The Babylonian Talmud (abridged)

THE ORDINANCES ABOUT THE NEW YEARS OF THE JEWISH CALENDAR--THE MESSENGERS THAT WERE SENT OUT FROM JERUSALEM--AND AT WHICH PERIOD OF THE YEAR THE WORLD IS DIVINELY JUDGED.

MISHNA I.: There are four New Year days, viz.: The first of Nissan is New Year for (the ascension of) Kings and for (the regular rotation of) festivals; the first of Elul is New Year for the cattle-tithe, but according to R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, it is on the first of Tishri. The first of Tishri is New Year's day, for ordinary years, and for sabbatic years and jubilees; and also for the planting of trees and for herbs. On the first day of Shebhat is the New Year for trees, according to the school of Shammai; but the school of Hillel says it is on the fifteenth of the same month.

GEMARA: "For kings." Why is it necessary to appoint such a day? (Let every king count the day of his ascension to the throne as the beginning of his year.) Said R. Hisda: "On account of documents." So that in the case of mortgages, one may know which is the first and which is the second by means of the year of the king's reign mentioned in the documents. The rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 29th of Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the first of Nissan of the following year. From this we infer, that only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil New Year); that even a fraction of a year is considered a year; and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of Nissan, although he may have been elected in Adar. The Boraitha teaches this lest one say that the year should be reckoned from the day of election, and therefore the king would begin his second year (on the first of Nissan following).

The rabbis taught: If a king die in Adar, and his successor ascend the throne in Adar, (documents may be dated either) the (last) year of the (dead) king or the (first) year of the new king. If a king die in Nissan, and his successor ascend the throne in Nissan, the same is the case. But if a king die in Adar, and his successor does not ascend the throne until Nissan, then the year ending with Adar should be referred to as the year of the dead king, and from Nissan it should be referred to as that of his successor. Is this not self-evident? The case here mentioned refers to an instance where the new king was a son of the deceased, and, while ascending the throne in Nissan, had been elected in the month of Adar, and being the king's son, it might be assumed that he was king immediately after his election, and thus the following first of Nissan would inaugurate the second year of his reign. He comes to teach us that such is not the case.

R. Johanan says: Whence do we deduce that we reckon the commencement of years (for the reign) of kings, only from Nissan? Because it is written [I Kings, vi. 1]: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the going forth of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the month Ziv, which is the second month of the reign of Solomon over Israel." Thus the Scriptures establish an analogy between "the reign of Solomon" and "the Exodus from Egypt." As the Exodus from Egypt is reckoned from Nissan, so also is the reign of Solomon reckoned from Nissan. But how do we know that the Exodus even should be reckoned from Nissan? Perhaps we should reckon it from Tishri. This would be improper, for it is written [Numb. xxxiii. 38]: "And Aaron, the Priest, went up into Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, on the first day of the fifth month." And it is written [Deut. i. 3]: "And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, Moses spake," etc. Since he mentions the fifth month, which is certainly Abh, and he speaks of (Aaron's death as happening in) the fortieth year (and not the forty-first year), it is clear that Tishri is not the beginning of years (for kings). This argument would be correct as far as the former (Aaron's) case is concerned, for the text specifically mentions (forty years after) the Exodus; but in the latter (Moses') case, how can we tell that (the fortieth year) means from the Exodus?

Perhaps it means (the fortieth year) from the raising of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. From the fact that R. Papa stated further on, that the twentieth year is mentioned twice for the sake of a comparison by analogy, we must assume that the analogy of expression "the fortieth year" (mentioned in connection with both Aaron and Moses) signifies also; as in the former case it means forty years from the time of the Exodus, so also in the latter case. But whence do we know that the incident that took place in Abh (the death of Aaron) happened before (the speech of Moses) which is related as happening in Shebhat? Perhaps the Shebhat incident happened first. It is not reasonable to suppose this, for it is written [Deut. i. 4]: "After he had slain Sihon the king of the Amorites," and when Aaron died Sihon was still living. Thus it is written [Numb. xxi. 1]: "And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard." What did he hear? He heard that Aaron was dead, and that the clouds of glory had departed (and he thought that a sign that permission was given from heaven to fight against Israel). How can we make any such comparison? In the one place it speaks of the Canaanite, and in the other of Sihon. We have learned in a Buraitha that Sihon, Arad, and the Canaanite are identical. This opinion of R. Johanan is quite correct, for we find that a Boraitha quotes all the verses that he quotes here, and arrives at the same conclusion.

R. Hisda says: The rule of the Mishna--that the year of the kings begins with Nissan--refers to the kings of Israel only, but for the kings of other nations it commences from Tishri. As it is said [Neh. i. 1]: "The words of Nehemiah, the son of Hakhaliah. And it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year," etc. And it is written [ibid. ii. 1]: "And it came to pass in the month Nissan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king," etc. Since Hanani stood before Nehemiah in Kislev, and the Bible speaks of it as the twentieth year, and since Nehemiah stood before the king in Nissan, and the Text calls it also the twentieth year, it is clear that the New Year (for the non-Jewish king, Artaxerxes) is not Nissan (or in the latter case he would have spoken of the twenty-first year). This would be correct as far as the latter quotation is concerned, for it specifically mentions Artaxerxes, but in the former verse how do we know that it refers to Artaxerxes? Perhaps it refers to another event altogether. Says R. Papa: Since in the first passage we read "the twentieth year" and in the second we read "the twentieth year," we may deduce by analogy that as in the one case Artaxerxes is meant, so is he meant also in the other. But how do we know that the event, recorded as having occurred in Kislev, and not the Nissan incident, happened first? This we know from a Boraitha, where it reads: The same words which Hanani said to Nehemiah in Kislev, the latter repeated to the king in Nissan, as it is said [Neh. i. 1, 2]: "The words of Nehemiah, son of Hakhaliah. And it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the capital, that Hanani, one of my brethren came, and certain men of Judah... and the gates thereof are burned with fire." And it also said [Neh. ii. 1-6]: "And it came to pass in the month of Nissan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him... so it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time."

R. Joseph raised an objection. It is written [Haggai, ii. 10]: "In the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius." And it is also written [ibid. I]: "In the second year, in the seventh month, in the one-and-twentieth day of the month." If the rule is that Tishri (the seventh month) is the beginning of years for non-Jewish kings, should not the Text read "in the third year of Darius" instead of the second year? R. Abbahu answered: Cyrus was a most upright king, and the Hebrews reckoned his years as they did those of the kings of Israel (beginning with Nissan). R. Joseph opposed this. First: If that were so, there are texts that would contradict each other, for it is written [Ezra, vi. 15]: "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King." And we have learned in a Boraitha: At the same time in the following year Ezra and the children of the captivity went up from Babylon, and the Bible says about this [Ezra, vii. 8]: "And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month in the seventh year of the king." But if the rule is (that for Cyrus the year began with Nissan and not Tishri) should not the Text say "the eighth year" (since the first day of Nissan, the beginning of another year, intervenes between the third of Adar and the month of Abh)? Secondly: How can these texts be compared? In the one place it speaks of Cyrus, and in the other of Darius. We have learned in a Boraitha that Darius, Cyrus, and Artaxerxes are all one and the same person.

"And for festivals." Do then the festivals commence on the first of Nissan? Do they not begin on the fifteenth of that month? R. Hisda answered: (The Mishna means that Nissan is) the month that contains that festival which is called the New Year for festivals (viz., Passover).

What difference does it make (in practice)? It makes a difference to one who has made a vow, because through this festival he becomes culpable of breaking the law, "Thou shalt not slack to pay." And this is according to the opinion of R. Simeon, who says: That (before one is guilty of delay) the three festivals must have passed by in their regular order, with Passover as the first (of the three). Thus was also the dictum of R. Simeon ben Jochai, who stated that the law against procrastination may be violated at times only when five festivals had passed by in their regular order; at other times when four, and again when three festivals had passed; i.e., if the vow was made before the feast of Pentecost he becomes guilty of procrastination only when Pentecost, Tabernacles, Passover, and again Pentecost and Tabernacles had passed by; if the vow was made before Tabernacles then he becomes guilty.

The rabbis taught: As soon as three festivals have passed by and the following duties (or vows) have not been fulfilled one is guilty of procrastination; and these are: The vow of one who says, "I will give the worth of myself (to the sanctuary);" or, "I will give what I am estimated to be worth (in accordance with Lev. xxvii.);" or the vow concerning objects, the use of which one has forsworn, or which one has consecrated (to the sanctuary), or sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, charity, tithes, the firstlings, the paschal offerings, the gleanings of the field, that which is forgotten to be gathered in the field, the produce of the corner of the field. R. Simeon says: The festivals must pass by in their regular order, with Passover as the first. And R. Meir says: As soon as even one festival has elapsed and the vow has not been kept the law is infringed. R. Eliezer ben Jacob says: As soon as two festivals have elapsed the law is infringed, but R. Elazar ben Simeon says: Only the passing of the Feast of Tabernacles causes the infringement of the law (whether or not any other festivals have passed by between the making and the fulfilling of the vow). What is the reason of the first Tana? Since in [Deut. xvi.] the Text has been speaking of the three festivals, why does it repeat, "On the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles?"

This signifies that when Tabernacles, Passover, Pentecost, and again Tabernacles had passed, but if the vow was made before Passover, then the man becomes guilty if he allows the three festivals to pass by in their regular order. Infer from this that the festivals must pass in the order just mentioned before one is guilty of procrastination. R. Simeon says: It was not necessary to repeat "on the Feast of Tabernacles," because the Text was speaking of that festival (when it mentioned the names of the three festivals). Why, then, does it repeat it? To teach us that Tabernacles shall be the last of the three festivals. R. Meir arrives at his opinion because it is mentioned of each festival "Thou shalt come there (to Jerusalem), and ye shall bring there" (your vows; and this being said of each festival, if one elapses and the vow is not brought, then the law against delay is infringed. The reason of R. Eliezer ben Jacob is, that the passage [Numb. xxix. 39] runs: "These shall ye offer to the Lord on your appointed feasts," and the minimum of the plural word "feasts" is two. On what does R. Elazar b. Simeon base his opinion? We have learned in the following Boraitha: "The Feast of Tabernacles" should not have been mentioned in [Deut. xvi. 16], since the preceding passages (of that chapter) were treating of that feast. Why, then, was it mentioned? To indicate that that particular feast (Tabernacles) is the one that causes the infringement of the law.

What do R. Meir and R. Eliezer ben Jacob deduce from the superfluous passage "on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the Feast of Weeks, and on the Feast of Tabernacles"? They use this verse, according to R. Elazar, who says in the name of R. Oshiya, who said: Whence do we know that the law of compensation applies to the Feast of Weeks (although the feast is only one day)? For this very reason the Bible repeats the three festivals, and he institutes a comparison between Pentecost and Passover; and as the law of compensation applies to Passover for seven days, so also does it apply to Pentecost for seven days. Why, then, do the Scriptures find it necessary to repeat the words, "In the Feast of Tabernacles"? To compare it with the Feast of Passover, as during Passover it was obligatory to stay over night (in Jerusalem), so was it also necessary during the Feast of Tabernacles. But how do we know that it was obligatory during the Feast of Unleavened Bread? It is written [Deut. xvi. 7]: "Thou shalt turn in the morning (after staying over night), and go unto thy tents." Whence do we deduce this? The rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. xxiii. 22]: "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not delay to pay it." Perhaps these words only apply to a vow. How do we know that they may also be applied to a voluntary offering? In the passage just quoted we read "vow," and in another place [Lev. vii. 16] we find "but if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow or a voluntary offering"; as in the latter instance the "voluntary offering" is included, so is also the former; "unto the Lord thy God," i.e., offerings expressed by "I will give the value of myself," etc., and other objects mentioned above; "thou shalt not slack to pay it"; i.e., the object promised must be given and not anything in exchange for it; "for he will surely require it," i.e., the sin, guilt, burnt, and peace-offerings; "the Lord thy God," these words refer to offerings of charity, tithes, and firstlings; "of thee," this refers to the gleanings, that which is forgotten in the field and the produce of the corner of the field; "and it would be sin in thee," i.e., in thee and not in thy sacrifice (which is not thereby invalidated).

The rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. xxiii. 24]: "What is gone out of thy lips," this refers to the positive commandments (of the Law); "thou shalt keep," refers to the negative commandments; "and perform," is a warning to the Beth Din (that they should enforce the laws); "according as thou hast vowed," refers to vows; "to the Lord thy God," refers to sin, guilt, burnt, and peace-offerings; "voluntarily," means just what it is; "which thou hast spoken," refers to the sanctified objects devoted to the Temple for repairs, etc.; "with thy mouth," refers to charity. Says Rabha: One is culpable if he does not give forthwith that which he has vowed for charity. Why so? Because there are always poor people (needing immediate help). Is this not self-evident? One might suppose that, since the law prohibiting delay is found in connection with the duty of giving charity and also of bringing the various voluntary offerings, it would apply to both, and it would not be infringed until the three festivals had elapsed, he comes to teach us (that charity and sacrifices are different); in the latter case the infringement of the law depends on the festivals, but in the case of charity it must be given immediately, for the poor are always to be found. And Rabha said again: As soon as three festivals have passed (and one has not brought his offering), he daily transgresses the law against delay. An objection was raised.

As soon as a year, containing three festivals or not, has passed (he that does not bring his offering), be it a firstling or any of the holy offerings, transgresses daily the law against delay. It is quite possible that the three festivals may elapse and yet a year may not go by (i.e., from Passover till Tabernacles is only seven months), but how can it happen that a year may pass and the three festivals should not occur (in that time)? It may happen according to those who say (that the three festivals must elapse) in their regular order, but according to those who do not say (that the three festivals must go by) in their regular order, how can such a case occur? This would be correct according to Rabbi (who holds that the intercalary month is not a part of the year), and it occurs in a leap year, when one consecrates anything (to the Temple) after the Feast of Passover; for when the end of the second Adar has arrived, a year (of twelve months) has elapsed, yet the three festivals have not passed by in their regular order. But how can such a case occur according to the rabbis? It can happen as R. Shemaiah teaches: Pentecost falls on the fifth, sixth, or seventh of Sivan. How is this possible? In a year when the months of Nissan and Iyar have thirty days each, Pentecost falls on the fifth of Sivan; when they each have twenty-nine days, Pentecost falls on the seventh of Sivan; but when the one has twenty-nine days and the other has thirty days, Pentecost falls on the sixth of Sivan.

R. Zera asked: How does the law against delay affect an heir? Shall we argue that the Law says [Deut. xxiii. 22]: "When thou shalt vow" (i.e., the testator has vowed), but the heir has not vowed (consequently the law does not apply to him), or shall we infer from the passage [Deut. xii. 5, 6]: "And thither shalt thou come... and ye shall bring," that the heir (who is obliged to come) is also in duty bound to bring with him (the objects vowed by the testator)? Come and hear. R. Hyya taught: It is written in this connection [Deut. xxiii. 22]: "Of thee" (i.e., from the one who vowed) and this excludes the heir. But did we not say above that these words refer to the gleanings, etc.? The Text uses the word Me'immokh ("of thee"), which we can explain to mean both the successor and the gleanings, etc. (i.e., all that comes "of thee").

R. Zera also asked: How does the law against delay affect a woman? Shall I say that since she is not obligated to appear (in Jerusalem) the law does not apply to her? or perhaps it is her duty to go there because she is included in the law "to rejoice"? "Certainly," answered Abayi, "she is bound by this law because it is her duty to rejoice."

The schoolmen asked: From when do we count the beginning of the year for a firstling? Answered Abayi: From the moment it is born; but R. Aha b. Jacob said: From the moment it is acceptable as an offering (i.e., when it is eight days old, Lev. xxii. 27). They do not differ, for the former Rabbi refers to an unblemished animal and the latter to one with a blemish. May, then, a blemished animal be eaten (on the day of its birth)? Yes, if we are sure it was born after the full period of gestation.

The rabbis taught: The first of Nissan is the new year for (arranging the) months, for (appointing) leap years, for giving the half shekels, and, some say, also for the rental of houses. Whence do we know (that it is the new year) for months? From the passage [Ex. xii. 2] where it is written: "This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you." It is also written [Deut. xvi. 1]: "Observe the month of Abib" (early stage of ripening). In which month is grain in the early stage of ripening? I can say only Nissan, and the Law calls it the first. Could I not say Adar (when the grain begins to shoot up)? Nay, for the grain must be ripening during the major portion of the month (and in Adar it is not). Is it then written that the grain must be ripening the major portion of the month? Therefore, says Rabhina, the sages do not find (the rule of calling Nissan the first month) in the Pentateuch, but in the Book of Esther, where it is clearly stated [Esther, iii. 7], "In the first month, that is, the month Nissan."

"For leap years." Do we, then, count leap years from Nissan? Does not a Boraitha teach us that Adar only is the intercalary month? Answered R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: The words "FOR LEAP YEARS" mean here the termination of leap years, and our Tana speaks of the beginning of the leap year and not the end.

