Previous daf

1)

(a) In the second Lashon, we connect the witnesses' desecration of the Shabbos with the obligation to sanctify Rosh Chodesh through the sighting of the witnesses. If Adar Sheini could be full, asks the Gemara - why should the witnesses be permitted to desecrate Shabbos for Rosh Chodesh Nisan? Seeing as the Beis-Din have the option of fixing whichever day they see fit - let the witnesses rather come on the following day, and let them fix Rosh Chodesh then?

(b) To refute this proof - we establish the Mishnah when the new moon was not seen until the thirty-first, when Beis-Din cannot postpone Rosh Chodesh, and when the witnesses have to come to Beis-Din, because of the Mitzvah to sanctify Rosh Chodesh according to the sighting of the witnesses.

(a) The Seifa of the next Mishnah states that, when the Beis Hamikdash stood, the witnesses would desecrate the Shabbos 'because of Takanas ha'Korban' - meaning that it is a Mitzvah to bring the Korban Musaf of Rosh Chodesh when it is due (and not to postpone it).

(b) We deduce from there that - just as the Seifa of the Mishnah permits desecrating the Shabbos for reasons other than the Mitzvah to sanctify Rosh Chodesh through the sighting of the witnesses, so too, in the Reisha (by Rosh Chodesh Nisan and Tishri), that will not be the reason, but because it is necessary.

(c) In that case - it will only be necessary to break Shabbos, if Adar can be either short or full (as we asked at the end of the previous Amud), but not if it is always short (a disproof against Rav, who maintains that Adar is always short).

(a) It was extremely rare for Elul to be a full month. When it did happen, according to Ula, it was because of 'Yarkaya', and according to Rebbi Achah bar Chanina, because of 'Meisaya'. The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Yarkaya' - is to prevent Yom-Tov and Shabbos from falling next to each other, because by the time the second day arrives, vegetables that are eaten raw will wither (and that will detract from Simchas Yom-Tov).
2. ... 'Meisaya' - is to prevent Shabbos and Yom-Kipur from falling next to each other, because someone who dies on the first day and who cannot subsequently be buried for two days, will become putrid by then (and this is not Kavod ha'B'riy'os).

(b) Initially, we think that the difference between the two reasons will manifest itself in a year when Yom Kipur falls after Shabbos. Yarkaya would not apply there - because one would only need the vegetables *after* Yom Kipur, when it is possible to obtain fresh ones.

(c) We reject this contention however - on the grounds that Ula also contends with the reason of 'Meisaya'.

(d) We conclude that the difference between them is when Yom-Tov falls immediately before or after Shabbos - in which case 'Meisaya' will not apply (seeing as it is possible to bury the dead person on Yom-Tov through Nochrim).

(a) Rebbi Acha bar Chanina will not agree that even when Yom-Tov falls next to Shabbos, one should declare Elul a full month because of 'Yarkaya' - since it is possible to soak the vegetables in hot water, and revive them (alternatively, to prepare cooked vegetables - see Rabeinu Chanan'el).

(b) Ula considered this a favor for the B'nei Bavel more than for the B'nei Eretz Yisrael - because Bavel, a low altitude country, contains the heat more than Eretz Yisrael, in which case the vegetables will spoil quicker.

(a) The Beraisa of Rabah bar Shmuel states that, although one is permitted to declare a leap-*year* when necessary, it is forbidden to postpone Rosh- Chodesh and declare a full *month*, under any circumstances. To accommodate Ula and Rebbi Acha bar Chanina - we amend the Beraisa to read, not that one is forbidden to *postpone* Rosh Chodesh if the new moon *was* seen, but that it is forbidden to *declare* Rosh Chodesh if it was *not*.

(b) We corroborate this amendment with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who said that although one may frighten the witnesses into being silent and *not* testifying that they saw the new moon (in order to make the month a full month), one may not frighten witnesses who did not see the new moon to testify that they *did see* it, in order to make the month a short one.

(c) Abaye reconciles Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with Rebbi Yochanan, who would frighten the witnesses into saying that they had seen the new moon, even when they hadn't - by establishing Rebbi Yochanan by Nisan and Tishri (which, on account of their importance, seeing as all the Yamim-Tovim depend on them, need to be more flexible) whereas the Beraisa speaks by all the other months (See Tosfos DH 'Ha').

(a) Rava leaves the original wording of Rabah bar Shmuel's Beraisa intact, by establishing it like Acheirim - who holds that the number of days in each month is fixed (Nisan thirty days, Iyar, twenty-nine, Sivan thirty etc.) and cannot be changed - as we saw above on 6b.

(b) Rav Dimi from Neherda'a answers the Kashya (inferred in 5b.) by switching the statements. According to him, the Tana holds that one may frighten the witnesses, if necessary, in order to testify that they saw the new moon even though they did not, in order to make it a short month, but not vice-versa, in order to make it a full one. Initially, we explained the criterion (as to when one may force the witnesses or not) as being whether the witnesses will be lying or not. Now the criterion is whether it will *appear* that they are lying or not (irrespective of whether they are or not).

7)

(a) Shmuel claimed - that he was able to fix a calendar for the B'nei Bavel even without the sighting of witnesses (because he was conversant with all areas of astronomy).

(b) Aba the father of Rebbi Simla'i dismissed that claim - on the basis of Shmuel's own admission that he did not know how to explain the Beraisa of Sod ha'Ibur 'Nolad Kodem Chatzos O Nolad Achar Chatzos'. And if, he argued, Shmuel did not know *that*, perhaps there were other things that he did not know either.

(a) When Rebbi Zeira said that the night and day must be from the new moon - he meant that if the old moon is still seen on the night following the twenty-ninth of the month, then that entire twenty-four period cannot be Rosh Chodesh, and the month must be a full one.

(b) He puts night first before the day follows the night in these matters.

(c) At the time of the Molad - the moon is invisible for twenty-four hours.

(d) In view of what we just said, the point in telling us that if the old moon is seen on the night of the thirtieth, that day will not be Rosh Chodesh is not the intrinsic Halachah, which is obvious - but that since the *old* moon has been seen, it is forbidden to frighten witnesses who did *not* see the new moon into testifying that they *did* [even according to the opinion of Rav Dimi from Neherda'a in 6d.], because everyone will know that their testimony is false.

(a) Rebbi Zeira explains the Beraisa of 'Sod ha'Ibur' (referred to above by Aba the father of Rebbi Simla'i) 'Nolad Kodem Chatzos, be'Yadua she'Nir'eh Samuch li'Sheki'as ha'Chamah ... ' - to mean that, if the Molad occurred *before* midday, then the new moon will have been visible in Eretz Yisrael *before* nightfall (because the new moon is always hidden for six hours after its birth); otherwise, it will *not* have been seen, and we will know that witnesses who claim to have seen it, must be lying.

(b) The new moon is always seen for the first time after the Molad - in the south-west corner of the sky.

(a) We have already learned that at the time of the Molad, the moon cannot be seen for twenty-four hours - due to its minute size.

(b) In Bavel, the old moon disappears six hours before the Molad, and the new one can be seen eighteen hours after it. In Eretz Yisrael - it is the reverse: the old moon disappears for eighteen hours before the Molad, and the new one, six hours after it.

(c) The new moon is visible to the B'nei Eretz Yisrael so much sooner than it is to the B'nei Bavel - because they are west of Bavel, and the new moon appears in the south-west.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns that the night precedes the day (as we saw above in Rebbi Zeira's first Halachah) from "me'Erev ad Erev" (of Yom Kipur). Resh Lakish learns it from - "ad Yom ha'Echad ve'Esrim la'Chodesh *ba'Erev*" (which teaches us that the obligation to eat Matzah ceases on the *night* following the twenty-first, which means that it must have begun on the *night* of the fifteenth).

(b) Abaye maintains that there is no practical difference between the two reasons. Rava says that the difference between them is that -according to Rebbi Yochanan, we reckon from the *beginning* of the night (which is when the fast of Yom-Kipur begins); whereas according to Resh Lakish, who learns it, not from the obligation of eating Mitzvah (which applies only on the first night until midnight), but from the Mitzvah of eating Matzah rather than Chametz (a Mitzvah that begins only after midnight of the first night (when the obligation to eat Matzah terminates), the old moon must not be visible as from midnight (and it does not matter if it was seen any time between nightfall and midnight.

(a) When Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman said that the Safek of Yom-Tov is postponed (but not brought forward) - he meant to say that in Chutz la'Aretz, where one observes two days Yom-Tov, one only needs to be concerned that the previous month was a full month and that Yom-Tov might be postponed by one day (to the sixteenth of the month); one does not need to take into account the possibility that both of the previous months were short months, in which case, Yom-Tov will fall on the fourteenth (which would have meant observing three days Yom-Tov).

(b) The reason for this is - because for two consecutive months to be short is highly unusual. Consequently, had it occurred, everyone would somehow have got to know about it (even in areas where the Sh'luchei Nisan or Tishri could not reach.