Rosh Hashanah 15a — the Talmud in English

And

who is the one from whom you hear 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 like Rabban Gamliel.

And

behold,

it teaches

in the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that the New Year for the tithe of an etrog is in

Shevat!

If so, how did Rabbah bar Rav Huna say that according to Rabban Gamliel the New Year for the tithe of an etrog is in Tishrei? And we conclude: necessarily, it is impossible that Rabbah bar Rav Huna said that according to Rabban Gamliel the New Year for the tithe of an etrog is in Tishrei.

Rather, if it was stated,

if indeed a statement was said in the name of Rabbah bar Rav Huna concerning this matter,

this is how it was stated,

this is how it was said:

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: Even though Rabban Gamliel said that with regard to an etrog

one follows it

after

the

picking, like a vegetable,

nevertheless

its New Year

is in

Shevat.

And as is proven by this beraita.

And we raise a difficulty concerning the wording of the beraita that brings the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar:

We learned in the words of the beraita: If the third year was entering the fourth, in the third year one separates the first tithe and the poor man’s tithe. In the fourth, the first tithe and the second tithe.

And it is difficult:

What is different there,

how is the beraita that speaks of one who picked a vegetable [above, 12a–b

that it teaches

in it:

“If the

year

second was entering the third”?

And what is different here,

how is the beraita taught here different and distinctive,

that it teaches

in it:

“If

the year

third was entering the fourth”?

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

And we answer:

It teaches us a matter incidentally, in the course of its wording,

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

that an etrog —

the hand is difficult for it.

The handling by hands damages the etrog tree,

and

therefore,

since everyone handles it during the Sabbatical year, it does not bear fruit until three years.

Since everyone handles the tree during the seventh year, for it is ownerless for everyone, therefore the way of the tree is not to become laden with fruit until the third year. And therefore we did not teach, “If the second year was entering the third,” for at that time there is no fruit on the tree, and it is impossible to pick it.

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

when is it?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yannai: In

Shevat,

like the other trees.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan asked again: Does this refer to

“the Shevat of the months”,

as we count according to the lunar months,

or

does it refer to

“the Shevat of the season,”

according to the solar year?

That is, once the season of Tevet has entered [the season of Tevet enters on the shortest day of the year], we count thirty days, and then it is “the first of Shevat of the season” [and it is the New Year according to the opinion of Beit Shammai. And according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, we count forty-five days until “the fifteenth of Shevat of the season”], and it is the New Year for the tree, because until that time most of the rains of the year fall.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yannai: The reference is to “Shevat

of the months,”

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

Rava asked Rav Naḥman—and some say

that

Rabbi Yoḥanan

asked this

of Rabbi Yannai:

If

that

year

was a leap year —

what is the law?

When is the New Year for the tree?

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

He said to him: Follow

the New Year that applies in

most years,

which is the month of Shevat.

And the Gemara brings another statement concerning the law of an etrog:

Rabbah said:

A.

An etrog of

the

sixth year that entered the seventh,

which budded in the sixth year and grew in the seventh —

on the one hand, it

is exempt from the tithe,

like the law of 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 the produce of the Sabbatical year.

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

And the Sages expounded in the Torat Kohanim: When it says, “And for your animal and for the wild animal,” the verse compares a domestic 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 domestic animal from the house. But if it has already been exhausted for the wild animal in the field, exhaust [remove] it for your domestic animal from the house.

And from this exposition we learn that it is forbidden to eat from produce gathered during the seventh year except while it is also found in the field. But when a species of the types of produce is exhausted from the field, there is an obligation to remove it from the house.

[And the early authorities disagreed whether biur is ownerlessness, so that it is forbidden to eat it and one is instead obligated to declare it ownerless, or whether one is obligated to destroy it from the world].

And Rabbah bar Huna innovates that even though an etrog of the sixth year that entered the seventh is exempt from the tithe, like the produce of the Sabbatical year, nevertheless it is also exempt from removal, like the 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 —

is exempt from the tithe

like the seventh year,

and

also

is obligated in removal

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

Abaye

challenged

him,

Rabbah: Here is a double contradiction:

A. In the first clause itself, in which you distinguished between the law of tithe, with regard to which you followed the picking and gave the etrog the status of seventh-year produce, exempting it from the tithe, and between the law of removal, with regard to which you followed the budding and gave it the status of sixth-year produce.

B. Between the first clause and the latter clause: In the first clause you ruled that with regard to the tithe one follows the picking of the etrog, and exempted it from the tithe because it was picked during the seventh year. But in the latter clause you follow the budding of the etrog for the law of the tithe, and exempt from the tithe the etrog that budded during the seventh year and was picked during the eighth!

But indeed, it may be said that you are uncertain whether with regard to the laws of the Sabbatical year one follows an etrog according to its picking, as one follows with regard to the tithe, or according to its budding.

And therefore,

it is well understood that you followed in the

latter clause [

during the seventh year entering the eighth ]

stringency,

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 the tithe, and on the other hand it is also obligated in removal as a stringency, like seventh-year produce, because the law of the Sabbatical year is a law from the Torah, and in a doubt concerning a law from the Torah one rules stringently.

Rather,

concerning the

first clause

of your words, in which you said regarding the etrog that budded in “the sixth year that entered the seventh” that it

is exempt from removal,

there is room to wonder:

Why?!

