YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA
By Rav Chaim Navon

LECTURE #21: Sanctification of the Months

Act of man rather than a phenomenon of nature

	We shall open our discussion of the mitzva of sanctifying the months with a famous story that contains within it both a startling halakha as well as a number of revolutionary ideas:

Mishna: … And there was another incident in which two [witnesses] came and said: "We saw [the new moon] in its time [the thirtieth of the month]," but the next evening it was not visible. Nevertheless, Rabban Gamliel accepted [their testimony]. 
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: "They are false witnesses! How can witnesses testify that a woman gave birth, and the next day we see that she is still pregnant?" 
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: "I agree with you." 
Rabban Gamliel sent to [Rabbi Yehoshua]: "I order you to appear before me with your stick and your money on the day that is Yom Kippur according to your calculation." 
Rabbi Akiva went and found [Rabbi Yehoshua] in distress. He said to him: "I can prove that whatever Rabban Gamliel did is valid, for the verse says: 'These are the feasts of the Lord, holy gatherings, which you shall proclaim in their seasons' (Vayikra 24:4) – whether at their [correct] times or not at their times, I have no other feasts but these." 
[Rabbi Yehoshua] appeared before Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. [Rabbi Dosa] said to him: "If we call into question [the rulings of] the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must call into question [the rulings of] every court that rose up from the days of Moshe until now, as the verse says: 'Then Moshe went up, and Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel' (Shemot 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not specified? To teach you that any three [judges] that rise up as a court over Israel are like the court of Moshe." 
[Rabbi Yehoshua] took his stick and his money in his hand, and appeared in Yavne before Rabban Gamliel on the day that was Yom Kippur according to his calculation. Rabban Gamliel stood up, kissed him on the head, and said to him: "Come in peace, my master and my disciple; my master in wisdom, and my disciple in that you have accepted what I said."
Gemara: … For it was taught in a Baraita: Rabbi Akiva went and found Rabbi Yehoshua in distress. 
[Rabbi Akiva] said to him: "O master, why are you in distress?" 
He said to him: "Akiva, it would befit him [=me] to become bedridden for twelve months, but not that such a decree be proclaimed against him [=me]" 
[Rabbi Akiva] said to him: "O master, allow me to repeat before you something that you taught me." 
He said to him: "Speak." 
[Rabbi Akiva] said to him: "Surely the verse states: 'You … you … you' – three times; 'you,' even if you err unintentionally, 'you,' even if you deliberately miscalculate, 'you,' even if you are mistaken." 
[Rabbi Yehoshua] responded with these words: "Akiva, you have consoled me, you have consoled me." (Rosh ha-Shana 25a)
 
Many important concepts and ideas are found in this amazing story. We are primarily interested in the halakhic principle embedded here, which itself has a profound conceptual basis. Rabbi Akiva asserts here that the Halakha is in accordance with the Sages of Israel who determine the calendar, even when they err in their calculations, and even when their miscalculations are deliberate! This halakha may best be understood in light of our general approach regarding the creative nature of Halakha: the Sages of Israel strive not to arrive at some heavenly truth, but to develop Halakha in the directions that seem appropriate to them. Accordingly, the law of "You – even if you are mistaken" applies essentially in all areas of Halakha. The Sages of Israel are not bound by some predetermined halakhic truth, but rather they develop Halakha on the basis of existing Halakha. Torah study is not an act of uncovering, but rather a process of creation.

	Why, then, do we need a special halakha regarding the sanctification of the months, when in all realms of Halakha the Sages, rather than striving to uncover some preexisting Divine truth, try to develop Halakha and create new laws to the best of their judgment? Several answers may be proposed to this question: 1) Here Halakha introduces the novel law of "even if you deliberately miscalculate," the likes of which we find nowhere else. 2) Here there is an additional novel element: the Sages of Israel may ignore, not only the Divine truth existing, as it were, in Heaven, but also basic natural phenomena. One might have thought that here we are dealing with an astronomical law, which leaves no room for creativity. Comes the Torah and teaches us that man is raised above naked nature. This immediately brings to mind the famous story of the debate between Rabbi Akiva – the very same Rabbi Akiva – and the wicked Roman governor, Turnusrufus, otherwise known as Tianus Rosefus, regarding the mitzva of circumcision (cited in our lecture about Shabbat). The law governing the sanctification of the months is one more sign of man's supremacy over nature.

