Kiddush HaChodesh - Chapter 3

The Rambam does not say “a one-day distance from Jerusalem,” because after the destruction of the Temple, the High Court would sanctify the new month in other places. (See Rosh HaShanah 22b.)

Note the apparent contradiction in Halachah 15. In the light of that halachah, it would appear that the Rambam’s intent is that since the court endeavors to nullify such testimony, it is undesirable for the witnesses to come and offer it (Lechem Mishneh).

The Rambam is referring to the prohibitions associated with going beyond the Sabbath limits and the performance of any forbidden labors necessary for their journey—e.g., carrying food or weapons.

Significantly, the month of Sivan is not mentioned, although the holiday of Shavuot is celebrated then. The celebration of Shavuot depends, not on a particular day of the month, but on the conclusion of the counting of the Omer. Thus when Rosh Chodesh was determined by the testimony of witnesses, Shavuot could be celebrated on the fifth, sixth, or seventh of Sivan (Rosh HaShanah 6b).

See Hilchot Temidim UMusafim 7:1,4, Hilchot Korban Pesach 1:18.

The sacrifice of any offerings associated with a fixed time supersedes the Sabbath prohibitions.

I.e., the character witnesses mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

This law is based on an actual historical account. Rabbi Nehorai traveled to Usha together with witnesses to substantiate their credibility, in the hope of finding another person there to testify together with him (Rosh HaShanah 22b).

The Perush questions why the Sabbath laws are broken when there is only a possibility of performing a mitzvah, citing a similar situation—a baby born after sunset on Friday. He should not be circumcised on the following Sabbath, because there is a doubt whether circumcision should be performed on Friday or on the Sabbath (Hilchot Milah 1:12).
The subsequent commentaries offer several resolutions to this difficulty. Among them:
a) Circumcision can be performed at a later date, while the sanctification of the new moon cannot be postponed (Lechem Mishneh);
b) Traveling to Jerusalem to testify always involves violating the Sabbath laws with only a possibility of performing the mitzvah, for it is possible that the court will reject the witnesses’ testimony (Rav David Arameah).

Leading a healthy person on a donkey is not considered to be transporting him in violation of the Sabbath labors, because “a living being carries himself.” If, however, the person is sick, this principle does not apply, and he is considered a burden, so that transporting him on a donkey involves a prohibition (Hilchot Shabbat 18:16, 20:1-2). Nevertheless, this prohibition is waived in the endeavor to sanctify the new moon.

Rav David Arameah interprets this to mean that men are allowed to carry him to the court on his bed.

Rashi, Rosh HaShanah 22a, relates that the Sadducees would lie in ambush for the witnesses, with the intent of delaying their appearance in court until after the thirtieth day had passed.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 1:5), the Rambam explains that although the moon might be seen very clearly in one place, in other locales it might have appeared low on the horizon, or covered by clouds. Therefore, it is desirable for all potential witnesses to journey to Jerusalem to make sure that the new moon is sanctified in its proper time.

I.e., there is sufficient time for the witness(es) to arrive at the High Court on the thirtieth day.

In this vein, it is worthy to note a story related in Rosh HaShanah 1:6. Forty pairs of witnesses passed through Lod on their way to Jerusalem to testify regarding the sighting of the moon. Rabbi Akiva held them back, because he saw that their testimony would not stand up under cross-examination by the court. Rabban Gamliel rebuked him, explaining that this would prevent them from journeying to Jerusalem at a future date, when their testimony might be of consequence. (See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah.)

More specifically, Rosh HaShanah 30b states that the problem concerns the song to be sung by the Levites in connection with the sacrifice. Had there not been a difficulty with the song, the afternoon sacrifice could have been offered conditionally: If no witnesses come, the lamb would be considered the afternoon sacrifice; and if the witnesses do come, it would be considered part of the musaf offering (Rishon LeTzion).
Significantly, as reflected in the discussion in Rosh HaShanah (op. cit.), the instance in question concerned the celebration of Rosh HaShanah, and not an ordinary Rosh Chodesh.

For once the afternoon sacrifice is offered, no other offerings may be sacrificed.

The time of the afternoon sacrifice, nine and a half seasonal hours (שָׁעוֹת זְמַנִּיּוֹת) after sunrise.

The Rambam is referring to Rosh HaShanah.

Indeed, regardless the people would observe the day as a holiday from nightfall on the previous day, lest witnesses come and the new moon be sanctified.

And there were no longer any difficulties concerning the sacrifices.

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai lived at the time of the Temple’s destruction, and this decree was instituted shortly after that event.

The Lechem Mishneh and others have raised questions about the Rambam’s choice of wording, based on his previous statements in Chapter 2, Halachah 9. Merkevet HaMishneh offers a simple resolution of this difficulty. Here we are speaking of the acceptance of the witnesses’ testimony, and it is necessary to take time to cross-examine them. This process cannot be completed in the meager amount of time between sunset and the appearance of the stars.

To publicize that the month had become full.

Sanhedrin 70a relates that the participants in this meal would ascend in a time that is neither day nor night. Thus, the Rambam interprets this as referring to the time between the appearance of the first rays of the sun and sunrise itself. Rashi and others maintain that the participants would ascend in the evening, between sunset and the appearance of the stars.

The fires would be lit in the evening of the thirty-first night.

There are mountains surrounding Jerusalem on all sides. The bonfires on these mountains could be seen by people on further mountains, until in a short amount of time people throughout Eretz Yisrael could be notified that the new moon had been sanctified.

