Rosh Hashanah 14

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי הוא אמינא משום דקסבר יש בילה קא משמע לן לכל אין בילה

The Gemara comments: It is necessary to state all three statements of Shmuel in order to clarify his position, as had Shmuel taught us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, I would have said that this is due to the fact that he holds that there is mixing even with regard to solids. Therefore, he teaches us the second statement, that there is no mixing for anything except wine, oil, and other liquids.

ואי אשמעינן לכל אין בילה הוא אמינא כרבנן סבירא ליה קא משמע לן הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי

And had Shmuel taught us only that there is no mixing for anything except liquids, I would have said that he holds like the Sages with regard to tithes, that the mixture of cowpeas cannot be tithed together. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי הוא אמינא קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל קא משמע לן הכל הולך אחר גמר פרי

And had Shmuel taught us only these two statements, I would have said in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira that it is difficult to reconcile one statement of Shmuel with another statement of Shmuel. Therefore, he teaches us that in all cases, the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce, and it is for this reason that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

ואי אשמעינן הכל הולך אחר גמר פרי הוה אמינא אפילו תבואה וזיתים נמי קא משמע לן הלכה כרבי שמעון שזורי במאי דפליג

And had Shmuel taught us only that in all cases the tithe year follows the time of the full ripening of the produce, I would have said that this applies even to grain and olives. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri with regard to his dispute with the Sages, i.e., with regard to beans, but with regard to grain and olives the tithe year follows the time that they reach one-third of their growth.

ולשמעינן הני תרתי לכל אין בילה למה לי הא קא משמע לן דליין ושמן יש בילה

The Gemara asks: But let him teach us only these two statements, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon Shezuri and that in all cases the tithe year follows the full ripening of the fruit, which would suffice to clarify Shmuel’s position. Why do I need to be told that there is no mixing for anything? The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us not that there is no mixing for solids, but that there is mixing for wine, oil, and other liquids.

תניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר באספך מגרנך ומיקבך מה גורן ויקב מיוחדין שגדילין על מי שנה שעברה ומתעשרין לשנה שעברה אף כל שגדילין על מי שנה שעברה מתעשרין לשנה שעברה יצאו ירקות שגדילין על מי שנה הבאה ומתעשרין לשנה הבאה

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: “After you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress” (Deuteronomy 16:13). This teaches that just as the grain that is brought to the threshing floor and the wine that is brought to the winepress are special in that they grow on the outgoing year’s water, i.e., the moisture in the ground from the previous winter’s rain, and the halakha is that they are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, so too, anything that grows on the outgoing year’s water is tithed in accordance with the outgoing year. This comes to exclude vegetables, which grow on the incoming year’s water, as their growth cycle is short and they are nurtured by the rain that falls while they are growing. Consequently, they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year.

רבי עקיבא אומר באספך מגרנך ומיקבך מה גורן ויקב מיוחדין שגדילין על רוב מים ומתעשרין לשנה שעברה אף כל שגדילין על רוב מים מתעשרין לשנה שעברה יצאו ירקות שגדילין על כל מים ומתעשרין לשנה הבאה

Rabbi Akiva says: This is the way the verse should be expounded: “After you have gathered in from your threshing floor and from your winepress”; this teaches us that just as the grain that is brought to the threshing floor and the wine that is brought to the winepress are special in that they grow on most water, i.e., rainfall is sufficient and they do not require irrigation, and the halakha is that they are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, so too, anything that grows on most water is tithed in accordance with the outgoing year. This comes to exclude vegetables, which grow on all water, i.e., they require irrigation as well. Consequently, they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year.

מאי בינייהו אמר רבי אבהו בצלים הסריסין ופול המצרי איכא בינייהו דתנן בצלים הסריסין ופול המצרי שמנע מהן מים שלשים יום לפני ראש השנה מתעשרין לשעבר ומותרין בשביעית ואם לאו אסורין בשביעית ומתעשרין לשנה הבאה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva? Rabbi Abbahu said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to seedless onions and cowpeas, as we learned in a mishna: Seedless onions, which are cultivated for their greens and not for their bulbs or seeds, and the cowpea plant, which was planted to be eaten as a vegetable, from which one withheld water for thirty days before Rosh HaShana, so that their green portions stopped growing and they began to grow for seed, are tithed in accordance with the outgoing year, and they are permitted if the new year is the Sabbatical Year. And if not, they are prohibited if it is the Sabbatical Year, and in ordinary years they are tithed in accordance with the incoming year. Therefore, the halakha depends not on the species of plant but on whether the crop is in fact nurtured by the previous year’s water or the new year’s water, and this mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.

באחד בשבט ראש השנה לאילן מאי טעמא אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא הואיל ויצאו רוב גשמי שנה ועדיין רוב תקופה מבחוץ

§ The mishna taught: On the first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the statement of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the new year for trees was set on this date? Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: The reason is since by that time most of the year’s rains have already fallen, and most of the season, i.e., winter, is yet to come, as it continues until the spring equinox, which usually occurs in Nisan.

מאי קאמר הכי קאמר אף על פי שרוב תקופה מבחוץ הואיל ויצאו רוב גשמי שנה

The Gemara asks: What is he saying? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: Even though most of the winter season is yet to come, nevertheless, since most of the year’s rains have already fallen, it is considered the end of the previous year of rain, and anything that grows from then on is considered produce of the next year.

תנו רבנן מעשה ברבי עקיבא שליקט אתרוג באחד בשבט ונהג בו שני עישורין

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was once an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who picked an etrog on the first of Shevat and set aside two tithes. This occurred in the second or the fifth year of the Sabbatical cycle. In the second and fifth years one sets aside second tithe, whereas in the third and sixth years one sets aside poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Akiva set aside both second tithe and poor man’s tithe because he was in doubt about the halakha.

