Implied Question: The Medrash says that this refers to Amalek.

Implied Question (cont.): This is as the author of a Pizmon regarding Parshas Zachor wrote, "Remember he changed his clothes and his language (the Maharsha and Aruch Laner argue whether Tosfos means they kept their language the same or not) to be like the King of Arad." (How, then, can our Gemara prove from here that Sichon was alive at this time?)

Answer: However, our Gemara still has a good deduction that Sichon was alive at this time, since Amalek changed themselves to appear like Sichon.

Observation: It appears that the Gemara deduces this from the Pasuk in Masei. If it would be deriving from the Pasuk in Chukas, the Pasuk there explicitly states that the reason they attacked was because, "Yisrael is coming through the Atarim."

Observation (cont.): Rashi was not exacting in his commentary on Chumash here.

Explanation: This means they were revealed, since Aharon died. This is a usage of "Ki" meaning, "because." If you will say that "Vayirau" means they saw, "Ki" cannot be interpreted in any of the four ways it is normally interpreted.

Question: However, there is a difficulty. Perhaps "Ki" here means "that," as in "And they saw that Aharon died?" This is similar to its usage in the Pasuk, "And the brothers of Yosef saw that their father died and they said to him, "Perhaps he will hate." This is also similar to the Pasuk, "And the Philistines saw that their hero had died.

Answer: Perhaps it does not fit in here well like the other Pesukim I have quoted where "Ki" means "that."

Opinion #1: The Pesukim that do use "Ki" to mean "that" such as "That the horse of Pharaoh is coming" or "that you will increase and be fruitful" is not using a fifth possible definition of the word "Ki," as stated by Rashi.

Opinion #2: "Ki Savo," "Ki Seileichun," "Ki Sisa," "Ki Sechaleh," and all of the times "Ki" means "that" are really under the category of the word "Im (one of the four definitions of Ki)." This is as we find in many places that "Im" is used to mean "(when) that." For example, the Pasuk, "v'Im Yihyeh ha'Yovel" refers to when it will be, as it will certainly be (it is not an "if"). Similalry, "v'Im Takriv Minchas Bikurim" means when you will bring it, as it is an obligation.

Explanation #1: Rashi here explains that anytime the term "Asher" is used, it means "Im." This cannot be.

Explanation #2: In Gitin (90a), Rashi explains that this is a term meaning, "that" and this is the main explanation.

Explanation: "Ki Yimatzei," "Ki Yikarei," "Ki Sireh," and "Ki Sifga" all use "Ki" as meaning "Im" - "if." Most usages of "Ki" indeed mean "if."

Observation: The Pasuk, "Ki Somar b'Levovecha" cannot be explained as meaning "if." This would imply that "if you will say you will not fear," and therefore, "if you will not say you will fear." This therefore is a language of, "Perhaps" meaning "perhaps you will say in your heart that the nations are many more etc." "You should not say this."

Observation (cont.): Similarly, "Ki Somar (Somru) Mah Nirdof Lo," "v'chi Somru Mah Nochal," "Ki Sireh Chamor Sonacha," and "Ki Gava Aharon" imply "that" which is the word "Asher."

Observation: The simple explanation of the Pasuk is that Arad is the name of the country or city.

Implied Question: One cannot say that the Pasuk regarding Iyar is referring to the raising of the Mishkan, and that Rosh Hashanah should be in Iyar. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because the words "Shanah ha'Sheinis" are used for a Gezeirah Shaveh, as stated earlier regarding the words "Arbaim Shanah" and "Esrim Shanah."

Observation: However, the Gemara could have quoted the Pasuk from Bamidbar and did not have to have this Gezeirah Shaveh. This is because the Pasuk says, "In the first of the second month in the second year from when Bnei Yisrael went out of Egypt" (Bamidbar 1:1).

Implied Question: The Pasuk states, "And it was morning, the second day." (Here Sheni does mean the second day before Shabbos!)

Answer: The Yerushalmi explains that we do not learn from the creation of the world. The Yerushalmi means to say that this second day is not referring to Shabbos, but rather that it was the second day of creating the world.

Explanation: This is not excluding Rebbi Elazar, as the Pasuk quoted by Rebbi Elazar is quoted in this Beraisa as well.

Explanation (cont.): However, the Beraisa did not suffice with the Pasuk quoted by Rebbi Elazar. This is because I might think that for Shlomo this was definitely the second month to the month that his kingdom started being counted from, since he happened to have become king in Nisan. However, for other kings (who did not become kings in Nisan) this would not be the case. This is why the Beraisa requires the comparison to (the Pesukim concerning) leaving Egypt.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that there are many months between Nisan and Tishrei which we could possibly suggest are Rosh Hashanah. (Why is the Gemara assuming that if it is not Nisan it is Tishrei?)

Answer: Since we have proven it is not Nisan it must be Tishrei, as we find Tishrei is Rosh Hashanah for many things such as Shemitah and Yovel.

Explanation: This means that the counting was based on some other incident (perhaps the death of Belshatzar, see Rashash).

Observation: The Yerushalmi pushes this aside by saying, "Really, we count from Nisan. This that was in Kislev is deemed to have happened in the twentieth year, and what was in Nisan etc.

Observation (cont.): The Yerushalmi's text is, "Rebbi Yitzchak asked, doesn't it say "And it was in the six hundred and first year etc." Regarding this verse the Beraisa taught that the year of the Great Flood is not included in this amount. This can be interpreted as being according to Rebbi Elazar who says that the world was created in Tishrei.

