Rosh Hashanah 2b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

This ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

teaches us

that this is what the tanna intended to teach us:

that Nisan is the New Year for kings, and

even

one day of the year [the twenty-ninth of 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].

We also learned in a beraita—a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

And if he took office only on the first of Nisan—

his first year is not counted for him until the next Nisan arrives.

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious!

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

And we answer:

It is necessary;

the beraita was necessary to teach this only in a case

where they had already agreed upon him—

the ministers had already decided to appoint him

from

the month of

Adar,

but in practice they appointed him on the first of Nisan.

You might have said

that since the decision to appoint him had already been made in Adar, before he actually took office,

we should count two years for him—

his second regnal year should be counted from the first of Nisan immediately following, since it was already clear in Adar that he was destined to reign, and it was therefore as though he had already become king.

This teaches us

that the tanna counts for him only from the time he actually became king, and from the first of Nisan he is counted as having completed only one year.

The Sages taught:

a.

If

the king

died in Adar, and

another king

took his place in

that same

Adar—

a year is counted for both this one and that one.

Thus, someone writing a legal document in Adar after the second king had begun to reign may date it to a certain year of the king who died. He may also date it to the first year of the new king.

b. And if

the king

died

in Nisan, and another took his place in

that same

Nisan—

a year is counted for both this one and that one.

Someone writing a legal document after the second king had begun to reign 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 took his place in Nisan—

the

year

first

before Nisan is counted as the regnal year

of

the king

first.

And

the year

second,

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

of

the king

second.

The Gemara now explains what the tanna intended to teach through the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

If

the king

died in Adar, and another took his place in

that same

Adar, a year is counted for both this one and that one.

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious!

This matter is self-evident! Why would it occur to us to say that a year should not be counted for both this one and that one? And we answer:

You might have said,

you might have said:

one year cannot be counted for two—

we do not count it!

The same year is not counted for two kings; rather, it is counted only for the king who reigned at the beginning of the year, and that year continues to be counted for him alone.

Therefore,

this teaches us

that a year is counted for both this one and that one.

We also learned in the beraita:

He died in Nisan and another took his place in

that same

Nisan—

a year is counted for both this one and that one.

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious!

Why did the tanna take the trouble to teach us this?

And we answer:

You might have said,

you might have said that when

we say

what we have stated, that

one day of a year is considered a year,

this applies only

at the end

of the

year.

For example, if 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—the twenty-ninth of Adar—is considered for him a complete year.

But

if a king reigned for one day

at the beginning of the year

and 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 legal document in his name.

Therefore,

this teaches us

that a year is counted for both this one and that one.

We also learned in the beraita:

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

the

year

first

before Nisan is counted

for the first,

and the

second

year, from the first of Nisan onward, is counted

for the second.

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious!

Why did the tanna take the trouble to teach us this?

And we answer:

It is necessary;

the tanna needed to teach this only in a case

where they had already agreed upon him from Adar.

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

and

he was

also the son of a king,

so the kingship passed by inheritance from father to son.

Accordingly,

you might have said

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

we should count two years for him [

count two years of his reign for him].

This teaches us

that only one year is counted for him.

The Gemara explains 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

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

“And it was in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Children of Israel went out from the land of

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

[Iyar],

which is the second month of the reign of

the

king Solomon over Israel.”

The verse is written in a rearranged form, 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 and eightieth year after the Exodus from Egypt, and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign.

The verse compares

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 Solomon’s reign

the years of the reign begin to be counted

from Nisan.

And we challenge this:

But as for the Exodus from Egypt itself—

from where do we know that

it began

to be counted from Nisan!?

Perhaps,

that too—

is counted from Tishrei!?

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

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind.

It is not possible to say this!

As it is written [Numbers 33]:

“And Aaron the priest ascended Mount Hor by the word of the Lord, and he died there in the fortieth year after the Children of Israel went 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 is the first for you among the months of the year.” It follows that all the other months mentioned in the Torah by number—for example, the fifth or sixth—are all counted from Nisan, which is the first.

However, concerning the fortieth year mentioned here, it must be examined 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 was 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 present to the Children of Israel the book of the repetition of the Torah, which is the book of Deuteronomy.

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

The Gemara now assumes that Aaron died before Moses spoke the repetition of the Torah to the Children of Israel. Below, the Gemara will ask where we know that this was indeed the case.

Since it stands—

since the first verse speaks

of Av, and calls it

“the fortieth year,”

and

if 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, the month of Shevat that followed it, in which Moses spoke the repetition of the Torah, would necessarily have been in the forty-first year.

And we challenge this:

Granted, concerning the first verse,

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

it counts the years from the Exodus from Egypt

.

But this—

the second verse, concerning the repetition of the Torah—

from where do we know that

it counts the forty years from

the Exodus from Egypt?

is the basis for counting the forty years?

Perhaps the verse counts forty years

this verse counts forty years

from the establishment of the Tabernacle,

which took place 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 spoke 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 says below, concerning a verse that mentions simply “the twentieth year,” that we learn

“the twentieth year”—

“the twentieth year” by an inference from an identical expression from another place, in order to determine which twentieth year is meant,

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

so too here,

also here, concerning the time when the repetition of the Torah was spoken, we learn

“the fortieth year” from

from

“the fortieth year”

mentioned concerning Aaron’s death,

by an inference from an identical expression:

Just as here,

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

from the Exodus from Egypt—

so too here,

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

from the Exodus from Egypt.

There is still another difficulty:

And from where

do we know

that the event

of Aaron’s death

in

the month of

Av preceded

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

Perhaps

perhaps],

the event

of the speaking of the repetition of the Torah

in Shevat preceded,

and took place before Aaron’s death?

On the contrary, we could say that the first of Tishrei begins a new year for the Exodus from Egypt. Therefore, the speaking of the repetition of the Torah in Shevat and Aaron’s death in Av both took place in the fortieth year after the Exodus from Egypt!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind!

It is not possible to say that the speaking of the repetition of the Torah preceded Aaron’s death:

Because of

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

“And it was in the fortieth year. Moses spoke to the Children of Israel

after he had defeated Sihon.”

It is clear that the speaking of the repetition of the Torah took place after the conquest of Sihon’s kingdom.

And

indeed,

when Aaron died—

Sihon was still alive!

When Aaron died, Sihon was still alive, and therefore Aaron necessarily died before the speaking of the repetition of the Torah.

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