For exemption from removal is a leniency. And necessarily, according to your words, the reason to exempt the etrog from removal is because

we say

with certainty:

Go after the budding!

For it is certain that one follows the budding even to be lenient, and there is no doubt about the matter; and since it budded during the sixth year, the status of the sixth year applies to it!

And accordingly, one of the contradictions is resolved: the conclusion of the first clause accords with all the words of the latter clause, for with regard to the Sabbatical year one certainly follows the budding of the etrog, even to be lenient.

But since you are not uncertain about the matter, and it is obvious to you that one follows the budding of the etrog, and therefore the etrog that budded during the sixth year and grew during the seventh has the status of sixth-year produce, then this is difficult:

If so,

if that is so, why did you say that an etrog that budded during the sixth year entering the seventh is exempt from the tithe?

For this etrog certainly does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, and it is not ownerless; if so,

it should be obligated in the tithe!

He

answered

him,

Rabbah: Even though the owners are not obligated to declare ownerless the etrog that budded during the sixth year, nevertheless, as a practical and factual matter, since all the tree fields and orchards are ownerless during the Sabbatical year, it is impossible to guard the etrog by itself.

And against the will of its owner,

everyone’s hand handles it,

and factually it is like ownerless property.

And you say that it should be obligated in the tithe?!

Can you really say that it should be obligated in the tithe?! But ownerless property is exempt from the tithe!

In summary: Rabbah holds that with regard to the Sabbatical year one follows the budding of the etrog, and nevertheless an etrog of the sixth year entering the seventh is exempt from the tithe, because people treat it as ownerless, despite the fact that according to the law it is not ownerless.

And Rav Hamnuna

disagrees with Rabbah, and

said:

An etrog

of the sixth year that enters the seventh —

always

its status is that of the produce of

the sixth year.

Because with regard to the laws of the Sabbatical year one follows the budding of the etrog.

And even though everyone’s hand handles it, such ownerlessness does not exempt it from the tithe; rather, it is robbery. Only seventh-year produce is exempt from the tithe.

[Either because its owners declared it ownerless, or because it is made ownerless by itself through the Almighty, who commanded, “And in the seventh year you shall let it rest and leave it untended.” And so our later Rabbis disagreed concerning this matter.]

And

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

of the seventh year that enters the eighth,

for

always

its status is that of the produce of

the seventh year,

because one follows its budding.

We learn from here that Rabbah and Rav Hamnuna agree with one another that with regard to an etrog one follows its budding concerning the Sabbatical year. They disagree only as to whether ownerlessness that people practice unlawfully exempts it from the tithe [according to Rabbah, it exempts it; according to Rav Hamnuna, it does not exempt it].

A challenge is raised

against the words of Rabbah and Rav Hamnuna:

We learned in a beraita:

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

this

is exempt from the tithe

like the produce of the Sabbatical year,

and is exempt from removal

like the produce of the sixth year.

And the reason that it is exempt from removal is that with regard to all trees one follows the budding, and one may say the same concerning an etrog.

And the reason that it is exempt from the tithe is that

there is nothing that is obligated in the tithe unless it grew in the

time of

obligation, and

also

was picked in the

time of

obligation.

And sixth-year produce that entered the seventh was picked at a time of exemption, during the seventh year, when it is ownerless; therefore everyone’s hand handles it, and it is exempt from the tithe.

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

is exempt from the tithe

like the produce of the Sabbatical year.

And is exempt from removal

like the produce of the eighth year.

And the reason that it is exempt from the tithe is that the Sages obligated it in the tithe only if it grew at a time of obligation and was picked at a time of obligation.

And the reason that it is exempt from removal is

that there is nothing that is obligated in removal unless it grew during the seventh year and was picked during the seventh year!

For the mitzva of removal is learned from the verse [Leviticus 25:7]: “And for your animal and for the wild animal that is in your land shall all its produce be to eat.” And this verse speaks of the seventh year [during which year, from the time that the produce has been removed from the field, it is forbidden 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 Rabbah and Rav Hamnuna:

The first clause,

the beginning of the beraita, in which we learned that an etrog of the sixth year entering the seventh is exempt from the tithe because everyone’s hand handles it, is

difficult for Rav Hamnuna.

For according to his words, even though everyone’s hand handles the etrog, this is not ownerlessness that exempts from the tithe [because it is robbery]!

The latter clause,

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

difficult both for Rabbah and for Rav Hamnuna,

for both of them said that an etrog of the seventh year entering the eighth is obligated in removal!

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

For

it is a dispute of tannaim,

who disagreed concerning the matter.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yosei said:

A.

Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders

who said:

with regard to an etrog,

they follow

its picking for tithe [

in accordance with the view of Rabban Gamaliel above, on 14b].

B.

And

if

our Rabbis held a count at Usha [

they disagreed concerning the matter at Usha, and they held a count, and the scholars who said as follows constituted the majority],

and concluded

that with regard to an etrog, they follow

its picking—

both for tithe

and

both for the Sabbatical year.

And immediately the Gemara is astonished: It follows from the conclusion of Rabbi Yosei’s words that our Rabbis held a count at Usha and said that they follow its picking for the Sabbatical year, and that Avtulmos disagreed with this.

And this is difficult:

the Sabbatical year—

who mentioned its name!?

Where was the Sabbatical year mentioned in Avtulmos’s words?