Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin

Folio 13a

Now, which view do they adopt?⁸  If they hold that the Tekufah day⁹  is the completion [of the previous season]: then, even if it were not so,¹⁰  it will meet with the requirement neither of him who holds that the whole Festival [must be included,] nor of him who holds that only part of it [is necessary]! — 11 One must say therefore that they both hold that the Tekufah day begins [the new Tekufah].

An objection is raised: The Tekufah day concludes [the previous season]: this is R. Judah's view. R. Jose maintains that it commences [the new].¹²  Further has it been taught: A year is not intercalated unless the [summer] Tekufah is short of completion by the greater part of the month [Tishri]. And how much is that? Sixteen days. R. Judah said: Two thirds¹³  of the month. And how much is that? Twenty days.¹⁴  R. Jose ruled: It is to be calculated thus: [If there are] sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes Passover,¹⁵  the year is to be intercalated.¹⁶  [If, however, there are] sixteen [short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles],¹⁷  the year is not to be intercalated.¹⁸  R. Simeon maintained: Even where there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is intercalated.¹⁹  Others say [that the year is intercalated even if the Tekufah is short of completion] by the lesser part of the month. And how much is that? Fourteen days?²⁰  — The difficulty remained unsolved.

The Master has said: 'R. Judah said: Two thirds of the month. And how much is that? Twenty days. R. Jose ruled: It is to be calculated [thus: if there are] sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes Passover, the year is to be intercalated.'²¹  But is not this view identical with R. Judah's?²²  — They differ as to whether the Tekufah day completes [the previous] or begins [the new cycle].²³

The Master has said: '[R. Jose holds that] if there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is not intercalated.' According to R. Jose, then, only if there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] preceding the Feast [of Tabernacles is intercalation] not [permitted]; but if there are seventeen or eighteen [days short], the year is intercalated. But has he not himself said: If there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes Passover, we may intercalate, but not if less?²⁴  — But no; in neither case²⁵  may we intercalate. But seeing that he spoke of the number sixteen [with regard to the Tekufah] preceding Passover,²⁶  he gives it also [in connection with the Tekufah] preceding the Feast [of Tabernacles].

[It was stated above]: 'R. Simeon maintained:²⁷  Even where there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is intercalated.' But is not this view the same as that of the first Tanna?

1. As seen from the context, the entire statement, including that of the views of R. Judah and R. Jose, is Samuel's.
2. Ex. XXXIV, 22. I.e., it must fall within the Tishri Tekufah.
3. R. Judah.
4. I.e., beginning with the day when the work of ingathering is permitted — the 16th day of the month, the day after the Festival.
5. Hence if the summer Tekufah is short of completion by sixteen days, the new autumnal Tekufah begins on the seventeenth, and will thus not include all the days when the work of ingathering is permitted.
6. R. Jose.
7. Hence its possible delay until the 21st of the month, but not later, because the 22nd of Tishri is a full Festival again, on which no gathering is permitted. Neither consider the possibility of including Ellul, a full month of thirty days, and so giving one day more, because if Ellul were extended, it would interfere with the calculations whereby the first day of New Year must not fall on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday, v. R.H. 19b; Suk. 43b.
8. Viz., with reference to the day on which the sun enters into the new Tekufah.
9. I.e., the day on which the new Tekufah begins.
10. I.e., even if it were not much short of completion, as sixteen days according to R. Judah, and twenty-one days according to R. Jose, but fifteen or twenty days, respectively.
11. For even if the Tekufah day begins on the sixteenth or twenty-first day, the new season will commence only on the following day.
12. Thus, according to R. Judah, none of the Festival of Ingathering is included in the new season.
13. Lit., 'two hands' interpreted as 'two portions'. Cf. Tosef. Men. IX, 10.
14. V. infra. This refutes Samuel on both points: (a) R. Judah holds here that part of the Feast is sufficient; and (b) in his view the Tekufah day commences the new season, and does not end the last.
15. I.e., the winter Tekufah.
16. For if not, the summer Tekufah would not end until the 21st of Tishri, the new Tekufah beginning on the 22nd. The two Tekufoth, the spring and summer, consist of hundred and eighty-two days, and the five lunar months between Nisan and Tishri consist of hundred and forty seven days which, when added to the fourteen days of Nisan and the twenty-one days of Tishri make a total of hundred and eighty-two days. The Tishri Tekufah beginning on the 22nd of the month will thus not include any part of the Festival of Ingathering.
17. I.e., the summer Tekufah.
18. Because at least part of the Feast of Ingathering will then fall in the new Tekufah.
19. V. infra.
20. Hence the contradiction of the two statements of R. Judah.
21. In that the end of the cycle is delayed until the 21st of Tishri. V. n. 2.
22. As it appears that both require the inclusion of only part of the Festival of Ingathering.
23. According to R. Judah, that day completes the previous Tekufah, consequently, if twenty days have passed and the sun has reached its new cycle on the 21st, the new Tekufah begins on the 22nd, in which case not even part of the Feast of Ingathering is included; whilst according to R. Jose's calculation, even if the solstice occurs on the 21st day, that day is added to the new cycle.
24. According to the above, in the case of fewer days, if these carry the Tekufah seventeen or eighteen days into Tishri, intercalation is permissible.
25. I.e., in the case of a shortage neither of seventeen nor eighteen days. The number 'sixteen' therefore is not to be taken in its exact sense, for even if there is a shortage of more than that, intercalation is not justified.
26. In which case, it is only a shortage of sixteen days which justifies intercalation.
27. In contradistinction to R. Jose.

