Mevarchin Hachodesh

By: Rabbi Avrohom Adler

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary http://www.daf-yomi.org

In the sefer Yereim (259) it is written: That which Jews all over the world have the custom to announce the new month on Shabbos before Rosh Chodesh (birchas ha’chodesh), this is not the sanctification of the new month, for we do not have the Rosh Beis Din amongst us and he is an integral and essential part of this mitzvah. The Rishonim established this custom merely as a way of notifying the people when Rosh Chodesh will be.

The Magen Avraham (O:C, 417) writes that it is, nevertheless, the custom to stand by birchas ha’chodesh - specifically when we are saying that “Rosh Chodesh will be on Such-and-such a day,” similar to when Beis Din sanctified the new month, which was done while standing.

Reb Akiva Eiger (ibid) asks: Where is it found that the sanctifying of the month was done standing? On the contrary! It would seem from the beginning of the third perek of Rosh Hashanah that it was done while sitting!?

Reb Moshe Feinstein zt”l (O:C I; 142) answers this question based upon a Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (24a) which states that first the Rosh Beis Din would say, “Mekudash” – “It is sanctified,” and then the entire congregation would say in unison, “Mekudash, mekudash.” And certainly, the entire congregation, who were there at the Beis Din, were not all sitting; they were standing! We find like this by the mitzvah of chalitzah as well, where the Gemora in Yevamos (106a) states that there is a mitzvah for all the people standing there to say “chalutz hana’al.”

Reb Moshe understands that the Rosh Beis Din’s saying “Mekudash” was the p’sak din – the witnesses were fully cross-examined and the Beis Din came to a conclusion with respect of the new month. The Rosh Beis Din announced this ruling. Then, there was a mitzvah on the congregation to sanctify the new month. This, they accomplished, by saying, “Mekudash, mekudash.” He derives this from a Scriptural verse, and it can be inferred from the language of the Rambam, as well.

That which we recite birchas ha’chodesh is based upon the congregation’s saying of “Mekudash, mekudash.” It is not on account of the Rosh Beis Din’s announcement of the judgment, for this was already done by Hillel’s Beis Din (when he arranged the calendar for the future). This is why the custom is to stand. The inference of the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah that they were sitting is only in reference to the Beis Din, not to the people standing there. It also stands to reason that the “Mekudash, mekudash” should be said standing, for this was the mitzvah of sanctifying the new month, and mitzvos (as a general rule) are performed while standing.

HALACHAH ON THE DAF

Palginan Dibura

The Gemora teaches us that if Reuven testifies in Beis Din that Shimon cohabited with his wife, and with Reuven there is another witness, we can consider them two witnesses and Shimon gets killed. The Gemora explains that it would work only because of palginan dibura (we split his words). Rashi explains that we accept his testimony in regard to Shimon but not in regard to his wife, since she is related to him and he is not a valid witness.

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 34:26) has several cases where palginan dibura applies:

1) A loveh (borrower) may testify that the malveh (lender) lent money to him with interest, and although he cannot testify on himself, we enact palginan dibura and we split his sentence. Instead of hearing the entire testimony that the malveh lent money to him with interest, we only listen to part of it; i.e., the malveh lent with interest (S’ma). Therefore, if there would be another witness, Beis Din will disqualify the malveh from being believed when giving testimony in the future (an oveir aveira is disqualify as a witness).

2) Reuven testifies in Beis Din that Shimon sodomized him, we invoke palginan dibura, and if there would be another witness testifying, Beis Din will disqualify him.

3) Similarly, if Reuven testifies in Beis Din that Shimon cohabited with his wife, and there is another witness, Beis Din will disqualify Shimon (the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t state that he gets put to death, because the Shulchan Aruch is talking to our generation, where there isn’t any court-imposed death penalty).

The Rashba distinguishes between the case where he says, “Shimon cohabited with my wife,” and where he said, “I cohabited with Shimon’s wife.” In the latter case, we don’t say palginan dibura.

4) Reuven testifies in Beis Din that Shimon sodomized Reuven’s animal, if there will be another witness, Beis Din will disqualify Shimon. The S’ma points out that this case is different than the above cases, since there is no such concept that Reuven is related to his animal, and therefore, in the times of the Sanhedrin, we would kill the animal as well.

Not in all cases do we say palginan dibura. The Mordechai (Yevamos) and Tosfos in Kesuvos (18b) rule that cases which are not common, or if you have to add a reason to his sentence, then we don’t say palginan dibura.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Working on Rosh Chodesh

Here are three posts for review regarding working on Rosh chodesh and Chol Hamoed, and how this prohibition specifically relates to women.

http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2006/12/daf-yomi-rosh-hashana-23-women-working.html

http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2006/12/daf-yomi-rosh-hashana-23-rosh-chodesh.html

http://dafnotes.blogspot.com/2006/12/daf-yomi-rosh-hashana-23-working-on.html

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Taanis 28 - Hallel on Chanukah is a Torah Requirement

The Gemora inquires as to why the Mishna did not mention that there was no ma’amad on the first of Nissan for they recited Hallel and there was a Mussaf sacrifice and a wood offering. Rava answers that this Mishna is an indicator that the Hallel which is sung on Rosh Chodesh is not based upon a biblical ordinance and therefore the ma’amad is not suspended. This is based upon the words of Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak who states: "Eighteen times during the year an individual may recite the whole Hallel, and they are: On the eight days of Sukkos, on the eight days of Chanukah, on the first day of Pesach and on the first day of Shavuos. While in exile, however, one may recite it twenty-one times during the year, namely: On the nine days of Sukkos, on the eight days of Chanukah, on the first two days of Pesach and on the two days of Shavuos." Rosh Chodesh is not mentioned here, indicating that it is only a custom and therefore it will not suspend the ma’amad.

Rashi states that the obligation to recite Hallel on Chanukah is similar to a Biblical obligation since it was established in accordance with the practice instituted by the prophets of reciting Hallel whenever the Jewish people are saved from a dangerous situation.

Although we generally relate to the holiday Chanukah as being of Rabbinic origin, Chasam Sofer explains that the obligation to establish a festival on the day on which a miracle occurred is, in fact, a Torah requirement. Chasam Sofer writes, “therefore observing the days of Purim and Chanukah are indeed a Torah obligation and one who fails to do so is nullifying a positive precept in the Torah.” It is a long-standing Jewish custom to hold celebratory meals during Chanukah to provide an opportunity to sing and recite praises to G-d for the miracles He performed on our behalf. Doing so, explains the Chasam Sofer, is the fulfillment of a positive Torah commandment.

This last paragraph can be found here.

Read more!

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 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 - 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 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 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 18 - Nine Days of Chanukah

The Mishna states that at the beginning of six months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. They were sent out in the month of Nissan because of the festival of Pesach. At the beginning of Av, they were sent out because of the fast. 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. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim.

A question is brought down in the sefer Poseach Shaar. If messengers were required in the months of Kislev and Adar because of Chanukah and Purim, shouldn't there be a halacha that in the faraway places, where the messengers cannot reach in due time, that there should be an extra day of Chanukah and Purim because of the doubt as to the correct day? this is indeed the reason why the other festivals have an extra day. It would emerge that there should be nine days of chanukah and two days of Purim nowadays in the Diaspora.

Abudraham writes that this is only required on the Biblical festivals but we do not have this stringency on Chanukah and Purim which is only Rabbinic.

The Mordechai states that in the Meggilah it is written "V'lo yaavor," the meggilah should not berecited on any other day but the fourteenth of Adar. Sefer Dovev Meisharim (1:15) asks on this that the verse would only answer why the meggilah is not recited on any other day but there should be an extra day for all the other obligations of Purim.

Minchas Chinuch writes that in the days that Rosh Chodesh was determined through the witnesses and Beis Din, there actually was nine days of Chanukah in the faraway places. He states further that in the future when the Beis Hamikdosh will be built, there will also be nine days. Nowadays, that we are experts in the correct days of the month, there is no necessity to institute an extra day since it is only Rabbinic.

We can answer the famous question of the Beis Yosef according to the Minchas Chinuch. He asks that there should be seven days of Chanukah and not eight because the miracle of the oil was only for seven days. We can answer that the reason there is an eighth day is because of the doubt as to when Rosh Chodesh was.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Rosh Hashana 18 - Informing the Public

The Mishna states that at the beginning of six months, messengers would be sent out to notify the Jewish communities as to which day was determined to be the first of the month. They were sent out in the month of Nissan because of the festival of Pesach. At the beginning of Av, they were sent out because of the fast. 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. Messengers were sent out during Kislev because of Chanukah and during Adar because of Purim.

Pnei Yehoshua questions the necessity of the messengers at all according to the opinion of those Tanaim who maintain that there is always a four day difference between the day that the festival falls out in one year and the day that the festival occurs in the following year. Since it is known which month will be thirty days and which month will be twenty-nine days, what is the purpose of the messengers? He answers that even according to that viewpoint, there are times that Beis Din will be forced to deviate from the regular cycle and change the amount of days in the month due to the seasons or because of a leap year. It is therefore still necessary to send out the messengers in the beginning of every month.

Reb Leib Mallin answers this question differently with a novel approach. There is a halacha based on pesukim in the Torah that Rosh Chodesh can only be established through Beis Din. There is a secondary halacha, based on that, which teaches us that informing the public when Rosh Chodesh was also must be accomplished through Beis Din . He learns this from the language of the Ranbam in Hilchos Kiddush Hachodesh (1:7). It emerges that even if it is known precisely when Rosh Chodesh was, there is nevertheless an obligation for Beis Din to notify the public.

Read more!