"For giving the half shekels." Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Yoshiah: In Numb. xxviii. 14: "This is the burnt-offering of the new moon throughout the months of the year." The Scriptures say "proclaim it a new month," and also bring a sacrifice from the new products. We make a comparison between the words "year" used in this passage and in Ex. xii. 2, "it shall be the first month of the year to you," and deduce that they both refer to Nissan.

R. Jehudah says in the name of Samuel: It is required that the congregational sacrifices brought on the first of Nissan should be purchased with the shekels collected for the new year; but if the sacrifice was bought with the funds obtained from the former year's funds, it is acceptable, yet the law was but imperfectly complied with. We have also learned the same in a Boraitha with the addition that, if an individual offers from his own property (proper objects for the congregational sacrifices), they are acceptable, but he must first present them to the congregation. Is this not self-evident? Nay, it may be feared that one will not give them to the congregation with a free will, and this, he teaches us, is not worthy of consideration. And the reason that our Tana does not mention that Nissan is a new year for the giving of shekels also, is because it is said above that if one has brought an offering (from the old funds) he has done his duty, therefore he could not make Nissan absolutely binding as a new year for the sacrifices.

It is said above: "And some say also for the rental of houses." The rabbis taught: He who lets a house to another for a year, should count (the year) as twelve months from day to day; but if the lessee says (I rent this house) "for this year," even if the transaction takes place on the first of Adar, as soon as the first of Nissan arrives, the year (of rental) has expired. Can you not say Tishri (is the beginning of the year for such transactions)? Nay, it is generally understood that if a man rents a house in the autumn he rents it for the whole of the rainy season (winter). And the Tana of the first part of the above Boraitha (who does not fix Nissan as the month for rentals), and also our Tana both are of the opinion that in Nissan, too, bad weather sometimes prevails (and therefore Nissan and Tishri are alike in this respect).

"On the first of Elul is the new year for the cattle-tithes." According to whose opinion is this? Says R. Joseph: It is according to Rabbi's own opinion which he formed in accordance with the opinions of different Tanaïm. With regard to the festivals he holds with R. Simeon and with regard to the cattle-tithe he holds to the opinion of R. Meir. If that is so, are there not five beginnings of years instead of four? Rabha answered that the Mishna mentioned only the four, which are not disputed by any one. According to R. Meir there are four, if that "for the festivals" be excluded, and according to R. Simeon there are four, if that "for the cattle-tithes" be excluded. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak, however, says: (No such explanation is needed); the Mishna means that there are four (months) in which there are (or may be) many beginnings of years.

"According to R. Eliezer and R. Simeon it is on the first of Tishri." R. Johanan says: Both of them deduce their opinion by (various interpretations of) the same scriptural passage. It is written [Psalms, lxv. 14]: "The meadows are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered with corn; men shout for joy, they also sing." R. Meir thinks (this is the interpretation) of these words: When are the meadows clothed with flocks? At the season when the valleys are covered with corn. And when are the valleys covered with corn? About (the time of) Adar. The flocks conceive in Adar and produce their young in Abh; consequently the beginning of the year (for the cattle-tithe) is Elul. R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, however, say: When are the meadows clothed with flocks? At the season when they shout and sing. When do the ears of corn (seem to) send up a hymn of praise? In Nissan. Now, the sheep conceive in Nissan and produce in Elul, consequently the beginning of the year (for their tithe) is Tishri. But Rabha says: All agree that only Adar is the time when the meadows are clothed with flocks, and the valleys are covered with corn. But they differ about this passage [Deut. xiv. 22]: "Thou shalt truly tithe" (literally, "Thou shalt tithe in tithing"), and we see that the text here speaks of two tithes-viz., of cattle and of grain. R. Meir thinks that the following comparison may be instituted between the two: just as the tithe of grain must be given in the month nearest to the time it is reaped, so that of cattle must be given in the month nearest to the one in which they are born (Elul). R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, however, are of the opinion that another comparison may be instituted between these tithes--viz., just as the beginning of the year for giving the tithe of grain is Tishri, so also is Tishri for that of cattle.

"The first of Tishri is the New Year's Day for ordinary years." For what purpose is this rule? Answers R. Zera, to determine the equinoxes (and solstices); and this agrees with the opinion of R. Eliezer, who says that the world was created in Tishri; but R. Na'hman says (it is the new year) for divine judgment, as it is written [Deut. xi. 12]: "From the beginning of the year till the end of the year," i.e., at the beginning of the year it is determined what shall be at the end of the year. But whence do we know that this means Tishri? It is written [Psalms, lxxxi. 3]: "Blow on the new moon the cornet at the time when it (the new moon) is hidden on our solemn feast day." What feast is it on which the moon is hidden? We can only say Rosh Hashana (New Year's Day), and of this day it is written [ibid. v. 4]: "For it is a statute unto Israel, a judgment (day) for the God of Jacob."

The rabbis taught: "It is a statute unto Israel," whence we infer that the Heavenly Court of judgment does not enter into judgment until the Beth Din on earth proclaims the new moon. Another Boraitha states: It is written: "It is a statute unto Israel." From this it appears that (New Year's Day is a day of judgment) only for Israel. Whence do we know it is so also for other nations? Therefore it is written: "It is the day of judgment of the God of Jacob" (the Universal God). Why, then, is "Israel" mentioned? To inform us that Israel comes in for judgment first. This is in accordance with the saying of R. Hisda: If a king and a congregation have a law suit, the king enters first, as it is said [I Kings, viii. 59]: "The cause of his servant (King Solomon) and the cause of his people." Why so? Because it is not customary to let a king wait outside.

"For the computation of sabbatic years." On what scriptural passage is this based? On Lev. xxv. 4, which reads: "But in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land," and he deduces (that it means Tishri) by analogy from the word "year" in this passage and in the following: "From the beginning of the year" [Deut. xi. 12], which surely refers to Tishri.

"And jubilees." Do, then, jubilees begin on the first of Tishri? Do they not begin on the tenth, as it is written [Lev. xxv. 9]: "On the Day of Atonement shall ye make the cornet sound throughout all your land"? Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan ben Berokah of the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xxv. 10]: "Ye shall sanctify the year, the fiftieth year." Why was it necessary to repeat the word "year"? Because in the same connection it is said [ibid. 9]: "On the Day of Atonement shall ye make the cornet sound," and one might suppose that the jubilee is sanctified only from the Day of Atonement (and not before). Therefore the word "year" is repeated to teach us that by the words "ye shall sanctify the fiftieth year" is meant, that from the very beginning of the year the jubilee commences to be consecrated. From this R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah says: From New Year's Day until the Day of Atonement slaves were not wont to return to their (own) homes, neither did they serve their masters, but they ate and drank and rejoiced with the crown of freedom on their heads. As soon as the Day of Atonement arrived the Beth Din ordered the cornet to be blown and the slaves returned to their own homes, and estates reverted to their (original) owners.

We have learned in another Boraitha: "It is a jubilee" (Jobhel hi). What is meant by (these superfluous words)? Since it is said [Lev. xxv. 10]: "And ye shall sanctify the fiftieth year," one might think that, as at the beginning of the year the jubilee commences to be sanctified, the sanctification should be extended to the (Day of Atonement) after the end of the year; and be not surprised at such a teaching, since it is customary to add from the non-sanctified to the sanctified. Hence the necessity of the words in the passage (next to that quoted above) [Lev. xxv. 11]: "A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you"; i.e., the fiftieth year shall be hallowed, and not the fifty-first, But the rabbis, whence do they derive the regulation that the fifty-first year is not sanctified? Because it is plainly written the fiftieth year and not the fifty-first. This excludes the opinion of R. Jehudah who holds that the jubilee year is added at the beginning and end. The rabbis taught "Jobhel hi (it is a jubilee)," even if the people have not relinquished (their debts), even if the cornet is not sounded; shall we also say even if slaves are not released? Hence the word "hi" is used (to indicate that only when the slaves are released it is a jubilee), so says R. Jehudah. R. Jose says: "It is a jubilee," even if debts are not relinquished and slaves are not released; shall we also say even if the cornet is not sounded? Hence the word "hi" is used (and means the sounding of the cornet).

Since one passage includes (all that is prescribed) and the other passage exempts (certain regulations), why should we say it is a jubilee even if they have not released slaves, but that it is not a jubilee if they failed to sound the cornet? Because it is possible that sometimes (a jubilee may occur) and yet there are no (Hebrew) slaves to release, but a jubilee can never occur without the sounding of the cornet (for a cornet can always be found). Another explanation is, that (the sounding of the cornet) is the duty of the Beth Din (and it will never fail to perform it), while (the releasing of slaves) is the duty of the individual, and we cannot be sure that he will perform it. (Is not the first explanation satisfactory) that he gives this additional explanation? (It may not be satisfactory to some who might say) that it is impossible that not one (Hebrew) slave should be found somewhere to be released. Therefore (the Boraitha adds) that the blowing of the cornet is the duty of the Beth Din (and they will not fail to perform it).

R. Hyya b. Abba, however, said in the name of R. Johanan: The foregoing are the words of R. Jehudah and R. Jose; but the masters hold that all three conditions may prevent the fulfilment (of the law), because they hold that the word "hi" [Lev. xxv. 10] should be explained as to the subjects mentioned in the passage in which it occurs, and in the preceding and the following passages also, (and in the passage immediately following the "hi" is said, "fields reverted to their original owners." This, then, also constitutes one of the three conditions). But is it not written, "a jubilee," which certainly means to add something not mentioned previously? This additional word refers to the lands outside of Palestine, where the jubilee must also be enforced. If so, what then is the intent of the words "throughout the land"? (They lead us to infer) that at the time when (under a Jewish government) liberty is proclaimed throughout the land (Palestine) it should be proclaimed outside the land; but if it is not proclaimed in the land, it need not be proclaimed outside the land.

"And also for the planting of trees." Whence do we deduce this? From Lev. xix. 23, where it is written: "Three years shall it be as uncircumcised," and also [ibid. 24]: "But in the fourth year." We compare the term "year" used here with that of Deut. xi. 12, "from the beginning of the 'year,'" and deduce by analogy that they both mean Tishri.

The rabbis taught: For one who plants, slips or grafts (trees) in the sixth year (the year before the sabbatic year), thirty days before the New Year's day (as soon as the first of Tishri arrives), a year is considered to have passed, and he is permitted to use, during the sabbatic year (the fruits they may produce), but less than thirty days are not to be considered a year, and the fruits may not be used, but are prohibited until the fifteenth of Shebhat, whether it be because they come under the category of "uncircumcised" or under the category of "fourth year planting" [Lev. xix. 23, 24]. Whence do we deduce this? R. Hyya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan or R. Janai: The verse says [Lev. xix. 24, 25]: "And in the fourth year.... And in the fifth year," i.e., it may happen that in the fourth year (from the planting, the fruit) is prohibited because it is still "uncircumcised," and in the fifth year (from the planting) because it is still the product of the fourth year.

We have learned R. Eliezer says: In Tishri the world was created, the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob were born and died; Isaac was born on the Passover; on New Year's Day Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were visited with the blessing of children, Joseph was released from prison, and the bondage of our fathers in Egypt ceased; in Nissan our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt, and in Tishri we shall again be redeemed. R. Jehoshua, says: In Nissan the world was created, and in the same month the patriarchs were born, and in Nissan they also died; Isaac was born on the Passover; on New Year's Day Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were visited, Joseph was released from prison, and the bondage of our fathers in Egypt ceased. In Nissan our ancestors were redeemed from Egypt, and in the same month we shall again be redeemed.

We have learned in a Boraitha R. Eliezer says: Whence do we know that the world was created in Tishri? From the scriptural verse, in which it is written [Gen. i. 11]: "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree,'" etc. In what month does the earth bring forth grass, and at the same time the trees are full of fruit? Let us say Tishri, and that time of the year (mentioned in Genesis) was the autumn; the rain descended and the fruits flourished, as it is written [Gen. ii. 6]: "But there went up a mist from the earth," etc. R. Jehoshua says: Whence do we know that the world was created in Nissan? From the scriptural verse, in which it is written [Gen. i. 12]: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding fruit," etc. In which month is the earth covered with grass (and at the same time) the trees bring forth fruit? Let us say Nissan, and at that time animals, domestic and wild, and birds mate, as it is said [Psalms, lxv. 14]: "The meadows are clothed with flocks," etc. Further says R. Eliezer: Whence do we know that the patriarchs were born in Tishri? From the passage [I Kings, viii. 2]: "And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto King Solomon at the feast, in the month Ethanim" (strong), which is the seventh month; i.e., the month in which Ethanim, the strong ones of the earth (the patriarchs), were born. How do we know that the expression ethan means strength? It is written [Numb. xxiv. 21] ethan moshabhekha, "strong is thy dwelling-place," and it is also written [Micah, vi. 2]: "Hear ye, O mountains, the Lord's controversy, and (ve-haëthanim) ye strong foundations," etc.

R. Jehoshua, however, says: Whence do we know that the patriarchs were born in Nissan? From I Kings vi. 1, where it says: "In the fourth year, in the month Ziv (glory), which is the second month," etc., which means in that month in which the "glorious ones" of the earth (the patriarchs) were already born. Whether the patriarchs were born in Nissan or Tishri, the day of their death occurred in the same month as that in which they were born; as it is written [Deut. xxxi. 2]: Moses said, 'I am one hundred and twenty years old to-day.' The word "to-day" implies "just this day my days and years are complete," for the Holy One, blessed be He, grants the righteous the fulfilment of the years of their life to the very month and day, as it is said: "The number of thy days will I make full" [Ex. xxiii. 26].

Isaac was born in Nissan. Whence do we know this? It is written [Gen. xviii. 14]: "At the next festival I will return to thee, and Sarah will have a son." What festival was it when he said this? Shall I say it was Passover, and he referred to Pentecost? That cannot be, for what woman bears children after fifty days' gestation? If I say it was Pentecost, and he referred to Tishri, a similar objection might be raised, for who bears children after five months' gestation? If I say it was Tabernacles, and he referred to Passover, a similar objection may be made, for who bears children in the sixth month of gestation? This last objection could be answered according to the following Boraitha: We have learnt that that year was a leap year, and Mar Zutra says that although a child born after nine months' gestation is never born during the month (but only at the end of the required time), still a seven months' child can be born before the seventh month is complete, as it is said [I Sam. i. 20]: "And it came to pass, li-tequphath ha-yamim (when the time was come about)"; the minimum of tequphoth is two and of yamim is also two (i.e., after six months and two days' gestation, childbirth is possible).

Whence do we know that Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were visited on New Year's Day? Says R. Elazar: By comparing the expression "visit" that occurs in one passage with the word "visit" that occurs in another passage, and also by treating the expression "remember" in the same way. It is written concerning Rachel [Gen. xxx. 32]: "And God remembered Rachel," and of Hannah it is written [I Sam. i. 19]: "And God remembered her." He institutes an analogy between the word "remember" used in these passages and in connection with New Year's Day, which is called [Lev. xxiii. 24] "a Sabbath, a memorial (literally, a remembrance) of blowing of cornets." It is also written concerning Hannah [I Sam. ii. 21]: "And the Lord visited Hannah," and of Sarah it is written [Gen. xxi. 1]: "And the Lord visited Sarah," and by analogy all these events took place on the same day (New Year's Day).

Whence do we know that Joseph was released from prison on New Year's Day? From Psalm lxxxi., in verses 4, 5, it is written: "Blow on the new moon the cornet at the appointed time on the day of our feast, for this is a statute for Israel." In verse 5 of the same Psalm it is written: "As a testimony in Joseph did he ordain it, when he went out over the land of Egypt." On New Year's Day the bondage of our fathers in Egypt ceased. (Whence do we know this?) It is written [Ex. vi. 6]: "I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians," and it is written in Psalms, lxxxi. 6: "I removed his shoulder from the burden" (i.e., I relieved Israel from the burden of Egypt on the day spoken of in the Psalm; viz., New Year's Day). In Nissan they were redeemed, as previously proven. In Tishri we shall again be redeemed. This he deduces by analogy from the word "cornet" found in the following passages. In Psalm lxxxi. 4, it is stated: "Blow the cornet on the new moon (i.e., on New Year's Day), and in Isa. xxvii. 13, it is written: And on that day the great cornet shall be blown" (and as it means New Year's Day in the one place, so does it also in the other). R. Jehoshua says: "In Nissan they were redeemed, and in that month we shall be redeemed again." Whence do we know this? From Ex. xii. 42, which says: "It is a night of special observance;" i.e., a night specially appointed since the earliest times for the final redemption of Israel.

The rabbis taught: The Jewish sages calculate the time of the flood according to R. Eliezer, and the solstices according to R. Jehoshua, but the sages of other nations calculate the time of the flood also as R. Jehoshua does.

"And for herbs." To this a Boraitha adds "tithes and vows." Let us see. What does he mean by "herbs"? The tithe of herbs. But are not these included with other "tithes"? (Nay, for the tithe of herbs) is a rabbinical institution, while the others are biblical. If so, should he not teach the biblical commandment first? (This is no question), because it was pleasing to him (to have discovered that, although the tithe of herbs is only a rabbinical institution, yet it should have a special New Year to prevent the confusion of tithes from year to year) he, therefore, gives it precedence. And the Tana of our Mishna teaches us the rabbinical institution (viz., the New Year for herbs), leaving us to infer that if that must be observed, so much the more must the biblical law be followed.

The rabbis taught: If one gathers herbs on the eve of New Year's Day before sunset, and gathers others after sunset, he must not give the heave-offering or the tithe from the one for the other, for it is prohibited to give the heave-offering or tithe from the product of the past year for that of the present, of vice versa. If the second year from the last sabbatic year was just ending and the third year was just beginning, then for the second year he must give the first and second tithes, and for the third year he must give the first and the poor tithes. Whence do we deduce that (in the third year no second tithe was to be given)? R. Jehoshua ben Levi says: In Deut. xxvi. 12, it is written: "When thou hast made an end of the tithe of produce in the third year, which is the year of the tithing," i.e., the year in which only one tithe is to be given." What is to be understood (by one tithe)? The first and poor tithes, and the second tithe shall be omitted. But perhaps it is not so (that the first and poor tithe are one tithe), but that the first tithe shall be also omitted. This cannot be so, for we read [Numb. xviii. 26]: "The tithe which I have given you from them, for your inheritance," etc. (From this we see that) the Scripture compares this tithe to an inheritance, and as an inheritance is the perpetual property of the heir, so also is the first tithe an uninterrupted gift for the Levite.

"And for vows." The rabbis taught: Whoso vows to derive no benefit from his neighbor for a year, must reckon (for the year) twelve months, from day to day; but if he said "for this year," if he made the vow even on the 29th of Elul, as soon as the first of Tishri comes, that year is complete, for he vowed to afflict himself and that purpose (even in so brief a period) has been fulfilled. But perhaps we should say Nissan (should be regarded as the new year in such a case)? Nay, in the matter of vows we follow the common practice among men (who generally regard Tishri as the New Year).

We have learned (Maasroth I., 3): We reckon the year for giving the tithe: "for carob as soon as it begins to grow; for grain and olives as soon as they are one-third ripe." What is meant by "as soon as it begins to grow"? When it blossoms. Whence do we know that we reckon the tithe on grain and olives when they are one-third ripe? Said R. Assi in the name of R. Johanan, and the same was said in the name of R. Jose of Galilee: It is written [Deut. xxxi. 10]: "At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the Feast of Tabernacles." What has the year of release to do with Tabernacles; it is already the eighth year (because the Bible says "at the end of every seven years")? It is only to tell us that all grain which was one-third ripe before New Year's Day must be regarded even in the eighth year as the product of the sabbatic year. And for this we find support in the following Boraitha: R. Jonathan b. Joseph says: It is written [Lev. XXV. 21]: "And it shall bring forth fruit for three (lishlosh) years." Do not read lishlosh "for three," but in this case read lishlish "for a third" (i.e., it is considered produce when it is a third ripe). But this verse is required for its own particular purpose. There is another verse [ibid. ibid. 22]: "And when ye sow in the eighth year, then shall ye eat of the old harvest; until the ninth year, until its harvest come in, shall ye eat of the old store."

We have learned in a Mishna (Shebeith, II., 7): Rice, millet, poppies, and lentils which have taken root before New Year's Day come under the category of tithes for the past year, and therefore one is permitted to use them during the sabbatic year; but if they have not (taken root), one is forbidden to use them during the sabbatic year, and they come under the category of tithes of the following year. Says Rabha: Let us see. The rabbis say that the year (for giving tithes) begins as follows: "For a tree from the time they blossom, for grain and olives when they are one-third ripe, and for herbs when they are gathered." Now under which head are the above (rice, etc.) classed? After consideration Rabha remarked: Since these do not all ripen simultaneously, but are gathered little by little, the rabbis are right when they say they are tithable from the time they take root.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose of Galilee says: It is written [Deut. xvi. 13]: "When thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine." We infer that as corn and wine, now being gathered, grow by means of the past year's rains, and are tithed as last year's (before New Year's Day) products, so every fruit that grows by the rain of last year is tithable as the last year's produce; but herbs do not come under this category, for they grow by means of the rains of the new year, and they are tithable in the coming year. R. Aqiba, however, says that the words "when thou hast gathered in thy corn and thy wine" lead us to infer that as corn and grapes grow chiefly by means of rain, and are tithed as last year's products, so all things that grow chiefly by rain are tithed as belonging to the past year; but as herbs grow even by watering, they are tithed as the next year's products. In what case is this difference of opinion applicable? Said R. Abbuha: In the cases of onions and Egyptian beans; for a Mishna says: Onions and Egyptian beans which have not been watered for thirty days before New Year's Day are tithed as last year's products, and are allowed to be used during the sabbatic year, but if they have been watered, then they are prohibited during the sabbatic year and are tithed as next year's products.

"On the first of Shebhat is the New Year for trees." Why so? Said R. Elazar, in the name of R. Oshyia, because at that date the greater part of the early rains have fallen, although the greater part of the Tequpha is yet to come. The rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Aqiba picked the fruit of a citron tree on the first of Shebhat, and gave two tithes of them, one according to the school of Shammai and one in accordance with the school of Hillel. Says R. Jose b. Jehudah: Nay, Aqiba did not do this because of the school of Shammai or the school of Hillel, but because R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer were accustomed to do so. Did he not follow the practice of Beth Shammai because it was the first of Shebhat? Said R. Hanina, and some say R. Hanania: The case here cited was one of a citron tree, the fruit of which was formed before the fifteenth of last Shebhat, and he should have given the tithe of it even before the present first of Shebhat, but the case happened to be as cited. But Rabhina said: Put the foregoing together and read the (words of R. Jose) as follows: It did not happen on the first of Shebhat, but on the fifteenth, and he did not follow the regulations of the school of Hillel or the school of Shammai, but the custom of R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer. Rabba bar Huna said: Although R. Gamaliel holds that a citron tree is tithable from the time it is picked, as is the case with "herbs," nevertheless the new year for tithing it is in Shebhat. R. Johanan asked R.

Janai: "When is the beginning of a year for (the tithe on) citrons?" And he said, "Shebhat." "Dost thou mean," said he, "the month Shebhat as fixed by the lunar year or by the solar year (from the winter solstice)?" "By the lunar year," he replied. Rabha asked R. Na'hman, according to another version R. Johanan asked R. Janai: "How is it in leap years (when there are thirteen lunar months)?" And he said: "Shebhat, as in the majority of years." It was taught: R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both say that a citron that has grown in the sixth year and is unpicked at the entrance of the sabbatic year is always considered the product of the sixth year. When Rabhin came (from Palestine) he said, in the name of R. Johanan: A citron that was as small as an olive in the sixth year, but grew to the size of a (small) loaf of bread during the sabbatic year, if one used it without separating the tithe he is culpable because of Tebhel.

The rabbis taught: A tree whose fruits formed before the fifteenth of Shebhat must be tithed as the product of the past year, but if they formed after that, they are tithed during the coming year. Said R. Nehemiah: This applies to a tree that looks as if it bore two crops; i.e., whose fruits do not ripen all at once, but at two times. But in the case of a tree that produces but one crop, as, for example, the palm, olive, or carob, although their fruits may have formed before the fifteenth of Shebhat, they are tithed as the products of the coming year. R. Johanan remarked that in the case of the carob people follow the opinion of R. Nehemiah. Resh Lakish objected to R. Johanan: Since white figs take three years to grow fully ripe, must not the second year after the sabbatic year be regarded as the sabbatic year for them? R. Johanan was silent. R. Abba the priest said to R. Jose the priest: I am surprised that R. Johanan should have accepted this query of Resh Lakish without comment.

MISHNA: At four periods in each year the world is judged: on Passover, in respect to the growth of grain; on Pentecost, in respect to the fruit of trees; on New Year's Day all human beings pass before Him (God) as sheep before a shepherd, as it is written [Psalms, xxx. 9]: "He who hath fashioned all their hearts understandeth all their works"; and on Tabernacles judgment is given in regard to water (rain).

GEMARA: What grain (does the divine judgment affect on the Passover)? Does it mean the grain now standing in the field (about to be reaped)? At what time, then, were all the accidents that have happened to it until that time destined (by divine will)? It does not mean standing grain, but that just sown. Shall we say that only one judgment is passed upon it? Have we learned in a Boraitha: If an accident or injury befall grain before Passover it was decreed on the last Passover, but if it happen (to the same grain) after Passover, it was decreed on the immediately preceding Passover; if an accident or misfortune befall a man before the Day of Atonement, it was decreed on the previous Day of Atonement, but if it happened after the Day of Atonement it was decreed on the preceding Day of Atonement? Answered Rabha: Learn from this that judgment is passed twice (in one year, before the sowing and before the reaping). Therefore said Abayi: When a man sees that the grain which ripens slowly is thriving, he should as soon as possible sow such grain as ripens quickly, in order that before the time of the next judgment it may already have begun to grow.

With whose opinion does our Mishna agree? Not with that of R. Meir, nor with that of R. Jehudah, nor with that of R. Jose, nor with that of R. Nathann, nor with the teaching of the following Boraitha: All are judged on New Year's Day, and the sentence is fixed on the Day of Atonement. So says R. Meir. R. Jehudah says all are judged on New Year's Day, but the sentence of each is confirmed each at its special time--at Passover for grain, at Pentecost for the fruit of trees, at Tabernacles for rain, and man is judged on New Year's Day, and his sentence is confirmed on the Day of Atonement. R. Jose says man is judged every day, as it is written [Job, vii. 18]: "Thou rememberest him every morning"; and R. Nathan holds man is judged at all times, as it is written [ibid.]: "Thou triest him every moment." And if you should say that the Mishna agrees with the opinion of R. Jehudah, and that by the expression "judgment" it means the "confirmation of the decree," then there would be a difficulty about man. Said Rabha: The Tana of our Mishna is in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael of the following Boraitha: At four periods is the world judged: at Passover, in respect to grain; on Pentecost, in regard to the fruit of trees; on Tabernacles, in respect to rain, and on New Year's Day man is judged, but the sentence passed upon him is confirmed on the Day of Atonement, and our Mishna speaks of the opening of judgment only (and not the final verdict).

R. Hisda asked: "Why does not R. Jose quote the same passage as R. Nathan in support of his opinion?" Because "trying" is not judging. But does not "remembering" also convey the same idea? Therefore said R. Hisda: R. Jose bases his opinion on another passage; viz. [I Kings viii. 59]: "That God may maintain the cause of His servant and the cause of His people Israel every day. Said R. Joseph: According to whom do we pray nowadays for the sick and for faint (scholars) every day? According to R. Jose (who maintains that man is judged every day).

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah taught in the name of R. Aqiba. Why does the Torah command [Lev. xxiii. 10] a sheaf of the first fruits to be brought on the Passover? Because Passover is the period of judgment in respect to grain, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Offer before Me the first sheaf of produce on Passover, so that the standing grain may be blessed unto you." And why the two loaves [Lev. xxiii. 17] on the Pentecost? Because that is the time when judgment is passed on the fruit of trees, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Bring before Me two loaves on the Pentecost, so that I may bless the fruits of the tree." Why was the ceremony of "the outpouring of water" (on the altar) performed on the Feast of Tabernacles? Because He said: "Perform the rite of 'the outpouring of waters,' that the rains shall fall in due season." And He also said: "Recite before Me on New Year's Day the Malkhioth, Zikhronoth, and Shophroth; the Malkhioth, that you proclaim Me King; the Zikhronoth, that your remembrance for good may come before Me." And how (shall this be done)? By the sounding of the cornet.

R. Abbahu said: "Why is the cornet made a ram's horn?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Sound before Me on a cornet made of a ram's horn, that I may remember, for your sake, the offering of Isaac, the son of Abraham [vide Gen. xxii. 13], and I shall consider even you as worthy, as if ye had shown an equal readiness to sacrifice yourselves to Me."

R. Itz'hak said: A man is judged only according to his deeds at the time of sentence, as it is written [Gen. xxi. 17]: "God heard the voice of the lad, as he then was," and the same rabbi also remarked: Three circumstances cause a man to remember his sins; viz., when he passes by an insecure wall, when he thinks deeply of the significance of his prayer, and when he invokes divine judgment on his neighbor, for R. Abhin says: Whoso calls down divine judgment on his neighbor is punished first, as we find in the case of Sarah, who said [Gen. xvi. 5] to Abraham: "I suffer wrong through thee, may the Lord judge between me and thee." And shortly after we read (that she died): "And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her" [Gen. xxiii. 2]. (Naturally this only applies to cases where appeal could have been made to a civil court, and the invocation of divine judgment was not necessary.) R. Itz'hak preached: Four things avert the evil decree passed (by God) on man--viz.: charity, prayer, change of name, and improvement.

Charity," as it is written [Prov. x. 2]: "Charity delivereth from death. Prayer," in accordance with [Psalms, cvii. 19]: "They cry unto the Lord when they are in distress, and He saveth them out of their afflictions." "Change of name," as it is written [Gen. xvii. 15]: "As for Sarai, thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be," and the text continues by saying [ibid. 16]: "Then will I bless her, and give thee a son also of her." "Improvement," we deduce from Jonah, iii. 10: "And God saw their works that they had turned from their evil ways," and immediately adds: "And God bethought Himself of the evil He had said He would do unto them, and He did it not." Some add to these four a fifth, change of location, as it is written [Gen. xii. 1 and 2]: "And God said to Abraham, get thee out from thy land" (and afterwards), "I will make of thee a great nation."

R. Kruspedai said in the name of R. Johanan: Three books are opened on New Year's Day: one for the utterly wicked, one for the wholly good, and one for the average class of people. The wholly righteous are at once inscribed, and life is decreed for them; the entirely wicked are at once inscribed, and destruction destined for them; the average class are held in the balance from New Year's Day till the Day of Atonement; if they prove themselves worthy they are inscribed for life, if not they are inscribed for destruction. Said R. Abhin: Whence this teaching? From the passage [Psalms, lxix. 29]: "Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and they shall not be written down with the righteous."

We have learned in a Boraitha: The school of Shammai said: There are three divisions of mankind at the Resurrection: the wholly righteous, the utterly wicked, and the average class. The wholly righteous are at once inscribed, and life is decreed for them; the utterly wicked are at once inscribed, and destined for Gehenna, as we read [Dan. xii. 2]: "And many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." The third class, the men between the former two, descend to Gehenna, but they weep and come up again, in accordance with the passage [Zech. xiii. 9]: "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; and he shall call on My name, and I will answer him." Concerning this last class of men Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 6]: "The Lord causeth to die and maketh alive, He bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up again." The school of Hillel says: The Merciful One inclines (the scale of justice) to the side of mercy, and of this third class of men David says [Psalms, cxvi. 1]: "It is lovely to me that the Lord heareth my voice"; in fact, David applies to them the Psalm mentioned down to the words, "Thou hast delivered my soul from death" [ibid. 8].

Transgressors of Jewish birth and also of non-Jewish birth, who sin with their body descend to Gehenna, and are judged there for twelve months; after that time their bodies are destroyed and burnt, and the winds scatter their ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as we read [Mal. iii. 23]: "And ye shall tread down the wicked, for they shall be as ashes under the soles of your feet"; but as for Minim, informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces." R. Itz'hac b. Abhin says: "Their faces are black like the sides of a caldron"; while Rabha remarked: "Those who are now the handsomest of the people of Me'huzza will yet be called the children of Gehenna."

What is meant by Jews who transgress with their body? Says Rabh: The Qarqaphtha (frontal bone) on which the phylacteries are not placed. And who are meant by non-Jews who transgress with the body? Those guilty of the sin (of adultery). Who are those who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them? A leader of a community who causes the people to fear him overmuch without furthering thereby a high purpose. R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: No such leader will ever have a learned son, as it is said [Job, xxxvii. 24]: "Men do therefore fear him: he will never see (in his family) any wise of heart."

The school of Hillel said above: He who is full of compassion will incline the scale of justice to the side of mercy. How does He do it? Answered R. Eliezer: He presses on (the side containing our virtues), as it is said [Micah, vii. 19]: "He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us, he will suppress our iniquities." R. Jose says: He lifts off (the sins), as it is said [ibid. 18]: "He pardoneth iniquity and forgiveth transgression." And it was taught in the school of R. Ishmael that this means that He removes each first sin (so that there is no second), and this is the correct interpretation. "But," Rabha remarked, "the sin itself is not blotted out, so that if one be found in later times with more sins (than virtues), the sin not blotted out will be added to the later ones; whoso treats with indulgence one who has wronged him (forms an exception to this rule), for he will have all his sins forgiven, as it is said [Micah, vii. r8]: "He pardoneth iniquity and forgiveth transgression." From whom does He remove iniquity? From him who forgiveth transgression (committed against him by his neighbor).

