Orach Chayim Way of Life - Jewish Life - Torah Insights - Current Events

Machar Chodesh
Parashat Toledot

20:18 Vayomer lo Yehonatan machar chodesh venifkadetaki yipaked moshavecha
Yehonatan said to him, "Tomorrow is the New Moon, and you will be missed because your seat will be empty."

Yonatan returned to the plan which he and David were discussing.  He reviewed the details which had already been spelled out, and reassured David that he would reveal everything he discovered.  Yonatan also proposed how exactly this should be done, which is what David asked before they went out to the field to speak in private (v20:11).

19 Veshilashta teired me'od uvata el-hamakom asher-nistarta sham beyom hama'aseh veyashavta etzel ha'even ha'azel"On the third day you will be missed even more. Then go to  the place where you hid on the day of the deed, and stay near the marker stone."

The opening words of the verse, veshilashta teired me'od, has been translated according to rendition of Yonatan ben Uziel.  The word teired, which usually means "go down," is thus explained as "missed even more."  If Shaul had not been intending to harm David, then David's absence would not arouse in Shaul any more than a bit of annoyance.  But if Shaul had been ready to kill David, then after two days of David's not appearing before the king, he would be sorely missed.  He would "go down" even further in Shaul's estimation, and Shaul would certainly see in David's fleeing yet another pretext for putting him to death.

An alternative interpretation of the verse is that one the third day David was to teired me'od ("go down far") into the field where he had been hiding the first time he and Yonatan attempted to determine Shaul's intentions (v19:3).  He was to descend farther into the valley, to the hidden spot where Yonatan met him then.m

Yet another reading of these words suggests veshilashta does not mean "on the third day," but that Yonatan was telling David to "mark one, twice and thrice" the spot where he was to hide.  This way there would be no misunderstanding between them.  The word is similarly used in Devarim (19:3) where the Benei Yisrael are told to mark the borders of the land into three parts.

The words beyom hama'aseh, here translated as "on the day of the deed," can also be rendered, "on the day of doing."  As opposed to this occasion, which was Rosh Chodesh - a day on which they did not engage in their usual work - the first time David hid in this filed was a weekday, a "day of doing" and action.

Or alternatively, the yom hama'aseh to which Yonatan referred was as opposed to the day on which they spoke, which was Shabbat.  Hence, this chapter is read as the haftorah whenever the day before Rosh Chodesh falls on Shabbat.

The "marker stone" is explained as having been either a gathering place, or a guidepost for travelers, or a target at which arrows were shot.

20 Va'ani shloshet hachitzim tzidah oreh leshalach-li lematarah
"I will shoot three arrows on the side of it, as if I shot at a target."

By suggesting the shooting of arrows as a sign between them, Yonatan was adding to the plan which David had originally outlined (20:5-7).  The three arrows were symbolic of the three days which David would hide.

Yonatan devised this scheme of seemingly shooting at the marker stone - or as some suggest, to the side of it - so that his servant, whom he would send to fetch the arrows, would suspect nothing.

21 Vehineh eshlach et-hana'ar lech metza et-hachitzim im-amor omar lana'ar hineh hachitzim mimecha vahenah kachenu vavo'ah ki-shalom lecha ve'ein davar chai-HASHEM"Behold, I will send the youth, saying, 'Go find the arrows.'  If I repeatedly say to the youth, 'Behold, the arrows are on this side of you,' take it and come, for peace is to you and the matter is naught; as HASHEM lives."

It was customary for nobility to engage in this sport of shooting arrows at some distant target, and then having their servants fetch them.  Sometimes, the servant would stop before reaching the spot where the arrow landed and his master had to instruct him to keep going.  Other times, the servant would pass by the spot and he would have be called back.

Here, Scripture relates the first part of the sign:  If Yonatan would tell his servant that he had gone too far, that the arrows lay in a place he had already passed over, David would understand that Yonatan had determined it was safe for him to return.

If that were the case, David was to "take it and come."  The commentators offer a number of possibilities for what "it" is.  Either David was to take the arrow or he was to take the sign, and return.  Another suggestion is that Yonatan wanted David to "take him," the servant, and come.

22 Ve'im-koh omar la'elem hineh hachitzim mimecha vahal'ah lech ki shilachacha HASHEMBut if I say this to the young man: 'Behold, the arrows are beyond you!' then go, for [this is a signal that] HASHEM has sent you away.
23 Vehadavar asher dibarnu ani va'atah hineh HASHEM beini uveinecha ad-olamBut this matter of which you and I spoke, behold, HASHEM remains [witness] between me and you forever."

