Rosh ha-Shanah II

1:
Our mishnah returns us to the topic of the credibility of the witnesses, but this time from a different angle. It contains two clauses which would be more readily understandable if their order were reversed. In our discussion we shall deal with the second clause [Seifa] first.

2:
Our mishnah states that originally any person could testify as to having seen the new moon. 'Any person' here means 'any person not otherwise disqualified' because of the considerations mentioned in the previous chapter (mishnayot 7 and 8). While it is not clear from our mishnah exactly when 'originally' was, it is quite clear what it was that brought about the change from a liberal approach to a much more conservative one. The change was brought about by the challenge presented to rabbinic Judaism by the schismatics mentioned in our last shiur. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 22b] identifies the sectarians in this case as the Boethusians. Before we discuss what they did in this particular instance perhaps it would be useful to understand these sectarians in a more general light.

3:
During the whole of the biblical period until the destruction of the first Bet Mikdash (August 587 BCE) the religion of our people was essentially connected with the sacrificial ritual of the Bet Mikdash. This meant that religious authority and teaching were in the hands of the priestly caste. (The love of the priests for the prophets was like the love of any bureaucratically minded official for the 'unqualified layman' who starts pounding his turf. This antipathy was further enhanced by the fact that some of the prophets – Jeremiah and Ezekiel immediately spring to mind – were renegade priests.) In the period after the building of the second Bet Mikdash the last of the prophets [Malachi 2:6-7]looks back wistfully at a much earlier age when the priests were true religious leaders:

4:
The remotest origins of what was later to develop into the synagogue are to be sought in the assemblies of the exiles in Babylon. Surely it was but natural that they come together on those days that would have brought them together to congregate in Jerusalem before the exile. In these assemblies there must have emerged an anonymous religious leadership that was not necessarily from the priestly caste: anyone who could offer comfort and hope to the exiles was welcome to try. However, when the exiles were permitted to return to Eretz-Israel [538 BCE] at the first opportunity they instinctively assembled in Jerusalem and started to rebuild the Bet Mikdash (which was not completed until 516 BCE). In the early days of the second Bet Mikdash the priesthood was seen as corrupt and the priests were roundly condemned by the last of the prophets, Malachi and Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah.

5:
In the fall of the year 444 BCE a momentous revolution took place – the last historical event recorded in the bible. Ezra (himself a priest) and Nehemiah (the political leader) managed to get the people to accept the Torah as the "constitution" of the state and this acceptance was ratified by all the leaders of the community signing a covenant. Historically speaking, at the end of this scene the lights go out and the stage is in almost impenetrable darkness. The lights only come up again about a century later with the arrival of Alexander the Great in the Middle East in the year 333 BCE. When the lights come on again we find that alongside the Bet Mikdash in Jerusalem a new institution had come about: in the outlying towns and villages of the countryside people would congregate in "Assembly Rooms" (Bet Kenesset, synagogue) to here the Torah which was the constitution of the state explained and expounded by teachers called sages. And these teachers, these sages, were not necessarily priests.

In our last shiur I gave an illustration of the implementation of the mishnah under consideration. Daniel Burstyn writes:

Your discussion of seeing the molad is misleading. There is no way to see the new moon in the middle of the night. Last night I saw the moon for the first time this month. It was only a few minutes above the western horizon, at 8 pm, at the beginning of the day my calendar calls 1 Tammuz. According to what you wrote, the molad occured around 11pm Saturday night. Since the moon rises 43 minutes later each day, at 11pm Saturday night, the
moon would have been halfway under the earth (eg on the day side). In fact the new moon is always in the daytime sky. So the first possibility of seeing it would have been just before dawn on Sunday, when it would have been on the eastern horizon. Once the sun rises, it would be impossible to see, until evening.

I respond:

What I wrote was merely intended as an illustration of the situation described in the mishnah. When I wrote about a poor cripple lying in bed looking wistfully at the night sky and seeing the new moon I had no idea that my illustration would be subjected to the kind of incisive analysis that the Gemara reserves for the Mishnah! I am flattered.

I now address the main issue raised by Daniel. (For much of what follows I am indebted to Rémy Landau.) I have written on several occasions that the exact "time" of the Molad is an arithmetic calculation, not an astronomic observation. This calculation is based on what the early calendar scholars considered to be the average value of the lunation period: this value is given as 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3.33 seconds. This mean value is about 0.45 seconds per month slower than modern observations. It would take about 15,305 years for the discrepancy to build to one day. So the Hebrew mean lunation period was very precisely determined. In order to get the molad for the next month, according to the halakhic fixed calendar formula, 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3.33 seconds, and only this value, which is added to the time of the immediately preceding molad. That time then becomes the declarable time of the next molad. Since the lunation period is an average value, the actual occurrence of the
new moon can occur on either side of the calculated molad. And most usually does. This fact is noted by Rambam in Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Ĥodesh.

