THE CODE OF
MAIMONIDES
SANCTIFICATION of
the NEW MOON
TRANSLATED PROM THE HEBREW BY
SOLOMON GANDZ
TREATISE VIII
LAWS CONCERNING
THE SANCTIFICATION
OF THE NEW MOON
To ascertain by calculation and to establish by proclamation
the day on which each month of the year is to begin
COMMENT(kmHunt):
(We have nothing in the New Testament to instructs us nor any
detail as to HOW the mainstream Jewish court in Jerusalem
governed the calendar. Jesus did not speak about it in any direct
manner. We can know from the Gospels that Christ did observe the Passover on the 14th of Nisan as determined by the day of the
first of Nisan, which was set and announced by the Jewish court.
We can know from the Gospels that Jesus observed the Feast of
Tabernacles when the rest of mainstream Judah was observing it.
For details of how the calendar was regulated in the time of
Jesus and the first century Church of God, we are dependant upon the writing of the Jews themselves. We are blessed with having the writings of the Jewish scholar called Maimonides, who lived and wrote around 1000-1100 A.D. We can only trust that he
himself had access to records and books (lost to us today) that
he based his writings upon. This being the case, we shall
now proceed to see many of the rules and regulations used in the
time of Christ for governing the calendar Jesus lived under. I
comment where I feel it is needed).
1.The months of the year are lunar months, as it is said: This
is the burnt offering of every new moon throughout the months
of the year (Num. 28: 14), and it is also said: “This month
shall be unto you the beginning of months” (Exod.
12:2)……
With respect to the years, however, we reckon according to
solar years: for it is said: “Heed the month of the ripening
ears” (Deut. 16: 1; see below, iv, i).
2. By how much does the solar year exceed the lunar year? By app-roximately 11 days. Therefore, whenever this excess accumulates to about 30 days, or a little more or less one month is added and the particular year is made to consist of 13 months, and this is the so-called embolismic (or intercalated) year. For the year could not consist of twelve months plus so-and-so many days, since it is said, “throughout the months of the year” (Num. 28: 14), which implies that we should count the year by months and not by days.
3. Each month the moon disappears and becomes invisible for about two days, or somewhat more or less – for about one day at the end of the old month, before it reaches its conjunction with the sun, and for about one day after its conjunction with the sun. Then it reappears in the evening in the west, and this night, on which it becomes visible in the west after its disappearance, is the beginning of the month. From this day on 29 days were counted, and if the new crescent appeared on the night of the 30th day, this 30th day was the first day of the new month. If, however, it did not appear on that night, the 30th day would belong to the old month and the 31st day would be the first day of the new month . And no matter whether the moon did or did not appear in the night of the 31st day, no attention was to it, for the lunar month never lasts longer than thirty days.
4. If the moon appeared on the night of the 30th day, so that the
old month consisted of 29 days, this month was called a defective
month; if, however, the moon did not appear on the night of the
30th day, so that the old month consisted of 30 days, it was
called embolismic (or intercalated) month, or a full
month……….
5.The authority over the observation of the crescent (and the
subsequent proclamation of New Moon Day) was given not to
everyone – as is the case with the Sabbath day, with respect to
which everyone counts 6 days and rests on the 7th day – but only
to the Court. The day sanctified and proclaimed by the court as
the beginning of the month was New Moon Day. For it is said:
“This month shall be to you” (Exod. 12:2), that is to say,
accepting or rejecting evidence concerning this matter is put
into your hand.
6.Just as the astronomers who discern the positions and motions
of the stars engage in calculation, so the Jewish court, too,
used to study and investigate and perform mathematical
operations, in order to find out whether or not it would be
possible for the new crescent to be visible in its “proper time,”
which is the night of the 30th day. If the members of the court
found that the new moon might be visible, they were obliged to be
in attendance at the court house for the whole 30th day and be on the watch for the arrival of witnesses. If witnesses did arrive,
they were duly examined and tested, and if their testimony
appeared trustworthy, this day was sanctified as New Moon Day. If the new crescent did not appear and no witnesses arrived, this
day was the 30th day of the old month, which thus became an
embolismic month. If, however, the members of the court found by
calculation that the new moon could not possibly be seen, they
were not obliged to be in attendance on the 30th day or to wait
for the arrival of witnesses. If witnesses nonetheless did appear
and testified that they had seen the new crescent, it was certain
that they were false witnesses, or that a phenomenon resembling
the new moon had been seen by them through the clouds, while in reality it was not the new crescent at all.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Did you catch it? The Jewish court did use “calculation” – the
governing of the new month day was not always done by mere
observation of the crescent of the moon. I guess not, some days
it would be cloudy, and the crescent of the moon would not be
visible).
- Scripture made it incumbent upon the court to discover by
calculation whether or not the new moon might be visible, to
examine the witnesses, and then to sanctify the new moon and in send out messengers to inform the whole community which day was to be New Moon Day, so that the people would know on which days the holidays would fall. For it is said: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations” (Lev. 23: 37), and it is further said: “And thou shalt keep this ordinance in its season” (Exod.13:10).
- Only in Palestine was it permitted to compute and proclaim new month days and embolismic years, for it is written: ” For out of Zion shall go forth the law. and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2: 3). If, however, a great scholar ordained in Palestine emigrated to a foreign territory without leaving in Palestine a man equal to him in learning, he was permitted to compute and proclaim the new moon days and em-bolismic years outside of Palestine. If he, however, learned that there had arisen in Palestine a scholar equal to him in rank and, needless to say, if the new scholar was superior to him, he was no longer permitted to proclaim new months and embolismic years outside of Palestine, and if he did so, against the law, his proclamation was null and void.
CHAPTER 2
1. Two worthy men only, qualified to function as witnesses in any other legal matter, were fit to testify concerning the new moon. Women and slaves were considered disqualified as witnesses, and their testimony could not be accepted. If father and son had seen the new moon, they were to go to court and testify. This does not, however, mean that witnesses who were blood relatives were qualified to testify concerning the new moon, but the reason for
it is as follows: In case one of them should be disqualified –
whether because he was a robber or because of some other
circumstance which disqualified him as a witness – the other
could join with a third witness and testify. Any person who, by
the law of the Scribes, was disqualified as a witness, even
though he was fit according to biblical law, was also
disqualified to testify concerning the new moon.
2. The primary law had been that one need not be too particular with regard to evidence concerning the new moon. If the court had sanctified the new moon on the strength of testimony of witnesses and these witnesses were subsequently found to have given false testimony, the sanctification of the new moon remained in force.
Originally, therefore, the court used to accept evidence
concerning the new moon from any Israelite, for the legal
presumption was that any Israelite is qualified as a witness
until evidence to the contrary is brought to light. However, when heretics began to cause trouble in a mischievous manner and to hire men to testify that they had observed the new crescent, although they did not in fact see it, the Sages decreed that evidence concerning the new moon should not be accepted unless the witnesses were known to the court as worthy men, and that the witnesses should be duly tested and examined.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Did you notice that one important statement? If once the court had declared and sanctified the new month day, on the testimony of witnesses, and those witnesses were later found to be false, THE SANCTIFICATION of the new moon day STILL REMAINED in force!! The month would be adjusted next month. If you like, things would be “postponed” for the convenience of the people and the nation. And some today want to make a “big thing” about the “postponements” of the Jewish calendar! Even in Christ’s day they had their types of postponements in the calculated/observing calendar).
3. If, therefore, men (from a town outside Jerusalem) who were not known to the court saw the new moon, the people of that town were accustomed to send with these witnesses who had seen the moon other witnesses to certify them before the court and vouch for their trustworthiness, and only then was their testimony accepted.
4. The court used to employ methods of calculation of the kind employed by astronomers in order to ascertain whether the new moon of the coming month would be seen to the north or to the south of the sun, whether its latitude would be wide or narrow, and in which direction the tips of its horns would point. And when witnesses appeared in order to testify, the court used to examine them as follows: Where did you see the new moon, to the north or to the south? In which direction did its horns point? How great was its altitude, in the estimate of your eyes, and how wide its latitude? If their testimony was found to conform with the results of astronomical calculation, it was accepted; but if
it was found not to conform, it was rejected.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Once more “calculation” is mentioned as playing a large part in the courts determination of the new month day and its
sanctification).
