📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Shiur – Laws of Kiddush HaChodesh, Chapter 2
—
General Introduction: The Matter of Testimony for the New Month
Rambam’s Approach: The essence of kiddush hachodesh is the calculation (based on astronomical computations), but there is also a matter of testimony – witnesses must come to confirm that they saw the new moon.
Simple Meaning: The beis din already knows when Rosh Chodesh should be through the calculation.
Novel Points:
According to the Rambam’s approach that the essence is the calculation, it is very difficult to understand what the testimony does – the beis din already knows when Rosh Chodesh should be, so what is the function of the witnesses? The answer: The testimony is not merely a giluy milsa (revealing that something happened), rather it is an eidus lekayem – the testimony itself causes Rosh Chodesh to take effect. This is like a kedushah – not that the testimony says what happened, but the testimony makes it happen. The beis din also uses the calculation to verify the witnesses – if witnesses come at the wrong time, one knows they are false witnesses.
—
Law 1: Who is Qualified for Testimony of the New Month
Rambam’s Words: “Only two qualified men are valid for testimony of the new month… but women and slaves are like other disqualified witnesses and are not valid… and similarly minors are disqualified.”
Simple Meaning: Only two qualified men are valid for testimony of the new month. Women, slaves, and minors are disqualified – just as with all other testimonies.
Novel Points:
1. Stringency of Testimony of the New Month Regarding Women: In other matters women are valid (for example, a single witness is believed regarding prohibitions), but here with testimony of the new month one specifically needs two qualified men – the most stringent level of testimony. The novelty is that even in matters where women are usually valid, here they are disqualified.
2. Question Regarding Minors (Bar Mitzvah Question): If a minor sees the moon and then turns thirteen years old (becomes an adult) – can he testify? Rav Kanievsky brings that the problem is “witnesses whom you can make into plotters” – one cannot make minors into plotting witnesses (because even if they become plotting witnesses, they don’t receive lashes since they were minors at the time of the act). It is discussed whether regarding testimony of kiddush hachodesh the concept of plotting witnesses is even relevant, and reference is made to Tosafos in Maseches Makos regarding this matter.
3. [Digression: R’ Chaim of Volozhin / Chinuch – Bar Mitzvah Speech Topic:] A source from R’ Chaim (Chinuch) is mentioned who writes almost practically about this matter – noted as a “perfect bar mitzvah speech.”
—
Law 2 (First Part): Father and Son – Relatives in Testimony of the New Month
Rambam’s Words: “A father and son who saw the moon – both should go to testify” – both should go, because perhaps one will be disqualified, and the other will join with another qualified witness.
Simple Meaning (According to Rashi): Relatives are valid for testimony of the new month – but not because relatives are inherently valid, rather because here there is a different reason (according to Rashi: the month – valid and relatives). The Rambam says both should go because perhaps one will be disqualified (due to another reason, like theft), and the other can join with a different qualified witness.
Novel Points:
1. Special Testimony in Kiddush HaChodesh: From the fact that father and son go separately and are joined with others – it is implied that one doesn’t need both witnesses to have seen together (shelo ra’u ke’echad). This brings up the question of special testimony – whether in testimony of the new month one needs both witnesses to have seen together. This is a dispute among Rishonim. In capital cases one needs special testimony, but in monetary matters it is usually not necessary – the question is what about testimony of the new month. Rav Kanievsky discusses this at length, and apparently from this law it is implied that one doesn’t need special testimony in kiddush hachodesh.
—
Law: Disqualified Witnesses – Thieves and Those Disqualified by Rabbinic Law
Rambam’s Words: “Those disqualified from testimony by rabbinic law” – such as “pigeon flyers” (which is a concern of theft by rabbinic law) – are disqualified even for testimony of the new month. “Even though their disqualification is not from the Torah, they are disqualified by rabbinic law.”
Simple Meaning: Even one who is disqualified only rabbinically (not biblically), is disqualified for testimony of the new month.
