Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 26 - Sanctifying in Advance

The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna and in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (2:8,9) explains the first Mishna in the third perek to be referring to a case where witnesses saw the moon on the twenty-ninth day of the month close to sunset but Beis Din did not sanctify the new month on that day nor on the thirtieth and they finally proclaimed “It is sanctified” on the evening of the thirty-first. The Rambam writes that this teaches us a novel halacha that one should not think that the only time the sanctifying of the new month can occur is on the thirtieth because in truth, Beis Din can sanctify the thirtieth day on the twenty-ninth of the month.

Turei Even states the same idea without mentioning the Rambam. He cites proof to this concept from the intercalation of the year, where Beis Din can not add a new month after Adar but they can decide to add an additional month to the year before Adar and even immediately after Tishrei.

Reb Itzele in Zecher Yitzchok (11) questions the Turei Even’s proof. When Beis Din decides that there should be another Adar this year, they are not ruling on the future, rather they are deciding that this year should be a leap year and not a regular year. Sanctifying the upcoming month on the twenty-ninth day of the previous month is considered as ruling on the future since the preceding month has no association to this month.

The Zecher Yitzchok explains the Rambam differently. The reason Beis Din can sanctify the new month on the twenty-ninth is not because they can rule regarding the future but rather it is because they are deciding on the present. Sanctifying the new month is in fact deciding on how many days are contained in the previous month. They can decide on the twenty-ninth day that the thirtieth day will be Rosh Chodesh because in essence they are determining that this month will be comprised of twenty-nine days.

It emerges (and this can be found in sefer Poseach Shaar) that theoretically Beis Din can sanctify the new month anytime before Rosh Chodesh. Practically, it can only transpire on the twenty-ninth since the new moon is not visible until then. This can be relevant to the times that there is no Beis Din and the months are decided through calculation.

Reb Chatzkel Abromsky inquires as to what is the difference between sanctifying the new month and intercalating the year. Why can the sanctifying of the new month take place prior to the new month and the intercalating of the year can only transpire during that year? This is answered according to the Zecher Yitzchok. Beis Din, in sanctifying the new month, is not ruling on the future, rather they are deciding how many days are in the present month. Intercalating the year is a ruling which is only relevant to this year and it cannot be decided on in the preceding year.

Reb Meir Simcha cites proof to this novelty from the Yerushalmi that states the reason for not lighting the torches in Tishrei because it constitutes a desecration of Yom Tov. The halacha in Tishrei is that the messengers cannot be sent out until they hear Beis Din proclaim “It is sanctified.” It is evident from here that they heard Beis Din proclaim on the twenty-ninth that the following day will be Rosh Chodesh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 25 - OBEY THE RABBIS EVEN WHEN RIGHT IS LEFT AND LEFT IS RIGHT

Divrei Beit Hillel

In Devarim 17:10 it says "You shall not turn from the commandment to the right or left."
Rashi explains that this pasuk comes to teach us that we must listen to the Sages in all circumstances, even when they tell us that right is left and left is right.

Does this really mean that we must obey our Rabbis when they are wrong? This seems to clearly contradict the Gemara Yerushalmi in Horiyot, which states: You might think that if the Rabbis say the right is left or the left is right you have to listen to them. Therefore it says, to the right and left: when they tell you that the right is right and the left is left.

This textual tension is assuaged when we refer to the source for Rashi's statement, the Sifrei, which states that one must listen to their commandment, even if IT SEEMS to him that the right is left and the left is right.

Therefore it would appear that the verse is not giving blanket ability to the Rabbis to make mistakes, but rather restricting disobedience of their commandments to select cases in which it is clear that they are wrong. However, where does one draw the line?

Rambam, in his Sefer Mitzvot, draws on Shevuot 39A, which states: How do we know that Bnei Yisrael were bound at Har Sinai to commandments that were yet to come in addition to those that were commanded at Har Sinai? As it says (Esther 9), Kimu VKiblu HaYehudim - the Jews fulfilled and accepted it - they fulfilled that which was already accepted at Har Sinai. He expands on this idea by stating that one who violates a Rabbinic commandment also violates the negative Torah commandment given in our verse "Do not turn to the right or left." How can one risk violating this commandment by perceiving a Rabbinic commandment as fallible? While the Ramban does disagree with the Rambam over the technical violation entailed in such a disobedience, he agrees that one is obligated to obey whatever the Rabbis rule, EVEN if they err. As a support, he cites the mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 25, in which R. Yehoshua is forced to appear with his walking stick and traveling bag on the day he calculated was Yom Kippur in deference to R. Gamliel, the Av Beit Din, who disagreed.

Ramban even seems to indicate that one must listen to the Sanhedrin if they violate the Torah! This he bases on the verse (Tehillim 119:126) Et laasot laHashem - There is a time to do the will of Hashem. Indeed the Sefer HaChinuch states that even if the Sanhedrin erred and we are aware of this, we must do as they have commanded. He explains that this is because it is better to have unity, though we might be wrong, than to promote strife brought on by factionalism.

Still, do the Rabbis really have the right to contradict something in the Torah? The Gemara (Horiyot 4A) states: R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, The Beit Din after teaching a false ruling is not liable to bring a korban until they teach a law that the Sadduccees do not agree with. But if they teach a thing erroneously that the Sadduccees agree with, they are liable. What is the reason? It is a matter that can be learned in school. The point of this Gemara is that an individual is expected to know when a law is clearly in the Torah (the kind that the Sadduccees agree with). Therefore, when Beit Din contradicts this law, the individual should know not to follow them, and is therefore responsible for his own actions. However when the Beit Din teaches Torah Shebeal Peh (which the Sadduccees do not give legitimacy to), they are responsible for what they say. This indicates that one indeed should disobey a Beit Din when it contradicts a Torah law.

Perhaps the Kli Yakar, in his commentary on our pasuk, sheds some light on our understanding of Et laasot. He explains that in many issues, there are reasons one both sides to influence the outcome one way or the other. These issues are normally decided according to the side that is more compelling. However, in special cases, certain issues can be decided according to the other side. A proof of this is the statement by Chazal that a person cannot become a member of the Sanhedrin until he can give 150 reasons to declare a sheretz (dead rodent that is normally tameh) tahor. This does not mean that what is clearly left is being made right. What instead follows is that sometimes things that may seem clearly to the right or left by us, are really ambidextrous, if you will. It is up to the Rabbis to take the gray and decide whether it is black or white. The decision process that they go through is not within our right to disregard, and according to the Rambam, even carries the severity of a negative Torah commandment. (Courtesy of Divrei Beit Hillel – Shoftim)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Roshn Hashana 25 - Highlights

RABBAN GAMLIEL
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Mishna cites a dispute regarding a set of witnesses who testify that in the morning they saw the old moon in the East and later that evening, they saw the new moon in the west. Rabban Yochanan ben Nuri states that these witnesses are false since it there is a twenty-four hour period between the time that the old moon disappears from sight and the time that the new moon appears. It is impossible to see the moon during this time span. Rabban Gamliel disagreed and he accepted these witnesses.

The Mishna cites another case. The witnesses testified that they saw the moon in its appropriate time on the thirtieth but the facts are that on the night of the thirty-first, the moon was not visible at all. Rabban Gamliel accepted these witnesses but Rabbi Dosa ruled that these are false witnesses. Rabbi Dosa compared this case to a case where witnesses testified that a woman gave birth to a child and the following day, she is seen indisputably pregnant. If the new moon cannot be seen now when it should be growing larger, it most certainly could not have been seen previously. Rabbi Yehoshua concurred with Rabbi Dosa that these are false witnesses. Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi, ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him with his walking stick and money on the day that according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculation was Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva found Rabbi Yehoshua distressed over the situation that he would be compelled to desecrate Yom Kippur. Rabbi Akiva cited Scriptural proof that whatever the Beis din decrees regarding the new month has validity and therefore he should not be concerned. The day that Rabbi Yehoshua thought was Yom Kippur would in fact be the eleventh of Tishrei since the new month is dependent on Rabban Gamliel’s declaration. Rabbi Dosa cited Scriptural proof to Rabbi Yehoshua that w the ruling of Rabban Gamliel cannot be reconsidered. Rabbi Yehoshua came to Rabban Gamliel in Yavneh with his walking stick and his money. Rabban Gamliel stood up, kissed him on his forehead and told him “Come in peace my Rebbe and my student. You are my Rebbe in wisdom and my student that you accepted my words.” (24b – 25a)


ROUTE OF THE MOON
The Gemora cites a braisa where Rabban Gamliel answered the Chachamim that there is times that the moon takes a long route and there are times that it takes a short route. This was said in order to explain why he could accept the witnesses when they testified that they saw the new moon in the evening less than twenty-four hours after the moon was seen in the morning. (25a)

INCIDENT WITH REBBE CHIYA
The Gemora relates that Rebbe Chiya once saw the old moon standing in the sky on the twenty-ninth of the month in the morning. He grabbed a clump of earth and threw it at the moon. He spoke to the moon and said “We are required to sanctify you tonight and you are just standing there. Go and disappear!” Rebbe told Rebbe Chiya to go to the city of Ein Tav, where they did not see the old moon during the day, and sanctify the new month on the thirtieth. After you have completed this task, send me back a message “Dovid, the King of Israel lives and persists,” indicating that the new month has been sanctified. (25a)

RABBI AKIVA
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Gemora cites a braisa which elaborates on the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Yehoshua was distressed and he told Rabbi Akiva that he would accept to be compelled to lie in bed for twelve months rather than being forced to fulfill Rabban Gamliel’s decree of desecrating Yom Kippur (according to his calculation). Rabbi Akiva told Rabbi Yehoshua that he had leaned from Rabbi Yehoshua, his teacher, that the Torah teaches us that if Beis Din chooses the incorrect date for Rosh Chodesh by mistake, deliberately or if they were misled, nevertheless the sanctification is valid. Rabbi Yehoshua felt comforted by Rabbi Akiva’s words. (25a)

RABBAN GAMLIEL
AND RABBI YEHOSHUA
The Gemora brings a braisa which elaborates in further detail on the encounter between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel stood up from his seat, kissed him on his forehead and told him “Peace onto you my Rebbe and my student. You are my Rebbe since you taught me Torah in public and you are my student since you fulfilled the decree just like a student would. Praiseworthy is the generation in which the greater people listen to the authority of the lesser people and certainly when the lesser listen to the greater.” (25b)

Read more!

