Rosh Chodesh Not a Function of the Moon?

Most are familiar with the fact that Rosh Chodesh is associated with the lunar cycle. Therefore, when they see the Yerushlami (Rosh Hashana 14b) they do a double take. The Yerushalmi states that both the sun and moon play a role in the determination of Rosh Chodesh. Essentially, when the new moon is sighted and/or sanctified by the official beis din, the NEXT DAY is considered Rosh Chodesh.

The Yerushalmi determines this based on a pasuk that states that the sun knows its path and the moon determines the specified times. The Yerushalmi understands this to mean that through the sun's path we determine the times of the moon and the effects of a new moon will not happen until that solar day (at sunset) is over. In this way, Rosh Chodesh can be viewed as a synthesis of the solar and lunar paths in the sky.

Although, the Acharonim on the page stipulate theories in order to try and read this Yerushalmi within the conventional understanding that the sun does not have any effect on Rosh Chodesh, the plain reading (as expressed above) can be found as given by Rashi on Bereishis Rabbah (6). While this opinion does not appear to be considered by the Bavli, and certainly not by the Rambam (Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh), it is still fascinating to see it in a primary text. (For a resolution to the problems presented by certain Mishnayos in Rosh Hashana please see the post Superhuman Sight that I posted here on August 5 of this year.)

The Shibbolei HaLeket (168) references this Yerushalmi (in the plain form, as well) and states that this is an answer to a question that he has pondered in the past. When a month has 30 days, the last day is called Rosh Chodesh in addition to the following day (the first of the next month). He wonders why this day should actually have any sanctity considering that it is not the true first of the month. He responds by saying that this day enables the following to be Rosh Chodesh, simlar to the day beis din declares the sanctification of Rosh Chodesh which causes the FOLLOWING day to be Rosh Chodesh. He cites this Yerushalmi to support his claim!

Imprecise Precision in Kiddush HaChodesh

Recently, I have noticed a newer practice in several shuls. When they announce the molad they declare that the molad "IN YERUSHALAYIM" will be (or was) at such and such time. Clearly, people are trying to be more precise and accurate with their announcements.

The actual molad is the time when the moon is lined up, directly, with the earth and sun. This is referred to as a lunar conjunction. From this point on the moon will begin to "grow". This event, obviously, happens in one moment and, therefore, one may want to know to which place the time announced is referring. We happen to use a calculated molad which is based on the average amount of time between conjunctions, but this still corresponds to a split second.

If one wanted to, he could figure out when the times of kiddush levana are based on the molad. Therefore, it seems like a wise practice to be more precise so that people will not recite kiddush levana too early or late (thinking that the time was their own time such as EST or PST). It seems clear that most halachic authorities (with the notable exception of the Alei Yonah) maintain that the molad is based on Yerushalayim time.

While noble in theory, this idea is actually, in my humble opinion, doing the exact opposite of what it is trying to accomplish. First of all, let's be honest, almost nobody has a clue what is being announced or of its implications. The few people who do (and know how to calculate kiddush levana times) most probably know that the time announced is based on Yerushalayim. Also, announcing "in Yerushalayim is completely inaccurate, as well and does not resolve anything.

Prior to the nineteenth century every city (location) had its own "timezone". They based their clock on the equinox and considered sunrise and sunset to be the ends of the day. They then called those times six o'clock and kept this count throughout the year. Since Brooklyn is east of Baltimore, for example, Brooklyn will be a little bit ahead of Baltimore's "timezone". When the trains started to run they needed to make uniform timezones in order for them to run on time. This was the STANDARDIZATION of the timezones. That's why we have Eastern Standard Time, etc. Whole segments of countries adapted to one timezone and rejected their local "timezones".

The times mentioned in the announced molad are not of the standardized time in Yerushalayim, but of the local time. It is actually about 21 -22 minutes off. This means that even in Yerushalayim one needs to subtract this amount from the announced time prior to calculating kiddush levana. This is not a new concept and most rabbanim and calendars are familiar with this and they adjust (or inform the reader to adjust) accordingly.

Therefore, unless one announces the time as being in Yerushalayim Local (or Solar) Time, effectively they are announcing it in Yerushalayim Standard Time. Even if one were to announce it as such, I think that it would just create confusion and blank stares since most people don't know what that means. Therefore, I would, humbly, suggest (although I know some honorable rabbanim disagree) to avoid confusion and just announce the molad in the way that it has been for as far back as most can remember. Most people have no clue as to what it is anyway, and what does one gain by confusing them?

Superhuman Sight

Throughout the discussions found in the Gemara (Rosh Hashana 20a-25a), Rashi continuously states that the New Moon is visible after six hours from the lunar conjunction (molad) and that it was visible six hours prior to the molad. The purpose of the Beis Din knowing this fact is to reject any witnesses that testify about the sighting of a New Moon within this time period. Beis Din will not declare that day to be the first of the month and will automatically assume the witnesses were mistaken or lying.

The Rambam and Baal HaMaor clearly state that the Moon disappears for a couple days because it takes approximately twenty-four hours for the Moon to separate from the Sun to reach a distance that we can see.

Currently, astronomers use a tool called the Danjon Limit. This limit is defined as the distance, in degrees, that the Moon needs to travel from the Sun in order for us to be able to see it. If the Moon is too close to the Sun, the sunlight will outshine the Moon. The Danjon Limit is set at approximately 7 degrees; however, practically most people (under most conditions) need more like 10.5 degrees of separation. The average should come to approximately twenty-four hours from the lunar conjunction which is consistent with the Rambam and Baal HaMaor's opinion. The record (without optical aid) is set at about 15 hours and with optical aid (telescope), the record is close to 12 hours. This is still a far cry from Rashi's six hours. This is something that is easily seen; Rashi was able to witness this phenomenon every month, why would he state such a hard to understand opinion?

(There is a sefer that is cited in the back of the Gemara that mentions that Kepler and Reinhold witnessed a New Moon in Seville on March 13, 1553 and that that sighting proved Rashi's opinion. There seems to be a typo, because the conjunction would have been on March 14, but I believe the reputable author of this sefer was misled by misinformation. Reinhold died in February of 1553 and Kepler was not born until 1571; also, the Moon was far below the Danjon Limit and, if this were true, we would have records still available to us from Kepler's writings verifying this sighting.)

Perhaps, the answer is that Rashi agrees that they could not have seen the Moon. Rashi cites that in many of these cases, the ramifications are only according to the opinion that, when necessary, we trick witnesses into thinking they saw a New Moon even if they did not. This, and other nuances found in Rashi, seem to show that Rashi's overall opinion (even when discussing the opinion that we do not trick witnesses in this fashion) is that we want our calendar to be consistent with the lunar cycles (while making some necessary exceptions when we will have holidays falling on days we do not want) and as long as someone testifies about an event that will keep this consistency, we will admit it into the court. This is even if we know that the witnesses did not really see that which they claim to have seen. This opinion is very similar to that of Rabbeinu Chananel and Rav Saadiah Gaon who maintain that the main focus is the lunar calculations, and the witnesses just verify the sighting for us to be able to apply our calculations.

There are two reasons why the Moon is invisible to us when it is too close to the Sun. One is that the surface of the Moon has mountains and bumps, and therefore, until the Sun can shine above these bumps the sunlight is not reflected to Earth. The second reason is that the human eye cannot detect the faint light reflected from the Moon until there is sufficient darkness around the surrounding area. When the Sun is too close it is still daytime and we cannot see the Moon. In other words, one is a factor because of the Moon's inability to reflect the light; the other is the inability of the human to see the reflection. If we only focus on the constraint caused by the Moon, we can lessen the Danjon Limit to somewhere close to 2 degrees. This is much more consistent with Rashi's opinion. If witnesses would testify that they saw the Moon, we would know that they did not, but we would still accept the testimony because the Moon is at a point where it is new and it is clear from Rashi that the main focus of the process is that the Moon and calendar be in sync and not that we care whether the witnesses actually saw the Moon. This would be another example of us not being so careful with testimony of the Moon which is a concept that even the Rambam records.

I would also suggest one more point. It is clear from Rav Saadiah Gaon and Rabbeinu Chananel (and I would suggest, Rashi) that the commandment upon Beis Din to regulate a calendar is to do so via calculation and not eyewitness accounts. Therefore, the machlokes in R"H 24b - 25a between Rabban Gamliel and other Tanaim as to whether to trust certain suspect witnesses is clearly rooted in a machlokes of whether or not to follow calculation or witnesses. It is interesting to see that Rabban Gamliel invokes a tradition from his family to support his claim. A few lines later Rebbi seems to be expressing a similar claim. Rebbi was a descendant of Rabban Gamliel. It would seem that the household of the Nasi (Rabban Gamliel's family) was in charge with regulating the calendar.

Now, when looking at the famous Mishna later when witnesses came late in the day on Rosh Hashana and the Levi'im sang a weekday shir instead of a yom tov shir, we can see something fantastic! One could have asked why they were bothering with witnesses and not using calculations (according to Rav Saadiah Gaon, Rabbeinu Chananel and Rashi). The answer may be that the Nasi at the time (and posek for these matters, as mentioned in the Mishna) was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai. He was a temporary Nasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I was horrifically murdered and his son Rabban Gamliel II was in hiding. The position of Nasi was therefore given to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai until it could go back to Rabban Gamliel II. Clearly, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, not being from the family of the Nasi, did not have their tradition. He was of the opinion of those that argued with Rabban Gamliel (II) on 24b - 25a.