Rosh Hashanah

whereas the Sages declare it clean’! — There is a difference of opinion between Tannaim [as to whether the Megillath Ta'anith, has been annulled], as it has been taught: ‘These days which are mentioned in the Megillath Ta'anith are prohibited [to be kept as fast days] whether in the period when the Temple is standing or in the period when the Temple is not standing. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: In the period when the Temple is standing they are prohibited, because they [Israel] have cause for rejoicing; in the period when the Temple is not standing they are permitted, because they have cause for mourning’. The law is that these prohibitions are annulled and the law is that they are not annulled. There is a contradiction, is there not, between these two laws? — There is no contradiction: the one1 relates to Hanukah and Purim, the other to the other days. OF ELUL ON ACCOUNT OF NEW YEAR, OF TISHRI FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE FESTIVALS. Once the messengers have gone forth to report [the new moon of] Elul, why should they be required to do so for Tishri? Should you reply that [the reason is because] perhaps Elul has been prolonged,2 [this cannot be], because R. Hinena b. Kahana has said in the name of Rabbi: ‘From the days of Ezra onwards we have found no instance of Elul being prolonged’! — [Exactly so]: ‘We find no instance’, because there was no reason [to prolong it]; where, however, there is a special reason,3 we do prolong it. But in that case New Year is interfered with?4 — It is better that New Year should be interfered with than that all the festivals should be interfered with. There is also an indication [that this view is correct in the language of the Mishnah], which states, OF TISHRI FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE FESTIVALS. This is clear proof. OF KISLEV ON ACCOUNT OF HANUKAH AND OF ADAR ON ACCOUNT OF PURIM. [The Mishnah], however, does not say, ‘When the year is prolonged,5 messengers go forth to report [the new moon of] the second Adar also on account of Purim’. [This shows that] our Mishnah does not agree with Rabbi, since it has been taught: ‘Rabbi says that if the year has been prolonged, messengers go forth to report also regarding the second Adar on account of Purim’. Shall we say that the point on which they join issue is this, that one authority holds that all the ceremonies observed in the second Adar6 are observed also in the first,7 while the other holds that the ceremonies observed in the second are not observed in the first?8 — No. Both hold that the ceremonies observed in the second are not observed in the first, and here they differ on the question of the prolongation of the year,9 as it has been taught: ‘How long is the period of the prolongation of the year? Thirty days. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says a month’.10 But why should only [the one who says] thirty days [require no messengers to be sent]? Because, you say, people in this case know when the month ends?11 If the period is a month, they also know! — R. Papa said: The one who said ‘a month’ holds that [the Beth din may prolong the year] either by thirty days or by a month at their option. 12 R. Joshua b. Levi testified on behalf of the holy community of Jerusalem concerning the two Adars, that they are sanctified on the day of their prolongation.13 This is equivalent to saying that we make them defective but we do not make them full, and excludes the statement made in a discourse by R. Nahman b. Hisda; [for R. Nahman b. Hisda stated in a discourse]: ‘R. Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi concerning the two Adars that if they [the Beth din] desired they could make both of them full, and if they desired they could make both of them, defective, and if they desired they could make one full and the other defective; and such was their custom in the Diaspora. In the name of our teacher,14 however, they said: One is always to be full and the next defective, unless you have been informed that New Moon has been fixed at its proper time’.15 They sent [from Palestine] to Mar ‘Ukba to say: The Adar which precedes Nisan is always defective. R. Nahman raised an objection [from the following]: ‘For the fixing of two New Moons the Sabbath may be profaned,16 for those of Nisan and of Tishri’. Now if you say that [the Adar before Nisan] is sometimes full and sometimes defective, I can understand how occasions arise for profaning the Sabbath Tabernacles. need to send out messengers to fix the date of the second. community, v. J.E V. p. 226]. preceding month full (v. supra p. 21, n. 7). In the case of the two Adars the thirtieth day of each is sanctified as the New Moon of the next month. day always being regarded as the ‘proper time’ of New Moon. observation to the Beth din in Jerusalem. V. infra 23b.