Sanhedrin 24

Chapter 24

א (דה"ב ל, יח) כי אכלו את הפסח בלא ככתוב כי התפלל חזקיהו עליהם לאמר ה' הטוב יכפר בעד
1 yet did they eat the Passover otherwise than it is written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not at the prescribed time, the 14th day of Nisan. Cf. Ex. XII, 9. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> for Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying: May the Lord in His goodness pardon everyone.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XXX, 18. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב רבי שמעון אומר אם מפני הטומאה עיברוה מעוברת אלא מפני מה ביקש רחמים על עצמו שאין מעברין אלא אדר והוא עיבר ניסן בניסן ר' שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש מפני שהשיא את ישראל לעשות פסח שני:
2 R. Simeon said: If the intercalation was actually on the ground of uncleanness, it holds good. Why then did Hezekiah implore Divine mercy? — Because only an Adar can be intercalated and he intercalated a Nisan in Nisan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after it had already been sanctified as Nisan, he reconsidered it and sanctified the month as the second Adar. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> R. Simeon b. Judah said on behalf of R. Simeon, that it was because he had persuaded Israel to celebrate a Second Passover [unduly].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of intercalating, to render this unnecessary. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אמר מר רבי יהודה אומר מעברין אלמא אית ליה לרבי יהודה טומאה דחויה היא בציבור
3 The Master has said: 'R. Judah said: We may intercalate [on the ground of uncleanness].' Hence R. Judah holds that [the law of] uncleanness, in the case of an entire Community, is only suspended [and not abrogated].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is a dispute whether uncleanness, in the case of a community, is entirely permitted, as though there were no prohibition at all against it, or whether it is merely suspended on account of the communal need. On the latter view, it is disregarded only when unavoidable, but not here, where it may be avoided by intercalation. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> But has it not been taught: The ziz,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] The golden front-plate. V. Ex. XXVIII, 36-38. It atoned for sacrifices offered in a state of uncleanness, and rendered them acceptable. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד והא תניא ציץ בין שישנו על מצחו ובין שאינו על מצחו מרצה דברי רבי שמעון ר' יהודה אומר עודו על מצחו מרצה אין עודו על מצחו אינו מרצה
4 whether it is on his [the Priest's] forehead or not, propitiates. So said R. Simeon. R. Judah said: Only when it is on his forehead does it propitiate, but not otherwise. R. Simeon thereupon said to him: The case of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement affords proof, seeing that it propitiates even when it is not worn on his forehead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest did not officiate in the interior, i.e., the Holy of Holies, on the Day of Atonement, robed in garments that had gold interwoven, as that would recall the sin of the golden calf. Cf. Lev. XVI, 3-4; R.H. 26a. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> And R. Judah answered him: Leave the Day of Atonement aside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is no proof in this case. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה א"ל ר' שמעון כהן גדול ביום הכיפורים יוכיח שאינו על מצחו ומרצה אמר לו רבי יהודה הנח ליום הכיפורים שטומאה הותרה בציבור
5 for the [laws concerning] impurity are entirely abrogated in the case of a whole Community?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As on the Day of Atonement, when offerings for the whole Community are made. Hence the above inference of R. Simeon is contradicted. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> — But even according to this reasoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even in a case involving a whole Community, as that of the Passover Offering, the year should be intercalated so as to avoid the state of uncleanness. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו וליטעמיך תיקשי לך היא גופה ר' יהודה אומר מעברין ואמר ר' יהודה מעשה בחזקיה מלך יהודה שעיבר את השנה מפני הטומאה וביקש רחמים על עצמו אלא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני אין מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה ואם עיברוה מעוברת רבי יהודה אומר אינה מעוברת ואמר רבי יהודה וכו'
6 is there not a contradiction within the passage itself? [Thus:] R. Judah said: We may intercalate [on account of uncleanness]; and then he himself relates what happened in the case of Hezekiah, king of Judah, who intercalated a year because of uncleanness, but implored Divine mercy on himself [for his action]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely, according to the said argument, his action was lawful! ');"><sup>11</sup></span> But the text is evidently defective, and should read as follows: 'We may not intercalate a year on account of uncleanness, but if it has been intercalated, the decision holds good. R. Judah maintained that the intercalation is not valid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there was no need at all for intercalation, the laws of impurity being withdrawn for the sake of a whole Community. Hezekiah, in intercalating the year, therefore prayed for forgiveness. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז אי הכי ר' שמעון אומר אם מפני הטומאה עיברוה מעוברת היינו תנא קמא אמר רבא לכתחלה איכא בינייהו תניא נמי הכי אין מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה לכתחילה ר' שמעון אומר מעברין אלא מפני מה בקש רחמים על עצמו שאין מעברין אלא אדר והוא עיבר ניסן בניסן
7 and R. Judah observed: It once happened with Hezekiah etc. But if so, [when] R. Simeon says: If the year is intercalated for the sake of [avoiding] uncleanness, the decision holds good, is [he not merely repeating] the opinion of the first Tanna? — Said Raba: They differ as to whether [it may be intercalated] at the outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Simeon it may be intercalated even at the outset, but he speaks of the case as if the act were already performed, merely in contradistinction to R. Judah. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח אמר מר שאין מעברין אלא אדר והוא עיבר ניסן בניסן ולית ליה לחזקיה (שמות יב, ב) החדש הזה לכם זה ניסן ואין אחר ניסן טעה בדשמואל דאמר שמואל אין מעברין את השנה ביום שלשים של אדר הואיל וראוי לקובעו ניסן
8 It has been taught likewise: A year may not be intercalated at the outset because of uncleanness. R. Simeon said: It may be intercalated. Why then did he [Hezekiah] pray for mercy? — Because only an Adar can be intercalated, whereas he intercalated a Nisan in Nisan. The Master has said: 'Because only an Adar can be intercalated, whereas he intercalated a Nisan in Nisan.' But did not Hezekiah agree [that the verse], <i>This month shall be unto you the beginning of months</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 2. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט ואיהו סבר הואיל וראוי לא אמרינן תניא נמי הכי אין מעברין את השנה ביום שלשים של אדר הואיל וראוי לקובעו ניסן:
9 [implies], only this month can be Nisan [once proclaimed], and no other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., once Nisan has been proclaimed, it cannot be re-proclaimed Adar, making the ensuing month Nisan. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — He erred on a ruling of Samuel, for Samuel said: The year is not to be intercalated on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is eligible to be appointed [the first day of] Nisan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When Adar is deficient. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון מפני שהשיא את ישראל לעשות פסח שני היכי דמי אמר רב אשי כגון שהיו ישראל מחצה טמאים ומחצה טהורים ונשים משלימות לטהורים ועודפות עליהם
10 He [Hezekiah] however thought that we do not consider its eligibility [to belong to Nisan].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he intercalated the year on that day. But afterwards, coming to agree with the standpoint represented by Samuel, and so realising his mistake, he prayed for forgiveness. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> It has been taught likewise: The year may not be intercalated on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is eligible to be appointed [the first day] of Nisan.
יא מעיקרא סבר נשים בראשון חובה דהוו מיעוטן טמאים ומיעוטן מידחו לפסח שני ולבסוף סבר נשים בראשון רשות דהוו להו טמאים רובא ורובא לא מדחו לפסח שני:
11 [It was stated above:] 'R. Simeon b. R. Judah said on behalf of R. Simeon that it was because he had [wrongfully] persuaded the people to celebrate a Second Passover [that Hezekiah prayed to be forgiven].' How did it happen?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in the first place he thought it right to intercalate the year, but subsequently repented of his earlier decision? ');"><sup>18</sup></span> — R. Ashi said: E.g., half of Israel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the male population. From the context, it is seen that the clean were not actually half, but a minority. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יב גופא אמר שמואל אין מעברין את השנה ביום שלשים של אדר הואיל וראוי לקובעו ניסן עיברוה מאי אמר עולא אין מקדשין את החדש קידשו מאי אמר רבא בטל העיבור רב נחמן אמר מעובר ומקודש
12 were clean and half unclean, but the women<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were clean. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> made up the number of the clean and turned it into a majority. Now, at first he held that women too are bound [to offer the lamb] on the first [Passover],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the opinion advanced by R. Judah and R. Jose. Cf. Pes. 91b. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יג א"ל רבא לרב נחמן מכדי מפוריא לפיסחא תלתין יומין הוו ומפוריא דרשינן בהלכות הפסח דתניא שואלין בהלכות הפסח קודם לפסח שלשים יום רשב"ג אומר שתי שבתות וכי מטי ריש ירחא מרחקין ליה אתי לזלזולי בחמץ
13 so that only a minority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., of males, for whom the offering is compulsory. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> was unclean; and a minority is relegated to the Second Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he intercalated the year, to obviate the necessity of this. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יד אמר ליה מידע ידיעי דשתא מעברתא בחושבנא תליא מילתא אמרי חושבנא הוא דלא סליק להו לרבנן עד השתא
14 But later he adopted the view [that the participation of] women in the First [Passover celebration] is only voluntary,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Simeon holds (ibid.). ');"><sup>24</sup></span> so that the unclean were in a majority, and a majority is not relegated to the Second Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the intercalation was unnecessary. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
טו אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין מעברין את השנה אלא א"כ היתה תקופה חסירה רובה של חודש וכמה רובה של חודש ששה עשר יום דברי רבי יהודה
15 The text [states]: 'Samuel said, The year is not to be intercalated on the thirtieth day of Adar, since it is eligible to be appointed [the first day of] Nisan.' But what if it were intercalated? — 'Ulla said: The month must not be sanctified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the second Adar. The succeeding month, however, will he sanctified as Nisan, the current month remaining unnamed. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> But what if it were sanctified? — Raba said: Then the intercalation is invalid. R Nahman said: Both the intercalation and the sanctification are valid. Raba said to R. Nahman: Let us consider! Between Purim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Feast celebrated on the fourteenth of Adar in commemoration of the deliverance of the Jews from the plot of Haman, as recorded in the Book of Esther. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> and the Passover there are thirty days, and from Purim we begin to lecture on the laws of Passover, as has been taught: People must begin to inquire into the Passover laws thirty days before the Festival. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: A fortnight before. If, then, it [sc. Passover] is postponed at the beginning of the month [of Nisan],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the institution of a second Adar, the lecturing on Passover laws having already begun. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> people<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not believing the report of the messengers that an intercalation had been made. — Raba's assumption that the messengers might be disbelieved, would seem to show that there were enemies of the Jews who might seek to upset the Calendar. Cf. p. 52, n. 9 on the attitude of the Roman authorities to intercalation. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> will be liable to disregard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'treat lightly'. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> the law regarding leaven [on Passover].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they will not treat the Passover fixed by the Rabbis as such, having already celebrated it a month before. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — He [R. Nahman] answered him: It is well-known that the intercalation of a year depends on [minute] calculations, hence they would say that [the declaration was not made until the thirtieth day] because the Rabbis had not completed their calculation until then. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: A year is not to be intercalated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the Tekufah. V. supra 11b. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> unless the [summer] Tekufah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The solar year which consists of three hundred and sixty-five and a quarter days is divided into four equal parts, each period consisting of ninety-one days and seven and a half hours. These are called respectively the Nisan (vernal), Tammuz (summer), Tishri (autumnal), Tebeth (winter) Tekufoth. The lunar year which forms the basis of our calendar comprises altogether three hundred and fifty-four days. Though according to Biblical tradition our months are to be lunar (cf. Ex. XII, 2), yet our Festivals are to be observed at certain agricultural seasons; Passover and Pentecost in the Spring; Tabernacles, or Feast of Ingathering, in the autumn. In order to harmonise the lunar and solar years, a second Adar is intercalated once in two or three years. Our text lays down certain principles by which the Intercalators are to be guided. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> is short of completion by the greater part of the month.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tishri. I.e., the greater part of Tishri must be taken in to complete the Tekufah of Tammuz. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> And how much is that? — Sixteen days: so holds R. Judah.