Rosh Hashanah 5

And the Canaanite the king of Arad heard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXIII, 40. (V. Tosaf. s.v.) . The text continues in the E.V., of the coming of the children of Israel, but the Talmud renders (more in accordance with the original) , 'when the children of Israel came'. The text thus does not state what he heard and so leaves room for the exposition which follows.');">¹</span> What was the report that he heard?

He heard that Aaron had died and that the clouds of glory had departed, and he judged that it was now permitted to attack Israel; and this is intimated in the verse, And all the congregation saw [wa-yiru] that Aaron was dead,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XX, 29.');">²</span> [commenting on which] R'Abbahu said, Do not read wayiru, but wa-yerau [and they were seen],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., became visible, the clouds of glory having previously served as a screen to them.');">³</span>

[the next word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the original.');">⁴</span> being translated] in accordance with the dictum of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, Ki has four significations - 'if', 'perhaps', 'but' 'for'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here if we read wa-yerau, 'ki' means 'for'. Apparently Resh Lakish means that these four significations are in addition to the usual one of 'that', which must be the meaning here if we keep the reading wa-yiru.');">⁵</span>

[In objection to this it may be asked], Are the two things alike?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., your exposition and your argument.');">⁶</span> [The verse] there speaks of Canaan, whereas [here] it [speaks of] Sihon? - It has been taught: Sihon, Arad, and Canaan are all one.

He was called Sihon as resembling a sayyah [foal] of the wilderness, he was called Canaan after his kingdom; and as for his real name, this was Arad. According to other authorities, he was called Arad as resembling an 'arad [wild ass] of the wilderness, and Canaan after his kingdom, while as for his real name, this was Sihon.

But can I not suppose that New Year is in Iyar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second month.');">⁷</span> - Do not imagine such a thing.

For it is written, And it came to pass in the first month in the second year on the first day of the month that the tabernacle was reared up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XL, 17.');">⁸</span> and it is written elsewhere, And it came to pass in the second year in the second month.

that the cloud was taken up front over the tabernacle of the testimony.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num., X, 11.');">⁹</span> Seeing that the text when referring to Nisan places it in the second year and when referring to Iyar places it also in the second year, we may conclude that Iyar is not New Year.

Can I suppose then that New Year is in Sivan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third month.');">¹⁰</span> - Do not imagine such a thing.

For it is written, In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIX, 1.');">¹¹</span> and if Sivan is New Year, it should say, 'In the third month in the second year after the children of Israel etc.'

B why not say that New Year is in Tammuz,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fourth month.');">¹²</span> in Ab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fifth month.');">¹³</span>

in Adar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The twelfth month. The months between Ab and Adar have already been excluded above where it was shown that Ab and Shebat must be in the same year.');">¹⁴</span> - Rather, said R'Eleazar, we learn [that Nisan is New Year] from here: And he began to build in the second month in the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V., 'on the second day'.');">¹⁵</span>

in the fourth year of his reign.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. III, 2.');">¹⁶</span> What [is here meant by] 'in the second'?

Does not [the superfluous word] mean the second by which his reign is reckoned? Rabina strongly demurred to this.

Why not, [he said], suppose it to mean the second day of the month? - In that case it would have said distinctly, 'on the second day of the month'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being the usual formula of the text.');">¹⁷</span> But may I not suppose it means on the second day of the week?

[This cannot be for two reasons.] One is that we never find the second day of the week mentioned in Scripture, and the other is that the second 'sheni' [second] is put on the same footing as the first sheni, [indicating that] just as the first sheni refers to a mo so the second sheni refers to a month. It has been taught in accordance with R'Johanan: How do we know [from the Scripture] that the years of kings' reigns are always reckoned as commencing from Nisan? Because it says, '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 etc. ,' and it is further written, 'And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, etc. ,' and it is further written, And it came to pass in the fortieth year in the eleventh month',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This citation is inserted in the text on the authority of Maharsha. It is certainly necessary.');">¹⁸</span> and it is further written, 'After he had smitten Sihon etc:,' and it is further written, And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead etc. ,' and it is further written, 'And it came to pass in the first month in the second year etc. , and it is fur written, 'And it came to pass in the second year in the second month etc. ,' and it is further written, 'In the third month after the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt etc. ,' and it is further writt 'And he began to build etc.' R'Hisda said: The rule [that New Year for kings is in Nisan] was only meant to apply to the kings of Israel, but the years of non-Israelitish kings are reckoned from Tishri,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The seventh month.');">¹⁹</span> as it says, The words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. Now it came to pass in the month of Kislev,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ninth month.');">²⁰</span> in the twentieth year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neh., I, 1.');">²¹</span> etc. , and it is written further, And it came to pass in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, II, 1.');">²²</span> Now since when speaking of Kislev he places it in the twentieth year and when speaking of Nisan he places it also in the twentieth, we may conclude that New Year is not in Nisan. [This, however, is not conclusive]. In the latter text, it is true, it is expressly stated that [it was the twentieth year] of Artaxerxes, but in the forme do we know that the reign of Artaxerxes is referred to? Perhaps