The Samaritans lived between Jerusalem and the Galilee. At one point, they desired to disrupt the calculation of the calendar and would light bonfires on the evening before the thirty-first day, regardless of whether or not the moon was sighted. The people in the Galilee would think that the chain of bonfires had begun in Jerusalem (Rosh HaShanah 22b).

The Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 2:1) states that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi was the one who nullified the bonfires, and substituted messengers instead. This, however, is somewhat difficult to accept because, as the Rambam mentions in Halachah 9, there were times when the messengers were sent out while the Temple was standing. Perhaps the intent is that until the time of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi there were times when both messengers were sent out and bonfires were lit. From his time onward, the bonfires were no longer used.

Rosh HaShanah 18b relates that in that era, fasting on the other commemorative fasts—the tenth of Tevet and the seventeenth of Tammuz—was not mandatory. Therefore, it was not necessary to send out messengers for these months.

The Rambam maintains that the people would observe Rosh HaShanah for two days, because of the doubt. Thus, if the people did not know when the month of Elul began, they would have to observe three days (Lechem Mishneh).

This is speaking about the villages in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem.

The commentaries note that Rosh HaShanah 19b also mentions the possibility of the messengers’ being sent out in the second month of Adar if a leap year is declared. This, however, is an infrequent event, because generally, the decision to make the year a leap year was not made at the last moment (Aruch HaShulchan).

Pesach Sheni, when all those who had not offered a sacrifice on the first Pesach were given a further opportunity to bring this offering.

The messengers for the month of Tishrei could travel only 2000 cubits beyond Jerusalem (or 4000 cubits, if they made an eruv t’chumim) on Rosh HaShanah, because of the sanctity of that day (Perush).

Since the holidays observed in these months were prescribed by the Torah itself, this further stringency was required (ibid.).

See Chapter 2, Halachah 9.

The observance of an additional day of the holidays is described in greater detail in Chapter 5.

Thus, if the thirtieth day following Rosh Chodesh Adar fell on the Sabbath, they would not know whether Pesach (the fifteenth day of the following month) would be celebrated on the Sabbath or on Sunday.

For, as explained in the following halachah, the messengers sent out for Tishrei would not travel on Rosh HaShanah or on Yom Kippur.
In the brackets, we mention the holiday of Sukkot, but not Yom Kippur. For Yom Kippur was never observed by a community at large for two days. Rosh HaShanah 21a relates that Rabbah would fast for two days, but this was a stringency that he accepted on himself as an individual. The people in the Diaspora would fast ten days after the thirtieth day following Rosh Chodesh Elul, for the court always endeavored to make Elul a month of 29 days. (See Or Sameach.)

Because Shavuot is dependent on the Counting of the Omer, even Jews living in the outer reaches of the Diaspora were able to know precisely when Shavuot was to be observed. Yet, they kept two days.

There is also the possibility of additional days, if there are more Sabbaths in Tishrei than in Nisan.

From the Rambam’s wording, it would appear that it is necessary that the merchant receive his information from the High Court directly; hearing from others is not sufficient.

Rosh HaShanah 22b states that people will not lie about a matter when it is certain that eventually the truth will be revealed.

The commentaries compare the Rambam’s statements here with those at the conclusion of Hilchot Gerushin. In the latter source, he employs the same rationale—that the truth of the matter will eventually be revealed—to explain why leniency is shown concerning testimony given to determine that a woman’s husband has died, which enables her to remarry. In that instance, however, even greater leniency is shown, and the court accepts the testimony of witnesses who are otherwise unacceptable. The commentaries explain that the greater leniency is granted in consideration of the agonizing situation of the widow.

See Halachah 7.

The Rambam’s statements in this and the following four halachot are based on his interpretation of Rosh HaShanah 20a. Significantly, his understanding of that passage differs from that of Rashi.

Rosh HaShanah, op. cit.

Note another interpretation of the expression, “The month is made full out of necessity,” in Chapter 18, Halachah 11.

This opinion is also mentioned in the above passage.

Generally, when the Rambam uses the expression “It appears to me” in the Mishneh Torah, he is introducing an original interpretation. In this instance, the resolution offered by the Rambam is also suggested by Abbaye in the above passage. Nevertheless, there is a certain justification for the use of the phrase, because there are other interpretations offered by the Talmud, and no conclusion is reached. Therefore, the Rambam’s choice of the interpretation to follow was motivated by his own comprehension of the passage.

When Pesach and Sukkot are celebrated. One might ask why consideration was not given to the observance of Yom Kippur on the tenth of Tishrei.
The Or Sameach offers the following resolution: Yom Kippur was observed for only one day in the outlying Diaspora. The communities would assume that the moon had been sighted at its appropriate time, and they would observe Rosh HaShanah on the thirtieth day after Rosh Chodesh Elul, and Yom Kippur ten days afterwards. Thus, by accepting the witnesses’ testimony, the court will have assured that a large portion of the Jewish people observed Yom Kippur on the proper date.
Although this explanation has its advantages, it does not address itself to the observance of Yom Kippur in Eretz Yisrael, or to the sacrifices that had to be offered on that sacred day in the Temple.

The Hebrew term used, lehazim, means to nullify their testimony by stating that, at the time they claimed to have seen the moon, they were in a different place from the place where they claimed to have sighted it.

It would appear that, in both of the instances mentioned in this halachah, this law applies only when, according to the court’s calculations, the moon should have been sighted on the thirtieth night.