Sanhedrin 42a — the Talmud in English

And both of them—

both Rabbi Judah, who said that one recites the blessing until the seventh day of the month, and Neharde’a, who said that one recites the blessing until the sixteenth day of the month—

hold in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan:

they hold that one recites the blessing over the moon until the date on which its indentation is filled.

Rather, they disagree concerning the statement of Rabbi Yohanan:

this one,

Rabbi Judah, holds that the filling of the indentation that Rabbi Yohanan said means: until the moon is filled

to become like a bowstring,

to be like the string of a bow—that the entire indentation of the bow is filled up to the string, meaning half a sphere; and the date on which the moon becomes filled like half a sphere is the seventh day from the beginning of the month.

This one,

Neharde’a, holds that the filling of the indentation that Rabbi Yohanan said means: until it is filled

to become like a sieve,

to be round like a sieve, meaning a complete sphere; and the date on which the moon becomes filled like a complete sphere is the sixteenth day from the beginning of the month.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

Why, according to Rabbi Judah, does one not recite a blessing over the moon after seven days have passed from the beginning of the month? Indeed, he cannot say, “Who renews the months,” but

let him recite

at least

“Who is good and bestows good,”

for at every moment He does good for us through its filling, as the moon continues to add light to the world !

He said to him,

Ravina:

Is it so that when it is diminished,

when the moon is gradually becoming diminished,

do we recite “Blessed is the Judge of truth”?

Do we regard this as evil toward us, to recite “Blessed is the Judge of truth,” that we should regard the moon’s fullness as a benefit,

so that you should recite

that we should recite over it, “Blessed is

the One who is good and bestows good”?

And just as we do not recite over the moon’s diminution “Blessed is the Judge of truth,” so we do not recite over its fullness “Blessed is the One who is good and bestows good.”

And we raise a difficulty:

Then let us recite both of them!

Why indeed do we not recite these two blessings—at the time of the moon’s diminution, “Blessed is the Judge of truth,” and at the time of its fullness, “Blessed is the One who is good and bestows good”?

And we answer:

Since this is its way,

since this is the way of the moon every month from the time of the creation of the world, there is neither a judgment of calamity in its diminution nor an act of kindness in its fullness; therefore

we do not recite a blessing.

Another halakha that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan concerning the blessing over the moon:

And Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Anyone who recites a blessing over the new moon at its proper time—

it is as though he receives the presence of the Divine Presence.

And we learn this from the verse:

It is written here,

in the section of the month [Exodus 12:2]:

“This month

shall be for you the beginning of months,”

and it is written there,

in the Song at the Sea [Exodus 15:2]:

“This is my God, and I will glorify Him.”

The two verses are linked by a gzera shava, “this” and “this.” Just as concerning the Song at the Sea they merited seeing the Divine Presence, to the extent that the Children of Israel pointed with their fingers and said, “This is my God, and I will glorify Him,” so too concerning the blessing of the month, it is considered as though one receives the presence of the Divine Presence, for through the moon and the rest of the heavenly host, which always preserve their function, we see the greatness of the Holy One, blessed is He.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If Israel had merited nothing other than receiving the presence of their Father in Heaven every month and month,

(not)

if not

receiving the presence of their Father in Heaven every month and month,

if Israel had not merited another mitzva, but only this mitzva through which they receive the presence of the Divine Presence once a month—

it would suffice for them

with this mitzva.

Abaye said: Therefore,

since they receive the presence of the Divine Presence at the time of the blessing over the moon in its renewal, therefore

let us recite it

one must recite the blessing

while standing,

because of the honor of the Divine Presence whose presence he receives.

Marimar and Mar Zutra,

because of their old age and their heaviness, found it difficult to stand, and they would

be carried on shoulders,

leaning on the shoulders of their servants,

and recite the blessing,

in order to sanctify the moon while standing.

Rav Aḥa said to Rav Ashi: In the West they recite

the blessing over the moon in this wording:

“Blessed

are You, Lord,

who renews the months.”

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

This

blessing—

our women also recite it,

our women also recite this blessing.

Rather,

the blessing that we recite over the moon is

in accordance with Rabbi Judah.

For Rav Judah said,

this is the wording of the blessing that we recite in the blessing over the moon:

“Blessed

are You, Lord our God, King of the universe,

who by His utterance created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their host,

a statute and a time He gave them, that they should not alter their function”—

the mitzva that You commanded them, to conduct themselves according to the progression of their cycles.

“Joyful and glad to perform the will of their Master”—

as it is stated [Psalms 19:6]: “He rejoices like a mighty man.”

“Workers of truth whose work is truth” —

for they do not alter their order.

“And to the moon He said”—

the Holy One, blessed is He.

“That it should renew itself”—

every month.

“A crown of glory”—

this is it.

“For those borne in the womb”—

it is a sign for them

that they—

for they too [Israel], for whom they count,

are destined to renew themselves—

in their exile

like it.

