Question XXX. Was the Passover ever transferred to some other day? (Fuerit ne in alium quandoque diem traductum pascha?)

Just as [it was lawful] to transfer the Passover extraordinarily from the first month into the second, for certain causes, so also [it] was lawful to transfer [it] from the 14th day of the first month into the same 14th day of the second, as is plain from the [things] said in q. 27. Nor in that [is there] any dissension or difficulty; but [there is] in the twofold opinion of certain [scholars]. Of whom some say [that it] was sometimes lawful to sacrifice the paschal lambs before the ordinarily-appointed day of the first month; others, after that same appointed [day] — which according to a few (of whom in the preceding question) was the 13th, [but] according to all others the 14th, as [was] understood in the same preceding question. But because [it] has been proved [that] the 13th was never the ordinary [day], therefore [it] must here be asked whether the same [day], at least by anticipation, could be an extraordinary paschal day — or any other day earlier than it, for example the 12th, 11th, 10th, and if any other? And again, whether some [day] later than the same ordinary 14th — for example the 15th, 16th, 17th, and thereafter another — could be an extraordinary day of the Passover? And in the affirmation of the prior question [there] are very many [who hold it], but so that [they] contend it was done only once, and by one [person]. These are [those] who assert [that] CHRIST the Lord anticipated the lawful day, and [that] — [the Passover] having to be eaten on the 14th day — [he] ate the Passover on the 13th. Namely, the more recent Greeks, who have lived from the year 1050, as Pope Leo the Ninth noted concerning Michael, Bishop of Constantinople (ch. 5); and among these, Nicephorus (bk. 1 of the history, ch. 28), Euthymius (on ch. 26 of Matthew), [and] lately Jeremias, Patriarch of Constantinople, in [his] refutation of the Augsburg Confession (ch. 10). But to the later question [it] is answered in a twofold way. First. If we look at the natural Mosaic cycle of the Moon, [it] was sometimes done [that], on a day later than the 14th, someone was prescribed to keep the Passover — namely the 15th, or the 16th. But if, however, we estimate the same cycle by the art and method which the Rabbis established as fixed in the Jewish calendars, [it] will be said [that] to the Passover there always falls the 14th day as to the name, [though] not as to the thing — because thus those [Rabbis] temper and describe the year. First, so that [they] most greatly beware lest they begin the first day of its first month from a [week-]feria [II, IV, or VI]; because whatever feria gives that month [its] beginning, that same [feria] also [would give] the day IV [the fourth day] — or the day later than the Passover, which will below be called the first [day] of the unleavened bread — [and they take care that this feria not] fall [on those]. And so [it] will come about that [the day] which ought to be the 14th becomes the 13th, and [the day] which [ought to be] the 15th becomes the 14th, and so in the others. And of this [they] have two rules, which say: “Tishri never begins from ADU” [i.e. not on days א-ד-ו = Sun/Wed/Fri]; and, “Pesach never [falls] on BaDU” [not on ב-ד-ו = Mon/Wed/Fri]. And to this latter [rule] [they] accommodate that [text] of Exod. 12 v. 16. Secondly. If a new moon [falls] on a day (otherwise fit for beginning the year, and neither disapproved by the previous rule, nor [already] begun by reason of the sunset) at the 18th hour — much more [if] into a later [hour] — then the month is to be begun from some [day] following, on account of [the relevant] rule. Thirdly. If also a new moon on the same—

(col. 584 — right column; printed “591”)