Novel Points:
1. A Thief – Even Regarding Seeing the Moon: A thief is disqualified even for testimony where he has nothing to gain from lying – even to say that he saw the moon. This is a “terrible shame” – not even when you say it’s day or night does anyone believe you. The reason: He is not just a crazy person, he is a “respectable man” who has a tendency to take other people’s money – therefore he is not believed at all.
2. Question: What Does the Language “Disqualified by Rabbinic Law” Mean? What is the difference between disqualification biblically and disqualification rabbinically if ultimately he is disqualified for all testimonies? The answer that is proposed: One must check in the laws of testimony whether there are matters where one disqualified rabbinically can indeed testify in certain biblical matters, but in testimony of the new month – not. This needs further clarification.
—
Law: We Are Not Meticulous in Testimony of the New Month
Rambam’s Words: “Torah law – we are not meticulous in testimony of the new month. Even if they sanctified the month based on witnesses and they were found to be plotters – it remains sanctified.”
Simple Meaning (According to Rav Kanievsky): “We are not meticulous” means we don’t perform all seven examinations as with other testimonies. The reason: Because even if one would find that the witnesses are plotters, the month remains sanctified. Therefore there is no practical benefit from strict examinations.
Novel Point:
From this we see that Torah law is: Once the beis din has sanctified the month, it remains sanctified – even if it turns out that the witnesses are disqualified. This is a fundamental difference between testimony of the new month and other testimonies.
—
Law 2 (Second Part): “Therefore” – Presumption of Validity, the Enactment Against Heretics, and Examining and Investigating
Rambam’s Words: “Therefore… every Jewish person has a presumption of validity” – we assume every Jew is valid. But because heretics corrupted things, “and they would hire people to testify that they saw when they did not see”, it was enacted that “we only accept testimony of the new month from witnesses whom the beis din recognizes as valid” and “that they should examine and investigate their testimony.”
Simple Meaning: Because the month remains sanctified even if the witnesses are disqualified, one doesn’t need to ask so strictly – one can assume that an ordinary Jew has a presumption of validity. But because heretics (Sadducees/Boethusians) began sending false witnesses, two things were enacted: (1) the beis din must recognize the witnesses as valid, (2) one must examine and investigate their testimony.
Novel Points:
1. [Digression: R’ Aharon of Karlin’s Approach to Presumption of Validity:] A teaching is brought from R’ Beis Aharon of Karlin (brought by the Streitiner Rebbe): A normal person meets a person and begins with presumption of validity – but the more he knows the person, the worse he becomes in his eyes. R’ Aharon of Karlin was the opposite – he begins with low expectations (people are weak, “poor things, worth nothing”), and every good thing he sees is a novelty and a joy. This also fits with his approach to bitachon – one shouldn’t expect that it’s coming to me, and every good thing is a gift. This is noted as “a cynical teaching” – a sharp, cynical statement. This is said both regarding faith and regarding people – there are people who have an opposite power, they believe badly from the start.
2. What Did the Heretics Want to Achieve? The question is asked: What did the heretics gain from sending false witnesses? If the beis din sanctifies the month even on the “wrong day” – it is valid (because “you, even if inadvertent, even if misled”)! It is proposed that it was a “gotcha” – they wanted to mock the sages, to show that their system of kiddush hachodesh doesn’t work. Perhaps the heretics studied astronomy and knew when the molad couldn’t be, and wanted to prove that the sages accept false testimony. It is also proposed that it was “power struggles” around kiddush hachodesh – as we see from the incident with Rabban Gamliel (Rosh Hashanah 25a). Somewhere where the heretics could undermine the authority of the sages, they inserted false witnesses.
3. Why Doesn’t Presumption of Validity Help Against an Organized Group? An important distinction: Presumption of validity only works when everything is “innocent” – when each person comes individually. But when there is an organized group that wants to “trip you up”, presumption of validity is not strong enough. This is the reason why special enactments had to be made for testimony of the new month. This is also the reason why today (when we don’t have the problem of heretics) we don’t need such enactments.
