Using Secular Dates

Aryeh Lebowitz

I. Introduction. The calendar plays a significant role in governing the life of the
Jewish people. Large sections of Masechet Rosh Hashana, as well as many
other parts of shas deal with the exact rules and regulations governing the
establishment of the Jewish calendar. However, as Jews in exile, who conduct
business and other daily affairs within a secular culture, we often find
ourselves referring to, and relying on, the secular calendar. Sole reliance on
the Jewish calendar would lead to confusion, as we would not be able to
communicate important dates to others effectively. Throughout the past few
centuries leading poskim have debated the permissibility of using the secular
calendar to identify important dates. We will survey the various opinions on
this matter by examining each of the pertinent halachic issues. After analyzing
all of the issues, we will arrive at an informed halachic conclusion.
II. Historical Background. In order to understand the issues at hand, we must
first gain familiarity with the historical significance of the Gregorian calendar,
and discuss which event determined the starting point of the calendar. It is
generally assumed that the dating system currently in use dates back to the
birth of Jesus.
The Talmud (Sotah 47a [without mentioning Jesus by name], and Sanhedrin
107b [in chesronot hashas]) records an incident that occurred after King
Yanai killed the rabbis in Israel. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachya and Jesus fled
to Alexandria, Egypt. When the situation in Israel had improved, Shimon ben
Shetach (Yanai’s brother in law) sent a message for them to return to
Yerushalayim. On their way back they stayed at an inn. Upon receiving
gracious treatment from their hostess, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachya
expressed appreciation for all of the woman’s kindness. Jesus, however,
pointed out that the eyes of the hostess were half closed. Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Perachya then became angry at Jesus for focusing on the vanity of a woman’s
beauty, and placed Jesus in cherem. After attempting unsuccessfully on
numerous occasions to receive forgiveness from his Rebbe, Jesus attempted
one last time. On this final occasion Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachya was ready
to terminate the cherem, but he was in middle of reciting keriat shema and
therefore was unable to respond verbally. Instead, he waved with his hand to
indicate to Jesus that he would be with him in a moment. Jesus misunderstood
the hand motion as a rejection of his apology, and never attempted to receive
forgiveness again. This gemara clearly indicates that Jesus lived during the
time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Prachya.
If we are to accept the gemara’s account at face value, we encounter a major
historical problem. According to Talmudic tradition (Avot chapter 1 and
Chagiga 16a) Hillel was a student of a student of a student of Rabbi Yehoshua
ben Perachya, and Hillel served as Nasi one hundred years before the
destruction of the second Beit Hamikdash, which occurred in the secular year
69 CE. Clearly, according to the Talmudic account, Jesus dies many years
before the beginning of the secular calendar, in a period at most a century
 following the events of the story of Chanukah (approximately 235 years
before the destruction of the second Beit Hamikdash.). The Rabbinic
authorities have taken two basic approaches to deal with the discrepancy
between the Talmudic and secular historical accounts of when Jesus lived and
died.
A. The conspiracy theory. Ra’avad (Sefer Hakabalah page 53) notes the
contradiction between the historical and Talmudic account, and strongly
stands by the accuracy of the Talmudic tradition. Abarbanel (Sefer
Ma’yanei Hayeshua) suggests that the Christians have falsified the true
dates in order to make it appear as if the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash
occurred soon after Jesus’ death, thereby implying that the destruction of
the Beit Hamikdash was punishment for killing Jesus.
B. The “second Jesus” theory. Seder Hadorot suggests that there were two
people named Jesus who were both killed. The Talmudic account
mentioned above refers to a different Jesus than the one who has been
deified by so many people. Rabbi Yakov Emden (commentary to Avodah
Zara 17a) also believes that there must have been a second Jesus. In fact,
there are a number of sources that point to the possibility of a second
Jesus:
1. Tosafot Sanhedrin 37b. Tosafot point out that even though the
Sanhedrin had stopped judging cases involving capital punishment
forty years before the destruction of the beit hamikdash, when it
was absolutely necessary “like that [well known] incident”.
Presumably, Tosafot are referring to the execution of Jesus. The
underlying assumption of Tosafot is that Jesus was killed within
the last forty years prior to the destruction of the beit hamikdash.
Tosafot do not raise the issue of the strong Talmudic evidence that
Jesus was killed many years earlier, presumably because they
assume that there were two men named Jesus, both of whom were
killed. (See, however, comment of Rav Yakov Emden there who
has a novel reading of Tosafot to address the discrepancy in the
dates.)
2. Gemara Sanhedrin 43a. The gemara (in chesronot hashas) very
clearly states that the Jewish Sanhedrin killed Jesus. If this gemara
refers to the same Jesus, it is most curious that all historical
accounts of the death of Jesus claim that the Romans in fact killed
him. If the non-Jews changed the date of his death in historical
accounts to incriminate the Jews, why would they claim that the
Romans killed him, and not the Jews? It would therefore seem that
there must have been another Jesus, many years before his more
famous namesake, who was killed by the Jews.
