Rosh Hashanah 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

One-tenth

one

is maaser ani, as in the third year, and

in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai

, who hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year of the third year. Once night fell on the first of Shevat, the new year had begun.

And

one-tenth

one

is maaser sheni, as required in the second year, and

in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel

, who hold that the New Year is the fifteenth of Shevat; according to their view, on the first of Shevat the new year for the reckoning of the tree’s years had not yet begun.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says:

Rabbi Akiva, who separated two tithes, was not uncertain whether the halakha follows Beit Shammai or Beit Hillel.

And

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

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

who was uncertain with whom the halakha should be decided. As follows:

As we learned [Bikkurim 2:6]:

Although an etrog is a species of tree, nevertheless its law is not identical to that of other trees in every respect.

Rather,

an etrog is comparable to a tree in three respects, and

is comparable

to a vegetable in one respect:

It is comparable to a tree

in that its status is determined by its blossoming

in three respects:

a.

With regard to orla.

b.

And with regard to reva'i.

c.

And with regard to the Sabbatical year.

And

it is comparable

to a vegetable

[whose status is determined by its picking]

in one respect—

at the time of its picking

of the etrog,

its tithe

is determined as it is for a vegetable. If it blossomed in the second year and was picked in the third year, it is tithed according to the law of the third year, because etrogs are customarily watered with drawn water and thus “grow on every kind of water.” Therefore, its law with regard to tithes is that of a vegetable.

These are

the words of Rabban Gamliel.

Rabbi Eliezer

disagrees and

says: An etrog is comparable to a tree in every respect.

Rabbi Akiva was uncertain whether the halakha follows Rabban Gamliel, that an etrog is tithed according to the time of its picking, in which case it was picked in the year of maaser ani, or whether the halakha follows Rabbi Eliezer, that an etrog is tithed according to the time of its blossoming, in which case it blossomed in the year of maaser sheni. Therefore, he separated two tithes.

It would apparently follow that Rabbi Akiva held in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai, who hold that the first of Shevat is the New Year.

For according to Beit Hillel, even if an etrog’s status is determined by its picking, the etrog was picked before the fifteenth of Shevat, and in either event there would be no need to separate anything other than maaser sheni. The Gemara will raise this difficulty below.

And we raise an objection to the words of the first tanna [who says that Rabbi Akiva separated two tithes, one in accordance with Beit Shammai and one in accordance with Beit Hillel]:

But do we follow two stringencies!?

Do we act in accordance with two stringencies that contradict one another?!

But it was taught

, did we not learn in a beraita:

The halakha always follows the words of Beit Hillel,

because a Divine Voice emerged and declared that the halakha follows their words:

And

before the Divine Voice emerged—

one who wishes to act in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai may do so,

and one who wishes to act

in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel may do so.

But one who acts according to

the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the leniencies of Beit Hillel

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],

of him the verse says

[Ecclesiastes 2]:

“And the fool walks in darkness.”

He does not know whom to rely upon.

But in two disputes that do not contradict one another, it is possible to adopt both of their leniencies or both of their stringencies—holding like Beit Shammai in one matter and like Beit Hillel in another.

And the beraita concludes:

Rather, if

one wishes to act

in accordance with Beit Shammai

, he should act according to their view

with both their leniencies and their stringencies.

And

if

one wishes to act

in accordance with Beit Hillel

, he should act according to their view

with both their leniencies and their stringencies.

But Rabbi Akiva, who in that year acted with regard to both maaser sheni and maaser ani, acted according to the stringencies of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in matters that contradict one another. For if the year was the year of maaser sheni, it could necessarily not be the year of maaser ani!

And we resolve:

Rabbi Akiva

wished to act in accordance with Beit Hillel [since the halakha follows them], but

his learning

[his received tradition]

was uncertain to him, and he did not know whether Beit Hillel had said

that the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree,

or whether they had said

that the fifteenth of Shevat is the New Year for the tree.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Rabbi Akiva did not

follow

the practice of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

in that matter.

Rather,

he followed

the practice of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer

[who disagreed over whether an etrog’s status is determined by its blossoming or by its picking]

in that case.

The Gemara assumed that since the etrog had blossomed before the first of Shevat and had been picked after it, he therefore separated two tithes.

And therefore we ask: Did Rabbi Akiva act—

in accordance with Beit Shammai

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

in that case?!

But the halakha follows Beit Hillel!

Rabbi Hanina said, and some say

[perhaps]

Rabbi Hananya

said this:

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

And

here we are dealing with an etrog whose fruits blossomed before the fifteenth of the preceding Shevat.

Here we are dealing with an etrog that blossomed before the fifteenth of the preceding Shevat. An etrog can remain on the tree and continue growing for several years, and afterward be picked on the first of Shevat of a later year.

Since the halakha follows Beit Hillel [that the first of Shevat still belongs to the preceding year], it follows that the etrog blossomed in the second year and was picked in the third.

And in truth,

Rabbi Akiva should have separated two tithes

even

if he had picked the etrog

earlier

[in Kislev or Tevet, or at a similar time], since the third year had already begun on the preceding fifteenth of Shevat.

But

nevertheless,

the incident that occurred

was as follows:

the picking took place on the first of Shevat.

Ravina said:

It is indeed speaking of Rabbi Akiva picking the etrog at the beginning of the third year [and not toward its end].

And regarding what we asked: Did Rabbi Akiva hold in accordance with Beit Shammai?!

The answer is:

Combine 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 for the tree according to Beit Hillel.

And he did not follow the practice of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

since according to everyone the third year had already begun.

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

[who disagreed over whether an etrog’s status is determined by its picking or by its blossoming].

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

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Now that Rabban Gamliel has said that an etrog’s tithe is determined according to its picking, as with a vegetable,

if so,

its New Year

with regard to tithes is

Tishrei,

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

Meytivi

—a contradiction to Rabba bar Rav Huna from a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one picked an etrog

on

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

[before sunset],

and then picked another after the sun had set

and the fifteenth of Shevat had begun,

one may not separate teruma and tithes from this

—the one picked before sunset—

for that

which was picked afterward.

Because one may not separate teruma and tithes from the new

—that which was picked in the present year—

for the old

—that which was picked in the previous year—

nor from the old for the new.

And if

it was

a

third

year

entering

the

fourth,

then from that which was picked in the

third

year one separates

first tithe and poor tithe,

as required in the third year. And from that which was picked in the

fourth,

year one separates

first tithe and second tithe.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar certainly holds that an etrog’s status is determined by its picking.