Rosh Hashanah 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

And

who is the one from whom you heard that one follows the picking —

who is the tanna who holds that, with regard to an etrog, one follows the picking? It is

Rabban Gamliel!

It follows that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds in accordance with Rabban Gamliel.

But

it

teaches

in the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that the New Year for the tithing of an etrog is in

Shevat!

If so, how could Rabba bar Rav Huna have said that, according to Rabban Gamliel, the New Year for the tithing of an etrog is in Tishrei? And we conclude: necessarily, Rabba bar Rav Huna could not have said that, according to Rabban Gamliel, the New Year for the tithing of an etrog is in Tishrei.

Rather, if it was stated

if an amoraic statement was indeed said in the name of Rabba bar Rav Huna concerning this matter,

this is how it was stated,

this is what was said:

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Although Rabban Gamliel said that with regard to an etrog

one follows

the

picking, as with a vegetable,

nevertheless

its New Year

is in

Shevat.

And this is as demonstrated by this beraita.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the wording of the beraita that cites the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

We learned in the beraita: If the third year was entering the fourth year, one separates maaser rishon and maaser ani in the third year; in the fourth year, maaser rishon and maaser sheni.

And it is difficult:

What is different there,

how does the beraita concerning one who picked a vegetable [above, 12a–b differ],

as it teaches

there:

“If the

year

was the second entering the third”?

And what is different here,

what is different and distinctive about the beraita taught here,

as it teaches

there:

“If

the year

was the third entering the fourth”?

That is, why were the two beraitot not taught with the same year designation?

And we answer:

It teaches us something incidentally,

the tanna in the beraita taught here is incidentally informing us of an additional matter:

with regard to an etrog —

it is harmed by handling.

Handling with the hands damages the etrog tree,

and

therefore,

since everyone handles it during the Sabbatical Year, it does not produce fruit until three years have passed.

Since everyone handles the tree during the Sabbatical Year, as it is ownerless for all, the tree does not ordinarily become laden with fruit until the third year. Therefore, the phrase “if the second year was entering the third” was not taught, since at that time there is no fruit on the tree and it is impossible to pick it.

Rabbi Yohanan asked Rabbi Yannai: An etrog—its New Year

when is it?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yannai: In

Shevat,

like other trees.

Rabbi Yohanan then asked: Does this refer to

“the Shevat of the months”,

as we count the lunar months,

or

does it refer to

“the Shevat of the seasons,”

according to the solar year?

That is, once the season of Tevet has begun [the season of Tevet begins on the shortest day of the year], one counts thirty days, and then it is “the first of Shevat of the season” [which is the New Year according to Beit Shammai. According to Beit Hillel, one counts forty-five days until “the fifteenth of Shevat of the season”], and it is the New Year for trees, because until that time most of the year’s rain has fallen.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yannai: The reference is to “Shevat

of the months,”

according to the reckoning of the months of the year, since Israel counts the months according to the lunar months.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman, and some say [

and there are those who say that

Rabbi Yohanan

asked this

of Rabbi Yannai ]:

If

it was

that

a leap year —

what is the law?

When is the New Year for trees?

Is it in the Shevat adjacent to Tevet, as in an ordinary year, or is it in the first Adar?

He said to him: Follow

the New Year observed in

most years,

which is the month of Shevat.

The Gemara cites another statement concerning the law of an etrog:

Rabba said:

a.

An etrog of

the

sixth year that entered the seventh year,

which blossomed in the sixth year and grew during the seventh year—

On the one hand, it is

exempt from tithes,

like the produce of the Sabbatical Year, which is ownerless.

And

on the other hand, it is

exempt from removal,

and in this it differs from the law applying to produce of the Sabbatical Year.

As it is stated [Leviticus 25:6–7] concerning the removal of produce of the seventh year: “The Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours to eat; for you, for your servant, and for your maidservant, and for your hired worker and settler who dwell with you. And for your animal and for the wild animal in your land shall all its produce be, to eat.”

And the Sages expounded in the Torat Kohanim: When the verse says, “and for your animal and for the wild animal,” Scripture compares a domesticated animal to a wild animal. This teaches you: As long as the wild animal that is found in the field eats in the field, feed your domesticated animal from the house. But if the food has already been exhausted for the wild animal in the field, exhaust [remove] it for your domesticated animal from the house.

