Rosh Hashanah 2

מתני׳ ארבעה ראשי שנים הם באחד בניסן ראש השנה למלכים ולרגלים

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’s 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.

באחד באלול ראש השנה למעשר בהמה רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים באחד בתשרי

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.

באחד בתשרי ראש השנה לשנים ולשמיטין וליובלות לנטיעה ולירקות

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.

באחד בשבט ראש השנה לאילן כדברי בית שמאי בית הלל אומרים בחמשה עשר בו

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.

גמ׳ למלכים למאי הלכתא אמר רב חסדא לשטרות

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’s rule, rather than counting them from the day that he ascends to the throne? Rav Ḥisda said: It is for determining the validity of documents.

דתנן שטרי חוב המוקדמין פסולין והמאוחרין כשרין

It was the common practice to date documents in accordance with the years of the king’s 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’s 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.

תנו רבנן מלך שעמד בעשרים ותשעה באדר כיון שהגיע אחד בניסן עלתה לו שנה ואם לא עמד אלא באחד בניסן אין מונין לו שנה עד שיגיע ניסן אחר

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.

אמר מר מלך שעמד בעשרים ותשעה באדר כיון שהגיע אחד בניסן עלתה לו שנה הא

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

קא משמע לן דניסן ראש השנה למלכים ויום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה ואם לא עמד אלא באחד בניסן אין מונין לו שנה עד שיגיע ניסן אחר פשיטא

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’t this obvious?

לא צריכא דאימנו עליה מאדר מהו דתימא נימנו ליה תרתין שנין קא משמע לן

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.

תנו רבנן מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר מונין שנה לזה ולזה מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין שנה לזה ולזה מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין ראשונה לראשון ושניה לשני

§ 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.

אמר מר מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו באדר מונין שנה לזה ולזה פשיטא מהו דתימא שתא לבי תרי לא מנינן קא משמע לן

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’t 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.

מת בניסן ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין שנה לזה ולזה פשיטא מהו דתימא כי אמרינן יום אחד בשנה חשוב שנה בסוף שנה אבל בתחלת שנה לא אמרינן קא משמע לן

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’t 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.

מת באדר ועמד אחר תחתיו בניסן מונין ראשונה לראשון ושניה לשני פשיטא לא צריכא דאימנו עליה מאדר ומלך בן מלך הוא מהו דתימא נימנו ליה תרתין שנין קא משמע לן

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’t 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.

אמר רבי יוחנן מנין למלכים שאין מונין להם אלא מניסן שנאמר ויהי בשמונים שנה וארבע מאות שנה לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים בשנה הרביעית בחדש זיו הוא החדש השני למלך שלמה על ישראל מקיש מלכות שלמה ליציאת מצרים מה יציאת מצרים מניסן אף מלכות שלמה מניסן

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that one counts the years of kings’ reigns only from Nisan? As it is stated: “And 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’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord” (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’s reign from Nisan.

ויציאת מצרים גופה מנלן דמניסן מנינן דילמא מתשרי מנינן

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.

לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב ויעל אהרן הכהן אל הר ההר על פי ה׳ וימת שם בשנת הארבעים לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים בחדש החמישי באחד לחדש וכתיב ויהי בארבעים שנה בעשתי עשר חדש באחד לחדש דבר משה וגו׳ מדקאי באב וקרי לה שנת ארבעים וקאי בשבט וקרי לה שנת ארבעים מכלל דראש השנה לאו תשרי הוא

The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And 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” (Numbers 33:38), and it is later written: “And 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” (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 “the fortieth year,” and when it speaks of the following Shevat, it also calls that year “the fortieth year,” 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.

בשלמא היאך מפרש דליציאת מצרים אלא האי ממאי דליציאת מצרים דילמא להקמת המשכן

The Gemara raises an objection: Granted, in this case of Aaron’s death it is explicitly stated that the year is counted from the exodus from Egypt, as it states: “In the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.” But with regard to this other incident of Moses’ 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.

כדאמר רב פפא שנת עשרים שנת עשרים לגזרה שוה הכא נמי שנת ארבעים שנת ארבעים לגזרה שוה מה כאן ליציאת מצרים אף כאן ליציאת מצרים

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

וממאי דמעשה דאב קדים דילמא מעשה דשבט קדים

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’s death in Av took place first? Perhaps the incident of Moses’ 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.

לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב אחרי הכתו את סיחון וכי נח נפשיה דאהרן אכתי הוה סיחון קיים דכתיב

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