Sanhedrin 11b - Deciding on Leap Years in Chutz La'aretz

The Braisa says that עיבור שנה can only be done in Yehuda, and if it were done in Galil it is a machlokes whether it would even be binding. The gemara learns it out of a pasuk לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה - כל דרישה שאתה דורש לא יהיו אלא בשכנו של מקום. Rashi seems to understand that the requirement is to do it specifically in Yerushalayim, and adds that it must be the beis din that is established in yerushalayim, referring to the Sanhedrin. However, Tosafos seems to contrast the gemara with being me'aber the year in chutz la'aretz, implying that all we require is that it take place in Eretz Yisroel, but not necessarily Yerushalyim. The Rambam (Kiddush HaChodesh 1:8) also writes that being me'aber the year and kiddush HaChodesh must take place in Eretz Yisroel, but doesn't mention Yerushalayim.

Regarding the particular aspect that must take place in E.Y. or Yerushalayim, Tosafos seems to understand that it is the actual sanctification and declaration, but the calculation may be done even in Chutz la'aretz. However, the Minchas Chinuch (4) understands from the Rambam that even the calculation must take place in E.Y., and cannot be done in chutz la'aretz.

Tosafos quotes from the gemara in Brachos that if the gadol hador is in chutz la'aretz, the requirement of the kiddush to be done by the gadol hador trumps the requirement of it being done in E.Y. However, the Minchas Chinuch raises a question, what if the gadol hador is in E.Y. but it is not feasible to do the ibur in E.Y., can it be done in chutz la'aretz? He quotes from our Tosafos who cite the Yerushalmi that if the ibur cannot be done in E.Y. it can be done in chutz la'aretz, just as we find that Yirmiyahu and Yechezkel and Baruch ben Naria were me'aber in chutz la'aretz. But, the Minchas Chinuch challenges the proof of Tosafos. Although we find that the nevi'im were me'aber in chutz la'aretz, that is because the mitzvah of ibur in E.Y. is only during a time period when E.Y. retains its kedusha, but during the galus when the kedusha rishona was lost, they can be me'aber even in chutz la'aretz. Therefore, the fact that the nevi'im were me'aber in chutz la'aretz doesn't prove that any o'nes in E.Y. entitles the ibur to take place in chutz la'aretz, because that is only during the time of the galus when E.Y. lost its kedusha. The minchas chinuch proves his point from the gemara in megilla 14a which says that we only say hallel on a miracle that took place in E.Y., which only applies when E.Y. is chosen, to the exclusion of the exodus from Mitzrayim which was prior to E.Y. being chosen. Based on this, the minchas chinuch concludes that nowadays when we say that the קדושה שניה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא, even if there is an o'nes that prevents kiddush in E.Y., it cannot take place in chutz la'aretz.

The Minchas Chinuch concludes that this is all assuming that the kedusha relevant to being mekadesh and me'aber in E.Y. is kedusha for Teruma and Ma'aser, but since we learn this din from the pasuk of לשכנו תדרשו and כי מציון תצא תורה as Tosafos points out, it is really dependent on kedusha of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdash where the kedusha was associated with the shechina rather than kedusha of the land, and the kedusha of the shechina was not lost in the galus bavel (Rambam Beis HaBechira 6:14-15). Since we see that even in the time where Yerushalayim had its kedusha, the nevi'im were mekadesh in chutz la'aretz, it is clear that whenever there is an o'nes that prevents kiddush or ibur in E.Y., it can be done in chutz la'aretz.