Precious scribe wrote it. This teaches us that a document is valid even if the scribe omitted the "from creation" part of the date, even if he skipped the thousands and hundreds, as long as he wrote the specific last digits. This is because they used to date documents according to the Seleucid era (Greek kings), and the scribe must have just left that bit out. If the document explicitly stated "according to the Seleucid era," the Gemara wouldn't have entertained the possibility that it might refer to the Exodus era or another reckoning. Even so, we don't assume it's a different dating system and thus invalid until that later date arrives. Since in exile they used the Seleucid era, if one omits the "from creation" now, it's fine since that's our standard reckoning. Even omitting the thousands is fine, as the Gemara later says, "Ignore the first thousand, take the last." Some versions read, "Ignore the general (thousands), take the specific (units and tens)." Rabeinu Tam actually wrote a document with just the last digits, omitting both the thousands and the "from creation."

They Have Neither Script Nor Language Rashi explains this as meaning their language is a collection from other nations. But this is difficult, since the descendants of Ishmael, Keturah, Ammon, and Moab, who existed after the Tower of Babel incident, also must have got their languages from other nations! Therefore, the Ri explains that "writing and language" refers to a formal, prestigious language used by kings, like scholarly Greek. This aligns with Megillah 10b, which says, "I have cut off from Babylon name and remnant," where "name" refers to language. This is puzzling, as they spoke Aramaic and still do! Rather, it means they lack a royal, formal language. Alternatively, Bereishit Rabbah says that the flood during the Tower of Babel wiped out many families from the seventy nations, with the survivors descending from Ishmael and Keturah. Perhaps each nation inherited a language from one of the lost ones, while Rome learned a different language altogether.

And It Was Taught, Coronation Day and Birthday The Gemara could have quoted the whole Baraita that appears later, but only quotes a part. The Gemara then presents a resolution based on one coronation versus another. But how could this resolve it, since the quoted Baraita clearly contradicts this? Perhaps the one offering the resolution didn't know the full Baraita, and only addressed the quoted part. Alternatively, it might be a different Baraita altogether. The Gemara couldn't have derived this question from our Mishnah, which implies two different people, using the lengthy phrase "coronation day of kings and birthday." The Baraita's phrasing, "coronation day and birthday," implies one person.