Sanhedrin 13b — the Talmud in English

There is a difference between them,

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

the day of the equinox begins.

And the other holds:

the day of the equinox concludes.

That is, both are speaking about the sixteenth of Tishrei, and both hold that “we require the entire festival” to occur during the equinox of Tishrei. However, one tannai among them holds that the day of the equinox—which is the sixteenth—begins the equinox of Tishrei. Therefore, one does not intercalate, because all the days of the intermediate days of the festival will be during the equinox of Tishrei. Whereas the other tannai holds that the day of the equinox—which, as stated, is the sixteenth—concludes the equinox of Tammuz, and the equinox of Tishrei begins only on the following day, on the seventeenth; and all the intermediate days of the festival are not during the equinox of Tishrei, and therefore one intercalates.

And they do not conclude,

there is no clear and defined indication which of the two said that the equinox is lacking sixteen days, and which said that the equinox falls on the sixteenth.

The Gemara continues to explain the baraita:

We learned in a baraita:

Others say: its minority—

and how much is its minority? Fourteen days.

And the Gemara raises an objection: Even if Others wish to say that the equinox is lacking fourteen days, and that the equinox falls on the fifteenth, and even if they hold that the day of the equinox belongs to the equinox of Tammuz, nevertheless the sixteenth—which is the first day of the intermediate days of the festival—is already during the equinox of Tishrei; so why must one intercalate?

What do they hold,

what do Others hold?

If they hold,

even if they hold that

the day of the equinox concludes,

which is the fifteenth of Tishrei,

and

if they even hold:

we require the entire festival,

it is difficult:

is there not

all the intermediate days of the festival during the equinox of Tishrei?

And the Gemara answers: Others are not speaking about the equinox of Tishrei, as the questioner supposed, but about the equinox of Nisan. For they hold that the equinox of Nisan, which is the spring equinox, must end by the fifteenth of Nisan; and if the equinox of Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, one must intercalate, as the reason will be explained.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: Others

stand with regard to the equinox of Nisan,

their words were stated concerning the equinox of Nisan,

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

and they expound:

“Observe the spring of the equinox,”

that is, the equinox of Nisan,

that it shall be in the month of Nisan, “month” being an expression of renewal: whenever the moon is renewing and proceeding toward renewal—which is until the fourteenth of the month [for on the fifteenth it grows old and proceeds toward waning and diminishing]—the equinox shall fall.

The word “month” indicates renewal: During the entire period when the moon is renewing and waxing, which lasts until the fourteenth of the month—for on the fifteenth it begins to age and wane—the season must fall.

According to this interpretation, the words of Others are explained as follows: The year is not intercalated if the equinox continues and falls on the fourteenth of Nisan, which is the minority of the month; but if the equinox of Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, it is intercalated.

And concerning this explanation of the words of Others, the Gemara raises an objection: What difference is it that the equinox falls on the fifteenth of Nisan? For it is possible to intercalate the month of Adar and make it a full month of thirty days [see Note A on folio a], and the days of Nisan will be postponed, and the equinox will fall on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan; so why must an entire month be intercalated because of the loss of one day?

And let them intercalate the

month of

Adar.

And the answerer agrees with the questioner, and concedes that Others hold—in terms of the halakha—that if the equinox of Nisan falls on the fifteenth of the month of Nisan, one intercalates the month of Adar, so that the equinox will fall on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan. And he explains another interpretation of the words of Others. According to his interpretation, Others indeed speak about the equinox of Nisan, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said, but with a slight change.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: The tannai

of the baraita who brings the words of Others

counts from top to bottom.

He counts the days from the larger dates to the smaller dates,

and this is what he says:

If the equinox is lacking eighteen days, and the equinox falls on the nineteenth, certainly one intercalates; and likewise if the equinox is lacking seventeen, sixteen, or even fifteen, and the equinox falls on the sixteenth—one intercalates. And until which day does one intercalate?

Until its minority.

And on its minority one does not intercalate.

And how much is its minority? Fourteen days.

For if the equinox falls on the fifteenth, one does not intercalate. And why? Because it is possible to intercalate the month of Adar—as the questioner held—and the equinox of Nisan will fall on the fourteenth day, in order to fulfill the exposition of the verse: “Observe the spring of the equinox, that it shall be in the month of Nisan.”

The Gemara explains another explanation of the words of Others, and according to this explanation Others speak about the equinox of Tishrei.

Ravina said: Actually,

the truth is that

Others stand with regard to Tishrei

they speak about the equinox of Tishrei and not about Nisan; therefore, it is impossible to rectify matters by intercalating Elul [as explained in Note 1 on folio a]

and

why do they hold that if the equinox falls on the fifteenth of Tishrei, one intercalates?

They hold

they hold that: Because

we require the entire festival,

the Torah was particular that the entire festival of Sukkot

and

including

the first festival day

shall be during the new equinox. Therefore, if the equinox falls on the fourteenth of Tishrei, one does not intercalate, for although they hold that the day of the equinox concludes, it is the last day of the equinox of Tammuz, and the entire festival will be during the equinox of Tishrei.

And the Gemara raises an objection: How is it possible that they hold that even

the first festival day

must be during the equinox of Tishrei? For

“the festival of gathering” is written,

that it shall be during the new equinox, and on a festival day they do not gather the grain from the fields.

And the Gemara answers: They expound

“the festival that comes ‘at the time’ of gathering,”

that is, the festival of Sukkot, which is in the season of gathering, shall be entirely during the equinox of the year, which is the equinox of Tishrei.

And in summary:

The first tannai and Rabbi Shimon: One of them holds that if the equinox falls on the sixteenth, one intercalates, since the day of the equinox concludes, and not all the intermediate days are during the new equinox; and if it falls on the fifteenth, one does not intercalate.

And the other holds that if the equinox falls on the seventeenth, one intercalates, for not all the intermediate days are during the new equinox; and if it falls on the sixteenth, one does not intercalate, since the day of the equinox begins, and all the intermediate days are during the equinox of Tishrei.

Rabbi Yehuda holds: If the equinox falls on the twenty-first, one intercalates, since the day of the equinox concludes, and not even part of the intermediate days is during the equinox of Tishrei; and if it falls on the twentieth, one does not intercalate.

Rabbi Yosei holds: If the equinox of Tishrei falls on the twenty-second of Tishrei, one intercalates, for not even part of the intermediate days is during the equinox of Tishrei; and if it falls on the twenty-first of Tishrei, one does not intercalate, for the day of the equinox begins, and part of the intermediate days is during the equinox of Tishrei. [See Tosafot, when the equinox of Nisan falls].

Others, according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak and Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov: If the equinox of Nisan falls on the fifteenth of Nisan, one does not intercalate the year, because it is possible to intercalate the month of Adar, and the equinox of Nisan will be on the fourteenth of the month; and if the equinox of Nisan falls on the sixteenth of Nisan, one intercalates.

Others, according to Ravina: If the equinox of Tishrei falls on the fifteenth of Tishrei, one intercalates, since the day of the equinox concludes, and the first festival day of the festival of Sukkot will occur during the equinox of Tammuz. And if it falls on the fourteenth of Tishrei, one does not intercalate.

We learned in our Mishna: The laying of hands of elders, and so on, with three, the words of Rabbi Shimon; Rabbi Yehuda says, with five.

It is written in the Torah [Leviticus 4]: “And if the entire assembly of Israel errs, and a matter is hidden from the eyes of the congregation [Rashi explained: The Sanhedrin erred in instructing concerning one of all the prohibitions punishable by excision in the Torah, such as if they instructed that it is permitted to eat the forbidden fat of the stomach, and the public acted according to their instruction], and they perform one of all the mitzvot of the Lord that may not be done, and they incur guilt; and the sin concerning which they sinned becomes known, and the congregation shall offer a bull of cattle as a sin-offering, and 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 sacrifice is called: the bull for a concealed matter of the public.

The Gemara explains and expounds: From where is it known 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 they shall lay,” it could have been

that

the elders of the marketplace

who are not members of the Sanhedrin should lay their hands;

the verse says: “assembly,”

and this is the Sanhedrin.

If it is “assembly”—

it could have been the lesser members of the assembly,

the Small Sanhedrin of twenty-three;

the verse says: “the assembly”

with the definite article, meaning those who are

distinct among the assembly—

the Great Sanhedrin.

And how many

judges

are they?

And they expound:

“And they shall lay”

is a plural expression, so there are

two; “elders”

is a plural expression, so there are another

two, and

since

a

court is not made

an even-numbered court

with a number that can be divided equally

they add to them another

judge,

so here there are five

these are

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon

says: “elders”—

two, and an even-numbered court is not made; so here there are three.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And Rabbi Shimon! For

indeed

it is written: “And they shall lay,”

and it is possible to expound it as referring to another two—as Rabbi Yehuda expounds.

