Rosh Hashanah 14a (יד.) — the Talmud in English

And we said:

And it is necessary;

Shmuel had to teach us all three of these statements, because one statement cannot be inferred from the other:

Had Shmuel taught us only

that

“the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri,”

I might have said

that Shmuel’s reason is

because he holds that “there is blending”

[as Rabbi Shimon Shezuri himself holds].

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Shmuel said:

“For all substances there is no blending,

except for wine and oil.”

And had Shmuel taught us only

the statement

“For all substances there is no blending,”

I might have said

that, concerning Egyptian beans, some of which took root before Rosh HaShana and some after it,

Shmuel agrees with the Rabbis

that one may contribute teruma and tithe from them only by setting aside for them from produce elsewhere.

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Shmuel holds that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri,

and one may contribute teruma from the produce in the granary itself.

And had Shmuel taught us

only

these two

statements,

I might have said

that

there is a difficulty from Shmuel against Shmuel!

I might have said that one should raise a difficulty from Shmuel’s statement, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri,” against Shmuel’s own statement, “There is no blending.” For Rabbi Shimon Shezuri holds that there is blending!

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Shmuel says:

“Everything follows the completion of the fruit.”

And had he taught us

only the statement

“Everything follows the completion of the fruit,”

we would not have understood on our own that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, according to whom one may tithe produce that took root before Rosh HaShana together with produce that took root afterward.

For although we would know that one may tithe produce that took root before Rosh HaShana together with produce that took root afterward,

I might have said

that Shmuel’s statement, “Everything follows the completion of the fruit,” means that

even grain

[grain and wine ]

and olives as well are included in “everything,” and that in their case too everything follows the completion of the fruit.

Therefore,

he teaches us

that Shmuel holds that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri

only

in the matter over which he disagrees.

That is, since Egyptian beans are tithed according to the year in which the fruit is completed, Shmuel’s statement, “Everything follows the completion of the fruit,” refers only to legumes, concerning which Rabbi Shimon Shezuri disagrees with the Rabbis.

But in the case of grain and olives, the determining factor is the bringing of one-third of their ripening.

And we raise a difficulty:

Then let him teach us these two!

It would have been sufficient for Shmuel to teach us the two statements above:

a. The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri.

b. Everything follows the completion of the fruit.

And consequently, we would have understood from his words that there is no blending. For once Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, why did he need to say that everything follows the completion of the fruit? Inevitably, Shmuel intended to say that although the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon Shezuri, this is not because there is blending, but because the determining factor is the completion of the fruit [and there is never blending].

If so, Shmuel’s statement

“For all substances there is no blending” -

why do I need it,

what purpose does it serve?

And we answer:

This teaches us

that Shmuel was stating the conclusion of his words, “except for wine and oil,”

for wine and oil do have blending.

This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of why, in the case of grain, the determining stage is the bringing of one-third of its ripening, while in the case of legumes it is the taking of root.

The Gemara now cites a beraita that explains why, in the case of tree fruits, the determining stage is the initial formation of the fruit, while in the case of vegetables it is the picking:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 16]:

“When you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress.”

The verse comes to teach that the other types of fruit and vegetables are derived from the threshing floor and the winepress.

Just as the threshing floor and the winepress are distinctive

in this respect:

that

they

grow from the water of the previous year.

For the bringing of one-third of their ripening is considered the completion of their growth, since in pressing circumstances they may be harvested and eaten once they have reached one-third of their ripening.

And their usual practice is to reach one-third of their ripening during the previous year [before the year in which they are harvested], so it follows that they grew through the water of the previous year.

And

therefore the Torah said that they are

tithed according to

the

previous year.

So too, all

things

that grow from the water of the previous year—namely, tree fruits, since all the growth of the fruit occurs through the water of the previous year, when the fruit first formed, and the entire fruit grows from the sap that the tree raised before the fruit first formed—are

therefore

tithed

according to the

previous year.

Vegetables are excluded,

as they are not tithed according to the previous year, because

they

are

grown from

the

water of the coming year.

The completion of a vegetable’s growth does not occur when it reaches one-third of its growth, because when the vegetable is harvested, it grows again.

Rather, the completion of its growth occurs only at the time it is picked.

And

therefore they are

tithed according to

the

coming year,

which is the year in which they are picked, since they grew through the water of that year.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The Sages expounded the verse differently:

“When you gather from your threshing floor and from your winepress”—

the verse comes to teach that the other types of fruit and vegetables are derived from the threshing floor and the winepress.

Just as the threshing floor and the winepress

are

distinctive

in this respect:

that

they

grow from “the majority of water”—

rainwater, which constitutes most of the water used for irrigation.

And

therefore the Torah said that they are

tithed according to

the

previous year.

So too, all

things

that grow from the majority of water—

rainwater, namely, tree fruits—are

tithed according to

the

previous year.

Vegetables are excluded, for

rainwater is not sufficient for them; rather, they

grow from “all water,”

that is, they are also irrigated with drawn water.

And

therefore they are

tithed according to the coming year.

And we inquire: Since according to both Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva tree fruits are tithed according to the previous year [the year in which they first formed], while vegetables are tithed according to the year in which they are picked,

what difference is there between them?

What practical halakhic difference is there between them?

Rabbi Abbahu said: Sterile onions,

small onions that do not grow to the size of other onions,

and Egyptian beans—

there is a difference between them.

And this is in the manner

that we learned in tractate Shevi’it [2:9]:

Sterile onions and Egyptian beans

from which he withheld

water,

that is, he did not irrigate them,

thirty days before Rosh HaShana,

they are

tithed according to the previous year,

as required for the previous year.

And

if this was the Rosh HaShana of the Sabbatical year, they are

permitted during the Sabbatical year

[because they belong to the previous year].

But if not

[if he did not withhold water from them for thirty days before Rosh HaShana], they are

forbidden during the Sabbatical year, and are tithed according to

the law of the

coming year.

This beraita follows the view of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that things that grow from the water of the previous year are tithed according to the previous year. Since he withheld water from them for thirty days before Rosh HaShana, it follows that they grew from the water of the previous year.

But according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that types of fruit that grow from all water are tithed according to the coming year, sterile onions and Egyptian beans too are tithed according to the law of the coming year, since they too were irrigated.

We learned in the Mishna:

On the first of Shevat is the Rosh HaShana for the tree,

with regard to tithing tree fruits, meaning that one may not tithe fruit that grew before the first of Shevat from fruit that grew afterward. This is the opinion of Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel say: On the fifteenth of that month [of Shevat].

And we inquire:

What is the reason?

What is the reason that the first of Shevat is the Rosh HaShana for the tree?

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: Since

already

have fallen

the

majority of the rains of the year,

and as a result of them the sap rises in the trees and the fruits first form.

And still the majority of the season

of the rainy days

is outside,

meaning that it has not yet arrived.

And we immediately wonder:

What is he saying?

Is it because most of the rainy season is still outside that the time of the tree’s fruit formation has arrived?

On the contrary, it would be appropriate to say that the Rosh HaShana for the tree is in Adar, when most of the rainy season has passed!

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: Although most of the

season

of the rainy days

is outside,

nevertheless the Rosh HaShana for the tree is on the first of Shevat —

since there have fallen

the

majority of the rains of

the

year.

The Gemara cites a beraita related to the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning when the Rosh HaShana for the tree is:

The Sages taught:

An incident occurred involving Rabbi Akiva, who picked an etrog

which is a tree fruit

on the first of Shevat

of the third year of the Sabbatical cycle,

and he applied two tithes to it: