Rosh Hashanah 4a (ד.) — the Talmud in English

“And whatever is needed”,

everything that the priests require, give them from my property.

And

take also

young bulls

[young cattle],

rams,

[male sheep],

and lambs,

[sheep],

to offer to the God of Heaven,

in order to offer them to the God of Heaven.

And likewise

wheat

[wheat],

salt and wine,

[wine],

and oil,

[oil],

according to the statement of the priests who are in Jerusalem

[according to the measure that the priests in Jerusalem will state],

let it be given to them day by day, so that there be no neglect

[let it be given to them every day, and do not forget].

And from here it follows that Darius was a righteous king!

Rabbi Yitzḥak said

to Rav Kahana:

Rabbi, from your own argument

[from your burden—from your argument: From the very place from which you came to prove that my words are incorrect, I will prove my words and show that yours are incorrect]:

For it is stated later in the scroll of Darius [verse 10]:

“So that they may offer pleasing offerings to the God of Heaven

[give the Jews all these things, so that] they may offer sacrifices to the God of Heaven.

And pray for the life of the king and his sons”,

and pray for the life of the king and his sons.

And from here it follows that Darius did not intend to give his gifts for the sake of Heaven, but for the sake of the life of the king and his sons. One can therefore learn from this that he had become wicked.

And we raise an objection:

And

is it the case that

one who acts in this manner—

is this not praiseworthy!?

Is one who does so—who gives his property for a mitzva for the sake of his own life and the lives of his sons—not considered praiseworthy?!

But it was taught: One who says,

“This sela is for charity

so that my sons may live, and so that I may merit it for life in the World-to-Come,” is a completely righteous person

if he is accustomed to giving charity.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here,

in the beraita, in which we learned that one who gives charity for the sake of his son’s life is a completely righteous person, it is referring

to

a person

of Israel,

whose heart is directed toward Heaven. Even if Heaven afflicts him during his lifetime, he does not complain, but attributes the suffering to his sins.

Whereas

here,

in the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, that Darius is considered wicked because he gave some of his property to the Temple for the sake of his own life and the lives of his sons, it is referring

to idolaters,

who, if the Holy One, blessed be He, does not benefit them in accordance with their deeds, complain against Heaven.

And if you wish, say

that there is another source from which it can be learned that Darius had become wicked:

From where do we know that Darius

had become wicked?

As it is written

[Ezra 6:4], when Darius sent word to the gentile authorities in Jerusalem that they should fulfill what was written in the scroll of Cyrus [the first], and this is what was written in the scroll:

The walls of the Temple should be built in this manner:

“Three rows of massive stone—

three!

three rows of marble stones.

And one row of new wood,

and one row of wood.

And the expenses—

let them be paid from the royal treasury.

And the expenses required for building the House shall be provided from the royal treasury.”

And the Gemara analyzes this:

Why did he do this?

Why did Darius command that the walls of the House be built in this manner?

He thought: If the Jews rebel against me—

I will burn it with fire!

Darius reasoned: If the Jews rebel against me, I will burn the Temple with fire. Therefore, he commanded that rows of wood be made in the Temple.

And from here it follows that Darius had become wicked.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

But did

Solomon,

the king, not do the same when he built the Temple—

did he not do so!?

For Solomon the king did this when he built the First Temple.

But it is written

in the First Book of Kings [6:36], concerning the Temple that Solomon made:

“Three rows of hewn stone,

three rows of hewn stones,

and

above them

a row of cedar beams.”

And one row of cedar beams that had been cut and thoroughly hewn!

And we answer:

Solomon made it above.

Solomon made the row of wood above, so that the Temple would not burn.

But

whereas

he,

Darius,

made it below.

He made the row of wood below. This was so that if he burned it, the House would collapse.

And furthermore:

Solomon embedded it in the building.

He embedded the row of wood within the building, between the rows of stone, so that it would not burn.

But

he,

Darius,

did not embed it in the building.

And furthermore:

Solomon coated it with plaster,

he plastered the wood so that it would not burn.

But

he,

Darius,

did not coat it with plaster.

And the Gemara cites another source that Darius had become wicked:

Rav Yosef, and some say,

and it may be that

Rabbi Yitzḥak said

this:

From where do we know that Darius

had become wicked?

From here,

from this verse, which states [Nehemiah 2:6]:

“And the king said to me,

Darius.

And the consort

was

sitting beside him.”

What is the meaning of “consort”?

Rabba bar Lima said in the name of Rav: A female dog

for intercourse [and the descendants of Noah were warned against doing so].

And we raise an objection:

If that is so,

having said that the consort was a female dog, one can object:

As it is written

[Daniel 5:23], that Daniel said to Belshazzar, king of Babylon:

“But you have exalted yourself against the Lord of Heaven,

you have acted arrogantly toward the Lord of Heaven,

and they brought before you the vessels of His House,

and they brought the vessels of the Temple before you,

and you and your nobles, your consort and your concubines, drank wine from them.”

And you, your nobles, your consort, and your concubines drank wine from them.”

And if the consort is a female dog,

this is difficult: Is

a female dog

capable of drinking wine!?

Is a female dog capable of drinking wine?!

Rather, it follows that the consort was not a female dog!

And we answer:

This is not difficult—

he trained her, and she drank.

It is possible to train a female dog to drink.

If that is so,

having said that the consort was a female dog, one can raise another difficulty:

As it is written

[Psalms 45], in praise of the people of Israel:

“Daughters of kings are among your treasured ones,

they will esteem you in the future.

The consort stands at your right hand in gold from Ophir,

in precious gold brought from Ophir.”

And if the consort is a female dog—

what is the prophet

to

announcing to Israel?

