The Process of Declaring the New Moon
by Herb Solinsky       from Tustin, CA    9-18-2004
 
(1) Israel as the Geographical Anchor
 
Num 10:10 shows that the Levitical priesthood was to blow two silver 
trumpets to declare that a new month has begun. Through this brief 
statement we can at least say that the priesthood had the responsibility to 
gather testimony concerning the sighting of the new moon and make a 
decision of whether to declare it. Since the priesthood was commanded to 
dwell within the boundaries of ancient Israel, that is the region from 
which testimony would have been taken as long as the Levitical priesthood 
existed. Jumping to today's society in the modern world, if multiple 
peoples around the world were to arrive at an indedendent determination 
based upon individual arbitrary regional decisions of "locally" sighting 
the new crescent, that implies that YHWH declares regional feast days that 
may overlap and conflict in certain geographical areas, making two 
different days holy even in the same place where two different 
organizations may overlap in geography. This makes YHWH the author of 
confusion, contrary to I Cor 14:33. Different people may invent different 
concepts of how to determine a new moon in their own area in terms of 
distance and height above sea level, and there is no biblical guideline for 
such a definition. As long as people elsewhere are able to communicate with 
people in Israel, the only way to avoid making YHWH the author of confusion 
and also respect the concept of Num 10:10 (even recognizing that the 
Levitical priesthood no longer exists), is to use the boundaries of Israel 
as the geographical anchor for visibility of the crescent.
 
(2) A minimum of Two Witnesses for sighting the New Crescent
 
Compare Deut 25:4 (You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the 
grain) with I Cor 9:9-10 (For it is written in the law of Moses, 
"You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it [only] 
oxen YHWH is concerned about, or does He say it altogether for our sakes? 
For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in 
hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.). From 
this comparison it should be clear that certain laws within the law of 
Moses were meant to be understood as examples of general principles rather 
than as only highly specific laws with no other application.
 
This is no doubt the reason that when Deut 19:15 declares "on the mouth of 
two witnesses or on the mouth of three witnesses a matter shall be 
established", this is not only intended to apply to the immediate context 
of murder. This is seen because it is quoted in Mat 18:16; John 8:7; and II 
Cor 13:1 to apply to other situations besides murder. The New Testament is 
not going beyond the Old Testament here. Instead, it is a recognition that 
the original understanding of the Old Testament was to generalize the 
specific application of the law to other situations.
 
Thus the general principle of Deut 19:15 should apply to the sighting of 
the new crescent. While the Mishnah (c. 200) of Orthodox Judaism does 
indeed apply this principle to the sighting of the new crescent, since the 
Mishnah is not to be used to establish one's beliefs, the basis should be 
Deut 19:15, not the Mishnah.
 
(3) Only a continuous Naked Eye sighting should be admitted as a Witness
 
As an avid student of the history of ancient astronomy I can say that the 
invention of the telescope is not provable before 1608, but in that year 
several Europeans constructed telescopes about the same time. Galileo first 
constructed one in 1609 and made important improvements. See pages 326-329 
of "The Norton History of Astronomy and Cosmology" by John North (New York 
and London: W. W. Norton, 1994). Ancient peoples showed great interest in 
the moon, yet there is no ancient drawing that shows details of the surface 
of the moon that would require a telescope, nor is there any historical 
evidence that ancient peoples invented a telescope.
 
When people discuss the sighting of the crescent today, it seems generally 
agreed that evidence for the new crescent should not be accepted by methods 
that were not available in the days of the functioning of the Levitical 
priesthood. This means that if an individual is in an airplane flying over 
Israel, that would prevent accepting such a testimony for having seen the 
new crescent. In fact, it means that the observer should be standing on the 
ground or sitting on some object that is on the ground, and certainly using 
naked eye observation at the time of declaring having seen the new 
crescent. Furthermore, the sighting should be a continuous one rather than 
one that lasted only about a second, even if separately repeated later for 
about a second. This prevents a vivid imagination from fooling a sincere 
mind. The question of how much use of a telescope or binoculars may be 
acceptable is treated next.
 
