Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, this term refers to the funds collected from the half-shekalim and placed in the three large baskets. In addition, other funds remained from the half-shekalim in this chamber, and the Temple treasury had other funds from other sources.

I.e., a convert without Jewish heirs. If he has heirs, and similarly for a native-born Jew who dies after having designated animals as offerings, the heirs are required to supply the wine libations.

A meal offering resembling a pancake, brought daily by the High Priest.

Although we are forbidden to plant any crops in the Sabbatical year, the Torah allows us to benefit from the small amount of produce that grows on its own accord from left-over seeds and the like. Our Sages forbade deriving personal benefit from such produce (Hilchot Shemitah 4:1-2); it may, however, be used for a mitzvah. Nevertheless, because the prohibition was only Rabbinic in origin, it was not observed carefully by the entire population. Hence, to ensure that there was a sufficient quantity of grain available for these offerings, it was necessary to hire watchmen.

A maneh was 100 dinarim. As can be derived from Chapter 1, Halachah 3, a dinar was equivalent to the weight of 96 barleycorns of silver.

As stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the sheyarei halishcah, “the remainder within the chamber,” refers to the funds that remain from the collection of shekalim after the coins were placed in the three large baskets.

I.e., a gentile who commits himself to observing the seven universal laws commanded to Noach and his descendants

Every year, 368 measures of incense were prepared, 365 corresponding to the days of a solar year, and three extra measures for the incense offering of the High Priest on Yom Kippur (Keritot 6a). Since an ordinary lunar year has either 353, 354, or 355 days, in every ordinary year there were always several portions of incense remaining.

The concept of a renewal each month is relevant regarding lunar months, but not with regard to solar months. For the moon is not seen for a day or two each month, while the sun shines continually every day throughout the year.

Although the implication to a lunar month in this verse is not as obvious as in the former verse, there is an explicit teaching from our Sages indicating a connection, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

Mechilta D’Rashbi on the above verse; see also Midrash Tanchumah, Shemini, sec. 8; Menachot 29a.

Sanhedrin 13b (cited by the Rambam, Chapter 4, Halachah 1) explains that this verse is a charge to arrange the calendar so that the vernal (spring) equinox always falls in the month of Nisan.

The Rambam speaks in more precise figures in Chapter 6. At present, he is speaking in general terms to give an outline of the how the Jewish calendar is structured.

Megillah 5a.

As will be explained in the notes to Ch. 11, when the sun, the moon, and the earth are aligned in a straight line in that order, the moon reflects the sun’s rays directly back to it, and no light can be seen from the earth. This is called the conjunction of the sun and the moon. Afterwards, the moon proceeds in its orbit away from the sun, and within approximately one day’s time it will have moved a sufficient distance for it to reflect a small crescent of light to the earth. This crescent will always be sighted first in the western portion of the sky, close to the horizon.

I.e., in contrast to the Sabbath, a person who thinks that he has sighted the moon may not begin counting the days of the new month on his own initiative. Rather, he must go to the Sanhedrin and present his testimony to them, and it is they who decide whether or not to begin the new month. (Note the Rambam’s comments in Sefer HaMitzvot , Positive Commandment 153, where he elaborates on this theme.)

I.e., the Sanhedrin, the High Court that held sessions in Jerusalem until the Temple’s destruction, and afterwards was located in various cities throughout Eretz Yisrael.

As explained in Rosh HaShanah 22a, this command was addressed to Moses and Aaron. The words “to you” are seemingly unnecessary. Thus, they are interpreted to mean that just as this command is being given to you, so too, the fulfillment of it in subsequent times will be the responsibility of men like you—i.e., the judges of Israel’s High Court. (See Chapter 2, Halachah 8, which mentions an application of this principle. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 1.)

