Sanhedrin 42a

וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לְהוּ: הָא לְמִיהְוֵי כִּי יִתְרָא, הָא לְמִיהְוֵי כִּי נָפְיָא.

The Gemara comments: And they both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that one can recite the blessing until the flaw of the moon is filled. The dispute is that this one, i.e., Rav Ya’akov bar Idi, who holds one can recite the blessing until seven days have passed, understands Rabbi Yoḥanan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like the string of a bow. Before that point the moon appeared merely as a bow, and after seven days it appears like a half-circle, like a bow that has a string. That one, i.e., the Sages of Neharde’a, who holds one can recite the blessing until sixteen days have passed, understands Rabbi Yoḥanan to be referring to the day when the moon will be like a sieve, i.e., a full circle.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְלִיבָרֵיךְ ״הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ כִּי חָסַר מִי מְבָרְכִינַן ״דַּיַּין הָאֱמֶת״, דִּלְבָרֵיךְ ״הַטּוֹב וְהַמֵּטִיב״? וְלִיבָרְכִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּהַיְינוּ אוֹרְחֵיהּ, לָא מְבָרְכִינַן.

§ Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: And they should bless the blessing of: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, for the benefit that people derive from the light of moon. Ravina said to him: Is that to say that when the moon is shrinking we bless, as we do for other disasters: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, the true Judge, so that we should conversely bless: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is growing? Rav Aḥa of Difti said to him: You are correct, and we should say them both: The blessing of the true Judge, when the moon is waning, and the blessing of Who is good and Who does good, when the moon is waxing. Ravina answered him: Since this is its nature, we do not bless the moon. The waxing and waning of the moon is not an unexpected occurrence that requires these blessings.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְבָרֵךְ עַל הַחֹדֶשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ כְּאִילּוּ מְקַבֵּל פְּנֵי שְׁכִינָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אִילְמָלֵא לֹא זָכוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם כָּל חֹדֶשׁ וָחֹדֶשׁ, דַּיָּים. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ נֵימְרִינְהוּ מְעוּמָּד.

And Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to anyone who blesses the new month in its proper time, it is as if he greets the Face of the Divine Presence. Alluding to this, it is written here concerning the sanctification of the new month: “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2), and it is written there, where the Jewish people encountered the Divine Presence at the splitting of the sea: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Exodus 15:2). The term “this” is employed in both verses. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: If the Jewish people merited to greet the Face of their Father in Heaven only one time each and every month, it would suffice for them, since in the blessing of the moon there is an aspect of greeting the Divine Presence. Abaye said: Therefore, we will say the blessing while standing, in honor of the Divine Presence.

מָרִימָר וּמָר זוּטְרָא מְכַתְּפִי אַהֲדָדֵי וּמְבָרְכִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמַעְרְבָא מְבָרְכִי ״בָּרוּךְ מְחַדֵּשׁ חֳדָשִׁים״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי נְשֵׁי דִּידַן נָמֵי מְבָרְכִי.

The Gemara relates: Mareimar and Mar Zutra would lean on one another’s shoulders and recite the blessing. Rav Aḥa said to Rav Ashi: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they recite the following blessing on the moon: Blessed is He Who renews the months. Rav Ashi said to him: Our women also recite that blessing, meaning that this is an abridged version for the unlettered.

אֶלָּא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״בָּרוּךְ [וְכוּ׳] אֲשֶׁר בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ בָּרָא שְׁחָקֵים, וּבְרוּחַ פִּיו כׇּל צְבָאָם. חֹק וּזְמַן נָתַן לָהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנּוּ אֶת תַּפְקִידָם, שָׂשִׂים וּשְׂמֵחִים לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנָם. פּוֹעֲלֵי אֱמֶת שֶׁפְּעוּלָּתָן אֱמֶת. וְלַלְּבָנָה אָמַר שֶׁתִּתְחַדֵּשׁ עֲטֶרֶת תִּפְאֶרֶת לַעֲמוּסֵי בָטֶן, שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לְהִתְחַדֵּשׁ כְּמוֹתָהּ וּלְפָאֵר לְיוֹצְרָם עַל שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ. בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ מְחַדֵּשׁ חֳדָשִׁים״.

Rather, the full version of the blessing is the version of Rav Yehuda. As Rav Yehuda says: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who by His word created the heavens, and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts. He set for them a law and a time, that they should not deviate from their task. And they are joyous and glad to perform the will of their Owner; they are workers of truth whose work is truth. And to the moon He said that it should renew itself as a crown of beauty for those He carried from the womb, as they are destined to be renewed like it, and to praise their Creator for the name of His glorious kingdom. Blessed are You the Lord, Who renews the months.