It is not possible to give any precise data on the deviation of the astronomical new moon from the time of the molad. The new moon cannot be seen. All that can eventually be seen is the first sliver of light. The method of calendation based on the actual sighting of that sliver is known as the "phasis" method, and in previous Shiurim I have indicated, clearly I hope, why this method ultimately was abandoned in favour of the fixed calendar method using the mean lunation period.

(In previous correspondence Rémy Landau had been thoughtful enough to send me an indication of the minimum and maximum possible deviations of the time of the molad from the first day of the Hebrew month. These times are not based on lunar astronomy, but rather on the formal, arithmetic, calculations that are mandated halakhically in determining the calendar.)

Interestingly enough, the beginning and the end of the Moslem fast of Ramadan is still determined by ocular observation of the new moon, and it almost invariably coincides with Rosh Ĥodesh. The other issue raised by Daniel will be the subject of a later mishnah, so I leave it unaddressed at this time.

6:
We continue our survey of the sectarians mentioned in the Mishnah. The fact that the synagogue had come into being did not mean the end of the ritual in the Bet Mikdash. In fact these two institutions continued to exist side by side until the destruction of the Bet Mikdash in the year 70 CE. Indeed, there was a synagogue functioning in the Bet Mikdash itself and it was used by the officiating priests themselves. However, the priestly caste reacted to the emergence of the new leaders of the synagogue, the Ĥakhamim, Sages, exactly as they had reacted to the prophets of the biblical period. Except for changes in nomenclature I can repeat what I wrote before: "the love of the priests for the sages was like the love of any bureaucratically minded official for the 'unqualified layman' who starts pounding his turf. This antipathy was further enhanced by the fact that some of the sages were renegade priests." It was not all the priests who evinced antipathy towards the sages, of course. It was the higher echelons of the priestly caste who were the most antipathetic; the middle-class priests and the working-class priests had little difficulty in finding much in common with the followers of the sages.

7:
As the "party" of the sages waxed greater so the high-priestly caste saw themselves more and more threatened. However, it was the arrival of Alexander the Great in the Middle East that caused the ultimate rift between the two. Alexander was a conqueror, but he was a conqueror with a mission. He did not only want to amass territory (which he did with enormous leaps and bounds). What Alexander wanted was to bring the "benefits" of the Greek way of life to the "natives". It was the need to confront "Hellenism" (the "Western way of life") that created two distinct ideologies within the Jewish people. The high-priestly caste had the most to lose by not finding a modus vivendi with the conquerors – prestige, income and power. The sages wanted only the right to carry on with their developing way of life. This rift was buttressed by ideological differences. The greatest ideological difference was with regard to the "Unwritten Torah", Torah she-b'al-Peh. The idea that the Written Torah, which was accepted by both parties, was not immutable but could be modified by interpretation and re-understanding, was the most important plank in the platform of the sages. (This modification of the Written Torah was not perceived by them as anything but a divinely sanctioned amplification of the text of the Torah, as much the Torah of God as the written text.) The second most important plank in their platform was the study of the Unwritten Torah in the Bet Midrash (or Bet Knesset) that existed in almost every town and village. These two planks were anathema to the High-Priestly caste. The ruling caste traced its ancestry back to a High Priest named Zadok, so they began to be called "Zadokites", which was "Europeanized" by the conquerors as "Sadducees". The party of the sages was derisively termed "Perushim", "Separatists" by their detractors – but the name stuck and was later borne with pride. (There are other explanations of the origin of the name which was "Europeanized" into "Pharisees", but I have offered here the most ubiquitous.)

8:
Thus the Sadducees rejected the Unwritten Torah out of hand and controlled the Bet Mikdash and its ritual, which was the object of their existence, while the Pharisees continued to grow and expand. The defection of a large portion of the middle- and lower-class Sadduceans to the Pharisaic party was caused by the threat of imminent persecution by the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes – and the rest of that story is well-known because of the festival of Ĥanukah. When the Sadducean defectors swelled the ranks of the Pharisees two groups were formed within the party: the proletarians which later became the "House of Hillel" and the more bourgeois elements which later developed into the "House of Shammai". We have already discussed this dichotomy within the world of the sages. The destruction of the Bet Mikdash in 1st century CE caused the eclipse of the Sadducean party, and the Pharisees were left alone in the field. (The Sadducean ideology had two later resurrections. In the Jewish world, the Sadducean rejection of the Unwritten Torah – the heart and soul of rabbinic Judaism – was adumbrated in the Karaite schism which rocked the Jewish world in 8th century CE. There are still a small number of Karaites in existence to this day. In the non-Jewish world the Sadducean insistence that the ritual of the Temple was supreme found its way into Christian worship, which to this day has at its core priests, altars and the atoning power of sacrifice.)

9:
Thus we have discussed the origins of two schismatic groups: Samaritans and Sadducees (and Christianity too, if you care to view that religion as a schismatic from Judaism). But our present mishnah, according to the Gemara, refers to another schismatic group: the Boethusians. Whereas the Sadducees objected to two major planks in the platform of the sages, the Bet Midrash and its Torah she-b'al-Peh, the Boethusians rejected a third plank: the belief in the world to come. Since there are no Boethusians left in the world (as far as I know!) I shall have to bring the story of the sages as to their origin, and later the view of modern critical scholarship (following the account in the Encyclopedia Judaica). In the tractate of the Mishnah called "Avot" one of the earliest sages mentioned by name is Antigonos of Sokho. Antigonos must have lived some time around the year 200 BCE. His sole teaching is to be found in Avot 1:3 –

A later version of Tractate Avot [Avot de-Rabbi Natan 5:2] brings the following elaboration:

Thus the sages saw the Boethusians (and the Sadducees) as having misinterpreted the maxim of their teacher, "Be not like servants who serve their master in order to receive a reward" as meaning that there was no reward for good works, and thus they denied the doctrine of resurrection and the world to come. Modern scholars however consider this account to be legendary and they ascribe the origin of the Boethusians to the high priest Shim'on ben-Boethos who, according to Josephus, was appointed high priest by Herod the Great in 24 BCE, in succession to Yehoshu'a ben-Fabi, in order to afford him a suitable status, as he desired to marry Herod's daughter, Miriam. Although in their theological views they closely resembled the Sadducees they did not share their aristocratic background, and whereas the Sadducees supported the Hasmonean dynasty, the Boethusians were loyal to the Herodians. (It is they who are apparently referred to in the New Testament as "Herodians".) The Boethusians were regarded by the Talmud as cynical and materialistic priests. Apart from their machinations which are the subject of our mishnah they maintained that the Omer was to be offered on the first Sunday after Passover, and not on the morrow of the first day and, as a result, differed as to the date of Shavu'ot which according to them must always fall on a Sunday. They held special views on the preparation of incense on the Day of Atonement. In terms of the Sabbath ritual, they were not even considered as Jews. The high priestly "House of Boethos" is criticized in the Talmud for its oppression, "Woe is me because of the House of Boethos, woe is me because of their staves" (with which they beat the people).

10:
The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 22b] explains the statement in our mishnah that "once the sectarians subverted" the process by hiring at a cost of 400 dinars (double the annual "poverty-line") two "witnesses" to falsely testify concerning the new moon. The first witness gave his testimony and was dismissed. The second told the following story:

While the first witness was "one of theirs" to use the language of the Gemara, it was now abundantly clear that the second was "one of ours". When he had heard that the Boethusians were looking for witnesses to mislead the Sanhedrin he had volunteered thinking that it was better that he should go rather than someone else who might truly mislead the court. Since he had indeed offered testimony the sages told him to keep the money, and it was then that they decided that in future testimony would only be accepted from people "they didn't know" who brought with them character witnesses who were people "they did know".

1:
In the Talmud these three mishnayot are given as one mishnah. This is certainly a more convenient way to further the discussion and I have gladly adopted it. However, for the benefit of those who also have recourse to printed editions I have also indicated the numeration as found in the codices and the printed editions.

2:
Once the new month had been declared by the Sanhedrin it was necessary to announce the fact to all Israel. Our mishnah teaches that this was originally done through a relay system of beacons that were lit on hilltops. However, this system was abandoned when it was spoiled by the Kutim (a synonym for the Samaritans, whom we have discussed previously). My translation "interfered" is admittedly weak. The Hebrew "Kilkelu" might be better rendered "ruined", "spoiled" or some such term. Indeed, in the context of our mishnah the term might best be rendered by seeing the interferers as "hackers" in the best (or worst) tradition of the Internet.

3:
In order to understand what the hackers did we must first understand how the system worked. In this regard we must quote a Baraita from the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 22b]:

Let us explain. We have already learned that a Hebrew month can only be of one of two lengths: never less than twenty-nine days and never more than thirty days. A month consisting of twenty-nine days is conveniently termed "Ĥaser" ["lacking" – a day] and a month which has thirty days is termed "Malé" ["full"]. In order to accommodate ourselves to the susceptibilities of modern English let us translate "Ĥaser" as "a short month" and "Malé" as "a long month". According to the Baraita the beacon relay system was only used when a new month had been declared on the thirtieth day since the outgoing month began; in other words it was only used when the declaration of the Sanhedrin that a new month had begun made the outgoing month a "short" one. When this was the case the beacons were lit when it became dark at the end of the thirtieth day – on the eve of what would have been the thirty-first day, but which has now become, in fact, the second day of the new month. (The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 22b-23a] recognizes that the beacon system could have been worked differently, but rejects the possibility because of its perceived flaws.) The Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Zeira, explains that the system described by the Baraita was introduced by the sages as a precautionary measure: it was to prevent the desecration of Shabbat when the outgoing month was "short" and Rosh Ĥodesh was declared to be on Friday. This would mean that the beacons would have to be lit on Erev Shabbat, which is not permitted. Under such circumstances they would have to light the beacon on Saturday night after Shabbat, but then people would not know whether the month had begun on Friday or on Shabbat. So they instituted that whenever a beacon was lit it was a sign that the outgoing month was "short", so if the beacons were lit on Saturday night everyone would know that Rosh Ĥodesh must have been on Friday.