Is it praise that the female dog will stand at their right hand?!

And we answer:

This is what he is saying.

This is the meaning of the verse:

Because the Torah is beloved

to

Israel as

the consort is beloved

to idolaters,

therefore

you have merited the gold of Ophir,

precious gold brought from Ophir.

And if you wish, say

that the statement of Rabba bar Lima, who explained that the consort who sat beside Darius was a female dog, can be resolved in another manner:

Actually, the consort—

she was a queen.

And Rabba bar Lima,

who said that the consort who sat beside Darius was a female dog—

had received it as a tradition!

He received this matter from his teachers: The consort mentioned in connection with Darius was a female dog.

And why does Scripture call her

the

“consort”?

Because

she was as beloved to him as a consort,

as a queen.

Alternatively,

because

he seated her in the place

of the

consort.

If you wish, say: From where do we know that Darius had become wicked

Darius?

From here,

from this verse [Ezra 7:22]:

Scripture relates that Darius sent a letter with Ezra the scribe, who had come up from Babylonia, in which he commanded the officials appointed over the royal treasuries to give Ezra, for the Temple service:

“Up to one hundred talents of silver.”

Up to one hundred talents of silver.

And up to one hundred kor-measures of wheat.”

And up to one hundred kor-measures of wheat.

And up to one hundred bath-measures of wine.”

One hundred bath-measures [the bath is a particular measure] of wine.

And up to one hundred bath-measures of oil.”

One hundred bath-measures of oil.

And salt, for which no limit was written.”

For salt he set no fixed amount; rather, they should provide as much as necessary.”

And the Gemara analyzes this:

At first, without a limit.

At first Darius commanded that whatever the priests desired should be given for the Temple service, without a limit.

But

whereas

now,

when Ezra came up from Babylonia, he commanded that they be given only

according to a limit,

only a fixed measure.

And from here you learn that he had become wicked.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps, at first, he did not know the limit.

Perhaps at first Darius did not know what quantity was required for the Temple service, and therefore commanded that it be given according to the priests’ request. But eventually he learned how much was needed, and therefore commanded that they be given according to the requirement. If so, there is no proof from here that Darius had become wicked.

And we conclude that indeed no proof can be brought from here that Darius had become wicked.

Rather, it is clear—

as we answered at first.

It is clear that Darius had become wicked based on what we established above: that he built a row of wood into the walls of the Temple so that he could burn it, and that he had a female dog for intercourse.

We learned in the Mishna: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings,

and for the festivals.

From the wording of the tanna, it apparently follows that the first festival of the year is on the first of Nisan.

And we are astonished: Is it possible to say that the New Year for

the festivals—

is on the first of Nisan!?

But

it is on the fifteenth of Nisan,

the Festival of Matzot!

Rav Ḥisda said

and explained:

Rav Ḥisda:

The Mishna means to say that

the festival that falls within it,

the festival in the month of Nisan, whose month begins on the first of Nisan, is

the New Year for the festivals.

And the

practical difference

of the fact that Passover is the New Year for the festivals is

with regard to one who vows,

one who undertakes a monetary obligation through a vow to the Most High,

that he becomes subject to “Do not delay”!

For if three festivals have passed in their proper order from the time he vowed, and he did not fulfill his vow to the Most High, he violates “Do not delay,” as it is stated [Deuteronomy 23:22]: “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, do not delay in fulfilling it.”

And the Mishna informs us that the first festival counted toward the three festivals for violating “Do not delay” is Passover [and the last is Sukkot].

And

our Mishna is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon:

As it was taught in a beraita: Whether one who vows,

who says, “My value is upon me for the Most High,” meaning that his value is assessed so that he may be sold as a slave, and he gives the money to the Temple treasury,

or one who consecrates,

something for the repair of the Temple.

or one who makes an valuation,

who says, “My valuation is upon me,” and is obligated to pay the Temple treasury a fixed amount according to his age.

Each of these,

once three festivals have passed,

and he has not fulfilled his vow,

violates “Do not delay,”

even if the three festivals did not pass in their proper order beginning with Passover.

For example, if he made his vow before Sukkot, he violates “Do not delay” once Shavuot has passed. Since three festivals have passed for him, even though they were not in their order beginning with Passover.

Rabbi Shimon

bar Yoḥai

says:

He violates “Do not delay” only if

three festivals have passed in their proper order, with the Festival of Matzot

being

first

in this order.

Likewise,

so

would Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai say:

The

festivals

that cause a person to violate “Do not delay”

are sometimes

three,

sometimes

four,

and sometimes

five.

Sometimes

they are

five.

How so?

If he vowed before Passover—

he violates “Do not delay” after

three

festivals.

If he vowed

before Shavuot

[Shavuot], he violates “Do not delay” after

five

festivals.

For after he made his vow and Shavuot and Sukkot passed, he begins counting three festivals from Passover. Consequently, he violates “Do not delay” only after five festivals.

If he vowed

before the festival

of Sukkot, he violates “Do not delay” after

four

festivals.

For after Sukkot has passed for him, he begins counting three festivals from Passover, and consequently violates “Do not delay” after four festivals.

The Sages taught

in a beraita who violates “Do not delay” and when he violates it:

Those liable for valuations,

one who says, “My value is upon me,” whose value is assessed as that of a slave, and who gives his value to the Temple treasury.

And those liable for fixed valuations,

one who says, “My valuation is upon me,” and gives the Temple treasury the valuation fixed by the Torah according to his age.

And those liable for consecrations,

one who says, “This is consecrated for the repair of the Temple.”

And consecrated property,

one who says, “This is consecrated.”