Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 11, 2021 | 讛壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讘

Masechet Rosh Hashanah is dedicated anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

A month of shiurim are sponsored for a refuah shleima for Noam Eliezer ben Yael Chaya v'Aytan Yehoshua.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Rosh Hashanah 2

Masechet Rosh Hashana is sponsored anonymously in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This week of Masechet Rosh Hashanah is sponsored by Rabia and Oliver Mitchell in honor of their daughter Ellin Mitchell Cooper becoming a Yoetzet Halacha. “Ellin, we are so proud of you and your dedication to Klal Yisrael. We look forward to great things to come! Hazak Hazak v鈥 nithazek.”

There are different dates that are considered the dates for the start of the year for different issues. First of Nissan is the first day of the year for kings and the holidays. First of Elul is for animal tithes, although Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say it鈥檚 the first of Tishrei. The first of Tishrei is for counting years, shmita and the jubilee, for orla and vegetable tithes. Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about tithing fruit trees whether it鈥檚 the 1st or 15th of Shevat. The Gemara proceeds to explain the relevance of the cases in the Mishna. The first of the year for kings is relevant for documents to know if a document with the incorrect date will be disqualified or not. A braita is brought that has several laws related to king years. Even if a king were to begin his rule on the last day before Nissan, as soon as it becomes the first of Nissan, it is considered his second year. If two kings rule in the same year, one can count by either one. If one dies in Adar and the other takes over in Nissan, the first year is counted for the first king and the second year by the next. The Gemara questions all these cases? Aren鈥檛 they obvious? Each one is brought to teach a particular detail. Rabbi Yochanan brings a verse to teach the fact that we count from Nissan as it compares the counting of the reign of Solomon to the counting of the Exodus from Egypt, which is from Nissan. From where do we know that the counting of the Exodus is from Nissan and not Tishrei? That is derived from the description of the timing of the death of Aharon and the speech of Moshe before his death.

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 专讗砖讬 砖谞讬诐 讛诐 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬诐 讜诇专讙诇讬诐

MISHNA: They are four days in the year that serve as the New Year, each for a different purpose: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; it is from this date that the years of a king鈥檚 rule are counted. And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals, as it determines which is considered the first Festival of the year and which the last.

讘讗讞讚 讘讗诇讜诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬

On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes; all the animals born prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and are tithed as a single unit, whereas those born after that date belong to the next tithe year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei.

讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇砖谞讬诐 讜诇砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜诇讬讜讘诇讜转 诇谞讟讬注讛 讜诇讬专拽讜转

On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years, as will be explained in the Gemara; for calculating Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years, i.e., from the first of Tishrei there is a biblical prohibition to work the land during these years; for planting, for determining the years of orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is forbidden; and for tithing vegetables, as vegetables picked prior to that date cannot be tithed together with vegetables picked after that date.

讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘讟 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讜

On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was formed after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

讙诪壮 诇诪诇讻讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讟专讜转

GEMARA: The New Year for kings; with regard to what halakha is it mentioned in the mishna? Why is it necessary to set a specific date to count the years of a king鈥檚 rule, rather than counting them from the day that he ascends to the throne? Rav 岣sda said: It is for determining the validity of documents.

讚转谞谉 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉

It was the common practice to date documents in accordance with the years of the king鈥檚 rule; therefore, it was important that these years begin at a fixed time, so that one knows whether a particular document was antedated or postdated, as we learned in a mishna: Antedated promissory notes, i.e., promissory notes dated prior to the date on which the loan actually took place, are invalid because a loan document creates a lien on the borrower鈥檚 property. By dating the document earlier than the loan itself, the lender has a fraudulent mortgage on the property, which can be used against any future purchaser. Therefore, the Sages ordained that an antedated promissory note does not establish a lien, even from the true date of the loan. But postdated promissory notes bearing a date that is later than the date when the loan actually took place are valid, as postdating the note presents no opportunity for defrauding a purchaser.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诇讱 砖注诪讚 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讚专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚 讗诇讗 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 谞讬住谉 讗讞专

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a king ascended to the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, the month preceding Nisan, once the first of Nisan arrives, although he reigned for only one day, a year is counted toward his reign; his first year of rule is completed from the first of Nisan. But if he ascended to the throne only on the first of Nisan, one counts an additional year toward his reign only when the next Nisan arrives.

讗诪专 诪专 诪诇讱 砖注诪讚 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讚专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讛讗

The Master said, citing the baraita: If a king ascended to the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives a year is counted toward his reign. The Gemara comments: This

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讬住谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘 砖谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚 讗诇讗 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 谞讬住谉 讗讞专 驻砖讬讟讗

teaches us that Nisan is the New Year for kings, and it also teaches us that one day in a year is considered a year; although this king ruled for only one day, a full year is counted toward his reign. The Gemara asks: Consider the next clause of the baraita: But if he ascended to the throne only on the first of Nisan, a year is not counted toward his reign until the next first of Nisan arrives. Isn鈥檛 this obvious?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬诪谞讜 注诇讬讛 诪讗讚专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪谞讜 诇讬讛 转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for a case where the princes agreed to appoint him as king already in the month of Adar. Lest you say that since the decision to appoint him king was made already in Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives they should count it the second year of his reign, therefore the baraita teaches us that the count begins only from when he actually began his rule.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘讗讚专 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 诪转 讘谞讬住谉 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖谞讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the king died in the month of Adar and another king succeeded him to the throne in that same Adar, one counts the year to this one, i.e., the previous king, as his final year, and to that one, i.e., the new king who began his reign in Adar. If the first king died in the month of Nisan and another king succeeded him in that same Nisan, one counts the year to this one, the previous king, and to that one, the new king. But if the first king died in Adar and another king succeeded him in Nisan, one counts the first year to the first king as his final year, and the second year to the second king as the first year of his reign.

讗诪专 诪专 诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘讗讚专 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 砖转讗 诇讘讬 转专讬 诇讗 诪谞讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Master said: If the king died in Adar and another king succeeded him to the throne in that same Adar, one counts the year to this one, i.e., the previous king, as his final year, and to that one, i.e., the new king, as the first year of his reign. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that one year cannot be counted toward two kings, and so the entire year should be counted only toward the previous king, the baraita therefore teaches us that the years of two kings can overlap and be counted in a single year.

诪转 讘谞讬住谉 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘 砖谞讛 讘住讜祝 砖谞讛 讗讘诇 讘转讞诇转 砖谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara cites the next phrase of the baraita: If the first king died in Nisan and another king succeeded him in that same Nisan, one counts the year to this one, the previous king, and to that one, the new king. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that when we say that one day in a year is considered a full year, this only applies when the day is at the end of the year, i.e., since his reign will continue in the coming year the day is considered like a whole year, but if the day is at the beginning of the year we should not say that the beginning of Nisan is counted as another year for the previous king; therefore, it teaches us that there is no such a distinction.

诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖谞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬诪谞讜 注诇讬讛 诪讗讚专 讜诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪谞讜 诇讬讛 转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

It was further taught in the baraita: But if the first king died in Adar and another king succeeded him in Nisan, one counts the first year to the first king as his final year, and the second year to the second king as the first year of his reign. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for a case where the princes decided to appoint him as king in Adar, and he is also a king, son of the previous king, so that his succession to the throne is automatic. Lest you say that by the time the first of Nisan arrives, two years should be counted toward his reign, it therefore teaches us that one counts only from Nisan, when he actually succeeded his father to the throne.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇诪诇讻讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 诪谞讬住谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘砖诪讜谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 砖谞讛 诇爪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讛专讘讬注讬转 讘讞讚砖 讝讬讜 讛讜讗 讛讞讚砖 讛砖谞讬 诇诪诇讱 砖诇诪讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讬砖 诪诇讻讜转 砖诇诪讛 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪讛 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪谞讬住谉 讗祝 诪诇讻讜转 砖诇诪讛 诪谞讬住谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived that one counts the years of kings鈥 reigns only from Nisan? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon鈥檚 reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord鈥 (I Kings 6:1). This verse juxtaposes the reign of Solomon to the exodus from Egypt: Just as one counts the years since the exodus from Egypt from Nisan, when the Jewish people left Egypt, so too, one counts the years of Solomon鈥檚 reign from Nisan.