There are those who explain that if Yonatan called to the servant, saying, "The arrows are on this side of you," it would mean that even though Shaul was angry, his anger was on this side - i.e., under his control.  In other words, there was no threat to David's life.  Not so if he said, "The arrows are farther on than you."  This would mean that his anger had gone further than it should have - i.e., out of Shaul's control.  In that case, David would understand that he was being sent away.

Yonatan understood that should he have to call the servant back to look in a place he had already passed, it would require some coaxing.  He therefore said, "If I repeatedly say to the youth."  But if he should have to send him farther on, the servant would readily comply.   Therefore, here, he said, "If I say this to the young man."

In the previous verse, Yonatan referred to the servant as the na'ar ("youth").  Here, he called him the elem ("young man"), a designation used in only one other instance in Scripture (v17:56).   The word is related to ne'elam, which means hidden and unknown.  Thus it might be that Yonatan employed this term here to indicate that should there be real danger, David was to remain "hidden" from Shaul, and this should be "unknown" even to the servant.

24 Vayisater David basadeh vayehi hachodesh vayeshev hamelech el-halechem le'echolDavid concealed himself in the field. It was the New Moon and the king sat at the meal to eat.
25 Vayeshev hamelech al-moshavo kefa'am befa'am el-moshav hakir vayakom Yehonatan vayeshev Avner mitzad Shaul vayipaked mekom DavidThe king sat at his seat as at other times, at the seat by the wall; Yehonatan stood up and Avner sat at Shaul's side, and David's seat was empty.

Shaul sat with his back to the wall, which was the seat at the head of the table.  Others explain that "on a seat next to the wall" indicates that they sat in a semicircle, as the judges in the Sanhedrin.  The king, because he sat at the center, the height of the arc, was closest to the wall.

The order of seating had David on Shaul's immediate right, and Yonatan at David's right. Avner, Shaul's general, sat to the kings left.  With David absent, there was no one sitting between Shaul and Yonatan.  As it was customary to recline while eating, and it was not considered proper for a son to recline at his father's right hand, Yonatan stood up and waited until Avner had come to take David's seat alongside the king.

According to this first interpretation, the words which follow in the verse, "David's seat was empty," mean that the place was empty of its usual occupant, David.  Alternatively, it is suggested that David's place did indeed remain empty.  After Yonatan stood up, Avner, who according to this interpretation was sitting not to Shaul's left but to Yonatan's right, exchanged places with Yonatan.  This enabled Yonatan to take a seat at the table for now Avner sat between him and his father.  It also made sense that Avner would not sit in David's seat, as he must have assumed that David might yet arrive to the meal.

Yet another possibility is that Yonatan took a seat opposite Shaul.  This coincides with the later verse which implies that when Shaul later raised the spear to strike his son, he had only to reach out towards him (20:33).

The reason Yonatan first sat in his own seat when he knew full well that he would have to move once Shaul took his place, was so that his father should not suspect he knew beforehand that David would not be coming.  This would also cause Shaul to take note of David's absence that much sooner.

26 Velo-diber Shaul me'umah bayom hahu ki amar mikreh hu bilti tahor hu ki-lo tahorShaul said nothing on that day, for he thought, "He had an accident, he is without purity; [he did not come] for he is not pure."

Shaul said nothing about David being absent because he presumed that David had experienced a nocturnal emission.  This presumption was characteristic of Shaul's enmity for David.

The repetitiveness of Shaul's words also suggests the following interpretation:  Shaul said to himself, "David had an accidental pollution, he is without purity.  Why? because he is not pure - he thinks evil thoughts during the day."  This is as our sages taught: Whoever guards against evil thoughts during the day will not experience an accidental pollution at night.

Our sages have pointed to the apparent circumlocution of this verse - "he is without purity; for he is not pure" - to show how important it is to avoid foul or unclean language.  Scripture goes out of its way to use the word tahor (pure) rather than simply saying, "he had an accident, and is tamei (impure)."

The commentators have suggested various subtle readings for this verse:

1. That Shaul never assumed that David had entertained evil thoughts.  Rather, on the first day he attributed David's absence to a mikreh, alternatively translated as an unexpected occurrence.  "something unforeseen has come up," he told himself, "and that is why David has not come.  It cannot be that he is without purity, as he would be without purity only if he entertained evil thoughts."  However, when David again failed to appear on the morrow, Shaul began to wonder if perhaps David's disappearance was not unintentional.
2. There are no accidental occurrences.  Everything that transpires is because G-d so willed and designed it.  Thus, Shaul was saying, "Who says that David had an accidental pollution?  When anyone says this, it is a sign that he is without purity.  He himself is not pure, for nothing happens without His guidance."  This can be likened to what Avraham said to the angels, "I will get a morsel of bread for you to refresh yourselves... because it is for this reason that you have passed by your servant" (Bereisit 18:5).  His intention was not that they had come by his tent in order to eat and drink, for even if it were so, one would never embarrass one's guests by speaking so tactlessly.  Rather, his intention was to tell them that their passing by was certainly not accidental; that it had been so designed by divine providence.  G-d had arranged the matter so that he, Avraham, could fulfill the mitzvah of hospitality.
3. A third opinion sees this in connection with the teachings of the sages:  Judge all men favorably, for if a person sees guilt in his fellow, it is a sign that he himself bears guilt; whoever charges others charges them with his own defects.  Moreover, one who suspects the innocent is afflicted physically - a sign that he himself is lacking.  Thus the verse says that Shaul said nothing on that day, for he said to himself, "He had an accident."  In other words, he judged David favorably.  Why did Shaul do this?  Surely it was because only one "without purity" finds fault in others, and it is he who "is not pure."

