Avodah Zarah 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

Six additional years

six additional years—for example, if a document is brought before us today, in the year five hundred of the Greek kingdom, and it is written in it: “Year five hundred and six” [and it was not written to which kingdom the date referred; this will be explained below]. “

A postdated document,” whose date is written later than the time of the loan, is valid [but a “predated” document, in which a date earlier than the time of the loan was written, is invalid. Since with a predated document the lender could unlawfully collect from purchasers, for the lender could come and take a field or house that purchasers had bought from the borrower after the date written in the document, relying on the mistaken assumption that the loan had preceded the sale, thereby causing the purchasers a loss. A “postdated” document, however, is valid, since the purchasers will not suffer a loss: The lender may collect only the fields that the purchasers bought after the date written in the document, which is later than the loan. And since the lender agreed to the writing of a later date in the document, he thereby relinquishes his lien on the borrower’s property for that period, as well as the possibility of collecting from the purchasers until the later date written in the document. Therefore]—

The Sages thought

the scholars who sat

before

Rav Naḥman

to say: This document is postdated!

This document is postdated by six years, and therefore

we shall restrain him

we shall restrain the lender from collecting from the purchasers who bought from the borrower

until its date arrives, and he may not collect.

That is, from all purchasers who bought land from the borrower after the loan but before the date written in the document, the lender may not collect. Only from purchasers who buy from the borrower after six years may the lender collect.

Rav Naḥman said:

It is not reasonable that the lender relinquished his lien for six years. Rather,

this

this document

was written by a meticulous scribe,

a scribe who was precise in his calculations,

and these six

these six years are the six years

that the Greeks ruled

the Greeks

in Elam, which we do not count,

as our scribes do not count them [we count the Greek kingdom from the year 3448 from the creation of the world], whereas

he

this precise scribe

does count them [

another version:

them]

he does indeed count them [and he counts the Greek kingdom from the year 3442 from the creation of the world].

And he wrote it according to its date,

and the document was written according to its actual date; it is not a “postdated” document.

Rav Naḥman cites a beraita from which one can learn that the Greek kingdom became established only six years after its founding,

as it was taught: Rabbi Yosei [

ben Ḥalafta]

says: For six years the Greeks ruled

the Greeks

in Elam, and afterward their kingdom spread throughout the entire world.

The spread of the Greek kingdom throughout the entire world occurred exactly one thousand years after the Exodus from Egypt.

The Exodus from Egypt: 2248; construction of the First Temple: 2928; its destruction 410 years later: 3338; the Second Temple 70 years later: 3408; beginning of the Greek kingdom: 3442; six years until their establishment: 3448.

Therefore Rav Naḥman’s students propose a new calculation: This scribe, like all scribes, does not write the date according to the years of the Greek kings [because it seems implausible to them to count the Greek kingdom only from six years after the beginning of their rule]. Rather, they write the date according to the count from the Exodus from Egypt and omit one thousand years.

Therefore this document is indeed postdated, because in truth, if we are now, for example, in year five hundred—which is one thousand five hundred years from the Exodus from Egypt—then this document, in which five hundred and six is written, is postdated.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov raised an objection

to Rav Naḥman:

From where

do you know to say

that we count according to the Greek kingdom

that we count?

Perhaps

it may be said

that we count according to the Exodus from Egypt,

that we count and write the date in documents according to the count from the Exodus from Egypt,

and omit the first thousand,

omitting one thousand years,

and take the second thousand,

writing the date according to the current thousand,

and this

this document

is postdated!?

Rav Naḥman said:

That is not so. Rather, we have established

in the Diaspora,

when we are among the nations,

we count only according to the Greek kings!

Since it is not reasonable that they wrote a postdated document, the aforementioned explanation is more reasonable: The scribe was precise and wrote according to the beginning of the Greek kingdom in Elam.

He,

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

thought that Rav Naḥman was merely dismissing him.

Rav Naḥman was rejecting him with a merely evasive answer—

He went out,

he went out,

examined,

he searched,

and found

a beraita that stated in accordance with Rav Naḥman’s words.