讜讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚诪谞讬住谉 诪谞讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 诪转砖专讬 诪谞讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that we count the years from the exodus from Egypt themselves from Nisan? Perhaps we count them from Tishrei.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗诇 讛专 讛讛专 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讜讬诪转 砖诐 讘砖谞转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 诇爪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讘讞讚砖 讛讞诪讬砖讬 讘讗讞讚 诇讞讚砖 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讘讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讘注砖转讬 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讗讞讚 诇讞讚砖 讚讘专 诪砖讛 讜讙讜壮 诪讚拽讗讬 讘讗讘 讜拽专讬 诇讛 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜拽讗讬 讘砖讘讟 讜拽专讬 诇讛 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗讜 转砖专讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month鈥 (Numbers 33:38), and it is later written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:3). From the fact that when the Bible speaks of the month of Av, which is the fifth month, it calls that year 鈥渢he fortieth year,鈥 and when it speaks of the following Shevat, it also calls that year 鈥渢he fortieth year,鈥 the implication is that the New Year does not begin in Tishrei. Were it the case that the New Year begins in Tishrei, Av and the following Shevat would not be in the same year because the year would have changed in Tishrei.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛讬讗讱 诪驻专砖 讚诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讛拽诪转 讛诪砖讻谉

The Gemara raises an objection: Granted, in this case of Aaron鈥檚 death it is explicitly stated that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt, as it states: 鈥淚n the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.鈥 But with regard to this other incident of Moses鈥 oration, from where is it known that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt? Perhaps it is forty years since the establishment of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara answers: In accordance with what Rav Pappa said in a different context, that the meaning of one instance of the expression 鈥渢he twentieth year鈥 may be inferred from another instance of the expression 鈥渢he twentieth year鈥 by way of a verbal analogy, here too, the meaning of one instance of the expression 鈥渢he fortieth year鈥 may be inferred from another instance of the expression 鈥渢he fortieth year鈥 by way of a verbal analogy: Just as here, with regard to Aaron鈥檚 death, the count is from the exodus from Egypt, so too, here, with regard to Moses鈥 oration, although this is not stated explicitly, the count is from the exodus from Egypt.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪注砖讛 讚讗讘 拽讚讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 诪注砖讛 讚砖讘讟 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara raises another question: Even if this serves as proof that these two events both took place in the fortieth year from the exodus from Egypt, from where is it known that the incident of Aaron鈥檚 death in Av took place first? Perhaps the incident of Moses鈥 oration in Shevat took place first, in which case it is possible that the years from the Exodus are counted not from Nisan, but from Tishrei.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞专讬 讛讻转讜 讗转 住讬讞讜谉 讜讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚讗讛专谉 讗讻转讬 讛讜讛 住讬讞讜谉 拽讬讬诐 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara rejects this argument: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written that Moses delivered his oration 鈥渁fter he had slain Sihon鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:4), and when Aaron died Sihon was still alive, as it is written:

Masechet Rosh Hashana 聽is dedicated anonymously in honor of聽Rabbanit Michelle Farber whose dedication to learning and teaching the daf continues to inspire so many people around the world.