4:
There are some codices that read "minim" [Schismatics] instead of "kutim" [Samaritans]. Actually this probably makes better sense, since there does not seem to be a good reason why the Samaritans would want to cause havoc as regards Rosh Ĥodesh; they had essentially the same system as the sages. The Zadokites and Boethusians, however, as is well-known had calendrical differences with the sages – particularly as regards the timing of the festival of Shavu'ot. Also, I have a nagging suspicion at the back of my mind that what the sages perceived as "hacking" was not so intended by the "offending" party, whoever they may have been. Maybe they were just "doing their thing" the same as the sages were.

5:
Mishnah Two states that when the beacon system had to be abandoned it was replaced by the dispatch of messengers. It is not clear to me why this system was not open to the same abuse as the beacon system. Was it not possible that the "hackers" would dispatch messengers of their own? One possibility is that the messengers identified themselves with a special password. Under similar circumstances we find [Rosh ha-Shanah 25a] that once Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin authorized the declaration of a new month and set a password "David King of Israel is alive and well" [David Melekh Yisra'el Ĥai ve-Kayyam]. We have already discussed the messenger-system in the third mishnah of Chapter One.

6:
Mishnah Four describes the logistics of the relay system of beacons. The system began on the summit of the Mount of Olives, which is still to the east of the old city of Jerusalem. The next hilltop was Sartaba, about 45 kilometres north of Jerusalem in Samaria just opposite the Gilead plateau on the other side of the Jordan. The third relay station was Aggripina, which was on the eastern side of the Golan Heights. The fourth station was Hauran, probably Auranibis in the north of the Kingdom Jordan. The last station mentioned is Bet Biltin, which must have been somewhere in the Arabian desert between Syria and Iraq. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 23b] recognizes that there were other relay stations not mentioned in our mishnah. The great Amora of Eretz-Israel, Rabbi Yoĥanan, says that the mean distance between the stations was eight Parsangs – about thirty-five kilometres. Our mishnah states that "he did not stop waving the beacon from side to side and up and down until he could see the whole of the diaspora before him ablaze like a bonfire". This seems to us to be an exaggeration. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 23b] also feels that this is an exaggeration. The Babylonian Amora, Rav Yosef, says that in this particular context "the whole diaspora" refers to the town of Pumbedita, which was one of the main centres of population of Babylonian Jewry. A Baraita describes what happened once the beacon had been spotted in Pumbedita:

Everyone would take hold of a brand and go up onto his roof waving his brand in the air. Maybe this was what seemed to the functionary at the last relay-station as being "Pumbedita ablaze like a bonfire".

7:
The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Rosh ha-Shanah 12a] deals with another part of the logistics: why was it necessary for the functionaries on the hilltops to wave the beacons? Why could they not have been stationary. The answer teaches us something extra. Rabbi Zeira says that the beacons were waved so that the functionary at the next relay station would not mistake the beacon for a star! With no artificial lighting to mar the darkness of the night it must have been possible to see light over enormous distances.

1:
It is not clear whether our mishnah is referring to two distinct situations or only one. If we assume the former, the first part of our mishnah is concerned with the general aspects of the handling of the witnesses once they had arrived in Jerusalem and the last part of our mishnah is concerned with arrangements concerning witnesses (and others) who had arrived from afar on Shabbat. If we make the latter assumption (as does Rashi) then we must understand the whole of our mishnah as being concerned only with Shabbat.

2:
The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 23b] suggests that the name of the courtyard in which the witnesses assembled could be explained (by reference to Isaiah 5:2) as indicating a place where people were "fenced in". If the whole of our mishnah is interpreted as referring to Shabbat (as also seems to be implied in the Gemara by the Babylonian Amora, Abbayé) the courtyard was so named because the witnesses who assembled there after having come from outside Jerusalem on Shabbat were "fenced in" there, and were not permitted to leave the courtyard until after Shabbat.

