Talmud. Various Authors

xxiv. 1, 2]: "Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this same day; the king of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem." And what does he mean by calling it the tenth? The tenth of the months, and actually this last event should have been placed first (since it occurred first). And why is it placed here last in order? To mention the months in their regular order. Said R. Simeon: I, however, do not think so, but thus: "The fast of the tenth" means the fifth of Tebheth, on which day the news came to the exiles that the city was smitten, as it is written [Ezek. xxxiii. 21]: "And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth (month), in the fifth day of the month, that one that bad escaped out of Jerusalem came to me, saying, The city is smitten," and they held the day on which they received the news equal to the day (on which the Temple) was burnt. And it seems to me that my opinion is more satisfactory, for I speak of the first, first, and of the last, last; while he speaks of the last, first, and of the first, last; he mentions them in the order of the months, while I mention them in the order in which the calamities occurred.

      It was taught: Rabh and R. Hanina say: The Rolls of Fasts (which contained the names of minor holidays on which it was prohibited to fast) is annulled, but R. Johanan and R. Jehoshua ben Levi say: "It is not." When Rabh and R. Hanina say that it is annulled they mean: In the time of peace the (fast) days are days of joy and gladness, but in the time of persecution they are fast days, and so also with other (days mentioned in the Rolls of Fasts); and when R. Johanan and R. Jehoshua ben Levi say it is not annulled (they mean) that those (four fasts mentioned in Zachariah) the Bible makes dependent on the rebuilding of the Temple; but those (mentioned in the Rolls of Fasts) remain as they are appointed.

      R. Tobi b. Matana objected: In the Rolls of Fasts it is said that on the twenty-eighth of (Adar), the good news came to the Jews that they need no longer abstain from studying the Law, for the king (of Syria had earlier) issued a decree, forbidding them to study the Law, or to circumcise their sons, and compelling them to desecrate their Sabbath. What did Jehudah b. Shamua and his friends do? They went and took counsel of a certain matron, whose house the celebrated people of the city frequented. Said she to them, "Go and cry aloud at night." They did as she advised and cried aloud, "Oh, heavens! Are we not all brethren? Are we not all the children of one Father? Are we not All the children of one mother? Why should we be treated differently from other nations, and from all people who speak other languages inasmuch as ye issue such cruel edicts against us?" The decrees were annulled, and the day (on which this happened) they appointed a holiday. Now if it be true that the Rolls of Fasts has been annulled (i.e., the former [feasts] have been all abrogated), may then new ones be added? There is a difference of opinion among Tanaim on this question, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: The days recorded in the Rolls of Fasts, whether during or after the existence of the Temple. are not permitted (to be kept as fasts), so said R. Meir; R. Jose, however, said, so long as the Temple stood it was not permissible (to fast on them) because they were days of joy, but since the Temple fell it is allowed because they are days of mourning. One rule says that they are abrogated, but another rule says they are not abrogated. There is a question here caused by one rule contradicting the other. In the latter case it refers to the Feasts of Dedication and Esther (which are never to be abrogated), and in the former case to all other (minor feast) days.

      "For Elul on account of New Year's Day, and for Tishri on account of appointing the order of the (remaining) festivals." Since (the messengers) were sent out on account of Elul, why need they go again on account of Tishri? Shall we say because (the Beth Din) desired to proclaim Elul an intercalary month? (That cannot be) for did not R. Hanina bar Kahana say in the name of Rabh: Since the time of Ezra we have not discovered that Elul was an intercalary month? We have not discovered it, because it was not necessary (to make it so). But if it should be necessary, shall we make it an intercalary month? This would disturb the position of New Year's Day. It is better that the position of New Year's Day alone should be disturbed than that all the holidays should be disarranged. And it seems to be so, for the Mishna says that the messengers were sent for Tishri on account of appointing the order of the festivals.

      "And for Kislev on account of Hanuka, and for Adar on account of the Feast of Esther." But the Mishna does not say if it be a leap year, that the messengers were sent out in the second Adar on account of Purim. From this we learn that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha: Rabbi says: "In a leap year messengers are sent out also in the second Adar on account of the Feast of Esther.''

When Ula came (from Palestine) he said: They have made Elul an intercalary month, and he also said: "Do my Babylonian comrades know the benefit we have gained through it?" Because of what is this a benefit?" Because of herbs," 1 said Ula. R. A'ha bar Hanina, however, said: "Because of dead bodies." 2 What difference is there between them? They differ concerning a holiday that falls immediately before or after the Sabbath (on the sixth or first day of the week). According to the one who says "because of herbs" we may add an intercalary day, but (it is not necessary) according to him who says "because of dead bodies," for we can employ non-Jews (to bury the dead for us on the holidays). If this is the case, why is this a benefit only for us (in Babylon); is it not also to the advantage of them (in Palestine)? Our climate is very hot, but theirs is not.

      Is this really so? Did not Rabba bar Samuel teach: One might suppose that as we intercalate the year when necessary, so we intercalate the month when necessary? Therefore it is written [Ex. xii. 2]: "This month shall be unto you the first of the months," which means as soon as you see (the new moon) as on this occasion, you must consecrate the month (whether or not it is necessary to intercalate it). (How, then, could they intercalate Elul, which had always only twenty-nine days?) To intercalate it (when necessary) was permitted, but to consecrate it was not permitted, and Rabba's words should read: One might suppose that as it is permitted to intercalate the year and the month when necessary, so we may consecrate the month when necessary. Therefore it is written [Ex. xii. 2]: "This month shall be unto you," etc., which means only when the moon is seen as on this occasion, may you consecrate it.

Samuel said: "I can arrange the calendar for the whole captivity." Abba, the father of R. Simlai, said to him: "Does the master know that which a certain Boraitha teaches concerning the secret of the intercalary day; viz., whether the new moon appears before or after midday?" Answered he, "No." "Then, master," said he, "if thou dost not know this, there may be other things which thou dost not know." When R. Zera went (to Palestine) he sent back word to his comrade (saying): The evening and the morning (following) must both belong to the month (i.e., when the old moon has still been seen after dark on the twenty-ninth day of the month, the thirtieth evening and following day belong to the closing month). And this is what Abba, the father of R. Simlai, meant: We calculate only the beginning of the new moon; if it began before midday, it is certain that it was seen close upon the setting of the sun, but if it did not begin before midday, it is certain that it did not appear close upon the setting of the sun. What difference does it make (in practice)? Answered R. Ashi, "to refute witnesses." R. Zera said in the name of R. Na'hman, in every case of doubt (about the holidays), we post-date, but never ante-date. 1 Does this mean to say that (in a case of doubt concerning the exact day on which Tabernacles begins) we observe the fifteenth and sixteenth, but not the fourteenth. Let us keep the fourteenth also. Perhaps Abh and Elul have each only twenty-nine days? Nay, if two consecutive months should each have twenty-nine days, this would be announced.

      Levi went to Babylon on the eleventh of Tishri. Said he: "Sweet is the food of Babylon on the great Day (of Atonement now being held) in Palestine." They said to him, "Go and testify." Answered he, "I have not heard from the Beth Din the words, 'It is consecrated' (and therefore I cannot testify)."

R. Johanan proclaimed: In every place that the messengers sent in Nissan reached, but that the messengers sent in Tishri cannot reach, they must observe two days for the holidays; and they make this restriction for Nissan lest people would do in Tishri as in Nissan. 2