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Tamara Katz in memory of her maternal grandparents, Sarah bat Chaya v'Tzvi Hirsh and Meir Leib ben Esther v'Harav Yehoshua Zelig whose yahrzeits are both this month.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

The Keys of Rain: An Introduction to Ta’anit

An introduction to Masechet Taanit with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson from Hadran's Siyum Masechet Rosh Hashanah https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDrM6bLZV18&feature=youtu.be
seasons

Time Will Tell

Oh no, you think, we鈥檝e broken the streak. We finished Pesachim in time for Pesach and Yoma and Sukkah came...
talking talmud_square

Rosh Hashanah 2: Keeping Track of Time

Some introduction to Rosh Hashanah, and why we mark time. The term "Rosh Hashanah," meaning the head of the year,...
alon shvut women

Rosh Hashana

Rosh Hashanah, Daf 2 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/YZwx9EqRMnM

Rosh Hashanah 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Rosh Hashanah 2

诪转谞讬壮 讗专讘注讛 专讗砖讬 砖谞讬诐 讛诐 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬诐 讜诇专讙诇讬诐

MISHNA: They are four days in the year that serve as the New Year, each for a different purpose: On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings; it is from this date that the years of a king鈥檚 rule are counted. And the first of Nisan is also the New Year for the order of the Festivals, as it determines which is considered the first Festival of the year and which the last.

讘讗讞讚 讘讗诇讜诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬

On the first of Elul is the New Year for animal tithes; all the animals born prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and are tithed as a single unit, whereas those born after that date belong to the next tithe year. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: The New Year for animal tithes is on the first of Tishrei.

讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇砖谞讬诐 讜诇砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜诇讬讜讘诇讜转 诇谞讟讬注讛 讜诇讬专拽讜转

On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years, as will be explained in the Gemara; for calculating Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years, i.e., from the first of Tishrei there is a biblical prohibition to work the land during these years; for planting, for determining the years of orla, the three-year period from when a tree has been planted during which time its fruit is forbidden; and for tithing vegetables, as vegetables picked prior to that date cannot be tithed together with vegetables picked after that date.

讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘讟 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗讬诇谉 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讜

On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree; the fruit of a tree that was formed prior to that date belong to the previous tithe year and cannot be tithed together with fruit that was formed after that date; this ruling is in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel say: The New Year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat.

讙诪壮 诇诪诇讻讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讟专讜转

GEMARA: The New Year for kings; with regard to what halakha is it mentioned in the mishna? Why is it necessary to set a specific date to count the years of a king鈥檚 rule, rather than counting them from the day that he ascends to the throne? Rav 岣sda said: It is for determining the validity of documents.

讚转谞谉 砖讟专讬 讞讜讘 讛诪讜拽讚诪讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讛诪讗讜讞专讬谉 讻砖专讬谉

It was the common practice to date documents in accordance with the years of the king鈥檚 rule; therefore, it was important that these years begin at a fixed time, so that one knows whether a particular document was antedated or postdated, as we learned in a mishna: Antedated promissory notes, i.e., promissory notes dated prior to the date on which the loan actually took place, are invalid because a loan document creates a lien on the borrower鈥檚 property. By dating the document earlier than the loan itself, the lender has a fraudulent mortgage on the property, which can be used against any future purchaser. Therefore, the Sages ordained that an antedated promissory note does not establish a lien, even from the true date of the loan. But postdated promissory notes bearing a date that is later than the date when the loan actually took place are valid, as postdating the note presents no opportunity for defrauding a purchaser.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诇讱 砖注诪讚 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讚专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚 讗诇讗 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 谞讬住谉 讗讞专

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a king ascended to the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, the month preceding Nisan, once the first of Nisan arrives, although he reigned for only one day, a year is counted toward his reign; his first year of rule is completed from the first of Nisan. But if he ascended to the throne only on the first of Nisan, one counts an additional year toward his reign only when the next Nisan arrives.

讗诪专 诪专 诪诇讱 砖注诪讚 讘注砖专讬诐 讜转砖注讛 讘讗讚专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讛讗

The Master said, citing the baraita: If a king ascended to the throne on the twenty-ninth of Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives a year is counted toward his reign. The Gemara comments: This

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚谞讬住谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘 砖谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 注诪讚 讗诇讗 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 砖讬讙讬注 谞讬住谉 讗讞专 驻砖讬讟讗

teaches us that Nisan is the New Year for kings, and it also teaches us that one day in a year is considered a year; although this king ruled for only one day, a full year is counted toward his reign. The Gemara asks: Consider the next clause of the baraita: But if he ascended to the throne only on the first of Nisan, a year is not counted toward his reign until the next first of Nisan arrives. Isn鈥檛 this obvious?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬诪谞讜 注诇讬讛 诪讗讚专 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪谞讜 诇讬讛 转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for a case where the princes agreed to appoint him as king already in the month of Adar. Lest you say that since the decision to appoint him king was made already in Adar, once the first of Nisan arrives they should count it the second year of his reign, therefore the baraita teaches us that the count begins only from when he actually began his rule.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘讗讚专 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 诪转 讘谞讬住谉 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖谞讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the king died in the month of Adar and another king succeeded him to the throne in that same Adar, one counts the year to this one, i.e., the previous king, as his final year, and to that one, i.e., the new king who began his reign in Adar. If the first king died in the month of Nisan and another king succeeded him in that same Nisan, one counts the year to this one, the previous king, and to that one, the new king. But if the first king died in Adar and another king succeeded him in Nisan, one counts the first year to the first king as his final year, and the second year to the second king as the first year of his reign.

讗诪专 诪专 诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘讗讚专 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 砖转讗 诇讘讬 转专讬 诇讗 诪谞讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Master said: If the king died in Adar and another king succeeded him to the throne in that same Adar, one counts the year to this one, i.e., the previous king, as his final year, and to that one, i.e., the new king, as the first year of his reign. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that one year cannot be counted toward two kings, and so the entire year should be counted only toward the previous king, the baraita therefore teaches us that the years of two kings can overlap and be counted in a single year.

诪转 讘谞讬住谉 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 诇讝讛 讜诇讝讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘砖谞讛 讞砖讜讘 砖谞讛 讘住讜祝 砖谞讛 讗讘诇 讘转讞诇转 砖谞讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara cites the next phrase of the baraita: If the first king died in Nisan and another king succeeded him in that same Nisan, one counts the year to this one, the previous king, and to that one, the new king. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: Lest you say that when we say that one day in a year is considered a full year, this only applies when the day is at the end of the year, i.e., since his reign will continue in the coming year the day is considered like a whole year, but if the day is at the beginning of the year we should not say that the beginning of Nisan is counted as another year for the previous king; therefore, it teaches us that there is no such a distinction.

诪转 讘讗讚专 讜注诪讚 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讘谞讬住谉 诪讜谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖谞讬 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬诪谞讜 注诇讬讛 诪讗讚专 讜诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬诪谞讜 诇讬讛 转专转讬谉 砖谞讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

It was further taught in the baraita: But if the first king died in Adar and another king succeeded him in Nisan, one counts the first year to the first king as his final year, and the second year to the second king as the first year of his reign. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary for a case where the princes decided to appoint him as king in Adar, and he is also a king, son of the previous king, so that his succession to the throne is automatic. Lest you say that by the time the first of Nisan arrives, two years should be counted toward his reign, it therefore teaches us that one counts only from Nisan, when he actually succeeded his father to the throne.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇诪诇讻讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讗诇讗 诪谞讬住谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讘砖诪讜谞讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 砖谞讛 诇爪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讘砖谞讛 讛专讘讬注讬转 讘讞讚砖 讝讬讜 讛讜讗 讛讞讚砖 讛砖谞讬 诇诪诇讱 砖诇诪讛 注诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪拽讬砖 诪诇讻讜转 砖诇诪讛 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪讛 讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪谞讬住谉 讗祝 诪诇讻讜转 砖诇诪讛 诪谞讬住谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: From where is it derived that one counts the years of kings鈥 reigns only from Nisan? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon鈥檚 reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord鈥 (I Kings 6:1). This verse juxtaposes the reign of Solomon to the exodus from Egypt: Just as one counts the years since the exodus from Egypt from Nisan, when the Jewish people left Egypt, so too, one counts the years of Solomon鈥檚 reign from Nisan.

