ראש השנה 3 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And the Canaanite the king of Arad heard. What was the report that he heard? He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed, and he judged that it was now permitted to attack Israel; and this is intimated in the verse, And all the congregation saw [wa-yiru] that Aaron was dead, [commenting on which] R. Abbahu said, Do not read wayiru, but wa-yerau [and they were seen], [the next word being translated] in accordance with the dictum of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, Ki has four significations — ‘if’, ‘perhaps’, ‘but’ ‘for’. [In objection to this it may be asked], Are the two things alike? [The verse] there speaks of Canaan, whereas [here] it [speaks of] Sihon? — It has been taught: Sihon, Arad, and Canaan are all one. He was called Sihon as resembling a sayyah [foal] of the wilderness, he was called Canaan after his kingdom; and as for his real name, this was Arad. According to other authorities, he was called Arad as resembling an ‘arad [wild ass] of the wilderness, and Canaan after his kingdom, while as for his real name, this was Sihon. But can I not suppose that New Year is in Iyar? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, And it came to pass in the first month in the second year on the first day of the month that the tabernacle was reared up, and it is written elsewhere, And it came to pass in the second year in the second month . . . that the cloud was taken up front over the tabernacle of the testimony. Seeing that the text when referring to Nisan places it in the second year and when referring to Iyar places it also in the second year, we may conclude that Iyar is not New Year. Can I suppose then that New Year is in Sivan? — Do not imagine such a thing. For it is written, In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt; and if Sivan is New Year, it should say, ‘In the third month in the second year after the children of Israel etc.’ But why not say that New Year is in Tammuz, in Ab, in Adar? — Rather, said R. Eleazar, we learn [that Nisan is New Year] from here: And he began to build in the second month in the second in the fourth year of his reign. What [is here meant by] ‘in the second’? Does not [the superfluous word] mean the second by which his reign is reckoned? Rabina strongly demurred to this. Why not, [he said], suppose it to mean the second day of the month? — In that case it would have said distinctly, ‘on the second day of the month’. But may I not suppose it means on the second day of the week? [This cannot be for two reasons.] One is that we never find the second day of the week mentioned in Scripture, and the other is that the second ‘sheni’ [second] is put on the same footing as the first sheni, [indicating that] just as the first sheni refers to a month, so the second sheni refers to a month. It has been taught in accordance with R. Johanan: 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 etc.,’ and it is further written, ‘And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, etc.,’ and it is further written, And it came to pass in the fortieth year in the eleventh month’, and it is further written, ‘After he had smitten Sihon etc:,’ and it is further written, And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead etc.,’ and it is further written, ‘And it came to pass in the first month in the second year etc., and it is further written, ‘And it came to pass in the second year in the second month etc.,’ and it is further written, ‘In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt etc.,’ and it is further written, ‘And he began to build etc.’ R. Hisda said: The rule [that New Year for kings is in Nisan] was only meant to apply to the kings of Israel, but the years of non-Israelitish kings are reckoned from Tishri, as it says, The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. Now it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year etc., and it is written further, And it came to pass in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. Now since when speaking of Kislev he places it in the twentieth year and when speaking of Nisan he places it also in the twentieth, we may conclude that New Year is not in Nisan. [This, however, is not conclusive]. In the latter text, it is true, it is expressly stated that [it was the twentieth year] of Artaxerxes, but in the former how do we know that the reign of Artaxerxes is referred to? Perhaps^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:Num. XXXIII, 40. (V. Tosaf. s.v. gnahu ). The text continues in the E.V., of the coming of the children of Israel, but the Talmud renders (more in accordance with the original), ‘when the children of Israel came’. The text thus does not state what he heard and so leaves room for the exposition which follows.
^ᵇnote:Num. XX, 29.
^ᶜnote:I.e., became visible, the clouds of glory having previously served as a screen to them.
^ᵈnote:In the original.
^ᵉnote:And here if we read wa-yerau, ‘ki’ means ‘for’. Apparently Resh Lakish means that these four significations are in addition to the usual one of ‘that’, which must be the meaning here if we keep the reading wa-yiru.
^ᶠnote:Viz., your exposition and your argument.
^ᵍnote:The second month.
^ʰnote:Ex. XL, 17.
^ⁱnote:Num., X, 11.
^ʲnote:The third month.
^ᵏnote:Ex. XIX, 1.
^ˡnote:The fourth month.
^ᵐnote:The fifth month.