R. Huna ben R. Jehoshua fell sick, and R. Papa went to visit him. The latter saw that the end was near, and said to those present: "Make ready his provisions (shrouds)." Finally he recovered, and R. Papa was ashamed to see him. "Why did you think him so sick?" said they. "He was so, indeed," he replied, "but the Holy One, blessed be He, said that since he was always indulgent (with every one), he shall be forgiven," as it is written: "He pardoneth iniquity and forgiveth transgression." From whom docs He remove iniquity? From him who forgiveth transgression.

R. A'h the son of Hanina said: The phrase "of the remnant of his inheritance" [Micah, vii. 18] is like unto a fat tail (of an Arabian sheep) with a thorn through it (that will stick those that lay hold of it); (for He forgives) the remnant of His inheritance, and not all His inheritance. What is meant by remnant? Only those who deport themselves like a remnant (i.e., modestly). R. Huna points out a contradiction in these passages. It is written [Psalms, cxlv. 171: "The Lord is just in all his ways," and in the same passage, "and pious in all his works." It means, in the beginning He is only just, but in the end He is pious (when He finds that strict justice is too severe on mankind He tempers justice with piety or mercy). R. Elazar also points out a contradiction. It is written [Psalms, lxii. 12]: "Unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy;" and again, "thou renderest to every man according to his work." This can be explained as the above: In the beginning He rewards every man according to his works, but in the end He is merciful. Ilphi or Ilpha points out a similar contradiction in [Ex. xxxiv. 6], where it is written "abundant in goodness and truth," and gives a similar explanation.

It is written [Ex. xxxiv. 6]: "And the Lord passed by before him and proclaimed." R. Johanan said: Had this Passage not been written, it would have been impossible to have said it, for it teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, wrapped Himself, as does a minister who recites the prayers for a congregation, and pointing out to Moses the regular order of prayer, said to him: Whenever Israel sins, let him pray to Me, after this manner, and I shall pardon him.

"The Lord, the Lord," (these words mean) I am the same God before a man sins as I am after he sins and does repentance. "God, merciful and gracious." R. Jehudah said (concerning these words): The covenant made through the thirteen attributes [Ex. xxxiv.] will never be made void, as it is said [ibid. 10]: "Behold I make a covenant."

R. Johanan said: Great is repentance, for it averts the (evil) decreed against a man, as it is written [Isa. vi. 10]: "Obdurate will remain the heart of this people.... nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts, so that they repent and be healed." R. Papa asked Abayi: Do not these last words, perhaps, mean before the (evil) decree has been pronounced? It is written, he replied, "be healed." What is that which requires healing? I can only say that against which judgment has been pronounced. An objection was raised from the following Boraitha: He who repents between (New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement) is forgiven, but if he does not repent, even though he offered the choicest sacrifice, he is not pardoned. This presents no difficulty; in the one case it refers to (the sins of) an individual, and in the other to (those of) a community. Another objection was raised. Come and hear. It is written [Psalms, cvii. 23-28]: "They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; these see the works of the Lord... for he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves thereof, they reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man,... then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and he bringeth them out of their afflictions; oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness," etc. Signs are given, such as the words "but" and "only" in the Scriptures (which intimate limiting qualifications), to indicate that if they cried before the decree was pronounced, only then would they be answered; but if after, they are not answered. (Would not this be a contradiction to the words "to those of a community"?) Nay, for those on a ship are not a community (but are considered as individuals).

Come and hear. The proselyte Beluria (a woman) asked R. Gamaliel (concerning the following apparent contradiction): It is written in your Law [Deut. 17]: "The Lord who regardeth not persons" (literally, who lifteth not up countenances); and it is also written [Numb. vi. 26]: "May the Lord lift up his countenance." R. Jose, the priest, joined her, and said to her: "I will tell thee a parable. To what may this be compared? To one who lent money to his neighbor, and set a time for its repayment before the king, and (the borrower) swore by the king's life (to repay it on time). The time arrived, and he did not pay, and he came to appease the king. Said the king to him, 'I can forgive you only your offence against me, but I cannot forgive you your offence against your neighbor; go and ask him to forgive you.'" So also here; in the one place it means sins committed by a man against Himself (the Lord), but in the other it means sins committed by one man against another. As to the decree pronounced against an individual, the Tanaim differ, however, as we may see from the following Boraitha: R. Meir used to say, of two who fall sick with the same sickness, and of two who enter a tribunal (for judgment) on similar charges, one may recover and one not, one may be acquitted and one condemned. Why should one recover and one not, and one be acquitted and one condemned? Because the one prayed and was answered, and one prayed and was not answered. Why should one be answered and the other not?

The one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray devoutly and therefore was not answered; but R. Elazar said it was not because of prayer, but because the one prayed before, and the other after the decree was pronounced. R. Itz'hak said: Prayer is helpful for man before or after the decree has been pronounced. Is it then so that the (evil) decree pronounced against a congregation is averted (through the influence of prayer)? Does not one scriptural verse [Jer. iv. 14] say: "Wash thine heart from wickedness," and another states [ibid. ii. 22]: "For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before me." Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in the other after the sentence has been pronounced? Nay, both refer (to a time) after the decree has been pronounced and there is no contradiction, for in one case it refers to a decree issued with an oath, and in the other to a decree pronounced without an oath, as R. Samuel b. Ami said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence do we know that a decree, pronounced with an oath, cannot be averted? From the passage [I Sam. iii. 14]: "Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor meat-offering forever." Rabha, however, said: Even in such a case it is only through sacrifices that sin cannot be purged, but by (the study of) the Law it may be; and Abayi said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be purged, but by (the study of) the Law, and by active benevolence it can.

(Abayi based this opinion on his own experience, for) he and (his master) Rabba were both descendants of the house of Eli; Rabba, who only studied the Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. The rabbis tell us also: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and informed R. Johanan ben Zakkai of their trouble. Said he: "Perhaps you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said, 'all the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age'" [I Sam. ii. 33]; "Go, then, study the Law, and live." They went and studied, and they lived, and they called that family R. Johanan's after his name. R. Samuel ben Inya says in the name of Rabh: Whence do we know that if the decree against a community is even confirmed, it may nevertheless be averted? From [Deut. iv. 7] where it is written: "As the Lord, our God, in all things that we call upon him for;" (but how can you harmonize that with the passage) [Isa. Iv. 6]: "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found"? The latter passage refers to an individual, the former to a community. When is that time that He will be found even by an individual? Answered Rabba bar Abbahu: "During the ten days, from New Year's Day till the Day of Atonement."

"On New Year's Day all the inhabitants of the world pass before him, Kibhne Maron (like sheep)." What does the Mishna mean by these last two words? "Like sheep," as they are translated in Aramaic, but Resh Lakish says they mean "as the steps of the Temple" (i.e., narrow, so that people ascended them one by one). R. Jehudah, however, said in the name of Samuel: (They mean) "like the armies of the house of David" (which were numbered one by one). Said Rabba bar Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: "Under any circumstances they are mustered at a glance. And R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak said: Thus also we understand the words of our Mishna: "He that fashioned all their hearts alike" [Psalms, xxxiii. 15], i.e., the Creator, sees all their hearts (at a glance) and (at once) understands all their works.

MISHNA: Messengers were sent out for the following six months: for Nissan, on account of the Passover; for Abh, on account of the fast; for Elul, on account of the New Year; for Tishri, on account of appointing the order of the (remaining) festivals; for Kislev, on account of the Feast of Dedication; for Adar, on account of the Feast of Passover; also for Iyar, when the Temple was in existence, on account of the minor (or second) Passover.

GEMARA: Why were they not, also sent out for Tamuz and Tebheth (in which months there are also fasts)? Did not R. Hana bar Bizna say in the name of R. Sin-peon the pious: What is the meaning of the passage [Zach. viii. 19]: "Thus saith the Lord of hosts; the fast of the fourth, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall become in the house of Judah joy and gladness," etc., that they are called fasts, and also days of joy and gladness? Are we not to understand that only in the time of peace (cessation of persecution) they shall be for joy and gladness, but in the time when there was not peace they shall be fasts? Said R. Papa: It means this: When there was peace, these days should be for joy and gladness; in the time of persecution they shall be fasts; in times when there are neither persecution nor peace people may fast or not, as they see fit. If that is so, why then (should messengers have been sent out) on account of the fast of Abh? Said R. Papa: The fast (ninth day) of Abh is different, since many misfortunes occurred on that day, as the master said: "On the ninth of Abh, the first and second Temples were destroyed, Bether was captured, and the city of Jerusalem was razed to the ground."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon said: There are four matters that R. Aqiba expounded, but which I interpret differently; "the fast of the fourth" means the ninth of Tamuz, on which the city was broken in, as it is written [Jer. Iii. 6, 7]: "In the fourth, in the ninth day of the month... the city was broken in." What does he mean by fourth? The fourth of the months. "The fast of the fifth," means the ninth of Abh, on which the Temple of our Lord was burnt; and what does he mean by calling it fifth? The fifth of the months. "The fast of the seventh" means the third of Tishri, the day on which Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, was slain (and we fast), because the death of the righteous is equal to the loss of the house of our Lord. And what does he mean by calling it the seventh? The seventh of the months. "The fast of the tenth," means the tenth of Tebheth, the day on which the king of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem, as it is written [Ezek. xxiv. 1, 2]: "Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month the word of the Lord came unto me saying, Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this same day; the king of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem." And what does he mean by calling it the tenth? The tenth of the months, and actually this last event should have been placed first (since it occurred first). And why is it placed here last in order? To mention the months in their regular order. Said R. Simeon: I, however, do not think so, but thus: "The fast of the tenth" means the fifth of Tebheth, on which day the news came to the exiles that the city was smitten, as it is written [Ezek. xxxiii. 21]: "And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth (month), in the fifth day of the month, that one that bad escaped out of Jerusalem came to me, saying, The city is smitten," and they held the day on which they received the news equal to the day (on which the Temple) was burnt. And it seems to me that my opinion is more satisfactory, for I speak of the first, first, and of the last, last; while he speaks of the last, first, and of the first, last; he mentions them in the order of the months, while I mention them in the order in which the calamities occurred.

It was taught: Rabh and R. Hanina say: The Rolls of Fasts (which contained the names of minor holidays on which it was prohibited to fast) is annulled, but R. Johanan and R. Jehoshua ben Levi say: "It is not." When Rabh and R. Hanina say that it is annulled they mean: In the time of peace the (fast) days are days of joy and gladness, but in the time of persecution they are fast days, and so also with other (days mentioned in the Rolls of Fasts); and when R. Johanan and R. Jehoshua ben Levi say it is not annulled (they mean) that those (four fasts mentioned in Zachariah) the Bible makes dependent on the rebuilding of the Temple; but those (mentioned in the Rolls of Fasts) remain as they are appointed.

R. Tobi b. Matana objected: In the Rolls of Fasts it is said that on the twenty-eighth of (Adar), the good news came to the Jews that they need no longer abstain from studying the Law, for the king (of Syria had earlier) issued a decree, forbidding them to study the Law, or to circumcise their sons, and compelling them to desecrate their Sabbath. What did Jehudah b. Shamua and his friends do? They went and took counsel of a certain matron, whose house the celebrated people of the city frequented. Said she to them, "Go and cry aloud at night." They did as she advised and cried aloud, "Oh, heavens! Are we not all brethren? Are we not all the children of one Father? Are we not All the children of one mother? Why should we be treated differently from other nations, and from all people who speak other languages inasmuch as ye issue such cruel edicts against us?" The decrees were annulled, and the day (on which this happened) they appointed a holiday. Now if it be true that the Rolls of Fasts has been annulled (i.e., the former [feasts] have been all abrogated), may then new ones be added? There is a difference of opinion among Tanaim on this question, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: The days recorded in the Rolls of Fasts, whether during or after the existence of the Temple. are not permitted (to be kept as fasts), so said R. Meir; R. Jose, however, said, so long as the Temple stood it was not permissible (to fast on them) because they were days of joy, but since the Temple fell it is allowed because they are days of mourning. One rule says that they are abrogated, but another rule says they are not abrogated. There is a question here caused by one rule contradicting the other. In the latter case it refers to the Feasts of Dedication and Esther (which are never to be abrogated), and in the former case to all other (minor feast) days.

"For Elul on account of New Year's Day, and for Tishri on account of appointing the order of the (remaining) festivals." Since (the messengers) were sent out on account of Elul, why need they go again on account of Tishri? Shall we say because (the Beth Din) desired to proclaim Elul an intercalary month? (That cannot be) for did not R. Hanina bar Kahana say in the name of Rabh: Since the time of Ezra we have not discovered that Elul was an intercalary month? We have not discovered it, because it was not necessary (to make it so). But if it should be necessary, shall we make it an intercalary month? This would disturb the position of New Year's Day. It is better that the position of New Year's Day alone should be disturbed than that all the holidays should be disarranged. And it seems to be so, for the Mishna says that the messengers were sent for Tishri on account of appointing the order of the festivals.

"And for Kislev on account of Hanuka, and for Adar on account of the Feast of Esther." But the Mishna does not say if it be a leap year, that the messengers were sent out in the second Adar on account of Purim. From this we learn that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi of the following Boraitha: Rabbi says: "In a leap year messengers are sent out also in the second Adar on account of the Feast of Esther.''

When Ula came (from Palestine) he said: They have made Elul an intercalary month, and he also said: "Do my Babylonian comrades know the benefit we have gained through it?" Because of what is this a benefit?" Because of herbs," said Ula. R. A'ha bar Hanina, however, said: "Because of dead bodies." What difference is there between them? They differ concerning a holiday that falls immediately before or after the Sabbath (on the sixth or first day of the week). According to the one who says "because of herbs" we may add an intercalary day, but (it is not necessary) according to him who says "because of dead bodies," for we can employ non-Jews (to bury the dead for us on the holidays). If this is the case, why is this a benefit only for us (in Babylon); is it not also to the advantage of them (in Palestine)? Our climate is very hot, but theirs is not.

Is this really so? Did not Rabba bar Samuel teach: One might suppose that as we intercalate the year when necessary, so we intercalate the month when necessary? Therefore it is written [Ex. xii. 2]: "This month shall be unto you the first of the months," which means as soon as you see (the new moon) as on this occasion, you must consecrate the month (whether or not it is necessary to intercalate it). (How, then, could they intercalate Elul, which had always only twenty-nine days?) To intercalate it (when necessary) was permitted, but to consecrate it was not permitted, and Rabba's words should read: One might suppose that as it is permitted to intercalate the year and the month when necessary, so we may consecrate the month when necessary. Therefore it is written [Ex. xii. 2]: "This month shall be unto you," etc., which means only when the moon is seen as on this occasion, may you consecrate it.

Samuel said: "I can arrange the calendar for the whole captivity." Abba, the father of R. Simlai, said to him: "Does the master know that which a certain Boraitha teaches concerning the secret of the intercalary day; viz., whether the new moon appears before or after midday?" Answered he, "No." "Then, master," said he, "if thou dost not know this, there may be other things which thou dost not know." When R. Zera went (to Palestine) he sent back word to his comrade (saying): The evening and the morning (following) must both belong to the month (i.e., when the old moon has still been seen after dark on the twenty-ninth day of the month, the thirtieth evening and following day belong to the closing month). And this is what Abba, the father of R. Simlai, meant: We calculate only the beginning of the new moon; if it began before midday, it is certain that it was seen close upon the setting of the sun, but if it did not begin before midday, it is certain that it did not appear close upon the setting of the sun. What difference does it make (in practice)? Answered R. Ashi, "to refute witnesses."

R. Zera said in the name of R. Na'hman, in every case of doubt (about the holidays), we post-date, but never ante-date. Does this mean to say that (in a case of doubt concerning the exact day on which Tabernacles begins) we observe the fifteenth and sixteenth, but not the fourteenth. Let us keep the fourteenth also. Perhaps Abh and Elul have each only twenty-nine days? Nay, if two consecutive months should each have twenty-nine days, this would be announced.

Levi went to Babylon on the eleventh of Tishri. Said he: "Sweet is the food of Babylon on the great Day (of Atonement now being held) in Palestine." They said to him, "Go and testify." Answered he, "I have not heard from the Beth Din the words, 'It is consecrated' (and therefore I cannot testify)."

R. Johanan proclaimed: In every place that the messengers sent in Nissan reached, but that the messengers sent in Tishri cannot reach, they must observe two days for the holidays; and they make this restriction for Nissan lest people would do in Tishri as in Nissan. Rabha used to fast two days for the Day of Atonement. Once it happened that he was right (because the Day of Atonement fell one day later in Palestine than in Babylon). R. Na'hman was once fasting on the Day of Atonement, and in the evening a certain man came and said to him, "To-morrow will be the Day of Atonement in Palestine." He angrily quoted, "Swift were our persecutors" [Lam. iv. 19].

R. Na'hman said to certain sailors, "Ye who do not know the calendar take notice that when the moon still shines at dawn (it is full moon, and if it happens to be Nissan) destroy your leaven bread (for it is then the fourteenth day)."

