This discussion, dedicated to the complete recovery of Shimon ben Simcha and Ezra ben Sara, delves into the intricate halachic principles governing the counting of years for kings and for the Jewish people's exodus from Egypt. Our focus begins on the second column of the second page of the tractate, at the bottom of the page.
The Mishnah teaches that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings. Jewish kings, regardless of when they ascended to the throne, have their regnal years counted from the first of Nisan. This means that when legal documents, known as shtarot, are dated, the years are reckoned from Nisan. Every time the first of Nisan passes, another year is added to the reign of the kings of Israel. We brought a proof from King Solomon, where a verse compares his regnal years to the years since the Exodus from Egypt. The Gemara infers that just as the Exodus from Egypt is counted from Nisan, so too are the reigns of King Solomon and all Jewish kings.
A question then arises: How do we know that the Exodus from Egypt is counted from Nisan? One might assume it's obvious, as the Exodus occurred in Nisan. However, it's possible the years are counted from Tishri, as Tishri marks the change of the secular year. If the Exodus were counted from Tishri, then the reigns of the kings of Israel would also be counted from Tishri. The Gemara refutes this, offering a clear proof from the Torah itself, citing two events dated from the Exodus from Egypt.
The first event is the death of Aaron, which occurred on the first of Av in the 40th year from the Exodus. Aaron, a priest, ascended Mount Hor and died there. The verses later mention that on the first of Shevat, which is presumed to occur after Av, Moses delivered a discourse. If Tishri were the New Year for counting from the Exodus, then a Tishri would have passed between Av and Shevat. In that case, Moses's speech would have been in the 41st year, not the 40th. Since the Torah states both events occurred in the 40th year, it demonstrates that Tishri is not the New Year for counting from the Exodus. Given that Nisan and Tishri were the only two options on the table, this proves Nisan is the New Year.
A side point raised by the Gemara questions whether Moses's speech is indeed dated from the Exodus. The verse explicitly states it for Aaron's death, but not for Moses's discourse. Perhaps Moses's 40th year is counted from the erection of the Tabernacle, thereby nullifying the proof. The Gemara responds that a Gezerah Shavah (a hermeneutic principle of analogy) connects the two. Since both instances mention "40 years," they refer to the same starting point. Just as Aaron's 40 years refer to the Exodus, so do Moses's years. This Gezerah Shavah will be further elaborated later in the discussion.
At this juncture, we have a strong proof that the years of Jewish kings change in Nisan. However, the Gemara challenges this, stating that the proof only holds if Aaron's death in Av occurred before Moses's speech in Shevat. If the sequence were Shevat first, then Av, then Tishri would not have passed between the two events, allowing both to remain in the 40th year even if Tishri were the New Year. The Gemara questions the assumption of the chronological order, asking for proof from the verses that the event of Av came before the event of Shevat. It states that there is no logical assumption (Hava Amina) to think otherwise, but a conclusive proof from the verses is required.
The Gemara then provides the proof: Moses delivered his discourse on the first of Shevat after he had killed Sihon. When Aaron died, Sihon was still alive. Therefore, Aaron's death in Av must have preceded Moses's discourse in Shevat. If Moses killed Sihon before Shevat, and Sihon was alive when Aaron died in Av, then Aaron's death must have happened first. This establishes the sequence: Aaron died in Av (Sihon alive), then Tishri passed, and then Moses killed Sihon and gave his discourse in Shevat (still the 40th year). Since Tishri passed and the year did not change, Tishri cannot be the New Year for the Exodus; it must be Nisan.
The Gemara then asks for proof that Sihon was alive at the time of Aaron's death. It brings a verse from the Torah: "And the king of Canaan, Arad, heard..." This king heard that Aaron had died, and he perceived that the Jewish people were exposed and vulnerable because the Clouds of Glory had departed. He then decided it was an opportune time to attack. This implies that when Aaron died, Sihon was present. The Gemara explains that the verse uses the word "ki" not as "when," but as "because," indicating that the Jewish people became revealed because Aaron died and the Clouds of Glory departed. This revelation prompted the attack.