כִּי בְתַחְבֻּלוֹת תַּעֲשֶׂה לְּךָ מִלְחָמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּמִי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא מִלְחַמְתָּהּ שֶׁל תּוֹרָה? בְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ חֲבִילוֹת שֶׁל מִשְׁנָה. קָרֵי רַב יוֹסֵף אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ: ״וְרׇב תְּבוּאוֹת בְּכֹחַ שׁוֹר״.

The Gemara presents another statement, citing Rabbi Aḥa, citing Rabbi Asi, citing Rabbi Yoḥanan. The verse states: “For by wise advice you shall make your war” (Proverbs 24:6). Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In whom do you find the war, i.e., the ability to engage in disputes, of Torah? In one who has in his possession bundles, i.e., vast knowledge, of Mishna. One must first learn the primary sources before engaging in disputes of Torah. Rav Yosef would read concerning himself the verse: “And much produce comes by the strength of the ox” (Proverbs 14:4), i.e., one with great strength can bring a large yield. Rav Yosef was known to be particularly well-versed in tannaitic statements.

אֶחָד אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁעוֹת כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שָׁעוֹת, אֲבָל אֶחָד אוֹמֵר קוֹדֶם הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר לְאַחַר הָנֵץ הַחַמָּה – עֵדוּתָן בְּטֵילָה.

§ The mishna teaches that if one witness says that the event occurred at two hours, i.e., the second hour of the day from sunrise, and one witness says that the event occurred at three hours, their testimony stands. Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: This was taught only when there was a difference in the hours, but if one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred after the sunrise, their testimony is void. Although this may be a smaller discrepancy in terms of time, the difference between before and after sunrise cannot be ascribed to an error.

פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא: אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״קוֹדֶם הָנֵץ״, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״בְּתוֹךְ הָנֵץ״. הָא נָמֵי פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָא בְּגִילּוּיָא קָאֵי, וְזַהֲרוּרֵי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דַּחֲזָא – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? There is a clear difference between darkness and light. Rather, Rav Shimi bar Ashi said as follows: If one witness says that the event occurred before the sunrise, and one says that the event occurred during the sunrise, their testimony is void. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that this one who says: During the sunrise, was standing in an exposed place and saw a mere shine and thought he saw the sunrise, Rav Shimi bar Ashi teaches us the court does not assume this occurred, and deems the testimony incongruent.

וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין כּוּ׳. אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם וְתוּ לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – לֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, וְאִם אֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – אֵין יוֹרֵד כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא עֲלִיָּיתוֹ יְרִידָה לוֹ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תַּרְגּוּמַהּ אַאִם אֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו.

§ The mishna teaches: And afterward they bring in the second witness and examine him. Later, the mishna states: But if one of the students said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, they raise him to the seat of the court and seat him among them, and he would not descend from there all day. The Gemara asks: That day and no more? But isn’t it taught in a baraita ( Tosefta 9:3): If the statement of that student has substance he would never descend from there, as his statement demonstrates that he is capable of deliberating with the other judges. But if the statement of that student does not have substance, he would not descend from there the entire day, in order that his ascent should not be a descent for him, i.e., to avoid humiliating him. Abaye said: Interpret the mishna to be with regard to a case when the statement of that student does not have substance.

מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת כּוּ׳. יַיִן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וּלְרוֹזְנִים אֵי שֵׁכָר״ – הָעוֹסְקִין בְּרָזוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם אַל יִשְׁתַּכְּרוּ.

The mishna teaches that if the court found it fit to acquit the defendant during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they excuse him. The mishna further teaches that the judges would not drink wine all day. The Gemara asks: What is the reason they did not drink wine? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that it is because the verse states: “It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes [ rozenim ] to say: Where is strong drink” (Proverbs 31:4). Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina explains: This is a directive to those who deal with the secret of the world [ berazo shel olam ], i.e., such stringent matters: Do not become drunk.

מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת כּוּ׳. לֹא רָאוּ, מַאי?

§ The mishna teaches: If the court found it fit to acquit him during the deliberations, as all or a majority of them agree to acquit him, they release him. It was further taught in the mishna that when the court cannot arrive at a verdict they add judges in pairs of two and deliberate until there is a clear verdict. If they added the maximum number of judges and still cannot reach a clear verdict, they discuss the matter until one of those who deems him liable sees the validity of the statements of those who acquit, and changes his position. The Gemara asks: If the judges do not change their position, as they do not see the validity of the position of those who acquit him, what is done?

אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא: פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְלִיפְטְרֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא! אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ מִבֵּית דִּין מְעוּרְבָּבִין.

Rabbi Aḥa says: They release him, as he was not found liable. And likewise Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They release him. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But if they ultimately release him if the court is deadlocked, why do they attempt to convince each other at all when they should release him from the outset? Abaye said to him: This is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The reason is so that they not leave the court confounded, without reaching some definite conclusion, as this would tarnish the reputation of the court.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, וּלְמָה לִי יוֹסִיפוּ? לִיפְטְרֵיהּ מִבֵּי דִּינָא קַמָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָאֵי כְּוָותָךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, כָּךְ אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה.

Some say that this is what Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But why do I need them to add judges at all when they should release him from the first court? Once the first court did not find him liable, they should release him. Why add judges? Abaye said to him: Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with your opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Just as the court does not add judges to a court of seventy-one, so too, the court does not add judges to a court of twenty-three. If the court of twenty-three cannot arrive at a verdict, they release him.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹמֵר בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״, וְאֵין אוֹמֵר בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״.

The Sages taught: In cases of monetary law one says: The judgment has grown aged, i.e., this matter is very difficult and requires scrutiny, but in cases of capital law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged.

מַאי ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״? אִילֵּימָא קַשׁ דִּינָא, אִיפְּכָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר מָנוֹחַ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: אֵיפוֹךְ. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ, וּמַאי ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״ – חֲכַם דִּינָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? If we say that the intention is: The judgment has aged, i.e., taken an extended amount of time but requires additional deliberations, if so, he should say the reverse, as it is more critical to extend deliberations in cases of capital law than in cases of monetary law. Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ said in the name of Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: Reverse the statement, and say that in cases of monetary law one does not say: The judgment has grown aged, but in cases of capital law one does say it. Rav Ashi said: Actually, do not reverse it. And what is the meaning of: The judgment has grown aged? It means that the judgment has grown wise, like an elder who has acquired wisdom. In other words, the deliberations have been exhausted, and it is time to vote on a verdict.

מֵיתִיבִי: גָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּינִין אוֹמֵר ״נִזְדַּקֵּן הַדִּין״. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲכַם דִּינָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר גָּדוֹל. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ קַשׁ דִּינָא, לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא אָמַר גָּדוֹל? כַּסּוֹפֵי הוּא דְּקָא מְיכַסֵּיף נַפְשֵׁיהּ?

The Gemara raises an objection to the first explanation from a baraita : In a situation where they did not reach a decision, the greatest among the judges says: The judgment has grown aged. The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, this would be why the baraita states that the greatest judge says this statement, as arriving at a verdict is an honor for the court, and consequently the greatest of the court should be the one to announce it. But if you say this means: The judgment has aged, is it not enough that the greatest among the judges in particular not say so? Must he humiliate himself by stating that they cannot reach a verdict?

אִין. אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵעַצְמוֹ, לְמִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאֲחֵרִים.

The Gemara answers: Yes, the greatest of the judges must also announce that the court cannot reach a verdict. Being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. Therefore, it is preferable that the greatest of the judges state this conclusion, rather than having one of the more junior judges state it.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קַשׁ דִּינָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה מִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵעַצְמוֹ לְמִתְבַּיֵּישׁ מֵאֲחֵרִים. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ חֲכַם דִּינָא, גָּדוֹל אַשְׁבּוֹחֵי מַשְׁבַּח נַפְשֵׁיהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״יְהַלֶּלְךָ זָר וְלֹא פִיךָ״!

Some say they raised an objection to the second explanation: Granted, if you say this means: The judgment has aged, this would be the reason that the greatest one states it, because being shamed by oneself is not comparable to being shamed by others. But if you say this means: The judgment has grown wise, should the greatest judge praise himself? But isn’t it written: “Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth, a stranger and not your own lips” (Proverbs 27:2)?

שָׁאנֵי מִילְּתָא דְּבֵי דִינָא, דְּאַגָּדוֹל רַמְיָא. כְּדִתְנַן: גָּמְרוּ אֶת הַדָּבָר, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן. גָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּינִין אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה זַכַּאי״, ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אַתָּה חַיָּיב״.

The Gemara answers: A matter of the court is different, as its administration is incumbent upon the greatest judge. As we learned in a mishna (29a): When they finished deliberating the matter, they would bring in the litigants. The greatest of the judges would say: So-and-so, you are exempt from paying; or: So-and-so, you are liable to pay.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָיךְ הָיוּ בּוֹדְקִין