—of the same day [falls at] some hour below the 18th, but so that the following year’s new moon must fall [at] the 18th hour or later — or on some day at an hour later than the 18th (as regards the whole hour, or its little part, which Paulus Burgensis [Paul of Burgos] always required on Matt. 26) — or into some [forbidden] feria, that first rule being disapproved — then [it] must also be transferred [from] the previous year’s new moon. And that is done in a twofold way. First, in a common year, when the new moon would be [at] 3 days, 9 hours [and] 204 minutes (of which kind the Jews themselves put 1080 in an hour). For thus the rule GaTRaD ba-peshutim [in common years] commands; and that on account of another rule, which is called chacasch gadah. Secondly, in a year which the next embolic [leap] year follows, when its new moon would fall on the second feria, hour 15, minute 589, or above. For the rule BeTUTaKPaT achar ʿibbur [after an intercalation] then prescribes the transference too; and that on account of that other cited rule, chacasch gadah. These [things], which I here briefly touch on, are explained more amply in the Talmud [tractate] Rosh Hashanah, and there in the Hebrew Computus, where [it] treats of the qeviʿot [the fixings], or the termini and ferias on which the beginning of the year [is] to be fixed. Now [it] is enough to understand [that] the 14th paschal day can, by those artificial transferences, be referred to the 15th and 16th — which transferences are called by the Hebrews dechiot [dechiyot]; and [they] are made on account of the causes brought forward, either singly, or several joined. For [it] can happen that [a day] which is to be transferred on account of ADU may also be [one] to be transferred on account of iach; and [it] is called a “joined” or “mixed” transference. And again, [it can happen] that, when on account of one cause the new moon must be transferred into the following day, on account of another [cause] this following day too must be passed over, and that [day] be transferred to the day-after-next [perendinum]. For example: if this fell on the third feria, at the 21st hour, 542 minutes, [it] would have to be transferred, on account of GaTRaD, into the fourth feria. But ADU rejected this [feria]. Therefore, from the third feria into the fifth feria the transference would have to be made. And [it] is called a “double” or “doubled” transference. These transferences too are wont to be divided: some are called political, others physical or astronomical. Political are those of which I spoke in the first place, and [which] are signified by ADU and BaDU, because, namely, [they] look to a certain political convenience, of which below. The rest are held [as] astronomical, because [they] are drawn rather from the motion of the Sun and Moon. Since, therefore, by that artificial calculation of the Rabbis [it] comes about that [a day] which according to the common course was going to be the 14th day of the Passover in fact becomes, by that reasoning, the 12th or 13th by name — and [the day] which really was the 15th becomes the 13th or 14th by name — three [things] can be asked.

First. When were such artificial deferrals of that kind of the Passover — or transferences of the New Moons — adopted? Secondly. Could [they] have been done without violation of the Mosaic law? Thirdly. Whether, when [they] were made and established, all were bound by them, so that by their prescript both the Passover and all the other feasts had to be kept — [and] not either earlier or later?

In the first question [there is] a twofold opinion. The prior [is that] of Paulus Burgensis [Paul of Burgos] (addition on Matt. 26), and of Scaliger in each of his [books] of the Emendation of Times — in the prior indeed (bk. 2, fol. 88 & following; bk. 6, fol. 265), and in the later [book] likewise (bk. 2, fol. […])—

(col. 585 — left column; printed “592”)

—[Scaliger: bk. 2] fol. 103 & following; bk. 7, fol. 604 — [that] that postponement [comperendinatio] of the first New Moon and of the other days is most ancient. And to Scaliger, from the heretical school of Marburg, a certain Professor joined himself, in [his] disputation On the unleavened bread against Bellarmine (no. 54). This opinion can be proved, first, by Scaliger’s arguments, which in the prior Emendation are three, but in the emendation of this [second] emendation are four or five. [That] which in the first edition was the first, has been removed by the same author; but in the second edition [there is a new] first. In the very year of the Lord’s Passion, the New Moon of Nisan was on a sabbath, when nevertheless [it] should otherwise have been on feria VI [Friday]. Therefore on account of BaDU the transfer was made. Secondly. In the year of the Lord 70, the New Moon of Tishri should have been on feria IV, and yet was not, on account of ADU. Thirdly. [That] which in the first edition is the second, thus: In the year of the Lord 65, the New Moon of Nisan should have been on feria VI, and yet, on account of BaDU, [it] was thrown back into the Sabbath. In the later [edition], thus: In the year 65, an embolic [year], the New Moon of Nisan should have been on feria II, and yet was on feria III. Fourthly. Jerusalem was captured by Pompey on a sabbath day properly so called — which was the 17th [day] of Tammuz. Therefore a transfer must have been made in Tishri. Fifthly. [That] which in the first edition is the third, thus: In the year 178, in the Antiochene [era], after the Sabbatical year — as is gathered from Josephus (bk. 13, ch. 16) — the New Moon of Tishri fell on feria 2, hour 18, minute 555. Therefore, on account of Iach, [it] had to be transferred into feria III; and then the New Moon of Nisan fell on feria six, hour 11, minute 706 — therefore, on account of BaDU, [it] had to be transferred into the sabbath. In the second edition, thus: In that year, which was a common embolic [year], in the month Sivan, feria 6 was Pentecost, and feria 5 was the sabbath; therefore its New Moon [was] feria 3; therefore in Nisan and Tishri a transfer was made. Let [there] be added a sixth argument, from the authority of very many Rabbis, who say [that] this cycle of the years and days was founded, as [something] complete, by the second [Temple] — and indeed by Eliezer, by the command and authority of God the greatest and best, as their words have [it], of which perhaps below.