5.If the witnesses said that they had seen the new moon reflected in the water, or in the clouds, or in a crystal, or if they said that they had seen part of it in the sky and part in the clouds, or in the water, or in a crystal, this was not considered a valid observation and the court did not sanctify the new moon on the basis of such an observation. If one witness said, I saw it, and in my estimate it had an altitude of about double a man’s height, and the second witness said, It had an altitude of about treble a man’s height, their testimonies were combined. If one said, Its altitude was about treble a man’s height, and the second said, about five times a man’s height, the testimonies were not combined. However, the testimony of one of them could be combined with that of another witness who testified to the same effect, or who differed from him only to the degree of one man’s height.
6. If the witnesses said, “We noticed the new moon while paying no attention, but later, when we looked at the sky intentionally and wanted to see it, so that we might bear testimony to its appearance, we could not see it,” such testimony was not considered evidence, and the court did not sanctify the new moon on the strength of it. For there existed suspicion that at first something that looked to them like the moon had appeared in the gathering clouds, but that the clouds subsequently disappeared and that they then had seen nothing. If the witnesses said, “In the morning of the 29th day we saw the (old) moon in the east before sunrise, and in the evening, on the night of the 30th day, we saw the (new) moon in the west,” they were considered
trustworthy and the court could sanctify the new moon on the basis of this observation, since they did see the new phase “in its proper time.” However, no attention was paid to the part of their testimony in which they said that they had seen the (old) moon in the morning, for the court was not obliged to heed what they had seen in the morning. Rather, it was assumed that something that had looked to them like the moon appeared in the gathering clouds. A similar case existed if witnesses said that they had seen the new moon in its “proper time,” but on the night of the embolismic day the new moon could not be seen: the court considered such witnesses as trustworthy, for all that mattered was that they did observe the new crescent on the night of the 30th day.
7. In accepting the evidence concerning the new moon the procedure of the court was as follows All those qualified to testify regarding the observation of the new moon would come to the courthouse, and the court would invite them all to one place and entertain them liberally with bountiful meals, so that people might make it a habit to come. The first pair of witnesses to arrive was mentioned above (Sec. 4). The older of the two men took precedence in being questioned; if his testimony was found to conform to the data of calculation, the other one was called in, and if both testimonies were in agreement, their evidence was declared valid. The other pairs of witnesses were also interrogated but only with a few leading questions, not because their testimony was needed, but in order to spare them the disappointment of not having been examined at all and to encourage them in the habit of corning to the court.
8.Thereupon, after the evidence had been accepted as
valid, the chief justice of the court would pronounce the formula MEKUDDAS (“the new moon has been sanctified ), and after him the whole community would respond, “Mekuddas, Mekuddas.” Neither the calculation nor the sanctification of the new moon could be carried out except by a court of three. Nor was formal sanctification of the new moon pronounced except when the new moon had been observed in its “proper time,” nor the pronouncement made other during day time, and if it was made during the night time, the sanctification was not valid. Even if the court itself and the whole community of Israel had observed the new moon, as long as the court had not pronounced the Mekuddas formula before the arrival of darkness on the night
of the 31st day – if only because the examination of the
witnesses had dragged on for so long that the court had no
occasion to pronounce Mekuddas before the arrival of darkness on the night of the 31st – this new moon could no longer be sanctified and the old month was declared embolismic. In that case New Moon Day was declared to fall on the 31st day, notwithstanding that the new crescent had been observed on the night of the 30th day. For it was not the observation of the new moon but the official pronouncement of the Mekuddas formula by the court which legally initiated the new month.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Please read point 8 above again, and slowly. What important statements are made here! Do you get what he has said, do you see the significance as to what is stated? When it all came down to it, it was not the observation and calculation so much that was the final authority as to when the new month day, BUT it was the “pronouncement of the Mekuddas formula by the court which legally initiated the new month.” And we have seen that if the legal pronouncement was given by the court on the technical wrong day, or the witnesses were later found to be false, the sanctification of the new month day STILL STOOD! And people today want to make a big thing about so-called errors in the Jewish perpetual calendar! What errors I ask? Where are all the
rules and laws laid out in the Bible as to how the calendar is to
be governed? Try to kind them if you can! Errors, so called by
some, may have been made back in Christ’s time by the Jewish court in Jerusalem (they really were not errors as such, for they had authority as to when to declare the new month day), yet if the new month day was legally sanctified by the pronouncement of the Mekuddas formula, the day of the new month stood, regardless of any other situation. Jesus never argued with them over the matter, never disagreed with their sanctification, for He observed the Passover on the 14th of Nisan as the 1st of Nisan
was pronounced by the Jewish court in Jerusalem).