3:
The major authority who seems to be understanding the first part of our mishnah as referring to every month (and not just a Shabbat) is Rambam [Mishneh Torah, Kiddush ha-Ĥodesh, 2:7]:

4:
However, as I have intimated, Rashi – following the implication of the Gemara – interprets the whole of our mishnah as applying to arrangements made from handling witnesses who had come from outside Jerusalem on Shabbat. One of the requirements of Shabbat is the prevention of travel (by any means). The origin of this restriction is to be found in the Torah. The Torah [Exodus 16:21-29] describes the manna provided for the Israelites in their desert wanderings and the manner in which it was collected:

The Karaites in the middle ages, who adopted a literal approach to the text of the Torah, and denied the validity of the Unwritten Torah of the sages, required their adherents to remain in one room throughout Shabbat. The sages were much more liberal, and interpreted the term "place" in the Torah as meaning "township": "let no one leave his township on the seventh day". One could walk any distance within the town or village where one was when Shabbat began, and one could even walk 2000 cubits (about 1 kilometre) beyond the furthest residence of the place. But that was all. Anyone who went further inadvertently was restricted to his own personal space only [see Gemara, Eruvin 41b].

5:
Thus, originally, when the witnesses who had contravened this law (with rabbinic permission) had arrived at their destination, the courtyard in Jerusalem, they were now restricted in their movements and could not leave the courtyard on Shabbat: they were "fenced in". According to Rambam the witnesses were provided with a free lunch on any day of the week, but according to those who understand the whole of our mishnah as referring only to Shabbat, the free lunch was provided within the courtyard because there was nowhere else the hapless witnesses could go. From the psychological point of view Rambam's understanding of our mishnah seems the more preferable: people would want to go to Jerusalem to offer testimony concerning the new moon because they would get a lot of kudos and a good free meal. (Publicity agents, please note that everyone qualifying got the free meal: they did not participate in a lottery which only some of them could win!) From the point of view of interpretation of the mishnah the other view (that it is concerned only with Shabbat) fits just as well, if not better.

6:
All view agree that from the moment our mishnah refers to Rabban Gamli'el the subject is Shabbat alone. Rabban Gamli'el the Elder (not to be confused with his grandson Rabban Gamli'el of Yavneh, the contemporary of Rabbis Yehoshu'a, Eli'ezer, Akiva, Ishmael etc) was President of the Sanhedrin during the second quarter of the 1st century CE (Paul of Tarsus mentions him as one of his teachers.) Under Rabban Gamli'el the Sanhedrin amended the law so that anyone who had travelled outside their locality on Shabbat for a permitted reason would be considered "a local" when they arrived at their destination and would have the same rights of restricted movement as the locals (1 kilometre outside the township).

7:
Our mishnah explains that this leniency was not applied only to witnesses of the new moon, but to anyone travelling on Shabbat for a permitted purpose; and our mishnah gives five examples: a midwife who has been summoned on Shabbat to attend a birth, a fire-fighter called to deal with a fire that broke out on Shabbat, people called out to resist foreign troops, overflowing rivers and to pull people out of buildings that had collapsed – all these, upon completion of their task were considered to be locals until after Shabbat.

My use of the term "hacker" has caused a couple of comments. Firstly, Zackary Berger has suggested that a better translation would have been "saboteur". I completely agree. I write these shiurim quickly when I can find a free hour or two, and I am amazed at the comparatively small number of errors that I do make. (Though, as someone wrote to me, "wise men" do not mislead: that let's me off the hook, since I do not claim to be wise!) As the Sages saw it, the Samaritans (if it was them) sabotaged the beacon system.

William Friedman, however, makes a different comment:

Without trying to be too picayune, "hackers" is the wrong term for the kutim. What they were doing (at least in the eyes of the Sages) was "cracking". (Hacking is innocent; cracking is malicious.) For more information, see the Jargon File's entry under hacker: http://www.jargonfile.org/jargon/html/entry/hacker.html and under cracker: http://www.jargonfile.org/jargon/html/entry/cracker.html.

I respond:

The things one learns when studying mishnah!

William also comments:

I'm quite confused as to how this beacon system allowed for far-living or Diaspora Jews to actually observe Rosh Ĥodesh properly (by bringing the mussaf offering or (if I'm not being too anachronistic) making the proper additions to the davening), since it seems that the beacons announce the end of Rosh Ĥodesh (and only in declaring ĥaser months, at that). I pose a similar question to the messenger system described in 1:3, in which messengers only went on six months — did Diaspora Jews simply not observe Rosh Ĥodesh in the proper way?

I respond:

My guess is that in the Diaspora Rosh Ĥodesh was observed both on 29th and 30th day since the last Rosh Ĥodesh.

William also writes:

Regarding the password mentioned in the gemara (David Melekh Yisra'el ĥai ve-Kayyam), I find it somewhat ironic and amusing that we now sing the phrase openly and joyously.

1:
After the witnesses were assembled in the Ya'azek Courtyard the examination of the witnesses began. The examination of the witnesses was on a "first come first served" basis – probably to avoid friction. It is obvious that the sages knew, from astronomical calculations, when and how the moon should have been visible, and the questions asked of the witnesses were designed to verify that what they claimed to have seen was indeed what they should have been able to see.