讜讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚诪谞讬住谉 诪谞讬谞谉 讚讬诇诪讗 诪转砖专讬 诪谞讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that we count the years from the exodus from Egypt themselves from Nisan? Perhaps we count them from Tishrei.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇 讗讛专谉 讛讻讛谉 讗诇 讛专 讛讛专 注诇 驻讬 讛壮 讜讬诪转 砖诐 讘砖谞转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 诇爪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗专抓 诪爪专讬诐 讘讞讚砖 讛讞诪讬砖讬 讘讗讞讚 诇讞讚砖 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讘讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讘注砖转讬 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讗讞讚 诇讞讚砖 讚讘专 诪砖讛 讜讙讜壮 诪讚拽讗讬 讘讗讘 讜拽专讬 诇讛 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜拽讗讬 讘砖讘讟 讜拽专讬 诇讛 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇讗讜 转砖专讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: 鈥淎nd Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month鈥 (Numbers 33:38), and it is later written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:3). From the fact that when the Bible speaks of the month of Av, which is the fifth month, it calls that year 鈥渢he fortieth year,鈥 and when it speaks of the following Shevat, it also calls that year 鈥渢he fortieth year,鈥 the implication is that the New Year does not begin in Tishrei. Were it the case that the New Year begins in Tishrei, Av and the following Shevat would not be in the same year because the year would have changed in Tishrei.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛讬讗讱 诪驻专砖 讚诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 诪诪讗讬 讚诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讛拽诪转 讛诪砖讻谉

The Gemara raises an objection: Granted, in this case of Aaron鈥檚 death it is explicitly stated that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt, as it states: 鈥淚n the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.鈥 But with regard to this other incident of Moses鈥 oration, from where is it known that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt? Perhaps it is forty years since the establishment of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 砖谞转 注砖专讬诐 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞转 讗专讘注讬诐 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 诪讛 讻讗谉 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara answers: In accordance with what Rav Pappa said in a different context, that the meaning of one instance of the expression 鈥渢he twentieth year鈥 may be inferred from another instance of the expression 鈥渢he twentieth year鈥 by way of a verbal analogy, here too, the meaning of one instance of the expression 鈥渢he fortieth year鈥 may be inferred from another instance of the expression 鈥渢he fortieth year鈥 by way of a verbal analogy: Just as here, with regard to Aaron鈥檚 death, the count is from the exodus from Egypt, so too, here, with regard to Moses鈥 oration, although this is not stated explicitly, the count is from the exodus from Egypt.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚诪注砖讛 讚讗讘 拽讚讬诐 讚讬诇诪讗 诪注砖讛 讚砖讘讟 拽讚讬诐

The Gemara raises another question: Even if this serves as proof that these two events both took place in the fortieth year from the exodus from Egypt, from where is it known that the incident of Aaron鈥檚 death in Av took place first? Perhaps the incident of Moses鈥 oration in Shevat took place first, in which case it is possible that the years from the Exodus are counted not from Nisan, but from Tishrei.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讻转讬讘 讗讞专讬 讛讻转讜 讗转 住讬讞讜谉 讜讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚讗讛专谉 讗讻转讬 讛讜讛 住讬讞讜谉 拽讬讬诐 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara rejects this argument: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written that Moses delivered his oration 鈥渁fter he had slain Sihon鈥 (Deuteronomy 1:4), and when Aaron died Sihon was still alive, as it is written:

Scroll To Top