Rav Kapach explains that the Rambam chose his wording exactly. The calculations of the High Court merely “resembled the calculations of the astronomers.” In truth, however, they operated under a different system. As the Rambam explains in Chapter 17, Halachah 24, the prophets and the descendants of the tribe of Issachar had a method of calculating the movement of the sun, the moon, and the stars, which had been transmitted to Moses on Mount Sinai. Although this method resembled the method of calculations employed by gentile scholars, it was unique and different. (See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 2:8.)
This method of calculation was lost to our people shortly after the composition of the Mishnah. Subsequent texts, including the Rambam’s own system of calculation, as explained from Chapter 11 onward, were based on Greek sources

Because the moon was covered with clouds or for other similar reasons. (See Chapter 18, Halachah 1.)

See Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 153) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 4), which consider this to be one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

The Rambam mentions three activities imperative on the court in fulfillment of this mitzvah: the calculation of the time for the sighting of the moon, the examination of the witnesses, and the notification of the Jewish people.
It is interesting to note that the structure of Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh represents somewhat of a departure from the Rambam’s usual style of presentation in the Mishneh Torah. He generally begins by citing a mitzvah and the proof-text from which it is derived, and afterwards he describes it. In this instance, the Rambam begins by describing the basic ground rules for the sighting of the moon, and afterwards he explains the mitzvah that is associated with this sighting.
Rav Kapach suggests that this approach could have been taken in reaction to the position of Rav Sa’adiah Gaon, who maintains that the fundamental aspect of determining the calendar was not the sighting of the moon, but rather the calculations of the Sages. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 2:6).

As stated in the conclusion of Chapter 2, this verse is an indication that the determination of the days on which the festivals are to be celebrated—and thus the establishment of the monthly calendar on which the former depends—was entrusted to the Jewish High Court

This verse refers to the Paschal sacrifice and teaches us that there is an obligation to “observe this statute,” bring the Paschal sacrifice, “at its appointed time”—i.e., in the spring. This alludes to the second dimension of this mitzvah, the establishment of leap years so that the holiday of Pesach will always fall in the spring.
Note the Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, Shoresh 1), who cites opinions that consider these two dimensions—the establishment of Rosh Chodesh and the decision whether to observe leap years—as two separate mitzvot.
The Rambam’s citation of this proof-text has attracted the attention of commentaries because of another difficulty. In Menachot 36b, the meaning of this verse is the subject of a difference of opinion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosse HaG’lili. While the simple meaning of the phrase “this statute” is the Paschal sacrifice—and this is the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva—Rabbi Yosse HaG’lili interprets the phrase as referring to the mitzvah of wearing tefillin.
What is significant is that in the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam cites both the interpretations of Rabbi Akiva (in this halachah) and that of Rabbi Yosse HaG’lili (Hilchot Tefillin 4:10) as Torah law. The commentaries (see Radbaz, Vol. V, Responsum 1693) explain that this is indicative of a general pattern within the Mishneh Torah. The Rambam’s intent in composing the Mishneh Torah was to provide us with a text of Torah practice, not a source book explaining the derivation of Torah law. He refers to verses only when they are necessary as supports. Therefore, in each instance he cites the proof-text that has the most obvious connection to the law or principle he is referring to, although it is possible that there is another verse from which this law was actually derived.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., where the Rambam explains the connection of this mitzvah—and the Jewish people as a whole—to Eretz Yisrael in stirring terms.

The ordination conveyed upon the Sages from Sage to Sage, in a chain that began with Moses himself. (See Hilchot Sanhedrin, Chapter 4.)

Yevamot 122a relates that Rabbi Akiva journeyed to Neharde’a for this purpose, and from the narrative in Berachot 63a, it would appear that Chanina, Rabbi Yehoshua’s nephew, lived in Babylon and ordained the order of the calendar from there for several years.

Berachot, ibid., states that the Sages of Eretz Yisrael ordered Chanina to stop ordaining the calendar, because “the kids that you left behind have grown and become billy-goats with horns”—i.e., the Sages who were once on a lower level of understanding had matured and achieved a par with him.

The Rambam is speaking about the era when the beginning of the new month was determined through the testimony of witnesses. The use of the fixed calendar we follow at present is discussed in Chapter 5.

For all evidence must be substantiated by the testimony of two witnesses, as implied by Deuteronomy 19:15 which states, “The testimony of a single witness will not stand.” See Hilchot Edut, ch. 5.