“And to glorify their Creator for the name of the glory of His kingdom. Blessed are You, Lord, who renews the months.”

Another halakha that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

It is written [Proverbs 24:6]:

“For through strategies you shall wage war.”

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: In whom do you find the battle of Torah,

who is able to issue rulings through it and to understand its explanation and its essence? Only

in one who possesses bundles of Mishna,

for if he needs an explanation in his learning, he can learn it from another Mishna; or if one matter is difficult because of another matter, he will understand how to reconcile them from the many Mishnayot that he knows. But a person who does not know many Mishnayot, even if he is sharp and incisive and possesses reasoning, once he has not learned many Mishnayot and beraitot, from where will the secret be revealed to him?

Rav Yosef applied this verse to himself,

he recited this verse concerning himself [Proverbs 14:4]:

“And abundant produce comes through the strength of an ox”—

much produce comes through the strength of the ox that plows in the field; that is, one who accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah like an ox to the yoke will find much Torah through it.

We learned in the Mishna: If one witness

says: At the second hour

—the incident occurred at the second hour from the beginning of the day—and one witness says: The incident occurred at the third hour from the beginning of the day, their testimony is valid, because a person is liable to err by one hour, and there is no contradiction here.

And if one witness says: The incident occurred at the third hour from the beginning of the day, and one witness says: At the fifth hour from the beginning of the day, their testimony is invalid, because a person is not likely to err by two hours, and they therefore contradict one another. Rabbi Yehuda says: Their testimony is valid, because a person is liable to err even by two hours.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: They taught

in the Mishna

only with regard to hours,

as it is in this matter that they disagree as to how many hours a person is liable to err,

but

if

one

of the witnesses

says: It was before sunrise

that the incident occurred, and

one

of the witnesses

says: It was after sunrise

that the incident occurred,

their testimony is invalid

according to everyone. Sunrise is a distinct indication, and people do not err regarding the time of sunrise, when the sun rises.

The Gemara asks:

Is it obvious

that this is the law? What need was there for Rav Shimi to state it?

Rather,

one should say that this is what Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: If

one

of the witnesses

says: The incident occurred before sunrise,

and

one

of the witnesses

says: It occurred during sunrise

—the incident occurred at the beginning of sunrise—their testimony is invalid.

The Gemara challenges this:

Is this too not obvious?

The witnesses do not err in this matter, distinguishing between before sunrise and after the sun has begun to rise. Certainly, they contradict one another, and their testimony is invalid.

The Gemara answers:

Lest you say

that this is not a contradiction, as in fact the incident occurred before sunrise,

but

the second witness, who said that the incident occurred at the beginning of sunrise, said so because

he was standing at the time of the sun’s revelation;

it was the time when the sun was about to become visible, although the body of the sun’s sphere was not yet seen,

and it was merely a glimmer that he saw,

the radiance of the sun’s rays, and he erred, thinking that sunrise had already begun.

To address this possibility,

it teaches us

Rav Shimi that a person is not likely to err in this regard.

We learned in the Mishna:

And afterward they bring in, etc.

If one of the students said: I have something to teach in his favor, they bring him up to the place where the judges sit and seat him among them, and that student did not descend from there the entire day.

The Gemara asks: Was it only

that day

that he sat with the judges to deliberate with them—

and nothing more? But it was taught

in a beraita:

If there is substance to his words,

he does not descend from there ever, but if there is no substance to his words,

he does not descend for the entire day, so that his ascent should not become a descent for him

—for if they were to bring him down that same day in full view of everyone, he would be embarrassed.

Abaye said: Interpret it

—interpret the words of the Mishna—

as referring to when there is no substance to his words,

in which case they do not bring him down that day, whereas on the following day he does not sit with the judges to deliberate.

But if there is substance to his words, he does not descend from there ever.

We learned in the Mishna:

If they found a merit for him,

if the judges found the defendant innocent, they acquitted him that same day. But if they did not find a merit for him, they defer the completion of the judgment until the following day, as we learned above: “In capital cases, they complete the judgment on the same day for acquittal, and on the following day for conviction.” Once they had deferred the judgment until the following day, the judges would immediately gather in pairs or in larger groups in order to examine his case, and they would reduce their food intake, and they would not drink wine throughout the entire day on which they discussed and deliberated his case.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason concerning wine

—why

did they not

drink it throughout that entire day?

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: The verse states:

“Proverbs 31:4”

“It is not for kings to drink wine,”

that is to say,

those engaged in the secret of the world

should not become intoxicated.

.

We learned in the Mishna: If thirty-six judges find him liable and thirty-five find him innocent, so that there is only a majority of one for liability,

these deliberate against those

—the judges argue among themselves—

until one sees

—until one of those who find him liable is convinced and joins those who find him innocent, and the judgment is decided by a majority of one in favor of the defendant.

If they did not see,

if none of the judges was convinced to change his opinion, and they continue to maintain their respective positions,

what

is the ruling?