Rosh Hashana - Daf 23 - View from Above

Good morning AA. At the end of yesterday's daf, the gemara says that the sun never saw the other side of the rainbow so no one will have any arrow-shooting related suspicion.

From an airplane, you can see a full circle rainbow. Here is a photo. It's not that the bow faces the other way -- it is that from the sky, it is not a bow at all. It is a circle...

Good Shabbos@!

Ezra

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Drainbow%2Bcircle%2Bairplane%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dmss%26ei%3DUTF-8&w=749&h=477&imgurl=www.teachersparadise.com%2Fency%2Fen%2Fmedia%2Ff%2Ff3%2Fglory_kaler_big.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teachersparadise.com%2Fency%2Fen%2Fwikipedia%2Fg%2Fgl%2Fglory__rainbow_.html&size=38.3kB&name=glory_kaler_big.jpg&p=rainbow+circle+airplane&type=jpeg&no=5&tt=6&oid=5f62f426deb81c20&ei=UTF-8

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - Rav Elyashiv on Dolls

There was a report in a newspaper that HaRav Eliyahu ruled that baby dolls are included in the prohibition of owning statues. I have not independently confirmed this ruling, however Rav Elyashiv shlita in his sefer on Rosh Hashanah concurs with this ruling. I quote from the sefer below.

Jerusalem - In a tough break for the children of Orthodox Jewish families, a former grand rabbi of Israel has urged parents to amputate their dolls to avoid the perils of idolatry.

Basing the move on a Biblical ban on the possession of idols, Mordechai Eliyahu, a Sephardic rabbi, broadcast his edict on a religious radio station calling for an arm or a leg to be dismembered.

In the case of a teddy bear or other stuffed animals, the children will see their beloved toys lose an ear or an eye instead.

"It is very important that these toys do not remain intact so as to remove the element of idolatry," said Eliyahu.

His son, Shmuel Eliyahu, himself a rabbi in the northern town of Safed, said that it was inappropriate to own statues or dolls, even to play with or for artistic purposes.

"They need to be amputated or at least altered," he said.

Shmuel revealed that his father had forced one of his followers to snap off the ear of a replica of a statue of Moses by Michelangelo that he had bought at an exorbitant price.

Religious edicts are not legally obliging in Israel. - Sapa-AFP

The Maharit (2:32) states that dolls which are made for the sake of children to play with are considered a temporary action and they are not included in this prohibition. Rav Elyashiv shlita cites Acharonim who disagree with this ruling and state that it is a Biblical question and cannot be dismissed out of hand. Rav Elyashiv rules stringently and he says that one must deface the form of the dolls somewhat in order for it to be permitted to remain in the house.

Here is a summary of some of the conclusions from Harav Ovadia Yossef in regards to idolatry and specifically pertaining to dolls, where he rules that it is permitted.

1. It is forbidden to make a protruding image of a man, and it is forbidden to leave it in one's house. This is only if it is a complete image, but a portrait up to the chest is not forbidden. It is permitted to make dolls for children that look like a full person, and certainly to buy and sell them.

It is permitted to take a photograph and to paint the picture of a person, which is not protruding at all. Some are stringent about this, but the custom is to be lenient.

It is forbidden to make the image of the four forms that were on the Heavenly chariot: the lion, eagle, ox and person. This is only when one makes all four together.

2. A protruding image of a person, in which one only sees one side (a profile) is permitted since this is not a complete image of a person.

3. The Shulhan Aruch writes that one can not make the image of the sun, moon and stars, whether protruding or flat. Rabbi Yosef Hayim explained that it is permitted if one does not make the full picture of the sun. However, a picture of the moon is forbidden even if a part is missing, since that it is how it is seen at times. The Maharam Mirotenberg permitted a picture, made only of colors that is not protruding at all. However, many do not agree with his opinion, and it is best not to rely on it.

4. It is forbidden to build a house in the image of the Bet Hamikdash, in its exact measurements, It is also forbidden to make a shulhan or menorah with seven branches, as existed in the Bet Hamkidash. If the menorah has seven branches but has electric lights on top, with no place for oil, it is permitted.

5. A small model of the Mishkan, for educational purposes, is permitted.

6. A cross, which Christians hang around their necks, does not have the status of Avodah Zarah, since Christians do not bow down to them, and the crosses are only a reminder of their avodah zarah. If a Jew finds one, he may sell it to a gentile. If a medal is given to a Jew by the government on which there cross, he may wear it. It is better that he not do so regularly, but only when he is visiting government officials or on official occasions. (End of summary)

I heard a Shiur from Rabbi Eli Mansour who cited the sefer Halichos Olam (7:281) from HaRav Ovadia Yossef where he rules that it is permitted to buy dolls for the children. He explains the reasoning for this as follows: Everyone knows that the dolls are not intended for worshipping and therefore there is no concern that others will suspect that the dolls are for avoda zora. Secondly, he states, that most of the time, the dolls are mistreated and handled in a degrading manner and therefore it would not be prohibited. He does rule stringently regarding a trophy that is a full image and sits on top of a mantel with honor: there it is a legitimate concern and one should deface it somewhat.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - MENORAH WITH SEVEN STEMS

One is prohibited from building a house in the form of the Beis Hamikdosh. One cannot make a courtyard similar to the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdosh. One is forbidden from creating a menorah corresponding to the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh. He is not allowed to make a menorah that has seven stems even if he constructs it from other metals. Rabbi Yosi maintains that one may not make a menorah out of wood either.

The sefer Shoel U’meishiv wants to answer the famous Beis Yosef’s question with this halacha. The Beis Yosef asks why do we eight days of Chanukah when the miracle was only for seven days? There was enough oil found for one complete day. He answers that it is forbidden to make a menorah with seven stems. This is forbidden even if it is not in the precise dimensions of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdash. Chanukah could not be seven days since the menorah couldn’t have seven stems.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - The Permissibility of Photographing People

(The Meoros Daf Hayomi from the Kollel Sochitshov issued words of Torah on the Daf. This was taken from their kuntrus on Bava Kamma 5762. It can be found here.)

The Gemora in Bava Kamma describes how already in ancient times it was the custom to honor great people by engraving their likeness on coins. So it was with Dovid and Shlomo, and before them with Avrohom and Yitzchok. Tosfos (S.V. Matbeya Shel Avrohom) contends that it was not their image on the coins, as it is forbidden to forge a human image; rather it was their names that were inscribed.

The source of the prohibition to create a human likeness even for decoration is found in the posuk (Shemos 20:20), “Do not make with me gods of silver and gods of gold” (Rosh Hashana 24b, Rambam Hilchos Acum 3:10, Chinuch Mitzva 39). The Rambam explains the reason for this prohibition is so that a casual observer should not mistakenly reach the conclusion that these images were meant to be avoda zora.

There is a debate amongst the Rishonim as to what comes under the prohibition. According to the Ravad (ibid) and the Ramban (see Tur Y.D.141) included are engraving, embossing, or painting of a human image. However, they do express a lenient ruling as to the ownership of engraved or painted images if they are found; but not an embossed (protruding) image. The Rambam differs and maintains that there is no prohibition to make an image by engraving or painting; the Torah forbade exclusively embossing. Though the Shulchan Oruch (141:4) rules in favor of the Rambam, the Taz insists that in the matter of making human images one should not adopt any leniencies.

When the Gaon R’ Eliezer of Brod was installed as Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam, one of the local Jews decided to mark the festive occasion in a unique manner. He issued a commemorative medallion which bore the likeness of the new Rav. The Yavetz writes (responsa Sheilos Yavetz, I:170) that upon seeing this he was shocked to his very core. Though the Shulchan Oruch (ibid 7) forbids only an image of a full human, whereas the image of just a face is permitted, the Yavetz takes the more stringent view of the Smag, the Taz (ibid S.K. 15) and some Rishonim who forbid this as well. The Yavetz further points out that even according to the more lenient poskim it is only a featureless face that is allowed. (See the responsa for how the Yavetz derives this from the Tosafos in our sugya.) In the end, declares the Yavetz triumphantly, the medallion was banned by the Dutch king who viewed the matter as an impingement of his royal status.

The Painting of the Chacham Tzvi: The Yavetz’s father, the Chacham Tzvi, was extremely strict for himself and would not even allow his face to be drawn. We know this from his son who describes with great emotion how, “The true saint, my father and Rebbe, our great master, may Hashem be with him forever… went to visit the Sephardic Kehilla in London. He was greeted with great respect the like of which is unheard of. He was escorted into town in a royal floatilla amidst great jubilation.” The kehilla, relying on the majority of poskim had commissioned an artist to draw his countenance. The Chacham Tzvi due to his “great saintliness and holiness” refused to permit this. The hosts were unable to restrain themselves and the artist managed with great speed and unusual talent to paint an extraordinary painting. So true was his rendition that the Yavet”z declares, “All that is missing is the breath of life.”

What is the halacha regarding taking a snapshot? The Taz’s opinion that even a flat image is forbidden has led Poskim to question the legitimacy of photographing people. A reason to be lenient is explained by R’ Moshe Sternbuch, Shlit”a (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos Vol. III, 263). The prohibition includes only image making formed by direct action. The process of photography and film development does not fit into this category, since the reactions of chemical to light rays cause the picture to appear. He concludes that customarily photography is permitted.

It is interesting to note that many Gedolim for Kabbalistic reasons insisted not to be photographed.Someone drew a picture of the Steipler Gaon,zt’l, during his army service in Russia. The Steipler paid an entire day’s ration for the picture and immediately destroyed it (Toldos Yaakov, p. 30).