27 Vayehi mimocharat hachodesh hasheni vayipaked mekom David vayomer Shaul el-Yehonatan beno madua lo-va ven-Yishai gam-temol gam-hayom el-halachem
It was the day following the New Moon, the second, and David's place was empty. So Shaul said to Yehonatan, his son, "Why did the son of Yishai not come to the meal either yesterday or today?"

Until the time of Hillel the son of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince (359 c.e.), who was the first to establish the lunar calendar according to astronomic calculations, Rosh Chodesh was determined by the court making a formal declaration after receiving testimony from witness who had seen the new moon.  This was based on the verse (Shemot 12:2), "This chodesh shall be for you" - G-d, as it were, pointed to the new moon and said to Moshe, "When it appears like this, sanctify the moon."  In other words, it was a mitzvah to establish Rosh Chodesh based on human sighting and declaration.  When this was no longer possible, for reasons brought in the Talmud, the Jews were forced to institute the fixed calendar in its stead.

The lunar month is twenty-nine days twelve and a fraction hours.  Because it is impossible to divide a day in half so that part would belong to the previous month and part to the new month, some months are reckoned as thirty days and others as twenty-nine.  Witnesses who saw the new moon on the night following the twenty ninth of the month testified before the court, and if their testimony was accepted, the court resolved that the following day belong to the new month and declared it Rosh Chodesh, the first day of the next month. If, however, the new moon was not seen on that night of the twenty ninth, the court resolved that the thirtieth day belonged to the previous month.  However, in this case, both the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month were celebrated as Rosh Chodesh.

Now, in our case the witnesses who came to testify that they had seen the new moon only came to the court after the thirtieth day of the previous month.  Therefore, as mentioned (20:5), Rosh Chodesh was celebrated for two days.  This is the meaning of "on the day following the chodesh, the second."  The second modifies "the new moon," it was the second day of Rosh Chodesh.

Others maintain that they only celebrated one day Rosh Chodesh, on the first of the new month, so that "on the day following the new moon, the second [day]" refers to the second day of that month; here second modifies "the day following."  Yet another possibility is that second refers to the second new moon of the month - i.e., it was a Jewish leap year and this took place on Rosh Chodesh of the added month, the second Adar.

28 Vaya'an Yehonatan et-Shaul nish'ol nish'al David me'imadi ad-Beit-lechemYehonatan answered Shaul, "David asked me for permission to go to Beit-lechem.
29 Vayomer shalcheni na ki zevach mishpachah lanu ba'ir vehu tzivah-li achi ve'atah im-matzati chen be'eineicha imaltah na ve'er'eh et-echai al-ken lo-va el-shulchan hamelechHe said, 'Please grant me leave, for we have a family feast-offering in the city, and he - my brother - summoned me; so now, if I have found favor in your eyes, please let me be excused that I may see my brothers.' That is why he did not come to the king's table."

A careful reading of the verses, including those which follow, shows that Shaul intentionally avoided referring to David by name, calling him "the son of Yishai," instead.  Yonatan, on the other hand, did not have to mention David by name.  It was understood of whom they spoke.  But he did so intentionally, out of his great love for David.

Yonatan said, "nishal nishal (he repeatedly asked)," rather than the more common expression shaol sh'al, so as not to even imply that he had uttered his father's name, Shaul.  This, of course, would have been disrespectful.

30 Vayichar-af Shaul biYehonatan vayomer lo ben-na'avat hamardut halo yadati ki-vocher atah leven-Yishai levashtecha ulvoshet ervat imechaShaul anger flared up at Yehonatan, and he said to him, "you are the son of a wanton and rebellious woman! Do I not know that you choose the son of Yishai, to your own shame and the shame of your mother's nakedness?

An alternative reading of "ben na'avat hamardut" suggests that Shaul's accusation was not directed primarily at Yonatan, but at his mother - "you are the son of a wanton and rebellious woman!" Shaul charged that Yonataon had inherited these traits from his mother, who had been unfaithful to him.  Or else, that she had not allowed Shaul to discipline Yonatan when he was a child, and as a result he had grown into a rebellious son of rebellious mother.

Yonatan ben Uziel translates Shaul's words - "A son, wanton and rebellious!" - as referring to neither Yonatan nor his mother, but to David.  He was casting aspersions on David's family.  Once said, he expressed his shock that David would have found favor with Yonatan.  "How could you have possibly allowed him to escape from here?!"

31 Ki chol-hayamim asher-ben-Yishai chai al-ha'adamah lo tikon atah umalchutecha ve'atah shlach vekach oto elai ki ven-mavet huFor all the days that the son of Yishai is alive on the earth, you and your kingdom will not be established! And now send and bring him to me, for he is deserving of death!"

Shaul said to Yonatan, "Since you will not establish your rule because of David, it is only right that he be eliminated."

32 Vaya'an Yehonatan et-Shaul aviv vayomer elav lamah yumat meh asahBut Yehonatan spoke up to his father Shaul, and said to him, "Why should he die? What has he done?"
33 Vayatel Shaul et-hachanit alav lehakoto vayeda Yehonatan ki-chalah hi me'im aviv lehamit et-DavidShaul hurled his spear at him to strike him. Yehonatan then realized that his father had decided to kill David.

Yonatan sought to defend David.  "What has David done that you accuse him of rebellion?  G-d Himself has chosen him as king."

When a man is accused of having committed some sin for which he deserves to be punished, it is only right to defend him and attempt to save him from punishment if he is not generally known to transgress in this way.  Thus, when Shaul complained about Yonatan's defending David, Yonatan replied, "Why should he be put to death?  If it is because of the rumor that he seeks the king's life, what has he done that would lead one to believe David would transgress in this way?"

The Torah teaches that when a Jew sees his fellow Jew committing a sin, he has an obligation to admonish him in order to help him turn from evil.  Indeed, Scritpure stresses the importance of this mitzvah with the words "admonish, you shall surely admonish" (VaYikra 19:17) - the repetition serving to emphasize the need to even be prepared to suffer as a result.  The vers, however, does not specify just how much the one offering the rebuke is obligated to endure.  This, is learnt from here.

Some do find in Yonatan's reply an admonishment of Shaul's position, albeit a subdued and respectful one.  They adduce from this that with certain stipulations as son is permitted to admonish his father.  The Talmud adds that the same applies to a student rebuking his rabbi.

34 Vayakom Yehonatan me'im hashulchan bachari-af velo-achal beyom hachodesh hasheni lechem ki netzav el-David ki hichlimo avivYehonatan arose from the table enraged; he did not partake of food on that second day of the month, for he was saddened over David, and because his father had humiliated him.

The verse gives two reasons for why Yonatan did not eat.  One, he was worried about David.  Yonatan understood that if his father was ready to kill his own son for befriending David, he would certainly not hesitate to kill David himself.  He thus rose from the table in anger and could not eat.  The second reason, which reads the verse as though the word and appears between the two reason, was that Yonatan's father had shamed him with word and deed, and so he could not eat.

Although the reasons are two, the fact that Scripture does not obviously distinguish between them (the word and does not appear) would seem to allude to their connectedness.  Even though his father had shamed him publicly, Yonatan's concern was for David.  He loved David as hi own soul and worried for him more than for himself.

Another interpreation is that ooutwardly Yonatan was saddened because his father had shamed him, but in his heart he was saddened over David.

Alternatively, this is read as two reasons given for two separate actions.  Yonatan got up from the table because he was saddened over David, whom his father had decided to kill.  And Yonatan did not break bread because Shaul "had shamed him" - David - calling him "wanton and rebellious!"

35 Vayehi vaboker vayetze Yehonatan hasadeh lemo'ed David vena'ar katon imoIt happened in the morning that Yonatan went out to the field which David had designated, and a small youth accompanied him.

Yonatan went out in the morning.  He did not go at night, lest he arouse suspicion.  He went as though he were going for a walk, and he did not go alone but took his servant.  This small youth would suspect nothing of the plan Yonatan had devised with David and his presence would belie any suggestion that Yonatan had gone to secretly meet with David.

According to Ynatan ben Uziel's translation, "Yonatan went out to the field at the time David had designated."  This leads some commentators to conclude that it refers to the third day of David's hiding in the field.  And although David had suggested that he come that night, Yonatan went in the morning.  There was no longer any reason to wait, Shaul's intentions were already quite clear.

