Rosh Hashanah 14b — the Talmud in English

tithe

one

is the tithe of the poor, as in the third year, and

according to the words of Beit Shammai

who hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year of the third year. Once the night of the first of Shevat became dark, the year had begun.

And

tithe

one

is the second tithe, according to the law of the second year, and

according to the words of Beit Hillel

who hold that the New Year is the fifteenth of Shevat; according to them, on the first of Shevat the new year had still not begun for the reckoning of the years of the tree.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says:

Rabbi Akiva, who practiced two tithes, was not uncertain whether the halakha was according to Beit Shammai or according to Beit Hillel.

And

he did not practice the practice of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

Rather, he practiced the practice of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer,

for he was uncertain according to which of them one should rule as halakha. And as follows:

For we learned [Bikkurim 2:6]:

Even though the etrog is a species of tree, nevertheless its law is not like that of other trees in every respect.

Rather,

the etrog is equal to a tree in three ways, and

is equal

to a vegetable in one way:

It is equal to a tree

in that one follows its budding

in three ways:

a.

with regard to orla.

b.

and with regard to revai.

c.

and with regard to the Sabbatical year.

And

is equal

to a vegetable [

in that one follows its picking]

in one way—

at the time of its picking

of the etrog,

its tithe

is according to the manner practiced with a vegetable. And if it budded in the second year and was picked in the third year, it is tithed according to the law of the third year, because they regularly water the etrog with drawn water, and it is therefore “grown on every water.” Therefore its law with regard to tithe is like the law of a vegetable.

These are

the words of Rabban Gamliel.

Rabbi Eliezer

disagrees and

says: The etrog is equal to a tree in every respect.

And Rabbi Akiva was uncertain whether the halakha was according to Rabban Gamliel, that the etrog is tithed according to the time of its picking, and it was therefore picked in the year of the tithe of the poor, or whether the halakha was according to Rabbi Eliezer, that the etrog is tithed according to the time of its budding, and it had therefore budded in the year of the second tithe; and therefore he tithed two tithes.

It would apparently follow that Rabbi Akiva holds according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year.

For according to Beit Hillel, even if one follows the picking, the etrog was picked before the fifteenth of Shevat, and in either event there is a need to separate only the second tithe. And below the Gemara is astonished at this.

And we raise an objection to the words of the first tannai [who says that Rabbi Akiva practiced two tithes, one according to Beit Shammai and the second according to Beit Hillel]:

Do we practice according to two stringencies!?

Does one act according to two stringencies that contradict one another?!

But it was taught,

is it not the case that we learned in a beraita:

The halakha is always according to the words of Beit Hillel,

because a heavenly voice emerged and said that the halakha was according to their words:

And

before the heavenly voice emerged—

one who wishes to act according to the words of Beit Shammai acts,

and one who wishes to act

according to the words of Beit Hillel acts.

But one who acts

according to the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the leniencies of Beit Hillel—

he is

wicked.

And one who acts

according to the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel

in matters that contradict one another [as follows],

concerning him the verse says [

Ecclesiastes 2]:

“And the fool walks in darkness.”

For he does not know upon whom to rely.

But in two disputes that do not contradict one another, it is possible to adopt the leniency of both or the stringency of both: in one matter he holds like Beit Shammai, and in another matter like Beit Hillel.

And the beraita concludes:

Rather, if

he wished to act

like Beit Shammai,

he should act according to their words

with their leniencies and their stringencies.

And

if

he wished to act

like Beit Hillel,

he should act according to their words

with their leniencies and their stringencies.

But Rabbi Akiva, who practiced in that year the second tithe and the tithe of the poor, acted according to the stringencies of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in matters that contradict one another. For if the year is the year of the second tithe, it necessarily is not the year of the tithe of the poor!

And we answer:

Rabbi Akiva

wished to act like Beit Hillel [because the halakha is according to them], but

his learning [

his study]

was uncertain to him, and he did not know whether Beit Hillel had said the first of Shevat

was the New Year of the tree,

or whether they had said the fifteenth of Shevat

was the New Year of the tree.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: It was not

according to the

practice of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel

that Rabbi Akiva

rather

according to the

practice of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer [

who disagreed whether, with an etrog, one follows the budding or the picking]

he practiced.

And the Gemara assumed that since the budding had been before the first of Shevat, and the picking had been after it, he therefore tithed two tithes.

And therefore we ask: Did Rabbi Akiva

like Beit Shammai

who hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year of the tree,

practice in it?!

But the halakha is according to Beit Hillel!

Rabbi Hanina said, and some say [

perhaps]

Rabbi Hanania

said this:

That first of Shevat was not at the beginning of the third year [as Beit Shammai holds]. Rather, the third year had begun on the preceding fifteenth of Shevat, in accordance with Beit Hillel.

And

here we are dealing with an etrog whose fruits budded before the fifteenth of that other Shevat.

Here we are dealing with an etrog that budded before the fifteenth of the preceding Shevat, since an etrog can remain on the tree and grow for several years, and afterward be picked on the first of the following Shevat.

And since the halakha is according to Beit Hillel [that the first of Shevat still belongs to the preceding year], it follows that the etrog budded in the second year and was picked in the third.

And by law

Rabbi Akiva should have practiced two tithes

even

if he had picked the etrog

before then [

in Kislev or Tevet or the like], since the third year had already begun on the preceding fifteenth of Shevat.

And

however,

the incident that occurred—

so it was:

the picking took place on the first of Shevat.

Ravina said:

Indeed, the matter concerns Rabbi Akiva picking the etrog at the beginning of the third year [and not at its end].

And concerning what we asked: Does Rabbi Akiva hold like Beit Shammai?!

Your answer is:

Join and teach,

add to the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and repeat their dispute, and teach as follows:

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says:

It was not the first of Shevat; rather, it was the fifteenth of Shevat,

which is the New Year of the tree according to Beit Hillel.

And he did not practice in it according to the practice of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

for according to everyone the third year had already become new.

Rather, he practiced in it according to the practice of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer [

who disagreed whether, with an etrog, one follows the picking or the budding].

And incidentally, since we brought the beraita that discusses whether the etrog’s law is like that of a tree or like that of a vegetable, the Gemara brings several statements concerning the law of the etrog:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Now that Rabban Gamliel says that the etrog follows its picking, its tithe, as does a vegetable,

if so,

its New Year

with regard to tithe is

Tishrei,

just as the New Year for a vegetable is in Tishrei.

We raise an objection

as a contradiction to Rabba bar Rav Huna from a beraita: For it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one picked an etrog

on

the eve of the fifteenth of Shevat, before the sun had come

[before sunset],

and then returned and picked after the sun had come

and the fifteenth of Shevat had arrived, behold,

one may not separate teruma and tithes from this

that was picked before the sun had come

for that

which was picked afterward.

Because one may not separate teruma and tithes from the new

that was picked in this year

for the old

that was picked in the previous year,

nor from the old for the new.

And if

it was

a year

of the third

that

enters into

the year

of the fourth,

then what was picked in the year

of the third

one separates from it

the first tithe and the tithe of the poor,

according to the law of the third year. And from what was picked in the

fourth,

one separates

the first tithe and the second tithe.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar certainly holds that with an etrog one follows the picking.