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 24 - Highlights

INTERROGATION

When witnesses come to Yerushalayim to testify that they have seen the new moon, Beis Din interrogates them in order to ascertain that they have, in fact, seen the beginning of a new lunar cycle which looks like this

and not just the end of the previous one which looks like this.

These shapes are what the moon looks like in Israel at the beginning and end of each lunar month. The closer one gets to the equator, the flatter the crescent of the moon becomes, until it can look like this.
(Courtesy of the Aleph Society)
(23b – 24a)

POSITIONS OF THE MOON

The Gemora cites conflicting Braisos regarding the position of the moon. One braisa states that if he saw the moon north of the sun, his testimony is valid but if he testified that the moon was to the south of the sun, his testimony is not accepted. Another braisa is cited that rules exactly the opposite. The Gemora answers that the first braisa is referring to the summertime and the latter is referring to the wintertime.
Rashi explains that the sun sets at a different point on the western horizon each day, depending on the season. It sets farther south on the western horizon in the winter, and farther north on the western horizon in the summer. However, at the time of the new moon, the moon always appears at the "south-west corner." (Rashi implies that it appears there slightly before the moment at which the sun sets.) Therefore, on the shortest day of winter (the winter solstice) -- when the sun sets farthest south along the western horizon -- the moon is seen slightly to the north of the sun (that is, ahead of the sun in its circuit around the earth; see Rashi on the Mishnah with regard to "north" and "south" of the sun), since the moon reaches the south-westerly point at which the sun will set slightly before the sun does (i.e., before sunset). Similarly, when the sun sets in the northern side of the western horizon (in the summer) the moon still appears close to the southern corner, and thus it is seen farther south than the sun ("behind" the sun). (Courtesy of Kollel Iyun Hadaf) (24a)

PERHAPS IT WAS A CLOUD

Abaye explains a braisa as teaching the following halacha: If two witnesses testify that they saw the moon incidentally and subsequently tried to see it with intent but could not find it; their testimony is not accepted. The reasoning is because their initial sighting might have just been a sliver of a cloud and not the moon. (24a)

BEIS DIN’S PROCEDURE

The Mishna elaborates on the procedure how Beis Din sanctifies Rosh Chodesh. The head of Beis Din declares “It is sanctified” and all the people there answer him by saying “It is sanctified. It is sanctified.” This procedure applies whether the moon was seen in its proper time or whether it was not seen in its proper time. Rabbi Elozar disagrees and maintains that if it was not seen in its proper time, Beis Din does not sanctify the day since it has already been sanctified by Heaven.

The Gemora cites Scriptural sources proving that the head of Beis Din declares “It is sanctified” and that the people there answer him by stating “It is sanctified. It is sanctified.” (24a)

IMAGES OF THE MOON

The Mishna relates that Rabban Gamliel had models of the moon in various positions in his study, which he would show to the people coming to testify. In this way, conditions that might be complicated to express orally could be discussed with the help of these illustrations.

The Gemora questions as to how Rabban Gamliel was allowed to create these images, when the braisa states that it is forbidden to form heavenly objects like the sun, moon, stars and constellations. The answer offered by the Gemora is that Rabban Gamliel did not make the models himself; they were made by others.

In the course of this discussion, the Gemora learns out other halachos as well. One is prohibited from building a house in the form of the Beis Hamikdosh. One cannot make a courtyard similar to the courtyard of the Beis Hamikdosh. One is forbidden from creating a menorah corresponding to the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh. He is not allowed to make a menorah that has seven stems even if he constructs it from other metals. Rabbi Yosi maintains that one may not make a menorah out of wood either

The Gemora learns out that it is forbidden from making images in the form of the Heavenly angels. One is not allowed to create an image of man. (24a - 24b)

SUSPICIONS OF IDOLATRY

The Gemora relates an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda where others had made for him an image on his signet ring. Shmuel instructed Rabbi Yehuda to mutilate it. It is evident from here that it is forbidden to retain these images even if someone else made it for him. The Gemora answers that it is forbidden to keep images that protrude because that will arouse a suspicion that it is being used for idol worship. The idolaters only worshipped images of people that protrude.

The Gemora rules that only an individual that has these images arouse suspicion but there is no concern if the community has such an image.

The Gemora offers three reasons to explain why Rabban Gamliel, who was an individual, was permitted to have these images. Firstly, since there are many people that come to the Beis din, it is regarded as being a public domain and therefore there is no concern for suspicion. Another answer presented is that the images of the moon were made in sections and they were only assembled for a very brief time and therefore there are no grounds for suspicion. An alternative answer is that these images were made for teaching purposes and in such circumstances, it will be permitted to retain those images and there will be no suspicion. (24b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Ruling Stringently by a Rabbinic Prohibition

Abaye, in explaining the Gemora’s reasoning as to why they didn’t institute to light the torches only on the night of the thirty-first is because this would compel the people of Bavel to cease from work for two days in the beginning of Tishrei. Those residing in Bavel would always refrain from work on the thirtieth of Elul since perhaps that day is Rosh Hashanah and if the torches will not be lit until after the thirty-first day, this would force them to abstain from work another day since perhaps Elul had thirty days and the thirty-first day is Rosh Hashanah. This is Rashi’s explanation.

Tosfos disagrees and understands the Gemora to be referring to every Rosh Chodesh where there is also a prohibition against working.
Turei Even asks that since the prohibition against performing work on Rosh Chodesh is only Rabbinic, shouldn’t we act leniently and allow those that are in doubt regarding the actual day of Rosh Chodesh to work?

He answers that if we would apply the principle of whenever there is a doubt on a Rabbinic matter, we rule leniently, we would be compelled to act in this manner on both days of Rosh Chodesh since there is a doubt on each day. On each day, we would say that the other day is indeed Rosh Chodesh. It will emerge that the prohibition against working will be uprooted completely. In such a circumstance, we do not apply the principle of ruling leniently.

This logic can be found in the Ran in Pesachim. There is a discussion regarding the four cups of wine that we drink on Pesach night. The Gemora is uncertain if there exists an obligation of reclining by the first two cups or the last two. The ruling is that since there is a doubt, we require one to recline by all four cups.

The Ran asks that since the mitzva of reclining by the drinking of the four cups is only Rabbinic, shouldn’t we act leniently? He answers that if we would indeed act leniently, we would be forced to rule that there is no obligation to lean by the first two cups or the last two cups which would result in the mitzva being uprooted completely. The principle of acting leniently does not apply in such situations.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Rosh Chodesh for Women and for Levi

Abaye, in explaining the Gemora’s reasoning as to why they didn’t institute to light the torches only on the night of the thirty-first is because this would compel the people of Bavel to cease from work for two days in the beginning of Tishrei. Those residing in Bavel would always refrain from work on the thirtieth of Elul since perhaps that day is Rosh Hashanah and if the torches will not be lit until after the thirty-first day, this would force them to abstain from work another day since perhaps Elul had thirty days and the thirty-first day is Rosh Hashanah. This is Rashi’s explanation.

Tosfos disagrees and understands the Gemora to be referring to every Rosh Chodesh where there is also a prohibition against working.

We are accustomed to saying that the new Yom Tov of Rosh Chodesh was added for the women as a reward for not willingly participating in the sin of the golden calf. Rav Elyashiv shlita cites one of the Acharonim who adds that according to this, the tribe of Levi also deserved a special Yom Tov since they did not serve the golden calf.

It is written in Pirkei D'Rebbe Eliezer that each one of the festivals was established in the merit of a specific person. Pesach was on the account of Avraham. Shavuos was because of Yitzchak. Sukkos was established due to Yaakov. The twelve Rosh Chodesh's throughout the year was in the merit of the twelve tribes. Once they sinned by the golden calf, it was taken away from them and given to the women. Since Levi was not involved in the sin, Rosh Chodesh was never taken away from them and it is still regarded as being a special festival for the tribe of Levi.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Techum for the Witnesses

The Halacha on Shabbos is that if one leaves the techum boundary (2000 amos), he is forbidden from taking even one step. Rabban Gamliel instituted that if the witnesses traveled on Shabbos beyond their techum boundary to come to Beis Din, they are still permitted to travel 2000 amos in any direction. This was established in order that the witnesses should be willing to come and testify and not be confined to one specific area the entire Shabbos.

The Minchos Chinuch (24) writes that it is obvious to him that Rabban Gamliel's decree was limited to the Rabbinic techum boundary. If one traveled further than 2000 amos to come to Beis Din he can then walk 2000 amos in any direction. However, if one traveled beyond three parsaos, which is the Biblical techum boundary, he will not be permitted to take even one step. The chachomim are not able to uproot a Biblical prohibition by allowing positive action of walking beyond his boundary. Rabban Gamliel’s decree was still regarded as an accomplishment since most of the witnesses came from within the Rabbinic techum boundary. The Ritva in our Mishna has the same viewpoint as well.

The Ramban in Eruvin (43) disagrees and maintains that Rabban Gamliel’s decree applied even to those that traveled further than the Biblical techum boundary. He proves this from the Mishna which states that the witnesses can travel on Shabbos the entire night and day, providing that they arrive at Beis Din before the conclusion of Shabbos. The Ramban explains that it is only regarded as transgressing the Biblical prohibition if the entire three parsaos was committed illegally, however if this traveling was done with permission, it is not considered as if he left his original resting place. The witnesses who had permission to travel to Beis Din are not regarded as being beyond their boundary and therefore allowing them an additional 2000 amos now is not overriding a Biblical prohibition.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Women working on Rosh Chodesh

by Rabbi Neustadt

Question: Are women obligated to observe the custom of refraining from “working” on Rosh Chodesh?

Discussion: The custom that women refrain from doing certain types of work on Rosh Chodesh — both by day and by night[1] — is an age-old custom, dating back to the days of Moshe Rabbeinu, which is recorded in the Rishonim and Shulchan Aruch and should be upheld by all girls and women.[2] Whenever possible, women should not do “work” on both days of Rosh Chodesh, but if one cannot refrain from doing work on both days, she should do her “work” on the first day and refrain from working on the second.[3]”



Question: Regarding the custom for women to refrain from “working” on Rosh Chodesh, what is considered “work”?

Discussion: Over the centuries, various customs evolved as to exactly what is considered “work” vis-à-vis Rosh Chodesh.[4] Nowadays, women generally refrain from sewing, crocheting and doing laundry on Rosh Chodesh. Ironing, however, is permitted.

Some poskim hold that using a washing machine is permitted, and only washing by hand is prohibited.[5] Others are more stringent and prohibit laundering in washing machines as well.[6]

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 23 - Working on Rosh Chodesh and Chol Hamoed

Abaye, in explaining the Gemora’s reasoning as to why they didn’t institute to light the torches only on the night of the thirty-first is because this would compel the people of Bavel to cease from work for two days in the beginning of Tishrei. Those residing in Bavel would always refrain from work on the thirtieth of Elul since perhaps that day is Rosh Hashanah and if the torches will not be lit until after the thirty-first day, this would force them to abstain from work another day since perhaps Elul had thirty days and the thirty-first day is Rosh Hashanah. This is Rashi’s explanation.

Tosfos disagrees and understands the Gemora to be referring to every Rosh Chodesh where there is also a prohibition against working.

Rashi in Megillah (22b) states that the women abstained from performing work on Rosh Chodesh.

Turei Even writes that in the times that the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence, there was a prohibition of refraining from work which applied to the men as well. This was due to the korban mussaf which was offered for all of Klal Yisroel on that day. A person is forbidden from doing work on a day that he brings a korban. The Yerushalmi states that in truth, there should be a prohibition against working every day because of the korban tammid which is offered twice daily on behalf of the entire Klal Yisroel but since it is impossible to exist if no one is working; the korban tammid was excluded from this halacha. However, a korban offered on Rosh Chodesh or Yom Tov which is not a daily korban would require that a person should abstain from work.

According to this, it would not be necessary to have a new halacha that work is forbidden on Chol Hamoed (Intermediary Days) since there is the korban mussaf offered on that day. The new halacha teaches us that there is a prohibition against working even at night, when there are no korbanos being brought.

Truas Melech (59) applies this principle to answer why a new reason was necessary to forbid women from working on Rosh Chodesh. They are included in the korban just like a man and they should be prohibited from working on account of the korban. He answers that the women accepted Rosh Chodesh like a festival accomplished that they will refrain from working even at night when the korban cannot be offered.

The Biur Halacha (417) cites Rav Yaakov Emden in sefer Mor U’ktziah that there is no prohibition against a woman working during the night of Rosh Chodesh. Biur Halacha writes that he is unsure as to what the practicing custom is.

The Biur Halacha is also unsure if the prohibition against working on Rosh Chodesh is an established custom and the women are obligated not to work on Rosh Chodesh or is it just that a woman who abstains from work is fulfilling a nice custom.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 22 - Desecrating Shabbos

Tosfos learns that we even allow the confirming witness to desecrate the Shabbos in order that he should come to Beis Din and vouch that the testifying witness is trustworthy.

Turei Even asks that since Biblically every witness is qualified and the only reason confirming witnesses are required is because the Chachamim were concerned on the account of the Baysussim, how could the Chachamim institute that Shabbos can be desecrated outright? He states that it would seem from the Gemora and the Poskim that even a Biblical prohibition is permissible to violate.

The Turei Even answers that after the Chachamim instituted that Beis Din will only accept testimony from recognizable witnesses, the sanctifying of the new month is dependent on the confirming witnesses since without them, there are no valid testifying witnesses. They are therefore included in the general permissibility that the witnesses can desecrate Shabbos in order to be able to make Rosh Chodesh in the proper time and to fix the dates of the festivals accordingly.

The Pnei Yehoshua offers a similar answer regarding a different question. He asks that that the concern for the Baysussim was limited to the month of Nissan (since it was their intention to have the first day of Pesach occur on Shabbos), so why was it permitted for the confirming witnesses to desecrate Shabbos for every month? He answers that since it was established that every month requires recognizable witnesses because of Nissan, it emerges that sanctifying the new month requires the confirming witnesses as well and therefore they can desecrate the Shabbos in order to come to Beis Din.

Sefer Poseach Shaar states that the Ritva at the end of the previous perek seems to learn like this as well. The Mishna stated regarding one who saw the moon but is unable to travel to Beis Din; they may bring him by a donkey or carry him on a bed. This was permitted even on the Shabbos. If they were wary about an ambush, they were allowed to carry sticks with them to be utilized as weapons. The Ritva explains that the permission to desecrate the Shabbos was extended to the witnesses helpers as well since the reason for allowing the desecration of Shabbos was because we are interested in the result of Beis Din sanctifying the new month. Whatever is needed to get the witnesses to Beis Din safely and in a timely fashion is permitted.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 22 - Retroactive Adults

The Mishna lists different types of people that are ineligible to testify regarding the sighting of the new moon. The Minchas Chinuch (4) inquires as to what the halacha would be regarding the ability of a minor to testfy that he saw the new moon. Beis Din does not accept the testimony of a minor, however, what would be the halacha if the minor would become an adult through his testimony. If a boy was born on Rosh Chodesh Nissan and thirteen years later wishes to testify that he witnessed the new moon. At the time of his testimony, he is a minor but if they accept his testimony and sanctify the day as Rosh Chodesh, it would emerge that retroactively, he is already an adult from the night before and therefore his testimony can be accepted.

The Minchas Chinuch states that it would be dependent on two answers of Tosfos in Makkos (2). There is a principle that in order for a testimony to be valid it must be a testimony that has the ability to be disqualified by making them "eidim zom'min" (conspiring witnesses). "Eidim zom'min" means that two witnesses testify regarding a certain incident and another set of witnesses disqualify that testimony by saying that the first set of witnesses were with them in a different place at the time that the first set of witnesses claim that the act took place. The first witnesses are termed "eidim zom'min" . The Torah commands that the second set of witnesses are believed, rather than the first. In general, they would be punished with the punishment they tried to inflict. Tosfos discusses if this principle applies also to the witnesses who are testifying that they saw the new moon.

If minors would testify, we would not be capable of making them "eidim zom'min" since witnesses can only become "eidim zom'min" prior to Beis Din acting on the testimony and in this case, that would be before Beis Din sanctifies the day to be Rosh Chodesh. At that juncture, they are still minors and they could not become "eidim zom'min." However, Tosfos cites an opinion that witnesses testifying on the new moon do not have this requirement and therefore the minor's testimony can be accepted since retroactively they would be regarded as adults at the time in which they testified.

HaRav Elyashiv shlita does not understand the Mibchas Chinuch at all. He comments that if all that would be required is for Beis Din to clarify that this day is Rosh Chodesh, perhaps the clarification can be accomplished through the testimony of minors who retroactively will be adults if it is Rosh Chodesh. However, that is not the case. Beis Din must listen to testimony, analyze their words and issue a decision sanctifying the new month. If these witnesses are minors at the time, Beis Din doesn't even have the ability to listen to them since they are disqualified from offering testimony.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 22 - Highlights

RELATIVES TESTIFYING

The Mishna rules that a father and a son that saw the new moon may go to Beis Din; however they cannot combine to testify together as one set of witnesses. They should both travel to Beis Din because just in case one of them becomes disqualified from testifying, the other can join a different witness to form a pair and testify. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and maintains that relatives are eligible to testify in regards to the new moon. Rabbi Yosi relates an incident where Tovya the doctor saw the moon together with his son and a freed slave. The kohanim accepted Tovya and his son as witnesses but disqualified the slave. When they arrived in Beis Din, Tovya and the slave were accepted as witnesses but not the son.

Rabbi Shimon offers Scriptural proof for his opinion that relatives are permitted to testify regarding the new moon. It is written (Judaica Press) “The Lord spoke to Moshe and to Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying; This month shall be to you the head of the months,” – the testimony regarding the new moon is valid through Moshe and Aaron together even though they were brothers.

The Gemora concludes that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. (22a)

INELIGIBLE TO TESTIFY

The Mishna enumerates different types of people that are Rabbinically disqualified from testifying. One who plays with dice, lends with interest, gambles on dove races, engages in business with Shemitah produce or slaves are all ineligible to testify. The Mishna offers a rule regarding this that any testimony where a woman is ineligible to testify, these people are disqualified as well.

The Gemora infers from the Mishna regarding testimony that a woman is eligible to testify, these people are eligible as well. It would emerge that all those listed in the Mishna will be eligible to testify in regards to allowing a woman to remarry. There was a leniency that a woman is permitted to testify that her husband died enabling her to remarry. (22a)


ASSISTANCE WITH TRAVELLING

The Mishna states regarding one who saw the moon but is unable to travel to Beis Din; they may bring him by a donkey or carry him on a bed. This was permitted even on the Shabbos. If they were wary about an ambush, they were allowed to carry sticks with them to be utilized as weapons. If the distance to Yerushalayim was extremely far, they would be permitted to take food with them. They were permitted to begin traveling on Shabbos providing that they will reach Beis din before the end of the Shabbos. (22a)


RECOGNIZING THE WITNESS

The Mishna states that if the Beis Din will not recognize the witnesses, the local Beis din will send along another fellow (one who is recognized) to testify regarding the witness that he is indeed trustworthy. Originally, Beis Din accepted testimony from any Jew but when the Baysussim (those that adhered to the Written Torah only and despised the Chachamim) began obstructing the procedure of sanctifying Rosh Chodesh (by testifying falsely), the Chachamim established that Beis din will accept testimony only from witnesses that they recognized.