III. The argument against the use of secular dates. The Maharam Schick
(Responsa Yoreh Deah 171) was asked about the permissibility of writing the
secular date on a tombstone. In his response, Rabbi Schick strongly objects to
the use of secular dates, following in the tradition of his illustrious Rebbe, the
 Chatam Sofer, who also forbade using secular dates. While both of these torah
giants arrived at the same conclusion, their arguments were very different.
A. The objection of Maharam Schick. The passuk in Parshat Mishpatim
(Shemot 23:13) states that we may not mention the names of other gods.
Chazal (Sanhedrin 63b) understand this prohibition to include one who
tells his friend to meet him near a particular avodah zara. Rav Schick, in
turn, extends this prohibition to any action that would cause people to
think about the avodah zara, even without mentioning it by name. After
all, he argues, the Sefer Hachinuch explains the reason for this prohibition
is to avoid paying any attention to avodah zara whatsoever. It therefore
follows that anything that reminds a person of an avodah zara is included
in this prohibition. Since the secular date is counted from the birth of
Jesus, it would be biblically prohibited to use the date.
B. The objection of Chatam Sofer. The Chatam Sofer (Derashot Chatam
Sofer volume II page 315) argues that by counting our years back to the
creation of the world we are reminding ourselves of the Creator, and of
our Divine right to Eretz Yisroel. When one uses the secular date, on the
other hand, they are implying that “they want no portion of the God of
Israel” and they have “become disgusted with the Torah of God”.
Furthermore, in his commentary to Chumash (Parshat Bo), the Chatam
Sofer writes that the torah commands us to consider Nissan the first month
to remind ourselves of the exodus from Mitzrayim, and “not God forbid
like the counting of the nations of the world”.
IV. The argument to allow using secular dates. Obviously, those who permit
the use of secular dates must address both the argument of the Maharam
Schick and the argument of the Chatam Sofer.
A. The response to the Maharam Schick. Many of the leading poskim of our
generation (Rav Ovadia Yosef Responsa Yabia Omer Yoreh Deah III 9:3;
Tzit Eliezer VIII 8:1 and IX #14; Rav Yehoshua Freund cited by Responsa
Az Nidberu XII #39) point out that one can take issue with the stringency
of the Maharam Schick for many reasons:
1. While the gemara clearly prohibits explicit mention of an avodah
zara even for non idolatrous purposes, it is quite a stretch to
extend this prohibition to anything that may remind somebody of
the avodah zara. We do not find this stringency in the Shulchan
Aruch or any of the earlier authorities.
2. As we have illustrated above, there remains a very strong
possibility that the secular dates do not correspond at all to the
birth of Jesus. Rather, as Sefer Otzer Yisroel (page 291) points
out, the dating starts with the Roman empire. If the dating has
nothing to do with the birth of Jesus there would be no problem
of reminding ourselves of avodah zara when mentioning the
secular date. Some object to this leniency on the grounds that as
long as people think the date relates to avodah zara, they will be
reminded of the avodah zara and one will violate a torah
prohibition by bringing the avodah zara to people’s attention
 (Rabbi Nosson Gestetner, author of Responsa Lehorot Natan
cited in Tzitz Eliezer XIII 14:3). Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg
(Tzitz Eliezer ibid.) addresses this objection in two ways:
a. It would seem that if the date really has no relevance to the
avodah zara, and people only mistakenly equate the two,
there would be no prohibition of mentioning the date. We
cannot control what goes through the minds of others when
we speak carefully and avoid mention of avodah zara.
b. We may argue further that most people are not reminded of
avodah zara at all when told the date. Even the small
percentage of people who are reminded of the avodah zara,
probably know that there is no exact connection between
the secular date and the avodah zara.
3. Even if one were to argue that the dating does in fact correspond
to the birth of Jesus, the Sefer Yereim (75) writes that the
prohibition to mention names of idols is limited to those names
that ascribe godliness to the idols. However, a name that merely
serves to identify the object without any connotation of deifying
the object would not be included in this prohibition. It therefore
follows that even if one is reminded of Jesus when mentioning
the secular date, so long as he does not recall any godly
characteristics of Jesus, he has not violated the prohibition of
mentioning the names of other gods.
4. Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Responsa Tzitz Eliezer XIII #14)
suggests that we may distinguish between using secular dates in
the context of business and using them in the context of a
tombstone. In a cemetery we must be more diligent in assuring
that our behavior reflects that which unites the Jewish people and
focuses on the spiritual side of our existence. It is only there,
perhaps, that the Maharam Schick was opposed to using secular
dates. In business, however, where there is room for the
mundane, we may use secular dates. Even so, Rabbi Waldenberg
suggests that when dealing with internal matters (letters between
Jews) we should be careful to use the Jewish date. Furthermore,
he suggests, even when writing documents that require the
secular date one should try to include the Jewish date as well.