Yet the other opinion is [that] that transference of days indeed flourishes among the Jews today, but was not [in use] either before CHRIST the Lord, nor in his time, nor after him — until some centuries of years [had] elapsed, after, namely, the end had been put to the Babylonian Talmud, that is, after the year of the Lord 505, as I said in the prior book (ch. 8). [It] is proved. I. From the authority of many and great [men]. First, of the Jews. For Rabbi Abnezra [Ibn Ezra] (on Lev. 23) most clearly teaches [that it] is a fable [that] this tradition began already from the second Temple — nay, [that it] did not even exist when the Talmud was being made. Because both in it, and in [that] which is older than it — the Mishnah — Passovers are found which were celebrated [on] feria second, fourth, and sixth. Therefore [there] was then as yet no BaDU law which forbade it. Nor does Scaliger deny (bk. 2 of the later emendation, fol. 103) [that there] are Rabbis who say these [things] were devised after the edition of the Talmud. Secondly, of Christians. For thus [they] judge on John, ch. 13 — Toletus (bk. 5 On the Temple, ch. 3)—

(col. 586 — right column; printed “593”)

—Ribera (tom. 2, quaestione 50, disputat. 40, bks. 3 & 4; tom. 3, quaestione 73, disputat. 41, sect. 1); Soarez [Suárez] (on St. Thomas, part 3, quaest. 73); Sebastian, Bishop of Oxoma [Osma]; Bellarmine (bk. 4 On the Eucharist, ch. 8). And Scaliger confesses (later edition, bk. 7, fol. 604) [that] learned men so think. Thirdly, of some of the Innovators. For in the dedicatory epistle of the Hebrew Calendar, Munster [Sebastian Münster] says [that] the Jews try, by frivolous reasons, to gloss over this change of the feasts, and to excuse [their] transgression of the divine law. And afterward, in the treatise On the New Moons (fol. 132): “Hence,” he says, “[it] is plain [that] the Jews have a twofold reasoning of the Passover: one legitimate, by which, according to the Mosaic law, the Passover is prescribed to be celebrated on the 15th day of the month Nisan; another, devised by the law-experts on account of inept causes, against the law of God — by which [they] transfer the New Moon of the year, and the calends of the months, sometimes by one or two days.” II. First, second, and third, in the age of CHRIST the Lord, the “Fourteeners” [Quartadecimani] celebrated the Passover with the Jews on whatever feria [it] had fallen — whether I, or II, or III, or IV, and others. Therefore [there were] not yet, among the Jews, those usual “hyper-postponements” [ὑπερθέσεις] of the days, and declinations of certain ferias by the ADU and BaDU rules. The inference is clear; and the antecedent is handed down by the very Nicene Council (in Theodoret, history bk. 1, ch. 9); by Constantine the Great, in the epistle sent from the same Council (in Eusebius, bk. 3 On the Life of the same Constantine, ch. 17); by Polycrates (in the same Eusebius, bk. 5, ch. 22 & 23); by Tertullian (book On prescription); by St. Athanasius (in the epistle On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia); by St. Epiphanius (heresy 50 & 70); by St. Augustine (book On heresies, ch. 29); [and] by Philastrius (in the heresy On the feast of the Pascha). III. The ancients hand down this [as the mark] of difference between the Christian and the Jewish Pascha: that ours never falls [on] Moon 14, whether this be a Sunday or not (for if [it] be a Sunday, [it] is transferred into the following [day]; if [it] be not, [it] is awaited); but the Jews’ [Pascha] always falls [on] Moon 14, even if [it] fall on a Sunday. Come, then, let us make the 14th day to be the 14th of Nisan’s Moon. Therefore feria second [Monday] will be the first [day] of unleavened bread — against the rule BaDU and ADU. Therefore in those times, those rules [were] as yet unheard-of. And the antecedent is [found] in Epiphanius (heresy 70); [in] Theophilus, in the epistle to Theodosius, which Bede reports (book On the reckoning of times, ch. 57); [in] Bede himself (same place, ch. 59); [in] St. Ambrose (epistle 83). IV. The same St. Epiphanius (heresy 31, of the Ebionites; and 51, of the Alogi), speaking of the first day of unleavened bread as [it] was kept by the Jews in the time of CHRIST the Lord (for [he] explains what is [meant by] Luke 6, “the second-first sabbath”), says [that] in any week the feria — even II, IV, and VI — could be [the day] on which the first of the days of unleavened bread fell. Where, therefore, [were] the Baduan transferences? V. Since so many and so great Fathers, Greek and Latin, of old have treated of the day of the Pascha, both in the Old and in the New Testament, [and] have disputed against the Jews — and have sometimes questioned some of them about the city or affairs of the Hebrews — how [is it that] none of them, or [with] at least some report of hearing, signified [that he] had learned [anything] about those postponements [comperendinationes]? How [is it that he] who—

