Talmud. Various Authors

seventy-three 'Halaqim),of an hour. On that self-same day the mother of Ben Zaza died and R. Gamaliel delivered a great funeral oration, 2 not because she specially deserved it, but in order that the people might know that the new moon had not yet been consecrated by the Beth Din.

      "R. Aqiba went to him, and found him grieving." The schoolmen propounded a question: "Who found whom grieving?" Come and hear. We have learned in a Boraitha: "R. Aqiba went to R. Jehoshua and found him grieving, so he asked him: 'Rabbi, why art thou grieving?' And he answered: 'Aqiba, I would rather lie sick for twelve months than to have this order issued for my appearance.' Rejoined R. Aqiba: 'Rabbi, permit me to say one thing in thy presence which thou thyself hast taught me.' R. Jehoshua granted him permission, and R. Aqiba proceeded: 'It is written [Lev. xxiii. 2, 4 and 37]: Three times 'shall proclaim Othom (them), which should, however, not be read Othom (them), but Athem (ye), which would make the verse read, "Ye shall proclaim." Now the threefold "ye" signifies that even if ye were deceived by false pretences and changed the day of the festivals, or even if ye did it purposely, or even if ye were held to be in error by others--once the dates had been established they must so remain.' With the following words R. Jehoshua answered R. Aqiba: Aqiba, thou hast comforted me; Aqiba, thou hast comforted me.'"

      "When he (Rabbi Jehoshua) came to R. Dosa b. Harkhenas," etc. The rabbis taught: The reason that the names of those elders are not mentioned, is, in order that one should not say: Is So-and-so like Moses and Aaron? Is So-and-so like Nadabh and Abihu? Is So-and-so like Eldad and Medad? (And how do we know that one should not ask thus?) Because, it is written [i Sam. xii. 6]: "And Samuel said unto the people the Lord that appointed Moses and Aaron "and in the same connection it is written [ibid. 11]: "And the Lord sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephtha and Samuel." [Jerubaal is Gideon; and why is he named Jerubaal? Because he strove against Baal. Bedan is Sampson; and why is he named Bedan? Because he came from Dan. Jephtha means just what it is (i.e., he had no surname or attribute).] And it is also written [Ps. xcix. 6]: "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who called upon his name." The sacred text regards the three common people equal with the three noblest, to teach us that Jerubaal was in his generation like Moses in his; Bedan in his generation was like Aaron in his; Jephtha in his generation was like Samuel in his generation. From all this one must learn that if even the commonest of the commoners is appointed leader by a community, he must be considered as the noblest of the nobility, for it is said [Deut. xvii. 9]: "And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in his days." (Why does the passage say "in those days"?) Can you imagine that one could go to a judge who was not in his days? (Surely not! But by these words Scripture teaches us that a judge is to be held "in his days" equal in authority with the greatest of his predecessors.) We find a similar teaching in Eccles. vii. 10: "Say not thou that the former days were better than these! "He took his staff," etc. The rabbis taught: (R. Gamaliel said to R. Jehoshua): Happy is the generation in which the leaders listen to their followers, and through this the followers consider it so much the more their duty (to heed the teachings of the leaders).

      Footnotes

1 The name of a place between Jerusalem and Jericho.

2 Samaritans.

1 The thirtieth day from the last New Moon was always New Moon, but in intercalary months the thirty-first day was also New Moon (second day). In the latter case the thirtieth day (first day of New Moon) belonged to the passing month, and the second day of New Moon was the first day of the new month. Bonfires were always lighted on the night of the thirtieth day, i.e., on the night after New Moon; and if no bonfires were lighted then there were two days New Moon. In the case of the month of Elul they would, after twenty-nine days, observe New Year's Day. Now, if that month happened to be intercalary (i.e., have thirty days) and bonfires would have been lighted, the next day would have had to be observed as New Year's Day again, and the people would consequently have lost a second day.--Rasht.

1 For if they had already traveled two thousand ells, they were prohibited from journeying more than four cubits more.

1 The name of a Tana, a contemporary of Rabbi.

2 Literally "put out the eyes of that figure!"

1 This device was resorted to, because in the days of Rabbi, the Romans had prohibited the Jews, under penalty of death, to consecrate the moon.

2 No funerals or funeral orations were or are permitted on the holidays.

      CHAPTER III.

       Table of Contents

      REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE INTERCALATING OF THE MONTH--THE CORNET, AND OF WHAT IT IS TO BE MADE--AND THE PRAYERS OF THE NEW YEAR'S DAY.

      MISHNA: If the Beth Din and all Israel saw (the moon on the night of the thirtieth day), or if the witness had been examined, but there was no time to proclaim "It is consecrated" before it had become dark, the month is intercalary. If the Beth Din alone saw it, two of its members should stand up and give testimony before the others, who shall then say "It is consecrated; it is consecrated." When three who formed a Beth Din saw it, two should stand up and conjoining some of their learned friends with the remaining one, give their testimony before these, who are then to proclaim "It is consecrated; it is consecrated," for one (member of a Beth Din) has not this right by himself alone.

      GEMARA: "If the Beth Din alone saw it," etc. Why so? Surely hearsay evidence is not better than the testimony of an eye-witness! Said R. Zera: "It refers to a case where they saw it at night (and on the next day they could not consecrate the new moon until they had heard the evidence of two witnesses)."

      "When three who formed a Beth Din, saw it, two should stand up and conjoining some of their learned friends with the remaining one," etc. Why so? Here also we may say, surely hearsay evidence is not better than the testimony of an eye-witness! And if you would say that this also means where they saw it at night, is this not, then, the same case? The case is the same, but the above statement is required because of the concluding words, "one (member of a Beth Din) has not the right by himself alone;" for it might be assumed, since in civil cases three (are required to constitute a Beth Din), but where he is well known (as a learned authority) one judge may act alone, so here we may consecrate (the new moon) on the authority of one judge; therefore, he teaches us (that three are required). Perhaps I should, nevertheless, say here (that one learned authority is sufficient)? Nay, for there is no greater authority than Moses, our master, yet God said to him that Aaron should act with him, as it is written [Ex. xii. 1, 2]: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, in the land of Egypt, saying: This month shall be unto you the beginning of months."

      Does this mean to say that a witness may act as judge? And shall we assume that the above Mishna is not according to R. Aqiba, as on following Boraitha: If the members of the Sanhedrin saw a man commit murder, part of them may act as witnesses and part as judges, according to R. Tarphon; but according to R. Aqiba all of them are witnesses, and no witness (of a crime) may act as judge. It may be said that the Mishna is even according to R. Aqiba. In the latter instance R. Aqiba only refers to capital cases, for it is written [Numb. xxxv. 24, 25]: "Then the congregation shall judge . . . and the congregation shall deliver," and since they saw him commit murder, they will not be able to urge any plea in his favor; but here (concerning the new moon) even R. Aqiba assents (that a witness may act as