The Gemora states that two witnesses are required to vouch that the testifying witness is trustworthy. It is learned in the Gemora that one witness is permitted to travel to the Beis Din on Shabbos to confirm that the testifying witness is honorable even though there might not be a second corroborating witness to join him. (22a – 22b)


THE BAYSUSSIM’S PLOY

The Gemora relates how the Baysussim attempted to trick the Beis Din into sanctifying the incorrect day as Rosh Chodesh. They hired two false witnesses to testify that they saw the moon on the night of the thirtieth,. They didn’t know that one of the witnesses was not loyal to their beliefs. They arrived in Beis Din and the Baysusse gave his testimony and left. The second one testified that he was walking up Maaleh Adumim and he saw the moon crouched between two rocks, it’s head had the appearance of a calf, it’s ears resembled a young goat, it’s horns were like a deer’s horns and it’s tail was between it’s legs. He continued that when he stared at the moon, he became shocked and fell backwards. He then showed them the two hundred zuz that he received in order to testify falsely. He informed Beis Din that when he heard that the Baysussim were looking to hire false witnesses, he volunteered in order to foil their plot. Beis Din told him that the two hundred zuz should be his as a present and the one that hired you should be taken out to receive lashes. It was at this time that the Chachamim instituted to only accept witnesses that were recognizable to Beis Din. (22b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 21 - Levi in Bavel

The Gemora relates that Levi visited Bavel on the eleventh of Tishrei. Levi notified the people residing there that it was actually the tenth of Tishrei since Beis Din made Elul thirty days instead of the usual twenty-nine. They asked Levi to testify that Beis Din had made Elul thirty days and then they would be willing to fast again on the correct day. Levi responded that since he didn’t actually hear Beis Din proclaim the thirty-first day to begin the new month, he is unable to testify in this regard. The messengers were not permitted to go out in the months of Nissan and Tishrei until they heard Beis Din announce that the day has been sanctified as Rosh Chodesh.

Tosafos asks that while it is true that Levi did not actually hear Beis Din proclaim the sanctity of the new month, how was he able to allow the Babylonians to ignore the fact that Yom Kippur is actually a day later. Tosafos answers based on the Scriptural verse “These are Hashem’s appointed [holy days] that you shall designate them as holy occasions,” and it is learned from there that Beis Din’s declaration of the new month is valid even if they choose the incorrect day through a mistake or even deliberately. Tosfos indicates that this is not only limited to the Beis din in Yerushalayim but even to a Beis Din in Bavel. If they rule that Rosh Chodesh is a certain day, it is indeed binding.

Turei Even asks many questions on Tosfos. His primary question is that it is illogical to assume that each Beis Din throughout the world can independently establish when Rosh Chodesh should be. This is only reserved to the Beis din in Yerushalayim.

The Turei Even learns different than Tosfos and states that Levi could not be believed since he is only one witness and one witness is not believed against a majority. Most of the time, Elul has only twenty-nine days and Levi couldn't testify that the Beis Din made it thirty days. If Levi would have actually heard Beis Din proclaim that the thirty-first day is Rosh Chodesh, they would have acted stringently (above the letter of the law) and they would have fasted again on the tenth of Tishrei.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita points out that the Turei Even's explanation is not consistent with the Rambam's viewpoint where he states in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (3:14) that one witness is believed even in relevance to a Biblical matter, providing that it is something that will eventually be made public.

The Turei Even cites a Shiltos who relates the incident a little different than in our Gemora. The Shiltos states that Reb Ivo and Reb Chiya went to Bavel and remarked that Beis Din had made Elul thirty days. According to this, they would be believed since they are two witnesses.

Chazon ish learns that any place that is too far away from Yerushalayim and will not hear that Beis Din announced the sanctity of Rosh Chodesh, they establish the new months according to the calculation and not through witnesses. According to the Chazon Ish, I am not sure why it would make a difference if Levi heard the Beis Din establishing Rosh Chodesh.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 21 - Highlights

LEVI IN BAVEL

The Gemora relates that Levi visited Bavel on the eleventh of Tishrei. Levi notified the people residing there that it was actually the tenth of Tishrei since Beis Din made Elul thirty days instead of the usual twenty-nine. They asked Levi to testify that Beis Din had made Elul thirty days and then they would be willing to fast again on the correct day. Levi responded that since he didn’t actually hear Beis Din proclaim the thirty-first day to begin the new month, he is unable to testify in this regard. The messengers were not permitted to go out in the months of Nissan and Tishrei until they heard Beis Din announce that the day has been sanctified as Rosh Chodesh. (21a)

MESSENGERS

Rabbi Yochanan announced that anyplace where the messengers of Nissan can reach but the messengers of Tishrei cannot reach (due to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) should observe two days of Pesach as a decree because of a possible blunder that might occur in Tishrei. (21a)


TWO DAYS OF YOM KIPPUR

Rava was accustomed to observe two days of Yom Kippur (and fast for two consecutive days) since he was concerned that Beis Din might make Elul thirty days even though this was highly unlikely to happen. There was one time that it happened that his second day was actually Yom Kippur. (21a)


SOLAR SEASON

Rav Huna bar Avin sent a message to Rava that when the solar season of Teves is extending until the sixteenth of Nissan, he should add a month to that year. He cites a Scriptural verse proving that the spring season should begin during the first fourteen days of Nissan, a time when the moon is becoming more visible. If the season would stretch to the fifteenth of Nissan, there is no necessity to add a month to the year; an extra day can be added onto Adar and that will be sufficient. (21a)


DESECRATING SHABBOS

The Mishna states that the witnesses who are coming to testify regarding the new moon of Nissan and Tishrei may desecrate Shabbos in order to arrive by Beis Din in a timely fashion The permission was limited to these months since these were the months that messengers were sent out to Surya and we needed to determine the dates for the Biblical festivals. During the time that the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence, they would be permitted to desecrate Shabbos for every month since there were sacrifices that needed to be offered on Rosh Chodesh. (21b)


MESSENGERS DEPARTING

The Gemora asks a contradiction by citing a Mishna learned previously that messengers were sent out on six months of the year and our Mishna states that they were sent out on Nissan and Tishrei. The Gemora answers that on Nissan and Tishrei there was a special halacha that the messengers could not depart Beis Din and inform the public regarding Rosh Chodesh until they actually heard Beis Din proclaiming the that the new month has been sanctified. Regarding the other months, they were allowed to go as soon as they knew which day would be Rosh Chodesh. (21b)


WHO CAN DESECRATE?

The Gemora cites a Scriptural verse proving that the witnesses are permitted to desecrate Shabbos in order to testify regarding the sighting of the new moon but the messengers are not allowed to desecrate Shabbos. (21b)


DISPUTE REGARDING THE VISIBILITY OF THE MOON

The Mishna cites a dispute regarding the circumstances that the witnesses would be permitted to desecrate the Shabbos. Rabbi Yosi maintains that the witnesses are only permitted to desecrate the Shabbos if the moon was not clearly visible to all since then the Beis Din will need these witnesses. The Chachamim hold that even if the moon is clearly visible, they are still permitted to desecrate the Shabbos and travel to Beis Din. The Mishna cites an incident where there were more than forty pairs of witnesses traveling to Beis Din and Rabbi Akiva held them in Lod since he figured that there were probably many more witnesses that saw the moon. Rabban Gamliel disagreed with Rabbi Akiva and stated that if these witnesses will not be allowed to travel to Beis Din this time, they will not even bother to come testify in the future. (21b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 20 - The Molad

Here are two very good posts regarding the Gemora on 20b which is extremely technical. Rabbi Avi Lebovitz has a shiur here that you can download and listen to. The Kollel Iyun Hadaf under the leadership of Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld does a fabulous job on every daf and every aspect of the daf. Please click here where they discuss extensively Rashi's opinion on the sugya which is extremely difficult to grasp.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 20 - Highlights

TWENTY-NINE DAYS OF ADAR

They sent to Mar Ukva that the Adar which is next to Nissan will always be twenty-nine days. Rav Nachman asked from a Mishna on daf 21. The Mishna states that the witnesses coming to Beis Din to offer testimony regarding Nissan and Tishrei are permitted to desecrate the Shabbos (by traveling further than their techum boundary). Rav Nachman asks that why were they allowed to desecrate Shabbos since even if they wouldn’t come, Beis Din will sanctify the thirtieth day as Rosh Chodesh. The Gemora answers that there is a mitzva for Beis Din to sanctify the new moon through witnesses testifying that they saw the moon.

Rav Kahana asked from the Mishna on daf 21 which states that in the times of the Beis Hamikdosh, the witnesses could desecrate Shabbos in order to testify in Beis Din by all months. This was because of the korban mussaf that needed to be offered on Rosh Chodesh. It emerges from this Mishna that the reason to desecrate the Shabbos is not because of the mitzva of sanctifying the new month through witnesses and yet after the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed, they only desecrated Shabbos for Nissan and Tishrei. If Adar always had twenty-nine days, there would be no necessity to desecrate Shabbos. The Gemora concludes that this is a legitimate refutation of that opinion. (19b – 20a)

FAVOR TO THE BABYLONIANS

Ula came to Bavel from Eretz Yisroel and informed the people that they had made Elul thirty days and that this is a great benefit for the Babylonian community. Ula explained that if they would have kept Elul at twenty-nine days, Shabbos and Yom Tov would have occurred one immediately following the other. This would cause the vegetables that were picked before the first day to wither. Rav Acha stated that they wanted a weekday between Shabbos and Yom Tov in order that they would be able to bury the dead without postponement and the corpse will not decompose. The Gemora explains that this benefit applies to Bavel where there is a hot climate and therefore there is a legitimate concern that the vegetables will wither and the corpses will decompose; however regarding Eretz Yisroel which is hilly and therefore not so hot, there are no such concerns. (20a)

COERCING THE WITNESSES

Rava states that if there is a public necessity for changing a month from thirty days to twenty-nine, Beis Din can do that; however to change a month from twenty-nine to thirty is not allowed even if there is a public need to do so.

The Gemora cites proof to this from a ruling of Reb Yehoshua ben Levi who stated that Beis Din can intimidate witnesses to make a twenty-nine day month into a thirty day month but they may not coerce the witnesses to testify that the month should contain twenty-nine days when in truth it should have thirty.

