Q&A: The Intercalation of the Month Meal
The Intercalation of the Month Meal
Question
In honor of the Rabbi:
It is taught in the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (70a) regarding the laws of the stubborn and rebellious son: “If he ate in a group assembled for a commandment, if he ate at the intercalation of the month, if he ate second tithe in Jerusalem, if he ate carcasses, torn animals, abominations, and creeping things, (if he ate untithed produce, and first tithe from which its terumah had not been taken, and second tithe and consecrated food that had not been redeemed), if he ate something that is a commandment… he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son.” The Talmud says there (70b) that there is an addition to “something that is a commandment” — “to include comforting mourners,” and Rashi explains: “Even though it is only a rabbinic enactment, for if this had been learned only from the first clause, I would have said that a commandment-group means priests eating sacrificial meat or Passover offerings.” The Maharsha objected: but the meal of intercalating the month is also rabbinic, so what is the novelty?
It is said in the Talmud in Megillah (28a) that one may not eat, drink, or sleep in a synagogue, and also that Torah scholars are permitted to do so. The medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagreed whether this is a broad permission or only under pressing circumstances. In Hagahot Ashri (Bava Batra, ch. 3) it is taken as a permission ab initio, from the fact that it says in the Jerusalem Talmud that they ate the intercalation-of-the-month meal in the synagogue. However, Maimonides ruled (Prayer 11:6): “And sages and their students are permitted to eat and drink in them when under pressure,” and it requires clarification what he would answer to the proof of the Hagahot Ashri.
Can these two difficulties be resolved by saying that since no specific person is responsible for intercalating the month, each and every person is judged as though the sanctification of the month halakhically depends on him (like a scale in balance), similar to the rule that when there is danger to life, even though ten people could help, the obligation rests on each one, and therefore his act overrides the Sabbath (Menachot 64b)? And this would explain Maimonides’ wording regarding the reason (in the context of sanctifying the month), “you will thus cause them to stumble in the future” — “Even though these testimonies are of no use, perhaps one of them will in the future have useful testimony regarding another moon, and he will refrain from coming to testify because his words were not accepted previously.” So the fact that there is no certain testimony leads to the result that every step toward sanctifying the month constitutes an integral part of fulfilling the commandment. With this distinction, the two difficulties above are seemingly resolved, since there is an essential difference between the intercalation-of-the-month meal and other rabbinic commandment meals. Does the Rabbi think this is correct from a halakhic/philosophical perspective?
Thank you!
Answer
I didn’t understand the question. The intercalation-of-the-month meal is a commandment-related meal (even if only rabbinic, or just a worthwhile practice), and therefore they hold it in the synagogue. Ordinary non-sacred eating is not done there, but matters of commandment and service of God are.
Discussion on Answer
*the dependence makes it so*
I didn’t understand the difficulty with Maimonides that you came to resolve. It is forbidden to eat in a synagogue, but it is fully permitted to eat there a meal that has a commandment element. What’s difficult about that?
As for the distinction itself, I also don’t understand the reasoning behind it. Beyond that, it’s obvious that the commandment to sanctify months is imposed on the religious court and the community. Each witness has an obligation to come and help with that.
What I meant to ask is whether the fact that it depends on each and every person that the month be sanctified makes the law of the intercalation-of-the-month meal different from that of other rabbinic commandment meals, and on that basis it is understandable according to Maimonides why, although generally the permission to eat in a synagogue is only “under pressure,” with intercalating the month it is not under pressure but rather a broad permission (and thus the proof of the Hagahot Ashri is resolved); and likewise it explains why, were it not for a special inclusive derivation, there would have been reason to distinguish regarding the stubborn and rebellious son between the intercalation-of-the-month meal and other rabbinic commandment meals (and thus the Maharsha’s difficulty is resolved).
Shabbat shalom!