Rosh Hashanah 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

ha

ka mashma lan,

this is what the tanna came to teach us:

that Nisan is the New Year for kings, and

even

one day in the year [29 Adar]

is considered a year [and once 1 Nisan arrives, the second year is counted].

is considered a year [and once the first of Nisan arrives, the second year is counted].

is considered a year [and once the first of Nisan arrives, the second year is counted].

We learned further in a beraita:

And if he became king only on the first of Nisan—

his year is not counted until the next Nisan arrives.

And we challenge this:

Obviously!

For this matter is simple and self-evident! Why would it occur to us to say that a new year should be counted for him?

And we answer:

It was necessary;

the beraita needed to teach this only in a case

where they had already agreed upon him,

where the ministers had already collectively decided to appoint him

from

the month of

Adar,

but in practice appointed him on the first of Nisan.

Lest you say

that since the decision to appoint him had already been made in the preceding month of Adar,

we should count two years for him,

counting his second regnal year from the first of Nisan—the first Nisan after the decision—since it had already been clear in Adar that he was destined to reign, making it as though he had already become king.

It teaches us

that the tanna counts his years only from the time he actually became king, and from the first of Nisan he is counted as having begun only one year.

The Sages taught:

a.

If

the king

died in Adar, and

a king

another rose in his place in

the same

Adar—

a year is counted for each of them.

Someone who comes to write a document in Adar, after the second king has become king, may write that it is in such-and-such a year of the king who died. He may also write that it is the first year of the new king.

b. And if

the king

died

in Nisan, and another rose in his place in

the same

Nisan—

a year is counted for each of them.

Someone who comes to write a document after the second king has become king may count according to the number of years of the first king, who died, or according to the first year of the living king.

c. And if

the king

died

in Adar, and another rose in his place in Nisan—

the

year

first

before Nisan is counted as the regnal year

of the

king

first.

And

the

second year,

from the first of Nisan onward, is counted as the first regnal year

of the

king

second.

The Gemara now explains what the tanna came to teach in the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

The king

died

in Adar, and another rose in his place in

the same

Adar; a year is counted for each of them.

And we challenge this:

Obviously!

This matter is self-evident! Why would it occur to us to say that a year should not be counted for each of them? And we answer:

Lest you say,

lest you say:

One year for two—

we do not count it!

We do not count the same year for two kings; rather, we count it only for the king who reigned at the beginning of the year, and continue counting that year for him alone.

Therefore

it teaches us

that a year is counted for each of them.

We learned further in a beraita:

He died in Nisan and another rose in his place in

the same

Nisan—

a year is counted for each of them.

And we challenge this:

Obviously!

Why did the tanna trouble to teach us this?

And we answer:

Lest you say,

lest you say that

when we say

what we stated, that

one day in a year is considered a year,

this applies only

at the end

of the

year.

For example, when a king began to reign in Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives his second year is counted for him, because the final day at the end of the year [29 Adar] is considered for him like a complete year.

But

a king who reigned for one day

at the beginning of the year

and then died—

we do not say

that his reign on the first day alone is considered as though he had reigned for the entire year. Once he dies, that year is not written in a document in his name.

Therefore

it teaches us

that a year is counted for each of them.

We learned further in a beraita:

He died in Adar and another rose in his place in Nisan—

the

year

first

before Nisan

for the first, and

the

second

year, counted from the first of Nisan onward, is counted

for the second.

And we challenge this:

Obviously!

Why did the tanna trouble to teach us this?

And we answer:

It was necessary;

the tanna needed to teach this only in a case

where they had already agreed upon him from Adar.

The ministers had already collectively decided in Adar to appoint him king,

and

he

is also the son of a king,

and the kingship passes by inheritance from father to son.

Accordingly,

lest you say

that we should consider the month of Adar as though he had already been king during it, and once Nisan arrived

we should count two years for him [

counting two years of his reign for him].

It teaches us

that only one year is counted for him.

The Gemara explains from where the Mishna learned that the year of kings begins on the first of Nisan:

Rabbi Yohanan said: From where do we know that kings are not counted

for the years of their reign

except from Nisan?

As it is stated [I Kings 6]:

“And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Children of Israel had gone out from the

land of Egypt, in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv

[Iyyar],

[Iyar],

which is the second month of the reign of Solomon over Israel.”

the

king Solomon over Israel.”

On this date Solomon built the Temple, as explained there in Kings.

The verse is syntactically inverted, and this is its meaning: In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month.

This verse calls that year the four-hundred-eightieth year after the Exodus from Egypt, and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.

It compares

the verse

the reign of Solomon to the Exodus from Egypt.

Just as the Exodus from Egypt,

just as the years counted from the Exodus from Egypt begin

from Nisan—

so too the reign of Solomon

begins counting the years of the reign

from Nisan.

