[Again it was stated:] 'Others say: [That the year is intercalated even where there is a shortage] by the lesser part of the month. And how much is that? Fourteen days.' Now, which view do they adopt? Do they hold that the Tekufah day completes [the previous season], and that we require the whole Feast [of Ingathering to be included in the new Tekufah?] But surely in our case, it is so. [Why then intercalate?] — The 'Others', says R. Samuel son of R. Isaac, speak of the Nisan Tekufah, for it is written, Observe the month of Abib [spring]; i.e., take heed that the beginning of the vernal Tekufah shall occur on a day in Nisan [when the moon is still in the process of renewal]. But why not intercalate a day in Adar? — R. Aha b. Jacob said: The Tanna reckons from higher numbers downward, and says as follows: [If there is a deficiency] as far as [i.e., by more than] the lesser part of the month, the year is intercalated. And how much is that? Fourteen days.' Rabina said: In reality, the 'Others' refer to the Tishri Tekufah, but they hold that the whole Feast [of Ingathering] must fall [in the new Tekufah] including also the first [day of the Feast]. '[Including] the first day'? But is it not written, The Feast of Ingathering [shall be] at the Tekufah of the year; [meaning the day on which ingathering is permitted]? — [They interpret it as] 'The Feast which occurs in the season of ingathering.' THE LAYING ON [OF HANDS] BY THE ELDERS. Our Rabbis taught: [And the elders … shall lay, etc.:] it might be assumed that it means ordinary people advanced in age; Scripture therefore adds, of the congregation. Now, if [you emphasised] congregation, I might think, [it referred to] the minor members of the congregation: therefore it is stated, 'the congregation', [meaning] the distinguished of the congregation. And how many are required? — The plural of 'wesameku' nbsp ['and they shall lay'] implies two; similarly, 'zikne' ['the elders'] implies two, and as there can be no court with an even number, another is added; hence five in all are required: this is R. Judah's view. R. Simeon said: 'Zikne' ['elders'] indicates two, and as a court cannot consist of an even number, another is added, making three in all. But according to R. Simeon, is it not written 'wesameku' ['and they shall lay']? — That is needed for the text itself.] And R. Judah? — That is not needed for the text itself, since if the word wesameku has no significance for deduction, the text could have read [without it]: The Elders, their hands [being] on the head of the bullock. And R. Simeon? — Had it been so written, I might have translated 'al[on], 'in proximity'. And R. Judah? — He deduces this [actual contact] from the use of the word rosh [head] in this case and in connection with the burnt offering. And R. Simeon? — He does not admit the deduction of head written here and in the case of the burnt offering. It is taught: The laying on [of hands], and the laying on [of hands] of the Elders is performed by three. What is meant by, 'Laying on [of hands]', and 'Laying on [of hands] of the Elders'? — R. Johanan said: [The latter] refers to the ordination of Elders. Abaye asked R. Joseph: Whence do we deduce that three are required for the ordination of Elders? Shall we say, from the verse, And he [Moses] laid his hand upon him [Joshua] If so, one should be sufficient! And should you say, Moses stood in place of seventy-one, then seventy-one should be the right number! — The difficulty remained unanswered. R. Aha the son of Raba, asked R. Ashi: Is ordination effected by the literal laying on of hands? — [No,] he answered; it is by the conferring of the degree: He is designated by the title of Rabbi and granted the authority to adjudicate cases of kenas. Cannot one man alone ordain? Did not Rab Judah say in Rab's name: 'May this man indeed be remembered for blessing — his name is R. Judah b. Baba; were it not for him, the laws of kenas would have been forgotten in Israel.' Forgotten? Then they could have been learned. But ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