(col. 587 — left column; printed “594”)

—[he] who so often mentioned this feast — Josephus and Philo — would nowhere have sprinkled even the least little suspicion [of it]? VI. From the manner in which the Rabbis narrate that matter, and wish to procure for it the highest hoariness, to any man of “not-fat nostril” [i.e. of keen discernment] the fable stinks. For thus [they] recite: “In the house of the second sanctuary, when [it] was built and completed, then [there] was seen fire complete, and above it the King of the world raising himself aloft and standing between the vestibule of the Temple — [they] received (namely, the ancient Rabbis) a crown, and grasped the hidden seal, and numbered, and established the statute or order of the age; and [it] was handed into the hands of R. Eliezer, who [was] great in all [things]; and [he] appointed: ‘Not on BaDU Pur [the feast of lots, Purim],’ and ‘not on BaDU Pesach,’ ‘not on GeHaZ Pentecost,’ and ‘not on ADU the beginning of the year,’ and ‘not on AGU the days of propitiation [Atonement], forever.’” But if by such and so great a divine prodigy Eliezer arranged and constituted the times, how could any of the Rabbis dare to contradict him in this matter? But concerning Abenezra [Ibn Ezra] — who [is] of the highest authority among the Jews — and concerning others, I have already said above. Do I add [that], at the beginning of all times (in the very intent, namely, of the creation of the world), [there was] that “war” [dispute] against him [Eliezer] by R. Iosue [Joshua] and his followers — an indication [of falsity] — while that [Eliezer] wants [it to be] the month Tishri, [and] this [Joshua] Nisan? But [that] this Rabbi [Eliezer] should so seriously, and indeed in the first place, [treat] “of the feast of lots [Purim]” — is [there] not thereby given a great occasion to smell out the falsity of this narration? For since this feast took its beginning from Esther and Mordecai, either their history was before the second Temple, or after. If before, the Rabbis falsely assert [that], when that Temple was complete, these canons were made by that Eliezer; if after — [or] if [it] was straightway after the Temple — [it] cannot be shown [that] this time coincided with the completion of the Temple (when [they] want that fiery throne to have appeared and those canons to have been founded); or [if it] agree [with a time] long after (as I truly showed [it] was, on Esther ch. 1, quaest. 3), then much less could a feast which was not yet [in existence] be described by Eliezer. VII. Scaliger himself seems even little firm and consistent with himself in this his opinion. For, besides that [he] deserted his first argument from his first edition (as [was] done above), [he] says [that] those transferences were in use among the Jews already from the utmost antiquity (in the same first edition, fol. 89): “so that I would dare to affirm [them] even [to be] older than the Babylonian exile,” he says. But in the other edition (fol. 102) [he] is content to fetch the epochs of those times from the Seleucid Kings, who were much later than the Babylonian exile; [and] repeats [it]. In the same edition (bk. 7, fol. 604) [he] again affirms [it] before the Seleucid times. Then almost the whole disputation which [he] had instituted about these [things] in the prior edition, [he] either changed or diminished in the second. What [of the fact] that in the same second edition [he] vehemently asserted [what] before (bk. 2, fol. 104), [and] the same [thing] (bk. 5, fol. 422 & 423) [he] more vehemently denies? But that [matter], in this same question, when [his] fourth argument is discussed, will perhaps come into [our] hands again. VIII. But now [it] will be worth the labor to weigh what causes and proofs the Jews’ own Rabbis — and from them Burgensis [Paul of Burgos] (in the cited place) and Sca—

(col. 588 — right column; printed “595”)

