nisan, which is the spring tekufa, must end by the fifteenth of Nisan. If the tekufat Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, the year must be intercalated, as the reason will be explained.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: Others

are referring to the tekufat Nisan,

their statement was made with regard to the tekufat Nisan,

as it is written: “Observe the month of spring,”

and they expound:

“Observe the spring of the tekufa”,

that is, the tekufat Nisan,

“that it be in the month of Nisan.”

The word “month” is understood in the sense of renewal: whenever the moon is becoming renewed, which is until the fourteenth of the month [for on the fifteenth it begins to age and wane], the tekufa must fall.

According to this interpretation, the statement of Others is explained as follows: The year is not intercalated if the tekufa continues and falls on the fourteenth of Nisan, which is the minority of the month. But if the tekufat Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, the year is intercalated.

Regarding this explanation of the statement of Others, the Gemara raises an objection: What difference does it make that the tekufa falls on the fifteenth of Nisan? One can intercalate the month of Adar and make it a full month of thirty days [see Note 1 on the previous side], thereby postponing the days of Nisan so that the tekufa will fall on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan. Why, then, must an entire month be added because of the deficiency of a single day?

Let him intercalate the

month of

Adar.

The respondent agrees with the questioner and concedes that Others hold, as a matter of halakha, that if the tekufat Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, the month of Adar is intercalated so that the tekufa will fall on the fourteenth of Nisan. He offers a different interpretation of the statement of Others. According to his interpretation, Others are indeed speaking about the tekufat Nisan, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said, but with a slight modification.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: The tanna

of the beraita who cites the statement of Others

counts from the top downward.

He calculates the days from the later dates toward the earlier dates,

and this is what he is saying:

If the tekufa is deficient by eighteen days and falls on the nineteenth, certainly the year is intercalated. Likewise, if the tekufa is deficient by seventeen or sixteen days, or even by fifteen days and falls on the sixteenth, the year is intercalated. Until which day is the year intercalated?

Until its minority.

On its minority, the year is not intercalated.

And how much is its minority? Fourteen days.

If the tekufa falls on the fifteenth, the year is not intercalated. Why? Because the month of Adar can be intercalated, as the questioner suggested, and the tekufat Nisan will fall on the fourteenth, in order to fulfill the exposition of the verse: “Observe the spring of the tekufa, that it be in the month of Nisan.”

The Gemara explains the statement of Others in another manner. According to this explanation, Others are speaking about the tekufat Tishrei.

Ravina said:

The truth is that

Others are referring to Tishrei;

they are speaking about the tekufat Tishrei and not Nisan. Therefore, it is impossible to rectify the matter by intercalating Elul [as explained in Note 1 on the previous side].

And

why do they hold that if the tekufa falls on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the year is intercalated?

They hold

that

we require the entire Festival;

the Torah was particular that the entire Festival of Sukkot

and

including

the first Festival day

should occur during the new tekufa. Therefore, if the tekufa falls on the fourteenth of Tishrei, the year is not intercalated. Although they hold that the day of the tekufa concludes, it is the last day of the tekufat Tammuz, and the entire Festival will be during the tekufat Tishrei.

The Gemara raises an objection: How can they hold that even

the first Festival day

must occur during the tekufat Tishrei? After all,

it is written: “The Festival of the ingathering”,

meaning that it must be during the new tekufa, whereas on the Festival day one does not gather the grain from the fields.

The Gemara answers: They expound

“a Festival that comes ‘at the time’ of the ingathering”,

namely, the Festival of Sukkot, which occurs during the season of ingathering, must be entirely during the tekufa of the year, which is the tekufat Tishrei.

In summary:

The first tanna and Rabbi Shimon: One of them holds that if the tekufa falls on the sixteenth, the year is intercalated, because the day of the tekufa concludes, and not all the intermediate days are during the new tekufa; but if it falls on the fifteenth, the year is not intercalated.

The other holds that if the tekufa falls on the seventeenth, the year is intercalated, since not all the intermediate days are during the new tekufa; but if it falls on the sixteenth, the year is not intercalated, because the day of the tekufa begins, and all the intermediate days are during the tekufat Tishrei.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: If the tekufa falls on the twenty-first, the year is intercalated, because the day of the tekufa concludes, and not even part of the intermediate days is during the tekufat Tishrei; but if it falls on the twentieth, the year is not intercalated.

