THE CODE OF MAINMONIDES
SANCTIFICATION OF THE NEW MOON
CONTINUED:
10. The messengers sent out to verify the New Moon Day of Nisan and Tishri could leave only on the first day of the month, after sunrise, and after they had heard the court pronounce the
Mekuddas formula. If, however, the court had sanctified the new
moon at the end of the 29th day, as we have explained above (ii,
9), and the messengers had heard the court pronounce Mekuddas, they could leave in the evening (of the same day). The
messengers, however, who were sent out to verify the
sanctification for the other months could leave in the evening,
after the new crescent had been observed, even if the court had
not yet sanctified the new moon. Once the new phase had been
observed, they were permitted to leave, inasmuch as the court was certain to sanctify the new moon the next day.
11. In places that the messengers could reach in good time, each
of the (annual) holidays was observed one day only, as prescribed
in the Law. In remote places, however, which the messengers could not reach in time, it was customary to observe the holidays for two days, since the people were in doubt as to the exact day (the 29th or the 30th) which the court had declared as New Moon Day.
12. There were places that the Nisan messengers could reach in
time, while the Tishri messengers could not. By law the people of
these places should have observed the Passover feast one day
only, since the messengers had reached them in time and they knew which day was declared as New Moon Day; whereas they should have observed the feast of Tabernacles for two days, because the messengers had not reached them in good time. However, in order not to make a distinction between the festivals, a law was enacted by the Sages that in all places which could not be reached by the Tishri messengers, the people should observe all the holidays, including even the feast of Pentecost, for two
days.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(So far, we have seen laws enacted within the calendar that have no scripture against them. Here we see a partial law enacted for some that technically could be said to have a law of God against it, yet under Judah’s situation of being scattered, and no mass communication that we enjoy today, it could be argued that even this law had the interest of God’s law at the heart of it. I’m sure the intent and attitude of those who undertook to teach this law, did it to safeguard the observance of God’s annual Sabbath law).
13. The difference in travelling time between the messengers of
Nisan and those of Tishri is two days; for the messengers of
Tishri could not travel on the first day of Tishri, because it is
New Year’s Day, nor on the tenth, because it is the Day of
Atonement (above, Sec. 8).
14. It was not necessary to send out two messengers; even one
was considered trustworthy. Nor did he have to be a messenger of the court; even an ordinary tradesman from among the people, who came along on his customary journey and said: “I have heard the court pronounce the sanctification of the new moon on such and such a day,” was considered trustworthy, and the festivals were set on the strength of his testimony.
For such a matter (as the announcement of the New Moon Day) was something that was certain to be divulged in public, and in a
matter of this kind one worthy witness was sufficient.
15. If the court had been sitting the entire 30th day and no
witnesses arrived, and the court then arose early in the morning
and declared the old month to be full, as pointed out above in
this chapter (Sec. 7), but after the lapse of four or five days
witnesses came from a remote part of the country and testified
that they had seen the new moon in its “proper time,” which is
the night of the 30th day, or they even came at the end of the
month, the rule was as follows: The court tried to intimidate the
witnesses by strong methods of intimidation, confuse them with
questions, annoy them with investigations, and examine the
testimony minutely; in short, the court did its utmost to avoid
having to sanctify this new moon retrogressively, since the old
month was now generally known to have been declared as a full
one.
16. If, however, the witnesses persisted in their asseveration;
and were found to be in complete agreement with one another; if,
moreover, the witnesses were known to be reputable and
intelligent men, and their testimony was tested by proper cross
examination – the court had no choice but to sanctify the 30th
day retrogressively, and to readjust the counting of this month
from the 30th day on, seeing that the moon had been observed on the night of that day.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(The new month day had obviously been observed and sanctified by the court, that could not be taken back, but the month and its days could still be adjusted towards the coming new month day yet ahead. The calendar at this time was fluent to a degree, and was under the authority of the court that could determine to adjust it when needed.
Jesus lived under this system and did not object or speak
against it).
17. If, however the court, for reasons of expediency, referred
to leave the old month full, just as it was before the appearance
of these witnesses, it could do so. And this is what the Sages
mean in saying: “One may declare the month full for reasons of
expediency.” Some of the great Sages, however, disagreed and said that one must never make the month full for reasons of
expediency, and that the court is obliged to sanctify the new
moon if proper witnesses come forward, and that they must not be intimidated.