Both these concepts are implied by the Hebrew word anashim.

See Hilchot Edut, Chapters 9-10, 12-14

Who are not acceptable for testimony in court (Hilchot Edut 9:2,4). The slaves referred to here are “Canaanite slaves,” gentiles purchased as slaves. A Jewish servant, eved ivri, may give testimony in court on this and other matters.

E.g., gamblers and usurers.

More particularly, the term used by the Rambam, zomemim refers to witnesses who claimed that they saw the moon while they were located in a specific place at a specific time, and later it was proven that they had been in another place at that time. (See Hilchot Edut, Chapter 18.)

See Halachah 10.

Avot D’Rabbi Natan 5:2 relates that Antigonus of Socho had two talented students, Tzadok and Baithos who tragically rejected the core of Jewish practice and then claimed that they were true to Torah, but the only Torah that was Godly was the written law. The oral law, they maintained, was merely a human invention. This thesis was only a ruse to sway the people from the performance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, the Sages would refer to all those who deny the Torah and its tradition as Sadducees (from Tzadok) or Baithosees (from Baithos). Not only did these individuals scorn Torah observance themselves, but they tried, as indicated by this halachah, to undermine the observance of the Jewish nation as a whole. Other original printings state minnim, “non-believers” which some consider to be a reference to the early Christians.

Rosh HaShanah 22b relates that the Sadducees paid witnesses 400 zuzim to testify falsely with regard to the sighting of the moon.

The Rambam uses a plural term, implying that two character witnesses are required. This prerequisite is apparent from Rosh HaShanah 22b. The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 2:1), by contrast, requires only one character witness.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 2:7, this refers to the latitude of the moon. This subject is explained in Chapter 16.

The size of the moon’s crescent grows as it moves further away from the sun.

See Chapter 19 for an explanation of how the court can determine these matters.

To sanctify the moon, it is necessary to see the moon itself—and not its reflection—and to see it clearly, not as it is hidden by clouds.

Although there is a discrepancy between them, the two testimonies are not considered to contradict each other, since it is possible for a person to err slightly in making such an estimation.

For this discrepancy is too great for the two to be considered a single statement.

Rosh HaShanah 24a and 25a mentions instances where the conjunction of the clouds appeared to resemble the moon.

The Rambam’s statements are based on his interpretation of the difference of opinion between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri mentioned in Rosh HaShanah 2:9. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah for a detailed analysis of this matter.)
Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri maintains that the witnesses’ testimony should be disregarded, because it cannot possibly be true. Everyone knows that, at the beginning of the month, the moon always appears on the western horizon for a brief period after the setting of the sun. At this time of the month, seeing it in the morning, before sunrise, is impossible. (See Chapters 15 and 17 for an explanation of this phenomenon.) Since the testimony of these witnesses contains an obvious error, the testimony should be disregarded entirely.
Rabban Gamliel, as his opinion is explained by the Rambam, was aware of this astronomical concept as well. Nevertheless, in the instance mentioned in the Mishnah, he knew that according to the calculations, it would have been possible for the moon to have been sighted on the night mentioned by the witnesses. Why then, he argued, should their testimony be discounted entirely because of the error they made regarding the morning. The fact that then, they mistook the condensation of clouds for the moon should not cause their testimony to be disregarded entirely.

This represents a parallel difference of opinion mentioned in Rosh HaShanah (op. cit.). Rabbi Dosa ben Hyrkanos maintains that it is impossible for the moon to be sighted on one night, and then for it not to be sighted on the following night.
Rabban Gamliel (as his position is explained by the Rambam in his Commentary to the Mishnah) accepted the witnesses’ testimony in this instance, because he knew that, according to the calculations, it was possible for the moon to be sighted on the thirtieth night. The fact that it was not sighted again on the thirty-first night was merely a matter of circumstance: no one was trying to see it, their view was obstructed by clouds, or the like.

I.e., there is no benefit to be derived from a witness whose testimony will not be accepted by the court because of his conduct—e.g., a transgressor, a gambler, or a usurer.