	We see here a second ideological principle: Judaism does not view the natural world as intrinsically holy. As we shall see in our lecture on holiness, as a rule, holiness does not exist of itself in nature; man creates it. Nature is morally neutral; it is only man's actions that have spiritual meaning. Chazal dealt at length with this profound and amazing concept:

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: From the time that I created the world, I bore the burden of calculating the months. From now on, it is given over to you. It is given over to you, but you are not given over to it. It once happened to Rabbi Hiyya the Elder that the moon rose on the day before Rosh ha-Shana and the cattle-drivers traveled in its light for a distance of three miles. Rabbi Hiyya saw it, took stones and earth and threw them at it, saying: "It was our intention to declare you as new tomorrow, and you rise now!?" It was immediately swallowed up in its place. Why so? Because it was given over to his control. (Tanchuma, ed. Buber, Bo, no. 8)
This incident involving Rabbi Hiyya is a picturesque illustration of the principle under discussion: man's supremacy over nature. In the realm of Halakha, this supremacy assumes a form that is different from that described here: Halakha does not impact upon nature; it ignores it.[1] The halakhic "month" does not necessarily correspond to the astronomical month. We have already seen that the Jewish Sabbath is distinguished from all the other ancient Near Eastern holidays in that it is entirely detached from the solar and lunar cycles. Now we see that even the month – the most natural cycle – is detached from natural phenomena. While the moon's movements may affect the New Moon, they do not determine it. It is the Sages of Israel that fix the calendar.
	This idea regarding the creative nature of Halakha and its non-subordination to nature also finds expression in another area of law – the laws of blessings and prayers:

Rava said: I found the elders of Pumbedita saying on Shabbat, both in their prayer and in kiddush, "who sanctifies Shabbat," and on the Festivals, both in their prayer and in kiddush, "who sanctifies Israel and the Festivals." … Shabbat which is fixed and established, both in their prayer and in kiddush, "who sanctifies Shabbat"; the Festivals, which Israel fixes by adding days to the months and establishing the years, "who sanctifies Israel and the Festivals." (Pesachim 117)

On Festivals we say "who sanctifies Israel and the Festivals," mentioning the sanctity of Israel before the sanctity of the Festivals. What is the relationship between the fact that it is Israel who fixes the Festivals and the formula "who sanctifies Israel and the Festivals"? There is another talmudic passage which clarifies the meaning of this formula:

"Who sanctifies Israel and the Festivals" – Israel who sanctifies the Festivals. "Who sanctifies Israel and the New Moons" – Israel who sanctifies the New Moons. (Berakhot 49a)
We see then that the formula used in the blessings and the prayers takes this unique law into consideration: it is Israel who determines the times of the Festivals and it is they who sanctify them.
sanctification of the month Based on the testimony of witnesses and based on calculations
	Let us now turn to a second principle governing the mitzva of sanctifying the months. We know that during the time of Chazal the months were sanctified on the basis of the testimony of witnesses who had seen the new moon. Today, however, the months are fixed according to a predetermined calculation. What is the relationship between these two methods of determining the calendar?
The Gemara in Rosh ha-Shana 20a states that there is a mitzva to sanctify the month on the basis of the testimony of witnesses. Therefore, even when everyone knows when the new month will be sanctified, witnesses who see the new moon are permitted to desecrate Shabbat in order to appear before the court, for there is a mitzva to sanctify the month on the basis of an actual sighting (even when this has no practical ramifications). The difference from a human perspective between sanctifying the month on the basis of testimony and sanctifying it on the basis of calculations is clear. First, sanctifying the month on the basis of the testimony of witnesses places greater emphasis on human initiative. Impersonal computations do not suffice; human effort, time and time again, every month anew, is required. Second, from a psychological perspective, there is also a significant difference between the two. Even though sanctifying the month on the basis of testimony is contingent upon witnesses seeing the new moon, which is obviously an astronomical event, it nevertheless gives expression to man's control over nature. If it happens to be foggy on a particular night, or if people decide not to go out on their balconies on account of the cold, the month will not be sanctified, even though astronomically speaking the new moon is clearly visible. Sanctification of the month requires a chain of human actions: sighting, testifying, proclaiming. Sanctifying the month on the basis of testimony also involves a constant dialogue with nature, which is not the case with sanctification based on calculations.[2]