A further challenge arises: The verse mentions the king of Canaan, Arad, not Sihon. How does this prove anything about Sihon? The Gemara clarifies that "Sihon," "Arad," and "Canaan" refer to the same individual. These different names describe different aspects of his character or kingdom. "Sihon" refers to his swiftness, like a young horse; "Arad" refers to his strength; and "Canaan" refers to his kingdom. Thus, it was indeed Sihon who was alive at Aaron's death.
Tosafot, however, raises an objection. According to a Midrash, the king of Arad who fought the Jewish people when Aaron died was actually Amalek, who had disguised himself as a Canaanite king. They changed their garments and language to deceive the Jewish people. If this was Amalek, then the proof that Sihon was alive when Aaron died is invalid. The response is that even if it was Amalek in disguise, Amalek would not have disguised himself as a dead king. The very act of impersonation implies that the person being impersonated, Sihon, was alive. Therefore, the proof stands, albeit indirectly: Sihon must have been alive for Amalek to disguise himself as him.
Having firmly established that the New Year for the Exodus is Nisan, the Gemara introduces a new possibility: What if the New Year is Iyar? The reasoning for Iyar could be that the Exodus occurred on the 15th of Nisan, and the first full month after that event is Iyar. The Gemara dismisses this by citing a verse: "And it was in the first month, in the second year, on the first of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected." This refers to the first of Nisan in the second year from the Exodus. Another verse states: "And it was in the second year, in the second month [Iyar], on the twentieth of the month, the cloud rose, and they began to travel." If Iyar were the New Year, then the mention of Iyar in the second year should have been the third year. Since both Nisan and Iyar are referred to as the "second year," it proves that Iyar is not the New Year. The year did not change after Iyar passed.
The Gemara continues to systematically eliminate other months. What about Sivan? The purpose of the Exodus was to receive the Torah, which happened in Sivan. Perhaps the New Year should be counted from the ultimate purpose of the event. However, the Torah would have explicitly stated a year change if Sivan were the New Year. Since it does not, Sivan is ruled out. The Gemara then asks about Tammuz, Av, and Adar, dismissing them all with similar reasoning: the Torah does not indicate a year change after these months. The Gemara's method is to exhaust all possibilities to arrive at the conclusive proof.
The definitive proof comes from a verse regarding King Solomon: "And he began to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his kingdom." The phrase "in the second, in the second" is unusual. The Gemara interprets "second" (sheni) as referring to the second month from the start of the king's regnal year. Since King Solomon began building in Iyar, which is the second month from Nisan, this indicates that the king's years are counted from Nisan. This applies to all kings of Israel. A potential counter-argument is that perhaps Solomon became king in Nisan. However, King David, Solomon's father, died in Sivan, and Solomon immediately succeeded him. Therefore, Solomon could not have become king in Nisan, solidifying the proof.
The Gemara considers another interpretation of "basheni" (in the second) as referring to the second day of the month, or even Monday, the second day of the week. This is dismissed because the Torah typically specifies the day of the month (e.g., "on the first of the month") and does not usually date events by the day of the week in this manner. Furthermore, the repetition of "sheni" (second) suggests a comparison: just as the first "sheni" clearly refers to the second month, so too the second "sheni" refers to the second month from the start of the king's regnal year. This confirms Nisan as the start of the year for Jewish kings.
The Gemara then reviews all the proofs, concluding that years for Jewish kings are counted from Nisan. Now, the discussion shifts to the New Year for gentile kings (Malchei Umot HaOlam), which is Tishri. The proof comes from the Book of Nehemiah, concerning King Artaxerxes. It states: "And it was in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year..." and later, "And it was in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year..." If Nisan were the New Year for gentile kings, then the Nisan entry should have been the 21st year. Since both Kislev and Nisan are in the 20th year, Nisan is not the New Year. Tosafot explains that if Nisan is not the New Year, the most logical alternative is Tishri.