This distinction is questioned based on Reb Yehudah Nesiah’s report to Rebbe Ami regarding Rabbi Yochanan’s rulings. Rabbi Yochanan taught that it is permitted to intimidate the witnesses regarding a new moon that was not seen in the proper time in order to establish Rosh Chodesh on the thirtieth and tell them to testify that they saw the new moon even though in fact they did not see it.

The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yochanan is specifically referring to Nissan and Tishrei whereas Reb Yehoshua ben Levi is discussing all the other months.

Rav Dimi learns the opposite of Reb Yehoshua ben Levi. He rules that Beis Din can intimidate witnesses to make a thirty day month into a twenty-nine day month but they may not coerce the witnesses to testify that the month should contain thirty days when in truth it should have twenty-nine. The reason given for this is because when the moon was visible and Beis Din chooses to delay and sanctify the next day, that appears like a lie; however sanctifying the month early does not have the appearance of a falsehood. (20a)

LUNAR ASTRONOMY
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Reb Zeira makes two important statements about the new moon. First, he teaches that when the Beraisa of "Sod ha'Ibur" (the secret wisdom of lunar astronomy) says cryptically, "The Molad occurs before Chatzos, or the Molad occurs after Chatzos," it means that there is a difference between the Molad when it occurs before Chatzos and when it occurs after Chatzos (midday). Rebbi Zeira explains that when the Molad occurs before Chatzos, the new moon can be seen immediately after sunset of the same day. When the Molad occurs after Chatzos, it is not possible to see the moon after sunset of that day.
Rebbi Zeira also says in the name of Rav Nachman that the moon fully disappears from view for a total of 24 hours at the time of the Molad: for people "here" (in Bavel) the moon is not visible for 6 hours before the Molad and for 18 hours after the Molad, and for people "there" (in Eretz Yisrael) the moon is not visible for 18 hours before the Molad and for 6 hours after the Molad.
RASHI explains the statements of Rebbi Zeira in considerable detail, attributing his explanation to Rav Sa'adyah Ga'on. Although Rashi explains these statements at length, the astronomical aspects of his explanations are unclear.
(a) Rashi says (DH 24 Sha'os) that the people who stand in the east can see the moon better when it is in the east, and the people who stand in the west can see the moon better when it is in the west. What does Rashi mean? The moon moves across the sky, and people in both the east and the west are able to see it in both the eastern and western parts of the sky! Moreover, living further east or west cannot possibly bring a person "closer" to the moon. No place on earth is significantly closer to the moon than any other due to the great distance between the earth and the moon (approximately 384,400 kilometers, or 238,857 miles).
(b) What does Rashi mean when he repeatedly mentions (DH Nolad, DH Kaf-Dalet, DH Mechasya, and on 24a, DH Kan) that at the time of the new moon, the moon always rises in the south-east and sets in the south-west? This statement is inaccurate. The locations of moonrise and moonset depend on the season of the year. The sun and the new moon are always in close proximity. In the summer (in the northern hemisphere) the sun and new moon rise north of the midpoint of the eastern horizon and travel in a curve across the sky, first towards the south and then following the path of an arc (at midday) towards the north again, finally setting north of the midpoint of the western horizon. In the winter, the sun and new moon rise south of the midpoint of the eastern horizon and travel across the sky, as in the summer, toward the south, curving northward and setting to the south of the midpoint of the western horizon. Why, then, does Rashi say that the moon always rises in the south-east and always sets in the south-west? (See also Rashi to Yoma 62b, DH Al Taba'as, and RASHASH there who asks a similar question.)
(c) Rashi writes that some people are able to see the moon 6 hours before or after the Molad. (People in the east can see the old, waning moon 6 hours before the Molad occurs, and people in the west can see the new, waxing moon 6 hours after the Molad occurs.) The Rishonim ask that this is astronomically impossible: the moon cannot be seen for at least 18 hours after the time of the Molad. (See Rambam, Hilchos Kidush ha'Chodesh 17:3. The impossibility of the 6-hour limit of visibility that Rashi describes has been confirmed by modern astronomers.)
ANSWERS:
(a) The HAGAHOS BEN ARYEH, as well as HA'GA'ON RAV YOSEF ELIYAHU HENKIN zt'l in LEV IVRA (pp. 44-45), propose an ingenious solution that offers a simple and astronomically correct rationale to differentiate between what the people in the west and what the people in the east are able to observe in the sky. (The Hagahos Ben Aryeh was written by Rav Zev Lipkin, Rosh Beis Din of Telz and the father of ha'Ga'on Rav Yisrael Salanter. The explanation cited here actually appears as a bracketed insertion in the Ben Aryeh. It is not clear who added it.)
The Ben Aryeh's explanation is explained in greater detail with additional clarifications in MAGID HA'RAKI'A (Rav Hasgal of Kiryat Sefer, Israel) and KUNTRUS KAF-DALET SHA'OS (Professor Nisim Vidal, former chief astronomer at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, professor of Astronomy at the Australia National University, and visiting professor at the Harvard University Center for Astrophysics), who explain at length the astronomical principles behind this explanation. Below is a summation of their explanation, with three introductory remarks.
1. Although according to the perspective of man on earth, the sun and moon both travel in an east-west trajectory (this perspective is caused by the rotation of the earth on its orbit), rising daily in the east and setting in the west, they also have a motion relative to each other. The moon travels slightly slower than the sun, constantly falling behind it more and more to the east. As the month progresses, the moon gets progressively farther away from the sun in the sky until it passes the midway point, after which it begins to approach the sun from the other side, the west. Eventually it "catches up" with the sun (or, from the sun's perspective, the sun "catches up" with it) as it travels west to east relative to the sun and passes the sun in an easterly direction. This is what causes the changes in the way the moon appears in the sky, as follows:
At the moment the Molad occurs at the beginning of the month, the moon is directly between the earth and the sun; from man's perspective on earth, the moon and sun are at the same point in the sky. (Actually, the "Molad" refers to the point immediately after conjunction, or "Kibutz." Conjunction is the moment at which the moon passes directly between the earth and the sun.) At that moment, the moon cannot be seen at all (it is between the earth and the sun, and thus all of the light of the sun that it reflects is on the side of the moon that faces away from the earth). As the days progress, the moon's orbit lags behind the sun's so that more of the moon becomes visible.
A day or two after the Molad, one can see the moon "behind" (to the east of) the sun. Fifteen days after the Molad, the moon has lagged so far behind in the sky that it is seen on the opposite side of the sky from the sun (that is, the earth is between the moon and the sun; this is called opposition), and thus at night the entire lit face of the moon is visible (a full moon).
As more days pass (in the second half of the month), the moon's lag causes it to appear to get nearer to the sun from the other direction (the direction in which the sun is traveling), so that when one looks into the sky he sees the moon ahead (to the west of) the sun. Finally, at the end of the month, the moon's lag causes it to be equal again with the sun (conjunction), and the next Molad occurs.
The moment before the moon passes the point of the sun (before the Molad), it is immediately to the west of the sun. The moment after it passes through the sun (after the Molad), it is immediately to the east of the sun.
2. There are a number of ways to express the changing distance between the sun and the moon. Mathematically, it can be expressed in terms of degrees around a circle (since the sun and moon travel around the earth in a circle, from man's perspective on earth). When the moon is on the opposite side of the sky from the sun (at opposition, at the middle of the month when the moon sets in the west at the time the sun rises in the east), it is 180 degrees away from the sun. When the moon is one-quarter of a circuit away from the sun, it is 90 degrees from the sun, and so on.
This distance can also be expressed in terms of the number of days or hours that have passed from the time of the Molad. This amount of time expresses how many hours or days it has taken for the moon to reach the distance that it lags behind the sun. For example, to say that the moon and sun are fifteen days (half a month) apart means that the distance between the moon and sun is the specific distance the moon lags in fifteen days. (As mentioned above, in terms of degrees this means that the moon is 180 degrees away from the sun).
Since the moon travels 360 degrees from the sun in approximately 30 days (that is, it meets the sun again after completing an entire circuit), it travels 12 degrees in one day, or half a degree in one hour. When we say that the moon is one day (24 hours) away from the sun, that means it is 12 degrees away (because in one day the distance between the moon and the sun increases by 12 degrees).
(It is important to remember that the distance between the sun and the moon over the period of an hour should not be confused with the distance that the sun and moon travel around the earth over the period of an hour. Since the moon travels around the entire earth (that is, the earth rotates on its axis 360 degrees) once a day, the moon travels 15 degrees every hour relative to any point on earth. However, the sun also travels approximately the same number of degrees around the earth in an hour, so the moon does not distance itself 15 degrees from the sun in an hour. Rather, it only lags one-half of a degree behind the sun in one hour.)
3. The moon is not always visible. When it is near the sun on its orbit, it cannot be seen because of the great luminosity of the sun. How far away from the sun must the moon be in order to be visible? (In other words, what is the earliest time after the Molad at which the moon can be seen under the most favorable conditions?)
Rashi asserts that when the moon has lagged behind the sun for 6 hours after the Molad and thus is 3 degrees away from the sun, the moon can be seen because the light of the sun is not strong enough to obstruct its visibility at that distance. This means that both 6 hours before and 6 hours after the Molad the moon may be visible, while the moon is never visible during the interim 12 hours.
However, another factor may obstruct visibility of the moon: the rotation of the earth. Around the time of the Molad, since the moon is so close to the sun it rises and sets only shortly before or after the sun does. Throughout most of the night it is on the other side of the earth (like the sun itself) and therefore it is hidden from the view of man on earth.
With these words of introduction, the Gemara may be understood as follows.
When the Gemara discusses the 24 hours during which the moon cannot be seen, it refers back to the first statement of Rebbi Zeira, "Nolad Kodem Chatzos...." Rebbi Zeira means that if the Molad occurs immediately before midday, the new moon can be seen right after sunset the same evening, since 6 hours have passed and the moon has distanced itself from the sun enough to be seen before it sets (a few minutes after the sun sets). If the Molad occurs after midday (by more than approximately 12 minutes), the new moon cannot be seen that evening after sunset, since less than 6 hours have passed from the time of the Molad until the moon sets. The Gemara discusses a 12-hour day (the length of the day at the time of the equinox, when the length of the day and night are equal).
Since the Molad depends on the position of the moon relative to the sun (and not to a particular spot on earth), it occurs at the same instant in time regardless of where the observer is located. For some places on earth, that instant occurs in the middle of the day (i.e., when the sun is directly overhead), while for others it occurs in the middle of the night, and yet for others it occurs at the beginning of the day or the night. The specific case the Gemara discusses (in Rebbi Zeira's second statement) is one in which the Molad occurs just before midday in Eretz Yisrael. For one who lives farther east (such as in Bavel), the time of day at which the Molad occurs is not before midday but shortly after midday (since the sun already passed overhead earlier in his more easterly time zone), or about 12:30 PM.
(When we refer to different times, such as 11:59 in Eretz Yisrael which is 12:30 in Bavel, we do not refer to the time according to the standard time zones used today, but to the actual sun time for each place. That is, if it is a 12-hour day, the sun will set in 6 hours from now in Eretz Yisrael and 5 1/2 hours from now in Bavel.)
Since in Bavel the Molad is half an hour after Chatzos, the moon will not be visible that evening (6 hours will not have passed from the Molad before moonset, which is approximately 6:12 that evening, about twelve minutes after sunset). However, the Molad did occur more than 6 hours from sunrise that morning. Therefore, that morning the old moon was visible in the east, right before sunrise (i.e., to the immediate east of the sun) when the moon was three degrees away from the sun. The first time the people in Bavel will be able to see the new moon after the Molad is approximately 18 hours after the Molad -- that is, when it rises again the morning after the Molad. This is what the Gemara means when it says that "for us [in Bavel], the old moon is covered for 6 hours and the new moon is covered for 18 hours."
In contrast, in Eretz Yisrael -- since the Molad occurred immediately before noon -- the new moon will be visible just before sunset, 6 hours later (and it will remain visible until it sets a few minutes after the sun sets). However, the old moon was not visible in the morning, since it was within 6 hours of (before) the Molad. The old moon will be visible only before sunset the evening before the Molad, when it is approximately 18 hours (9 degrees) away from the Molad. (The old moon will set before the sun, approximately 36 minutes before the sun sets.) This is what the Gemara means when it says that "for them [in Eretz Yisrael], the old moon is covered for 18 hours and the new moon is covered for 6 hours."
All of the words of Rashi throughout the Sugya are easily understood based on this explanation.
(b) Why does Rashi write that the new moon is first visible after the Molad "in the south-west corner of the sky" and the old moon is last visible before the Molad in the "south-east corner"? It is true that if the Molad is close to midday, then the new moon first appears in the west (i.e., at the time that it sets), and the old moon last appears in the east (i.e., at the time that it rises). Why, though, does Rashi say that it is in the southern side of the western and eastern horizons?
Rashi explains in a number of places (see 24a, DH Kan) that the sun does not always rise and set at the same place along the horizon. It moves along the horizon, rising and setting more to the south each day in the winter and more to the north each day in the summer. (The discussion here, as well as every discussion in the Sugyos which deal with topics of astronomy, refers specifically to the northern hemisphere.) Since the moon orbits the earth on the same path as the sun orbits the earth (i.e., on the ecliptic plane, according to man's perspective), shortly before or after the Molad -- when the moon is very near to the sun -- it should be seen setting approximately in the same place the sun sets. Consequently, its inclination to the north or south of the horizon should also vary according to the season just as the sun's inclination varies. It should rise and set on the northern side of the horizon in the summer and the southern side in winter. Why does Rashi write that it is always in the south?
There are two possible ways to understand the words of Rashi.
1. Professor Vidal explains as follows. As mentioned earlier, when the Gemara says that "if the Molad occurs before Chatzos, the new moon will be seen before sunset," it must be referring to a 12-hour day in which the sun sets exactly 6 hours after midday. Such a day occurs twice a year -- on the vernal equinox and on the autumnal equinox (September 21 and March 21). On the equinox, the sun sets exactly at the midpoint of the western horizon, approaching the horizon at an angle from south to north. In such a situation, the new moon -- which is visible right before it sets -- will always be visible when it is slightly south of the midpoint. This is what Rashi means when he says that the new moon is in the "south-west" corner when it is first seen. The same is true for moonrise before the Molad; the moon will be seen rising slightly south of center of the eastern horizon.
However, it is not clear according to this explanation why Rashi writes that it is in the south-west corner "l'Olam" -- "always." Second, why is this called the south-west "corner" ("Keren")? The term "corner" implies, as Rashi himself says later (24a), the farthest point to the south at which the sun sets, and not just slightly south of center. Third, Rashi cites the Gemara later (24a) as a source for his statement that the moon is always in the south-west. Rashi there (DH Kan) repeats his assertion that the new moon is always in the south-west, and he clearly states that this applies both in the summer and in the winter months.
2. A second possible interpretation of Rashi's words may be that "the south-west corner" does not refer to the south-west of the world, but rather it is a term which describes the moon's location relative to the sun's location. Whenever the new moon is seen in the west (close to sunset) it is to the south of the sun. Since the sun travels from south to north as it sets in the west, the new moon -- which is farther to the east on the same orbit and sets after the sun -- is always to the south of the sun. Similarly, the old moon -- when seen over the eastern horizon -- is always to the south of the sun because it rises before the sun and is thus ahead of the sun as it travels towards the south.
According to this interpretation, Rashi uses the term "south-west" with regard to the moon (both here and on 24a) differently from the way he uses the term "south-west corner" with regard to the sun (on 24a), because there the term clearly means that the sun is south of the horizon. (See Insights to Rosh Hashanah 24a.)
(c) Why does Rashi write that some people are able to see the moon 6 hours before or after the Molad? Astronomically, it is impossible to see the new moon less than 18 hours after the Molad (Rambam, Hilchos Kidush ha'Chodesh 17:3; see also Ba'al ha'Me'or here who says that the same applies to seeing the old moon 6 hours before the Molad).
1. Professor Vidal suggests that although it is true that under normal circumstances the new moon cannot be seen before 18 hours have passed from the Molad, nevertheless under perfect viewing and atmospheric conditions it is possible for one who knows exactly where and when to look to see the new moon earlier.
Professor Vidal points out (Kuntrus Kaf-Dalet Sha'os, p. 9) that almost every year the record is broken for the earliest time at which the moon is seen after the Molad. In Teves of 5757, the new moon was seen by the naked eye only 14 hours after the Molad (and, with a telescope, 12 hours after the Molad). Rashi means that the Chachamim had a tradition as a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai that the earliest possible moment that the new moon could be seen is 6 hours after the Molad, even under the most ideal conditions. That is how Rashi understands Rebbi Zeira's statement in the name of Rav Nachman. It is not a statement of the average time of visibility of the new moon, but rather it is a statement of the extreme limit of how early the new moon can be seen. This limit enables Beis Din to reject witnesses if they claim to have seen the moon earlier.
2. Alternatively, perhaps according to Rashi the Molad which the Gemara here discusses is not the pure astronomical Molad. Rather, it is the "average Molad" which the Rambam describes in the beginning of Hilchos Kidush ha'Chodesh, which is determined according to the average length of a lunar circuit of 29.5 days and 793 parts of an hour. This Molad does not take into account inconsistencies in the speeds of the earth and moon at different times in the month or in the year. Although these inconsistencies balance out over the course of the year, depending on the month they can cause the true Molad to occur from 6 to 14 hours before or after the average Molad.
When Beis Din scrutinizes the testimony of witnesses, they cannot ignore the possibility that our calculation of the average Molad is not the same as the true Molad, and the true Molad may have occurred 14 hours earlier than our calculation. Therefore, the witnesses are believed as long as they claim to have seen the new moon at least 6 hours after the Molad (which could actually be 20 hours after the Molad, taking into account the variations in orbital speeds). It is entirely reasonable for the new moon to be seen that long after the true Molad. (M. Kornfeld)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 20 - False Testimony