—liger (bk. 7, fol. 604) bring forward [for those political transpositions]. One [cause] is: lest two sabbaths run consecutively. For if the New Moon of Tishri were let be [on] feria first [Sunday], IV, and VI — which the canon ADU rejects — nevertheless the 10th day of the month, which is [that] of propitiation [the Day of Atonement], would fall on feria VI; since indeed, the first [day] of Tishri being that same feria V, [the tenth] would be [on] feria first, if the first day of the month were feria VI. But if the day of propitiation be feria sixth [Friday], the Sabbath will follow [it]; if [it] be feria first [Sunday], the Sabbath will precede [it]; and so two sabbaths will be continued — namely, the Sabbath, and the feast [of Atonement] which is to be observed as a Sabbath. Burgensis says these [things] otherwise, but either [his] memory or [his] calculation deceived him. And [they] say [it is] absurd [that] two sabbaths of this kind be continued, for two causes. One is משום ירקיא ומשום מתיא [mishum yerakya u-mishum metaya], that is, “on account of the vegetables [herbs] — or cooked foods — and on account of the dead”: because these, against the danger of corruption and of [loss of] decency, cannot be preserved through a solid two-day [period]; and this cause is called בחדי תרי שבתי [be-chadei terei shabtei, “the two sabbaths together”]. The other cause is: lest in the Sabbath some work be done which ought not to be done. For example: if the first day of Tishri were feria first [Sunday], then the feast-day which is called Hoshana Rabba [the great Hosanna] would fall on the very day of the Sabbath; and then, by reason of the feast, the hoshanot or palm-branches would have to be carried, [and] a certain procession would have to be made — a circuit once around the altar itself of old, but now around the maemar [the reading-platform], or that place which [they have] in the Synagogues, higher [raised] and in the middle. But, by reason of the Sabbath, these [things] ought not to be done.

But that former [cause], concerning two continuous Sabbaths, was neither of old kept among the Jews — even in the times of the Seleucids themselves — nor is [it] kept today, nor [is it] necessary to keep [it]. First I show [this] by that old example which Scaliger himself, for another matter (bk. 2, fol. 104), calls “illustrious, and [one] which cannot be passed over without sin.” And [it] is from Nicolaus of Damascus (in Josephus, bk. 13, ch. 16), where, while Hyrcanus was following Antiochus Sidetes and Pius [in war] against the Parthians, [Hyrcanus] besought him [Antiochus] on the journey [that] he would halt for a two-day [period], because by chance a native [Jewish] feast had fallen; and Josephus explains [that it] was then “Pentecost after the Sabbath.” Behold — sabbaths, or festal days on which [one] abstains from work, two continuous: ἡ πεντηκοστὴ μετὰ σαββάτου [hē pentēkostē meta sabbatou, “Pentecost after the Sabbath”], as Josephus speaks; to whom, if [there] had then been any hearing of ADU or BaDU, [even] the least, this [author] could not but have indicated [it]. Nay, Hyrcanus would more easily have obtained one day of rest from the King than [if he] had asked [for two] days; and [it] would have been more prudent and more moderate. But Scaliger perceives [that] his opinion concerning the antiquity of the transferences is much pressed by that example, and therefore has tried to turn [it] aside — never indeed openly, but covertly, and as if doing something else — yet, in his own manner, inconsistently. For in the Emendation (bk. 2, fol. 90) [he] said the continuation of Sabbaths [was] avoided, except in Pentecost. But this exception, because [he] perceived [it] made by himself without cause and foundation, [he] answers otherwise in the Emendation of the Emendation (bk. 7, fol. 604): “With this,” he says, “the ancient Jews instituted [that] they had regard of the one Tishri, which is almost entirely excepted from the solemnities”; and straightway [he] subjoins those two causes, of foods and of corpses: “because,” he says, “to preserve these through a continuous two-day [period], in the autumn time most fervent in [those] regions, was dangerous.” But [he] devises this exception too entirely out of his own brain.

(col. 589 — left column; printed “596”)

—[he] devises [it]. For since in the Talmud [tractate] Rosh Hashanah — that is, “of the head of the year” — in the commentaries on the mazaloth [zodiac constellations], the tekufot [seasons], the mechuberoth [conjunctions], and the qeviʿot [the fixings], the Jews’ Rabbis have written so many things, how [comes it that] this exception [is] written or insinuated by none [of them] ever? And how does that [Scaliger] call the autumn time “most fervent”? How, in the month Sivan — while in those regions the harvest was being carried on, and Pentecost was being celebrated — could foods and corpses be preserved for a two-day [period], [but] in the month Tishri could not? And when is more of vegetables eaten than in the vernal and summer months? But neither, for Tishri, do these [Rabbis] teach [that] the continuation of the Sabbaths was always removed by the Rabbis’ canons of transferring. These [are] their [own] words: חוי נוטיב ורה השנה … קדושה אחת לעולם [approx.] — that is, “forever the Jews keep rosh hashanah, or the beginning of the year, [on] two days, and indeed of one and the same sanctity.”

The other [point] was: [that] today those causes concerning foods and the bodies of the dead are not kept. For indeed we see [that they] duplicate almost all the feasts — as the first and last day of Tabernacles and of the Passover, and of similar [feasts]. But being asked why — since that [is] not commanded, nay, since [to do] anything of those [things] which are commanded is forbidden [on such days] — they do so, [they] answer [that] they received this from the Rabbis, [and that] the New Moons were not certainly known to them; and therefore, if perhaps [there] should be error on one day, [they] compensate that error by the other day. [It] is added [that], by the Baduan canon too, two continuous Sabbaths could [arise]. For let [it] be, for example, [that] the New Moon of Nisan [be] on feria first: certainly the 14th of the same month [will be] a day [that] will be a Sabbath, and the 15th will be the solemn first [day] of unleavened bread. Again, let the same New Moon of the same month be on a Sabbath: [it] will necessarily be after the Sabbath of Pentecost, as [it] was in the time of Hyrcanus, as [was] expounded above; and [it] was but a few years ago.

The third [point] was: [that] the same causes concerning the cooking of foods and the burial of the dead are not necessary. For [that] the dead could be carried out and buried on feast-days [was] confirmed at the end of the preceding question. But [that] vegetables [are] eaten on the Sabbath—

(col. 590 — right column; printed “597”)

—who commands [it]? What so great necessity presses? Or [is it that] of other foods [there] is nothing? And can these not be so preserved, seasoned, and cooked, that [they] bear the sun in the cellar and store for a two-day [period]? Then, on the feasts of unleavened bread and the like, the cooking of foods and [their] preparation was granted to anyone by the divine law (Exod. 12 v. 16).

I go on, therefore, to the other cause — concerning the carrying of palms on the Sabbath, and the circuit of the altar or of the ambo [pulpit]. For I ask by what [persons] and when these began. For while [the Rabbis], objecting to themselves why on account of hashana [Rosh Hashanah] the transmigration of days is made — [and] not on account of the blast of the trumpets — confess [that] those [rites] were instituted and begun by their Rabbis, that [thing] I ask: why on the Sabbath [is it] not lawful to do these [things]? Do [they] not pertain to the worship of God? Were [they] not done in the Temple, as [they] wish? And — that I may take the argument from CHRIST the Lord (Matt. 12 v. 5): “Have ye not read in the law, that on the Sabbaths the priests in the Temple violate the Sabbath, and are without crime [guiltless]?” Truly, [it] is [a work] of greater, more difficult, and more abject toil and labor to lead lambs and oxen to the altar on feast-days, to slaughter [them], to flay, to cleanse and wash [them], to cut [them] limb from limb, to lay [them] on the altar and burn [them] — and, that I may say [it] in a word, to discharge the office of shepherds, butchers, and cooks — than to carry palms in [one’s] hands and to venerate God with a religious circuit. [Was] not (2 Esdras [Nehemiah] 12 v. 27), at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, a pious “wall-circuit” [muralis circuitio] held? [Was] not, in the Jericho-overthrow, a pious “city-lustration-circuit” [amburbale] likewise [held] on the Sabbath day? And, will [they], nill [they], the Rabbis must confess — since not only on the seventh day of Tabernacles, but also on the first and the following [days], they perform the same circuits and palm-ceremonies — either [that] this does not conflict with the holiness of the Sabbath, or [that they] violate that same holiness even on the first day of Tabernacles too, though less often. For on the first day and the following [ones] [they circuit] only once; but on the seventh day, seven times (as will elsewhere again be recalled), [they] go around with palms. And because in the little narration of this matter Burgensis was again [involved], and [he] nevertheless recalls himself to the Reader’s estimation, I will here place the necessary table of the month Tishri.

Table of the month Tishri — the day of the month (1–21), the weekday-feria (with its planetary sign) when the 1st is a Sunday [feria 1], and the feasts:

[Caption of this column:] “Nowhere from this [arrangement do] two Sabbaths [fall] continuous.” [The printed table carries further parallel columns testing a start on other ferias; several are captioned “Two continuous Sabbaths” (Duo Sabbatha continua), showing which starts would produce back-to-back Sabbaths.]

(col. 591 — left column; printed “598”)

Now indeed, since [it was] after the times of CHRIST the Lord [that] the Rabbis devised these transpositions of days, [the] conjecture of those [is] not far from the truth who say [it] was done by them to abolish the memory and authority of the Lord’s Passion — because, namely, the Passover can never [then] be [on] feria VI [Friday].

IX. [It] is established by R. Samuel Iarchinaah [Jarchi] [that] the tekufot are reckoned from the Julian year. But where [was] this [Julian] year in the time of the Seleucids? Nor is [it] enough [that] they confess these [tekufot] came in, [but] not the translations [transferences]; for concerning the antiquity of these [tekufot] [they bring] nothing more than concerning those [transferences]. [It] remains, first, that something be said to Scaliger’s arguments.