18. It occurs to me that this controversy among the Sages
refers only to the months other than Nisan and Tishri, or even to
witnesses of Nisan and Tishri if they came after the expiration
of the holidays, so that the time of the sacrifices and other
festival observances had already passed and everything had
become an accomplished fact. If, however, witnesses came
in Nisan and Tishri before the middle of the month, their
testimony was accepted and they were not intimidated in any way, for the court was not allowed to intimidate witnesses who came to testify that they had observed the new moon in its “proper time,” merely in order to keep the old month a full one.
19. The court, however, did intimidate witnesses in the
following case: If their testimony had been impaired, and the
evidence appeared doubtful, and if the court considered it a
humiliation not to sustain their testimony but to declare the old
month full; under such circumstances the witnesses were
intimidated in order to sustain their testimony and to make the
sanctification of the new moon in its “proper time” prevail.
Similarly, if witnesses testified that they had seen the new
crescent in “proper time,” but after the court pronounced the
sanctification, other witnesses came forward to refute this
testimony and to claim that it was false, the court did
intimidate the refuting witnesses, so that their refutation might
not be sustained and that the new moon might be sanctified in its
“proper time.”
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(All this back and forth, carefulness, intimidation,
re-adjusting, bringing in laws for the circumstances of the day,
witnesses, calculations, legal formula to announce the new month, and all the rest of what we have seen so far, was being carried out by the court of authority in Jerusalem WHEN JESUS LIVED ON EARTH, and He did not try to set up His own calendar, nor did He tell His disciples to so do after He returned to heaven. The entire NT is silent on any calendar issue. The NT Church of God continued to let the court of mainstream Jewish scholars govern the calendar and the announcing of the new month days. Yet some today think the tidy and unifying calendar of mainstream Jewish scholars has no authority, and would want you to return to the messy and old ways of yesterday, that served their purpose for a time, for a people basically within a small area of the globe. Even among those who would have you return to the old, there is not unity, as they cannot agree among themselves (different groups) how to govern the calendar, hence dis-unity and confusion).
CHAPTER 4
1. An embolismic year is a year to which a (13th) month has
been added. Such an extra month is never any other month but an added Adar. Hence the embolismic year has two months of Adar, a First Adar and a Second Adar. And why is just this month added? Because of the season of the barley harvest-that is, in order that Passover be celebrated in that season. For it is said: “Heed the month of the ripening ears” (Deut.16:1), which means, give heed that this month (of Nisan) fall in the season of the
ripening ears. Without the addition of this month (of Adar),
however, Passover would fall sometimes in the summer and
sometimes in the winter.
2. Intercalation of the year depended upon the following three
criteria: the “tekufah,” the barley harvest, and the blooming of
the tree fruits. Namely, if the court ascertained by calculation
that the tekufah of Nisan would fall on the 16th day of Nisan, or
later, it intercalated the year and declared the Nisan of this
year to be a Second Adar, so that Passover might fall in the
season of the barley harvest. This criterion alone was sufficient
to rely upon for the intercalation of the year, and no attention
was paid to any other criterion.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Again we see that “calculation” of the calendar was known and
more than that was used at times, if not all the time. Here is
one more instance where calculation was deemed necessary to fix the Passover within the barley harvest. If you will, this was a
type of “postponement” and expediency rule. You will notice this
postponement was not introduced with just mere “observation” but often could be calculated in advance).
3. Similarly, if the court found that the barley crop was not
yet ripe, being retarded, and that such tree fruits as usually
sprout during the Passover season had not yet produced buds, it
took these two conditions as a criterion and proceeded to
intercalate the year - even if the tekufah was to take place
prior to the 16th day of Nisan – in order that the barley crop
might be available for the offering of the Sheaf of Waving on the
16th day of Nisan, and in order that the fruits might sprout as
usual during the season of the barley harvest.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(Remember, the author Maimonides, was a spiritual (if not
literal) descendant of the Pharisee religious group of Jesus’
day, who (along with scribes, elders, and the Sadducees) were in
charge of the calendar functions and regulations. Above, he
speaks according to the Pharisee teaching of Sheaf Waving on the 16th of Nisan, and hence the start of their count towards the day of Pentecost. The Sadducees did not agree with this practice or theology, but started to count from the first day of the week
after the Sabbath that fell within the feast of Unleavened Bread.
This difference between the two leading theological sects had no
direct bearing on the sanctification of the new month days. It
was a theological difference between the two parties INSIDE the
calendar, and had nothing to do with determining the calendar’s
new month days).