4. “Does Not Recognize Him” – What Does It Mean That One Doesn’t Know Him? Not just that he’s not a liar, but that one must know that he is not a Sadducee/heretic. Because if he is a Sadducee, even examinations and investigations wouldn’t help – he has prepared everything. “Recognize” therefore means: one knows that he is “one of ours” – from our group, not from the Sadducees/Boethusians.
5. “One of Ours” vs. “One of Theirs” – The Distinction in the Gemara: The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 22) speaks of “one of ours and one of theirs” – once there is a distinction between “ours” and “theirs”, the entire law changes. “Not one of ours” means heretics/Sadducees.
6. R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s Question – Presumption of Validity in All Testimony: R’ Chaim Kanievsky asks: The law that one must recognize the witnesses is not only in testimony of the new month – also in all other testimonies it states in the laws of testimony (Chapter 11) that we don’t accept testimony from “those who run” (unknowns). Presumption of validity only applies to a person one already knows, not to a “mere” unknown. If so, what is the novelty here in kiddush hachodesh?
R’ Chaim Kanievsky answers with two explanations:
– (a) In other testimonies the law that one must recognize them is only rabbinically, and here in kiddush hachodesh it is a special enactment.
– (b) There are three levels: (1) A complete am ha’aretz – disqualified across the board, even here; (2) Not an am ha’aretz but one doesn’t know him – one must check; (3) A known valid person.
It is noted that “am ha’aretz” in the Gemara perhaps doesn’t mean just someone who can’t learn, but a group that is not subservient to the sages – equivalent to “not one of ours.”
7. The Mechanism of “Sending With Them”: When the beis din doesn’t know the witnesses (Levi and Yehudah), they send with them Reuven and Shimon (whom the beis din already knows), in order to confirm that the witnesses are valid. “Examining and investigating their testimony” refers back to the beis din – they must also conduct examinations and investigations on the testimony itself.
8. Rashi Rosh Hashanah 22 – The Motive of the Boethusians: Rashi (Rosh Hashanah 22b) explains that the Boethusians wanted to distort kiddush hachodesh because they held that “the day after the Sabbath” (Leviticus 23) means literally after Shabbos – Pesach must come out on Shabbos. Therefore they manipulated the testimony so that the month would come out such that Pesach falls on Shabbos. It is noted that this is a “strange Rashi” – an unusual way of learning, because it sounds like the Boethusians believed in good faith in their approach, but Rashi makes it that they actively manipulated.
9. [Digression: Sadducees/Boethusians/Karaites – Their Approach to Kiddush HaChodesh:] The Karaites don’t hold of the beis din’s authority over kiddush hachodesh, and not of the calculation. The Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos describes their approach. The Boethusians are not identical with Karaites – they are different groups – but they also didn’t hold of intercalating the year in the same manner as Chazal. The Karaites do intercalate the year, but not according to the order of Chazal.
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of Sanctifying the New Month – Chapter 2: Laws of Testimony for the New Month
Introduction: The Foundation of Testimony for the New Month According to the Rambam
Speaker 1:
When they learn the second part in the Laws of Sanctifying the New Month, it says: We are going to learn the laws of testimony for the new month. They learn an interesting thing, that Rosh Chodesh is determined, essentially it is determined according to the moon, and secondly, essentially it is determined according to the calculation. The Beit Din knows when the moon should appear, and according to that they know whether to accept the witnesses. And also, if the witnesses come at the wrong time, they are false witnesses, they are not believed. The witnesses are only after what is known.
But the opposite is when there are laws of testimony, and this is the great topic. In tractate Rosh Hashanah, the majority of the laws are laws of testimony. It’s really like Chullin, it’s a tractate.
For the Rambam, essentially the main thing is the calculation, but there is also a matter of testimony. It’s a bit interesting, it’s not simple that the Beit Din decides when there should be a new month, that they need witnesses to, as it were, confirm it. They know when it should happen, but they need to take it very, very seriously and try to be in agreement.
