Avodah Zarah 10a — the Talmud in English

six additional years

six superfluous years, such as when a document was brought before us today, in the year five hundred of the Greek kingdom, and “the year five hundred and six” was written in it [and it was not written to which kingdom, as 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 collect from purchasers unlawfully, for the lender could come and take a field or house that the purchasers had bought from the borrower after the time written in the document, relying on the mistaken assumption that the loan had preceded the sale, and the purchasers would thereby be disadvantaged. But a “postdated” document is valid, since the purchasers will not be disadvantaged, for the lender can collect only the fields that the purchasers bought from the time written in the document onward, and that time is after the loan; and since the lender agreed to the writing of a later date in the document, he thereby waives his lien on the borrower’s property for this period, and the possibility of collecting from the purchasers, until the later time written in the document. And therefore]—

the Sages thought

the sages who sat

before

Rav Naḥman

to say: This document is postdated!

This document is postdated by six years, and therefore,

we shall delay him

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

until its date arrives, and he shall not collect.

That is, from all the purchasers who bought land from the borrower after the loan but before the time written in the document, the lender cannot collect. Only from purchasers who buy from the borrower after six years will the lender be able to collect.

Rav Naḥman said:

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

this

this document,

a precise scribe wrote it,

a scribe who was exacting in his calculations wrote it,

and these six

these six years are the six years

that they reigned

the Greeks

in Elam, which we do not count,

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

he,

this precise scribe,

counts them [

another version:

it ]

he indeed counts 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 date, and it is not a “postdated” document.

And Rav Naḥman brings a beraita from which to learn that the Greek kingdom was established only after six years from its founding,

as it was taught: Rabbi Yosei [

son of Ḥalafta]

says: For six years they reigned

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 after 410 years: 3338; the Second Temple after 70 years: 3408; beginning of the Greek kingdom: 3442; six years for their establishment: 3448.

Therefore, Rav Naḥman’s students propose a new calculation, namely, that this scribe, like all scribes, does not write the date according to the years of the Greek kings [because it seems forced to them to count the Greek kingdom only six years after the beginning of their reign], but writes the date according to the Exodus from Egypt, and skips “one thousand” years.

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

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov challenged

Rav Naḥman:

From where

do you know to say

that we count according to the Greek kingdom,

that we count?

Perhaps,

perhaps it may be said,

we count according to the Exodus from Egypt,

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

and leave aside the first thousand,

and skip one thousand years,

and take the second thousand,

and write according to the current thousand,

and this

and this document

is postdated!?

Rav Naḥman said:

That is not so. Rather, we have established

in the Diaspora,

when we are among the gentiles,

we count only according to the Greek kings!

And since it is not reasonable that they wrote a postdated document, the previously mentioned explanation is more reasonable: that the scribe was precise in writing according to the beginning of the Greek kingdom over Elam.

He,

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov,

thought: He is merely deflecting him.

For Rav Naḥman was merely rejecting him with a dismissal—

He went out,

he went out,

investigated,

he searched,

and found,

he 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 proves this precisely.

There is also a Mishna from which Rav Naḥman 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 festivals [

as is explained there].

And

there, in tractate Rosh Hashana,

we say,

the Gemara explained that when the Mishna said that the first of Nisan is “the New Year

for kings,” for what halakhic purpose?

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

Rav Ḥisda said: For documents.

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

And

further,

we learned

we recited there:

On the first of Tishrei

it is

the New Year for years

as will be explained,

and for Sabbatical years [

from the beginning of Tishrei, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply, for it is forbidden by Torah law to plow and sow].

And there

we say:

What the Mishna said

“and for years”—

for what halakhic purpose?

For which halakhic matter is the first of Tishrei the New Year?

And

there as well

Rav Ḥisda said: For documents.

In order to know in which year the document was written, and so that it should not be a “predated” document [that is: if a date were written without a year, we would not know in which year it was written; therefore they had to establish a particular day on which the year changes for the writing of a document]—

And there we raised a difficulty:

The documents contradict one another.

For according to Rav Ḥisda’s explanation, the two laws in this Mishna contradict one another, since in one it is stated that the year changes with regard to the date written in a document on the first of Nisan, while in the second it is stated that it is on the first of Tishrei!?

And

there

we answer:

There is no contradiction here, because here it is

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

For the kings of the gentiles—

we count from Tishrei,

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

for the kings of Israel,

when they write 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 then the year changes.

And Ravina concludes his proof:

But we now,

we, the inhabitants of the Diaspora, our practice now is—

we count from Tishrei!

And it is proven that we count according to the kings of the gentiles, and we have no other kingdom whose reckoning corresponds to our reckoning except the Greek kingdom, which begins three hundred eighty years before the destruction of the Temple.