4.With regard to the barley harvest the court took into
consideration the following three regions: Judea, TransJordan,
and Galilee. If the barley crop was ripe in two of these regions
but not in the third, the year was not intercalated; if, however,
the barley crop was ripe in one of them but not in the other two,
and if the fruit of the trees had not yet sprouted, the year was
intercalated. These were the three main grounds for intercalation
As for the number of those who took part in the Council, the
procedure was as follows: The deliberations began with three
ordained judges chosen from among the members of the Great
Synedrium. If two of them said, “We need not meet to consider
whether or not the year requires intercalation,” and the third
said, “We should meet and examine the matter” – then the single
member, as a minority, did not count. If two of them said, “We
should meet and deliberate the matter,” and the third said,
“We need not meet,” two more members were added from among those who had been invited, and the deliberations did begin.
If two of the five said, “The year requires intercalation,”
and three said, “It does not require it,” the two, being a
minority, did not count. If three members said that it required
intercalation and two said that it did not require, two members
were again added from among those who had been invited, and the deliberations were continued and concluded with a panel of seven. If all seven of them unanimously decided to intercalate or not to intercalate, their decision prevailed; but if they disagreed, the opinion of the majority was followed, whether to intercalate or
not to intercalate. But it was necessary that the Chief of the
Supreme Court, who was also the Chief of the College of
Seventy-One, be among the seven. However, if it so happened that there were only three members in the council and they decided to intercalate the year, the intercalation was valid, provided that the Nasi was one of them, or that he approved of their decision. In the deliberations concerning intercalation of the year, the vote of the side bench was taken first; in those concerning the sanctification of the new moon, the vote of the senior judge was first taken.
5. Neither a king nor a High Priest could be appointed a member
of the Council on the Intercalation of the year. A king was not
eligible for fear that he was primarily concerned with his armies
and military campaigns, and that his concern for things would
influence his opinion on whether or not the year should be
intercalated. A High Priest was not eligible because he might be
concerned about the (beginning of the) cold season, for he was
obliged to take five baths of purification on the Day of
Atonement; hence he might wish not to intercalate the year, so
that the month of Tishri should not fall in the cold season.
6. If the Chief of the Supreme Court – it is he who bore the
title of Nasi – was away on a distant journey, the year could be
intercalated only on condition that the Nasi would give his
consent: if upon his return he consented, the intercalation was
valid; if he did not consent, the intercalation was not valid.
The year could be intercalated only in Judea, for the Sekinah
resided there; as it is said: “Even unto His habitation shall ye
seek” (Deut. 12:5). However, if it so happened that intercalation
was decided upon in Galilee, it was valid.
Again, a year could be pronounced as intercalated in daytime
only; and if it happened that the pronouncement was made at
night, the intercalation was not valid.
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(We see from the above and from everything so far read, that the Court tried its very best to make sure things were done properly and that no personal preferences of one man or another was enacted for personal gain or theological independence).
7. The court had the authority to ascertain by calculation and
to determine which year was to be intercalated. It could do so
whenever it pleased, even many years in advance. However, the
court might not announce the intercalation of a year before that
year had begun. Only after New Year’s Day could the court
announce that this year was to be intercalated, and even this was
only permitted in a case of emergency. When there was no
emergency, announcement of the intercalation was not to be made prior to the month of Adar. Only in Adar could the court
announce that this year had been declared intercalated, and that,
accordingly, the following month was not to be Nisan but Second
Ajar. If the court did announce before New Year’s that the coming
year was to be intercalated, the intercalation did not take
effect on the strength of this (premature) announcement.
8. If the 30th day of Adar had arrived and the court had not
yet come to a decision concerning intercalation, it could no
longer do so; for this day might prove to be the first day of
Nisan; once, however, the month of Nisan had begun, and the year had not been declared intercalated, it could not be so declared. However, if the court did intercalate the year on the 30th day of Adar, the intercalation was valid. If after the intercalation of the year on the 30th day of Adar had been announced, witnesses arrived and testified that they had seen the new moon, the court sanctified the new moon on that day, which thus became the first day of Second Adar. Had the court sanctified the new moon before announcing the intercalation, it could no longer have decided to intercalate the year, for they were not allowed to intercalate in Nisan (and the new moon would have been sanctified as the moon of Nisan).