Rabbi Yosei holds: If the tekufat Tishrei falls on the twenty-second of Tishrei, the year is intercalated, because not even part of the intermediate days is during the tekufat Tishrei; but if it falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, the year is not intercalated, because the day of the tekufa begins, and part of the intermediate days is during the tekufat Tishrei. [See Tosafot, when the tekufat Nisan falls.]

Others, according to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak and Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov: If the tekufat Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, the year is not intercalated, because the month of Adar can be intercalated, and the tekufat Nisan will then fall on the fourteenth of the month; but if the tekufat Nisan falls on the sixteenth of Nisan, the year is intercalated.

Others, according to Ravina: If the tekufat Tishrei falls on the fifteenth of Tishrei, the year is intercalated, because the day of the tekufa concludes, and the first Festival day of Sukkot will occur during the tekufat Tammuz. But if it falls on the fourteenth of Tishrei, the year is not intercalated.

We learned in our Mishna: The laying of hands by the Elders, etc., is performed by three, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon; Rabbi Yehuda says: By five.

It is written in the Torah [Leviticus 4]: “And if the entire assembly of Israel errs and a matter is concealed from the eyes of the congregation [Rashi explains: The Sanhedrin erred in instructing with regard to any one of the prohibitions whose intentional violation is punishable by karet, such as if they instructed that it is permitted to eat the forbidden fat of the stomach, and the people acted on their instruction] and they perform one of all the mitzvot of the Lord that may not be performed, and they bear guilt; when the sin that they committed becomes known, the congregation shall bring a bull of the cattle as a sin-offering, and they shall bring it before the Tent of Meeting, and the Elders of the assembly shall lay their hands upon the head of the bull before the Lord.”

This offering is called: the bull for the communal unwitting error.

The Gemara explains and expounds: From where do we know that the Great Sanhedrin lays its hands upon the head of the bull, and what are the rationales of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda?

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah:

“And the Elders shall lay their hands.” Can it be

that

the elders of the marketplace

who are not members of the Sanhedrin, shall lay their hands?

The verse states: “Assembly,”

which refers to the Sanhedrin.

If it is “assembly,”

one might have thought that it means the lesser members of the assembly,

the Lesser Sanhedrin of twenty-three;

the verse states: “The assembly”,

with the definite article, indicating that they are

the distinguished ones of the assembly—

the Great Sanhedrin.

And how many

judges

are they?

And they expound:

“And they shall lay”

is plural, indicating

two; “Elders”

is also plural, indicating another

two. And

since

one does not make

a

court with an even number ,

a number that can be divided equally,

they add another

judge,

and there are five here.

These are

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon

says: “Elders”—

two; and since a court does not have an even number, there are three here.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And Rabbi Shimon!

After all,

it is written: “And they shall lay”,

and it can be expounded as indicating two more, in accordance with the exposition of Rabbi Yehuda.

The answer is:

That “and they shall lay”

is not superfluous for an exposition,

as it is needed for its own matter,

for the offering requires laying of hands.

The question returns to Rabbi Yehuda:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

how does he expound the verse to add two Elders, when it is needed for its own matter?

The answer is:

It is not needed for its own matter.

And the reason is:

For if “and they shall lay” did not come for an exposition,

but only to state that the offering requires laying of hands,

let it be written—

it would have been sufficient for the Torah to write:

“The Elders of the assembly shall place their hands upon the head of the bull.”

It would have been understood from the word “upon” that the intention is laying of hands upon the head of the bull. Therefore, “and they shall lay” is superfluous and available for an exposition.

The question returns:

And Rabbi Shimon,

what will he answer to Rabbi Yehuda’s claim that “and they shall lay” is superfluous and available for an exposition?

The answer is:

If it were written thus, “The Elders of the assembly upon the head of the bull,”

“The Elders of the assembly upon the head of the bull”—

I would have thought

that the intention is not actual laying of hands,

and what

would I interpret from what the Torah

“upon”

has written? I would interpret it as

“near” , meaning that the Elders of the assembly should stand near the bull. Therefore, the Torah wrote: “And they shall lay,” teaching that they must actually lay their hands. Consequently, there is no superfluity here available for an exposition.

meaning that the elders of the assembly should stand near the bull. Therefore, the Torah wrote “and they shall lay,” teaching that they must actually lay their hands. Consequently, the word is not superfluous and is unavailable for another interpretation.

The question returns:

And Rabbi Yehuda—

what will Rabbi Yehuda answer to Rabbi Shimon’s claim? After all, the meaning of “upon” can be “near.”

The answer is:

He derives “head” from “head”

of the offering of

an elevation-offering.

The word “and they shall lay” is still superfluous and available for an exposition, for even if it had been written, “The Elders of the assembly shall place their hands upon the head,” I would expound that just as “head” stated with regard to an elevation-offering [Leviticus 1] means laying of hands, so too “head” stated with regard to the bull for the communal unwitting error means laying of hands. Therefore, “and they shall lay” is superfluous for an exposition, to add two judges.

The question returns:

And Rabbi Shimon—

what will Rabbi Shimon answer to this? After all, the essential requirement of laying of hands can be learned from the elevation-offering by means of the verbal analogy “head”—“head.”

The answer is:

He does not derive “head”—“head” from the elevation-offering,

he does not employ this exposition . Therefore, there is no superfluity here from which to derive any exposition, since the verse “and they shall lay” is needed to teach the essential requirement of laying of hands.

Introduction to the discussion of the laying of hands by the Elders

This is the wording of Rambam [chapter 4 of the Laws of the Sanhedrin]: “Both the Great Court, and the Lesser Sanhedrin, and a court of three, must each consist of one who received ordination from one who received ordination. Moses our teacher ordained Joshua by laying his hands upon him, as it is stated: ‘And he laid his hands upon him and commanded him.’ Likewise, Moses our teacher ordained the seventy Elders, and the Divine Presence rested upon them; and those Elders ordained others, and those others ordained others. Thus, the ordained were connected person by person back to the court of Joshua and to the court of Moses our teacher.”

This ordination is called “ordination of the Elders,” and its laws and details are explained in our discussion.

A tanna

taught:

Laying of hands

upon the head of the bull for the communal unwitting error

and ordination of the Elders—

are performed by three.

They understood “ordination of the Elders” to refer also to laying of hands upon the head of the bull for the communal unwitting error. Therefore, the Gemara raises a difficulty:

What is laying of hands, and what is ordination of the Elders?

After all, “laying of hands” has already been stated.

The answer is:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said,

the ordination of the Elders stated by the beraita means

ordaining elders,

that is, conferring authority upon them to adjudicate and issue rulings in cases involving capital law, fines, and monetary law. [See page 3a, where it is explained with regard to which laws judges require ordination.]

The Gemara now discusses: From where do we know that three are required?

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

From where do we know that ordaining elders requires three ?

From where do we learn that one must receive ordination from three?

If you say

that we learn it

from

what

is written: “And he laid his hands upon him,”

that Moses our teacher ordained Joshua,

if so, it should suffice for one,

just as Moses our teacher ordained Joshua alone.

And if you would say,

if you would say that

Moses stood in place of seventy-one,

for Moses possessed the authority of seventy-one judges, since he was their head and was equivalent to all of them , and therefore one ordainer is not sufficient—

if so,

if you learn it from Moses,

let seventy-one be required.

Learn from him that seventy-one are required.

The conclusion of the Gemara: It is difficult.

Rav Yosef does not resolve the matter.

The Gemara discusses how ordination is performed.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

Is

he actually ordained by hand

—must the ordainer place his hands upon the head of the ordinand?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said to him: He is not ordained by hands; rather,

he is ordained by name,

he is ordained through a designation, meaning:

He calls him “Rabbi,” and grants him authority to adjudicate cases involving fines,

and grants him permission to adjudicate cases involving fines, because the Torah called him “God,” which means “an expert.”

We learned: Ordination of the Elders is performed by three. The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

is it the case that

one does not ordain,

that is, does one ordainer not suffice?

But Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Indeed! May that man be remembered for good—

and his name was Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava—

for had it not been for him, the laws of fines would have been forgotten from Israel.

Before Rav Yehuda finished telling the story, the Gemara raises a difficulty:

If they were

forgotten,

let us teach them;

they could have been taught, as there were many Torah scholars in his generation.

The Gemara answers: The intention is that had it not been for Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, ordination would have ceased, because the ordained men of the generation did not ordain others out of fear of the decree of the Roman government, whereas he endangered his life for this purpose.