As it was taught: In the Diaspora—

we count only according to the Greek kings.

Ravina said: The Mishna also indicates this precisely.

There is also a Mishna from which Rav Naḥman’s position is proven.

As we learned

at the beginning of tractate Rosh HaShana:

On the first of Nisan—

the New Year

the beginning of a new year,

for kings,

as will be explained,

and for the Festivals [

as explained there].

And

there, in tractate Rosh HaShana,

we say,

the Gemara explains that when the Mishna says that the first of Nisan is “the New Year

for kings,” for what halakhic purpose?

For which halakha was the first of Nisan established as the New Year for kings?

Rav Ḥisda said: For documents.

That is, with regard to writing the dates of kings in documents. In their time it was customary to count the years according to the king’s years, because of “the welfare of the kingdom.” Therefore, if a new king ascended in the middle of the year [even if this occurred on the twenty-ninth of Adar], the year in which he ascended was counted for him as a full year, and on the following first of Nisan they would write in a document the first day of Nisan as the first day of his second year of reign. The Sages established a fixed date, the first of Nisan, for the sake of clarity, so that the change of year would be clear, rather than writing for each king according to his own years, which would not be clear or fixed.

And

further,

we learned

we learned there:

On the first of Tishrei

it is

the New Year for years

as will be explained,

and for Sabbatical years [

once Tishrei begins, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply, and it is prohibited by Torah law to plow and sow].

And there

we say:

What the Mishna said,

“and for years”—

for what halakhic purpose?

For which halakha is the first of Tishrei the New Year?

And

there as well

Rav Ḥisda said: For documents.

In order to know in which year a document was written, so that the document would not be “predated” [that is: If a date without a year were written, we would not know in which year it was written. Therefore it was necessary to establish a specific day on which the year changes with regard to the writing of documents]—

And there we raised a difficulty:

The laws concerning documents contradict one another.

According to Rav Ḥisda’s explanation, the two rulings in this Mishna contradict one another: In one it says that the year changes with regard to the date written in a document on the first of Nisan, while in the other it says that it changes on the first of Tishrei!?

And

there

we resolve:

There is no contradiction, because here it is

for the kings of Israel, and here it is for the kings of the nations.

For the kings of the nations—

we count from Tishrei,

we count from Tishrei, and the year changes on the first of Tishrei. Whereas

for the kings of Israel,

when writing the date in a document according to the years of the kings of Israel,

we count from Nisan.

We count from the first of Nisan, and the year changes then.

Ravina concludes his proof:

And we now,

we who are in the Diaspora, our present practice is—

we count from Tishrei!

This proves that we count according to the kings of the nations, and there is no other kingdom whose reckoning corresponds to ours except the Greek kingdom, which began three hundred eighty years before the destruction of the Temple.

And if it enters your mind

that you might say

that we count according to the Exodus from Egypt,

that our reckoning is according to the Exodus from Egypt, then

we should have to count from Nisan!

We should have to begin the count of each year at the beginning of the month of Nisan, since for the Exodus from Egypt we certainly count from Nisan, as is explained there in tractate Rosh HaShana [2b].

Rather, is it not evident from here

that

we count according to the Greek kings,

in accordance with the beraita and with Rav Naḥman’s statement.

It is evident from here,

and this is the conclusion.

We learned in our Mishna:

And the day of the genusya of their kings.

The Gemara asks:

What

is the meaning of

“and the day of the genusya of their kings”?

Rav Yehuda said: The day on which the gentiles

the Romans

install their king.

And we raise an objection:

But

that

was taught: The day of genusya. And

another day,

the day on which they install their king.

Apparently these are two separate matters?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here,

the day of

his genusya,

the day on which they install the king himself.

And there,

what we learned in the beraita refers to the day of the genusya

of his son,

the king’s son, when they install the king’s son during his father’s lifetime to secure his succession to the throne [to make him crown prince]. At that time the king, his father, rejoices and makes that day a festival of idolatry.