Since the verse had to count the same year according to two reckonings—one for the Exodus from Egypt and the other for Solomon’s reign—we learn that the verse intends to compare them with one another. (Rashba, below 3a, s.v. “What does it mean,” within his discussion.) Rashi explained above, on page 2a, that the Gemara asks, “For what practical purpose?” Why did the Sages need to establish a specific day on which to count the years of kings? Why not say that each king’s complete year should be counted from the day on which he took office, from that day to the corresponding day? The Penei Yehoshua wondered about Rashi’s explanation: The Gemara here cites a verse teaching that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings. If so, why did the Gemara above question the practice of counting each king’s years according to the day on which he took office? The Arukh LaNer answered that one might have said that the verse compares only Solomon’s reign with the Exodus from Egypt, and not the reigns of the other kings. Therefore, the Gemara above said that the Sages had reason to establish that all the years of kings should be fixed on the same day, and since Solomon’s years begin on the first of Nisan, they fixed the years of all kings according to Solomon’s years.

And we challenge this:

But the Exodus from Egypt itself—

from where do we know that

it began

to be counted from Nisan!?

Perhaps,

perhaps that too

is counted from Tishrei!?

Even though the Children of Israel left Egypt in Nisan, nevertheless, once Tishrei arrived the second year began. Since Tishrei is the New Year for the years counted from the creation of the world, it is also the New Year for the years of the Exodus from Egypt.

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind.

It should not occur to you to say this!

For it is written [Numbers 33]:

As it is written [Numbers 33]:

“And Aaron the priest ascended Mount Hor at the command of the Lord, and he died there in the fortieth year after the Children of Israel had gone out from the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first of the month.”

The fifth month mentioned here is Av, which is the fifth month from Nisan.

As it is stated [Exodus 12:2]: “This month [Nisan] shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first for you of the months of the year.” It follows that all the other months mentioned in the Torah by way of numbering [such as the fifth and sixth] are all counted from Nisan, which is the first.

However, regarding the fortieth year mentioned here, it must be considered whether it began in Nisan or in Tishrei. The Gemara proceeds to prove that the fortieth year began in Nisan.

And it is written [Deuteronomy 1]

And it is written [Deuteronomy 1]:

“And it came to pass in the fortieth year

[after the Exodus from Egypt],

in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, Moses spoke

to the Children of Israel.”

That is, Moses began to recite to the Children of Israel the book of the repetition of the Torah, which is the book of Deuteronomy.

This month is Shevat, which is the eleventh month in the counting of the months beginning with Nisan.

The Gemara now assumes that Aaron’s death occurred before Moses spoke to the Children of Israel the repetition of the Torah. Below, the Gemara will ask from where we know that this was indeed so.

Since it stands,

from the fact that the first verse speaks

of Av, and calls it

“the fortieth year,”

and

the second verse

speaks

of Shevat,

and calls

it also

“the

fortieth year,”

it follows that the New Year

for the Exodus from Egypt

is not Tishrei!

For if the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt were in Tishrei, then necessarily the month of Shevat that followed it, in which Moses recited the repetition of the Torah, would have been in the forty-first year.

And we challenge this:

Granted, this one is clear,

it is correct that the first verse we cited [concerning Aaron’s death] explicitly states that

it counts the years as being from the Exodus from Egypt

.

But this one,

the second verse, concerning the repetition of the Torah—

from what

do we know that

the Exodus from Egypt

is the basis for counting the forty years?

Perhaps

this verse counts forty years

from the establishment of the Tabernacle,

which occurred in the second year after the Children of Israel left Egypt.

It is possible that Aaron died in Av of the fortieth year after the Exodus from Egypt, and Moses subsequently recited the repetition of the Torah in Shevat of the fortieth year after the establishment of the Tabernacle!

And we answer:

As Rav Pappa said,

just as Rav Pappa said below [3b], concerning a verse in which the twentieth year is mentioned without clarification, that we learn

“the twentieth year”—

“the twentieth year” through a gzera shava

from another source, in order to determine which twentieth year is meant,

so too here,

here as well, with regard to the time when the repetition of the Torah was recited, we learn

“the fortieth year”

from

“the fortieth year”

mentioned concerning Aaron’s death,

through a gzera shava:

Just as here,

just as here, concerning Aaron’s death, the fortieth year mentioned there is counted

from the Exodus from Egypt—

so too here,

concerning the recitation of the repetition of the Torah, the fortieth year mentioned there is counted

from the Exodus from Egypt.

There is still another difficulty to raise:

And from what,

from where do we know

that the event

of Aaron’s death

in

the month of

Av preceded

the recitation of the repetition of the Torah, which took place in Shevat?

Perhaps [

perhaps],

the event

of the recitation of the repetition of the Torah

in Shevat preceded

and occurred before Aaron’s death?

On the contrary, let us say that the first of Tishrei begins a new year for the Exodus from Egypt. Accordingly, the recitation of the repetition of the Torah in Shevat and Aaron’s death in Av both occurred in the fortieth year after the Exodus from Egypt!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind!

It should not occur to you to say that the recitation of the repetition of the Torah preceded Aaron’s death:

Because

it is written [there, verses 3–4], concerning the recitation of the repetition of the Torah: “

what is written [Deuteronomy 1:3–4] concerning the speaking of the repetition of the Torah:

And it came to pass in the fortieth year. Moses spoke to the Children of Israel

after he had smitten Sihon.”

This proves that the recitation of the repetition of the Torah occurred after the conquest of Sihon’s kingdom.

And

indeed,

when Aaron’s soul departed—

Sihon was still alive!

When Aaron died, Sihon was still alive; necessarily, Aaron died before the recitation of the repetition of the Torah.

And from where do we know that when Aaron died, Sihon was still alive?