9. If the court itself observed the new crescent at the end of the 29th day before the appearance of a star on the night of the 30th day, the court might proclaim Mekuddas, since it was still daytime. But if they saw it on the night of the 30th day after the appearance of two stars, the proper procedure was as follows: They waited until the following day and then they appointed two other judges to sit with one of them and to constitute a new court, while the two remaining members testified as witnesses before the new court of three, whereupon these three did sanctify the new moon.
10. If the court sanctified the new moon by inadvertence or by
mistake or under duress, the sanctification was valid and
everyone was in duty bound to observe the festivals in accordance with the day in which the judges had sanctified the new crescent. Even though it was known that the judges had erred, their decision was binding, for the authority over this matter had been given to them only. He who has commanded us to observe the festivals has also commanded us to follow them, for it is written: “which you shall proclaim” (Lev. 23: 37).
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Once more please read slowly the above point 10. What an eye opener! Once the decision by the court had been made to sanctify the new month day by the pronouncement of the Mekuddas formula, it was binding, EVEN if from a pure technical point the court had been misled or deceived in some manner, it was they who had the authority from God to announce when the new month day was to be observed. Jesus never argued against them on this matter. He
observed the Feast of Tabernacles as recorded in the Gospel of John, when all of mainstream Judah observed it. When the court pronounced the new month day of the 7th month, which would determine the annual feast days of the 7th month, Jesus observed those festivals along with the mainstream body of Jewish people in Jerusalem. The Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees, who were
members of the court of Jerusalem, all agreed on the pronouncing of the new month day for each month of the year. They all agreed as to when the 1st of Nisan would be, and so all knew when the 14th, 15th and 21st of Nisan was. They all agreed as to when the 1st of the 7th month would be, hence when the feast of Trumpets, feast of Atonement, feast of Tabernacles, and feast of the 8th day, would be. They all agreed as to when the 1st of the 3rd month would be, but the COUNTING of 7 Sabbaths to the feast of Pentecost was not agreed upon by the Pharisees and the Sadducees,
hence they observed it on different days WITHIN the 3rd month. The Gospels are silent as to which teaching Jesus said was the correct one, but as He would have followed the truth, He would have observed Pentecost on the correct day. This correct day has nothing to do with the pronouncement of the new month days, only with the correct time to start the count to Pentecost FROM WITHIN the month of Nisan(the first month), and the 1st day of Nisan was agreed upon by all as it was announced by the court of mainstream Jewish authority from Jerusalem).
CHAPTER 3 - If witnesses observed the new moon, and there was a walking
distance of one night and one day, or less, between their place and the place of the court, they were obliged to go there to testify. If, however, the distance was greater than this, they were not obliged to go, for after the 30th day their testimony was of no value, since the old month had already been declared embolismic.
2. Witnesses who observed the new moon were obliged to go to court and testify, even on a Sabbath; for it is said: “which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season” (Lev. 23: 4), and wherever the term appointed season is used in connection with a commandment, this commandment takes precedence over the laws of the Sabbath. Accordingly, they were allowed to violate the Sabbath only on account of the months of Nisan and Tishri, for the observance of the festivals (in proper season) depends only upon these two months. At the time, however, when the sanctuary was still standing, violation of the Sabbath was permissible on account of all the months, because of the Musaph offering of each New Moon Day, which offering took precedence over the laws of the
Sabbath.
3. Even as the witnesses who had observed the new moon were permitted to violate the Sabbath, so also the witnesses who accompanied them to certify their trustworthiness before the court were permitted to profane the Sabbath, whenever the observing witnesses were not known to the court. And even if there was only one witness to introduce them to the court, he was allowed to accompany them and violate the Sabbath on account of the possibility that another witness might be found who would join him to form a pair.
4. If a witness who had observed the new moon on the night of the Sabbath was sick, he was allowed to ride an ass, or to be carried on a litter. If the witnesses were afraid of enemies who might be lurking for them on the road, they were allowed to take along weapons; and if it was a long journey, they were allowed to carry along food. Even if the new moon had been so large that it must have been observed quite generally, the witnesses might not say:
“Just as we have observed it, so must many other people have observed it, and there is thus no need for us to violate the Sabbath.” For the law prescribed that whoever had observed the new moon and was qualified to testify was in duty bound to violate the Sabbath in order to go and testify, if the distance between his place and the place of the court was only that of a night and a day, or less.