2:
These astronomical calculations were extremely complex, and Rambam devotes many chapter in his Encyclopedic compendium of Halakhah, Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Ĥodesh, Chapters 11 – 19). The complexity of the calculations is even more frustrated by the fact that Hebrew did not have a means of easily indicating units, tens, hundreds, thousands etc for the purposes of arithmetic calculation. Rambam himself no doubt used the Arabic numerals, but he gives the figures in Mishneh Torah in Hebrew alphabetic enumeration, which, as I have said, complicated an already complicated topic. For that reason, and also because the calculations themselves are not germane to our study, I refer to them only obliquely. At a certain stage in Halakhic development the sages must have come to rely almost entirely in the astronomical calculations and to accept the eye-witnesses accounts purely in order to fulfill the religious requirement. Only thus can we explain, for instance, a passage in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Rosh ha-Shanah 11b]:

This passage, of course, answers several questions that have been left open until now. In our present chapter, Mishnah 2 told us that "originally they would light beacons, but when the Samaritans sabotaged [the process] they instituted that messengers would be dispatched". We now know that it was Rabbi Yehudah, the President of the Sanhedrin who abolished the beacon system, which means that this happened at the very end of the 1st century CE or at the very beginning of the 2nd century. (Rabbi died in 217 CE.) Convicted criminals were not permitted to testify in Diné Mamonot or Diné Nefashot [civil or criminal cases] so the fact that Rabbi was prepared to declare a new month on the basis of the evidence of a convicted murderer shows that the evidence was not really important to his decision. The same argument applies as regards his admission of hearsay evidence. In 1:3 we learned that for six months of the year messengers were dispatched to replace the beacon system. The passage that we quoted above indicated that Rabbi permitted these messengers to leave on their mission even before the Sanhedrin had made its official declaration, because Rabbi knew from astronomical calculation that the new month would have to be declared on the morrow.

3:
I apologize in advance for the technical nature of the explanations that follow. I have tried to simplify, but if, for you, I have failed, just skip them…

The first question the witness was asked was as regards the position of the moon in relation to the sun. Since the moon and sun travel in the same direction from West to East and the former gets ahead of the latter at the rate of about 12.2 ° per day, it follows that , starting from a Molad [conjunction] the new moon will be ahead of the sun (i.e. to the east of it or "before" it) until the elongation is 180° at full moon; after that it will be west of the sun ("after" it). But the diurnal rotation of the heavens being from East to West means that the new moon – being east of the sun – will appear at the eastern horizon after sunrise and will set at the western horizon after sunset; the reverse being the case with the waning moon. Hence, "if he said that it was before the sun it is as if he had said nothing", because if the witness says that he saw the moon sink at the western horizon before sunset his evidence is worthless. For the same reason evidence to the effect that the moon was seen to rise in the morning before sunrise and to set in the evening after sunset could not be reliable because it must necessarily refer to the waning moon in the morning and the new moon in the evening. For the moon to be visible at all its true elongation must not be less than 9°; but at the rate at which elongation increases (about one half a degree per day) it must take about 18 hours on either side of a Molad for the moon to cover such an arc, so that an interval of about 36 hours must elapse between the disappearance of the crescent of the old and the appearance of that of the new moon.

4:
The next question was whether the moon was north or south of the sun. When the moon's latitude is positive the moon is north of the sun, so that a witness facing the western horizon should have seen the moon to the right of the sun. When the latitude is zero the moon and sun are seen to set at the same point of the horizon. When the latitude is negative the moon is seen south – to the left – of the sun.

5:
The next questions were are regards the altitude and amplitude of the moon. It is not clear how the height of the moon above the horizon was to be evaluated. While admitting that a certain discrepancy between the evaluation given by the one witness against the other is to be expected and admitted [Rosh ha-Shanah 24a] how this discrepancy could be measured is not at all clear. The unit of measurement used by the Gemara is "Marda'at" which should mean "an ox-goad" but obviously cannot have that meaning in this context. Rambam translated the term as "Komah" which simply means to indicate a unit of altitude. The best suggestion made has been to correct the word in the Gemara to read "Madregah" and to understand it as referring to "degrees".

6:
As the moon receives its light from the sun it is obvious that the horns of the moon's crescent must always point away from the sun. Hence, when the new moon is seen above the horizon after sunset its horns must point away from the horizon. On the other hand, the horns of the waning moon will point towards the horizon, and away from the sun. As regards the examination of the witnesses in connection with the moon's amplitude (the width of the crescent) – we shall return to this in mishnah eight.

7:
The rest of our mishnah is self-explanatory: even though the court now had sufficient evidence upon which it could declare a new moon all the rest of the would-be witnesses were interviewed so that they would not be so disappointed that they had made the effort to no purpose that they would not come forward in the future.