9. The court might not intercalate the year in a year of
famine; for then everyone hastened to the granary to get food for
the preservation of his life, and it was improper to prolong the
time in which the new crop of the field was prohibited for
consumption. Nor was it proper to intercalate a Sabbatical year,
for then everyone had to depend upon the aftergrowth, and thus
there would not have been enough left for the offering of the
Sheaf and the two Wave Loaves. It was customary, however, to
intercalate (if need be) the year preceding a Sabbatical year.
10. It occurs to me that the statement of the Sages that no
intercalation should be declared in a year of famine or in a
Sabbatical year refers only to cases in which intercalation was
indicated by reasons of expediency, as, for example, the state of
the roads and bridges or similar considerations. If, however, the
year required intercalation on account of the tekufah or on
account of the barley harvest and the fruits of the trees, the
court was obliged to intercalate the year at all events.
11. Whenever the court intercalated a year, letters were sent
out to all distant places, announcing the intercalation and
giving the reasons for it. And these letters were written in the
name of the Nasi, as follows: “This is to notify you that I and
my colleagues have agreed to add to this year so and so many
days,” either 29 or 30 days. For the court had the authority to
declare the month of intercalation in advance as either full or
defective to the people who lived in distant places and were
kept informed by letters. The court itself, however, depended on
observation of the new crescent as to whether the intercalated
month was to be made full or defective.
CHAPTER 5
1. All that we have said above concerning the fixation of New
Moon Days on the basis of observation of the new crescent, and
concerning intercalation of the year because of the season or be-
cause of other reasons of expediency, applies only to the
Synedrium in Palestine or to a Palestinian court of judges
ordained in Palestine, to whom the Synedrium had delegated the
authority to do so. For Moses and Aaron were thus ordered: “This
new moon shall be unto you the beginning of months” (Exod. 12:
2), and the Sages have learned from an oral tradition going back
to our Teacher Moses that the meaning of this verse is: The
authority over the evidence is vested in you and in your duly
qualified successors. In times, however, when no Synedrium
existed in Palestine, fixation of New Moon Days and intercalation
of years was effected only by such methods of calculation as we
are using today.
2. It is thus a Mosaic tradition from Sinai that in times when
there was a (Palestinian) Synedrium, declaration of New Moon Days was based on visual observation, while in times when no Synedrium existed, this declaration was based on calculations such as we are using today and no attention was paid to observation of the new crescent. Rather, the day established by calculation might well coincide with the day in which the new moon became visible, but it might sometimes be the day before it or the day after it.
The latter case, however, when the calculated New Moon Day
happened to be the day after the new moon became visible,
occurred only rarely, and then only in the countries west of
Palestine.
3. Since when did all of Israel begin to employ these
methods of calculation? Since the time of the last Sages of the
Gemara; that was the time when (the Jewish community of)
Palestine was destroyed and no regularly established court was
left. In the times of the Sages of the Mishnah and also of the
Gemara, however, up to the days of Abbayyi and Raba (ca. A.D.
325) the people depended upon the Palestinian courts for the
determination (of the calendar).
COMMENT (Keith Hunt):
(The last Sages of the Gemara was around 500 A.D. Sages of the
Mishnah about 70 to 200 A.D. Here we see that after 70 A.D. there
was still a court in Palestine established for the governing of
the calendar. This we also fully saw in our last, part four,
study in this series on the calendar. The truth of the matter is
that the Jewish court for regulating and governing the calendar
has never disappeared. Through the process of time, and
expediency of keeping all people everywhere on a round earth, in
unity, as to the observation of the Festivals of the Lord, this
court of authority over the calendar, was led to produce the
so-called Jewish perpetual calendar.)
4. In the time of the Synedrium, when New Moon Days were
determined by observation, the rule was as follows: the people in
Palestine and in places that could be reached in ample time by
the messengers of Tishri, celebrated (each of) the holidays one
day only, while those living in more distant places that could
not be reached by the messengers of Tishri used to celebrate the
holidays for two days, because they were in doubt, inasmuch as
they did not know which day the Palestinian court had declared as
Mew Month Day.
5. But in our times, when no Synedrium exists and the
Palestinian court itself determines the calendar by calculation,
it might seem proper that the Jews of all countries, even of the
more distant countries of the Dispersion, need celebrate the
holidays one day only, just as the Jews of Palestine do
- seeing that all follow the same method in determining the
calendar.