5. Originally, the court was wont to accept the testimony of
witnesses concerning the new moon during the whole of the 30th day. Once, however, it happened that no witnesses had yet arrived late in the afternoon, so that the authorities of the Temple were embarrassed and did not know what to do. They hesitated to sacrifice the afternoon burnt offering, for they were afraid that witnesses might still come, and it would then be impossible for them to sacrifice the additional offering of the (New Moon) Day, inasmuch as no sacrifice could be offered after the daily offering of the afternoon. Thereupon the members of the court decided to enact a law to the effect that evidence concerning the new moon was not to be accepted after the time of the afternoon offering, so that enough of daytime might be left to sacrifice the additional offering and the daily burnt offering, and to perform their respective libations.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Did you notice that? Laws and calendar rules were added at times, when the court saw fitting to do so in order to be
expedient for and towards other consideration within the
framework of people serving the Lord. That also throws some light on the development of the Jewish perpetual calendar and its postponement rules that many today object to. As the worship of the Eternal is now upon every continent and every corner of the earth(Jews and Christians are in all nations today), it was needful that a calendar be devised for a worldwide unity worship of God through His annual feasts. In so doing no confusion would arise in the observance of God’s weekly and annual Sabbaths).
6.Therefore, if the time of the afternoon offering had arrived
and no witnesses were yet there, the priests proceeded to
sacrifice the daily burnt offering of the afternoon. If
witnesses arrived after the afternoon offering. both the rest of that day and the next day were observe as holy days, but the additional (New Moon Day) offering was sacrificed only on the subsequent day; for no sanctification of the new moon could take place after the afternoon offering had been performed. After the destruction of the Temple, however, a law was decreed by Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai and his court to the effect that evidence concerning the new moon be accepted during the whole of the 30th day. Hence, if witnesses came even at the end of the 30th day, near sunset, their evidence was accepted and the 30th day alone was duly observed as New Moon Day.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Notice, laws and rules were added or changed AFTER the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. The calendar was always to some point moving and flexible for many centuries. The authority to exercise this flexibility of the calendar was allowed by God and entrusted to the court of Jewish scholars. We have proof that this is so from the fact that after the fall of the Temple, the Church of God continued to observe the Passover on the 14th of Nisan as declared by the Jewish calendar. This fact is found in the writings and examples of servants of the Lord such as Polycarp
and Polycrates of the second century A.D. Concerning Polycarp, he wrote that he received the 14th of Nisan observation from the very apostle John himself).
7. Whenever the court declared a month as full, because no
witnesses had appeared during the entire 30th day, it was
customary for people to betake themselves on the 31st day, which was New Moon Day, to a place held ready for that purpose, and there a meal was prepared. They went there not in the evening but in the early morning before sunrise, nor did they go to this meal if they were less than ten persons, nor did they take along anything save bread made from grain or pulse, which was all that they ate at this meal. And this is meant wherever reference is made to the “religious meal for the intercalation of a month.”
- 8. Originally it was customary, when the court sanctified the new moon, to light fire signals on the tops of the mountains, so that those who lived at a distance might learn of it. But when the Cutheans began to cause trouble by kindling fire signals in a mischievous way, in order to mislead the people, a law was enacted whereby messengers were sent out to inform the public. These messengers, however, were not permitted to profane a holiday, or the Day of Atonement, and least of all the Sabbath; for one may not violate the laws of the Sabbath in order to facilitate verification of New Moon Day, but only to facilitate its sanctification.
9. Messengers were sent out to verify the sanctification for the following six months: Nisan, on account of the Passover; Ab, on account of the Fastday; Elul, on account of the New Year – so that the people might look out on the 30th day of Elul and wait for a message: if they learned that the court had sanctified the 30th day, they observed this day alone as New Year’s Day; if they received no message, they observed both the 30th and the 31st days as New Year’s Days, until the messengers of Tishri reached them-; Tishri, on account of the proper observance of the Tishri holidays; Kislew, on account of Hanukkah; and Adar, on account of Purim. During the existence of the Temple, however, messengers were sent out also to verify the beginning of Iyyar, on account of the Lesser Passover.
TO BE CONTINUED
………………
Written April 1998