1:
Our mishnah should really be read in conjunction with the previous mishnah. We have been discussing the details of obtaining the evidence of eye-witnesses that the moon has renewed itself. Our present mishnah is concerned with what happens afterwards. Once the court has deemed the evidence of a pair of witnesses as being acceptable the President of the Sanhedrin declares, "It is sanctified!" – a the new month is deemed to have started and that day is the first day of the new month.

2:
The fact that the President of the Sanhedrin should announce to the Jewish world that a new month has begun seems to us to be an obvious necessity. Otherwise, how would everyone know that the required evidence had been obtained? However, the Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 24a] deems it necessary to find a biblical peg upon which to hang this piece of elementary publicity. I quote this passage here since it will have much greater ramifications when we arrive at Mishnah 9.

The prominent Babylonian Amora, Rav Pappa [4th century CE] quotes the opening verses of the chapter in Leviticus which lists the festivals of the year. Actually, Rosh Ĥodesh is not one of them! However, Rav Pappa needs the verse because it speaks of God's "appointed times" [Mo'adai], and Rosh Ĥodesh is certainly one of those. He notes that in the Hebrew text as handed down to us by the Massoretes one of the words is written defectively (without a consonantal vowel-sign). The the word אֹתָם "Otam", which I translated "which" [you shall declare] can be read as אַתֶּם "Atem", "You". The biblical text would then read "which you shall declare" with a heavy emphasis on the word "you" – "you and not me". According to this interpretation the month is deemed to have begun when "you", the people, declare it to be so.

3:
The last part of our mishnah presents a "maĥloket" [difference of opinion] between Rabbi Elazar ben-Zadok and Tanna Kamma. The issue is whether the ceremony of declaring the new month to have begun is to take place every month or only on those occasions when the month begins because of the evidence of the witnesses. You will recall that we have mentioned on several occasions that if no witnesses came forward on the thirtieth day since the last new moon (or if no evidence was deemed acceptable) then the thirty-first day was the first day of the next month regardless, since no month can have more than thirty days. Tanna Kamma [the anonymous sage in dispute with Rabbi Elazar ben-Zadok holds that this ceremony is required for all months, even those that begin by default as it were. Rabbi Elazar ben-Zadok holds that the ceremony by which the Jewish people declare the new month to have begun only makes sense when the month has begun because of the intervention of the Jewish people (offering and accepting testimony). If the month is deemed to have begun by default by what power does the court interfere? The new month has begun because of "celestial mechanics".

4:
It is a commonplace in "Talmudic navigation" that when there is a "maĥloket" between a certain sage and Tanna Kamma that the Halakhah follows Tanna Kamma. This is because the term "Tanna Kamma" actually indicates all the other sages. When there is a difference between an individual sage and the rest of the sages Halakhah follows the majority opinion. However, there are exceptions. The "rule" that Tanna Kamma represents accepted Halakhah is one introduced by the Editor of the Mishnah. The Editor of the Mishnah was Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin who, as we have seen in the previous shiur, virtually dispensed with the eye-witnesses all together. Thus, for him there was not really any difference between one kind of month and another: they were all ultimately "declared" by the "system" and not by the eye-witnesses. This is possibly why he elected to present the view of Rabbi Elazar ben-Zadok as a rejected view. The Gemara [Rosh ha-Shanah 24a] revokes his decision.

which is, admittedly, more logical. This statement is then backed up by a quotation from another Tanna which goes even further:

And the Gemara notes that while it is deemed to have thirty days (and not twenty-nine) it is not to be declared.

I wrote: But the diurnal rotation of the heavens being from East to West means that the new moon – being east of the sun – will appear at the eastern horizon after sunrise. Art Evans writes:

It can't happen. The waning moon is visible in the eastern horizon just before sunrise. A day or so later the moon is between the earth and the sun, so the half of the moon illuminated by the sun is not visible from the earth; that's when the molad astronomical occurs. A day or so later the new moon is visible in the western horizon just after sunset. But there's no way a new or old moon can be visible at both sunrise and sunset. (The full moon, on the other hand, rises at sunset and sets at sunrise.)

I respond:

I suggest you check again. My source was a most reliable one and respected now for more than seventy years [W.M. Feldman, Rabbinical Astronomy and Mathematics, New York, 1928]. Perhaps Art has misunderstood, because when I write so that an interval of about 36 hours must elapse between the disappearance of the crescent of the old and the appearance of that of the new moon he concurs and demurs:

Right, consistent with what I said.

As regards the altitude and amplitude of the moon, Art writes:

One way to measure an astronomical body's elevation above the horizon without equipment is to hold your arm extended with a closed fist and estimate how many "fists" the object is above the horizon. I'm not sure what an "ox-goad" looks like but speculate that it could be used similarly.