A challenge is raised: How do we know the first verse, referring to Kislev, is also counting the king's regnal years? Perhaps it refers to a different count, like the years of King Darius. The Gemara answers with a Gezerah Shavah, as stated by Rav Papa: "twentieth year" (shnat esrim) appears in both verses. Just as the second verse clearly refers to the king's regnal years, so does the first. Thus, both Kislev and Nisan are in the 20th year of Artaxerxes's reign.
Another question, similar to that regarding Aaron and Moses, arises: How do we know the Kislev event preceded the Nisan event? Perhaps the Nisan event came first in the 20th year, and Kislev followed, still in the 20th year because another Nisan had not yet passed. The Gemara states that this question betrays a lack of historical knowledge. The Baraita explains that Hanani reported to Nehemiah about the destruction of Jerusalem's walls in Kislev. Nehemiah then presented this plea to King Artaxerxes in Nisan. This chronological order—report in Kislev, petition in Nisan—demonstrates that Nisan passed, yet the year did not change, proving Tishri is the New Year for gentile kings.
The narrative from Nehemiah recounts how Hanani informed Nehemiah of the dire state of Jerusalem's walls and the humiliation of the Jewish survivors. Nehemiah, serving as the king's wine steward, typically maintained a cheerful demeanor. However, in Nisan, burdened by the news from Jerusalem, his face showed sadness. The king, noticing this, suspected a plot against him. Nehemiah, after a prayer, explained his grief over Jerusalem's destruction. He then requested permission and resources to rebuild the city. The king granted his request. This sequence of events—report in Kislev, petition in Nisan, both in the 20th year—confirms that Nisan is not the New Year for gentile kings, thus establishing Tishri.
Rav Yosef then challenges this conclusion from a verse in Haggai: "On the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month [Elul], in the second year of Darius..." and then, "On the twenty-first of the seventh month [Tishri], in the second year..." If Tishri were the New Year, then the Tishri entry should have been in the third year. The fact that it remains the "second year" implies Tishri does not change the year, contradicting the previous conclusion. Rav Abahu responds that King Cyrus (Koresh) was a righteous king (Melech Kasher) because he commissioned the building of the Second Temple. Therefore, he was counted like Jewish kings, whose years change in Nisan. The Gemara notes that "Cyrus" can be a general title for righteous kings, applied to Darius in this context, as he also supported the Temple's rebuilding. Rashi confirms that "Cyrus" (Koresh) is associated with "righteous" (kasher).
Rav Yosef counters with another contradiction from the Book of Ezra. A verse states: "And it was on the third day of the month of Adar, which was the sixth year of the kingdom." It then mentions Ezra arriving in Jerusalem in Av, stating it was "the seventh year of the king." If Darius (who is also called Cyrus) is counted like a Jewish king from Nisan, then the year should have changed from Adar to Av, making it the seventh year. This supports counting from Nisan, contradicting the idea that gentile kings are counted from Tishri. Rav Yosef also reiterates the earlier question: How can we apply the rule of Cyrus to Darius if they are different kings? The Gemara clarifies that "Cyrus," "Darius," and "Artaxerxes" are all names for the same individual, or at least titles for Persian kings, similar to "Pharaoh" for Egyptian kings. Thus, the identity issue is resolved.
The contradiction between the books of Haggai and Ezra remains: Haggai suggests counting Darius from Nisan, like a Jewish king, while Ezra implies counting him from Tishri, like a gentile king. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that King Cyrus/Darius/Artaxerxes had different phases in his reign. In his early period, when he was righteous (Melech Kasher) and supported the Jewish people, he was counted like Jewish kings from Nisan. This is reflected in Haggai. However, later, when he became hostile (Mahmid) and opposed the return to Israel, he was counted like a regular gentile king from Tishri. The change in his character dictated the halachic method of counting his regnal years.