To 1, 2, 3: the antecedent is denied. Because [Scaliger] is wont both to reckon the years of the Lord, and several Passovers of the same [year], otherwise than the truth has [them], and to use his own peculiar “chrono-arithmetic.” To 4: [Scaliger] himself answers (bk. 5 of the later emendation, fol. 422) in these words: “The reasoning escaped Josephus, and me too, who (bk. 2) vainly tried to demonstrate [that] the 17th [of] Tammuz of that year, which Josephus assigns, was a Sabbath.” And afterward (fol. 423): “In the second book we sought what was not, and plainly we were deluded with Josephus: [there] is plainly an ἀνωμαλία [anōmalia, “anomaly”] in the circle [cycle] of the sun. Let ours, then, be corrected — and Dio’s, and Josephus’s error.” Since, therefore, [Scaliger] himself not only nods and applauds, but even orders and asks [it], the antecedent is likewise denied. To 5: because this is proposed in a twofold way, I respond first, as to the prior edition, [that] the first consequence is to be denied. For a translation is not made on account of Iach when [it] is precisely Iach — that is, hour 18 — as some wish, against Burgensis; or certainly, [only] when [it] is something above hour 18, as the opinion of all assents. To this Scaliger himself says [there are], above hour 18, minutes 555. How, therefore, ought the translation to be made? But [that there] is no necessity of a translation if [it] be precisely hour 18 (and [that] nothing be lacking nor over), these words of the Rabbis teach, in the chapter on mehuberoth [conjunctions] & qeviʿot cited above (fol. 142) [Hebrew], that is: “When the molad or New Moon falls on hour 18 (Note well) or after hour 18 and above, certainly then [it] would not be seen on that day, not [even] by a particle or one moment; and if we should fix the New Moon itself, and men did not see [it], [it] would be a mockery and an illusion.”

And this is [what] is called the molad, or the “old New Moon.” But if [it] could be seen even one moment before the middle of the day, no translation is made — since a part of the day is as [it were] a whole day. I respond, as to the 2nd edition, [that] the last consequence is denied. For in Iyar, which is a month of 29 days, the New Moon was [on] feria 4; but in Nisan [on] feria fifth, on account of which no translation is [made]; therefore in Tishri the New Moon was on a Sabbath. For the canon is: “rosh hashanah, or the New Moon of Tishri, is the third day [from] the same Pesach.” But the Sabbath is not a day which is called פסול [pasul, “invalid/unfit”], or unfit for the New Moon. Therefore [so]. Because, truly, the intercalation of the months does not depend on these translations of days, and therefore that [intercalation] could already anciently be in use, [but] this [day-translation] not likewise — whatever the Marburg disputant On unleavened bread (no. 59) may hallucinate.

(col. 592 — right column; printed “599”)

To the other question, moreover — whether without violation of the Mosaic law transferences and intercalations of this kind could be made? — Paulus Burgensis (in the cited place) and Bellarmine (bk. 4 On the Eucharist, ch. 7) answer [that they] could; because when the law prescribed this or that month or day, [it] willed [it] to be taken not by the most accurate calculation of the Astronomers, but [by that] which all commonly hold, and which was publicly set before all. For [it] is not necessary to pursue the true, most difficult motions of the sun and moon, but [one] may be content with the mean [motions], by the divine law — as [is done] among us in the Christian Church too, both as regards Ecclesiastical and Political [matters]. Yet a distinction seems to be applied. For truly, if the cause of the translation and intercalation be from the motion of the Sun and Moon, or even from certain other necessary things, those [transfers] are truly [lawful]; but if [they be effected] from other, non-necessary [causes], and made up by the sole arbitrary will of private men, the divine law seems indeed to be twisted. And of this kind are all the Aduan and Baduan [rules].