(4) Partial use of a Telescope or Binoculars
 
The principle that evidence for the new crescent should not be accepted by 
methods that were not available in the days of the functioning of the 
Levitical priesthood is generally accepted, although there are exceptions 
to almost everthing when human opinions are taken. But sometimes observers 
go to great lengths to enhance the likelihood that they will see a new 
crescent with the naked eye. For example, they will use a knowledge of 
modern astronomy to correctly predict where and when in the sky the 
crescent should be seen, and then focus a telescope upon an accurate 
mounting pointing to that location. When they finally see it at that 
location through the telescope, they will then try to locate it with 
binoculars. Then they will periodically remove the binoculars to try to see 
it with the naked eye. Then upon seeing it continuously with the naked eye, 
they will declare they have seen the new crescent. Obviously different 
people will have different opinions about this process.
 
One aspect that relates to this process deserves special comment. This has 
to do with the refraction of light from an astronomical body as it travels 
to the eye of an observer. Having watched some new crescents as they 
lowered down to the horizon from my sighting location that has been near 
the latitude of Israel (especially the area around Dallas, Texas), I noted 
that they changed shape significantly during last part of the descent. This 
change of shape is due to the increasing effect of refraction as the light 
from that object neared the surface of the earth. The density of the 
earth's atmosphere increases as one approaches sea level. As the density of 
the atmosphere increases, refraction also increases. This increasing 
refraction distorts the shape of what one sees. When it gets low enough, it 
ceases to have the characteristic appearance of the new crescent.
 
When the crescent is seen from the northern hemisphere, it looks different 
near the time of the vernal equinox compared to near the time of the 
autumnal equinox. Near the vernal equinox it looks somewhat like a bowl 
whose bottom is horizontal and down. Near the autumnal equinox it looks 
somewhat like a backwards letter "C". When it gets near the horizon, the 
bowl shaped crescent gets flattened to a very short horizontal straight 
line, and anyone seeing this who had not already been watching it before 
would not think this was a crescent since all the curvature would be gone. 
When it gets near the horizon, the backwards "C" shaped crescent gets 
flattened to the outline of what appears to be an extremely narrow squashed 
tip of a cigar, but not filled internally, and anyone seeing this who had 
not already been watching it before could easily mistake it for the outline 
of a cloud.
 
Armed with the above information, let us comtemplate the following. 
Consider two observers, observer "A" using the sophisticated modern 
techniques of an aimed mounted telescope and binoculars, and observer "B" 
who is nearby with only his eyes to see, but "B" is not in contact with 
"A". If this is a very difficult case in which to imagine seeing the new 
crescent and both of them happen to first see it with their naked eye at 
the same time, and moreover, the moon is very close to the horizon, the 
thoughts in their minds are likely to be quite different. Observer "A" is 
likely to think as follows. I have been watching this crescent all along 
for many minutes with binoculars and now I finally see with my naked eyes 
what I have been looking at all along, so I know it is the new crescent. 
Observer "B" is likely to think as follows. I see something out there, but 
I'm not quite sure what I am looking at, because it doesn't have the 
typical characteristic appearance of the new moon; it could be the latter 
stage of what a new moon looks like, but it is so low that it's difficult 
to be sure if this is a crescent or perhaps a piece of cloud.
 
If one accepts the principle that evidence for the new crescent should not 
be accepted by methods that were not available in the days of the 
functioning of the Levitical priesthood, then one must consider the 
difference between the thinking of observer "A" and the thinking of 
observer "B". While I would not object to an observer knowing where to look 
and even using a telescope and binoculars to pinpoint the direction to 
look, upon seeing the object with my naked eye, I would have to make a 
judgment of whether the appearance of the object is sufficiently close to a 
crescent that if I were seeing this for the first time, I would be 
convinced this is a crescent rather than a piece of cloud. If the 
appearance alone is not convincing, even though I would in reality know it 
is the new crescent because I had been observing it for a number of minutes 
with binoculars, it should not be admitted as evidence for seeing the new 
crescent because it would be unconvincing to an ancient observer.
 
This means that when a report is given by observers of the new moon in a 
difficult situation where binoculars or a telescope was used, the report 
should include details of approximately how long it was seen with the naked 
eye, how it appeared to the naked eye, and a judgment of whether it would 
have been convincing to an ancient observer. If it would not have been 
convincing to an ancient observer, then it should not be accepted as a 
witness to the new crescent.