[Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit Mikdash

[Zev Sero]

Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:03:33 -0500
>> From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
>> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit
>> Mikdash
> 
>> rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com wrote:
>>> Micha:
>>>> Rabban Gamliel insisted on a particular date for Yom Kippur
> [del]
>>> Mashma he would have NOT been meqabbel sans the Cheshbon
>>> I assume Bartenura culled this from Shas
>>
>> Yes.  Had his cheshbon shown that the eidim must be lying, he
>> wouldn't have accepted them; since he believed it was possible that
>> they were telling the truth, and he had no reason to suspect them
>> of lying, he accepted them.  This shows that he did *not* have a
>> preference for a particular outcome, but rather he was following
>> the evidence wherever it took him, and indeed felt obliged to do so.

> I wish I recalled the sources, but I was taught that there was always 
> the knowledge of Cheshbon, i.e. Sod Ha'Ibbur. But, when possible they 
> used Eidim.

Of course they *knew* the cheshbon, and not just the grossly simplified
model that we use, but the actual astronomical calculations that predict
where and when the moon really will be visible.  That's the knowledge of
the Bnei Yissachar, "yod'ei binah le'itim".   But (except apparently
according to Rabbenu Chananel) this could not directly affect kiddush
hachodesh, any more than a knowledge of forensic science allows a beis
din convict a criminal; it was merely an aid to know whether to believe
eidim.

 
> The issue was that Chazal had the ability to set the Chodesh regardless 
> of the Cheshbon, usually for reasons of community necessity.  That is 
> the meaning of HaChodesh HaZeh Lachem - the accent on "Lachem" - that 
> you decide it.

"Ability" or "right"?  That they have the *ability* is clear: "atem
afilu shogegim, atem afilu mezidim" (though it's not clear whether
this ability includes declaring a short month with no eidim at all, or
merely choosing not to question witnesses too closely).  But where do
you get that they have the *right* to do so?  All R Akiva tells
R Yehoshua in the mishneh is that what's done is done, and even if
R Gamliel was completely wrong yomtov was still when he said it was.
He doesn't suggest that R Gamliel was right to believe the eidim, or
that it didn't matter whether the eidim were telling the truth.


> Proof of Chazal's using this ability we see in Chazal's decision to 
> limit the time of when the Eidim can come forth.

What kind of proof is that?  All it shows is that BD is able to
arrange for a long month by the simple expedient of not being there
when the eidim arrive.  After all, the Torah doesn't regulate their
working hours!  And if they don't hear testimony from eidim they
*can't* declare a short month, so perforce the month will be long.
But how do you get from there to a right to declare a rosh chodesh
without eidim, based simply on cheshbon and/or tzorech hatzibur?
Tzorech hatzibur can be taken into account for ibbur shana, but for
ibbur chodesh?


> I wouldn't be surprise if 
> the issue of Rabban Gamliel vs. Rabbi Yehoshua had to do with just such 
> an issue.  Rabban Gamliel as Nassi had the Tzorech of the Tzibbur in 
> mind when he made rulings.

Where do you get this?  There is not the slightest hint of it in the
mishneh, or in any commentary that I've seen.  It's clear from the
mishneh that the machlokes was about metzius: was it scientifically
possible for the eidim to have seen what they claimed to have seen.
R Yehoshua accepted R Dosa ben Horkinas's claim that it was impossible,
and therefore that R Gamliel had no right to accept their testimony,
and therefore that the BD had no choice but to declare a 30-day Elul,
while R Gamliel maintained that his astronomical knowledge was better
that R Dosa's, and the testimony was indeed plausible, and there was
no reason to disbelieve it.  He did *not* give any reason to prefer
one result over the other, and nor did he assert any halachic authority
to knowingly accept false eidim.  He maintained that the eidim were
telling the truth, and therefore that he had no choice but to have a
short Elul.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher