Rosh Hashanah 3a — the Talmud in English

For it is written

Numbers 21:1]:

“And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard

and he fought against Israel.”

And the Sages expounded:

“What report did he hear”

the Canaanite, on account of which he came to fight against Israel?

He heard that Aaron had died, and the clouds of

the

Glory

that protected Israel in the wilderness had departed.

And he thought

that

permission had been given

by the Almighty

to fight against Israel,

because He no longer protected them.

And below it is explained that the Canaanite mentioned in the verse is Sihon.

And this is what is written [

Numbers 20:29]:

“And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died.”

And Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read “vayiru”

whose meaning is that the Children of Israel saw.

Rather, “vayeira’u”,

whose meaning is: the Children of Israel became visible and were exposed.

That is to say: the entire congregation became exposed, since Aaron had died and the clouds of the Glory had then departed.

And Rabbi Abbahu learned that one does not read vayiru, but rather vayeira’u,

as Resh Lakish expounded:

For Resh Lakish said: “Ki”—

serves

and is interpreted

in four expressions,

possibilities:

a.

ai

if.

b.

dilma

perhaps.

c.

rather.

d.

deha,

for it is so; as giving a reason for a matter [and like “because”].

And if we interpret “And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died” according to its plain meaning, it is impossible to interpret the word ki according to any of the four possibilities.

And from here Rabbi Abbahu learned that the intention of the verse is to say “vayeira’u”: the Children of Israel became exposed “because Aaron had died”—for Aaron had died, the clouds of the Glory had departed, and then they became exposed.

And we learn from the verse “They became exposed, because Aaron had died” that the clouds of the Glory departed when Aaron died. And this is what the verse intended by “And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard”: the Canaanite, the king of Arad [Sihon], heard that Aaron had died. It follows that Sihon was alive at the time of Aaron’s death.

And we raise an objection:

Are they comparable?

For is one to prove from the fact that the Canaanite, the king of Arad, was alive at the time of Aaron’s death that Sihon too was alive at that time?

But

there,

there [in the verse “And the Canaanite heard”] it speaks of a king

of Canaan,

whereas

here,

here [in the matter of Deuteronomy] it says “after he struck

Sihon”!

And we answer:

A tanna

in a beraita

taught: He is Sihon—

He is Sihon—

he

himself was called

Arad,

and likewise

he

himself was

Canaan [“the Canaanite”

mentioned in the verse].

And why was he called by all these names?

“Sihon”—

because he resembles a foal

in the wilderness

[for it is light on its feet. Arukh].

“Canaan” [“the Canaanite”]—

the Canaanite”]—

on account of his kingship

[for he ruled over Canaan].

And what was his name?—

“Arad” was his name.

There are those who say

[there are those who say]:

“Arad”—

because he resembles an arud

[a wild donkey]

in the wilderness.

“Canaan” [“the Canaanite”]—

the Canaanite”]—

on account of his kingship. And what was his name?

Sihon was his name.

And since we have proved that at the time Aaron died Sihon was still alive, necessarily the saying of Deuteronomy [in which it is said, “And it was in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month”—the word of Moses—“after he struck Sihon”] was after Aaron’s death.

And since Aaron’s death was on the first of Av, while Deuteronomy was said in the month of Shevat that followed it, and both were in the fortieth year, it is proven that the years from the Exodus from Egypt are not counted from Tishrei.

And we raise an objection: Indeed, it is possible to prove that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is not in Tishrei. But one may object: From where do we know that it is in Nisan?

And say,

I can still say that the

New Year

for the Exodus from Egypt is in the month of

Iyar

!

And we answer:

It should not enter your mind

[it should not occur to you to say this]!

For it is written [

Exodus 40]:

“And it was in the first month

[Nisan]

in the second year

[from the Exodus from Egypt],

on the first of the month, the Tabernacle was set up.”

And it is written [

Numbers 10]:

“And it was in the second year

[from the Exodus from Egypt],

in the second month

[Iyar],

on the twentieth of the month, the cloud rose up from over the Tabernacle of the Testimony,

and the Children of Israel journeyed.”

Since it stands,

from the fact that the verse speaking about the setting up of the Tabernacle stands

in Nisan

and calls it

that same year

“the second year.”

And

the verse that recounts that the cloud rose up from above the Tabernacle

stands

[is situated]

in Iyar,

and still

calls it “the second year.”

It follows

that you learn

that the New Year

for the Exodus from Egypt

is not Iyar!

[For if the New Year were on the first of Iyar, necessarily the verse should have said that the cloud rose from above the Tabernacle in the third year.]

And we raise an objection: Indeed, it is not possible that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt was in Iyar, but one may object:

And say,

say that the

New Year

is in

Sivan!

And we answer:

It should not enter your mind!

It should not occur to you to say so!

For it is written [

Exodus 19]:

“In the third month from the going out of the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt

[in Sivan]. On this day they came to the wilderness of Sinai.”

And if it is so,

and if indeed the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is on the first of Sivan, then

“in the third month in the second year from the going out

of the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt”—

it should have been required

[it should have been said]. For from Sivan onward the second year begins!

And necessarily, the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is not on the first of Sivan.

And until now the Gemara has proved:

a. It is not possible that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt fell between Av and Shevat [for Aaron’s death was in Av, and Deuteronomy was said in the Shevat that followed it, and both were in the fortieth year].

b. It is not possible that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt fell in Iyar [for the Tabernacle was set up in Nisan, and the cloud rose in the Iyar that followed it, and both were in the second year].

c. It is not possible that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt was in Sivan [for it was said, “in the third month from the going out of the Children of Israel,” and it was not said, “in the second year”].

And we raise an objection:

And say,

say that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is in the month of

Tammuz. And say Av. And say Adar.

For regarding these three months we have brought no proof that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt does not fall in them, and from where do we know that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is on the first of Nisan?

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said,

there is no need to learn the years of King Solomon from the Exodus from Egypt.

Rather, they can be learned

from here,

from this verse [II Chronicles 3:2]:

“And he began

[Solomon]

to build

[the Temple]

in the second month, on the second, in the fourth year of his reign.”

And it requires examination:

What is the meaning of “

in the

second”?

It has already said “in the second month”; why did the verse repeat and say “on the second”?

Is it not

that this is the meaning: in the second month [Iyar], which is the

second

in the count of the months

after

the month of Nisan, which is the

month in which they count his reign?!

And from here it follows that the years of the reign begin in Nisan.

Ravina challenged it: And say,

say that the intention of the verse is

“the second of the month”!

And from where do you know that the verse’s intention is “the second” of the month in which they count his reign?

And we answer:

If so

[that the verse’s intention is “the second of the month”],

“the second of the month”

explicitly

would have been

written in it!

As we find in several places: “on the first of the month” [Exodus 40], “in the third year, on the tenth of the month.” And we raise an objection:

And say,

say that the intention of the verse is to state the date according to the week,

“on the second day of the week”!

And we answer: It is impossible to say this for two reasons:

First, for we do not find

“the second day of the week,” as it is written.

For we do not find anywhere that the day of the week is mentioned in the words of the verse.

And furthermore: it compares the latter “second” to the earlier “second”.

The verse compares the last “second” mentioned in the verse, “in the second month,” to the first “second” mentioned in it.

Just as,

just as

the earlier “second”

is a date of a

month

and not a date of a day of the week,

so too the latter “second”

is a date of a

month

and not of a day of the week!

It was taught

in a beraita

in accordance with his view

[in accordance with his words]

of Rabbi Yohanan:

From where is it established that they count for kings only from Nisan?

As it is said [

I Kings 6]:

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

in the fourth year, in the month of Ziv—which is the second month—in the reign of King Solomon over Israel.”

Solomon’s reign is compared to the Exodus from Egypt. Just as the Exodus from Egypt is counted from Nisan, so too Solomon’s reign is counted from Nisan. And this is like Rabbi Yohanan’s words above.

And the beraita adds and brings all the verses that the Gemara needed to bring in order to explain from where we know that the Exodus from Egypt is indeed counted from Nisan:

And it is written [

Numbers 33]:

“And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor by the word of the Lord,

and he died there in the fortieth year after the going out of the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt, in the fifth month [Av], on the first of the month.”

And it is written [

Deuteronomy 1]:

“And it was in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month

[in Shevat], on the first of the month, Moses spoke.”

And Aaron’s death preceded Deuteronomy. And both were in the fortieth year. And from here it is not possible that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is between Av and Shevat.

And it is written [

there]:

“After he struck Sihon.”

And from here, that Deuteronomy was said after Sihon’s death.

And it said [

Numbers 21]:

“And he heard

the Canaanite” [Sihon heard that Aaron had died].

And it says [

there]:

“And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died.”

For the clouds of the Glory departed with Aaron’s death. And for this reason Sihon came to fight against Israel.

And from here, that Aaron’s death occurred while Sihon was alive.

And since in Deuteronomy it was said, “After he struck Sihon,” it is proven that Deuteronomy was said after Aaron’s death. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is between Av and Shevat.

And it says [

Exodus 40]:

“And it was in the first month

[in Nisan]

in the second year

on the first of the month, the Tabernacle was set up.”

And it says [

Numbers 10]:

“And it was in the second year, in the second month

[in Iyar], the cloud rose from above the Tabernacle of the Testimony.”

And from here, that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is not in Iyar.

And it says [

Exodus 19]:

“In the third month from the going out of the Children of Israel.”

And from here, that the New Year for the Exodus from Egypt is not in Sivan.

And it is still possible that the Exodus from Egypt is counted from Tammuz, Av, or Adar; therefore the beraita also brings the verse brought by Rabbi Eliezer:

And it says [

II Chronicles 3:2]:

“And he began

[Solomon]

to build

[the Temple]

in the second month

[in Iyar].

On the second

[in the second month, in the month in which they count his reign],

in the fourth year of his reign.”

And from here, that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings.

Rav Hisda said: They taught this only

that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings,

but only for the kings of Israel.

But for the kings of the nations of the world

[when they write in a document a particular year of the reign of one of the kings of the nations]—

we count from Tishrei

[we count].

And from where do we know that the years of the kings of the nations begin in Tishrei?

As it is said [

Nehemiah 1:1]:

“The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah.

And it was in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year,

and I was in Shushan the capital.”

And it is written [

there 2:1]:

“And it was in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes

[Darius], the king, [they brought] wine before him.”

It is inferred,

from the fact that in the first verse Nehemiah stands

in

the month

of Kislev, and it calls it the twentieth year [of

King Artaxerxes].

And

in the second verse

he stands [that is,

standing]

in Nisan, and it calls it the twentieth year.

By implication

you learn this, that

the new year

for the kings of the nations

is not

in

Nisan!

For if Nisan is the new year for the kings of the nations, the second verse should have said "in the twenty-first year". Below, the Gemara will explain from where it is known that the event mentioned in the second verse occurred after the event in the first verse.

And we inquire concerning this:

Granted, how

it is indeed correct that the second verse

explains that it counts for Artaxerxes

twenty years.

But this one,

the first verse,

from what

from where do we know

that for Artaxerxes

it counts twenty years?