[Again it was stated:] 'Others say: [That the year is intercalated even where there is a shortage] by the lesser part of the month. And how much is that? Fourteen days.' Now, which view do they adopt? Do they hold that the Tekufah day completes [the previous season], and that we require the whole Feast [of Ingathering to be included in the new Tekufah?] But surely in our case, it is so.³  [Why then intercalate?] — The 'Others', says R. Samuel son of R. Isaac, speak of the Nisan Tekufah, for it is written, Observe the month of Abib [spring];⁴  i.e., take heed that the beginning⁵  of the vernal Tekufah shall occur on a day in Nisan [when the moon is still in the process of renewal].⁶

But why not intercalate a day in Adar?⁷  — R. Aha b. Jacob said: The Tanna reckons from higher numbers downward, and says as follows: [If there is a deficiency] as far as [i.e., by more than] the lesser part of the month,⁸  the year is intercalated.⁹  And how much is that? Fourteen days.'

Rabina said: In reality, the 'Others' refer to the Tishri Tekufah, but they hold that the whole Feast [of Ingathering]¹⁰  must fall [in the new Tekufah] including also the first [day of the Feast].¹¹  '[Including] the first day'?¹²  But is it not written, The Feast of Ingathering [shall be] at the Tekufah of the year; [meaning the day on which ingathering is permitted]? — [They interpret it as] 'The Feast which occurs in the season of ingathering.'

THE LAYING ON [OF HANDS] BY THE ELDERS. Our Rabbis taught: [And the elders … shall lay, etc.:]¹³  it might be assumed that it means ordinary people advanced in age;¹⁴  Scripture therefore adds, of the congregation.¹⁵  Now, if [you emphasised] congregation, I might think, [it referred to] the minor members of the congregation:¹⁶  therefore it is stated, 'the congregation',¹⁷  [meaning] the distinguished of the congregation.¹⁸  And how many are required? — The plural of 'wesameku'¹⁹  ['and they shall lay'] implies two; similarly, 'zikne' ['the elders'] implies two, and as there can be no court with an even number, another is added; hence five in all are required: this is R. Judah's view. R. Simeon said: 'Zikne' ['elders'] indicates two, and as a court cannot consist of an even number, another is added, making three in all. But according to R. Simeon, is it not written 'wesameku' ['and they shall lay']? — That is needed for the text itself.]²⁰  And R. Judah?²¹  — That is not needed for the text itself, since if the word wesameku has no significance for deduction, the text could have read [without it]: The Elders, their hands [being] on the head of the bullock.²²  And R. Simeon?²³  — Had it been so written,²⁴  I might have translated 'al[on], 'in proximity'.²⁵  And R. Judah?²⁶  — He deduces this [actual contact] from the use of the word rosh [head] in this case and in connection with the burnt offering.²⁷  And R. Simeon? — He does not admit the deduction of head written here and in the case of the burnt offering.²⁸

It is taught: The laying on [of hands], and the laying on [of hands] of the Elders is performed by three. What is meant by, 'Laying on [of hands]', and 'Laying on [of hands] of the Elders'? — R. Johanan said: [The latter] refers to the ordination of Elders.