MISHNA: For the sake of (the new moon) of the two months, Nissan and Tishri, witnesses may profane the Sabbath, because in these months the messengers went to Syria, and the order of the festivals was arranged; when, however, the Temple was in existence, they might profane the Sabbath in any month, in order to offer the (new moon) sacrifice in its proper time.

GEMARA: For the sake of these two months and not more? This would be a contradiction to the Mishna above, which states: "For the sake of six months messengers were sent out"? Said Abayi: "This is to be explained thus: For all new moons the messengers were sent out while it was still evening, but for Nissan and Tishri they were not sent out until they heard from the lips of the Beth Din the words, 'It (the new moon or month) is consecrated.'"

The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that for them we may profane the Sabbath? From [Lev. xxiii. 4], which reads: "These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons." Might not one suppose that as (witnesses) were permitted to profane the Sabbath until the new moons had been consecrated, so were messengers permitted to profane the Sabbath until (the festivals) were introduced? This the Law says: Therefore it is written: "Which ye shall proclaim," i.e., you may profane the Sabbath in order to proclaim them, but not to introduce them.

"When, however, the Temple was in existence," etc. The rabbis taught: Formerly they profaned the Sabbath for all (new moons), but after the destruction of the Temple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai said to them: "Have we any (new moon) sacrifice to offer? They then instituted that (witnesses) might profane the Sabbath only on account of Nissan and Tishri.

MISHNA: Whether the new moon had appeared clear to all or not (the witnesses) were permitted to profane the Sabbath on its account. R. Jose says: If it appeared clear to every, one, the Sabbath should not be profaned (by witnesses). it once happened that more than forty pair (of witnesses) were on the highway (to the Beth Din) on the Sabbath, when R. Aqiba detained them at Lydda. R. Gamaliel then sent word saying, "If thou thus detainest the people, thou wilt be the cause of their erring in the future" (i.e., they may refuse to come and testify).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written [Eccles. xii. 10]: Koheleth sought to find out acceptable words," which signifies that Koheleth sought to enforce decrees without the aid of witnesses or warning. A heavenly voice was heard saying [Eccles. xii. 10]: "And that which was written uprightly, even words of truth" (which meant that) as it is written [Deut. xx. 15]: "Upon the evidence of two witnesses, etc., must a case be established," so should words of truth also be established by two witnesses.

"It once happened that more than forty pair (of witnesses) were on the highway (to Jerusalem) and R. Aqiba detained them," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: It would be a sin to say that R. Aqiba should have detained them. It was Shazpar, the superintendent of Gadar, who detained them, and (and when) R. Gamaliel (heard of it, he) sent and dismissed him.

MISHNA: When a father and son have seen the new moon, they must both go to the Beth Din, not that they may act together as witnesses, but in order that, should the evidence of either of them be invalidated, the other may join to give evidence with another witness. R. Simeon says: Father and son, and relatives in any degree may be accepted as competent witnesses to give evidence as to the appearance of the new moon. R. Jose says: It once happened that Tobias, the physician, his son, and his freed slave saw the new moon in Jerusalem (and when they tendered their evidence), the priests accepted his evidence and that of his son, but invalidated that of his freed slave; but when they appeared before the (Beth Din) they received his evidence, and that of his freed slave, but invalidated that of his son.

GEMARA: Said R. Levi: What is the reason for R. Simeon's decree? It is written [Ex. xii. 1]: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron saying, This month shall be unto you," which means, this evidence shall be acceptable from you (although you are brothers). And how do the rabbis interpret it? They explain it as follows: This testimony shall be placed at your disposal (i.e., the Beth Din's). Says Mar Uqba in the name of Samuel, the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon.

MISHNA: The following are considered incompetent to be witnesses: gamblers with dice, usurers, pigeon breeders, those who deal with the produce of the sabbatic year, and slaves. This is the rule: All evidence that cannot be received from a woman cannot be received from any of the above. One who has seen the new moon, but is unable to go (to give evidence), must be brought (if unable to walk) mounted on an ass, or even in a bed. Persons afraid of an attack by robbers may take sticks with them; and if they have a long way to go, it will be lawful for them to provide themselves with and carry their food. Whenever (witnesses) must be on the road a day and a night, it will be lawful to violate the Sabbath to travel thereon, to give their evidence as to the appearance of the moon. For thus it is written [Lev. xxiii. 4]: "These are the feasts of the Lord, the holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their appointed seasons.

ORDINANCES ABOUT THE WITNESSES CONCERNING THE NEW MOON, THE HOISTING OF THE FLAGS AND HOW IT WAS CONSECRATED BY THE BETH DIN.

MISHNA: If the witness was unknown another was sent with him to testify to his character. In former times they would receive evidence (about the appearance of the moon) from any one; but when the Boëthusians commenced to corrupt the witnesses the rule was made, that evidence would only be received from those who were known (to be reputable).

GEMARA: What is meant by "another" (in the above Mishna)? Another pair (of witnesses). It seems also to be so from the statement of the Mishna. "If the witness was unknown? Shall we assume that it means one (witness)? Surely the evidence of one was not received, for this transaction was called "judgment" [Psalms, lxxxi.] (and two witnesses are necessary)? What, then, does "the witness" mean? That pair; so also here, "another" means another pair. Is, then, the evidence of one not accepted? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: It once happened that R. Neherai went to Usha on the Sabbath to testify (to the character) of one witness? He knew that there was one witness in Usha, and he went to add his evidence (and thus make two witnesses). If that is so, what does it tell us? One might suppose that, as there was a doubt (that he might not meet the other witness), he ought not to have profaned the Sabbath (by travelling to Usha as a single witness); therefore he comes to teach us (that even in such a case of doubt the Sabbath might be violated).

When Ula came (to Babylon, from Palestine), he said: They have already consecrated the new moon in Palestine. Said R. Kahana: (In such a case) not only Ula, who is a great man, is to be believed, but even an ordinary man. Why so? Because men will not lie about a matter that will become known to every one.

"In former times they would receive evidence from any one, etc." The rabbis taught: How did the Boëthusians corrupt the witnesses? They once sought to deceive the sages, and they bribed, with four hundred zuz (silver coins), two men, one belonging to their party and one to ours. The former gave his evidence and went out, to the latter they (the Beth Din) said, "Tell us what was the appearance of the moon?" "I went up," replied he, "to Maale Adumim, and I saw it crouching between two rocks. Its head was like a calf, its cars like a goat, its horns like a stag, and its tail was lying across its thigh. I gazed upon it and shuddered, and fell backwards; and if you do not believe me, behold, here I have two hundred zuz bound up in my cloth." "Who induced you to do this?" they asked. "I heard," he replied, "that the Boëthusians wished to deceive the sages; so I said to myself, I will go and inform them, lest some unworthy person may (accept their bribe), and come and deceive the sages." Then said the sages: "The two hundred zuz may be retained by you as a reward, and he who bribed you shall be taken to the whipping-post (and be punished)." Then and there they ordained that testimony should be received only from those who were known (to be of good character).

MISHNA: Formerly bonfires were lighted (to announce the appearance of the new moon); but when the Cutheans practised their deceit, it was ordained that messengers should be sent out. How were these bonfires lighted? They brought long staves of cedar wood, canes, and branches of the olive tree, and bundles of tow which were tied on top of them with twine; with these they went to the top of a mountain, and lighted them, and kept waving them to and fro, upward and downward, till they could perceive the same repeated by another person on the next mountain, and thus, on the third mountain, etc. Whence did these bonfires commence? From the Mount of Olives to Sartabha, from Sartabha to Grophinah, from Grophinah to Hoveran, from Hoveran to Beth Baltin; they did not cease waving the burning torches at Beth Baltin, to and fro, upward and downward, until the whole country of the captivity appeared like a blazing fire.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Bonfires were only lighted to announce the new moon that appeared and was consecrated at the proper time (after twenty-nine days). And when were they lighted? On the evening of the thirtieth day. Does this mean to say that for a month of twenty-nine days the bonfires were lighted, but not for a month of thirty days? It should have been done for a month of thirty days, and not at all for a month of twenty-nine days. Said Abayi: That would cause the people a loss of work for two days (because they would wait to see if the bonfires would be lit or not and thus lose a second day).

"How were these bonfires lighted? They brought long staves of cedar wood," etc. R. Jehudah says: There are four kinds of cedars: the common cedar, the Qetros, the olive tree, and the cypress. Qetros says Rabh is (in Aramaic) Adara or a species of cedar. Every cedar, said R. Johanan, that was carried away from Jerusalem, God will in future times restore, as it is written [Isa. xli. 19]: "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar tree," and by "wilderness" He means Jerusalem, as it is written [Isa. lxiv. 19]: "Zion is (become) a wilderness." R. Johanan says again: Who studies the law, and teaches it in a place where there is no other scholar, is equal to a myrtle in the desert, which is very dear. The same says again: "Woe to the Romans, for whom there will be no substitution," as it is written [Isa. lx. 17]: "Instead of the copper, I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood, copper, and for stones, iron." But what can He bring for R Aqiba and his comrades (who were destroyed by Rome)? Of them it is written [Joel, IV. 21]: "I will avenge (but for) their (Aqiba's and his comrades') blood I have not yet avenged."

"And whence did these bonfires commence?" From Beth Baltin. What is Beth Baltin? "Biram," answered Rabh. What (does the Mishna) mean by the captivity? Said R. Joseph, "Pumbeditha." And how was it that the whole country looked like a blazing fire? We learn that each Israelite took a torch in his hand and ascended to the roof of his house.

MISHNA: There was a large court in Jerusalem called Beth Ya'azeq, where all the witnesses met, and where they were examined by the Beth Din. Great feasts were made there for (the witnesses) in order to induce them to come frequently. At first they did not stir from there all day (on the Sabbath), till R. Gamaliel, the elder, ordained that they might go two thousand ells on every side; and not only these (witnesses) but also a midwife, going to perform her professional duties, and those who go to assist others in case of conflagration, or against an attack of robbers, or in case of flood, or (of rescuing people) from the ruins (of a fallen building) are considered (for the time being) as inhabitants of that place, and may go (thence on the Sabbath) two thousand ells on every side. How were the witnesses examined? The first pair were examined first. The elder was introduced first, and they said to him: Tell us in what form thou sawest the moon; was it before or behind the sun? Was it to the north or the south (of the sun)? What was its elevation on the horizon? Towards which side was its inclination? What was the width of its disk? If he answered before the sun, his evidence was worthless. After this they introduced the younger (witness) and he was examined; if their testimony was found to agree, it was accepted as valid; the remaining pairs (of witnesses) were asked leading questions, not because their testimony was necessary, but only to prevent them departing, disappointed, and to induce them to come again often,

GEMARA: Do not the questions (asked by the Mishna), "was it before or behind the sun?" and "was it to the north or to the south?" mean the same thing? Answered Abayi: (The Mishna asks) whether the concave of the crescent was before or behind the sun, and if (the witness said) it was before the sun, his evidence was worthless, for R. Johanan says: What is the meaning of the passage [Job, xxv. 2]: "Dominion and fear are with him; he maketh peace in his high places?" It means that the sun never faces the concave of the crescent or the concave of a rainbow.

"What was its elevation on the horizon? Towards which side was its inclination?" In one Boraitha we have learned: If (the witness) said "towards the north," his evidence was valid, but if he said, "towards the south," it was worthless; in another Boraitha we have learned the reverse. It presents no difficulty; in the latter case it speaks of the summer, while in the former it refers to the winter.

The rabbis taught: If one (witness) said its elevation appeared about as high as two ox-goads and another said about as high as three, their testimony was invalid, but either might be taken in conjunction with a subsequent witness (who offered similar testimony). The rabbis taught (If the witnesses say): "We have seen the reflection (of the moon) in the water, or through a metal mirror, or in the clouds," their testimony is not to be accepted; or (if they say we have seen) "half of it in the water, and half of it in the heavens, or half of it in the clouds," their evidence carries no weight. Must they then see the new moon again (before their testimony can be accepted)? Said Abayi: "By this is meant that if the witnesses testify that they saw the moon accidentally, and they then returned purposely and looked for it, but they saw it not, their evidence is worthless." Why so? Because one might say they saw a patch of white clouds (and they thought it was the moon).

MISHNA: The chief of the Beth Din then said: "It (the new moon) is consecrated," and all the people repeated after him: "It is consecrated; it is consecrated." Whether the new moon was seen at its proper time (after twenty-nine days) or not, they used to consecrate it. R. Elazar b. Zadok said: If it had not been seen at its proper time it was not consecrated, because it had already been consecrated in heaven (i.e., of itself).

GEMARA: Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Hyya b. Gamda quoting Rabbi, in the name of R. Jose b. Saul: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 44]: "Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts of the Lord," from which we deduce that (as Moses, who was the chief in Israel, declared the feasts to Israel, so also) the chief of the Beth Din should announce the words, "It is consecrated."

"All the people repeated after him: It is consecrated; it is consecrated." Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Papa: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 2]: "Shall proclaim." "Othom" (them). Do not read "Othom," but Athem (ye)--i.e., which ye, all the people, shall proclaim. R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak, however, said: We know it from the words [ibid.]: "These are my feasts," i.e., (these people) shall announce my feasts. Why are the words "It is consecrated" repeated? Because in the scriptural verse just quoted we find it written "holy convocations" (literally, announcements, and the minimum of the plural expression is two).

"R. Elazar b. Zadok said: If it had not been seen at its proper time it was not consecrated," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha, Pelimo said: If the new moon appear at its proper time it was not customary to consecrate it, but if it appeared out of its proper time they used to consecrate it. R. Eliezer, however, said: In neither case would they consecrate it, for it is written [Lev. xxv. 10]: "And ye shall consecrate the fiftieth year;" years should be consecrated, but not months. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: "The halakha prevails according to R. Elazer b. Zadok. Said Abayi: There can be a support to this from the following Mishna, viz.: "If the Beth Din and all Israel saw the new moon (on the thirtieth day) and if the examination of the witnesses bad already taken place, and it had become dark before they had time to announce 'It is consecrated,' the month (just passing) is intercalary." That (the month) is intercalary is mentioned (by the Mishna), but not that they said "It is consecrated." It is not clear that this is a support for Abayi's argument, for it was necessary to say that it was intercalary, or we would not have known that the next day was the intercalary day. One might have thought that, since the Beth Din and all Israel saw the new moon, it was apparent to all, and that the month does not become intercalary; therefore he teaches us that (nevertheless the month becomes intercalary).

MISHNA: R. Gamaliel had on a tablet, and on a wall of his upper room, illustrations of the various phases of the moon, which he used to show to the common people, saying: "Did you see the moon like this figure or like this?"

GEMARA: Is this permitted? Have we not learned in a Boraitha that the words "Ye shall not make anything with me" [Ex. xx. 20] mean, ye shall not make pictures of my ministers that minister before me, such as the sun, moon, stars or planets? It was different with R. Gamaliel, for others made it for him. But others made one for R. Jehudah, yet Samuel said to him: "Thou, sagacious one, destroy that figure!" In the latter case the figure was embossed, and he was afraid that one might suspect the owner (of using it as an idol). Need one be afraid of such suspicion? Did not that synagogue in Shephithibh of Neherdai have a statue (of the king), yet Rabh, Samuel and Samuel's father and Levi went there to pray and were not afraid of being suspected (of idolatry)? It is a different case where there are many. Yet R. Gamaliel was only one. Yea, but he was a prince, and there were always many with him; And if you wish you may say that he had them made for the purpose of instruction, and that which is written [Deut. xviii. 9], "thou shalt not learn to do," means but thou mayest learn, in order to understand and to teach.

MISHNA: It happened once that two witnesses came and said: We saw the moon in the eastern part of the heavens in the morning, and in the western part in the evening. R. Jo'hanan b. Nouri declared them to be false witnesses; but when they came to Yamnia, Rabbon Gamaliel received their evidence as valid. (On another occasion) two other witnesses came and said: We saw the moon on its proper day, but could not see it on the next evening of the intercalary day. R. Gamaliel accepted their testimony, but R. Dosa b. Harkhenas said: They are false witnesses; for how can they testify of a woman being delivered (on a certain day) when on the next day she appears to be pregnant? Then R. Jehoshua said unto him: I approve your opinion. Upon this R. Gamaliel sent him (R. Jehoshua) word, saying: "I order thee to appear before me on the Day of Atonement, according to your computation, with your staff and with money." R. Aqiba went to him (R. Jehoshua) and found him grieving. He then said to him: I can prove that all which R. Gamaliel has done is proper, for it is said: "These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which ye shall proclaim," either at their proper time, or not at their proper time, only their convocations are to be considered as holy festivals. When he (R. Jehoshua) came to R. Dosa b. Harkhinas, the latter told him: "If we are to reinvestigate the decisions of the Beth Din of R. Gamaliel, we must also reinvestigate the decisions of all the tribunals of justice which have existed from the time of Moses till the present day; for it is said [Ex. xxiv. 9] Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders went up (to the Mount)." Why were not the names of the elders also specified? To teach us that every three men in Israel that form a Beth Din are to be respected in an equal degree with the Beth Din of Moses. Then did R. Jehoshua take his staff and money in his hand, and went to Yamnia, to R. Gamaliel, on the very day on which the Day of Atonement would have been according to his computation, when R. Gamaliel arose and kissed him on the forehead, saying: "Enter in peace, my master and disciple! My master--in knowledge; my disciple--since thou didst obey my injunction."