36 Vayomer lena'aro rutz metza-na et-hachitzim asher anochi moreh hana'ar ratz vehu-yarah hachetsi leha'aviroHe said to his youth, "Run, please find the arrows that I shoot." The youth ran, and he shot the arrow to go past him.
37 Vayavo hana'ar ad-mekom hachetzi asher yarah Yehonatan vayikra Yehonatan acharei hana'ar vayomer halo hachetzi mimecha vahal'ahThe youth arrived at the place of the arrow that Yonatan had shot, and Yonatan called after the youth and said, "Is not the arrow beyond you?"

Yonatan provided David with the agreed upon sign that Shau's heart was set against him.

The word leha'aviro ("past him") can also be understood as "to move him past."  Yonatan wanted to move the youth past the place he was standing to the marker stone.  The idiomatic expression leha'aviro mida'ato means to remove someone's reason, and this suggests a third possibility.  Yonatan shot the arrow to trick the youth and dissuade him from reasoning that this was anything but sport.

From the verses it seems that Yonatan shot no more than one arrow, though he had promised David that he would shoot three.  One suggestion is that he only intended to use a second and third arrow if for some reason David would not get a clear message from the first one. In devising the plan, Yonatan had taken into account that there might be other archers in the field or that his first shot might go astray.

Other commentators read the verse as though Yonatan did shoot more than one arrow: "And the youth came to the place of the arrow which Yonatan had shot"  - this refers to the first arrow; and Yonatan called after the youth, and said, "But the arrow is farther on than you" - this refers to another arrow, the one meant to warn David.

38 Vayikra Yehonatan acharei hana'ar meherah chushah al-ta'amod vayelaket na'ar Yehonatan et-hachitzim vayavo el-adonavYehonatan then called out after the attendant, "Quickly, hurry, do not stand still!" Yehonatan's attendant gathered the arrows and came to his master.
39 Vehana'ar lo-yada me'umah ach Yehonatan veDavid yad'u et-hadavarThe attendant knew nothing; only Yehonatan and David understood the matter.

The scripted form of the word chetz (arrow) in this verse is singular, however, according to tradition it is read in the plural, chitzim (arrows).  This further highlights the uncertainty surrounding the amount of arrows Yonatan actually shot.  One suggestion is that although all three were shot, the youth gathered them up as quickly as if there had been only one.

When an archer shoots an arrow, sometimes those sent to fetch it search in a place closer than where the arrow came to rest.  Other times, they search much farther than where the arrow actually landed.  This is what Yonatan proposed to David: "in this way G-d will guide us.  I will shoot the arrows at the marker stone.  If the youth runs after the arrow and I have to tell him to return because he's passed it, this will be a providential sign that all is well - G-d's will is that you return.  But if the youth stops before reaching the arrow and I have to tell him to keep going, this will be a providential sign that there is danger - it has been decreed by Heaven that you flee from here."

With this we can better understand the sequence of events.  It is impossible for a man to outrace an arrow.  Yonatan therefore told the youth, "Run, please find the arrows which I shoot" (v20:36).  In this way it was possible for the youth to go father than the arrow and then have to return to get them.  The verse then says that the youth ran and Yonatan shot the arrow past him.

40 Vayiten Yehonatan et-kelav el-hana'ar asher-lo vayomer lo lech havei ha'irYehonatan gave his equipment to his attendant and said to him, "Go, bring it to the city."
41 Hana'ar ba veDavid kam me'etzel hanegev vayipol le'apav artzah vayishtachu shalosh pe'amim vayishku ish et-re'ehu vayivku ish et-re'ehu ad-David higdilThe attendant went and David stood up from the southern side and he fell on his face to the ground and prostrated himself three times. Then they kissed one another and cried one with the other until David exceeded.

The "southern side" refers to the southern region, and arid and rocky area in which travelers found refuge from the even harsher conditions of the desert.

Alternateively, the "southern side" refers to the southern side of the marker stone, the side where David hid. Thus Yonatan purposely shot the arrows to the north of the stone.

The question which obviously comes to mind is: If David and Yonatan in any case met and spoke together, what was the point of shooting the arrows and signallying by calling out to the youth?  However, it seems that even now Yonatan was not intending to come together with David.  Yet he suspected that David might not able to resist their speaking to one another before parting and so he sent his servant away.  Moreover, Yonatan had to take into account that someone might happen along and discover them before they could talk together, and so he relied on the shooting of the arrows to ensure that David received the warning.  Only when he saw that all was clear did David emerge into the open to embrace Yonatan.

The commentators offer a number of explanations for why David's crying exceeded Yonatan's.  Simply, whereas Yonatan could return home, he had to flee for Shaul would certainly be seeking to take his life.  Yonatan understood that this was the reason for David's exceedinly bitter weeping and hurried to send him on his way.  Another suggestion is that this is a hint to the future, when David would weep on Yonatan's untimely death.

Alternatively, "until David exceeded" means that David began to weep loudly and Yonatan feared that they would be discovered.  He therefore blessed him and sent him away.

42 Vayomer Yehonatan le-David lech leshalom asher nishbanu shneinu anachnu beshem HASHEM lemor HASHEM yihyeh beini uveinecha uvein zar'i uvein zar'acha ad-olamYehonatan said to David, "Go to peace. What the two of us have sworn in the Name of HASHEM - saying, 'HASHEM will be [a witness] between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring' - shall be forever!"

Yonatan assured David that through they were parting, their bond of love would not be severed.

"Go to peace," Yonatan told David, "and remember our oath.  Indeed, the very fact that we were able to swear true allegiance to one another is proof that G-d is with us."

It is also possible to understand Yonatan's words the other way round, "The very fact that we have both sworn in the name of HaShem is a sign that you will go to peace." (cf. v1:17)

In saying, "For we have sworn both of us," Yonatan wanted to impress upon David that they had sworn as equals.  He had not sworn as the son of the king, lest following generations later say their ancestor David had agreed under duress, for how could he refuse the king's son.  No, they had sworn as equals and out of love - both of them willingly - binding them and all their seed forever.

And, just as their bond of love would be everlasting, so would be their pact.  "HASHEM will between me and you...forever," he told David.  "Although we are parting, HASHEM will be forever."

There is a very great lesson to be learnt from Yonatan's exemplary behavior.  Despite all that he had to endure at his father's table, he mentions none of it to David on whose behalf he spoke.  This was both so that he would not be guilty of tale-bearing and slander against his father, and so that David would not be anguished by the news.  He therefore chose his words carefully, telling David to "Go to peace," for there was no hope that Shaul would have a change of heart and cease his pursuit of him.

In the merit of his tears, David achieved greatness and his enemies were vanquished.  As he asked of G-d (Tehillim 56:9) "Put my tears in Your flask, are they not in Your ledger?"  The shedding of tears is never left unanswered; heaven's gate of tears is never shut.

Parashat Toledot

- MeAm Lo'ez, Sefer Shmuel Alef

Yeshayahu 66:1-24
Rosh Chodesh
[Parashat Noach]

The establishing of Rosh Chodesh, the New Moon, did not originally depend on the sighting of the moon, but completely on astronomical calculations. "What?!  But I thought ORIGINALLY the new moon had to be witnessed?" you probably said to yourself as you read this.

Consider this - during the forty years that the Benei Yisrael  were in the desert, they were covered by the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, making it impossible for them to make any astronomical sightings.  Since both the sun and moon were invisible to them, it would have been impossible for them to construct a calendar based on actual observation.  This is clear evidence that calculation was the original means of determining the calendar.  Witnesses were not used.  This situation existed for 1100 years, from the time of Moshe until the time of Antignos of Socho in 3548 (213 b.c.e).

Following is further evidence...

Shemot 12:2 "This month shall be for you the beginning of months..."

It is significant that at this juncture G-d did not instruct Moshe and Aharon to relay the content of this message to the Benei Yisrael.  Surely the word לָכֶם "lachem" (for you), implied that the fixing of the new moon was a commandment applicable to each and every Jew!  Failure of G-d to issue the customary instruction: "say to all the Benei Yisrael, etc.," therefore indicated that the determining of the new moon was something reserved for the elders of the people, a court of experts, and was not something incumbent on the individual Jew.  This is why these instructions were address to both Moshe and Aharon in their capacity as the experts at the time.  The word lachem, in this instance means: "to the likes of you, to trained experts."

If proof were needed that we base our calendar on astronomical calculations rather than the sighting of the moon, consider the fact that during the wanderings of the Benei Yisrael in the Wilderness for 40 years when their encampment was totally enveloped by the Ananei HaKavod, G-d's "Clouds of Glory", neither the people nor their leaders were able to sight the moon.  They did not even see the sun by day either but depended totally on the pillar of cloud or fire to light the way for them.  This is confirmed by Nechemya 9:19 "You in Your abundant compassion did not abandon them in the Wilderness.  The pillar of cloud did not depart from them to lead them on the way by day, nor the pillar of fire by night to give them light in the way where to go."

How would the the Benei Yisrael have been able to fix the date of the new moon unless they had based themselves on their astronomical calculations?  Clearly, the principal method of determining the new moon is based on calculations.  We have an old-standing tradition that 5 of the 12 months of the year always have 30 days whereas 5 other months always have 29 days.  the remaining 2 months fluctuate between 29 and 30 days respectively.  In some years both of these months have 30 days.  In some years both have 29 days, and in some years one of them has 29 days whereas the other month has 30 days.  The two months which are subject to these variations are Cheshvan and Kislev.

We have another tradition that the first day of Tishrei is New Year's day (Rosh HaShanah), and that according to a ruling handed down by Moshe from Sinai each "month" (lunar orbit) consists of 29 days, 12 hours and 793 parts (chelakim - the hour is divided into 1080 equal parts - therefore the lunar month is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes and 3 seconds). (Rosh HaShanah 25)  All this is based on Divrei HaYamim Alef (1 Chronicles) 12:33 "Of the benei Yissachar, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times to determining how Yisrael should act; their chiefs were two hundred, and all their kinsmen followed them."  No other matter requires as much knowledge and insight as determining the times of the calendar, the dates of the festivals based on comparison with the seasons determined by the solar calendar.

Of course, if the new moon has been sighted everybody knows that a new month has begun, etc.  It is easy then to calculate the tenth of the month to determine Yom Kippur and the 15th of the month to determine the first day of Sukkot, etc.  The Sages needed to know what calculations are required in order to inform the people ahead of time what to expect and in order to check whether sightings of the new moon which had been claimed were in fact possible according to their charts.  It is this aspect which the verse from Divrei HaYamim Alef dealing with the benei Yissachar deals with.

Note that during the time of David and Yonatan calculations formed the basis of the determination of the new moon as David said to Yonatan (Shmuel Alef 10:5) "Tomorrow, on the new moon I will sit beside the king..."  If the new moon had been determined merely by sighting, how did David know it would be observed on the morrow?  Perhaps there would not be a sighting of the new moon by then?  It is clear then that the date was determined by calculation if sightings failed to confirm these calculations.  In fact, from that episode in Shmuel Alef (Samuel 1) it is clear that already at that time the Sages arranged for two consecutive days of the new moon being observed seeing that we read in verses 24-27 of the same chapter, "The new moon came and the king sat down to partake of the meal...but David's place remained vacant.. That day however Shaul said nothing... But on the day after the new moon, the second day, David's place was vacant again..."  It is clearly impossible to say that the day described as "the second day" refers to another new moon the following month and that this is why they called it "hachodesh hasheni" (the new moon, the second day).

Shaul asked Yonatan (v27) "why did not the son of Yishai come to the meal yesterday or the day before?"  The story goes on, "Yonatan rose from his seat angrily and he did not eat on the second day of the new moon."  Clearly the date of the new moon was determined by means of calculations.  This system was in effect for 1100 years from the time of Moshe until the time of Antignos from Socho who, together with Shimon HaTzadik, was the leader of the Jewish people around the time Ezra and his colleagues came to Eretz Yisrael from Babylon.  (Moshe died in 2488 after the creation of Adam whereas Antignos lived around 3460 years after the creation of Adam.)  Two of Antignos' students, Tzadok and Beissus, were the ones who misunderstood their teacher's meaning when he exhorted his students not to serve G-d like servants who serves a human master for the sake of reward, feeling entitled to it.  Antignos urged his students to relate to the service of G-d as does a servant who volunteers to serve his master out of love and not out of a desire for reward.  These two students thought that there was no system of reward and punishment in Judaism as a result of which they forsook the path of Torah.  A by-product of their heresy was that they raised questions against the system of determining the time of the new moon, claiming that the principal mitzvah in observing the commandment of sanctifying the new moon was the sighting of it not the calculations on paper.  Such a new thesis forced leading rabbis of that time to respond and to prove to these heretics that their calculations were accurate and more reliable than sightings so that Rabban Gamliel came out publicly saying not to be too concerned about whether actual sighting had taken place.  He claimed to have had a tradition from his grandfather that the month (lunar orbit) is never shorter than 29 days 12 hours and 793 parts.  These words of Rabban Gamliel prove that he did not base his calendar on sightings but on astronomical calculations.

We have an explicit Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 25) which states that "if both the elders of the court and the entire nation had clearly seen the new moon but it became night while the elders examined witnesses who testified to the sighting of the new before the elders were able to pronounce the new moon on the day just concluded, they would declare the month to have had 30 days."  This proves that the elders did not rely principally on the sighting.  Had they done so, how could they have added another day to the month seeing not only the witnesses but they themselves had sighted the new moon on the previous night?  Clearly, if they decided to make that month one of thirty days in spite of the sighting, they must have based themselves on their calculations.

There is even more compelling evidence...