Rabbi Yochanan taught that on certain months, it is permitted to intimidate the witnesses regarding a new moon that was not seen in the proper time in order to establish Rosh Chodesh on the thirtieth and tell them to testify that they saw the new moon even though in fact they did not see it.

The commentators ask that it would seem that we are coercing witnesses to lie outright. Is this permitted?

Pnei Yehoshua writes that we are referring to a case where according to the calculation, the moon should have been seen and in order to establish the new month in the proper time the witnesses can testify that they saw the moon even thought they didn’t. It is not considered a lie because the knowledge that the moon should have been visible is regarded as if it was actually seen.

He offers an alternative explanation that the witnesses are reconsidering their original testimony and perhaps they saw a sliver of a cloud in the sky that resembled the moon; Beis Din allows the witnesses to testify that they saw the moon and they are not interrogated extensively on this. Rabbeinu Chananel also seems to understand the Gemora in a similar manner.

The commentators ask that this explanation is still not completely satisfactory since there is a halacha that Beis Din cannot make a “din merumeh” -a judgment based on deceiving evidence. How can Beis Din rule on the new month based on false testimony.

The Steipler Gaon (19) states that perhaps this is a proof to the viewpoint of some of the Acharonim who maintain that the witnesses required for testimony on the new month are distinctively different from other witnesses. Normally witnesses are needed in order to clarify to Beis Din regarding the particular issue being judged at the time. Sanctifying the new month does not require witnesses that will clarify to Beis Din anything since through the calculations of the lunar cycle, Beis Din already knows when the new month should begin. Witnesses are needed only because the Torah requires Beis Din to rule on the new month through witnesses. Perhaps it can be said that Beis Din after listening to witnesses testifying that they saw the moon can rule on the new month even thought they know that the witnesses did not actually see the moon. (He does conclude that this explanation will only be sufficient if it is not clear that the witnesses are lying because otherwise they are not considered witnesses at all.)

Tosfos HaRosh in Kesuvos (32) seems to indicate that witnesses for sanctifying the new month are valid even if they are false witnesses outright. He sites the Scriptural verse “These are Hashem’s appointed [holy days] that you shall designate them as holy occasions,” and it is learned from there that Beis Din’s declaration of the new month is valid even if they choose the incorrect day through a mistake or even deliberately.

