The chronology on which our calendar is based uses an assumption:
The first year of a life is year 0. In other words, we count the number of birthdays completed.
Using this assumption, we can arrive at all the traditional dates, that the Flood was in 1656, that Avraham was born in 1948, that the Exodus was in 2448, etc. The problem is with the birth of Adam HaRishon.
In order to get the traditional dates, Adam HaRishon must be born in year 0. This is problematic:
- Birkat HaChamah is based on the creation of the sun being in Nissan of year 1 (according to the opinion that Creation was in Nissan), which is why the formula for Birkat HaChamah is 1 + 28n, for 0 <= n <= 214. According to this, we should say Adam HaRishon was born in year 1 (in Nissan)
- The Molad that we calculate today is based on the 1st day of Creation being the 25th of Elul, year 1 (according to the opinion that Creation was in Tishrei). In other words, Adam HaRishon is born on Rosh Hashanah of year 2.
According to the above, our chronology of Adam HaRishon being born in year 0 indicates that the 2nd Beit HaMikdash was destroyed in 3828. Yet according to the other systems of counting, we could say that it was destroyed in 3829 or 3830.
There is a statement I believe in a few places, including the Zohar Chadash, that says that the 2nd Beit HaMikdash was destroyed in the year after Shmitah. Shmitah, according to our counting, is any year evenly divisible by 7 (like this year, 5768, is evenly divisible by 7 a total of 824 times). This would make 3830 the closest year that mathematically fits this statement. However, it is not necessary to fit this, because Shmitah (I believe according to most opinions, correct me if I am wrong) was counted by the Sanhedrin during the 2nd Beit HaMikdash period, meaning it wasn't based on the overall year count (where a Shmitah Year is when year divided by 7 is an integer).
The idea that Adam HaRishon was born in year 0, according to this counting system, has a message that the 6000 years that we count is really the 6000 year life of Adam HaRishon, and not just the world overall. It is a 6000 year story of the development of mankind.
Posts
The 1656 in Seder Olam is the sum of many numbers. It seems not so farfetched to assume that altogether there was one overlapping year. If so, Adam could have been born in year 1, and yet the Mabul would have been in year 1656.
ReplyDeleteOf course in any given 10 generations there would most likely be more than a one year overlap, but in the counting system of Seder Olam Rabba, the phrase "shanim muktaot" I believe is only used in making the years after Yetziat Mitzraim fit.
ReplyDeleteOf course that phrase is referring to fitting more than one kingdom in to one year, but the concept is the same.
ReplyDelete"I believe is only used in making the years after Yetziat Mitzraim fit."
ReplyDeleteYes, that is true. Seder Olam does not say what I said. Logically, though, the calculation given is unlikely to be precise. So there seems to be some wiggling space here. Regarding the likeliness of a variance of one year or more, it would depend on what it means if it says that X was y years old when he begot Z. This might be different from similar statements regarding reigns of kings.
There are sources that say we should add one to the years of Seder Olam to get the year according to our count, but I doubt if this is halacha.
"...Shmitah (I believe according to most opinions, correct me if I am wrong) was counted by the Sanhedrin during the 2nd Beit HaMikdash period, meaning it wasn't based on the overall year count"
ReplyDeleteBut yet our Shmita years are (paskened to be) the HemShech of what was done during Bayit Sheni.
I'll have to review the Rambam with the mefarshim on Hilchot Shmitah perek 10.
ReplyDeleteDo you remember which siman in the Shulchan Aruch the GR"A discusses this?
I think it is in Be'er Eliyahu.
ReplyDeleteIt's in Be'ur HaGR"A to the Shulchan Aruch. I just forget where it is, which Siman of the Shulchan Aruch he was commenting on.
ReplyDeleteNot in Choshen HaMishpat?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'll have to search for it. I'm typing up the relevant parts of the Rambam now.
ReplyDelete