To the third question, [Bellarmine] answers in the same book, but in the following chapter, with these words: “If such a change (of the days) had been made, all — even the best men — ought to have followed that change. For, as I showed above, [it] was not against the law of God, but was a certain accommodation of the Calendar, prudently made. Whence deservedly, as schismatics and disobedient to the Synagogue, those could have been punished who had done otherwise.” Namely, because such a change was ordered by the Magistracy and the wise men — whom [one] must deservedly reckon to have approved, in the Sanhedrin, no [causes] but true and necessary ones. Yet the Marburg heretic, cited before, barks at Bellarmine in a twofold way, in [his] booklet On unleavened bread (no. 49 & 5). First. [That] many pious [men] were accustomed to keep the ancient and Mosaic days of the Passover, not that [day] which the Synagogue had postponed: “For [there] were,” he says, “in those days [those] who altogether denied the law handed down orally” — or, as the Tishbite [Elias Levita] says of Elias (namely in the word Tsadok): “Kapheru ba-torah shel be-ʿal peh, lo heeminu … ba-torah shel bi-ktav” — that is, “they did not believe except what was written in the [written] law; and thence [they] were called Karaim [Karaites], that is, Biblicists or textualists.” Whence, when R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon son of Iochai [Yochai] was being lamented, among his other praises [it] was said [that] he was Kara, that is, a Biblicist. Second. [That] by these [Karaites] — even if perhaps with little good grace they differed from the priests and scribes — nothing was sinned against the Political tranquility; for the celebration of the Passover was performed in private houses, which disturbed the public use of the Calendar not at all.

But in his prior barking [Moltherus] does not prove that which the heretic assumes — [namely] that many pious men then anticipated the day prescribed by the Synagogue. For grant [that] they were Karaites: did they [therefore] keep no law brought forth by the Magistrates? Or, if anything had to be done Ecclesiastically or Politically, did [they] never comply? Then, those Karaites — how does [he] call [them] “pious men”? Does not Elias Thesbites [Levita], the author [he] cites, in the cited place call them פושעים [poshim, “transgressors”], that is, Apostates or heretics? Does [he] not testify [that they] are Sadducees, and [are] so called by the Latins? But because the disputant [Moltherus] makes so much of Scaliger — that [he] would think some hoariness could be procured for the day-translation by the authority of that one [man] (no. 54) — come, [let us see], concerning the Karaites, what [is said] by the same—

(col. 593 — left column; printed “600”)

—written by the same [author] (bk. 2, later edition, fol. 144): “Few,” he says, “[are] the Karaim [Karaites] in proportion to the Rabbanites, who are diffused through all Europe. These, although [they be] mere Jews, nevertheless exercise inexpiable hatreds among themselves; nor [would one] distinguish them from the others, that [they] at least [might] address one another.” And these Karaim [are] of the remnants of the old Sadducees, whose these [things are], in the Scriptures, [as their] praises: [that] they say [there] is no resurrection (Matt. 22 v. 23), nor Angel, nor Spirit (Acts 23 v. 8). But what [Scaliger] afterward changed of these, and how rightly, is very easy to read in the Minerval (bk. 3, ch. 10 & 11). But concerning R. Eliezer the Rabbi, [Elias] answers in the word Kara — [Elias Thisbites (Levita)], who related this little history. For [he] says [that] sometimes [he] is called Kara who is diligent, assiduous, and fixed in the divine codex, which they call — from reading — Mikra, and who is otherwise called baal pasuk [master of the verse], though [he] be not of the Sadducees’ heresy; and in that manner this Eliezer [is] named Karai. But be it [so]: [suppose he] was of that heresy, and [was] praised by that name — what does [it] matter? For what [was] he, and by whom [was he] so praised? By his own [people], namely — “by the sons,” says Elias, “of his own generation” — who [are] בני דורו [benei doro, “the sons of his generation”] — just as [it would be] if anyone should praise the followers of Illyricus [Flacius], Luther, Calvin, [and] Schwenckfeld, as others have done. For whose funeral-lie of their own [people] do these [men] not bless? Furthermore, [Moltherus] in [his] later barking takes [it] as [it were] certain [that] the conscience is not bound by the laws of the Magistrates, and then, if secretly and privately anything be done against them, [that there] is nothing of sin. But the Apostle contradicts (Rom. 13 v. 5): “Be subject of necessity, not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience.” Then [it] is false [that], thus in private houses, the Passover could be kept by anyone so that [it] would not be publicly known. In the minds of many this error has settled; but [it] is to be uprooted from the [things] said (q. 21 & 24). For all the paschal lambs of all [the people] had to be immolated by the priests and Levites — and indeed in the Temple, where the [things] that were done [were done], and indeed through the public ministers of the sacred rites — [they] could not but be public, and manifest to all. And hence, [as] by light, [it] is made the clearer [that] neither CHRIST the Lord, nor any other, could have wished — or conveniently have [been able] — to anticipate or transgress the ordinary day of the paschal immolation, [the day] appointed by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin. [There] are certain difficulties, as regards CHRIST the Lord, [which have] already [been] set forth by Ribera and Soarez [Suárez], but [more properly] by Toletus and others, and [which are] perhaps more properly of another place. And truly, the question [being] now laid aside, [I have said] already more than enough — of which mention had also been made (bk. 1, ch. 4, q. 12).