ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 13
(a) There are ninety-one days in a Tekufah (season)?
(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, the majority of the month of
Tishri must belong to the old Tekufah, to justify fixing a leap-year.
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, this means that the day of the Tekufah falls
on the seventeenth of Tishri (the first day of Chol-ha'Mo'ed). Rebbi Yossi
says - on the twenty-second of Tishri.
(d) According to Shmuel, both Tana'im learn their respective opinions from
the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "ve'Chag ha'Asif Tekufas ha'Shanah". According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - the Pasuk requires the entire Chag (meaning
Chol-ha'Mo'ed, as we will explain at the end of the Sugya) to belong to the
2. ... Rebbi Yossi - it requires at least part of the Chag to belong to the
(a) We have a She'eilah whether 'Yom Tekufah Maschil' or 'Yom Tekufah
Gomer' - meaning whether the day of the Tekufah is the first day of the
*new* Tekufah or the last day of the *old* one.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi must hold 'Yom Tekufah Maschil', according
to Shmuel - because if they held 'Yom Tekufah Gomer', then even if there
were only fifteen days in the old Tekufah, and not sixteen, (and the day of
the Tekufah fell on the sixteenth) Rebbi Yehudah would not have the entire
Chag in the new Tekufah; and even if there were only twenty days in the old
Tekufah, and not twenty-one, (and the day of the Tekufah fell on the
twenty-first day) Rebbi Yossi would not have even a little bit of the Chag
in the new Tekufah.
(a) Beis-Din need to declare a leap-year for that reason. They cannot simply
declare Elul a full month instead - because Chazal were very careful never
to declare Elul Me'ubar, to avoid Rosh Hashanah falling on one of the days
that it cannot fall (for so we learned in Rosh Hashanah 'Since the days of
Ezra, Elul was never Me'ubar'.
(b) The problem in postponing Rosh Chodesh Tishri if Elul fell on Tuesday,
Thursday or Shabbos, is - that it would then inevitably fall on 'Adu'
(Sunday, Wednesday or Friday, which it cannot do, so that Yom Kipur should
not fall on Friday or Sunday, or Hosha'ana Rabah on Shabbos, as we explained
(c) Neither do we at least ask why, if Tishri was destined to fall on
Monday, we would not rather postpone it until Tuesday, by being Me'aber
Elul, rather than fix a leap-year - because it rarely happens, so we do not
bother to ask it.
(d) Nor do we ask why Beis-Din should not then make two extra full months,
thereby delaying Rosh Chodesh Tishri by two days - because seeing as a year
usually comprises six full months and six short one, this would entail
arranging a year of eight full months, which is not permitted, as we learned
(a) We query this however, from a Beraisa where Rebbi Yehudah specifically
states 'Yom Tekufah Gomer'. Rebbi Yossi says -'Yom Tekufah Maschil'.
(b) We also ask on Shmuel from another Beraisa, where the Tana Kama echoes
Rebbi Yehudah's first opinion. Rebbi Yehudah says 'Sh'tei Yados ba'Chodesh',
by which he means - twenty days (and the day of the Tekufah falls on the
(c) This poses two Kashyos on Shmuel - 1. because Rebbi Yehudah here says
twenty days (and not sixteen); 2. because here again, he holds 'Yom Tekufah
Gomer', and not 'Yom Tekufah Maschil.
(d) We conclude with a Kashya on Shmuel.
(a) Rebbi Yossi says 'Me'abrin Shishah-Asar Yom Lifnei ha'Pesach' - because
then, if one adds the 192 days of the two Tekufos until Succos, Tekufas
Tishri will fall on the twenty-second of Tishri, which warrants a leap-year
according to Rebbi Yossi, as we learned above.
(b) 'Shishah-Asar Lifnei ha'Chag', he adds, 'Ein Me'abrin'.
(c) He says 'sixteen', despite the fact that even twenty days will not
warrant a leap-year - in order to balance the 'sixteen days before Pesach'
with which he began.
(d) In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yehudah too, requires only a little bit
of Chol ha'Mo'ed in the new Tekufah, the bone of contention between him and
Rebbi Yossi is now - whether 'Yom Tekufah Maschil' (Rebbi Yossi) or 'Yom
Tekufah Gomer' (Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) Rebbi Shimon says 'Shishah-Asar Lifnei ha'Chag, Me'abrin', just like the
Tana Kama said - only one of them holds 'Yom Tekufah Maschil', and they only
declare a leap-year if it occurs on the seventeenth of Tishri (but if it
falls on the sixteenth, the entire Chag falls under the new Tekufah and it
is not necessary to do so), and the other, 'Yom Tekufah Gomer', and they
declare it even if it falls on the sixteenth.
(b) We know that this is their bone of contention - but we do not know which
(a) The final opinion in the Beraisa is that of Acheirim, who says
'Mi'uto' - meaning (not sixteen, but) even fourteen days (and the Tekufah
falls on the fifteenth), Beis-Din declare a leap-year.
(b) We initially think that he cannot be referring to the Tekufah of
Tishri - because even if he requires the whole Yom-tov to be in the new
Tekufah, and even if he holds 'Yom Tekufah Gomer, this will be fulfilled,
and there is no reason to fix a leap-year.
(c) According to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, based on the Pasuk "Shamor es
Chodesh ha'Aviv" - Acheirim refers (not to Tekufas Tishri, but) to Tekufas
(d) ... and he explains the Pasuk to mean - that the new Tekufah must fall
whilst the moon is still new (before it reaches its fullness on the
(a) Nisan is called "Chodesh ha'Aviv" - because that is when the produce
ripens (and that is one of the reasons [because of Aviv']) to which a leap
year is subject.
(b) We ask on Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak's current explanation however -
that, if the problem lies with the fourteenth of Nisan, we could have
avoided fixing a leap-year, and arranged for Adar to be a full month
(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov answers that Acheirim reckons from up downwards -
by which he means that if Tekufas Teives lacks eighteen, seventeen, sixteen
or fifteen days, and Tekufas Nisan falls from the sixteenth, we fix a
leap-year (because Acheirim holds 'Yom Tekufah Gomer'), if it lacks only
fourteen days, and the new Tekufah falls on the fifteenth, then we don't
need to fix a leap-year.
(d) Tishri falling on Sunday, Wednesday or Friday will not pose a problem -
because Beis-Din can fix it by arranging declaring one of the summer months
a short month.
(a) Ravina reinstates Acheirim by Tekufas Tishri, like the other Tana'im,
and he resolves the problem by requiring (not just from the first day of
Chol-ha'Mo'ed to fall in the new Tekufah, but) - the entire Chag including
the first day Yom-tov.
(b) Until now, we interpreted "Chag ha'Asif" to mean - the part of the Chag
when gathering the corn is permitted ...
(c) ... such as in a case of 'Davar ha'Avud' when it would otherwise involve
a loss]), but not Yom-tov proper, when all work not directly concerning
food, is forbidden.
(d) Ravina now reinterprets it (according to Acheirim) to mean - the Chag
that falls during the in- gathering season (Yom-Tov included).
(a) Rebbi Yehudah (in our Mishnah) learns from the plural form of the two
words "*ve'Samchu Ziknei* ha'Eidah al Rosh ha'Par" - that Semichah on the
head of the Par He'elam Davar requires five Dayanim.
(b) He also learns from the word "Ziknei" - that the Dayanim must be members
of the Sanhedrei Gedolah, and not just any three men (even if they are
(c) Rebbi Shimon requires only three Dayanim. In his opinion - the word
"ve'Samchu" is needed for itself (as we shall now see).
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the word "ve'Samchu" would be superfluous -
since the Torah could just as well have written "Ziknei ha'Eidah al Rosh
(b) And he learns from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Rosh" "Rosh" from the Korban
Olah) that "*al* Rosh ha'Par" means on the head of the bull. Rebbi Shimon
says - that, were it not for "ve'Samchu", we would have interpreted "al Rosh
ha'Par" to mean that they place their hands next to the bull.
(c) Rebbi Shimon - did not receive this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from his Rebbe
(and one cannot Darshen a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' without a tradition handed down
from one's Rebbes.
(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Semichah u'Semichas Zekeinim bi'Sheloshah'.
Rebbi Yochanan interprets 'Semichas Zekeinim' - as giving a potential Rabbi
Semichah, in the sense that we use it.
(b) Abaye cited the Pasuk "va'Yismach es Yadav Alav" - written in connection
with Moshe giving Semichah to Yehoshua.
(c) Abaye asks from there on what we just learned - since Moshe, after all,
gave Yehoshua Semichah on his own, in which case, one judge ought to suffice
for Semichah; and if we consider Moshe equivalent to the Sanhedrin, then it
should require seven-one?
(d) This problem remains unresolved.
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi whether Semichas Zekeinim means
that the judges must actually lean their hands on the candidate. To which he
replied - that Semichah in this context means adding 'Rebbi' to his name and
authorizing him to rule Diynei K'nasos.
(b) To reconcile the current ruling with the episode where Rebbi Yehudah ben
Bava gave Semichah to Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Shimon, Rebbi Yossi
and Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, we answer - that two other Dayanim were in
(c) Their names are not mentioned - in deference to Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava,
who was that much greater than them.
(d) Rav Ivya adds a sixth person who received Semichah from Rebbi Yehudah
ben Bava - Rebbi Nechemyah.