And the answer is:

That “and they shall lay”—

is not superfluous for an exposition;

for it is needed for itself,

we need it for the substance of the instruction, that the sacrifice requires the laying of hands.

And the difficulty returns concerning Rabbi Yehuda—

And Rabbi Yehuda,

how does he expound it as adding two elders, when it is needed for itself?

And the answer is:

It is not needed for itself.

And the reason is:

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

but only to say that the sacrifice requires the 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,”

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

And the difficulty returns:

And Rabbi Shimon,

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

And the answer is:

If it had been 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 was not actual laying of hands

, and what

is written in the Torah

“upon”

I would have interpreted as:

“near” ,

that is, the elders of the assembly should stand close to the bull. Therefore the Torah wrote: “And they shall lay,” teaching that they must actually lay their hands; consequently, there is no surplus here for an exposition.

And the difficulty returns—

And Rabbi Yehuda—

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

And the answer is:

He derives “head, head” from the

sacrifice of

a burnt-offering.

The word “and they shall lay” is still superfluous for an exposition, for even if it had been written, “the elders of the assembly their hands upon the head,” I would expound: Just as with regard to a burnt-offering [Leviticus 1] “head” means laying of hands, so too, what is stated concerning the bull for a concealed matter of the public, “head,” means laying of hands. Therefore “and they shall lay” is superfluous for an exposition—to add two judges.

And the difficulty returns—

And Rabbi Shimon—

what will Rabbi Shimon answer to this? After all, it is possible to learn the substance of the laying of hands from the burnt-offering by the gezera shava of “head, head.”

And the answer is:

He does not derive “head, head” from a burnt-offering,

he does not employ this exposition ; therefore there is no surplus here from which to derive any exposition, since the verse “and they shall lay” is needed to teach the substance of the laying of hands.

Introduction to the discussion of the laying of hands of elders

This is the wording of Maimonides [Chapter 4 of the Laws of the Sanhedrin]: “Both the Great Court and the Small Sanhedrin or a court of three—each one of them must be ordained by an ordained person. And 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, the seventy elders—Moses our teacher ordained them, and the Divine Presence rested upon them; and those elders ordained others, and others ordained others, and the ordained were found to continue, one man from the mouth of another, until the court of Joshua and until the court of Moses our teacher.”

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

A tannai

we learned:

Laying of hands

upon the head of the bull for a concealed matter of the public

and ordination of elders—

with three.

They thought that “ordination of elders” also means [ordination] upon the head of the bull for a concealed matter of the public; therefore the Gemara asks:

What is laying of hands and what is ordination of elders,

for they already said “laying of hands”?

And the answer is:

Rabbi Yohanan said,

the ordination of elders mentioned by the baraita means

ordaining elders,

to confer authority upon them to judge and instruct in cases involving capital law, fines, and monetary law. [See folio 3a, where it is explained in which laws ordained judges are required].

Now the Gemara discusses: From where do we know that three are required?

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Ordaining elders with three —

from where do we know it,

from where do we learn that they must be ordained by 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 with one,

if one ordainer should be sufficient, just as Moses our teacher ordained him alone.

And if you should say,

and if you say that

Moses stood in place of seventy-one,

for Moses had authority like that of seventy-one judges, since he was their head and was counted as all of them , and therefore one ordainer is not sufficient—

if so,

that you learn it from Moses,

let seventy-one be required.

Learn from him that seventy-one are required.

And the conclusion of the Gemara: It is difficult.

Rav Yosef does not answer.

The Gemara discusses how ordination is conferred.

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

Is

he ordained with the hand itself,

does the ordainer need to place his hands upon the head of the person being ordained?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi: One does not ordain with the hands; rather,

one ordains him with a name,

one ordains him through a title, that is,

one calls him “Rabbi,” and gives him authority to judge cases of fines,

and gives him permission to judge cases of fines. Because the Torah called him “gods,” whose meaning is “expert.”

We learned: Ordination of elders with three. And the Gemara raises an objection:

And

if

one does not ordain,

is one ordainer not sufficient?

But Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Indeed! May that man be remembered for good—

and Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was his name—

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

Before Rav Yehuda finished relating the statement, the Gemara raises an objection:

If they were

forgotten—

let us teach them,

it would be possible to teach them, since in his generation there were several and many Torah scholars.

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