the king's reign mentioned in the documents. The rabbis taught: A king who ascends the throne on the 29th of Adar must be considered to have reigned one year as soon as the first of Nissan comes, but if he ascends the throne on the first of Nissan he is not considered to have reigned one year until the first of Nissan of the following year. From this we infer, that only Nissan is the commencement of years for kings (or the civil New Year); that even a fraction of a year is considered a year; and that if a king ascends the throne on the first of Nissan, he is not considered to have reigned one year until the next first of Nissan, although he may have been elected in Adar. The Boraitha teaches this lest one say that the year should be reckoned from the day of election, and therefore the king would begin his second year (on the first of Nissan following).
The rabbis taught: If a king die in Adar, and his successor ascend the throne in Adar, (documents may be dated either) the (last) year of the (dead) king or the (first) year of the new king. If a king die in Nissan, and his successor ascend the throne in Nissan, the same is the case. But if a king die in Adar, and his successor does not ascend the throne until Nissan, then the year ending with Adar should be referred to as the year of the dead king, and from Nissan it should be referred to as that of his successor. 1 Is this not self-evident? The case here mentioned refers to an instance where the new king was a son of the deceased, and, while ascending the throne in Nissan, had been elected in the month of Adar, and being the king's son, it might be assumed that he was king immediately after his election, and thus the following first of Nissan would inaugurate the second year of his reign. He comes to teach us that such is not the case.
R. Johanan says: Whence do we deduce that we reckon the commencement of years (for the reign) of kings, only from Nissan? Because it is written [I Kings, vi. 1]: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the going forth of the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of the month Ziv, which is the second month of the reign of Solomon over Israel." Thus the Scriptures establish an analogy between "the reign of Solomon" and "the Exodus from Egypt." As the Exodus from Egypt is reckoned from Nissan, so also is the reign of Solomon reckoned from Nissan. But how do we know that the Exodus even should be reckoned from Nissan? Perhaps we should reckon it from Tishri. This would be improper, for it is written [Numb. xxxiii. 38]: "And Aaron, the Priest, went up into 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, on the first day of the fifth month." And it is written [Deut. i. 3]: "And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, Moses spake," etc. Since he mentions the fifth month, which is certainly Abh, and he speaks of (Aaron's death as happening in) the fortieth year (and not the forty-first year), it is clear that Tishri is not the beginning of years (for kings). This argument would be correct as far as the former (Aaron's) case is concerned, for the text specifically mentions (forty years after) the Exodus; but in the latter (Moses') case, how can we tell that (the fortieth year) means from the Exodus? Perhaps it means (the fortieth year) from the raising of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. From the fact that R. Papa stated further on, that the twentieth year is mentioned twice for the sake of a comparison by analogy, we must assume that the analogy of expression "the fortieth year" (mentioned in connection with both Aaron and Moses) signifies also; 1 as in the former case it means forty years from the time of the Exodus, so also in the latter case. But whence do we know that the incident that took place in Abh (the death of Aaron) happened before (the speech of Moses) which is related as happening in Shebhat? Perhaps the Shebhat incident happened first. It is not reasonable to suppose this, for it is written [Deut. i. 4]: "After he had slain Sihon the king of the Amorites," and when Aaron died Sihon was still living. Thus it is written [Numb. xxi. 1]: "And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, heard." What did he hear? He heard that Aaron was dead, and that the clouds of glory had departed (and he thought that a sign that permission was given from heaven to fight against Israel). 2 How can we make any such comparison? In the one place it speaks of the Canaanite, and in the other of Sihon. We have learned in a Buraitha that Sihon, Arad, and the Canaanite are identical. This opinion of R. Johanan is quite correct, for we find that a Boraitha quotes all the verses that he quotes here, and arrives at the same conclusion.
R. Hisda says: The rule of the Mishna--that the year of the kings begins with Nissan--refers to the kings of Israel only, but for the kings of other nations it commences from Tishri. As it is said [Neh. i. 1]: "The words of Nehemiah, the son of Hakhaliah. And it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year," etc. And it is written [ibid. ii. 1]: "And it came to pass in the month Nissan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king," etc. Since Hanani stood before Nehemiah in Kislev, and the Bible speaks of it as the twentieth year, and since Nehemiah stood before the king in Nissan, and the Text calls it also the twentieth year, it is clear that the New Year (for the non-Jewish king, Artaxerxes) is not Nissan (or in the latter case he would have spoken of the twenty-first year). This would be correct as far as the latter quotation is concerned, for it specifically mentions Artaxerxes, but in the former verse how do we know that it refers to Artaxerxes? Perhaps it refers to another event altogether. Says R. Papa: Since in the first passage we read "the twentieth year" and in the second we read "the twentieth year," we may deduce by analogy that as in the one case Artaxerxes is meant, so is he meant also in the other. But how do we know that the event, recorded as having occurred in Kislev, and not the Nissan incident, happened first? This we know from a Boraitha, where it reads: The same words which Hanani said to Nehemiah in Kislev, the latter repeated to the king in Nissan, as it is said [Neh. i. 1, 2]: "The words of Nehemiah, son of Hakhaliah. And it came to pass in the month of Kislev, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the capital, that Hanani, one of my brethren came, and certain men of Judah . . . and the gates thereof are burned with fire." And it also said [Neh. ii. 1-6]: "And it came to pass in the month of Nissan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him . . . so it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time."
R. Joseph raised an objection. It is written [Haggai, ii. 10]: "In the twenty-fourth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius." And it is also written [ibid. I]: "In the second year, in the seventh month, in the one-and-twentieth day of the month." 1 If the rule is that Tishri (the seventh month) is the beginning of years for non-Jewish kings, should not the Text read "in the third year of Darius" instead of the second year? R. Abbahu answered: Cyrus was a most upright king, and the Hebrews reckoned his years as they did those of the kings of Israel (beginning with Nissan). R. Joseph opposed this. First: If that were so, there are texts that would contradict each other, for it is written [Ezra, vi. 15]: "And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the King." And we have learned in a Boraitha: At the same time in the following year Ezra and the children of the captivity went up from Babylon, and the Bible says about this [Ezra, vii. 8]: "And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month in the seventh year of the king." But if the rule is (that for Cyrus the year began with Nissan and not Tishri) should not the Text say "the eighth year" (since the first day of Nissan, the beginning of another year, intervenes between the third of Adar and the month of Abh)? Secondly: How can these texts be compared? In the one place it speaks of Cyrus, and in the other of Darius. We have learned in a Boraitha that Darius, Cyrus, and Artaxerxes are all one and the same person.
"And for festivals." Do then the festivals commence on the first of Nissan? Do they not begin on the fifteenth of that month? R. Hisda answered: (The Mishna means that Nissan is) the month that contains that festival which is called the New Year for festivals (viz., Passover).
What difference does it make (in practice)? It makes a difference to one who has made a vow, because through this festival he becomes culpable of breaking the law, "Thou shalt not slack to pay." 2 And this is according to the opinion of R. Simeon, who says: That (before one is guilty of delay) the three festivals must have passed by in their regular order, with Passover as the first (of the three). Thus was also the dictum of R. Simeon