And from this exposition we learn that it is prohibited to eat produce gathered during the Sabbatical Year except while it is also available in the field. But when a species of produce has been exhausted from the field, there is an obligation to remove it from the house. [

And the early authorities disagreed whether biur means making the produce ownerless, so that it is prohibited to eat it and one is instead obligated to declare it ownerless, or whether one is obligated to destroy it. ]

And Rabba bar Huna innovates that although an etrog of the sixth year that entered the seventh year is exempt from tithes, like the produce of the Sabbatical Year, it is nevertheless also exempt from removal, like produce of the sixth year. Below, the Gemara will explain the reason for this.

b.

And

if an etrog

of the seventh year that entered the eighth year—

is exempt from tithes

like the produce of the seventh year,

and

it is also

subject to removal

like the produce of the seventh year. Below, the Gemara will explain the reason for this.

He said

Abaye challenged

him,

Rabba: There is a twofold contradiction here:

a. In the first clause itself, you distinguished between the law of tithes, with regard to which you followed the picking and gave the etrog the status of Sabbatical-Year produce, exempting it from tithes, and the law of removal, with regard to which you followed the blossoming and gave it the status of sixth-year produce.

b. Between the first and latter clauses: In the first clause you ruled that with regard to tithes one follows the picking of the etrog, and you exempt it from tithes because it was picked during the Sabbatical Year. Whereas in the latter clause you follow the blossoming of the etrog for purposes of tithes, and exempt from tithes the etrog that blossomed during the Sabbatical Year and was picked during the eighth year!

However, one can say that you are uncertain whether, for purposes of the laws of the Sabbatical Year, one follows the picking of an etrog as one does for purposes of tithes, or whether one follows its blossoming.

Therefore,

it is understandable that you followed in the

latter clause [

latter clause [

concerning the Sabbatical Year entering the eighth year ]

the stringent approach,

and therefore one must treat the etrog according to all the laws of the Sabbatical Year: On the one hand, it is ownerless and exempt from tithes, and on the other hand, it is also subject to removal as a stringency, like produce of the Sabbatical Year, because the law of the Sabbatical Year is a Torah law, and in a case of uncertainty concerning a Torah law, one rules stringently.

Rather,

with regard to the

first clause

of your statement, in which you said that an etrog that blossomed in “the sixth year that entered the seventh year” is

exempt from removal,

there is cause for wonder:

Why!?

For exemption from removal is a leniency. Necessarily, according to your statement, the reason for exempting the etrog from removal is that

we say with certainty:

Follow the blossoming!

Certainly one follows the blossoming even to rule leniently, and there is no uncertainty in the matter; and since it blossomed during the sixth year, the law of sixth-year produce applies to it!

Accordingly, one of the contradictions is resolved: The conclusion of the first clause accords with all of the latter clause, since with regard to an etrog one certainly follows its blossoming for purposes of the Sabbatical Year, even to rule leniently.

But since you are not uncertain about the matter, and it is obvious to you that one follows the blossoming of the etrog, and therefore an etrog that blossomed during the sixth year and grew during the seventh year has the status of sixth-year produce, the following difficulty arises:

If so,

if that is the case, why did you say that an etrog that blossomed during the sixth year that entered the seventh year is exempt from tithes?

For this etrog certainly does not possess Sabbatical-Year sanctity, and it is not ownerless. If so,

it should be liable for tithes!

He said

he answered

him,

Rabba: Although the owners are not obligated to declare ownerless the etrog that blossomed during the sixth year, nevertheless, in practical and factual terms, since all the fields and orchards are ownerless during the Sabbatical Year, it is impossible to protect this etrog separately.

And against its owner’s will,

everyone’s hands handle it,

so in fact it is ownerless.

And you say that it should be liable for tithes!?

Can you really say that it should be liable for tithes?! Is ownerless produce not exempt from tithes?!

In summary: Rabba holds that with regard to an etrog one follows the blossoming for purposes of the Sabbatical Year, and nevertheless an etrog of the sixth year that entered the seventh year is exempt from tithes, because people treat it as ownerless, despite the fact that according to the law it is not ownerless.