אחד כדברי בית שמאי ואחד כדברי בית הלל

One tithe was in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that the new year for trees is on the first of Shevat, in which case it was already the third or sixth year, when one must set aside poor man’s tithe; and one tithe was in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel that the new year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat, so it was still the second or fifth year, when one must set aside second tithe.

רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר לא מנהג בית שמאי ובית הלל נהג בה אלא מנהג רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר נהג בה

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: He did not act as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Rather, he acted as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer.

דתנן אתרוג שוה לאילן בשלשה דרכים ולירק בדרך אחד שוה לאילן בשלשה דרכים לערלה ולרבעי ולשביעית ולירק בדרך אחד שבשעת לקיטתו עישורו דברי רבן גמליאל

As we learned in a mishna: The etrog tree is like an ordinary tree in three ways and like a vegetable in one way. How so? It is like an ordinary tree in three ways: With regard to orla, that the fruit of the first three years after the tree is planted is forbidden; with regard to fourth-year produce, that the fruit that grows in the fourth year after the tree is planted must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there or else it must be redeemed; and with regard to the Sabbatical Year, that the year is determined by the time of the formation of its fruit. And the etrog is like a vegetable in one way, which is that its tithe year follows the time of the picking of its fruit; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel.

רבי אליעזר אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר

Rabbi Eliezer says: The etrog is like fruit of a tree with regard to all matters, and so its tithe year also follows the time of the formation of its fruit. Since Rabbi Akiva was in doubt whether the halakha is ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel or Rabbi Eliezer, he set aside two tithes in order to follow both of their opinions.

ומי עבדינן כתרי חומרי והתניא לעולם הלכה כדברי בית הלל והרוצה לעשות כדברי בית שמאי עושה כדברי בית הלל עושה מקולי בית שמאי ומקולי בית הלל רשע מחומרי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל עליו הכתוב אומר והכסיל בחשך הולך אלא אי כבית שמאי בקוליהון ובחומריהון אי כבית הלל בקוליהון ובחומריהון

The Gemara questions Rabbi Akiva’s conduct: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. If he adopts both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he adopts both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies. If so, why did Rabbi Akiva follow two contradictory stringencies?

רבי עקיבא גמריה אסתפק ליה ולא ידע אי בית הלל באחד בשבט אומר אי בחמשה עשר בשבט אומר

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva wished to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but he was in doubt about his tradition and did not know whether Beit Hillel said that the new year for trees is on the first of Shevat or whether they said that it is on the fifteenth of Shevat, and so he set aside two tithes in order to conform with both possibilities.

רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר לא מנהג בית שמאי ובית הלל נהג בה אלא מנהג רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר נהג בה באחד בשבט כבית שמאי נהג בה

The Gemara further clarifies the baraita, which states: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: He did not act as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel; rather, he acted as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara asks: Seeing that he did this on the first of Shevat, it would seem that he acted in accordance with the practice of Beit Shammai. According to Beit Hillel, both the formation of the fruit and its picking took place in the same year, as the new year does not begin until the fifteenth of Shevat, and so there would have been no need to set aside two tithes.

אמר רבי חנינא ואיתימא רבי חנניא הכא באתרוג שחנטו פירותיו קודם חמשה עשר דאידך שבט עסקינן ובדין הוא אפילו קודם לכן ומעשה שהיה כך היה

Rabbi Ḥanina said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥananya who said: Here we are dealing with an etrog tree whose fruit was formed prior to the fifteenth of the other, previous, Shevat, in the second year, and it was picked on the first of the following Shevat, in the third year. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of the formation of its fruit, the fruit was obligated in second tithe, whereas according to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of its picking, it was obligated in poor man’s tithe, and so Rabbi Akiva set aside two tithes. And by right it should have taught that even if the fruit had been picked earlier, any time after the fifteenth of the previous Shevat, but the incident that took place, took place in this way, that the fruit was picked on the first of Shevat.

רבינא אמר כרוך ותני לא אחד בשבט היה אלא חמשה עשר בשבט היה ולא מנהג בית שמאי ובית הלל נהג בה אלא מנהג רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר נהג בה

Ravina said: Combine the two statements and teach the baraita as follows: It was not on the first of Shevat that Rabbi Akiva picked the fruit, but on the fifteenth of Shevat, and he did not act as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, but rather, he acted as he did in order to conform with the conflicting practices of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, both in accordance with the practice of Beit Hillel.

אמר רבה בר רב הונא השתא דאמר רבן גמליאל אתרוג אחר לקיטתו עישורו כירק ראש השנה שלו תשרי

§ Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Now that Rabban Gamliel has said that the tithe year of an etrog follows the time of the picking of its fruit, like a vegetable, its new year for tithing is Tishrei, like other vegetables.

מיתיבי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר ליקט אתרוג ערב חמשה עשר בשבט עד שלא תבוא השמש וחזר וליקט משתבוא השמש אין תורמין ומעשרין מזה על זה לפי שאין תורמין ומעשרין לא מן החדש על הישן ולא מן הישן על החדש היתה שלישית נכנסת לרביעית שלישית מעשר ראשון ומעשר עני רביעית מעשר ראשון ומעשר שני

The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one picked the fruit of an etrog tree on the eve of the fifteenth of Shevat before the sun had set, and then he picked more fruit after sunset, one may not set aside teruma and tithes from the one for the other, as one may not set aside teruma and tithes from the new crop for the old or from the old crop for the new. If he did this when it was the third year of the Sabbatical cycle going into the fourth year, the halakha is as follows: From what he picked in the third year he must set aside first tithe and poor man’s tithe, and from what he picked in the fourth year he must set aside first tithe and second tithe.