And we raise an objection:

But

do the Romans really conduct themselves in this manner,

installing the son of a king as king!?

They do not customarily install a son as king in place of his father, since among them the kingship does not pass by inheritance? —

But Rav Yosef taught:

The prophet Obadiah said about the descendants of Edom [who are Rome]: “Behold, I have made you small among the nations; you are greatly despised.” And we interpret “small” in the sense of “lowly”:

“Behold, I have made you small among the nations”—

for they do not install the son of a king as king.

“You are greatly despised”—

for they have neither script nor language

of their own; rather, everything came to them from another nation.

Thus, they do not install the son of a king as king!

Therefore the Gemara explains the day of genusya differently:

Rather, what

is the meaning of

“the day of genusya”?—

The king’s birthday,

and it is a festival of idolatry for them.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught,

as we learned in a beraita:

The day of genusya, and the birthday.

Apparently, the day of genusya is not the birthday.

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here,

the day of genusya is

his

birthday, the king’s.

And there,

what we learned as “the birthday” is

his son’s,

the king’s son.

And we raise an objection:

But

that

was taught

in a beraita:

His day of genusya,

the king’s,

and the day of his son’s genusya, his birthday and his son’s birthday.

The question “What is the day of genusya?” therefore returns.

And we answer:

Rather, what is the day of genusya?

Indeed, it is

the day on which they install their king.

And the day of his son’s genusya is the day on which they install the son of a king as king, as we explained.

And if it is difficult for you,

because of what you objected from what we learned,

that they do not install the son of a king as king,

that the Romans do not customarily install the son of a king as king—

This is not an objection, because

through a request, they do install him.

After consultation and with the permission of the ministers, they indeed install the son in his father’s place [the father requests permission from the council of ministers].

The Gemara cites proof that this was their practice—

For example,

the king

Asuerus, son of Antoninus, who reigned

in his father’s place with the permission of the ministers.

The Gemara now elaborates by relating incidents concerning Antoninus and his special relationship with Rabbi.

Antoninus said to Rabbi,

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the prince of Israel:

I wish

my desire is

that Asuerus, my son, should reign in my place

in my stead,

and

I have another desire

that

the city

Tiberias should be made free,

exempt from paying taxes forever, because it contains scholars [Antoninus himself served Rabbi, and therefore loved the scholars].

And if I ask them,

if I request these two things from them, only

one will they do for me,

they will grant me one of them, but

two,

the two requests,

they will not do.

He consulted Rabbi about which request he should make.

It is explained in the Gemara below that Rabbi did not answer him explicitly, but through hints—

He brought

Rabbi brought

a man,

a person,

mounted him on another,

and placed him on top of his fellow,

and gave a dove

to the upper one [

in his hands],

and gave the upper one a dove in his hands,

and said to

Rabbi said

to the lower one,

to the one below: “

Say to the upper one,

say to the one above

that he should make

the dove fly from his hands,

that he should release the dove from his hands”!

He hinted to him that he should place his son upon the throne in Tiberias, and when the city was entrusted to his authority, he should exempt it from paying taxes. That is, he should request only the appointment of his son as king, and instruct his son to exempt the city.

He said

Antoninus:

It is evident from here

I understand from his hints

that this is what he is telling me:

This is how he advises me:

You should request from them

you should ask them

that Asuerus, my son, reign in my place

in my stead,

and tell him

and instruct

Asuerus to make Tiberias free,

so that once he sits upon the throne, he will exempt the city of Tiberias.

The Gemara relates another incident concerning Antoninus and Rabbi.

He said to him

Antoninus said to Rabbi:

The important men are causing me distress [

the Romans],

the important Romans are causing me distress!

He brought him into the garden,

Rabbi brought him into a garden,

every day

every day

he uprooted a radish for him from a garden bed in his presence,

he uprooted a radish for him from a garden bed—

Antoninus understood the hint.

He said: This is what he is telling me,

this is how he advises me:

You

you

kill them one by one,

kill them one at a time,

and do not provoke all of them,

and do not provoke all of them at once!