The Rashba at the end of this post is causing me discomfort. WHAT IS PSHAT???
ראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר
MISHNA: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, and the witnesses were interrogated, but the court did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, so that the thirtieth day already passed, the previous month is rendered a full, thirty-day month, and the following day is observed as the New Moon.
גמ׳ למה לי למיתנא ראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איצטריך סד"א הואיל וראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איפרסמא לה ולא ליעברוה קמ"ל
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon? Merely stating that the court saw the moon would have sufficed, since its sanctification depends on them. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to teach that even in that case, the month is intercalated. As it might enter your mind to say that since the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, it was publicized that it was the New Moon that day, and let them no longer intercalate the month. Therefore, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that even in the case where all the Jewish people saw the new moon, the New Moon must be declared by the court.
וכיון דתנא ליה ראוהו ב"ד וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים למה לי ה"ק א"נ נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר
The Gemara asks further: But once the mishna states: If the court and all of the Jewish people saw the new moon, why do I need it to say: And the witnesses were interrogated? Why are witnesses necessary if the new moon was already seen by the court? The Gemara answers that this is what the tanna is saying: Alternatively, if the witnesses were interrogated, but the court had no time to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, the previous month is intercalated and rendered a full month of thirty days.
איצטריך סד"א תיהוי חקירת עדים כתחילת דין ומקודש מקודש כגמר דין ולקדשי בליליא מידי דהוה אדיני ממונות דתנן דיני ממונות דנין ביום וגומרין בלילה הכא נמי מקדשין בליליא קמ"ל
The Gemara explains: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Let the interrogation of the witnesses be regarded as the beginning of the judicial process, and let the declaration: Sanctified, sanctified, be regarded as the conclusion of the judicial process, and let them sanctify the month at night, because the process began during the day. This process would then be just as it is in cases of monetary law, as we learned in a mishna: In cases of monetary law, although they must be adjudicated during the day, the court may judge the majority of a case during the day, and complete the trial and issue the ruling at night. Here too, one might assume that the court may sanctify the month at night, as the process began during the day. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the court may not do so.
ואימא הכי נמי אמר קרא (תהלים פא, ה) כי חק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב אימת הוי חק בגמר דין וקא קרי ליה רחמנא משפט מה משפט ביום אף הכא נמי ביום:
The Gemara raises another difficulty: Why not say that, indeed, the sanctification of the month should be treated like monetary cases? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to Rosh HaShana: “For this is a statute for Israel, a judgment [mishpat] of the God of Jacob” (Psalms 81:5). When does the sanctification of the month become a statute? At the end of the judicial process, and the Merciful One calls it a judgment as well, thereby teaching that just as the primary time of a judgment is during the day, here too, with regard to the sanctification of the New Moon, the process must take place during the day, and not at night.
Says the Rashba:
