From:          Dave Bedwell
To:            heb_roots_chr@geocities.com
Subject:       Re: No One Knows The Day Or Hour


Dear all--

I appreciated the article by Tony Galli regarding the meaningful significance of
the phrase "no man knows the day nor the hour" and its relationship to the
Festival of Trumpets.

However, I wanted to make an observation regarding his assertion that the
witnesses before the Beth Din testified about seeing a waning moon.  I think Tony
is simply mistaken about this.  The Talmud says no such thing as far as I am
aware.  In none of the discussions of the sanctification of the new moon that I
have read from the Talmud does it refer to the waning crescent as the basis of
the new moon testimony.  I believe the Talmudic account is explicit that it was
the waxing crescent, and that it refers to the sighting of it "in the evening
after sundown". I know for a fact that Maimonides and every other Jewish and
non-Jewish authority on the subject interprets the Talmudic new moon as refering
to the waxing crescent.

The following quote from the same post, describing the testing of witnesses, is
PROOF that the Talmud understands the new moon to be the waxing rather than
waning crescent:

     Continuing in Chapter 2, Mishnah 6: How do they test the witnesses? The pair
     who arrive first are tested first. The senior of them is brought in and they
     say to him, tell us how you saw the moon - in front of the sun or behind the
     sun? To the north of it or the south? How big was it, and   in which
     direction was it inclined? And how broad was it? If he says (he saw it) in
     front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. After that they would bring in
     the second and test him. If their accounts tallied, their evidence was
     accepted, and the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they
     were required at all, but so that they should not be disappointed, (and) so
     that they should not be dissuaded from coming.

Notice: if the witnesses claimed to have seen the new moon "in front of" the sun
(i.e., PRIOR to sunset), their testimony was rejected.  To be acceptable, they
had to report that the new moon was seen "behind" (that is, after, the sun). This
is because the crescent moon appears AFTER sunset. If the WANING moon was the new
moon, then you would EXPECT to see it "in front of the sun", and the criteria
would be the opposite of what is described in the Talmud. [Obviously, the phrases
"behind" and "in front of" the sun do not refer to their spatial relationship,
since you could never "see" a crescent moon either directly in front of, or
directly behind, the sun].

Here is another excerpt:

     In short, the two qualified witnesses usually stood before the Nassi or
     President of the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) to give account of the moon's
     appearance prior to its becoming total dark (Moed Rosh HaShanah, Chapter 3,
     Mishnah 1). Just before the moon's disk enters total darkness, there are
     tiny slivers of white on the edges of the waning disk. These were called the
     "horns" of the moon. Correctly sighting the "horns" (on the waning crescent)
     determined the beginning of the new  month. Once the two witnesses were
     qualified and questioned, if the President (who had knowledge of astronomy)
     was convinced their observation was accurate, he publicly sanctified the
     start of the new  month.

Here again I think Tony misunderstood what the Mishna was saying in the above
citiation.  The first sentence of this Mishna reads:

     If the Beth Din and all Israel saw it, if the witnesses were tested and
     there was no time left to say "Sanctified" before it grew dark, then the
     month is prolonged.

This Mishna is somewhat unclear as to what is growing dark, and so the
misunderstanding is easily understood.  However, the footnote to the section
makes it clear that this event takes place on the thirtieth day, shortly before
nightfall, and that it is the day that is growing dark, not the moon.

The supporting Gemara supports this interpretation as it reads:

     But when once it has been stated that if "it grew dark then the month is
     prolonged," why should the testing of the witnesses be mentioned at all?
     -It is necessary.  For you might suppose that the testing of the witnesses
     is regarded as the commencement of a suit in court, and the pronouncement of
     "sanctified," "sanctified" as the end of the suit, and therefore they should
     sanctifiy at night ... Therefore we are told that this is not so ... Just as
     judgement is delivered by day, so here [the pronouncement must be] by day.

One can readily see that the discussion undertaken here is that of the day
growing dark (and hence the beginning of a new day), not of the moon growing
dark.  It is clear throughout the sacred, as well as the secular histories, that
Israel used the waxing new crescent for the determination of the new month, not
the waning crescent (presumably to determine the molad/conjunction).

I think Tony just missed the boat somehow on this one.  The rest of his analysis
of Matt. 24 was good. Where he got that idea about the waning moon is beyond me.
Such a notion is clearly not supported by any of the literature.

Regards,
Dave

********************************************************************


To educate, train and equip for study both the Jew and
Non-Jew in the Rich Hebraic Heritage of our Faith.

Please visit the Hebraic Roots Global Network
Web Site located at:

http://www.hebroots.org/


                          HEBRAIC ROOTS SEMINAR

Hebraic Heritage Ministries is having a Hebraic roots seminar in
Houston, Texas,  September 11-13, 1998. For more info, see the
Website:

http://www.hebroots.org/houston.html

Eddie Chumney
Hebraic Heritage Ministries Int'l