According to the Rambam that the main thing is the calculation, it’s very difficult to essentially understand what the testimony does. It’s really taken a measure of testimony. Anyway, when it’s valid, you would say that the Beit Din knows that now it’s going to be Rosh Chodesh? There was some aspect of witnesses. But it doesn’t look like really like there must be two valid witnesses and the whole nine yards, and it’s only a concern that now it can happen.
So, so, simply speaking, before the Rambam came, I mean the Rambam bases himself on the Gemara which doesn’t say that he makes it up himself, simply speaking to understand. And the Beit Din doesn’t know if it was the new month, and the witnesses reveal it. Here it means more or less they know. The question of a day up or a day down, a day up. It becomes a very small thing, it’s not clear at all why.
So let’s learn. So testimony – there are different types of testimonies, and the laws are different.
Law 1: Who is Valid for Testimony of the New Month
Speaker 1:
Who is valid for testimony? Who is valid for testimony of Rosh Chodesh, what? Testimony to establish, and testimony to establish, and testimony to establish. Like one says a sanctification. Not that the testimony says that it happened, the testimony makes it happen.
Okay. Yes, so he says here.
“Only two valid men are valid for testimony of the new month, testifying separately in every matter.”
Yes, because there is for example one witness accepted in prohibitions. There are places where one doesn’t need two valid witnesses, but here one needs the most authoritative two valid witnesses.
“But women and slaves are invalid.”
He must insert here his teachings that women are not valid, “unless the honor of the king’s daughter is inward” so they shouldn’t have to go out. It’s very convenient for me to say that women are invalid for testimony. That’s the law. The language of why? I don’t know. So…
Discussion: The Question of Minors
Speaker 1:
“And minors.”
I discussed the question about minors. Minors is simple. A deaf-mute, imbecile and minor is a group by itself. Doesn’t it say about minors in a minute? Let’s not look yet.
Okay. So what’s the novelty? There are things where women are indeed valid, for this they are also invalid. This is the language of invalid.
“But women and slaves are like other invalid witnesses and they are not Jews, but if women saw with us, it is a bad sight.”
He says, “And likewise minors are invalid.”
Speaker 2:
There is that famous question, yes? That a minor gives testimony, when he turns thirteen, yes?
Speaker 1:
Oh how… ah, it’s a trick. I see he talks about this, Rabbi Kanievsky.
Yes, he says that the question is “witnesses come that you can make into conspiring witnesses,” because the witnesses are not lashed because they are minors. Very clever.
Speaker 2:
How does he bring this? That there are conspiring witnesses on testimony of sanctifying the new month?
Speaker 1:
Yes, he goes like this, the rabbi brought earlier that it doesn’t need to be, there is every testimony that cannot be made into conspiring witnesses. Seemingly if it must go into the category of testimony, it’s simple if not that they received lashes, but “you shall not bear false witness,” one cannot make them conspiring witnesses that they received lashes. It’s like every one, every death, it’s like every conspiracy that has no…
So he says, brings that perhaps not, it turns in the Tosafot in tractate Makkot how they work in the matter of lashes.
It’s interesting that from such a thing there is also to give, to make strict on witnesses. Someone who says a new moon sighting, in the worst case, he’s a fantasizer, or… what according to the minor did he do a sin that day? So if he accepts testimony, he’s an adult, and he becomes invalid for testimony.
Speaker 2:
Here Rabbi Chaim asks us?
Speaker 1:
He talks about… he brings from Rabbi Chaim of Chinuch.
Speaker 2:
Rabbi Chaim of Chinuch, yes.
Speaker 1:
Rabbi Chaim of Chinuch, yes. It’s a perfect bar mitzvah speech.
Speaker 2:
What’s your problem?
Speaker 1:
Nice, bar mitzvah piece. Here comes the news from from Rabbi Chaim of Chinuch, his father-in-law, rabbi of rabbis. He writes as if it’s practical law. You need to know what will be. Good, write down, Rabbi Chaim of Chinuch’s ruling.
Speaker 2:
I thought it was Chinuch.