Rabbi Aḥa said: They acquit him, the defendant, because there is no majority to decide the case.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan likewise said: They acquit him.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Then let them acquit him at the outset!

Why do we delay acquitting him until the judges deliberate and one of them is convinced to change his opinion? They could acquit him immediately after they added judges until there were seventy-one and they divided among themselves. There is no reason to wait until one of the judges is convinced to change his opinion, since it is possible that one of the judges will change his position in favor of liability, and we do not seek arguments for liability.

He said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The reason we delay acquitting him until the judges deliberate and one of them is convinced to change his opinion is that we seek a judgment,

so that they will not leave the court confused,

as it is disgraceful for a court to leave in disagreement, unable to complete the judgment.

There are those who say

that the matter was stated differently:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why do we need to add

judges when the judges are divided in their opinions and there is no majority to decide the case?

Why not say that the judges should immediately deliberate against one another, and if one of the judges is convinced by the words of the dissenting judges, then all is well; but if no one is convinced,

let them acquit him

—acquit the defendant—

from the first court

at the outset, without adding more judges to deliberate his case?

He said to him: Rabbi Yosei agrees with you.

I hold as you do, as it is written in a beraita:

As it was taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Just as they do not add to a court of seventy-one, so they do not add to a court of twenty-three.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

The judge says:

the judge

“In monetary cases, the judgment has grown old,” but one does not say in capital cases, “The judgment has grown old.”

And we explain:

What does “the judgment has grown old” mean? If you say

that its meaning is

“the judgment is difficult,”

that the judgment is deep and difficult and one must wait and deliberate over it,

then it should be the opposite that is required!

The halakha should have been reversed, because in capital cases one must examine the matter more thoroughly, and certainly the judge can say in capital cases that the judgment is difficult and requires waiting and further examination.

Rav Huna bar Menaḥem said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: Reverse it;

the words of the beraita should be reversed: In capital cases, the judge may say that the judgment is difficult and requires waiting and further examination, whereas in monetary cases he may not delay the judgment.

Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse

the words of the beraita,

and what

is the meaning of

“the judgment has grown old”

?

The judgment has been clarified;

we have properly established the judgment, and there is no need to reverse it and scrutinize it further.

And in this regard the beraita says that in capital cases one does not say this. Rather, even after they have completed the judgment, if one of the judges scrutinizes it and finds a merit for him, they reopen the judgment.

The Gemara raises an objection

to the words of the one who interprets “the judgment has grown old” as meaning that the judgment is deep and difficult, for we learned:

The greatest of the judges says, “The judgment has grown old.”

Granted, if you say

that its meaning is

“the judgment has been clarified,”

this is why the greatest says it;

it is understandable why specifically the greatest says that they have properly established the judgment.

But if you say

that its meaning is

“the judgment is difficult,”

that the judgment is difficult and deep—why specifically does the greatest of the judges say this?

Is it not enough that the greatest should not say it?

For

he is merely embarrassing himself:

it is embarrassing for him that the judgment is difficult and he does not know how to decide it, so why must he specifically say this?

The Gemara answers:

Yes,

it is indeed embarrassing for him, and for that reason the greatest of the judges says it, because

one who is embarrassed by himself is not like one who is embarrassed by others.

It is preferable for him to embarrass himself rather than for another judge to say, “The judgment is difficult,” causing him to be embarrassed by others.

There are those who say

that the objection from the beraita is directed at the words of the one who interprets “the judgment has grown old” as meaning that they have properly established the judgment:

Granted, if you say

that its meaning is

“the judgment is difficult,”

that the judgment is difficult and deep,

this is

understandable why specifically the greatest of the judges says this, because

one who is embarrassed by himself is not like one who is embarrassed by others.

It is preferable for him to embarrass himself rather than for another judge to say, “The judgment is difficult,” causing him to be embarrassed by others.

But if you say

that its meaning is

“the judgment has been clarified,”

it is difficult: Does

the greatest praise himself,

saying that he has properly established the judgment and that there is nothing more to examine in the case?

But it is written

in Proverbs 27:2:

“Let a stranger praise you, and not your own mouth!”

The Gemara answers:

This matter of the court is different,

for he is not speaking in his own name; rather, it is a matter of the court,

as it is imposed upon the greatest,

for the greatest of the judges is charged with saying it.

As we learned, the greatest of the judges states the words of the court,

as we learned: “When they have completed the matter,”

after the judges had completed their discussion among themselves and decided the case by majority opinion,

they would bring them in,

the litigants, since at first they would remove them from the court after they had presented their claims, and they would not allow anyone to be present together with the judges while they discussed and deliberated among themselves. After they had decided the case, they would bring in the litigants in order to inform them of the verdict.

The greatest of the judges says

to the defendant:

“So-and-so, you are acquitted,”

or

“So-and-so, you are liable,”

and thus the judgment is concluded.

We have returned to you, chapter “They Would Examine the Witnesses.”