Rosh Hashanah 3a (ג.) — the Talmud in English

As it is written [Numbers 21:1]:

Numbers 21:1]:

“And the Canaanite king of Arad heard

and waged war against Israel.”

And the Sages expounded:

“What report did

the Canaanite hear, as a result of which he came to wage war against Israel?”

He heard that Aaron had died, and the Clouds of

the

Glory

that had protected Israel in the wilderness had departed.

And he thought

that

permission had been granted

by the Holy One, blessed be He

to wage war against Israel,

since He no longer protected them.

It is explained below that the Canaanite mentioned in the verse was Sihon.

And this is what is written [Numbers 20:29]:

Numbers 20:29]:

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

And Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read “vayiru,”

whose meaning is that the Children of Israel saw,

but rather “vayeira’u,”

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

That is, the entire congregation became exposed because Aaron had died and the Clouds of Glory had then departed.

And Rabbi Abbahu learned from this that one should not read vayiru but vayeira’u,

as Reish Lakish taught:

For Reish Lakish said: The word “ki”

serves

in the sense of

four expressions,

possibilities:

a.

I

if.

b.

Dilma

perhaps.

c.

Ela. Rather.

d.

Deha,

for. That is, it gives a reason for the matter [and is similar to “because”].

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

From here Rabbi Abbahu learned that the verse intends to say, “And they became exposed, because Aaron had expired”—for Aaron had expired, the Clouds of Glory had departed, and then they became exposed.

And we learn from the verse “And they became exposed, because Aaron had expired” that the Clouds of Glory departed when Aaron died. This is the meaning of the verse, “And the Canaanite king of Arad heard”: The Canaanite 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 the cases comparable?

Can it be proved from the fact that the Canaanite king of Arad was alive at the time of Aaron’s death that Sihon was also alive at that time?

But

there,

in the verse “And the Canaanite heard,” the subject is the king of

Canaan,

whereas

here,

in the context of Deuteronomy, it says, “after he smote

Sihon!”

And we answer:

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

He is Sihon—

He is Sihon—

he

was himself called

Arad,

and likewise

he

himself was

Canaan [“the Canaanite” mentioned in the verse].

the Canaanite” mentioned in the verse].

And why was he called by all these names?

“Sihon”—

because he resembled a foal

in the wilderness

[since it is swift on its feet. Arukh].

“Canaan” [“the Canaanite”]—

the Canaanite”]—

because of his kingdom

[since he ruled over Canaan].

And what was his name?

His name was “Arad.”

Some say

[there are those who say]:

“Arad”—

because he resembled a wild ass

[a wild donkey]

in the wilderness.

“Canaan” [“the Canaanite”]—

the Canaanite”]—

because of his kingdom. And what was his name?

His name was Sihon.

Since we have established that Sihon was still alive when Aaron died, it necessarily follows that the giving of Deuteronomy [which says, “And it was in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month”—Moses spoke—“after he had smitten Sihon”] took place after Aaron’s death.

And since Aaron died on the first of Av, while Deuteronomy was given in the Shevat that followed, and both events occurred in the fortieth year, it is proven that the years from the Exodus are not counted from Tishrei.

And we raise an objection: It can indeed be proved that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus is not in Tishrei. But one can ask: From where do we know that it is in Nisan?

And say

that I could still say that the

New Year

for counting the years from the Exodus is in the month of

Iyar!

[It is in Iyar!]

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

[it is not plausible to say this]!

As it is written [Exodus 40]:

Exodus 40]:

“And it was in the first month

[Nisan],

in the second year

[from the Exodus],

on the first of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected.”

And it is written [Numbers 10]:

Numbers 10]:

“And it was in the second year

[from the Exodus],

in the second month

[Iyar],

on the twentieth of the month, the cloud was raised from above the Tabernacle of the Testimony,

and the Children of Israel journeyed.”

Since the verse concerning

the erection of the Tabernacle is referring to

Nisan

and calls it

that year

“the second year,”

and

the verse that recounts the raising of the cloud from above the Tabernacle

is referring

[standing]

to Iyar,

and nevertheless

calls it “the second year.”

By inference

you learn

that the New Year

for counting the years from the Exodus

is not Iyar!

[For if the New Year had been on the first of Iyar, the verse would necessarily have had to say that the cloud was raised from above the Tabernacle in the third year.]

And we raise an objection: It is indeed impossible that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus was in Iyar, but one can ask:

And say

that the

New Year

is in

Sivan!

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind!

It is not plausible to say so!

As it is written [Exodus 19]:

Exodus 19]:

“In the third month of the Exodus of the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt

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

And if it is so,

if the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus is on the first of Sivan, then

“in the third month, in the second year of the Exodus

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

it should have said

[it would have been appropriate to say this], since the second year begins from Sivan onward!

It necessarily follows that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus is not on the first of Sivan.