Abaye asked R. Joseph: Whence do we deduce that three are required for the ordination of Elders? Shall we say, from the verse, And he [Moses] laid his hand upon him [Joshua]²⁹  If so, one should be sufficient! And should you say, Moses stood in place of seventy-one,³⁰  then seventy-one should be the right number! — The difficulty remained unanswered.

R. Aha the son of Raba, asked R. Ashi: Is ordination effected by the literal laying on of hands? — [No,] he answered; it is by the conferring of the degree: He is designated by the title of Rabbi and granted the authority to adjudicate cases of kenas.³¹

Cannot one man alone ordain? Did not Rab Judah say in Rab's name: 'May this man indeed be remembered for blessing — his name is R. Judah b. Baba; were it not for him, the laws of kenas would have been forgotten in Israel.' Forgotten? Then they could have been learned. But

1. Though they both state the number sixteen, the one who holds that the day completes the previous Tekufah must count the new season as beginning on the seventeenth.
2. I.e., it is not clear who is of the one and who of the other opinion.
3. For the Tishri Tekufah then commences on the fifteenth, whereas the Feast of Ingathering, as defined in p. 58, n. 1, commences on the sixteenth.
4. Deut. XVI, 1.
5. Lit., 'ripening'.
6. That accounts for the limit of fourteen days, after which it is on the wane. This is implied in the word [H] which, derived from [H] 'new', means the 'new month'.
7. Which would bring in the new Tekufah on the thirteenth day, when the moon is still waxing, rather than cause the derangement of a whole month; and though the first day of Passover must not fall on Monday, Wednesday or Friday, and the addition of a day might cause that, it would not matter, because the limitation of the days on which Passover may commence is due to the desire to avoid New Year falling on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday, and that could be avoided by adding a day to one of the normally defective months between Nisan and Tishri.
8. I.e., down to, but not including, the fourteenth day.
9. But if there is actually a shortage of fourteen days, only the month Adar is intercalated.
10. Even the first day.
11. And being of the view that the Tekufah day completes, the season, if there is a shortage of fourteen days, in which case the new autumnal Tekufah will begin on the fifteenth day, the first day of the Feast will not be included in it, so that intercalation is justified.
12. On which work is prohibited.
13. [H] And the elders (of the Congregation) shall lay etc. Lev. IV, 15.
14. Lit., 'elders of the market'.
15. [H] lit., 'Group', or 'Congregation.' 'Edah' is frequently interpreted by the Rabbis as 'Sanhedrin'. V. Num. Rab. 15, Ch. 16, and Rashi on Lev. IV, 13. The latter derives his statement from Sifra, which again derives it by analogy between 'Edah in Num. XXXV, 24-25, cf. supra 2a.
16. I.e., the minor Sanhedrin of twenty-three.
17. With the definite article.
18. I.e., the major Sanhedrin.
19. It could have been written [H] 'we-samak', denoting that any one of the elders should lay his hands. Cf. Malbim on Lev. IV, 15.
20. Viz., that there must be laying on of hands,
21. Does he not admit this?
22. A kind of absolute clause.
23. Does he not admit the superfluity of 'and they shall lay'?
24. As R. Judah suggests.
25. I.e., that the hands need not actually be laid on the head but only brought near. The word wesameku makes it clear.
26. Who employs wesameku for another interpretation.
27. Lev. I, 4: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, which obviously means actual contact.
28. This type of exegesis, deducing identity of fact from identity of language, is called gezerah shawah, and it is a well-established principle that such deduction could not be made by a scholar without a direct tradition from his teacher that that particular identity of phraseology was intended to intimate identity of law. R. Simeon had no such tradition in respect of these two words.
29. Num. XXVII, 23.
30. I.e., having the same authority.
31. V. Glos.