B. The response to the Chatam Sofer. Rav Ovadia Yosef suggests that the
Chatam Sofer’s objection to using secular dates is limited to those who
have attempted to assimilate into non-Jewish culture, and use the secular
date as another form of being like the nations of the world. However, if
somebody uses the secular date for purely practical purposes, such as
business dealings where others would not recognize the Jewish date, even
the Chatam Sofer would rule leniently. To prove this assertion, Rav Yosef
points out that even the Chatam Sofer himself concluded a letter that was
addressed to political leaders with the date November 8 1821. For this
reason, Rav Yosef concludes that when necessary (i.e. writing checks,
 contracts etc.), especially outside of Israel (where nobody is aware of the
Jewish date), it is permissible to use the secular date. When practical (i.e.
letters to friends, personal notes etc.), however, one should attempt to use
the Jewish date. Furthermore, it would seem that one who uses both dates
next to each other is clearly indicating that the Jewish date is meaningful
to him, and that he is only using the secular date for practical reasons.
C. In addition to the various rabbinic responses to the stringent stance of the
Maharam Schick and the Chatam Sofer, many poskim have pointed out
other reasons to permit the use of secular dates:
1. Rabbi Yehoshua Freund (cited in Responsa Az Nidberu ibid.)
points out that it is very curious that there is no mention of any
prohibition on this matter in the Shulchan Aruch or any of its
classical commentaries. Considering that the dating system has
been in effect for two millennia it would seem that somebody
should have mentioned this problem before the 18th century.
Furthermore, Rav Ovadia Yosef points out that there is
significant rabbinical precedent for the use of secular dates. Such
torah luminaries as the Shach (Sefer Kiryat Ne’emanah page 78),
Maharam Padawa (responsa 36), Rav Shlomo Eiger (Iggerot
Soferim page 66), and even the Chatam Sofer himself have dated
letters with the secular dates.
2. Rabbi Freund points out further that a stringent ruling in this area
would preclude Jews from engaging in almost all business
activity. Simple tasks such as writing checks could become a
major problem. Considering that the overwhelming majority of
God fearing Jews do not refrain from such activities, it is highly
unlikely that it would be prohibited. It is important to point out
that even those who are stringent suggest that a check may be
dated by writing the last two numbers of the secular year (i.e. ’04
instead of 2004). Rav Moshe Stern (Responsa Be’er Moshe VIII
#18) happily reports that he has dated many checks in this
fashion and has yet to have the bank return a single one of them.
V. Numbering the months. In addition to the issue of counting the years
according to the secular calendar, there is an additional debate regarding using
secular months to identify a day. Amongst those who share a lenient view
regarding the years, there is debate as to the best way to identify the secular
months in checks and other such documents.
A. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Responsa Yabia Omer ibid.) points out that both the
Ramban (commentary to Parshat Bo) and the Chatam Sofer stress the
importance of counting our months according to the Jewish calendar. This
means to say that when the Torah tells us that Nissan is the first of the
months, it is implying that we may not consider any other month to be
“the first”. Therefore, suggests Rav Yosef, when dating a check one
should not refer to the secular month by number, but by name. There is no
prohibition to use the names January, February, March, etc.; but there is a
prohibition to refer to them as the first three months of the year.
 B. Rabbi Waldenberg suggests that the exact opposite is true. He writes that
he has heard that the names of the months are after gentile gods. If this is
the case, one may not mention the names of the months, but should instead
refer to the month by number. Although the Tur (Orach Chaim 117) and
R’ Akiva Eiger (Responsa 118) both record the names of secular months,
they clearly were unaware of the idolatrous origins of these names. We,
who are aware of the significance of these names, should avoid using them
under any circumstances.
C. Compromise approach. According to the Encarta Encyclopedia, the
months of January, March, May, and June are named for various Roman
gods. The months of February and April are named for other religiously
significant events, but not directly for gods. The months of July and
August are named for the Roman leaders Julius Caesar and Augustus
respectively. Finally, the months of September through December are
rooted in the Latin words for the numbers seven through ten (before Julius
and Augustus named months for themselves, there were only ten months
in the year and these months corresponded to these numbers). If this is the
case, it may be advisable to use numbers to refer to those months that are
named for avodah zara (in order to avoid the biblical prohibition of
mentioning the names of avodah zara), and to write out the name of those
months that are not named for avodah zara (in deference to the opinion of
the Ramban that we should not count non Jewish months by numbers).
VI. Conclusion. We have surveyed the opinions of the leading poskim of the past
three hundred years regarding the use of secular dates. While the arguments to
be lenient are compelling and may be relied upon, the passion with which
those who are stringent express themselves suggests that one should promote
the use the Jewish calendar when possible.