I respond:

This sounds very convincing and I withdraw my original suggestion.

After several other "corrections" (see my caveat above) Art writes concerning the fact that the witnesses whose evidence was not needed were nevertheless interviewed:

I love this careful attention to the well-being of the people. Would that present governments were similarly inclined!

1:
Our mishnah and the following one are among the most famous of all mishnayot – not because of their intrinsic content but because of their biographical implications. Our present mishnah is still concerned with the examination of the witnesses. In a previous shiur we noted that Rabbi (i.e. Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin) seems to have dispensed with the actual observation of the new moon for determining its incidence, placing much greater reliance on astronomical calculations. From our present mishnah it becomes apparent that this had already been the case more than a century before his time, since what is described here relates to the last couple of decades of the 1st century CE and the first couple of decades of the 2nd.

2:
The Rabban Gamli'el of our mishnah is the great-grandson of Hillel, the founder of the dynasty. Hillel was succeeded in the presidency by his son Rabban Gamli'el, who for the purposes of distinguishing him from his grandson is given the epithet "the elder". Rabban Gamli'el the Elder held office during the second and third decades of the first century (according to Christian scriptures it was he who presided over the trial of the first of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth). His son, Rabban Shimon ben-Gamli'el is sometimes given the epithet "the first" to distinguish him from his grandson. Rabban Shimon ben-Gamli'el held office during the last years before the destruction of Jerusalem. According to Josephus, he was assassinated by members of the Zealot Party shortly before the siege of Jerusalem began, in 68 or 69 CE. After the fall of Jerusalem the presidency was vested in the hands of Rabban Yoéanan ben-Zakkai, probably because the son of Rabban Shimon ben-Gamli'el was too young. It was Rabban Yoéanan ben-Zakkai who re-established the Sanhedrin in Yavneh and thus saved Judaism from virtual annihilation. Eventually he was succeeded by Rabban Gamli'el, he of our present mishnah, who is often given the epithet Rabban Gamli'el of Yavneh to distinguish him from his grandfather.

3:
Rabban Gamli'el continued the policy of his predecessor, Rabban Yoé.anan ben-Zakkai, of establishing Yavneh as the replacement of Jerusalem. Almost all the prerogatives of the Sanhedrin when it had been seated on the Temple Mount were transferred to "the Vineyard in Yavneh", and great efforts were made to present a united front in view of the physical devastation of the country and the psychological devastation of the people. However, in furthering this policy of unity Rabban Gamli'el seems to have acted in an authoritarian manner which greatly distressed many of his colleagues.

4:
It is quite clear from our mishnah that Rabban Gamli'el was well aware of when the new moon should be visible and how it should appear to those that witnessed it. To save the inaccuracies necessarily involved when lay people were describing what they had seen, Rabban Gamli'el had pictures of the moon in various sizes and positions on the wall of his study. When questioning the witnesses he would point to these pictures inviting them to indicate which one represented what they had seen. Since he knew what they must have seen if they were accurate witnesses, he thus had a means of verifying their testimony.

5:
However, our mishnah also brings two stories that suggest that already Rabban Gamli'el was accepting the eye-witness evidence only because tradition required him to do so, but he was relying on his own calculations in order to declare the new moon. This is what becomes apparent from the two stories quoted in our mishnah.

6:
The first account describes how two witnesses testified that they had seen the new moon just before daylight of the morning of the 29th of the month and it was in the eastern part of the sky; however they also claimed to have seen it later that day, after sunset, in the western part of the sky. We have already seen in a previous shiur that this is an astronomic impossibility: a much longer period is needed between the waning of one moon and the appearance of the new moon (some thirty-six hours are needed – and certainly not only twelve or so.) What I have just described follows the way Rashi reads this passage. Rabbi Menaĥem ben-Shelomo ha-Me'iri reads it slightly differently: Rabban Gamli'el assumed that it was on the morning of the 28th that they saw the waning moon and at the start of the evening of the 30th that they claimed to have seen the new moon, and this leaves just about sufficient time for it to possibly be an accurate sighting. Rambam, in his mishnah commentary, dispenses with all such speculations:

Rabbi Yoĥanan ben-Nuri, being more conservative, wished to rely only upon the evidence of reliable eye-witnesses – which this couple obviously were not!

7:
The second incident described in our mishnah is similar: the witnesses claimed to have seen the new moon at the expected time (and what they saw, presumably, was corroborated by the pictures on the wall of Rabban Gamli'el's study) but when they had looked for it the next night (presumably in a clear sky) it was not visible. Here, too, Rabban Gamli'el must have known that what they saw on the first night was corroborated by his calculations and that was sufficient to declare the new moon. Perhaps, as Rambam suggests, he attributed their not having seen it on the following night to defective eyesight! Perhaps a more charitable understanding of the text would be as follows – watch carefully the punctuation: