Sanhedrin 26

איכא בינייהו יום תקופה מתחיל ויום תקופה גומר ולא מסיימי

— They differ as to whether the <i>Tekufah</i> day completes [the previous] or begins [the new season].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they both state the number sixteen, the one who holds that the day completes the previous Tekufah must count the new season as beginning on the seventeenth. ');">¹</span> But their views were not defined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not clear who is of the one and who of the other opinion. ');">²</span> [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 <i>Tekufah</i> day completes [the previous season], and that we require the whole Feast [of Ingathering to be included in the new <i>Tekufah</i>?] But surely in our case, it is so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Tishri Tekufah then commences on the fifteenth, whereas the Feast of Ingathering, as defined in p. 58, n. 1, commences on the sixteenth. ');">³</span>

אחרים אומרים מיעוטו וכמה מיעוטו ארבעה עשר יום מאי קסברי אי קסברי יום תקופה גומר וכוליה חג בעינן האיכא אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אחרים בתקופת ניסן קיימי דכתיב (דברים טז, א) שמור את חדש האביב שמור אביב של תקופה שיהא בחדש ניסן

[Why then intercalate?] — The 'Others', says R. Samuel son of R. Isaac, speak of the Nisan <i>Tekufah</i>, for it is written, Observe the month of Abib [spring];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVI, 1. ');">⁴</span> i.e., take heed that the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ripening'. ');">⁵</span> of the vernal <i>Tekufah</i> shall occur on a day in Nisan [when the moon is still in the process of renewal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That accounts for the limit of fourteen days, after which it is on the wane. This is implied in the word [H] which, derived from [H] 'new', means the 'new month'. ');">⁶</span>

וליעבריה לאדר אמר רב אחא בר יעקב תנא מלמעלה למטה קחשיב והכי קאמר עד מיעוטו מעברין וכמה מיעוטו ארבעה עשר יום

But why not intercalate a day in Adar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would bring in the new Tekufah on the thirteenth day, when the moon is still waxing, rather than cause the derangement of a whole month; and though the first day of Passover must not fall on Monday, Wednesday or Friday, and the addition of a day might cause that, it would not matter, because the limitation of the days on which Passover may commence is due to the desire to avoid New Year falling on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday, and that could be avoided by adding a day to one of the normally defective months between Nisan and Tishri. ');">⁷</span> — 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., down to, but not including, the fourteenth day. ');">⁸</span> the year is intercalated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if there is actually a shortage of fourteen days, only the month Adar is intercalated. ');">⁹</span>

רבינא אמר לעולם אחרים בתשרי קיימי וקסברי אחרים כוליה חג בעינן ויו"ט ראשון יום טוב ראשון חג האסיף כתיב חג הבא בזמן אסיפה:

And how much is that? Fourteen days.' Rabina said: In reality, the 'Others' refer to the Tishri <i>Tekufah</i>, but they hold that the whole Feast [of Ingathering]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_10">¹⁰</a> must fall [in the new <i>Tekufah</i>] including also the first [day of the Feast].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And being of the view that the Tekufah day completes, the season, if there is a shortage of fourteen days, in which case the new autumnal Tekufah will begin on the fifteenth day, the first day of the Feast will not be included in it, so that intercalation is justified. ');">¹¹</span>

סמיכת זקנים: ת"ר (ויקרא ד, טו) וסמכו זקני יכול זקני השוק ת"ל עדה

'[Including] the first day'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which work is prohibited. ');">¹²</span> But is it not written, The Feast of Ingathering [shall be] at the <i>Tekufah</i> 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&nbsp;… shall lay, etc.:]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_13">¹³</a>

אי עדה יכול קטני עדה ת"ל העדה מיוחדין שבעדה וכמה הן וסמכו שנים זקני שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד הרי כאן חמשה דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר זקני שנים ואין בית דין שקול מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד הרי כאן שלשה

it might be assumed that it means ordinary people advanced in age;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'elders of the market'. ');">¹⁴</span> Scripture therefore adds, of the congregation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] lit., 'Group', or 'Congregation.' 'Edah' is frequently interpreted by the Rabbis as 'Sanhedrin'. V. Num. Rab. 15, Ch. 16, and Rashi on Lev. IV, 13. The latter derives his statement from Sifra, which again derives it by analogy between 'Edah in Num. XXXV, 24-25, cf. supra 2a. ');">¹⁵</span> Now, if [you emphasised] congregation, I might think, [it referred to] the minor members of the congregation:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the minor Sanhedrin of twenty-three. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור' שמעון הכתיב וסמכו ההוא מיבעי ליה לגופיה ורבי יהודה לגופיה לא צריך דאם כן דלא אתי וסמכו לדרשה ליכתוב זקני העדה ידיהם על ראש הפר

therefore it is stated, 'the congregation',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the definite article. ');">¹⁷</span> [meaning] the distinguished of the congregation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the major Sanhedrin. ');">¹⁸</span> And how many are required? — The plural of 'wesameku'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It could have been written [H] 'we-samak', denoting that any one of the elders should lay his hands. Cf. Malbim on Lev. IV, 15. ');">¹⁹</span>

ור' שמעון אי כתיב הכי הוה אמינא מאי על בסמוך ורבי יהודה גמר ראש ראש מעולה ור"ש לא גמר ראש ראש מעולה

&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.]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_20">²⁰</a> And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not admit this? ');">²¹</span> — 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A kind of absolute clause. ');">²²</span>

תנא סמיכה וסמיכת זקנים בג' מאי סמיכה ומאי סמיכת זקנים א"ר יוחנן מיסמך סבי

And R. Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not admit the superfluity of 'and they shall lay'? ');">²³</span> — Had it been so written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Judah suggests. ');">²⁴</span> I might have translated 'al[on], 'in proximity'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the hands need not actually be laid on the head but only brought near. The word wesameku makes it clear. ');">²⁵</span>

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף מיסמך סבי בשלשה מנלן אילימא מדכתיב (במדבר כז, כג) ויסמוך את ידיו עליו אי הכי תסגי בחד וכי תימא משה במקום שבעים וחד קאי אי הכי ליבעי שבעים וחד קשיא

And R. Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who employs wesameku for another interpretation. ');">²⁶</span> — He deduces this [actual contact] from the use of the word rosh [head] in this case and in connection with the burnt offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 4: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, which obviously means actual contact. ');">²⁷</span> And R. Simeon? — He does not admit the deduction of head written here and in the case of the burnt offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This type of exegesis, deducing identity of fact from identity of language, is called gezerah shawah, and it is a well-established principle that such deduction could not be made by a scholar without a direct tradition from his teacher that that particular identity of phraseology was intended to intimate identity of law. R. Simeon had no such tradition in respect of these two words. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי בידא ממש סמכין ליה אמר ליה סמכין ליה בשמא קרי ליה רבי ויהבי ליה רשותא למידן דיני קנסות

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]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_29">²⁹</a> If so, one should be sufficient! And should you say, Moses stood in place of seventy-one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., having the same authority. ');">³⁰</span>

וחד לא סמיך והא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ברם זכור אותו האיש לטוב ורבי יהודה בן בבא שמו שאילמלא הוא נשתכחו דיני קנסות מישראל נשתכחו נגרוסינהו אלא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³¹</span> 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