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha that R. Gamaliel said to the sages: "Thus it has been handed down to me from the house of my grandfather (Zamalill the elder) that sometimes the new moon appears elongated and sometimes diminished. R. Hyya saw the old moon yet on the morning of the twenty-ninth day, and threw clods of earth at it, saying: 'We should consecrate thee in the evening, and thou art seen now? Go, hide thyself!'"

Said Rabbi to R. Hyya: "Go to Entob and consecrate the month and send back to me as a password 'David, the King of Israel, still lives.'"

The rabbis taught: Once it happened that the heavens were thick with clouds and the form of the moon was seen on the twenty-ninth of the month (of Elul), so that the people thought that New Year's Day should be then proclaimed, and they (the Beth Din) were about to consecrate it. Said R. Gamaliel to them: Thus it has been handed down to me by tradition, from the house of my grandfather, the consecration of the moon cannot take place at a period less than twenty-nine and a half days, two-thirds and.0052 (i.e., seventy-three 'Halaqim),of an hour. On that self-same day the mother of Ben Zaza died and R. Gamaliel delivered a great funeral oration, not because she specially deserved it, but in order that the people might know that the new moon had not yet been consecrated by the Beth Din.

"R. Aqiba went to him, and found him grieving." The schoolmen propounded a question: "Who found whom grieving?" Come and hear. We have learned in a Boraitha: "R. Aqiba went to R. Jehoshua and found him grieving, so he asked him: 'Rabbi, why art thou grieving?' And he answered: 'Aqiba, I would rather lie sick for twelve months than to have this order issued for my appearance.' Rejoined R. Aqiba: 'Rabbi, permit me to say one thing in thy presence which thou thyself hast taught me.' R. Jehoshua granted him permission, and R. Aqiba proceeded: 'It is written [Lev. xxiii. 2, 4 and 37]: Three times 'shall proclaim Othom (them), which should, however, not be read Othom (them), but Athem (ye), which would make the verse read, "Ye shall proclaim." Now the threefold "ye" signifies that even if ye were deceived by false pretences and changed the day of the festivals, or even if ye did it purposely, or even if ye were held to be in error by others--once the dates had been established they must so remain.' With the following words R. Jehoshua answered R. Aqiba: Aqiba, thou hast comforted me; Aqiba, thou hast comforted me.'"

"When he (Rabbi Jehoshua) came to R. Dosa b. Harkhenas," etc. The rabbis taught: The reason that the names of those elders are not mentioned, is, in order that one should not say: Is So-and-so like Moses and Aaron? Is So-and-so like Nadabh and Abihu? Is So-and-so like Eldad and Medad? (And how do we know that one should not ask thus?) Because, it is written [i Sam. xii. 6]: "And Samuel said unto the people the Lord that appointed Moses and Aaron "and in the same connection it is written [ibid. 11]: "And the Lord sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephtha and Samuel." [Jerubaal is Gideon; and why is he named Jerubaal? Because he strove against Baal. Bedan is Sampson; and why is he named Bedan? Because he came from Dan. Jephtha means just what it is (i.e., he had no surname or attribute).] And it is also written [Ps. xcix. 6]: "Moses and Aaron among his priests, and Samuel among those who called upon his name." The sacred text regards the three common people equal with the three noblest, to teach us that Jerubaal was in his generation like Moses in his; Bedan in his generation was like Aaron in his; Jephtha in his generation was like Samuel in his generation. From all this one must learn that if even the commonest of the commoners is appointed leader by a community, he must be considered as the noblest of the nobility, for it is said [Deut. xvii. 9]: "And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in his days." (Why does the passage say "in those days"?) Can you imagine that one could go to a judge who was not in his days? (Surely not! But by these words Scripture teaches us that a judge is to be held "in his days" equal in authority with the greatest of his predecessors.) We find a similar teaching in Eccles. vii. 10: "Say not thou that the former days were better than these!

"He took his staff," etc. The rabbis taught: (R. Gamaliel said to R. Jehoshua): Happy is the generation in which the leaders listen to their followers, and through this the followers consider it so much the more their duty (to heed the teachings of the leaders).

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE INTERCALATING OF THE MONTH--THE CORNET, AND OF WHAT IT IS TO BE MADE--AND THE PRAYERS OF THE NEW YEAR'S DAY.

MISHNA: If the Beth Din and all Israel saw (the moon on the night of the thirtieth day), or if the witness had been examined, but there was no time to proclaim "It is consecrated" before it had become dark, the month is intercalary. If the Beth Din alone saw it, two of its members should stand up and give testimony before the others, who shall then say "It is consecrated; it is consecrated." When three who formed a Beth Din saw it, two should stand up and conjoining some of their learned friends with the remaining one, give their testimony before these, who are then to proclaim "It is consecrated; it is consecrated," for one (member of a Beth Din) has not this right by himself alone.

GEMARA: "If the Beth Din alone saw it," etc. Why so? Surely hearsay evidence is not better than the testimony of an eye-witness! Said R. Zera: "It refers to a case where they saw it at night (and on the next day they could not consecrate the new moon until they had heard the evidence of two witnesses)."

"When three who formed a Beth Din, saw it, two should stand up and conjoining some of their learned friends with the remaining one," etc. Why so? Here also we may say, surely hearsay evidence is not better than the testimony of an eye-witness! And if you would say that this also means where they saw it at night, is this not, then, the same case? The case is the same, but the above statement is required because of the concluding words, "one (member of a Beth Din) has not the right by himself alone;" for it might be assumed, since in civil cases three (are required to constitute a Beth Din), but where he is well known (as a learned authority) one judge may act alone, so here we may consecrate (the new moon) on the authority of one judge; therefore, he teaches us (that three are required). Perhaps I should, nevertheless, say here (that one learned authority is sufficient)? Nay, for there is no greater authority than Moses, our master, yet God said to him that Aaron should act with him, as it is written [Ex. xii. 1, 2]: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, in the land of Egypt, saying: This month shall be unto you the beginning of months."

Does this mean to say that a witness may act as judge? And shall we assume that the above Mishna is not according to R. Aqiba, as on following Boraitha: If the members of the Sanhedrin saw a man commit murder, part of them may act as witnesses and part as judges, according to R. Tarphon; but according to R. Aqiba all of them are witnesses, and no witness (of a crime) may act as judge. It may be said that the Mishna is even according to R. Aqiba. In the latter instance R. Aqiba only refers to capital cases, for it is written [Numb. xxxv. 24, 25]: "Then the congregation shall judge... and the congregation shall deliver," and since they saw him commit murder, they will not be able to urge any plea in his favor; but here (concerning the new moon) even R. Aqiba assents (that a witness may act as judge).

MISHNA: Every kind of cornet may be used (on New Year's Day) except those made of cow-horn, because they are called "horn" (qeren), and not "cornet" (shophar). R. Jose said: Are not all cornets called "horn?" for it is said [josh. vi. 5]: "And it came to pass that when they made a long blast with the horn of the Jobhel."

GEMARA: How comes it that the word Jobhel means ram? A Boraitha teaches: R. Aqiba says: When I went to Arabia I found they called a ram "Yubla."

The rabbis did not know the meaning of the word Salseleho in the passage [Prov. iv. 8]: "Salseleho and she shall exalt thee." One day they heard Rabbi's maidservant say to a certain man who was (conceitedly) playing with his hair, "How long wilt thou mesalsel (hold up) thy hair?" The rabbis did not know the meaning of the word yehabhekha in the passage [Ps. iv. 23]: "Cast yehabhekha (thy burden) upon the Lord." Said Rabba bar Bar Hana: "One day I went with a certain Arabian caravan merchant, and I was carrying a burden. Said he to me: 'Take down yehabhekha (thy burden) and put it on my camel.'"

MISHNA: The cornet used on the New Year was a straight horn of a wild goat; the mouth-piece was covered with gold. The two trumpets were stationed one on each side. The sound of the cornet was prolonged, while that of the trumpet was short, because the special duty of the day was the sounding of the cornet. On the fast days two crooked ram's horns were used, their mouth-pieces being covered with silver, and the two trumpets were stationed in the middle between them. The sound of the cornet was shortened, while that of the trumpet was prolonged, because the special duty of the day was the sounding of the trumpets. The jubilee and New Year's Day were alike in respect to the sounding (of the cornet) and the benedictions, but R. Jehudah says: "On the New Year we blow (a cornet) made of ram's horn, and on the jubilee one made of the horn of a wild goat."

GEMARA: R. Levi said: It is a duty on New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement to use a bent cornet, but during the rest of the year a straight one. But have we not learned that the cornet used on the New Year must be the "straight horn of a wild goat?" He (R. Levi) said as R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha: On New Year's Day they used to blow (a cornet) made of a straight ram's horn, and on the Jubilees one made of wild goat's horn. What is their point of variance? R. Jehudah holds that on New Year's the more bent in spirit a man is, and on the Day of Atonement the more upright he is (in his confessions) the better; but R. Levi holds the more upright a man is on New Year's Day and the more bowed in spirit on the Fast Days, the better.

"The mouth-piece was covered with gold." Does not a Boraitha teach, however, that if one covers the place to which the mouth was put the cornet may not be used; but if (he covers) another place it may be used? Answered Abayi: "Our Mishna also means a place to which the mouth was not put."

"The two trumpets were stationed one on each side." Could the two sounds be easily distinguished? Nay; and therefore the sound of the cornet was prolonged, to indicate that the special duty of the day was the sounding of the cornet.

"On the Fast-Days two crooked ram's horns were used, their mouth-pieces being covered with silver." Why was the cornet used in the one case covered with gold and in the other with silver? All (signals for) assemblies were blown on horns made with silver, as it is written [Numb. X. 2]: "Make unto thee two trumpets of silver... that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly," etc. R. Papa bar Samuel was about to follow the practice prescribed by the Mishna. Said Rabha to him: "That was only customary so long as the Temple was in existence." A Boraitha also teaches that this applies only to the Temple; but in the country (outside of Jerusalem) in a place where they use the trumpet, they do not use the cornet, and vice versa. Such was the wont of R. Halaphta in Sepphoris and also of R. Hanina b. Teradion in Si'hni. When the matter was brought to the attention of the sages they said: "That was the custom only at the eastern gates or the Temple Mount." Rabha, according to others R. Jehoshua ben Levi, asked: "From which passage is this deduced?" From the passage [Psalms xcviii. 6]: "With trumpets and sound of cornet, make a joyful noise before the Lord, the King;" i.e., before the Lord, the King (in the Temple) we need both the trumpets and the cornet, but not elsewhere.

"The Jubilee, and the New Year were alike in respect to the sounding (of the cornet), and the benediction." R. Samuel bar Itz'hak said: According to whom do we nowadays pray: "This day celebrates the beginning of thy work, a memorial of the first day?" According to R. Eliezer, who says: The world was created at Tishri. R. Ina objected. Did we not learn in our Mishna that the Jubilee and New Year are alike in respect to the sounding (of the cornet), and the benedictions, and now how can that be so if we say "This day celebrates the beginning of thy work, a memorial of the first day," which is said on New Year, but not on the Jubilee? (That which we have learned in our Mishna that they are alike means) in every other respect but this.

MISHNA: It is unlawful to use a cornet that has been split and afterwards joined together; or one made of several pieces joined together. If a cornet had a hole that had been stopped up, and prevented (the production) of the proper sound, it must not be used; but if it does not affect the proper sound it may be used. If one should blow the cornet inside a pit, a cistern or a vat, and the sound of the cornet was (plainly) heard (by one listening to it) he will have done his duty (to hear the cornet on the New Year), but not if he heard only an indistinct sound. Thus also, if one should happen to pass by a synagogue, or live close by it, and should hear the cornet (on the New Year) or the reading of the Book of Esther (on the Feast of Esther), he will have complied with the requirements of the law, if he listened with proper attention, but not otherwise; and although the one heard it as well as the other, yet the difference (on which everything depends) is that the one listened with proper attention and the other did not.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: If a cornet was long and was shortened, it is valid; if one scraped it and reduced it to its due size it is valid; if one covered it on the inside with gold it is invalid; if on the outside and it changed the tone from what it originally was, it is invalid, but if not it is. If a cornet had a hole in it and it was closed up, and thereby prevented (the production) of the proper sound, it is invalid, but if not it is valid; if one placed one cornet inside another and the sound heard (by a listener) was produced from the inner one, he has fulfilled his duty, but if from the outer one, he has not.

"Or one made of several pieces joined together." The rabbis taught "If one added to a cornet ever so small a piece, whether it be of the same kind of horn or not, it is invalid. If a cornet had a hole, whether one stopped it up with a piece of the same kind (of horn) or not, it is invalid. R. Nathan, however, said (only when repaired with material) not of the same kind it is invalid, but otherwise if of the same kind it is valid. (To which) R. Jehudah added: "That is, if the greater part of a cornet was broken." From this we can infer that if repaired with material of the same kind, although the greater part was broken, it is, nevertheless, valid.

"If one covered a cornet on the inside with gold it is invalid; if on the outside, and it changed the tone from what it originally was, it is not valid, but if not it is." If a cornet had been split lengthwise it is invalid, but if crosswise, yet enough remained with which to produce the sound, it is valid, but if not it is invalid. (And how much is that? R. Simeon b. Gamaliel explains it to be as much as we may hold in our closed hand, and yet on either side a portion is visible). If its tone was thin, or heavy, or harsh, it is valid, for all tones were considered proper in a cornet. The schoolmen sent a message to the father of Samuel: ("One has fulfilled his duty if he bored a hole in a horn and blew it. That is self-evident! for in every cornet a hole must surely be bored." Said R. Ashi: "If one bored a hole through the bony substance inside the horn (which ought to be removed), are we to suppose that one substance causes an interposition with another of the same nature (and that therefore it must not be used)?" Therefore they sent to say that this is no objection.

"If one should blow the cornet inside a pit or a cistern," etc. R. Huna said: They taught this only in the case of those who stood at the pit's mouth, but those who were in the pit itself fulfill their duty. If one heard a part of (the required number of) the sounds of the cornet in the pit, and the rest at the pit's mouth, he has done his duty; but if he heard a part before the dawn of day, and the rest after the dawn, he has not. Said Abayi to him: Why in the latter case (should he not have done his duty, because he did not hear the whole of the sounds at the time when the duty should be performed), yet in the former case (he is considered to have done his duty) under similar circumstances? How can these cases be compared? In the latter case, the night is not the time of performing the obligation at all, while in the former case, a pit is a place where the duty may be performed for those who are in it! Shall we say that Rabba held: If one heard the end of the sounding (of the cornet) without having heard the beginning he did his duty, and from these words we must understand that if he heard the beginning without the end he has also done his duty? Come and hear. If one blew the first sound (Tekia) and prolonged the second (Tekia) as long as two, it is only reckoned as one; and (if Rabba's opinion is correct) why should he reckon it as two? (This is no question)! If he heard half the sounds he has done his duty, but when one blows one sound on the cornet we cannot consider it two halves.

Rabha says: One who vows to receive no benefit from his neighbor may nevertheless blow for him the obligatory sounds (of the cornet); one who vows refusal of any benefit from a cornet may blow on it the obligatory sounds. Furthermore, said Rabha: "One who vows to refuse any benefit from his neighbor may sprinkle on him the waters of a sin-offering in the winter, but not in the summer. One who vows to receive no benefit from a spring may take in it a legal bath in the winter, but not in the summer.

The schoolmen sent a message to the father of Samuel: "If one had been compelled to eat unleavened bread (on the first night of Passover, i.e., he had not done so of his own accord) he has also done his duty." Who compelled him? Said R. Ashi: "Persians." Rabha remarked: From this statement we can prove that if one plays a song on a cornet he does his duty. Is this not self-evident? The cases are similar. One might suppose that in the former case the law commanded him to eat (unleavened bread) and he ate it, but in the latter case the Torah speaks of "a remembrance of blowing the cornet" [Lev. xxiii. 241, and (when he plays a song he does not remember his duty for) he is engaged in a worldly occupation. Therefore he teaches us that even under such circumstances he does his duty.

To this an objection was raised. We have learned: If one who listened (to the sounds of the cornet) paid the proper attention, but he that blew the cornet did not, or vice versa, they have not done their duty until both blower and listener pay proper attention. This would be correct in the case where the blower, but not the listener, pays the proper attention, for it is possible that the listener imagines he hears the noise of an animal; but how can it happen that the listener should pay due attention, and the one who blows (the cornet) should not, except he was only playing a song (by which he does not do his duty)? (It is possible) if he only produced a dull sound (i.e., and not, for example, a Tekia).

Said Abayi to him: "But now, according to thy conclusion (that a duty performed without due attention is the same as if performed with due attention) wilt thou say that he who sleeps in a tabernacle on the eighth day of the Feast of the Tabernacles shall receive stripes (because he had no right to observe the law for more than seven days)?" Answered Rabha: "I say that one cannot infringe a command except at the time when it should be performed." R. Shamen b. Abba raised an objection: Whence do we know that a priest who ascended the platform (to pronounce the priestly benediction) must not say: Since the Torah has given me the right to bless Israel, I will supplement (the benedictions, Numb. vi. 24-26) by one of my own, as, for example [Deut. i. ii]: "May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are?" From the Torah which says [Deut. iv. 2]: "Ye shall not add unto the word." And in this case as soon as he has finished the benedictions the time for performing that duty has gone by; still if he add a blessing of his own he is guilty of infringing the law, which says, "Ye shall not add." This refers to a case of where the priest had not yet finished the scriptural benediction. We have learned, however, that he had finished the scriptural benediction. The Boraitha means to say that he had finished only one of the (three) benedictions. We have learned in another Boraitha, however, that even if he had completed all three benedictions, and then supplemented one of his own, he is also guilty of a transgression. In this case it is different, for it might be that the priest would come to another assembly where prayer was held and be called upon to again pronounce the benedictions. Hence it must be assumed that there is no specified time for the priest to pronounce his benedictions, but all day can be considered as the proper time, and thus the priest, by supplementing a benediction of his own, becomes guilty.

R. Shamen bar Abha, however, does not admit that the whole day is the proper time, because the priest is not in duty bound to pronounce the benediction in another assembly. Nevertheless he is guilty if he should supplement an additional benediction of his own; whence we see that even if the proper time has passed, guilt is nevertheless incurred, and this is contradictory to Rabha's dictum. Therefore, said Rabha: (I mean), To fulfill the requirements of the law one need not pay attention; to transgress the law against supplementing, at the time prescribed for performing it, also does not require one's special attention; but to transgress the law against supplementing, at the time not prescribed for performance, needs one's special attention. Hence the priest, after completing the scriptural benediction, who says: "Because the law gives me authority I shall supplement a benediction of my own, demonstrates thereby that he does this with special attention, and consequently incurs guilt, even if the prescribed time had passed.

R. Zera said to his attendant: "Pay attention, and sound (the cornet) for me. Do we not thus see that he holds that to fulfill the requirements of the law the act is not enough, and one must pay attention? This is a disputed question among the Tanaïm, for we have learned in a Boraitha: One who hears (the blowing of the cornet) must himself listen in order to perform his duty, and he who blows (the cornet) blows after his usual manner. R. Jose said: "These words are said only in the case of the minister for a congregation; but an individual does not do his duty unless both he that hears and he that blows pay proper attention."

MISHNA: (It is written in Ex. xvii. 11 that) "When Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed," etc. Could then the hands of Moses cause war to be waged or to cease? (Nay); but it means that as long as Israel looked to heaven for aid, and directed their hearts devoutly to their Father in heaven, they prevailed; but when they ceased to do so they failed. We find a similar instance also in [Numb. xxi. 8]: "Make unto thee a fiery serpent and set it on a pole, and every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it shall live." Could, then, the serpent kill or bring to life? (Surely not.) But it means when the Israelites looked (upward) to heaven for aid and subjected their will to that of their Father in heaven they were healed, but when they did not they perished. A deaf mute, an idiot, or a child cannot act in behalf of the assembled congregation. This is the general rule: "Whosoever is not obliged to perform a duty cannot act in behalf of the assembled congregation" (for that duty).

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: All are obliged to hear the sounding of the cornet, priests, Levites and Israelites, proselytes, freed slaves, a hermaphrodite, and one who is half slave and half free. A sexless person cannot act in behalf of those like or unlike itself, but a hermaphrodite can act in behalf of those of the same class, but not of any other.

The Master said: It is said, All are obliged to hear the sounding of the cornet, priests, Levites and Israelites. This is self-evident, for if these are not obliged, who are? It was necessary to mention priests here, for one might have supposed that since we have learnt "the jubilee and New Year's Day are alike with regard to the sounding of the cornet and the benedictions," that only those who are included under the rule of jubilee are included in the duties of New Year's Day; and as the priests are not included in the rule of jubilee (for they have no lands to lie fallow, etc.), might we not, therefore, say that they are not bound by the duties of New Year's Day? Therefore he comes to teach us (that they must hear the sounding of the cornet).

A'hbha, the son of R. Zera, teaches: "With regard to all the benedictions, although one has already done his duty he may nevertheless act for others, with the exception of the blessings over bread and wine; concerning which, if he has not yet done his duty, he may act for others, but if he has done his duty he must not act for others."

Rabha asked: What is the rule in the case of the benediction of the unleavened bread, and the wine used at the sanctification of a festival? Since these are special duties, may one act for others, or perhaps the (duty is only the eating of the unleavened bread and the drinking of the sanctification wine); but the benediction is not a duty, and therefore he cannot act for others? Come 'and hear. R. Ashi says: When we were at the home of R. Papa, he said the blessing of sanctification for us, and when his field laborer came from work later he said the blessing for him also.

The rabbis taught: One must not say the benediction over bread for guests, unless he eats with them, but he may do so for the members of the family, to initiate them into their religious duties. With regard to the Service of Praise [Hallel Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.] and the reading of the Book of Esther, although one had already done his duty, he may, nevertheless, act for others.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE NEW YEAR'S DAY WHEN IT FALLS ON SABBATH, AND THE PRAYERS THEREON--THE ORDINANCES OF THE BENEDICTIONS, ETC.

MISHNA: When the feast of New Year happened to fall on the Sabbath, they used to sound (the cornet) in the Temple, but not outside of it. After the destruction of the Temple R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordained that they should sound (the cornet) in every place in which there was a Beth Din. R. Elazar says that R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai instituted that for Yamnia alone; but they (the sages) say the rule applied both to Yamnia. and every place in which there was a Beth Din. And in this respect also was Jerusalem privileged more than Yamnia, that every city from which Jerusalem could be seen, or the sounding (of the cornet) could be heard, which was near enough, and to which it was allowed to go on the Sabbath, might sound the (cornet) on the Sabbath; but in Yamnia they sounded (the cornet) before the Beth Din only.

GEMARA: Whence do we deduce all this? Said Rabha: The rabbis took a precautionary measure concerning them, as said: Although the duty of sounding (the cornet) is obligatory upon all, yet all are not skilled in sounding (it); therefore they feared lest one might take (the cornet) in his hand, and go to an expert and carry it more than four ells in public ground. The same rule applies to the palm branch (Iulabh) and also to the scroll (on which is written the) Book of Esther.

"After the destruction of the. Temple, R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordained," etc. The rabbis taught: Once it happened that New Year's Day fell on the Sabbath, and all the cities gathered together. Said R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai to the Bne Bathera: "Let us sound (the cornet)." "First," said they, "let us discuss." "Let us sound it," replied he, "and then we will discuss." After they had sounded (the cornet) they said to him: "Now let us discuss." He answered: "The cornet has now been heard in Yamnia, and we cannot retract after the act has been performed."

"But they (the sages) say the rule applied both to Yamnia and everyplace in which there is a Beth Din." Said R. Huna: That means in the presence of the Beth Din. Does this preclude people from sounding (the cornet) out of the presence of the Beth Din? And, when R. Itzhak bar Joseph came (from Yamnia) did he not say: When the officiant ministers appointed by the congregation in Yamnia had finished sounding (the cornet) one could not hear his own voice on account of the sounds (of the cornets) used by individuals? (Even individuals) used to sound (the cornet) in the presence of the Beth Din. It was also taught: Rabbi said, "We may only sound (the cornet) during the time that the Beth Din is accustomed to sit."

"Jerusalem was privileged more than Yamnia," etc. (When the Mishna speaks of) "Every city from which Jerusalem could be seen," it means with the exception of a city located in the valley (from which it could be seen only by ascending to an elevated spot); by "the sounding (of the cornet) could be heard," it means to except a city located on the top of a mountain; by "which was near enough," it means to exclude a city outside the prescribed limit (of a Sabbath journey); and by "and to which it was allowed to go," it means to exclude a city (even near by) but divided (from Jerusalem) by a river.

MISHNA: Formerly the palm branch (lulabh) was taken to the Temple seven days, but in cities outside (of Jerusalem) it was taken (to the synagogue) one day. Since the destruction of the Temple, R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordained that the palm branch should everywhere be taken seven days, in commemoration of the Temple, and also it should be prohibited (to eat the new produce) the whole day of waving (the sheaf-offering; vide Lev. xxiii. 11-15).

GEMARA: Whence do we know that we do things in commemoration of the Temple? It is written [Jer. xxx. 17]: "For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord, because they called thee an outcast, saying, This is Zion whom no man seeketh after." By implication (we see) that it (Zion or the Temple) needs being sought after (or commemorated).

"And that it should be prohibited to eat... on the whole day of waving (the sheaf-offering)," etc. R. Na'hman b. Itzhak remarked: R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai says this according to the system of R. Jehudah, for it is written [Lev. xxiii. 14]: "And ye shall eat neither parched corn... until the self-same day," i.e., until the very day itself, and he holds that whenever the expression "until" (ad) occurs it is inclusive. How can you say the above according to (R. Jehudah); surely he differs from R. Johanan ber Zakkai? As we have learnt in a Mishna: Since the destruction of the Temple R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that it should be prohibited (to eat of the new produce) the whole of the day of waving (the sheaf-offering). Said R. Jehudah: Is this not prohibited by the passage which says: "Until the self-same day"? R. Jehudah was mistaken; he thought that R. Johanan b. Zakkai taught that (the prohibition) was rabbinical, and it was not so, for R. Johanan also said it was biblical. But does the Mishna not say "he ordained"? Yes; but what does it mean by "he ordained"? (It means) he explained the ordinance.

MISHNA: Formerly they received evidence as to the appearance of the new moon the whole (of the thirtieth) day. Once the witnesses were delayed in coming, and they disturbed the songs of the Levites. They then ordained that evidence should only be received until (the time of) the afternoon service, and if witnesses came after that time both that and the following day were consecrated. After the destruction of the Temple, R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that evidence (as to the appearance) of the new moon should be received all day.

GEMARA: What disturbance did they cause to the songs of the Levites? Said R. Zera to A'hbha, his son: Go and teach to them (the Mishna) thus: "They ordained that evidence as to the appearance of the new moon should not be received, only that there might be time during the day to offer the continual and the additional sacrifices and their drink offerings, and to chant the (daily) song without disturbing the order."

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Aqiba, What (song) did (the Levites) chant on the first day of the week? "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof" [Ps. xxiv.], because He is the Creator, the Providence and the Ruler of the Universe. What did they sing on the second day? "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised" [Ps. xlviii.], because He distributed His works and reigned over them. On the third day they sang, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty" [Ps. lxxxii.], because He, in His wisdom, made the earth appear and prepared the world for its occupants. On the fourth day they sang, "O Lord, to whom retribution belongeth" [Ps. xciv.], because (on that day) He created the sun and moon, and (determined) to punish in the future those who would worship them. On the fifth day they sang, "Sing aloud unto God our strength" [Ps. lxxxi.], because (on that day) He created birds and fish to praise Him. On the sixth day they sang, "The Lord reigneth, He is clothed with majesty" [Ps. xciii.], because (on that day) He finished His works and reigned over them. On the seventh day they sang, "A Psalm or Song for the Sabbath Day" [Ps. xcii.], for the day that is a perfect rest.

Said R. Nehemiah: "Why did the sages make a distinction between these sections (for the last refers to a future event, while all the others refer to the past)? It should have been said that they sang that Psalm on the Sabbath day because He rested!"

What did the Levites sing when the additional sacrifices were being offered on the Sabbath? R. Hanan bar Rabha said in the name of Rabh: Six sections of Deut. xxxii. R. Hanan bar Rabha also said in the name of Rabh: "As these sections were divided (by the Levites), so they are divided for the reading of the law (on the Sabbath on which they are read)." What did they sing at the Sabbath afternoon service? Said R. Jo'hanan: A portion of the Song of Moses [Ex. xv. 1-10]; the conclusion of that song [ibid. 11-19], and the Song of Israel [Numb. xxi. 17].

The schoolmen asked: Did they sing all these on one Sabbath, or did they, perhaps, sing one section on each Sabbath? Come and hear! A Boraitha teaches: During the time that the first choir of (Levites who sang at the time of the additional sacrifice) sang their sections once, the second choir (that sang at that time of the afternoon sacrifice) had sung theirs twice; from this we may deduce that they sang but one section on each Sabbath.

R. Jehudah b. Idi said in the name of R. Jo'hanan: According to the rabbinical explanation of certain scriptural passages the Shekhinah made ten journeys, and according to tradition a corresponding number of times was the Sanhedrin exiled, viz.: from the cell of Gazith (in the Temple) to the market-place, from the market-place to Jerusalem, from Jerusalem to Yamnia from Yamnia to Usha, from Usha (back again) to Yamnia, from Yamnia (back again) to Usha, from Usha to Shapram, from Shapram to Beth Shearim, from Beth Shearim to Sepphoris, from Sepphoris to Tiberias, and Tiberias was the saddest of them all, as it is written [Is. xxix.]: "And thou shalt be low, and shalt speak out of the earth."

R. Elazar says they were exiled six times, as it is written [Is. xxvi. 5]: "For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city he layeth low; he layeth it low even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust." Says R. Jo'hanan: And thence (from the dust) they will in future be redeemed, as it is written [Is. lii. 2]: "Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down," etc.

MISHNA: R. Joshua b. Kar'ha said: This also did R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai ordain: That it mattered not where the chief of the Beth Din might be, the witnesses need only go to the meeting-place (of the Beth Din).

GEMARA: A certain woman was summoned for judgment before Ameimar in Neherdai. Ameimar went away to Me'huzza, but she did not follow him, and he wrote a letter to put her in the ban. Said R. Ashi to Ameimar: "Have we not learned that it mattered not where the chief of the Beth Din might be, the witnesses need only go to the meeting place (of the Beth Din)?" Answered Ameimar: "That is true in respect to evidence for the new moon; but with regard to my action, in which case she has been summoned for debt, 'The borrower is servant to the lender,' and she must come to the place where the chief court is" [Prov. xxii. 7].

The rabbis taught: Priests may not ascend the platform in sandals to bless the people; and this is one of the nine ordinances instituted by R. Jo'hanan b. Zakkai; six are to be found in this chapter, one in the first chapter; another one is, if one become a proselyte nowadays, he must pay a quarter of a shekel for a sacrifice of a bird (so that if the Temple should be rebuilt the authorities would have a contribution from him towards the daily sacrifices). R. Simon b. Elazar, however, said that R. Jo'hanan had already withdrawn this regulation and annulled it, because it easily led to the sin (of using the money for different purposes). And what is the ninth (ordinance of R. Jo'hanan)? R. Papa and R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak dispute about this. R. Papa says it was with regard to a vineyard of the fourth year's crop; but R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak says it was with regard to the crimson-colored strap (displayed on the Day of Atonement (on the scapegoat).

MISHNA: The order of the benedictions (to be said on New Year is as follows): The blessings referring to the patriarchs (Abhoth), to the mighty power of God (Gebhuroth), and the sanctification of the Holy name; to these he adds the selection in which God is proclaimed King (Malkhioth), after which he does not sound the cornet; then the blessing referring to the sanctification of the day, after which the cornet is sounded; then the biblical selections referring to God's remembrance of His creatures (Zikhronoth), after which the cornet is again sounded; then the biblical selections referring to the sounding of the cornet (Shophroth), after which the cornet is again sounded; he then recites the blessings referring to the restoration of the Temple, the adoration of God, and the benediction of the priests. So is the decree of R. Johanan b. Nouri. Said R. Aqiba to him: If the cornet is not to be sounded after the Malkhioth, why are they mentioned? But the proper order is the following: The blessings referring to the patriarchs (Abhoth), to the mighty power of God (Gebhuroth), and the sanctification of the Holy name; to this last the biblical selections referring to the proclamation of God as King (Malkhioth) are joined, and then he sounds the cornet; then the biblical selections referring to God's remembrance of His creatures (Zikhronoth), and he then sounds the cornet; then the biblical selections referring to the sounding of the cornet (Shophroth), and he again sounds the cornet; then he says the blessings referring to the restoration of the Temple, the adoration of God, and the priestly benedictions.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Whence do we know that we should recite the Malkhioth, Zikhronoth, and Shophroth? Said R. Eliezer: From the passage [Lev. xxiii. 24] in which it is written: "Ye shall have a Sabbathon, a memorial of blowing cornets, a holy convocation," the word "Sabbathon" refers to the consecration of the day; "a memorial" refers to the Zikhronoth; "blowing of cornets" refers to the Shophroth; "a holy convocation" means the hallowing of the day in order to prohibit servile work. Said R. Aqiba to him: Why is not the word "Sabbathon" construed to mean the prohibition of servile work, since the passage (quoted above) begins with that? Therefore, let the passage be interpreted thus: "Sabbathon" means the hallowing of the day and the prohibition of servile work; "memorial" refers to the Zikhronoth; "blowing of the cornets" refers to the Shophroth "a holy convocation" means the consecration of the day.

