Introduction
NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that in the history of every
nation, especially such as has ever attained to an established form
of government, the calendar is a matter of great importance, the Scriptures
do not in any manner treat of the Jewish calendar. There cannot even
be found a fixed time whence the commencement of the year should be
reckoned, although there is this passage in Exodus (xii. 2): "This
month shall be unto you the chief of months: the first shall it be unto
you of the months of the year." Doubtless this may be assumed to
point to the month of Nissan (about April), as not only the most important
month, but also as the beginning of the year.
In another passage (Exod. xxiii. 16), however, we find it written:
"And the feast of ingathering (Tabernacles), at the conclusion
of the year." This would be a palpable contradiction to the previous
passage, were it not for the fact that the words "Betze'th Hashana"
(rendered as "at the conclusion of the year") in the quoted
passage can be, with perfect accuracy, translated "during the year."
While such a translation would clear away all doubt as to Nissan being
the beginning of the year, it could under no circumstances be applied
to the Feast of Tabernacles, which is neither "at the conclusion"
of the year nor "during the year" (in the sense "when
the year has advanced"), if the beginning of the year be Tishri
(about September). Hence the passage should be translated: "And
the feast of the ingathering, which had been completed at the conclusion
of the year"; i.e., in the months preceding the month of Tishri.
In the face of these contradictory terms, we must revert to historical
facts which would support one or the other of the above assertions,
and we find, that not only the Egyptian rulers, but also the Jewish
kings since the time of Solomon, counted the beginning of the year of
their accession from the month of Nissan, while other Eastern potentates,
such as the Armenian and Chaldean kings, counted the commencement of
their year of accession from Tishri.
It is not certain whether the Israelites, after their conquest of Canaan,
computed their calendar in conformity with that of the country whence
they came or with that of the country they had conquered; but it is
plain that in the Mishnaic period, or after the erection of the second
Temple, they counted the beginning of the year from Tishri. It may be,
however, that their kings, following the example of their predecessors,
commenced counting the year of their accession from Nissan, and in all
civil contracts and state documents, according to the existing custom,
used dates to agree with Nissan as the first month of the year.
On the other hand, the priestly tithes, during the days of the erection
of the second Temple, were payable in Elul (about August), which was
considered the expiring season of the year, in order to prevent the
confusion which might arise from mixing one year's tithes with those
of the other. The priestly tithing of fruits was, however, delayed until
Shebhat (about February), the time when the fruits had already matured
on the trees, in order that the various tithes should not be confused
and to prevent the priests and Levites from unduly interfering with
the affairs of the people.
The prehistoric Mishna, which always formed the law, in conformity
with the existing custom, and not vice versa, 1 found four different
New Year's days in four different months, and, with the object in view
of making the custom uniform in all Jewish communities, taught its adherents
to observe four distinct New Year's days, at the beginning of the four
respective months in which certain duties were accomplished. Thus the
text of the opening Mishna of this tract, prior to its revision by Rabbi
Jehudah Hanassi, read as follows: "There are four different New
Year's days; viz., the first day of Nissan, the first of Elul, the first
of Tishri, and the first of Shebbat." The different purposes for
which these days were established as New Year's days were well known
at that time, and it was therefore deemed unnecessary to specify them.
At the time of the new edition of the Mishna, by Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi
(the Prince), when the Temple was out of existence, and consequently
tithes were no more biblically obligatory (the authority of the priests
having been abrogated and reverted to the house of David, the great-grand
father of the editor), the latter referring to the first day of Nissan
and the first day of Elul as New Year's days, added, by way of commentary,
the words, "for kings and cattle-tithe."
He also cited the opinions of R. Eliezer and R. Simeon, that the New
Year's Day for cattle-tithe should not be celebrated separately, but
on the general New Year's Day; viz., on the first day of Tishri, as
under the then existing circumstances there was no necessity to guard
against the confusion of tithes accruing from one year to the other.
From this it may be concluded that R. Jehudah Hanassi, in citing the
above opinions, alluded to them as being in conformity with his own
opinion. To that end he also cites the opinions of the schools of Shamai
and Hillel respectively.
From the statement in the Mishna to the effect that "there are
four periods in each year on which the world is judged," it appears
that in the Mishnaic period the New Year's day was considered a day
of repentance; and since the principal features of repentance arc devotion
to God and prayers for forgiveness of sin, Rabbi states, in the Mishna,
that devotion is the only requirement during the days of penitence,
i.e., the days between New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement. The
legend relating that on the New Year's day books (recording the future
of each person) were opened was yet unknown in Rabbi's time.
The story told by R. Kruspedai in the name of R. Johanan, that "on
New Year's Day books are opened," etc., is taken from the Boraitha
which teaches: "Three books arc opened on the day of judgment."
This Boraitha, however, does not refer to the New Year's day, but to
the day of final resurrection, as explained by Rashi, and that R. Kruspedai
quotes his story in the name of R. Johanan proves nothing; for in many
instances where teachers were desirous of adding weight to their opinions,
they would quote some great teacher as their authority. R. Johanan himself
permitted this method.
After Rabbi Jehudah Hanassi had completed the proper Mishnaic arrangement
regarding the number of New Year's days, making the principal one "the
Day of Memorial" (the first of Tishri); after treating upon the
laws governing the sounding of the cornet in an exceedingly brief manner-he
dwells upon the custom in vogue at the Temple of covering the mouth
of the cornet or horn with gold, and declares the duty of sounding the
cornet properly discharged if a person passing by the house of worship
can hear it.
He arranges the prayers accompanying this ceremony in a, few words,
and then dilates at great length upon the Mishnayoth treating of the
lunar movements by which alone the Jews were guided in the arrangement
of their calendar, upon the manner of receiving the testimony of witnesses,
concerning the lunar movements, and upon the phases of the moon as used
by Rabban Gamaliel. He then elaborates upon the tradition handed down
to him from his ancestors (meaning thereby the undisputably correct
regulations), and also upon the statutes ordained by R. Johanan ben
Zakkai, enacting that the sages of each generation are the sole arbiters
of all regulations and ordinances, and may. themselves promulgate decrees
even though the bases for such be not found in the Mosaic code.
He also confirms the right of the chief Beth Din (supreme court of
law), but not of a lower Beth Din, of each respective period, alone
to arrange the order of the holidays, on account of the already apparent
discontent of the masses, who were bent upon taking the management of
these subjects into their own hands.
Thus he dilates upon this feature with the minutest exactness and supports
his assertions with the decision of his grandfather Rabban Gamaliel,
as well as with the decisions of Rabbi Dosa ben Harkhinas and Rabbi
Jehoshua, to the effect that each generation has only to look for guidance
to the Beth Din existing in its own time, and that the opinion rendered
by such a Beth Din is as binding and decisive as that of Moses, even
though it appear to be erroneous.
Such are the contents of this tract, certainly most important from
an historical and archæological point of view. Proceed, then,
and study!
Sources: Biblical
Texts |