It is true that Rabbenu Sa'adya Ga'on maintained otherwise. According to him, sanctification of the month based upon calculations is preferable. And not only is it preferable, but the months, in fact, had always been sanctified on the basis of such calculations, and not on the basis of witnesses. We cite here from his words as they were explained by Rabbi Yitzchak Yisraeli, a disciple of Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel (Rosh):

Know that Rabbenu Sa'adya Ga'on of blessed memory and others who agreed with him and were drawn to his position said that never – neither when the Temple stood, nor following its destruction – did the court sanctify the New Moon or establish the Festivals for Israel on the basis of the sighting of the new moon. Nor at any time did they ever rely on such a sighting. Rather, from the time that the Torah was given, and all the days of the first and second Temples, and during the period of the dispersion, the New Moons and Festivals were always established on the basis of this calculation which was handed down to us from the ancient authorities, and in accordance with the laws and halakhot that apply today regarding the intercalation of the years … In the early period, the court used the sighting of the moon only in order to make the matter known and to show that it attests to the truth of the calculations handed down to us from them. (Rabbi Yitzchak Yisraeli, Yesod Olam, part 4, chap. 6).
Rabbenu Sa'adya Ga'on's words are very strange and difficult, and they aroused the wonder of both early and more recent authorities. How could a Sage of his rank propose such an idea that contradicts explicit talmudic passages? We have no choice but to adopt the view of Rav Hai Gaon:

That which you cite in the name of Rabbenu Sa'adya Gaon of blessed memory is [merely] a reed with which he pushed aside the heretics. (Rav Hai Ga'on, Otzar ha-Ge'onim, Yom Tov, Responsa, p. 4)

The Karaites refused to accept sanctification of the months based on calculations, arguing that even after the destruction of the Temple, we are required to sanctify the months on the basis of the testimony of witnesses. Rabbenu Sa'adya Ga'on, who vigorously fought the Karaites, resorted to exaggeration when he argued, in the course of his polemics, that sanctifying the month on the basis of calculations is the preferred manner of sanctification by Torah law and also the method that was used even during the Temple period. As stated above, it is the general consensus among early and late authorities that the preferred manner of sanctifying the months is by way of testifying witnesses, and it was only after the High Court was disbanded that we began to sanctify the months on the basis of calculations.

It is not enough, however, to determine which manner of sanctifying the month is preferred over the other. The Rishonim had great difficulty in explaining the validity of sanctifying the months on the basis of calculations. We cite here what Rambam said in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot regarding the mitzva of sanctifying the months, almost in its entirety:

The Blessed One commanded us to sanctify the months and  to calculate the months and the years. This is the mitzva of sanctifying the months. This is what God said: "This month shall be to you the beginning of months" (Shemot 12:2) … But this mitzva can only be performed by the High Court, and only in the land of Israel. For this reason, sanctifying the months on the basis of testimony is suspended today because there is no High Court, just as the offering of sacrifices is suspended because there is no Temple. It is on this matter that the heretics, referred to here in the East as Karaites, have erred. This is also a principle that is not accepted by some of our colleagues among the Rabbinites, who walk with them in darkness. You should know that the calculation that we follow today to know thereby the New Moons and Festivals can only be made in Eretz Israel. When necessary, however, and when there are no Sages in Eretz Israel, it is possible for a court that had been ordained in Eretz Israel to intercalate the years and fix the months outside of Israel, as did Rabbi Akiva, as is explained in the Gemara. But it is very difficult to do this, for it is known that that the High Court was always in Eretz Israel, and it was they who fixed the months and intercalated the years in the accepted manner.
Here lies a very great principle of faith that can only be known and understood by one who has profound understanding. That which today outside of Israel we calculate with the rules of intercalation and declare this day a New Moon and this day a Festival, by no means whatsoever do we establish the day as a Festival on account of our own calculations, but rather because the High Court in Eretz Israel already fixed the day as a New Moon or as a Festival. It is because they said that this day is a New Moon or a Festival that it is a New Moon or a Festival, whether they did so on the basis of calculations or of witnesses. … We make our calculations today only in order to know which day was fixed by them – that is, the people living in Eretz Israel – as the New Moon. For it is with these rules that they today calculate and establish [the New Moons and Festivals], and not on the basis of the testimony of witnesses. We rely on their computations, not on our own calculations; our calculations serve merely to reveal [their computations]. Understand this well.
I will add an explanation for you: Were it possible, for example, that there would be no Jews living in Eretz Israel (far be it from God to do this, for He promised that the remnants of the people would never be entirely uprooted), and there would be no court there, and there would be no court outside of Israel that had been ordained in Israel, our calculations would not help us in any way whatsoever, for outside of Israel we are only authorized to make the computations, intercalate the years, and fix the months, in accordance with the conditions mentioned, as we have explained. "For the Torah will go forth from Zion, and the word of God from Jerusalem." (Rambam, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, positive precept 153)

Rambam's words are both startling and impressive. Rambam argues that the authority to fix the months lies exclusively with the High Court ordained in Eretz Israel. This is true whether the months are sanctified on the basis of the testimony of witnesses or they are sanctified on the basis of calculations. Today we rely on the calculations made by those living in Eretz Israel; if Jewish settlement in Eretz Israel were ever to cease, God forbid, it would be impossible to rely upon our own calculations.

	Several very important concepts are found in this passage. Rambam emphasizes the centrality of Eretz Israel, without which the sanctification of the months is impossible, and ends with the words, "For the Torah will go forth from Zion, and the word of God from Jerusalem." Moreover, Rambam notes in passing that Eretz Israel will never be totally empty of Jews, for God "promised that the remnants of the people would never be entirely uprooted." Rambam seems to be saying that the Jews living in Eretz Israel represent the entire Jewish people! Rambam may be relying on the talmudic passage in Horiyot 3a which states that only the inhabitants of Eretz Israel "are called a congregation." The normal existence of the Jewish people as a nation is only in Eretz Israel, those living there comprising the skeleton of the Jewish people.[3]

Rambam's position, however, is very difficult. Ramban, in his glosses to Rambam's Sefer ha-Mitzvot, sharply criticized Rambam, exposing the difficulties with his opinions: 1) Rambam speaks of the "High Court." The High Court, however, already lost its unique status before the destruction of the Temple, when the Sanhedrin no longer held its sessions in the Lishkat ha-Gazit ("the Chamber of Hewn Stone). Yet we know that it continued to sanctify the months! 2) Even if we say that there is no need for a "High Court" and that an "ordained" court suffices, genuine rabbinic ordination no longer exists; how then do we rely today on our calculations?

Owing to these and other objections, Ramban proposed an alternative position:

But the solution to this great difficulty is that Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi, who established the rules of intercalation, sanctified the months and intercalated the years that should be intercalated according to his calculations, until the time that Eliyahu of blessed memory returns, and we once again sanctify the months on the basis of the testimony of witnesses in the High Court sitting in the great and holy Temple … When that Sage saw in his time that the Festivals would be altogether abolished unless he established his calendar, and he saw that the situation would be entirely corrected through that calculation, not too early and not too late, and that the matter is more agreeable and acceptable to the people when they know that the Festivals are set without distortion or change[4], he sanctified all the months and intercalated all the years according to his calculation in that ordained court and in the chosen land in the proper manner. And I maintain that the formal announcement of the new month is not indispensable, and that the Sages did not establish the declaration of "it is sanctified, it is sanctified" as an absolute requirement. There is merely a mitzva to publicize the matter. But once the court decides that a month is full or defective, I apply to it, "which you shall proclaim" … And according to all this we say that from the time that Rabbi Hillel ha-Nasi and his court agreed upon this calculation and established the months and years for all generations, I apply to them, "These are the feasts of the Lord, holy gatherings, which you shall proclaim in their seasons" (Vayikra 24:4) (Hasagot ha-Ramban le-Sefer ha-Mitzvot, positive precept 153)

Ramban proposes an entirely different solution: Ramban agrees that the validity of sanctifying the months based on calculations must rest upon the authority of an ordained court. He maintains, however, that Rabbi Hillel, who established the calendar that we still follow today, sanctified in advance all future months and Festivals. Rabbi Hillel fulfilled all the necessary requirements: he headed an ordained court and he lived in Eretz Israel. Today we do not sanctify the months, each month in its time; rather, they were all already sanctified in days of old by Rabbi Hillel.

	Ramban was forced to put forward another novel idea: if Hillel's prior sanctification is to work for us, we must assume that the declaration, "it is sanctified, it is sanctified," is not critical, but merely the means by which the court's sanctification was publicized. The Acharonim note[5] that Rambam and Ramban disagree here about a fundamental point: according to Rambam, it is necessary to sanctify the month, that is, to endow it with the sanctity that is expressed in the Musaf offering and the special psalm recited in the Temple. This must be done separately for each New Moon, and on the day of the New Moon itself.

Ramban, on the other hand, maintains that the court does not endow the month with sanctify, but merely determines its dates. The court was invested with the authority, which is very important in itself, to determine when each month begins and ends. But once the court has fixed a certain day as the New Moon, that day becomes sanctified on its own. This is why, according to Ramban, Hillel could determine the months in advance: since there is no need to sanctify the month, but only to determine the date on which the month begins, that could be done in advance. Rambam was unable to accept Ramban's proposal, because he maintains that actual sanctification is required.

Needless to say, this controversy has great conceptual significance. The right to fix the calendar reflects wide authority, but the ability to bestow sanctity is an even more extended human authority, which widens the bounds of human autonomy and strengthens it. According to Rambam, man is not merely indirectly responsible for determining sanctified objects and times, but rather he himself creates the sanctity by way of his actions that are directed to God.

In addition to this reservation, which assumes a certain position regarding the bounds of man's role in the sanctification of the months, other criticisms have been raised against Ramban's viewpoint. It has been noted, for example, that over the course of the generations, changes have been introduced into the calendar[6]. If so, it cannot be said that we rely on the ancient calculations of Rabbi Hillel, and that it was he who sanctified the months and festivals for us, for his calculations have undergone several revisions.[7]

The Acharonim have suggested various ways to reconcile the position of Rambam. The solution proposed by, among others, Rabbi Meir Simcha ha-Kohen of Dvinsk, author of Meshekh Chokhma, is widely accepted:

The reason that when there is no ordained court the matter depends exclusively on those living in Eretz Israel is as follows: Rambam's opinion in his commentary to the Mishna and in his code [Mishne Torah] is that if the people of Israel living in Eretz Israel wish to ordain Rabbis, they are ordained. Hence, for the sanctification of the months, the calculations of the people living in Eretz Israel suffice. For we see regarding the law of ordination, that the general collective is authorized to ordain Rabbis as is an ordained court. And this is correct with Heaven's help. (Meshekh Chokhma, Shemot 12:1)

Rabbi Meir Simcha argues that according to Rambam, since the Jewish people living in Eretz Israel have the authority to ordain Rabbis, they are regarded as an ordained court. Hence, the calculations made today by those living in Eretz Israel  is what sanctifies the months and the Festivals, similar to the calculations of an ordained court in Eretz Israel. This too reflects a profound conceptual principle: the Jewish people living in Eretz Israel have the same status as an ordained court.

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik proposed a slightly different solution. He relies on Rambam's formulation in his Mishne Torah, which is slightly different from his formulation in Sefer ha-Mitzvot:

When did all of Israel begin to use this calculation – at the end of [the period of] the talmudic Sages, when Eretz Israel lay desolate, and there was no fixed court. But during the days of the Sages of the Mishna, and also during the days of the Sages of the Gemara until the days of Abaye and Rava, they relied on the determination of Eretz Israel. (Rambam, Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Chodesh 5:3)

That which today we make calculations, each person in his city, and proclaim that the New Moon is on this day and the Festival is on that day – we don not fix [the times] on the basis of our calculations, nor do we rely upon them, for the years are not intercalated nor are the months fixed outside of Israel. We rely only upon the calculations of the people living in Eretz Israel and upon their determinations. That which we make calculations is only to reveal the matter. Since we know that they rely upon this calculation, we make calculations in order to know which day was fixed by the people living in Eretz Israel. But it is because of the calculations made by those living in Eretz Israel that a certain day is the New Moon or a Festival, and not because of our calculations. (Rambam, Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Chodesh 5:13)

Rabbi Soloveitchik argues that according to Rambam the High Court sanctifies the months not by virtue of its role as the center of study and ruling, but by virtue of the fact that it represents the people of Israel.  Rabbi Soloveitchik solution regarding Rambam's position is the very opposite of that of the Meshekh Chokhma: the MeShekh Chokhma argues that the Jewish people assume the role of the court; Rabbi Soloveitchik claims that even when the court was operative, it functioned as the representative of the Jewish people. Thus, they continued to sanctify the months on the basis of the testimony of witnesses even after the Sanhedrin moved from its place in the Lishkat ha-Gazit, and even after it stopped functioning altogether. As long as there was a fixed court in Eretz Israel it represented the Jewish people, even after it ceased functioning as a High Court regarding other matters. Rabbi Soloveitchik relies here on a precise reading of Rambam, who uses the unusual phrase, "fixed court," instead of the usual expression, "High Court."