Speaker 1:
Yes, I thought Chinuch just had a fan. Meanwhile, you see.
Okay.
Law 2: Father and Son – Relatives in Testimony of the New Month
Speaker 1:
“A father and son who saw the moon together” – normally they cannot go together – “both of them should go to testify”, according to Rashi this is a novelty that relatives are valid, only for another reason, “and there is no disqualification in them because they would be robbers and similar to other disqualifications.”
No, simply that they go, not from going, it’s some kind of journey, one must go, one must find where the moon was, and go.
Discussion: Disqualification of a Robber Even for Seeing the Moon
Speaker 2:
I say invalid that a robber becomes invalid not only when it’s relevant that he should have an interest, he becomes invalid even for seeing the moon. It’s a terrible shame for a person. Not even when you say that it’s day or that it’s night… He’s not related to lying, one doesn’t put in lying. Because he’s a robber, he’s not just a crazy person, he’s an honorable man, he has very much lied to take other people’s money. Not even is he believed about the moon.
Speaker 1:
Okay, that’s a good question. Is every invalid for monetary testimony? Language and such?
The rabbi said today to lose in every matter. It seems that as there is a stringency in the laws of testimony, it goes up also after the calculation of the evil inclination. Lest he take a bribe in examination.
He doesn’t bring it.
Okay, in short, this is a Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah.
Okay. Yes.
Discussion: Why Should Both Go
Speaker 1:
In short, “Lest one be found invalid from the testimony because of other disqualifications, the second will join with another and testify.”
I don’t understand why he says if one will be disqualified. Just like that it’s a good thing, because they should come, and if there is another one, one will take one of them and pair them with a valid one.
Speaker 2:
Why? Because then one only needs one of them. If there is another one, one needs one of them.
Speaker 1:
Ah, so why does he say they should go? Both should go, because perhaps… because you don’t know for certain, when you send only the father it can be that the father won’t be good, because one can find another prohibition of robbery, and… So the more people should come, because other chances that it’s not taken. Something like that.
“The teaching changed from another and testified.”
So it means here we also see that it’s not simple that they need to be together and they see it.
Discussion: Special Testimony – Whether One Must See Together
Speaker 2:
Ah, this is a question of special testimony. He talks about this a minute ago, no? Special testimony, as if they didn’t see together or didn’t testify together?
Speaker 1:
He says a dispute of early authorities.
Speaker 2:
Why doesn’t he think about who are the early authorities? Who is there from the others?
Speaker 1:
He can’t combine, he gives a… he said a dispute of early authorities, as if already everyone will know the dispute of early authorities.
So seemingly here is a proof from the law. He says, he will look at Kiryat Yaakov. Special testimony is not good, in capital cases in monetary matters it was usually yes. So the question is whether here it means so?
Okay, but here it seemingly shows that yes.
Ah, the Dibbur Hamatchil already says, certainly. He doesn’t forget such things, you don’t forget any clean thing, Rabbi Kanievsky. What to understand what’s going on is still news, but such a question…
Yes, he talks about this a whole piece. What does his piece learn?
In short, he talks about this. So it’s implied, so it’s implied. Already, it’s difficult that in other places it’s implied that one must indeed.
It’s invalid.
Okay.
Those Invalid for Testimony by Rabbinic Decree
Speaker 1:
So so, “Invalid for testimony by rabbinic decree.”
Okay. So the Rambam still something. “Invalid for testimony by rabbinic decree.”
So from this? “They played dice”. And the Gemara states the law of who is invalid for playing dice, which is a concern of robbery. It means, it’s not robbery from the Torah, it’s some kind of robbery. So “invalid for testimony by rabbinic decree.”
“Even one who is free from Torah, invalid for testimony by rabbinic decree.”