The Chasam Sofer writes that these witnesses are not transgressing the prohibition of the Torah of bearing false testimony since it is being done with the knowledge of Beis Din and they are not deceiving anyone.

Rav Yosef Engel explains that these witnesses are not transgressing the prohibition of the Torah of bearing false testimony because the Torah explicitly states “Do not bear false testimony against your neighbor” and by testifying in regards to the moon, one is not testifying against his neighbor and therefore will not be included in the transgression.

Rav Elyashiv Shlita says something very similar to the Chasam Sofer. He states that there cannot be a transgression of bearing false testimony when Beis Din is aware that the witnesses are lying. They are not deceiving anyone and Beis Din is even intimidating them to do so. This is not a lie or false testimony at all.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana - Tu B'shevat

Question from Michael Post

The Mishnah lists six months for which messengers were sent out – for reasons ranging from “major holidays” like Pesach & Sukkos to “minor holidays” like Chanukah. The Gemara then asks about Tammuz & Teves since they have minor fasts, and the conclusion is that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash, those were only optional. But what about Shevat? We learned not that long ago that Tu B’Shevat is the new year for the trees (for maaser purposes, I believe). So wouldn’t people need to know exactly when Tu B’Shevat is so that they handle their trees properly? Tithing the crops is a Biblical obligation, so I would think that this would take even higher precedence than say Kislev.

Answer from Josh Waxman (Rabbi Margareten stated the same thing this morning)

I'm answering offhand, so I don't know that this answer is correct. However, the distinction seems to be how critical it is to know this at a specific point in time. That is, you need to know what the first day of Pesach is in order to celebrate Pesach and in order to get rid of your chametz. And thus you need to know it before Pesach arrives. The same thing for other chagim.
In contrast, while knowing when Tu beShvat is is important, perhaps it is not critical to know this information on Tu beShvat itself. If you know a month later and can calculate back, that would also be fine. Why? Well, Tu beShevat is the Rosh haShana for trees in terms of maaser, in terms of deciding what is maaser of year X and what is maaser for year X+1. This can be resolved a bit later, perhaps. This cutoff point is not when the fruits on the trees are fully developed, but rather when they first bud. So I would guess it would be a while before one would need to actually take maaser from these, perhaps if one wants to include them in the overall maaser for year X and there is a safek, he can wait a few days, or else take maaser from these separately later.
That would be my guess of the top of me head. If I get the time, bli neder, I'll try to check if Yerushalmi has anything about it.
Kol Tuv,
Josh

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 19 - Chashmanoim and Yosef

The Gemora relates that the Greeks had decreed that the Jews could not mention Hashem’s name. After the Greeks were defeated by the Kingdom of the Chashmanoim, they established that Hashem’s name should be written on all contracts. The Chachamim heard about this and stopped this because they were concerned that when the borrower will repay the debt, the unnecessary document will be thrown in the garbage. It was the third day of Tishrei when the Chachamim abolished this enactment and they made that day into a festival.

The Gemora in Shabbos which relates the story of Chanukah refers to the Chashmanoim in the same manner as our Gemora – the Kingdom of the Chashmanoim. A question is asked that at that time they were not the kings yet. It was only after the victory that the Chashmanoim assumed the throne but not before.

The commentators ask on the Rashi in this past week’s parsha. The chief cupbearer is relating to Pharaoh of an incident that transpired when he was in prison. The verse states “And there with us was a Hebrew lad, a slave of the chief slaughterer, and we told him, and he interpreted our dreams for us.” Rashi cites from a Medrash “A slave and in the statutes of Egypt it is written that a slave may neither reign nor wear princely raiment.” (Judaica Press)

What compelled the sar hamashkim to state that in the Egyptian constitution it is written that a slave cannot ascend the throne. What made him think that by Yosef interpreting the dreams, this would lead him to become a ruler in Egypt?

The answer is that a true ruler does not have to don a crown or wear princely raiment or sit on a throne. A ruler is one who can rule over himself, someone who is capable of control his desires. The Medrash states that Shlomo Hamelech was a king over seven different kingdoms but the highest level was that he ruled over himself.

The chief cupbearer recognized this in Yosef even when he was in prison. Yosef was clearly destined for leadership and that is what compelled the chief cupbearer to tell Pharaoh as to what was written in the Egyptian statutes.

This can be the explanation of the Gemora. It was true that the Chashmanoim did not ascend the throne until after they were victorious over the Greeks but they were kings beforehand as well. While some of the other Jews could not hold themselves back from joining the Greek culture and shunned the Torah and mitzvos, the Chashmanoim were steadfast and strong. They were kings over their desires and this was the characteristic which they possessed which ultimately led them to victory.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 19 - Highlights

MEGILLAS TAANIS
Megillas Taanis is a scroll that was written by Chananya close to end of the second Beis Hamikdosh. It contains in it a compilation of dates that were regarded to be festivals and therefore fasting was prohibited on those days. There is a dispute in the Gemora if those halachos still apply.

There was an incident in Lod and they were compelled to decree a fast during the days of Chanukah. Rabbi Eliezer went and took a bath and Rabbi Yehoshua went to get a haircut, indicating publicly that people shouldn’t fast. They announced that anyone who fasted on that day is required to fast again in order to repent for fasting on Chanukah. The Gemora is attempting to prove from this incident that Megillas Taanis is still in effect since Chanukah is one of the days listed there. Rav Yosef answers that Chanukah is different since the miracle is publicized to all based on the mitzva of lighting the menorah and therefore it would be improper to abolish it.


The Gemora cites another incident. The Greeks had decreed that the Jews could not mention Hashem’s name. After the Greeks were defeated by the Chashmanoim, they established that Hashem’s name should be written on all contracts. The Chachamim heard about this and stopped this because they were concerned that when the borrower will repay the debt, the unnecessary document will be thrown in the garbage. It was the third day of Tishrei when the Chachamim abolished this enactment and they made that day into a festival. The Gemora asks that if Megillas Taanis was not in effect any longer, is it logical to assume that they would add a new festival. The Gemora answers that this incident occurred in the times when the Beis Hamikdosh was still standing and everyone agrees that the Megillas Taanis still applied. The Gemora questions the necessity of making a festival on this day since the third of Tishrei was the day Gedalya was murdered and we learned previously that all the days of calamity became days of joy during the second Beis Hamikdosh. Rav answers that it was necessary to establish the third of Tishrei as a festival in order to prohibit fasting the day before. (This was done in order to prevent people from fasting on the festival itself.) The Gemora asks that it is prohibited to fast on the second of Tishrei anyway since it is the day after Rosh Chodesh. The Gemora answers that Rosh Chodesh being Biblical does not need any strengthening and therefore the day afterwards would not be prohibited if not for the fact that it is the day before the festival of the third. The Gemora cites proof that the Rabbinical festivals require strengthening and not the Biblical ones. The Gemora asks that the second of Tishrei should be forbidden from fasting anyway since it is the day before Gedalya was murdered. The Gemora answers that since the fast of Gedalya was written in the Prophets, it is similar to a Biblical decree that does not need to be strengthened. (18b – 19a)

MORE ON MEGILLAS TAANIS
The Gemora cites an incident that occurred on the twenty-eighth of Adar in the times after the second Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed. The Romans had decreed that the Jews could not study Torah, perform circumcisions or keep Shabbos. Yehudah ben Shamua took advice from a Roman noblewoman and the Jews went out into the streets at night to protest. They cried out that we are brothers (the Jews and the Romans), and we are children from the same father and mother. Why are you (the Romans) issuing such harsh decrees on us. The Romans listened and revoked the decree. This day was pronounced as a festival. The Gemora asks that if Megillas Taanis was not in effect any longer, is it logical to assume that they would add a new festival.

The Gemora concludes that it is a Tannaic dispute if the halachos from the Megillas Taanis still apply. The Gemora rules that Chanukah and Purim do apply but all the other festivals do not. (19a – 19b)

MESSENGERS FOR TISHREI
The Mishna stated that at the beginning of certain months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. Messengers were sent in the month of Elul on the account of Rosh Hashanah. They were sent out during Tishrei because of Yom Kippur and Sukkos. The Gemora questions the necessity for sending out messengers in Tishrei since they were already sent out in Elul. The Gemora answers that even though, since the times of Ezra, Elul always had twenty-nine days but the possibility existed, that if necessary, they would have to make Elul thirty days. The messengers were sent out to notify the public if Elul had twenty-nine days like usual or thirty days. (19b)

SECOND ADAR
The Mishna stated that at the beginning of certain months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim. The Gemora notes that the Mishna does not mention that they would send messengers in the second Adar (if there was a leap year) on account of Purim. This would be inconsistent with Rebbe who maintains that messengers would be sent in the beginning of the second Adar.

The Gemora initially thinks that their dispute would be based on the argument regarding one who performed the mitzvos during the first Adar which should have been done in the second Adar, if he has fulfilled his obligation or not. If one maintains that he has fulfilled the mitzvos, there is no necessity to send messengers for the second Adar.

The Gemora presents an alternative explanation in the Mishna’s dispute with Rebbe. The Mishna can hold that the first Adar is always thirty days and therefore there is no necessity to send out messengers for the second Adar. Rebbe can hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who maintains that the first Adar could be twenty-nine days or thirty and therefore we would be compelled to send messengers at the beginning of the second Adar.

The Gemora cites other opinions regarding the two months of Adar. One viewpoint is that both months of Adar are always twenty-nine days. There were those that testified in the name of the Prophets, Chagai, Zecharya and Malachi that the two months of Adar can both consist of thirty days, twenty-nine days or one can be thirty and one twenty-nine. It was stated in the name of Rebbe that it should always be assumed that the first Adar will have thirty days and the second Adar will have twenty-nine days until you hear from Eretz Yisroel explicitly that the first Adar only had twenty-nine days. (19b)

Read more!