plausibility (in this case, astronomical) of their testimony and to ensure that
their testimonies are congruent.^160 As in all trials, the procedure must be
completed in daytime, and there are rules about which of the judges—junior
or senior—express their opinionfirst.^161 The procedure concludes with the
Head of the Court declaring his verdict:‘It [the month] is sanctified!’and all
the people responding:‘It is sanctified, it is sanctified!’^162
In spite of all this, it is clear from the same sources that the determination of
the new month is not a real trial, and that its judicial procedure is, in some
ways, contrived. This explains why exceptions to normal judicial rules, even
quite considerable ones, are in some cases allowed (in especially in relation to
the new moon witnesses): as the Palestinian Talmud states,‘we are not
particular about the new moon testimony’(pRH3: 1 (58c)). Thus according
to some opinions, the testimony of two relatives is acceptable for the new
moon, whereas in normal judicial procedure, two relatives would be disqua-
lified.^163 The cross-examination of witnesses is described, in one passage, as
taking place in a rabbi’s private attic—whereas in normal judicial procedure it
would only take place in court.^164 Several sources rule that if the new moon
has been‘sanctified’on time but without witnesses, or if the witnesses have
later been found to be false, the new moon declaration remains retrospectively
valid^165 —a concession which, in a normal judicial trial, would be inconceiv-
able, but which is hardly surprising in the context of the new moon procedure:
for it is a trial without litigants and without accused.
The contrived, make-believe judicial character of the rabbinic new moon
procedure raises profound questions about its origin, justification, and ratio-
nale. These questions are problematic even in rabbinic terms. No explanation
is given in rabbinic literature as to why the new moon procedure must imitate
judicial procedures. The new moon procedure is not explicitly derived from
any scriptural source, as would be expected in the context of legal rabbinic
literature, although one late antique source, the Babylonian Talmud (sixth
century?), implicitly suggests Ps. 81: 4–5 as the basis for determination of the
new moon in a judicial setting (bRH22b, 25b). According to another source of
the same period, thefirst month of Israel (in Exod. 12: 2) was sanctified when
God joined Moses and Aaron to form a court of three judges, with the angels
Michael and Gabriel as witnesses.^166 This myth of origins, however, does not
(^160) mRH2: 5–6; compare with normal judicial procedure inmSanh.3: 6, 4: 1, 5: 1–4.
(^161) Daytime:mRH3: 1,mSanh.1: 2, andtRH3: 1; normal procedure inmSanh.4: 1. First
speaker:pRH2: 6 (58a),pSanh.1: 2 (18c); normal procedure inmSanh.4: 2.
(^162) mRH2: 7. Cf, the declaration of the verdict in court inmSanh.3: 7 (for monetary cases),
and the public announcement of the verdict ibid. 6: 1 (capital cases).
(^163) mRH1: 7. For the normal judicial procedure, on which there is unanimous agreement, see
mSanh.3: 1, 3: 4,mMakkot1: 8, etc.
(^164) mRH2: 8; but ibid. 2: 5–6 indicates a court setting. For the normal judicial procedure, see
mSanh. 165 3: 6, 5: 1–4.
tRH3: 1,pRH2: 8 (58b); SifraEmor,pereq10. This ruling appears to be unanimous.
(^166) Pesiqta de-RavKahana5: 15 (Braude and Kapstein 1975: 117).
350 Calendars in Antiquity