1 MISHNAH. THERE ARE FOUR NEW YEARS. ON THE FIRST OF NISAN IS NEW YEAR FOR KINGS AND FOR FESTIVALS. ON THE FIRST OF ELUL IS NEW YEAR FOR THE TITHE OF CATTLE. R. ELEAZAR AND R. SIMEON, HOWEVER, PLACE THIS ON THE FIRST OF TISHRI. ON THE FIRST OF TISHRI IS NEW YEAR FOR YEARS, FOR RELEASE AND JUBILEE YEARS, FOR PLANTATION AND FOR [TITHE OF] VEGETABLES. ON THE FIRST OF SHEBAT IS NEW YEAR FOR TREES, ACCORDING TO THE RULING OF BETH SHAMMAI; BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, PLACE IT ON THE FIFTEENTH OF THAT MONTH. GEMARA. FOR KINGS. Why this law? — R. Hisda said: For dealing with documents, as we have learnt: ‘Bonds if antedated are invalid, but if postdated are valid’. Our Rabbis learnt: If a king ascended the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives he is reckoned to have reigned a year. If on the other hand he ascended the throne on the first of Nisan, he is not reckoned to have reigned a year till the next first of Nisan comes round. The Master has said, ‘If a king ascends the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, as soon as the first of Nisan arrives he is reckoned to have reigned a year.’ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠ
2 This teaches us that Nisan is the New Year for kings, and that one day in a year is reckoned as a year. ‘But if he ascended the throne on the first of Nisan he is not reckoned to have reigned a year till the next first of Nisan comes round’. This surely is self-evident? — It had to be stated in view of the case where his election to the throne was determined upon in Adar. You might think that in that case we should reckon him [by the next first of Nisan] to have reigned two years. We are therefore told [that this is not so]. Our Rabbis learnt: If [a king] died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Adar, we can designate [the rest of] the year [up to the first of Nisan] as belonging to either. If he died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, we can date the year by either. If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first and the later by the second. The Master has here said, ‘If he died in Adar and was succeeded by another, we can date the year by either’. Surely this is obvious? — You might think that we never date the same year by two kings; hence we are told [that this can be done]. ‘If the first died in Nisan and was succeeded by another in Nisan, the year may be dated by either’. This also seems to be obvious? — You might think that when we lay down that a day in the year is reckoned as a year we mean only at the end of the year but not at the beginning; therefore we are told [that this is not so]. ‘If the first died in Adar and he was succeeded by another in Nisan, the earlier year is dated by the first and the later by the second’. This surely is obvious? — It had to be stated in view of the case where his election was determined upon from Adar and he is succeeding his father. In that case you might think that we should reckon two years to him. We are therefore told [that this is not so]. R. Johanan said: How do we know [from the Scripture] that the years of kings’ reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month. Here Solomon's reign is put side by side with the exodus from Egypt, [to indicate that] just as [the years from] the exodus from Egypt are reckoned from Nisan, so [the years of] Solomon's reign commenced with Nisan. But how do we know that the years from the exodus from Egypt itself are reckoned as commencing with Nisan? Perhaps we reckon them from Tishri? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, And Aaron the priest went up into Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month, and it is further written, And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke, etc. Now since the text when referring to Ab places it in the fortieth year and again when referring to [the following] Shebat places it also in the fortieth year, we may conclude that Tishri is not the beginning of the year. [This, however] is not conclusive. I grant you that the former text states explicitly that [the year spoken of was] ‘from the going forth from Egypt’; but how do we know that [the year mentioned in] the latter text is reckoned from the exodus? Perhaps it is from the setting up of the Tabernacle? — [We may reply to this] on the model of R. Papa, who said [in another connection] that the occurrence of the expression ‘twentieth year’ in two contexts provides us with a gezerah shawah: so here, [I may say that the occurrence of] the expression ‘fortieth year’ in the two contexts provides us with a gezerah shawah, [showing that] just as in the one case [the date is reckoned] from the Exodus, so in the other case also. But how do you know that [in respect of these two incidents] that of Ab was prior? Perhaps that of Shebat was prior? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written [in connection with the latter], ‘After he had smitten Sihon’; and when Aaron died Sihon was still alive, as it is writtenʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