Whence do we know that we should recite the Malkhioth? From the following Boraitha: Rabbi said: The words, "I am the Lord your God"; and "in the seven month" (stand together) [Lev. xxiii. 22, 24], which may be interpreted to refer to the proclamation of God as King. R. Jose b. R. Jehudah says it is not necessary to cite this passage; for it is written [Numb. x. 10] "that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the Lord your God." These concluding words "I am the Lord your God" are entirely superfluous, but since they are used, of what import are they? They form a general rule, that in every selection in which (God's) remembrance of His creatures is mentioned there should also be found the thought that He is the King of the Universe.

MISHNA: Not less than ten scriptural passages should be used for the Malkhioth, ten for the Zikhronoth, and ten for the Shophroth. R. Jo'hanan b. Nouri says: If by three of each class, one will have done his duty.

GEMARA: To what do the ten scriptural passages used for the Malkhioth correspond? Answered Rabbi: To the ten expressions of praise used by David in the Psalms. But there are more expressions of praise found? Only those are meant, in conjunction with which it is written "praise him with the sound of the cornet" [Psalm ci. 3]. R. Joseph says: "They correspond to the ten commandments that were proclaimed to Moses on Sinai." R. Jo'hanan said, they correspond to the ten words with which the universe was created.

"By three of each class, one will have done his duty." The schoolmen asked: "Does he mean three from the Pentateuch, three from the Prophets, and three from the Hagiographa, which would make nine, and they differ about one (passage)? or perhaps one from the Pentateuch and one from the Prophets and one from the Hagiographa, which would make three, and they differ about many passages?" Come and hear! We have learned in a Boraitha: Not less than ten scriptural passages should be used for the Malkhioth, ten for the Zikhronoth, and ten for the Shophroth; but if seven of them all were recited, corresponding to the seven heavens, the duty has been fulfilled. R. Johanan ben Nouri remarked: He that recites less (than ten of each) should not, however, recite less than seven; but if he recited but three, corresponding to the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, according to others corresponding to the Priests, Levites, and Israelites, it is sufficient. Said R. Huna in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jo'hanan b. Nouri.

MISHNA: We do not cite scriptural passages for the above three series that contain predictions of punishment. The passages from the Pentateuch are to be recited first, and those from the Prophets last. R. Jose, however, says "if the concluding passage is from the Pentateuch one has also done his duty."

GEMARA: Passages, proclaiming the kingdom of God that should not be used (because of the above), are such as the following [Ezekiel, xx. 33]: "As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you," and although as R. Na'hman says (of this passage): Let Him be angry with us, but let Him take us out of captivity, still, since it refers to anger, we should not mention "anger" at the beginning of the year. An example of the same idea being found in conjunction with the Zikhronoth is to be read in [Ps. lxxviii. 39], "For he remembered they were but flesh;" in conjunction with the Shophroth an example is found in Hosea, v. 8: "Blow ye the cornet in Gibeah," etc.

We must not mention the remembrance of the individual (in the Zikhronoth) even if the passage speaks of pleasant things, as, for example [Ps. cvi. 4], "Remember me, O Lord, with the favor that thou bearest unto thy people." However, passages that contain the expression of "visiting" may be used in the Zikhronoth, e.g., "And the Lord visited Sarah" [Gen. xxi. 1] or "I have surely visited you" [Ex. iii. 16], so says R. Jose; but R. Jehudah says, they may not. But even if we agree to what R. Jose says (shall we say that) the passage "and the Lord visited Sarah" speaks of an individual (and therefore it should not be used)? Nay; since many descended from her, she is regarded as many and therefore that passage, though speaking of one only, is regarded as though it spoke of many.

(In the Malkhioth, they used Ps. xxiv. 7-10, which is divided into two parts.) The first part can be used as two of the required passages, and the second as three, so said R. Jose; but R. Jehudah said: The first part can be used only for one, and the second for two. So too [Ps. xlvii. 7, 9], "Sing praises to God, sing praises, sing praises to our king, sing praises; for God is the King of all the earth." R. Jose said: This may be used for two of the Malkhioth; but R. Jehudah said: "It is to be reckoned as one only." (He rejects one, because the words "our king," referring to one people only, was not a sufficiently broad expression of praise for Him who is the King of the universe.) Both, however, agree that the next verse of the same Psalm, "God is King over the nations; God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness," is to be used for one only. A passage containing a reference to God's remembrance of His creatures and also to the cornet. as for instance [Lev. xxiii. 24], "Ye shall have a Sabbath, a memorial of blowing of cornets," may be used in the Zikhronoth and the Shophroth; so said R. Jose; but R. Jehudah said: It can only be used in the Zikhronoth. A passage in which God is proclaimed King, containing also a reference to the cornet, as for instance [Numb. xxiii. 2 1], "The Lord his God is with him, and the shout (Teruath) of a king is among them," may be used in the Malkhioth and in the Shophroth, said R. Jose; but R. Jehudah said: It may only be used in the Malkhioth. A passage containing a reference to the cornet, and nothing else, as for instance [Numb. xxix. 1], "It is a day of blowing the cornet," may be used for the Shophroth, so said R. Jose; R. Jehudah, however, said: Must not be used at all.

"The Passages from the Pentateuch are to be recited first and those from the Prophets last." R. Jose said: "We should conclude with a passage from the Pentateuch, but if one concluded with a passage from the Prophets, one has done his duty." We have also learned: R. Elazar bar R. Jose says: "The Vathiqin used to conclude with a passage from the Pentateuch. It is correct as far as Zikhronoth and Shophroth are concerned, for there are many such passages; but as for the Malkhioth there are but three in the Pentateuch, viz.: "The Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them" [Numb. xxiii. 21]; "And he was king in Yeshurun" [Deut. xxxiii. 5]; and "The Lord shall reign forever" [Ex. xv. 18], but we require ten and there are not so many? Said R. Huna: We have learned that, according to R. Jose, the passage, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one" [Deut. vi. 4], may be considered as Malkhioth, but R. Jehudah said, it may not; so also they differ with regard to the passages, "Know, therefore, this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord, he is God; there is none else" [Deut. iv. 39], and "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord, he is God; there is none else beside him" [Deut. iv. 35]. According to the one they are considered Malkhioth, but according to the other not.

MISHNA: The second of those who act as ministers of the congregation on the feast of New Year shall cause another to sound the cornet; on days when the HALLEL (Service of Praise, Ps. cxiii.-cxviii.) is read, the first (minister) must read it. In order to sound the cornet on New Year's Day it is not permitted to go beyond the Sabbath limit, to remove a heap of stones, to ascend a tree, to ride on an animal, to swim over the waters, nor to cut it (the cornet) with anything prohibited either by the (Rabbinical) laws against servile work or by a Biblical negative commandment; but if one wishes to put water or wine in a cornet (to cleanse it) he is allowed to. Children must not be prevented from sounding the cornet, but on the contrary we are permitted to occupy ourselves with teaching them until they learn to sound it; but one who thus teaches, as also others who listen to sounds thus produced, do not thereby fulfil their duty.

GEMARA: What is the reason of the above prohibitions? Because the sounding of the cornet is a positive commandment; now, the observance of a festival involves both positive and negative commandments, and the one positive cannot supersede two (negative and positive.)

"Children must not be prevented from sounding the cornet," etc. But women are to be prevented? Have we not learned in a Boraitha: Neither women nor children may be prevented from sounding the cornet on the New Year's Day? Said Abayi: "It presents no difficulty, the one is according to R. Jehudah and the other is according to R. Jose and R. Simeon, who say that as women are permitted (in the case of sacrifices) to lay their hands on the animals, so here, if they desire to sound the cornet, they may.

"Until they learn." Said R. Elazar: Even on the Sabbath; so also we have learned in the following Boraitha: We are permitted to occupy ourselves with teaching (children) until they learn (to sound the cornet) even on the Sabbath: (and if we do not prevent them doing this on the Sabbath) how much less do we, on the feast (of New Year). Our Mishna says, "We do not prevent them" (from this we may infer that we do not start to tell to a child: Go and sound the cornet)? It presents no difficulty: a child already initiated in the performance of religious may be told also: Go and sound! but not a child not yet initiated; however, we do not prevent him.

MISHNA: The order of sounding the cornet is three times three. The length of a TEQIA is equal to that of three TERUOTH, and that of each Terua as three moans (YABABHOTH). If a person sounded a Teqia and prolonged it equal to two, it is only reckoned as one Teqia. He who has just finished reading the benedictions (in the additional service for the New Year) and only at that time obtained a cornet, should then blow on the cornet the three sounds three times. As the Reader of the congregation is in duty bound (to sound the cornet) so too is each individual; R. Gamaliel, however, said the Reader can act for the congregation.

GEMARA: But have we learned in a Boraitha, that the length of a Teqia is the same as that of a Terua? Said Abayi: The Tana of our Mishna speaks of the three series, and means that the length of all the Teqioth is the same as that of all the Teruoth. But the Tana of the Boraitha speaks of only one series and says that one Teqia is equal to one Terua (which is the same thing).

"Each Terua is (as long, as) three moans." But we have learned in a Boraitha, a Terua is as long as three broken (staccato) tones (SHEBARIM). Said Abayi: About this they do indeed differ, for it is written [Numb. xxix. i], "It is a day of blowing the cornet," which in the (Aramaic) translation of the Pentateuch is, "It is a day of sounding the alarm (YABABA). Now it is written concerning the mother of Sisera [Judg. V. 28], "The mother of Sisera.... moaned" (VAT'YABEB); this word, one explains to mean a protracted groan, and another to mean a short wail.

The Rabbis taught: Whence do we know (that one must sound) with a cornet? From the passage [Lev. xxv. 9], "Thou shalt cause the cornet.... to sound, etc." Whence do we know that (after the Terua) there should be one Teqia? Therefore it is said (later in the same verse), "Ye shall make the cornet sound." But perhaps this only refers to the jubilee? Whence do we know that it refers also to New Year's Day? Therefore it is written (in the same verse) "in the seventh month." These words are superfluous; for what purpose then does the Torah use them? To teach us that all the sounds of the cornet during the seventh month should be like each other. Whence do we know that the sounds are to be three times three? From the three passages, "Thou shalt cause the cornet... to sound" [Lev. xxv. 9]; "A Sabbath a memorial of blowing of cornets" [Lev. xxiii. 24]; "It is a day of blowing the cornet" [Numb. xxix. i]. But the Tana of the following Boraitha deduces it by analogy of expression from (the rules given in) the wilderness [Numb. x, 1-10]. As we have learned, the words "When ye sound an alarm" [Numb. x. 5] mean one Teqia and one Terua. Whence do we know that they shall be separated, perhaps it means that both together should be sounded? Since it is written [ibid. 7]: "But when the congregation is to be gathered together, ye shall blow but ye shall not sound an alarm," we may infer that they must be separated, a Teqia by itself, and a Terua by itself. But whence do we know that there should be one Teqia before the Terua?

From the words [ibid. 5]: "When ye sound an alarm" (i.e., first a "sound," or Teqia, and then an "alarm," or Terua). And whence do we know that there should be one after the Terua? From the words [ibid. 6]: "An alarm shall they sound!" R. Ishmael, the son of R. Jo'hanan bar Berokah, however, says: It is not necessary, as it is written: "When ye sound an alarm the second time" [ibid. 6]. The words "a second time" are unnecessary, and to what purpose are they used? To form a general rule that on every occasion on which "alarm" (Terua) is mentioned, a sound (Teqia) must be used with it as a second (or following) tone. Possibly all this only refers to the practices followed in the wilderness, but how do we know that they refer to New Year's Day also? Therefore it is written: Terua twice to make us infer by an analogy of expression, and as concerning the New Year Terua is written thrice in the three passages, [Lev. xxiii. 24]: "A sabbath, a memorial of cornets"; [Numb. xxix. 1]: "It is a day of blowing of cornets"; and [Lev. xxv. 9]: "Thou shalt cause the cornet... to sound"; and for each Terua there are two Teqioth, we therefore learn that on New Year's Day must be sounded three Teruoth and six Tekioth.

R. Abbahu enacted in Cæsarea that the order should be first a Teqia then three single staccato sounds, or Shebharim, then a Terua and then again a Teqia. At all events it is not right: If by Terua is meant "a protracted groan" then he should have instituted the order to be a Teqia, a Terua, and then a Teqia; and if it means "a short wail," then he should have instituted the order to be, a Teqia, then Shebharim (three single broken sounds), and then again a Teqia? He was in doubt whether it meant one or the other (and therefore he enacted that both should be sounded).

"If a person sounded a teqia and prolonged it equal to two," etc. R. Jo'hanan says: If one heard the nine sounds at nine different hours during the day, he has fulfilled his duty. The same we have learned in the following Boraitha: "If one heard the nine sounds at nine different hours of the day it is sufficient, and if he heard from nine men at one time, a Teqia from one and a Terua from another, etc., he has also done his duty, even if he heard them intermittently, and even during the whole day or any part of the day." The rabbis taught: (Generally) the soundings of the cornet do not prevent each other (if one can blow a Teqia, but not a Terua, or pronounce one benediction and not another, it might be said he should not blow or pronounce any benediction at all. We are taught that the one does not prevent the other on the fasts of the congregation and other occasions when these are needed), nor do the benedictions; but on New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement they do.

"He who has just finished reading (the additional service) and only at that lime obtained a cornet shall sound on the cornet the three sounds three times." This means, only when he did not have a cornet at the beginning (of the service): but if he had one at the beginning of the service when the sounds of the cornet are heard, they must be heard in the order of the benedictions of the day.

R. Papa bar Samuel rose to recite his prayers. Said he to his attendant, When I nod to you sound (the cornet) for me. Rabha said to him: "This may only be one in the congregation." We have learned in a Boraitha in support of this: "When one hears these sounds, he should hear them both in their order and in the order of the benedictions (in the additional service of the New Year)." This only applies to a congregation, but one should hear them in the order of the benedictions only, if he is not in a congregation; and a private individual who has not sounded the cornet (or heard it sounded) can have a friend sound it for him; but a private individual who has not recited the benedictions cannot have a friend say them for him; and the duty to hear the cornet sounded is greater than that of reciting the blessings. How so? If there be two cities (to which a person may go) and in one city they are about to sound the cornet and in the other to recite the benedictions, he should go to the city in which they are about to sound the cornet; and not to that in which they are about to recite the benedictions. Is this not self-evident, because the sounding is Biblical and the benedictions are only Rabbinical? The case is when the reciting of the benedictions in one city was certain; sounding the cornet in the other city was doubtful. He must nevertheless go to the city where they are about to sound the cornet.

"Just as the reader of the congregation is in duty bound (to sound the cornet) so too is each individual." We have learned in a Boraitha: The schoolmen said to R. Gamaliel, Why according to thy opinion should the congregation pray? Answered he: In order to enable the Reader of the congregation to arrange his prayer. Said R. Gamaliel to them: "But why, according to your opinion, should the Reader act for the congregation?" Answered they: "In order to enable those who are not expert to fulfil their duty." And he rejoined: "Just as he enables the illiterate, so too he causes the literate to fulfil their duty." Rabba bar bar 'Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: The sages later accepted the opinion of R. Gamaliel; but Rabh said there is still a difference between them; could (the same) R. Jo'hanan say this? Did not R. 'Hana of Sepphoris say in the name of R. Jo'hanan: "The Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel; "from these words ("the Halakha prevails according to R. Gamaliel") we see that there must have been some that differed from him! Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: "By the words, "the sages accept the opinion of R. Gamaliel," R. Meir is meant, and the rule arrived at through those who differed from him (was arrived at) through other rabbis; for we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Meir holds that with regard to the benedictions of New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement, the Reader can act for the congregation; but the sages say: "Just as the Reader is in duty bound, so too is each individual." Why only for these benedictions (and no other)? Shall we assume it is because of the many Biblical selections used? Does not R. 'Hananel say in the name of Rabh: As soon as one has said (the passages beginning with) the words, "And in thy law it is written," he need say no more? It is because there are many (more and longer) benedictions (than usual).

It was taught, R. Jehoshua ben Levi said: Both the private individual and the congregation as soon as they say (the passages beginning) with the words, "And in thy law it is written," need say no more.

R. Elazar says: A man should always first prepare himself for prayer and then pray. R. Abba said: "The remarks of R. Elazar seem to apply to the benedictions of New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement, and to the various holidays, but not to the whole year." It is not so; for did not R. Jehudah prepare himself (even on a week day) before his prayers and then offer them? R. Jehudah was an exception, for since he prayed only once in thirty days, it was like a Holiday. When Rabbin came (from Palestine) he said in the name of R. Jacob bar Idi quoting R. Simeon the Pious: R. Gamaliel did not excuse from public service any but field-laborers! What is the difference (between them and others)? They would be forced to lose their work (if they went to a synagogue), but people in a city must go (to the House of Prayer).