Discussion: What is the Difference of Invalid by Rabbinic Decree
Speaker 2:
What is the… simple rabbinic decree. I mean, what is the idea between? Simply means. When can one think that you will be free from Torah. It’s from the Torah, but I don’t understand, every testimony is not. When the rabbis disqualified testimony, they say that the testimony, let’s not accept. Every testimony is not for Torah. Many times against such is a return. That which the sages disqualified and made testimony and warning, one will not be able to kill someone. Sages will not be able to do a Torah commandment. But this is what the sages mean a power to…
Speaker 1:
Perhaps he means here to say even if there is no concern at all, why should one think that the person is lying? But… because the sages forbade it.
Speaker 2:
Yes, but… again, what’s the difference? This is… what I’m asking is, what does this give more than the very law that the person is invalid for testimony? It’s simple, he’s invalid for testimony, he’s invalid for all testimonies. All testimonies are from the Torah, and I want to say that one doesn’t allow. So what’s the difference?
Speaker 1:
But the new month is… we need to check if there is any laws where invalid for testimony by rabbinic decree can indeed give testimony in certain Torah matters. This needs to be checked. Already, one will look in the laws of testimony, one will know. I understood that this is the matter.
Torah Law: We Are Not Exacting in Testimony of the New Month
Speaker 1:
Okay, Torah law. Let’s learn further.
“Torah law, the main Torah law, we are not exacting in testimony of the new month, even if they sanctified the month based on witnesses and they were found to be conspiring witnesses in this testimony, it remains sanctified.”
So, Rabbi Kanievsky explains, we are not exacting means one doesn’t make all seven examinations. One doesn’t ask too much into it, why? Because the law is, even if one should remain the month sanctified. So it’s not important therefore.
Because he sees from this that the Torah matter is once concerned about the calculation. But “therefore”, if he already from Choshen Mishpat, “every Jewish person”. “That every Jewish person has a presumption of validity”. A Mishnah generation that’s invalid. Simply you meet a Jew, you will assume that he is good.
Digression: Rabbi Aharon of Karlin on Love of Israel
Speaker 1:
This is not like Rabbi Aharon of Karlin. I saw it again recently. Ah, the Streitiner Rebbe brings, he doesn’t catch what a cynical word it is, that Rabbi Aharon of Karlin said… what does it mean that he loves all Jews? Other people are critical of him.
He says like this, a normal person, he comes, he meets a person, he says, he has a presumption of validity. Later he sees, he does something wrong, okay, he becomes worse, the more he knows the person, he becomes worse.
He says, for him, first, he looks at everything black. Then he sees, ah, this one is a scoundrel, he comes to pray, everything becomes better for him.
I don’t see in faith and trust it goes like this. He says it regarding two things. He says it both regarding faith, but he says it regarding people. He says that there are people who have very high expectations, they believe strongly in the human species, and they keep having disappointments. Because there is one who knows that people are weak, and people are… he says much sharper. People are pitifully pitiful people, people are pitifully worth nothing. Therefore, every thing is a complete novelty. And he says so also, and you have very good with his approach with trust, yes? Trust is that nothing comes to me, and it won’t be good for me. And every thing that comes good, I should… expectations, this kind of expectations.
The Heretics’ Corruption – “And They Would Hire People to Testify”
Speaker 1:
Anyway, so… but here… the word “when they corrupted” is a bit strange, because when they were heretics it was already after the corruption.
Speaker 2:
No, no, the heretics were already part of Israel. Not when one became corrupted.
Speaker 1:
“And they would hire people to testify that they saw when they did not see”. It’s as if, what should make them do such a thing? Just to anger God?
Speaker 2:
So it says here, they wanted to show as if the sages’ sanctification of the new month is not correct.
Speaker 1:
Perhaps the heretics learned too much astronomy, and they held that sometimes they are experts, you don’t know that today the new month cannot come. I mean that’s what they believe.
Speaker 2:
No, I mean the word must be that there were many power struggles around sanctifying the new month. You see the story with Rabban Gamliel. Somewhere the heretics had to prove something, they brought false witnesses.
The Question: If It’s Valid It’s Valid – What’s the Corruption?