^ⁿnote:The twelfth month. The months between Ab and Adar have already been excluded above where it was shown that Ab and Shebat must be in the same year.
^ᵒnote:E.V., ‘on the second day’.
^ᵖnote:II Chron. III, 2.
^ᵠnote:This being the usual formula of the text.
^ʳnote:This citation is inserted in the text on the authority of Maharsha. It is certainly necessary.
^ˢnote:The seventh month.
^ᵗnote:The ninth month.
^ᵘnote:Neh., I, 1.
^ᵛnote:Ibid, II, 1.

²some other system of dating is adopted? — R. Papa replied: The occurrence in each text of the expression ‘twentieth year’ provides us with a gezerah shawah, [indicating that] just as in the latter case it means ‘of the reign of Artaxerxes’, so in the former. But how do you know that the incident of Kislev was prior? Perhaps the incident of Nisan was prior? — Do not imagine such a thing, since it has been taught: The things that Hanani told Nehemiah in Kislev were related by Nehemiah to the king in Nisan. ‘The things that Hanani told Nehemiah’, as we read, The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. Now it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the castle, that Hanani, one of my brethren, came out of Judah, he and certain men; and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, that were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem. And they said unto me: The remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province are in great affliction and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burned with fire. These things ‘were related by Nehemiah to the king in Nisan,’ as we read, And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twen tieth year of Artaxerxes the king, when wine was before him, that I took up the wine and gave it unto the king. Now I had not been beforetimes sad in his presence. And the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou are not sick? This is nothing else but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid. And I said unto the king, Let the king live for ever; why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchres, lieth waste and the gates thereof are consumed with fire? Then the king said to me: For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven. And I said unto the king: If it please the king and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldst send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it. And the king said unto me, the queen also sitting by him, For how long will thy journey be and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time. R. Joseph sought to disprove [the statement that the years of non-Israelitish kings are reckoned from Tishri, as follows]: [It is written], In the four and twentieth day of the month, in the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king, and it is further written, In the seventh month in the second year in the one and twentieth day of the month. Now if it is [as you say], then we should have here ‘in the seventh month in the third year’! — R. Abbahu replied: Cyrus was a worthy king, and therefore they reckoned his years like those of the kings of Israel. R. Joseph demurred strongly against this [last notion]. For one thing [he said, if this is so,] then there is a contradiction between two biblical texts. For it is written, And the house was finished on the third day of the month of Adar, which was the sixth year of Darius the king, and in connection with this it has been taught: ‘At that period ,in the year following, Ezra went up from Babylon along with his band of exiles’. Now it is written further, And he [Ezra] came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king; and if it is [as you say], it should be ‘in the eighth year’? Further, is there any connection [between your answer and the question]? You speak of Cyrus and the text speaks of Darius! — It has been taught: ‘Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes were all one. He was called Cyrus because he was a worthy king; Artaxerxes after his realm; while Darius was his own name. All the same, the contradiction still remains? — There is no contradiction. The one verse speaks of him before he degenerated, the other after he degenerated. R. Kahana strongly demurred to this [saying], Did he indeed degenerate? Is it not written,^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ

^ʷnote:V. Glos.
^ˣnote:And the year might therefore commence with Nisan.
^ʸnote:Neh., I, 1-3.
^ᶻnote:Neh. II, 1-6. It is not clear why the last three verses are quoted.
^ᵃᵃnote:Hag. I, 15.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. II, 1. This verse follows immediately on the one just quoted and it is assumed that it refers to the same year as the preceding verse; therefore the words ‘in the second year’, which appear in the quotation as given in the Talmud in brackets, are not found in this verse (Rashi).
^ᵃᶜnote:The Hebrew word is kasher, which contains the same consonants as the name Koresh (Cyrus).
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., commenced them with Nisan.
^ᵃᵉnote:The Second Temple.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ezra, VI, 15.
^ᵃᵍnote:Which would be the seventh year of Darius.
^ᵃʰnote:In Haggai.
^ᵃⁱnote:The Second.
^ᵃʲnote:Mentioned together in Ezra, VI, 14.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. supra, p. 8, n. 4.
^ᵃˡnote:[The Persian Artakhshathra means ‘by whom empire is perfected’].
^ᵃᵐnote:Between the statements in Haggai and in Ezra.
^ᵃⁿnote:In Haggai, which reckons his years from Nisan.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘fermented’, a metaphor either from wine turning to vinegar or from flour becoming leaven. The ‘evil imagination’ is often compared by the Sages to a ‘leaven’.