"the mosaic calendar." 



149 



Further, the new moon, the date of which was in dispute 

 between the rabbis on this occasion, was not the new moon of 

 Tishri. The 1st of Tishri was a day of holy convocation, and 

 such a day being one on which no servile work could be done, 

 must, like the weekly sabbath, have its day of preparation. 

 This the 1st of Tishri could never have if it could not be known 

 beforehand on what day it would fall. If the crescent is seen in 

 the sky, and the day fixed as the 1st of Tishri by that observation, 

 then the day has itself begun before it can be proclaimed. 



From what date, then, was the first day reckoned ? No in- 

 formation is given us in the Law, but the necessary conditions 

 of the case and the present practice of the Jews leave us in no 

 doubt. It was reckoned from the 1st of Msan. At the present 

 time, the interval between the 1st of Nisan and the 1st of Tishri 

 is always 177 days. So in the original Mosaic Calendar, when the 

 1st day of the Abib, the paschal month, had been determined, 

 all the days of holy convocation would be definitely fixed for 

 that year, and could be proclaimed at once. The new moon, 

 which was in dispute, was therefore the new moon of Nisan, and 

 Rabbon Gamahel had already committed himself, either ex- 

 plicitly or impHcitly, to the date on which the great annual fast 

 would be held. Before the dispute was settled by the complete 

 submission of Eabbi Joshua, the great feasts of the Passover, 

 of Nisan 15 and 21, of Pentecost, and of the Feast of Trumpets, 

 must have actually been held. Rabbi Akiva was quite right : 

 the rabbis could not declare that all these feasts had been irregular 

 and invalid. 



The Jubilee Cycle. 



I have already tried to show that the Mosaic Calendar was 

 simple, symmetrical and complete when regarded as a system of 

 religious observances. The day, the month, and the year, 

 each were severally sanctified. The seventh day, the seventh 

 month, the seventh year received a special consecration, and a 

 iorty-nintli day (seven times seven), and a forty -ninth year, 

 a yet further consecration in token of completeness. 



Similarly, the relations between day, month and year, by which 

 these seasons of observance were regulated, were also of extreme 

 simpHcity. 



The only ambiguity in the length of a month was whether it 

 should be of twenty-nine or thiity days ; the only ambiguity in 

 the length of a year was whether it should be of twelve months 