The Mishnah at the end of the second chapter in Rosh HaShanah records that two witnesses appeared claiming to have sighted the new moon at its appropriate time, i.e. the night between the 29th and the 30th of the month.  They also claimed that on the following night, i.e. the night of the 31st, the moon had not appeared in the sky.  Rabban Gamliel accepted their testimony.  If Rabban Gamliel and his colleagues had been basing their declarations of the new moon only on sightings, how could he have accepted such testimony which contradicts all we know about the behavior of the moon?  Surely, the fact that the moon did not appear on the following night meant that the witnesses had lied in the first place!  Clearly, Rabban Gamliel relied on his calculations in the first instance and when these proved that the new moon had been due to appear when it did he accepted the visual evidence that it had indeed been sighted on the appropriate night.

As to the statement of the Sages (folio 24) that Rabban Gamliel had a reproduction of the sky on the wall of his study which he employed to instruct laymen, the meaning is that he wanted to convince the supporters of Tzadok and Beissus of his absolute competence in astronomical matters from month to month.  He wanted to show them beforehand in which manner and at what angle sightings of the moon after the end of the present month would occur.  When these students noticed that Rabban Gamliel had correctly predicted where and when in the sky sightings of the new moon would occur, he mananged to discredit Tzadok and Beissus who had tried to undermine the authority of the Jewish Supreme Court.  As a result, the allegations against the calendar calculations of the leading elders of the Jewish people ceased.  Nonetheless, the practice of encouraging people to come forward as witnesses to new-moon sightings continued but primarily as a reminder of an established custom, not as something of halachic necessity.

It is unanimously agreed that the authority to determine calendar adjustments is vested in the hands of the Jewish Supreme Court or its equivalent as something handed down from the time of Moshe, provided such court is composed of the most knowledgeable and G-d-fearing people of their generation.  This is the law which G-d commanded to Moshe in our verse here.  The words הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם (hachodesh hazeh lachem - This month shall be to you), may therefore be translated as "you have authority to delegate the adjustments which may have to be made to this month."

Thus far the commentary of Rabbeinu Chananel.

The authority delegated by G-d to the Rabbinical authorities is of such fundamental significance that we read in Sanhedrin 42 that if the Jewish people had not been granted the opportunity to perform any other commandment except to recite the benediction over the new moon once a month and to the thereby welcome the eternal presence of the Shechinah, this would be deemed sufficient for them.  They base this on the wording הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה (hachodesh hazeh - this month) here and זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ (zeh Eli ve'anvehu - this is my G-d and I will exalt Him) in Shemot 15:2.  What this Midrash is trying to tell us is that the verse here is an explanation of the peculiarly worded text of the benediction recited when blessing the new moon.  It is an allusion to the Jewish people as a spiritual concept, so called as it is a crown, sanctified and the exclusive property of the people of Yisrael, who are referred to in Yeshayahu 46:3 as "transported by G-d on His arms ever since their inception" (in the house of Lavan).  Seeing that he who utters this benediction finds himself in the presence of the Shechinah, he must recite it while standing (not while seated).  This ensures that he is conscious of the necessary awe when in the Presence of G-d.

Reciting the benediction over the new moon is equivalent to testifying to the fact that G-d created the universe and all that is in it.  This is the principal pillar of our religious faith.  Seeing the moon renews itself month after month makes it easy to understand that G-d created one universe after another.  Some unidentified Sages have said that the black color we observe on part of the moon serves as a reminder of the Benei Yisrael who are in exile and who count their months based on the lunar orbits.  Concerning this phenomenon Shlomo said in Shir HaShirim 6:10 "beautiful as the moon, brilliant as the sun."  G-d granted beauty to the moon and brilliance to the sun.  The reason is that the moon resembles woman's lower physiognomy in that it is activated by the male.  The moon similarly receives its input from the sun.  This is also the meaning of the statement in Ketubot 59 "woman exists for the sake of beauty" (rather than for the performance of menial labor).  Speaking of the sun, however, Shlomo used the term בָּרָה (barah), as it is clear, distinct.  See that Shlomo used different adjectives in describing moon and sun it is clear that the moon lacks brilliance.  You need not be surprised at the choice of metaphors by Shlomo as the Shechinah which accompanies the Jewish people in their exile and which reflects the strength of the moon is also feeling the pain of the Jewish people in their troubles.  We know this from Yeshayahu 63:9, "In all their troubles He was troubled."


The Seven Cycles

There are seven astronomical bodies, and each has its particular cycle.  This is their order:

1. First sphere, closest to the earth, is the Yareach (Moon).  It shines with reflected light.
2. Second sphere is called Mercury.  In Hebrew it is called Kochav, which literally means "star."  Some say this is because it rules over the destiny of the stars.
3. Third sphere is called Nogah (Venus).
4. Fourth sphere is the Shemesh (sun), which makes a complete cycle every year.
5. Fifth sphere is called Maadim (Mars).
6. Sixth sphere is called Tzedek (Jupiter).
7. Seventh sphere is called Shabatai (Saturn).

- Bachya; MeAm Lo'ez