Until this point the Gemara has proved:

a. It is impossible that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus falls between Av and Shevat [for Aaron died in Av, and Deuteronomy was given in the Shevat that followed, and both were in the fortieth year].

b. It is impossible that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus falls in Iyar [for the Tabernacle was erected in Nisan, and the cloud was raised in the Iyar that followed, and both were in the second year].

c. It is impossible that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus was in Sivan [for it says, “In the third month of the Exodus of the Children of Israel,” and it does not say, “in the second year”].

And we raise an objection:

And say,

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

Tammuz. And say Av. And say Adar.

For concerning these three months we have brought no proof that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus does not occur in them. So from where do we know that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus is on the first of Nisan?

Rather, Rabbi Elazar said,

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

Rather, they can be derived

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 this requires examination:

What is meant by

“in the

second month”?

The verse already said “in the second month”; why did it repeat itself and say “on the second”?

Is it not

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

second

month in the count of the months

after

the month of Nisan, which is the

month by which his reign is counted?!

From here it follows that the years of a king’s reign begin in Nisan.

Ravina challenged this: And say,

say that the verse means

“the second of the month!”

From where do you know that “second” refers to the month by which his reign is counted?

And we answer:

If so

[if the verse intended “the second of the month”],

“the second of the month”

explicitly

would have been

would have been written there!

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 verse intends to state the date by the day of the week,

“on the second day of the week!”

And we answer: This cannot be said for two reasons:

First, for we do not find

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

For nowhere do we find the day of the week mentioned in the words of Scripture.

And furthermore: The latter “second” is compared to the first “second.”

The verse compares the last “second” mentioned in “in the second month” with the first “second” mentioned there.

Just as

as

the first “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

[in support of]

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position:

From where is it derived that the years of kings are counted only from Nisan?

As it is stated [I Kings 6]:

I Kings 6]:

“And it was in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Children of Israel had left 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.”

The reign of Solomon is compared to the Exodus. Just as the Exodus is counted from Nisan, so too Solomon’s reign is counted from Nisan. This is in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement above.

The beraita adds and cites all the verses that the Gemara needed to bring in order to answer the question of how we know that the Exodus is indeed counted from Nisan:

And it is written [Numbers 33]:

Numbers 33]:

“And Aaron the priest ascended to Mount Hor at the command of the Lord,

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

And it is written [Deuteronomy 1]:

Deuteronomy 1]:

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

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

Aaron’s death preceded Deuteronomy, and both were in the fortieth year. From here it follows that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus cannot fall between Av and Shevat.

And it is written [ibid.]:

there]:

“After he had smitten Sihon.”

From here it follows that Deuteronomy was given after Sihon’s death.

And it says [Numbers 21]:

Numbers 21]:

“And he heard

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

And it says [ibid.]:

there]:

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

The Clouds of Glory departed upon Aaron’s death. For this reason Sihon came to wage war against Israel.

From here it follows that Aaron’s death occurred during Sihon’s lifetime.

And since Deuteronomy says, “After he had smitten Sihon,” it is proven that Deuteronomy was given after Aaron’s death. Therefore, it is impossible to say that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus falls between Av and Shevat.

And it says [Exodus 40]:

Exodus 40]:

“And it was in the first month

[Nisan]

in the second year

on the first of the month, the Tabernacle was erected.”

And it says [Numbers 10]:

Numbers 10]:

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

[Iyar], the cloud was raised from above the Tabernacle of the Testimony.”

From here it follows that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus is not in Iyar.

And it says [Exodus 19]:

Exodus 19]:

“In the third month of the Exodus of the Children of Israel.”

From here it follows that the New Year for counting the years from the Exodus is not in Sivan.

It is still possible that the Exodus is counted from Tammuz, Av, or Adar. Therefore, the beraita also cites the verse brought by Rabbi Eliezer:

And it says [II Chronicles 3:2]:

II Chronicles 3:2]:

“And he began

[Solomon]

to build

[the Temple]

in the second month

[Iyar].

On the second

[in the second month, the month by which his reign is counted],

in the fourth year of his reign.”

From here it follows that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings.

Rav Ḥisda said: They taught

that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings

only with regard to the kings of Israel.

But with regard to 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 stated [Nehemiah 1:1]:

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 [ibid. 2:1]:

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.”

From the fact that

Nehemiah is in the first verse

in

the month

of Kislev, and it calls it the twentieth year

of King Artaxerxes.

And

in the second verse

he is

[standing]

in Nisan, and it calls it the twentieth year.

It follows that

you learn from this that

the new year

for the kings of the nations

is not

in

Nisan!

For if Nisan were the new year for the kings of the nations, the second verse should have said, “in the twenty-first year”. Later, the Gemara—the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna—will explain how it is known that the event mentioned in the second verse occurred after the event in the first verse.

The Gemara asks about this:

Granted, it is understandable how

the second verse

states explicitly that it is counting years for Artaxerxes,

it counts twenty years.

But this—

the first verse—

from where

do we know

that it is counting years for Artaxerxes,

twenty years?