According to Rabbi Soloveitchik, we also understand why when there is no fixed court in Eretz Israel, we rely on the Jewish people living there. Even when there is a court, its authority regarding the sanctification of the months flows from the Jewish people. When there is no ordained court, the authority returns to those who originally held it. The only change is that now we sanctify the months on the basis of calculations, and not on the basis of the testimony of witnesses. (Rabbi Soloveitchik's explanation fits what Rambam writes in his Mishne Torah better than what he writes in his Sefer ha-Mitzvot, which implies that even today a court is required. There we may be forced to accept the explanation of the Meshekh Chokhma).

Rabbi Soloveitchik adds that the Jewish people living in Eretz Israel do not sanctify the months and the Festivals by way of calculations or formal proclamations, but by their very observance of the sanctity of the Festivals on particular days. Proper Jewish life according to the calendar sanctifies the Festivals included in that calendar. Sanctification is not an exceptional activity, breaking the bounds of normal life. The very observance of normal Jewish life sanctifies the cycle of the year for those living in Eretz Israel as well as for those living outside of Israel who are dependent upon them.

The essence of Rabbi Soloveitchik's explanation, however, depends upon his fundamental understanding that the High Court functions with respect to the sanctification of the months merely as the representative of the Jewish people. What is the basis of this novel idea? Rabbi Soloveitchik proves first that the High Court functions as the representative of the Jewish people in other cases. He compares two laws brought by Rambam:

Eretz Israel mentioned everywhere consists of the lands captured by a king of Israel or by a prophet with the consent of a majority of Israel. This is called "communal conquest." (Rambam, Hilkhot Terumot 1:2)

All the lands that Israel conquers with a king in accordance with a court are considered "communal conquest." It is treated like the Eretz Israel conquered by Yehoshua for all purposes. (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:6)

Why does Rambam change his wording, first writing "with the consent of a majority of Israel," and later "in accordance with a court"? Rabbi Soloveitchik infers from here that the court's consent is necessary because the court represents the majority of Israel. This is also what Rambam means in Hilkhot  Terumot, as he explains in the continuation of those halakhot. How do we know that here too the court functions as a representative of the Jewish people? And how do we know that the Jewish people has any standing with regard to determing the Festivals? Rabbi Soloveitchik adduces various proofs, only one of which we shall cite here:

The year is only intercalated and communal needs are only met on condition, so that the majority of the community will accept it. (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 2:13)

Rabbi Soloveitchik asks: We know that acceptance by the community is a factor in rabbinic enactments and prohibitions, but why should it be necessary for intercalating the year? We learn from here that regarding intercalation of the year – and it stands to reason that regarding sanctification of the months as well – the court functions merely as representatives of the Jewish people. Without their agreement, therefore, the court's actions are invalid.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Similar incidents are reported in various places in rabbinic literature; see, for example, Talmud Yerushalmi, Nedarim 6:8. 

[2] Owing to these fundamental differences between sanctifying the months on the basis of the testimony of witnesses and sanctifying them on the basis of calculations, Yehuda Etzion has argued in favor of renewing sanctification of the months on the basis of the testimony of witnesses. See his article, "Kaze Re'e ve-Chadesh," Alon Shevut Bogrim, 2. Sanctifying the months on the basis of the testimony of witnesses would certainly raise great difficulties: it would be impossible, for example, to schedule events on the basis of the Jewish calendar, for the dates would not be fixed until the beginning of the month.

[3] Rabbi Soloveitchik had difficulty explaining the central role assigned by Rambam to Eretz Israel on calendar issues. He notes that with respect to the famous controversy that arose in the tenth century between the Babylonian Geonim headed by Rabbenu Sa'adya Gaon and the Geonim of Eretz Israel headed by Rabbi Ben-Meir, we have accepted the view of the Babylonian Geonim ("Shi'urim le-Zekher Abba Mari," I, p. 130).

[4] Ramban raises the point mentioned above (note 2), that it is easier to work with a fixed and stable calendar.

[5] See Rabbi Betzalel Zolti, Responsa Mishnat Ya'avetz, Mo'adim, no. 1, and Yore De'a, no. 25.
 
[6] For proofs, see R. Sar Shalom, "She'arim le'Lu'ach ha-Ivri."

[7] Y. Etzion, ibid.

(Translated by Rav David Strauss)