End of quotes and my comments from the Code of Maimonides. You have now seen the MANY rules and regulations by which the calendar at the time of Christ was governed. You have seen that that calendar DID CONTAIN “postponements” for the expediency and benefit of the circumstances and for the people. Hence the
postponements in the perpetual Jewish calendar that eventually came into being, should not seem out of place, and should not be looked upon as something strange. There is NOTHING in the word of the Lord that says such postponements as used in Jesus’ time and those used today in the Jewish calendar, are NOT permitted. As we have seen in this study, there is just about NOTHING (only a very
few things mentioned) recorded in the Word, as to the governing of the calendar. The Jewish court had a great deal of freedom and movement within the boundaries of governing a solar/lunar calendar, and keeping the festivals of God within their seasons.
We have seen that it was the Jewish court that had authority over the calendar and the declaring of the New Month Days. Jesus did not argue or disagree with them on that particular topic and issue. And I guess not, for He, as the God of the Old Testament,was the one to give the leaders and court of Israel that authority in the first place. He never took it away from them during His life time on earth. He never instructed that the NT Church of God would have authority over the setting of the new month days. And it was never revealed to the NT apostles via the Holy Spirit that they and the Church would have authority over declaring the new month days.
The Jewish court has authority only over announcing the new month days in the manner and with the rules and regulations they so deem necessary for the situation of the time and age. They have no authority over declaring double holy days (i.e. two holy days for the feast of Trumpets) and today mainstream Jewish religion does not observe double holy days. The principle is: Where God speaks clearly and plainly on the matter, let man keep silent and obey.
The argument used today with “postponements” to throw away the Jewish calendar is INVALID, for reasons mentioned above, but also because God does not utter one single word in His Word, saying postponements CANNOT be used. Those who try to tell you otherwise, are either lacking in knowledge, have stopped reading the Bible, or are just plain deceivers seeking a following and wanting to set up their own calendar.
There are many today who have and who desire to rule the
calendar. They will claim that they are correct, and other
calendar setters are incorrect (such is the vanity of human
nature), yet one clear thing emerges from them all. They do NOT AGREE among themselves as to governing the calendar, hence CONFUSION upon confusion arises. And one more clear fact is evident, it is written that God is not the author of confusion.
We are not under the Old Covenant today, but a New Covenant, founded upon better promises, not in the letter and the physical, but especially in the SPIRIT. The physical crescent moon watching was practiced under the Old system, as we have seen, but the Eternal even had the Jews (who rejected Christ and the NT) move from the physical moon sighting to the spirit of complete calendar calculation, for the UNITY on a round earth, for all Festival observers in every nation.
If the Lord should reveal to anyone the truth of observing His festivals and weekly Sabbath day, all they would need ask is “where is the nearest Jew, so I can know when the new month days are” and they would be able to observe the feasts of God in their seasons. One reason why the Jews have preserved the OT, why they had the calendar court, and why they were scattered into all nations, is so that no one can claim “time is lost” or “it’s not possible to know when to observe those festivals outlined in Lev. 23.” The Eternal God has used the Jews to preserve His OT word, His weekly Sabbath day, His new month days, and His festivals (which can then be easily worked out from the new month
days so announced and sanctified).
The Jews have no authority to CHANGE the date of a festival. They cannot say we will now observe Trumpets on the 3rd day of the 7th month. For the DAY is specifically SET by the Lord as the FIRST day. They only have authority over setting the new month days of each calendar month. The Jews have no authority in setting the feast of Pentecost on Sivan (the 3rd month) 6th. For such a date is nowhere to be found in the Bible. God has instructed that Pentecost be COUNTED each year. And so that date must be set by a correct understanding of HOW God informs you within His word, as to counting to Pentecost. Hence the Pharisees
and Sadducees disagreed as how to count to Pentecost. The Jews have authority to set the new month day for the 3rd month of the year, but have no authority to claim the feast of Pentecost is always on the 6th day of that month.
I hope you are clearly seeing WHERE and HOW MUCH authority over the calendar the Jews have. It is LESS than what some think they have, but MORE than what others believe they have or should have. The perpetual Jewish calendar is a fine piece of workmanship in preserving the Festivals of God within their seasons, and for keeping in UNITY on a round globe all who desire to observe those festivals, wherever they may be in every nation on this globe.
The Eternal is not the author of confusion, but of peace, so
it is written, and so should it be.
………………………………
Written April 1998