סנהדרין 13:1 — Soncino English Talmud

Now, which view do they adopt? If they hold that the Tekufah day is the completion [of the previous season]: then, even if it were not so, it will meet with the requirement neither of him who holds that the whole Festival [must be included,] nor of him who holds that only part of it [is necessary]! — One must say therefore that they both hold that the Tekufah day begins [the new Tekufah]. An objection is raised: The Tekufah day concludes [the previous season]: this is R. Judah's view. R. Jose maintains that it commences [the new]. Further has it been taught: A year is not intercalated unless the [summer] Tekufah is short of completion by the greater part of the month [Tishri]. And how much is that? Sixteen days. R. Judah said: Two thirds of the month. And how much is that? Twenty days. R. Jose ruled: It is to be calculated thus: [If there are] sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes Passover, the year is to be intercalated. [If, however, there are] sixteen [short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is not to be intercalated. R. Simeon maintained: Even where there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is intercalated. Others say [that the year is intercalated even if the Tekufah is short of completion] by the lesser part of the month. And how much is that? Fourteen days? — The difficulty remained unsolved. The Master has said: 'R. Judah said: Two thirds of the month. And how much is that? Twenty days. R. Jose ruled: It is to be calculated [thus: if there are] sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes Passover, the year is to be intercalated.' But is not this view identical with R. Judah's? — They differ as to whether the Tekufah day completes [the previous] or begins [the new cycle]. The Master has said: '[R. Jose holds that] if there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is not intercalated.' According to R. Jose, then, only if there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] preceding the Feast [of Tabernacles is intercalation] not [permitted]; but if there are seventeen or eighteen [days short], the year is intercalated. But has he not himself said: If there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes Passover, we may intercalate, but not if less? — But no; in neither case may we intercalate. But seeing that he spoke of the number sixteen [with regard to the Tekufah] preceding Passover, he gives it also [in connection with the Tekufah] preceding the Feast [of Tabernacles]. [It was stated above]: 'R. Simeon maintained: Even where there are sixteen [days short of completing the Tekufah] which precedes the Feast [of Tabernacles], the year is intercalated.' But is not this view the same as that of the first Tanna?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Viz., with reference to the day on which the sun enters into the new Tekufah.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the day on which the new Tekufah begins.
^ᶜnote:I.e., even if it were not much short of completion, as sixteen days according to R. Judah, and twenty-one days according to R. Jose, but fifteen or twenty days, respectively.
^ᵈnote:Thus, according to R. Judah, none of the Festival of Ingathering is included in the new season.
^ᵉnote:Lit., 'two hands' interpreted as 'two portions'. Cf. Tosef. Men. IX, 10.
^ᶠnote:V. infra. This refutes Samuel on both points: (a) R. Judah holds here that part of the Feast is sufficient; and (b) in his view the Tekufah day commences the new season, and does not end the last.
^ᵍnote:I.e., the winter Tekufah.
^ʰnote:For if not, the summer Tekufah would not end until the 21st of Tishri, the new Tekufah beginning on the 22nd. The two Tekufoth, the spring and summer, consist of hundred and eighty-two days, and the five lunar months between Nisan and Tishri consist of hundred and forty seven days which, when added to the fourteen days of Nisan and the twenty-one days of Tishri make a total of hundred and eighty-two days. The Tishri Tekufah beginning on the 22nd of the month will thus not include any part of the Festival of Ingathering.
^ⁱnote:I.e., the summer Tekufah.
^ʲnote:Because at least part of the Feast of Ingathering will then fall in the new Tekufah.
^ᵏnote:V. infra.
^ˡnote:Hence the contradiction of the two statements of R. Judah.
^ᵐnote:In that the end of the cycle is delayed until the 21st of Tishri. V. n. 2.
^ⁿnote:As it appears that both require the inclusion of only part of the Festival of Ingathering.
^ᵒnote:According to R. Judah, that day completes the previous Tekufah, consequently, if twenty days have passed and the sun has reached its new cycle on the 21st, the new Tekufah begins on the 22nd, in which case not even part of the Feast of Ingathering is included; whilst according to R. Jose's calculation, even if the solstice occurs on the 21st day, that day is added to the new cycle.
^ᵖnote:According to the above, in the case of fewer days, if these carry the Tekufah seventeen or eighteen days into Tishri, intercalation is permissible.
^ᵠnote:I.e., in the case of a shortage neither of seventeen nor eighteen days. The number 'sixteen' therefore is not to be taken in its exact sense, for even if there is a shortage of more than that, intercalation is not justified.
^ʳnote:In which case, it is only a shortage of sixteen days which justifies intercalation.
^ˢnote:In contradistinction to R. Jose.