Replies

Thank you for distinguishing Yom Teruah from Rosh Hashannah as the "new year," about which there is nothing Biblical.

The first day of the seventh month is the "new year of years." It is the anniversary of the Sixth Day of Creation and of Adam and Eve's creation. Years are numbered from the seventh month, as is evident in the instructions concerning the shemitah and yovel years, which are dated from the seventh month, not the first month.

The first month (Nisan) is the new year of the seasons, the new moons, the Biblical feasts, and the reign of Jewish kings. The intercalation is made prior to the first month, which fixes the months and seasons for the year to come. But years (such as the shemitah and yovel mentioned above) are still dated from the seventh month, which is when the year itself changes.

The first day of the seventh month is the "new year of years."

That is a tradition. It is not in the Tanakh.

It is the anniversary of the Sixth Day of Creation and of Adam and Eve's creation.

That is a tradition. It is not in the Tanakh.

Years are numbered from the seventh month, as is evident in the instructions concerning the shemitah and yovel years, which are dated from the seventh month, not the first month.

You are correct that the Talmud Yerushalayim Tractate Sheviis records the Mishnaic ruling that the Shemitta year (and therefore Yoveil) begin on Rosh Hashannah. However, that ruling falls afoul of Devarim 31:10-11 which goes completely unmentioned through several chapters of discussion on the topic:

Dev. 31:10 And Moses commanded them, saying: 'At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, 11 when all Israel is come to appear before HaShem thy G-d in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.'

You cannot have the end of the agricultural year right after beginning it. That the ruling does not even discuss this apparent conflict with the Torah is a red flag; there had to be a reason for it that goes undiscussed through the entire volume. Nor is this an isolated omission, as the founding verses for the Sabbath for the Land: Ex. 23:10-11 go unmentioned as well. Interestingly, the interpretation there is again in conflict with both the literal reading of the Torah AND the Septuagint!!! Hence, the rabbis of the Second Temple Period knew that the ruling was in conflict with Torah but were not at liberty to say why. I think I know the reason.

Although there are exculpatory reasons for it, the ruling to which you refer (on page 1b if I recall correctly) is clearly in conflict with Torah. As I said, there had to be an exculpatory reason. Care to know why they did it?

A limited release of my book on Shemitta is available here. It is undergoing a major revision that will be placed online for free. Here is a review.