And Rav Hamnuna

disagrees with Rabba and

said:

An etrog

of the sixth year that entered the seventh year —

always

has the status of produce of the

sixth year.

This is because, with regard to the laws of the Sabbatical Year, one follows the blossoming of an etrog.

And although everyone’s hands handle it, such ownerlessness does not exempt it from tithes; rather, it is robbery. Only Sabbatical-Year produce is exempt from tithes. [

Either because its owners declared it ownerless, or because it becomes ownerless on its own through the agency of the Almighty, who commanded: “And in the seventh year you shall release it and leave it.” This is the subject of a dispute among our later Sages. ]

And

the law that one certainly follows only the blossoming applies also to an etrog

of the seventh year that entered the eighth year,

which

always

has the status of produce of the

seventh year,

because one follows the blossoming.

We learn from here that Rabba and Rav Hamnuna agree that with regard to an etrog one follows the blossoming for purposes of the Sabbatical Year. They disagree only over whether the ownerlessness that people practice improperly exempts the produce from tithes [according to Rabba, it exempts it; according to Rav Hamnuna, it does not exempt it].

Meytivi

an objection to the statements of Rabba and Rav Hamnuna:

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: An etrog of the sixth year that entered the seventh year,

it is

exempt from tithes

like produce of the Sabbatical Year,

and exempt from removal

like produce of the sixth year.

The reason it is exempt from removal is that with regard to all trees one follows the blossoming, and the same should be said with regard to an etrog.

The reason it is exempt from tithes is that

there is nothing that is liable for tithes unless it grew during a

time of

liability, and

also

was picked during a

time of

liability.

Produce of the sixth year that entered the seventh year was picked during a period of exemption, during the Sabbatical Year, when it was ownerless; therefore everyone’s hands handle it, and it is exempt from tithes.

And an etrog of the seventh year that enters the eighth year — it is

exempt from tithes

like produce of the Sabbatical Year.

And it is exempt from removal

like produce of the eighth year.

The reason it is exempt from tithes is that the Sages obligated one in tithes only if it grew during a period of liability and was picked during a period of liability.

The reason it is exempt from removal is that

there is nothing subject to removal unless it grew during the Sabbatical Year and was picked during the Sabbatical Year!

For the mitzva of removal is derived from the verse [Leviticus 25:7]: “And for your animal and for the wild animal in your land shall all its produce be, to eat.” This verse speaks of the seventh year [during that year, once the produce has been exhausted from the field, it is prohibited to eat what was gathered into the houses], and not of the eighth year.

And from the words of the beraita we raise the following difficulty against Rabba and Rav Hamnuna:

The first clause,

the beginning of the beraita, in which we learned that an etrog of the sixth year that entered the seventh year is exempt from tithes because everyone’s hands handle it, is

difficult for Rav Hamnuna.

For according to him, although everyone’s hands handle the etrog, this is not ownerlessness that exempts it from tithes [because it is robbery]!

The latter clause,

the end of the beraita, in which we learned that an etrog of the seventh year that entered the eighth year is exempt from removal, is

difficult both for Rabba and for Rav Hamnuna,

for both of them said that an etrog of the seventh year that entered the eighth year is subject to removal!

And we answer: Indeed, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the statements of Rabba and Rav Hamnuna. Nevertheless, there is another tanna who holds in accordance with their view:

For

it is a tannaitic dispute

, as tannaim disputed this matter.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said:

A.

Avtolmos testified in the name of five elders

who said:

With regard to an etrog,

one follows

its picking for tithing [

according to Rabban Gamliel’s opinion above, 14b].

B.

And

if

our Sages convened in Usha [

they disputed the matter in Usha, and they took a vote, and the majority of the Sages said as follows], and concluded

and said:

With regard to an etrog, one follows

its picking—

both for tithing

and

both for the Sabbatical year.

And immediately the Gemara raises a difficulty: It can be inferred from the conclusion of Rabbi Yosei’s statement that our Sages convened in Usha and said that one follows its picking for the Sabbatical year, and that Avtolmos disagreed with this.

And this is difficult:

the Sabbatical year—

who mentioned it!?

Where was the Sabbatical year mentioned in Avtolmos’s statement?