Observation (cont.): Doesn't the verse state, "And it was in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year" and yet it also states, "And it was in the month of Kislev in the twentieth year? This can be interpreted as being according to Rebbi Elazar who says that any year that did not yet have thirty days go by are not considered an entire year.

Observation (cont.): The Yerushalmi asks, "Doesn't the verse state, "And it was in the first month in the second year on the first day the Mishkan was established?" If you will say that it really was the third year, and it is only counted as a second year because thirty days of the third year did not yet pass and it is therefore not counted as being in the third year, doesn't the Pasuk state "And it was in the second year in the second month in the twentieth of the month the cloud rose over the Mishkan?" This means that fifty days had passed and they still did not consider it a full year (which is impossible, and therefore the first Pasuk was clearly in the second year, not the third).

Explanation #1: The simple explanation of the Pasuk is that this incident involving Nechemiah happened with King Artachshasta otherwise known as Daryavesh, the son of Queen Esther, in whose days the Beis Hamikdash was built.

Question #1: However, it is impossible to say this, as the Beis Hamikdash was built in the sixth year of Daryavesh's reign. This is as the Pasuk states, "And this house was finished (...in the sixth year of Daryavesh's reign)." The Gemara later quotes this Pasuk. Yet, the Pasuk says that this incident happened in the twentieth year of Daryavesh's reign [when Bnei Yisrael were already settled peacefully and securely (and therefore it is impossible that Nechemiah was upset about the Beis Hamikdash not being built yet at this time).]

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara later says that Rav Yosef asked a question on Rebbi Avahu, who says that we count from Nisan regarding the years of the Jewish kings, that if he is correct there is a contradiction in the Pesukim.

Question #2 (cont.): He should have asked from this Pasuk itself that the twentieth year is counting from Tishrei.

Explanation #2: One must explain that the Pasuk means that this happened in what would have been the twentieth year for Artachshasta, who is Koresh the first, and what happened was that wine was brought before him, meaning before Daryavesh, the son of Esther. This happened in the third year of Daryavesh's rule, as the Pasuk states, "This is when people were not building the house of Hash-m...until the second year of Daryavesh, the king of Peras."

Explanation #2 (cont.): In the third year of his rule Nechemiah talked before the king regarding the walls of Yerushalayim that were broken, as stated in Ezra. This was twenty years into the reign of Koresh the first, as stated in Megilah (11b) that Koresh ruled for three years, Achashveirosh for fourteen years, Daryavesh the son of Esther ruled for two years, and in the third year Nechemiah asked regarding the building of the city.

Explanation #3: However, it is possible to explain the Pasuk as it is simply translated. In the second year of Daryavesh they started to build the Beis Hamikdash, and it was finished in the sixth year of his reign. However, they did not build the walls around the city and its gates. They had just built the Beis Hamikdash itself. This was a very bad and denigrating situation, as the idolaters (nations - Bach) would pillage them until the twentieth year of Daryavesh when Nechemiah asked to build the wall around the city and they indeed did so, as is apparent from the Pesukim. However, they no longer were building the Beis Hamikdash, as it was already built.

Observation: These are two verses, one after the other, in the prophecy of Chagai. It is not explained there what happened "in the twenty fourth of the month on the sixth."

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that this is in the beginning of a Parshah. (Why don't we know what it is referring to if it is at the beginning of a Parshah?)

Answer: One must say that it is referring to the first Parshah beforehand where it says, "And they came and they did work in the house of Hash-m (Tzevakos) their G-d." In other words, on the twenty fourth of the month on the sixth they started to smooth the stones and cut wood. "And on the seventh on the twenty first of the month the word of Hash-m was to Chagai" to make them work more diligently and encourage them to work. (This is especially understandable when one sees that these two verses stating the dates are back to back. They must be referring to two different times or events. The first one refers to what was mentioned previously, as stated by Tosfos.)

Explanation: This is the implication of the Pesukim. This is as the Pasuk says, "And the house was finished in the month of Adar." The next Pasuk says, that they made a Chanukas ha'Bayis and then brought the Korban Pesach. If we count from Nisan, when he made the Pesach it was the seventh year.

Explanation (cont.): The Pasuk afterwards says, "After these things in the kingdom of Artachshasta... He is Ezra who ascended from Babylon...And he arrived in Yerushalayim on the fifth month during the seventh year of the king....On the first of the first month was the foundation of the people who ascended from Babylon." This refers to the same time during the next year and close to Adar. If we count from Nisan, it would have been the eighth year. (The Pasuk states it was in the seventh year! It therefore must be that we count the years of Koresh based on Tishrei, unlike Rebbi Avahu who says we count his years from Nisan.)

Explanation: All of these three names are said in the Pasuk that is before the Pasuk, "v'Sheitzaya Beisa Dana." The Pasuk says as follows, "And the elderly Jews built, and they were successful, as prophesized by Chagai, Zecharyah, Malachi, and Zecharya bar Ido. And they built and founded the building based on a command from Hash-m, G-d of Israel, and due to Koresh, Daryavesh, and Artachshasta the king of Peras."

Explanation (cont.): The Pasuk then states, "And the completion of this house took until the third of Adar, which was in the sixth year of King Daryavesh." (This implies that Daryavesh was actually called by all of the names (Koresh, Artachshashta, and Daryavesh) mentioned in the previous Pasuk.)

Explanation: Even Koresh the first who was called Artachshasta, as I explained earlier, was called so because of his kingdom (not because this was his actual name).