And if it enters your mind,

if it were to occur to you to say that

we count according to the Exodus from Egypt,

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

we ought to count from Nisan!

We ought to begin the count at the beginning of every year from the new moon 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 that you can infer from here,

that

we count according to the Greek kings,

in accordance with the words of the beraita and the words of Rav Naḥman.

Infer from here,

and this is the conclusion.

We learned in our Mishna:

and the day of the genosia of their kings.

And the Gemara discusses it:

What,

what is the meaning of

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

Rav Yehuda said: The day on which the gentiles establish

the Romans

their king.

And we raise an objection:

But

this

was taught: the day of genosia. And

another day,

the day on which they establish their king.

It follows that these are two separate matters?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

the day of

his genosia,

the day on which they establish the king himself.

And this,

what we learned in the beraita, refers to the day of genosia

of his son,

the king’s son, when they establish the king’s son during his father’s lifetime in order to maintain him in the kingship [to be heir apparent]; at that time his father the king rejoices and makes that day an idolatrous festival.

And we raise an objection:

But,

do the Romans really conduct themselves this way, that they

establish a king who is the son of a king!?

They do not conduct themselves by establishing a son as king in place of his father, for among them kingship does not pass by inheritance? —

But Rav Yosef taught:

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

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

for they do not install a king who is the son of a king.

“You are greatly despised”—

for they have neither script nor language

of their own, but everything comes to them from another nation.

It follows that they do not establish a king who is the son of a king!

Therefore, the Gemara explains the day of genosia differently:

Rather, what

is the meaning of

“the day of genosia”?—

the birthday

of the king, and for them it is an idolatrous festival.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught,

for we learned in a beraita:

the day of genosia, and the birthday.

It follows that the day of genosia is not the birthday.

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This,

the day of genosia, is the birthday

of him,

of the king.

And this,

what we learned, “the birthday,” is the birthday

of his son,

the king’s son.

And we raise an objection:

But

this

was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

his day of genosia

of the king,

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

And the question returns: “What is the day of genosia?”

And we answer:

Rather, what is the day of genosia,

indeed,

the day on which they establish their king.

And the day of his son’s genosia is the day on which they establish a king who is the son of a king, as we answered.

And if it is difficult for you,

and regarding what you objected from what we learned,

that they do not establish a king who is the son of a king,

that the Romans do not customarily establish a king who is the son of a king—

It is not a difficulty, because

through a request, they do establish him.

With consultation and permission of the ministers, they indeed establish a son in place of his father [the father requests permission from the council of ministers].

And the Gemara brings proof that this was their practice—

For example,

the king

Asuerus, son of Antoninus, who reigned

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

And now the Gemara lengthens its account of events involving Antoninus and his special relationship with Rabbi.

Antoninus said to Rabbi,

Rabbi Judah the Holy, the prince of Israel:

I want

my desire is

that Asuerus my son should reign beneath me

in my place,

and

I further desire

that

the city

of Tiberias be made free,

a free city not to pay tax forever, because there are sages in it [Antoninus himself served before Rabbi, and therefore he loved the sages].

And if I say to them,

if I ask them for the two things, only

one they will do for me,

they will grant me one of them, but

two,

the two things,

they will not do.

And he consulted with Rabbi which request he should make.

And it is explained in the Gemara below that Rabbi did not answer him explicitly, but with hints—

He brought

Rabbi brought

a man,

a person,

mounted him upon his fellow,

and placed him upon his companion,

and gave a dove

to the upper one [

in his hands ],

and he gave the upper one a dove in his hands,

and he said to him

Rabbi

to the lower one,

to the one below: “

Say to the upper one,

say to the one above

to make

the dove fly from his hands,

that he should make the dove fly from his hands”!

And he hinted to him that he should place his son upon the kingship in Tiberias, and when the city would be entrusted into his hand, he would release it from paying taxes. That is, he should request only the appointment of his son as king, and command his son that he release it.

He said,

Antoninus:

Infer from here

we hear from his hints,

that this is what he is saying to me,

this is how he advises me:

You request from them,

you ask them,

that Asuerus my son should reign beneath me

in my place,

and say to him,

and command

Asuerus to make Tiberias free,

that when he is seated upon his kingship he should free the city of Tiberias.

And the Gemara relates further about Antoninus and Rabbi.

He said to him,

Antoninus said to Rabbi:

The eminent ones trouble me [

of Rome ],

the eminent ones of Rome trouble me!

He brought him into the garden,

Rabbi brought him into the garden,

every day

every day

he uprooted a radish from a garden bed before him,

he uprooted a radish from a garden bed before him—

And Antoninus understood the hint.

He said: This is what he is saying to me,

this is how he advises me:

You

you

kill them one by one,

kill one of them one by one,

and do not provoke all of them at once,

and do not provoke them all at once!