Ojciec i jego syn, którzy widzieli księżyc w nowiu, powinni iść (zeznawać). Nie to, że mogą się łączyć (jako świadkowie) ze sobą, ale tak, że jeśli jeden z nich zostanie unieważniony, drugi może połączyć się z innym. R. Szimon mówi: Ojciec i jego syn oraz wszyscy krewni są kaserami za świadczenie o (pojawieniu się) nowiu [L-rd powiedział Mojżeszowi i Aaronowi (Wj 12: 2): "Ten miesiąc ma ty itd. ”, to znaczy, to świadectwo (pojawienia się) nowiu jest przez was kasher, nawet jeśli jesteście braćmi. A rabini, którzy się różnią, mówią: „To świadectwo jest dla ciebie itd.”, Tj., To świadectwo jest zdegradowane do ciebie, do wielkich pokoleń, takich jak ty. Halacha nie jest zgodna z R. Szimonem.] R. Yossi powiedział: Pewnego razu Tuvia lekarz zobaczył nów w Jerozolimie— on i jego syn, i jego uwolniony niewolnik —a Cohanim przyjął go i jego syna i unieważnił jego sługę; a kiedy przybyli przed bet-din, przyjęli go i jego niewolnika i unieważnili jego syna.
Bartenura on Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
אב ובנו וכל הקרובים כשרים לעדות החדש – For the All-Merciful One said to Moses and Aaron (Exodus 12:2): “This month shall mark for you [the beginning of the months; it shall be the first of the months of the year for you],” this testimony of the [New] Moon will be valid through you, and even though you are brothers. But the Rabbis who dispute this state: “This month shall mark for you” – this testimony is transmitted to you, to the great ones of the generation like yourselves. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
Introduction
This mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon. In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses. However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together. However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person. In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon. According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son. Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave. The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify. The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah. First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative. Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it. This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage.
