Rosh Hashanah 15b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: The baraita

is deficient.

Something is missing in it,

and this is what it teaches,

this is how it must be taught:

Rabbi Yosei said: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders:

With regard to an etrog,

one follows, on the one hand,

its picking with regard to tithe, and

on the other hand,

its blossoming with regard to the Sabbatical year [and in accordance with Rabban Gamliel above, 14b].

And our Sages convened in Usha and concluded

that one follows

its picking, both with regard to tithe and with regard to the Sabbatical year.

And this is the explanation of Avtulmos’s words: With regard to an etrog, one follows its picking for tithe—both with regard to the matter that one does not tithe from the new onto the old, and with regard to the second year entering into the third, when one separates the poor man’s tithe from it, as is the law of the third year.

And one follows its blossoming with regard to the Sabbatical year—both with regard to ownerlessness and with regard to removal, like the other trees.

And even though with regard to tithes one follows the time of picking, nevertheless, an etrog of the Sabbatical year entering into the eighth year is exempt from tithe. Since its blossoming was in the Sabbatical year, the laws of the Sabbatical year took effect upon it, and it is ownerless, and ownerless produce is exempt from tithe.

And Rabba and Rav Hamnuna hold in accordance with the view of Avtulmos, that with regard to the Sabbatical year one follows the blossoming entirely. Therefore, produce of the Sabbatical year entering into the eighth year is obligated in removal, for it blossomed in the Sabbatical year. Whereas produce of the sixth year entering into the Sabbatical year is exempt from removal, for it blossomed in the sixth year.

And Rabba and Rav Hamnuna disagree concerning Avtulmos’s view with regard to produce of the sixth year entering into the Sabbatical year:

According to Rav Hamnuna: Since the blossoming was in the sixth year, it is not ownerless; therefore, it is obligated in tithe. And one does not take into consideration the fact that everyone’s hand handles it, because this is nothing but robbery.

Whereas according to Rabba: Even though the blossoming was in the sixth year, nevertheless, since everyone handles it, it is like ownerless produce, and Avtulmos agrees that it is exempt from tithe.

It was stated: Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish both said,

they both said:

An etrog of the sixth year that entered into the Sabbatical year—

its status is always

its status is like the produce of

the sixth year

in every respect; it is therefore obligated in tithe and exempt from removal [and in accordance with the view of Rav Hamnuna above].

When Ravin came,

when Ravin came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan [who lived in the Land of Israel]:

An etrog of the sixth year that entered into the Sabbatical year, even

if it did not grow in the sixth year except to the measure of

an olive-bulk,

and became

large in the Sabbatical year like a

loaf—

one is liable on its account because of tevel,

because one follows the blossoming, and it is not ownerless like Sabbatical produce; therefore, it is obligated in tithe.

The Sages taught:

A tree whose fruits blossomed before the fifteenth of Shevat—

it is tithed according to

the law of

the previous year [if it was a year of second tithe, one separates second tithe from it, and if it was a year of poor man’s tithe, one separates poor man’s tithe from it].

And a tree whose fruits blossomed

after the fifteenth of Shevat—

it is tithed according to

the law of

the following year.

Rabbi Nehemiah said: When are these words said

that one follows blossoming,

with regard to a tree that produces two “broods””,

two cycles of fruit [and “broods” is a borrowed expression from “young birds” ]

in one year

one, as follows:

And the Gemara is astonished at the expression “brood” that Rabbi Nehemiah used, for this expression applies only to actual young birds.

And is it that

two broods—

could it enter your mind!?

Does a tree produce young birds?! And why did the tanna use such an expression?

Rather, say

say this: Rabbi Nehemiah said: When are these words said [that one follows blossoming]? With regard to a tree that produces fruit

like two broods

in a year, whose fruits do not finish ripening all at once, but each one ripens at a different time, such as a fig tree.

But a tree that produces

fruit like

one brood,

whose entire fruit ripens and is picked all at once,

such as date palms, olives, and carob trees—

even though their fruits blossomed before the fifteenth of Shevat,

one follows in their case only their picking; rather, they

are tithed for the following year.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The people followed this practice with carob trees

and date palms and olives

in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah,

that one follows their picking.