Speaker 1:
But what does it matter? If it’s valid it’s valid. If it’s valid it’s valid, what does your corruption of the heretics matter? It turned out that the law that every Jew has a presumption of validity is not strong enough for the reality when one pushes false witnesses on you.
Novelty: Presumption of Validity Doesn’t Work Against an Organized Group
Speaker 1:
It can be that the thing that all Israel has a presumption of validity doesn’t work when there is an organized group that wants to undermine you with falsehoods. It works when everything is innocent, when everyone is where. This is the excuse why today one should not make the opposite based on this.
But I ask a question, why does it matter to us? We play ourselves out, because it becomes anyway the new month the wrong day, even the wrong day. Simply that they will laugh? They will say that I fooled myself? So? I remember that one sent in to “Der Yid” an article that was wrong. What did he get from this? I fooled myself. Some kind of “gotcha”. Some kind of “gotcha”.
“That They Should Examine and Investigate Their Testimony” – Two Things
Speaker 1:
“That they should examine and investigate their testimony” – we will add two things. First of all, “we don’t know them”, let’s say one doesn’t know him. This is an interesting thing. I haven’t heard at all that one doesn’t know him. But examinations and investigations would seemingly have had to be accepted.
Two things, one doesn’t know him, simply that he’s not a liar? No, before one could have known he found a good way to say everything false. Examinations and investigations is something else, to know… ah, seemingly, one can make sure that he’s not a Sadducee, because if he’s a Sadducee perhaps examinations and investigations wouldn’t help, because he made it so everything would have wanted wanted.
“Ours” and “Theirs” – The Distinction in the Gemara
Speaker 1:
So “misheleinu” (ours), if it’s “misheleinu,” one must make a “kerita derisha” (careful examination) so that there shouldn’t be an error. And first of all, one must know in general that our “misheleinu” existed, because that Gemara actually says “misheleinu mishel lahem” (ours and theirs). Once there is “misheleinu” and “shelo misheleinu” (not ours), you see? “Misheleinu mishel lahem.” So the Gemara that you just saw, the “beit hamashel” (analogy). Ah, so that’s “echad misheleinu ve’echad mishel lahem” (one of ours and one of theirs). Once there is “shelanu” and “shelahem” (ours and theirs), everything is already switched. “Lo lanu” (not ours) is just various things. Okay. Okay.
“She’eirim dorshin vechokrim be’edutam” — The Mechanism of “Sholchin imahem”
Speaker 1:
“Ela me’idim shemakirim beit din otam shehem kesherim veshe’eirim dorshin vechokrim be’edutam” (Rather, they testify that the court knows them to be valid and that others examine and investigate their testimony). I remember I once had an argument. Next door to me lived a distinguished Jew, a distinguished elderly Jew. I once needed a bit of oil on Shabbos, God forbid, we ran out. I went to knock and ask for a bit of oil. Someone says to me, you’re not allowed to ask him for oil? He uses oil. But I won’t understand this, he’s a talmid chacham (Torah scholar), students would come, a great man, if he honors someone with something to eat, everyone understands.
Speaker 2:
Yeshiva?
Speaker 1:
Yes, but once you know that he uses oil that we don’t use, then yes. Well, I say that strong connection is only when everyone is wholehearted in it.
But here we’re talking about testimony, and he brings that essentially with all testimony there are laws that one doesn’t accept. In Hilchos Edus (Laws of Testimony) chapter 11 it says that one doesn’t accept testimony from those who run. And what does “chezkas hakashrus” (presumption of validity) mean? Very good, for a normal person, not an am ha’aretz (ignoramus). What does it say again? “Chezkas hakashrus” means for a person you already know, but it says here “eino makiram” (doesn’t know them).
Rav Chaim Kanievsky’s Question and Answers
Speaker 1:
Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Rav Chaim is his second, Rav Chaim Kanievsky asks the question that here it says that simply all other testimony that’s discussed is fine, but that’s not correct, because it says in any case that even all testimony where one must know that he’s not an am ha’aretz, meaning one must know who is more of a householder.
