(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Rosh Hashanah 3

ROSH HASHANAH 2-10 sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) Resh Lakish gives the four possible meanings of the word "Ki" as - when, perhaps, but and because.

(b) According to that, we will translate ...

  1. ... "*Ki* Yikarei Kan Tzipor Lefanecha" - as *"When* you come across a bird's nest ... ".
  2. ... "*Im* Kesef Talveh es Ami" - "*When* you lend My people money".
  3. ... "ve'*Chi* Somru, Mah Nochal ba'Shanah ha'Shevi'is" - "And *perhaps* you will say, what will we eat in the seventh year?"
(c) And we explain the Pasuk "*va'Yir'u* Kol ha'Eidah *Ki* Gava Aharon" - to mean "And all the people *were seen*, *because* Aharon had died".
(a) We just Derived that Sichon was alive when Aharon died, from the Pasuk "Vayishma ha'Cana'ani ... ". The connection between Sichon and the cana'ani is - that Sichon and the Cana'ani in this instance, are one and the same. Note: The Cana'ani in this Pasuk really refers to Amalek, who spoke Cana'ani to confuse Yisrael. The proof that Sichon was alive (and his people intact) is from the fact that Amalek pretended to be Sichon (a senseless thing to do if they were no longer in existence).

(b) Sichon's third name was Arad.

(c) The king's name was Arad and his kingdom, Cana'an. He is referred to as 'Sichon' - because he resembled a 'Sayach' (a *young ass*) - according to the Aruch, he was as swift as a *foal*.

(d) According to others, his name was Sichon, and his kingdom, Cana'an. He is referred to as Arad - because he resembled a wild ass.

(a) We know that the Rosh Hashanah for kings is Nisan and not ...
1. ... Iyar - because, when they set up the Mishkan, the Torah refers to Nisan of the *second* year, and when they traveled, one and a half months later, it refers to Iyar too, as being in the *second* year (and if Iyar had been Rosh Hashanah for kings - which is synonymous with the new year that they reckoned in the Desert, as is clear from the entire Sugya - then it would have been the *third* year).
2. ... Sivan - because the Torah writes in Yisro (in connection with their arrival at Har Sinai) "ba'Chodesh ha'Shelishi, le'Tzeis B'nei Yisrael ... ". Had Sivan been Rosh Hashanah for kings, then the Torah would have added "ba'Chodesh ha'Shelishi ba'Shanah ha'Sheinis ... ".

(b) From all the Pesukim brought to date, we have no proof that the Rosh Hashanah for kings is not Tamuz, Av or Adar (only that it is not Tishri - when the world was created, and which was certainly considered the new year until they left Egypt). We get round this problem (too) from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "va'Yechal Livnos ba'Chodesh ha'Sheini, *ba'Sheini*, bi'Sh'nas Arba le'Malchuso" - where "ba'Sheini" can only mean the second month from which one counts the years of kings (and this was said in the month of Iyar).

(c) We know that "ba'Sheini" does not mean the second of the month - because then the Pasuk would have said so.

(d) We suggest that - perhaps "ba'Sheini" means the second day of the week (Monday)?

(a) "ba'Sheini cannot mean 'Monday', because we never find the day of the week mentioned in the Pasuk. Alternatively - just as the *first* "Sheini" mentioned in the Pasuk refers to a month, so too, does the *second*.

(b) We prove Rebbi Yochanan (who sparked off the entire Sugya by bringing the Pasuk from Melachim as the source for Nisan being the Rash Hashanah for kings) right - by quoting a Beraisa which corroborates Rebbi Yochanan's Pasuk from Melachim, as well as every subsequent Derashah quoted in the Sugya (because they are all needed, as is evident from the Sugya. See also Tosfos DH 'Tanya').

(a) Rav Chisda learns from the fact that the Pasuk in Nechemyah (regarding King Artachshasta) refers to first Kislev and then Nisan as the twentieth year - that, as far as Nochri kings are concerned, Rosh Chodesh cannot be Nisan.

(b) We know that the first of the two Pesukim, which does not name the king, also refers to King Artachshasta - from Rav Papa's 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Sh'nas Esrim" "Sh'nas Esrim" (which teaches us that, regarding all issues of years) whatever is obscure in one place, we learn from the other - see Rashi 2b. DH 'Sh'nas Esrim').




(a) From the fact that whatever Chanani told Nechemyah in Kislev, he passed on to the king in Nisan - we learn that the Pasuk in Nechemyah that is dated in Kislev (which deals with what Chanani told Nechemyah) precedes that of Nisan (where he passed the information on to the king).

(b) The information that Chanani gave Nechemyah (in the Pasuk currently under discussion) was decidedly unpleasant. He told him of the terrible suffering and humiliation of the Jews who remained behind in Eretz Yisrael from the captivity, and how the walls of Yerushalayim were still breached and the gates burnt to the ground.

(c) The news that Nechemyah received from Chanani was reflected on his face when he spoke to the King in Nisan - the King however, knowing that he was not ill, misunderstood his contorted features, taking it as a sign that he was brewing some sort of plot in his heart.

(d) Nechemyah's position in the royal court - was that of chief butler.

(a) After Nechemyah explained to the King why his face was contorted - the King reacted by asking whether he could help by perhaps praying for him to the G-d of the Heaven (a Nochri does not understand that Hashem is also G-d of the earth).

(b) Nechemyah's response - was to ask the King to send him to Yehudah to help rebuild the ruins.

(c) The dialogue ended - by Nechemyah giving an estimated time-period that he would need for the task, and for his request being granted.

(a) The Pasuk in Chagai refers to first the *sixth* month (Ellul) and then the *seventh* (Tishri) as being in the second year of his reign - because at the time of that prophesy, he was righteous, so the Pasuk counts the years of his reign like those of a Jewish king (from Nisan).

(b) Exactly one year after the completion of the second Beis Hamikdash, in Adar of the *sixth* year of Daryavesh's reign - Ezra left Bavel with a large contingent of exiles for Eretz Yisrael.

(c) The problem with the Pasuk in Ezra, which describes how he arrived in Yerushalayim in the fifth month of the *seventh* year of the King - is that, seeing as the Pasuk records that he left Bavel in Adar of the *seventh* year, Nisan should have marked the beginning of his *eighth* year. So why does it refer to the following Av as still being the *seventh* year?

(d) We resolve the apparent confusing of Koresh and Artachshasta - by concluding that the two are one and the same: Koresh was his title, because 'Koresh' contains the same letters as 'Kasher' (a hint to the fact that he was a righteous king), and Artachshasta was the name of his kingdom. His real name was Daryavesh (Darius).

9) We ascribe the fact that the Pasuk now considers Adar and Av to be in the same year (despite of what we learned earlier that the years of Koresh were reckoned from Nisan, because he was a righteous king) - to the fact that he later turned sour.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,