Resh Lakish raised an objection to him

a contradiction

to Rabbi Yohanan from what we learned in tractate Sheviit [5:1]:

from what we learned in tractate Shevi'it [5:1]:

The benot shuah [white figs],

white figs],

their Sabbatical-year status

applies in the

second

of the Sabbatical-cycle years,

because they produce

their fruits

for three years.

For the fruits that blossom on them finish ripening after three years. Therefore, fruits that finished ripening in the second year are certainly known to have blossomed in the Sabbatical year [that is, three years earlier].

And from here, one sees that with benot shuah one follows blossoming, even though they are picked all at once. And this is unlike your words, Rabbi Yohanan, for you said that with such fruit one follows picking!

He was silent.

Rabbi Yohanan was silent and did not answer Resh Lakish with a response.

And the Gemara understood that Rabbi Yohanan’s silence is interpreted as an admission, that he conceded to Resh Lakish.

Rabbi Abba the priest said to Rabbi Yosei the priest: Why was he silent!?

Why was Rabbi Yohanan silent?

Let him say to him,

for he could have answered Resh Lakish and said to him:

I say to you [I said to you myself], that the halakha is like

[“I told you”] that the ruling is in accordance with

Rabbi Nehemiah,

who explicitly said in the baraita that with carob trees and the like one follows picking.

And

if

you said to me

an objection to my words, from the words of

the Sages?!

And what objection is this? Rabbi Nehemiah explicitly said in accordance with my words!

Rabbi Yosei the priest answered: Rabbi Yohanan did not answer thus,

because Resh Lakish said to him [this is what he would have said to him]:

Lakish

would have said to him:

And is it that

you abandoned the Sages,

you abandoned the words of the Sages, who are the majority,

and acted in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah,

who is an individual? But when an individual and the many disagree, the halakha follows the many!

Rabbi Abba the priest asked again:

And let him say to him,

for Rabbi Yohanan could have answered and said to Resh Lakish:

I said to you,

I said to you,

the people followed

the practice of Rabbi Nehemiah.

And you said to me,

whereas you ask me from a Mishna from which it is evident that the people committed

a prohibition!?

But I too admit that it is forbidden to do so; rather, the people acted in this manner, and we do not protest against them.

Rabbi Yosei the priest answered: Rabbi Yohanan did not answer thus. Because

[Resh Lakish could have said to him]:

In a place

where there is

a prohibition—

because they acted thus, do we leave them be!?

When the people act with a prohibition, do we leave them to transgress a prohibition and not protest against them?!

Rabbi Abba the priest asked again:

And let him say to him,

for Rabbi Yohanan could have answered Resh Lakish and said to him:

When I said to you,

everything that I said to you concerned

the tithe of carob trees

and the like, which is

rabbinic,

for by Torah law there is no obligation to tithe except grain, wine, and oil [Tosafot 12b].

And

if

you said to me,

and you ask me from

the Sabbatical year,

which applies by

Torah law

to all types of fruits and vegetables?! For one must distinguish and say that with regard to the Sabbatical year one follows blossoming, as Torah law requires, but with regard to tithe, which is rabbinic [with carob trees and the like], the Sages were lenient and followed picking!

And Rabbi Yosei the priest found no answer to this claim.

Rather, Rabbi Abba the priest said: I am astonished,

I am uncertain [Ritva]

whether Resh Lakish answered this response,

whether Resh Lakish raised this claim in order to reject Rabbi Yohanan’s words.

And we ask: How is it possible that Rabbi Abba the priest was uncertain

whether

Resh Lakish

answered him!

For it is known that he answered him!

Rather, say,

say that Rabbi Abba the priest said this: I am astonished [I am uncertain]

whether Rabbi Yohanan accepted

Resh Lakish’s claim and was silent because he retracted,

or [perhaps]

perhaps

did not accept

Resh Lakish’s claim, and was silent because Resh Lakish’s objection was not considered an objection in his eyes.

For one must distinguish between the tithe of fruit, which is rabbinic, and the Sabbatical year with regard to fruit, which is by Torah law: with regard to the Sabbatical year, one followed blossoming as Torah law requires, whereas with regard to rabbinic tithe, the Sages were lenient and followed picking.