He says, one answer is it’s rabbinic, and here we’re talking that rabbinically there is indeed such an enactment for all testimony. Or no, there are three levels, there are people, there are amei ha’aretz, and there are amei ha’aretz, and there are amei ha’aretz. An am ha’aretz is indeed disqualified always, even here. An am ha’aretz is disqualified, and even when not an am ha’aretz one still needs to check if he’s reliable.
It’s a bit funny, no. But many times when it says an am ha’aretz in the Gemara, it doesn’t mean just someone who can’t learn. It’s some kind of group, no? Apparently, if am ha’aretz means the same thing as “eino misheleinu” (not one of ours). Tzedokim and Baitusim (Sadducees and Boethusians), or just other groups that weren’t subservient to the Sages. Right, so the Gemara is “eino misheleinu”.
It’s actually a question, many times when a person says “chezkas kashrus” (presumption of validity) is someone who looks like an honest Jew. So what do you know now? Let’s say he has a long beard and peyos? Okay, let’s go back.
The Mechanism: “Sholchin imahem” — When One Doesn’t Know the Witnesses
Speaker 1:
“Lefikach, im lo yad’u beit din es ha’edim” (Therefore, if the court doesn’t know the witnesses) — ah, consequently, since there is this thing that one doesn’t accept testimony in recognition… ah, one knows that in such and such a region they saw the moon, one goes around looking there for another… one relies on others as others, to make in general. The court knows Reuven and Shimon, but Levi and Yehuda saw the testimony, so one sends with Reuven and Shimon, in order to say that they are valid witnesses, and they saw the investigation.
Ah, “velo she’eirim dorshin chokrim be’edutam” (and that others examine and investigate their testimony), “she’eirim dorshin chokrim” goes back to the court, and also they should make the questions and investigations. Very good, they have now seen it. This has nothing to do with the examination, it can’t be from the markers. Since one must have markers, consequently, one doesn’t check.
Ah, he explains, the Beis Yosef brings from Rashi in Rosh Hashanah, why does he mark? I don’t like the citation from below. He wrote, because one said Rashi in Rashi, why can’t one write in Rashi?
Rashi Rosh Hashanah 22 — The Motive of the Baitusim
Speaker 1:
Anyway, Rashi in Rosh Hashanah explained that the Baitusim wanted to distort, because they had, as is known, the Tzedokim Baitusim, perhaps the same thing, as is known they had a craziness that Pesach should be on Shabbos, and one from “mimachras haShabbos” (the day after the Sabbath). Consequently they tried to make the month do such a funny thing, because they hold that… The fact that the witnesses need to try the testimony, and also how it fits in with the other thing of the Baitusim that they didn’t hold from doing differently. As if they didn’t hold from the guarding of the month. They didn’t hold.
They also didn’t hold from intercalating the year, you know?
Speaker 2:
No, yes, don’t know.
Speaker 1:
I learned, nu? Karaites didn’t hold that intercalating the year has something to do with something else. They do make intercalation, but just not… I don’t know with the order. They don’t hold, they learned earlier, they don’t hold from the… the Rambam learned in Sefer HaMitzvos, what they learned. The Karaites don’t hold from the court, they don’t hold from the calculation. The calculation bothers them, because the calculation isn’t written in the Torah. But in any case, the Baitusim here are not, I think, the same Karaites, they’re different people.
The Baitusim bring heresy, and in short, the Baitusim had this thing that it must be the thing of… it came out Shabbos? That’s what Rashi says.
Speaker 2:
You meant that “mimachras haShabbos” meant when they tried to make it fit, as if everything should be the same first. That you meant it was in good faith, whereas I had it so manipulated.
Speaker 1:
I thought it was a funny Rashi. You need to look in Rashi Rosh Hashanah. How does he bring it? Rashi Rosh Hashanah 22. Because one can take a look here. Rosh Hashanah 22. I’m sure someone asks on this Rashi that it’s a funny thing. It’s not a normal way of learning, you know? Because I know myself that it’s funny. I don’t need someone to tell me.