Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

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.).