Talk:Missing years (Hebrew calendar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.
Judaism Portal
Missing years (Hebrew calendar) is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Missing years (Hebrew calendar) is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

On of the few Haredi ("Ultra-Orthodox") voices who grappled with this problem was Shimon Schwab. Perhaps I ought to work his views into the relevant section, because he advances (and then effectively rejects) a theory that the years in question were deliberately removed from the Jewish calendar. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lerman's Theory

Added a section about Lerman's theory. Goeie 04:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed it (Lerman says the theory does not and was not intended to explain the missing years).Goeie 06:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind elaborating? It sounded convincing (If the year count is an Rabbinic invention it wouldn't be exact)Wolf2191 07:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A shift of the absolute value of the count (eg rounding off) does not really explain the gap. One could just shift everything. True, if there was a pre-existing count and they changed it, they would have to insert a gap somewhere in one direction or other. But that is a big assumption, and it is not Lerman's, that is the point. But I added a piece to Birkat HaHammah.Goeie 11:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a small paragraph.Goeie 04:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First two sections are quite mistaken

The section "Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar" is wrong and in any case the logic is poor.

The count did change, but only by one year. If you go according to Lerman's theory, the year-counted existed from the 35th century and is based on the idea that Creation took place in Nissan of the first year. One can call this year 0 or year 1, and there was likely a change in convention. Originally it was called year 0, while later it was called year 1.

However, he other addition of 1 is bogus, with all respect.

What happened is that the introduction of the fixed calendar caused a reinterpration of the years without changing the count iself, in an attempt to give place to both the Shita that the world was created in Nissan (called after rabbi Yehoshua}, and the Shita that the world was created in Tishrei (rabbi Eliezer). As it happens, the timing of the physical Molad is only approximately consistent with tradition and midrash if it is assumed that the world was created in Tishrei of (our) year 2. For instance, in (our) year 1, Molad Tishei (being BHR"D) was Yom Sheni, which makes it impossible that Rosh Chodesh, the birtday of Adam HaRishon, was on Yom Shishi of year 1. Also, Molad Nissan of year 1 does not fit Rosh Chodesh on Yom Shishi. Hence, we ended up saying that Adam was created in Tishrei, and in year 2. Because Birkat HaHammah must be (our) year 1, the Shitot of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer can only be unified by having Nissan first and Tishrei second (see Hilchot Kiddush HaHochesh 9 and 10).

As an aside, this was different before the issue of the fixed calendar came up. Originally, "Rabbi Yehoshua" was being mityashev in the Nissan after the Tishrei of Rabbi Eliezer. This is quite essential - it is even what is behind the very existence of the two Shitot. Important also, because it shows that the Creation in Nissan was the first week of Nissan, and not the week starting Adar 25, which is a later invention, another result of the above Molad problem, but Adar 25 idea does not work out in any case (see Tosefot Rosh HaShana 8).

Anyway, because of this we starting saying that Adam HaRishon was created in year 2. We did not change the years for that. Davka not. So "Today these years would be called 3340 and 3830 AM" is not true. There is a difference of one year only.

To assume that the count changed necessarily with the change of its interpretation assumes that our sages took the count to be objective. The alternative is, however, that the sages felt free to change interpretation, and the evidence for this is quite overwhelming. I will leave it to the original author to fix the logic. If it does not happen within reasonable time, I will do it.

The section "Differences between the standard Hebrew and Gregorian calendars" is so misty that I suggest that it be deleted. I will do so, unless the author improves it.Goeie 05:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I find Lerman's theory highly suspect. It seems unlikely that the sages living when they did should have forgotten to account for the 150 yrs. and 4 kings. It also doesn't take into account the (fairly strong) evidence mentioned in the Hakirah article for a deliberate cover up.
The missing 2 years point is very widely held (see for instance artscroll to A"Z 8a) and very likely. You may like lerman, but that doesn't make other ideas wrong.Wolf2191 04:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Lerman does not say that the sages who lived at the time (say 35th century) forgot kings. He argues game-set-and-match in my opinion what is the background of the year-count. The way the sages did this (rounding off to a multiple of 532) causes a natural mismatch. The mismatch was not necessarily addressed by the same sages. Perhaps it was addressed, in the way that we know it, only as late as rabbi Yosi in Seder Olam Goeie 04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC).
1. We still have a problem in this that we have no record of anything happening during those years , No famous kings, priest, writings, battles. Why was no record left unless it was deliberately concealed?? (Interestingly we have a similar gap in records of the geonic period. Is it possible that during the period of redaction (of Bible, and Talmud) were for some reason deliberately concealed in some way? (pure OR speculation agreed)
2. It really does appear that there was a deliebrate concealment (Hoffman and Krochmal on an apparently deliberate removal from the Mishna Avot)? This is why I don't find Lerman takes care of everything (and I only partially understand his point. Does he take care of the difficulties one would have with the shemitta\Yoval count. That count would have gone on a long time and would have to be taken in account? A difficult conundrum and far from game-set-match. BestWolf2191 05:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There was deliberate concealment, also according to Lerman if you ask him, to defend the calendar and the unity of the Nation.
All due respect but to have chronological unity is a very weak reason to go to all that trouble. Particularly since Z'man Shtarot (greek dating) was the norm so I can't see that Lerman's claim for a need of chronological unity convincing. (Interesting that Josephus should have joined in (partially) on this cover up?)Wolf2191 05:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The end of 2,000 years of Torah is a better reason? Anyway the year count is the key for the determination of the Molad BHR"D (From the first Molad Tishrei, Yom Beit, Hour Heh, Resh-Dalet Chalakim, Year 1, you can compute every Molad, but only if you know the year). We want everybody to have the same Rosh Chodesh, and therefore the same Chagim, first of all to preserve unity. Not a weak reason IMHO. After all, we are talking about a major task of the Sanhedrin. Goeie 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I think that a final reaction to the Bible would be a far better explanation for all the secrecy and cover-up. Actually, Lerman's idea might explain the mystery behind Sod Ha'Ibur (which is apparently a simple calculation).Wolf2191 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect to Shmitta, the answer is obvious. Shmitta is not coupled to the year count, at all. Rather it is coupled to dates of Yishuv HaAretz, Hakamat Beit HaMikdash, complicated, even for the Rambam. The fact that we have a multiple of seven now is a "coincidence". The a priori chance is 1/7. Goeie 05:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that in the Sugya in A"Z (8-9) the calculation is made based on Briyot Olam but I'm a bit hazy on details (need to review)Wolf2191 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC).


I did not say that other ideas are wrong. I said the section is mistaken. I did not say that the "generally held" view should not be mentioned as being "generally held". But logic says that a change of interpretation does not imply a change in count.Goeie 05:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The question is, do we count the first 6 days of creation as a seperate year under the rule of Miktzos Ha'Yom Kulo or do we start counting from the day of the creation of man (perhaps we need to elaborate that section with this information).Wolf2191 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


I edited "Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar". I thought to add that Rashi explains Seder Olam such that the Temple stood until 3828, meaning that it was destroyed in 3829, so that one gets to 70 CE with a one-year shift. I feel such a remark would be besides the point being made though. The purpose of "Differences between the standard Hebrew and Gregorian calendars" keeps escaping me but I left it in for now. Please explain/improve. Goeie 09:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed "Two-year difference within the Hebrew calendar", and merged it with the last section, "Evolution of the Hebrew calendar", which was almost empty. Goeie 07:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Interchanged two first sections. Goeie 10:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "it is generally held" regarding the calendar shift of one and two years. Actually, I found that the two-year is not so widely held at all. The one-year shift is widely held, as it has a source in the Gemara and it is the Shita of the Vilna Gaon. But I decided that the shita that there was no shift is too tenable to be disqualified by the "it is generally held" that I wrote before. Goeie 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saadiah

I am placing this here till I can see how best to incorporate it into the article.

"One version of the argument states that the Jews deliberately distorted the dating to hide that the prophecy refers to Jesus"

It can be found in Chapter 9 of the "Treatise of Redemption" (pg 322 of the Yale English Edition). R'Saadia Gaon in his critique of the Christian interpretation of some passages in Daniel, makes the claim that the Christians intentionally altered the calendar so that the dates of their view of redemption would coincide with their understanding of scripture. R'Saadia Gaon makes the accusation that they intentionally added dynasties to their list of kings to achieve this effect (the opposite of the views championed by the article in Hakira and R'Shimon Shwab). Here is the quote in full:

However the clearest [refutation of all lies in the fact that from the time when this revelation was made to Daniel until the date which they believe [to have been the time of the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the redemption], only 285 years had elapsed. Now the total sum [mentioned in the book of Daniel] is 490 years. Of this number of year 70 were taken up by the period preceding the building of the second temple, and 420 by that of its existence.

I have found, then, that the advocates [of the Christian doctrine] had no other means [of supporting their theory] except the contention that an addition is to be made in the chronological calculation. They maintain, namely, that the government of the Persian over Palestine existed for a period of something like 300 years before that of the Greeks and that the number of their kings during this period was seventeen. However, I have refuted this contention on their part from the text of the book of Daniel itself, [pointing out] that it was impossible that between the time of the government of Babylon and that of the Greeks more than four Persian kings should have rules over Palestine. For the angle said to Daniel, peace be upon him: And as for me, in the first years of Darius the Mede, I stood up to be a supporter and a stronghold unto him. And now, I will declare unto thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up against the real of Greece (Daniel 11:1,2). The above statement has thus been explained from every aspect.

These are, then, the arguments that may be offered in refutation of the doctrine of the Christians aside from the objections to be raised against their theory of the suspension of the laws of the Torah and those that might be urged against them on the subject of the Unity of God, and other matters, which cannot properly be presented in this book.

Wolf2191 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A COUPLE NOTES about objectivity.

Would anyone who is defending the secular dating, please cite your sources better? I am attempting to collect all these original source materials. Please cite the titles of the ancient works that allegedly support the secular dating.

Also, at least a couple of the papers listed in the external links, specifically "A Y2K Solution. . ." and "Fixing the Mind. . ." offer absolutely no evidence to support the secular dating, but rather just assume that it is correct and then try to find a reason or justification for the Jews to alter their own calendar. I have not read the other articles in the external links. So if there is an article listed that does the exact opposite, that assumes the Hebrew year count is correct, and then shows where the Greek historians are wrong, please forgive my ignorance of them.

It needs to be noted in the article, that there is a powerful motive for many to not be objective about the Hebrew year count, as the secular dating conveniently allows an interpretation of Daniel 9 to point to Jesus Christ. Brianshoe (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)