Rosh HaShanah 23b states that there was a large courtyard in Jerusalem called “the house of Ya’azak” where the witnesses would gather.

In Halachah 4.

See Halachah 5.

The Rambam (based on Rosh HaShanah 2:7) is communicating an important lesson in human dynamics. Since the court might need these witnesses in the future, it is important that they feel that consideration is shown to them, and that their coming was not futile.

Rosh HaShanah 25b derives this concept as follows: The commandment “This month shall be for you...” was addressed to both Moses and Aaron, implying that at least two judges are necessary. A court must be composed of an odd number of judges, and hence a third judge is required.

I.e., as the Rambam continues to explain, for the new month to be sanctified, the moon must be sighted on the thirtieth night, the witnesses must testify on the thirtieth day, and the court must declare the month to be sanctified—all before sunset of that day.

Based on Psalms 81:4-5, Rosh HaShanah 25b draws an equation between the sighting of the new moon and the delivery of a judgment. Just as a judgment may be delivered only during the day, so too, the mitzvah of the sanctifying the new moon applies only by day.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 3:1, the Rambam explains that one might think that since the court and the entire Jewish people saw the moon, there was no need to sanctify the new month. Therefore, as he concludes in this halachah, it is necessary to emphasize that it is the sanctification of the court that establishes the new month, and not the sighting of the moon alone.

Rosh HaShanah (loc. cit.) explains that although a decision regarding a monetary case may be rendered at night if the testimony was received by the court during the day, this concept does not apply regarding the sanctification of the new month. The court must actually sanctify the new month during the day.

Based on Chapter 3, Halachot 15-18, it would appear that the Rambam’s intent is that, since the new month was not sanctified at its appropriate time, the court endeavors to have the witnesses’ testimony disqualified. If, however, the witnesses’ testimony is substantiated despite the court’s efforts, the month can be sanctified retroactively.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 5, the mitzvah of sanctifying the new month has been entrusted to the court.

Rosh HaShanah 25b explains that this teaches us that hearing the testimony of the witnesses is not more effective than the actual sighting of the moon itself.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 3:1), the Rambam writes that although the sun has set, the night does not begin until the appearance of the stars, and it is still possible to sanctify the new moon.
(The Rambam’s wording in this halachah and in the related portions of his Commentary to the Mishnah have raised questions concerning his conception of the limits of the day, the night, and the intermediate period referred to as beyn hash’mashot. See the Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1379), the Ralbach, the Or Sameach and others, who address themselves to this issue.)
It is also significant to mention that Rashi (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.) and others differ with the Rambam’s interpretation of the Mishnah, and consider it as referring to the sighting of the moon at the conclusion of the thirtieth day, on the eve of the thirty- first.

From this time onward, they can no longer sanctify the new month on the basis of their sighting alone. Instead, the procedure outlined by the Rambam must be followed.

Significantly, instead of mentioning the court as being forced to sanctify the month on the wrong day, Rosh HaShanah 25a states “even if they purposefully sanctified the moon on the wrong day”—i.e., they accepted the testimony of witnesses even when they knew that it was flimsy. The Rambam chooses not to mention such an instance, and instead quotes the Mechilta D’Rashbi and the Sifra.

Rosh HaShanah 2:10 relates that once Rabbi Yehoshua differed with Rabban Gamliel concerning the acceptance of the testimony of witnesses with regard to Rosh HaShanah. Since Rabban Gamliel was the head of the High Court, his opinion was accepted. To emphasize the importance of following the necessity for uniform adherence to the decisions of the court, Rabban Gamliel ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to appear before him carrying his staff and his wallet on the day that Rabbi Yehoshua thought should be considered as Yom Kippur. After consulting with his colleagues, Rabbi Yehoshua obeyed Rabban Gamliel’s instructions. Afterwards, Rabban Gamliel honored Rabbi Yehoshua for his humility and deference to the court’s authority.

אתם, meaning “which” in the above verse, can also mean “you,” when vocalized differently. Thus, the authority of “you,” the Jewish court to whom this matter is entrusted, is emphasized more powerfully (Rosh HaShanah, loc. cit.).