Rosh Hashanah 15b (טו:) — the Talmud in English

And we resolve: the beraita

is incomplete.

Something is missing from it,

and this is what it teaches;

this is how it should be formulated:

Rabbi Yosei said: Avtolmos testified in the name of five Elders:

With regard to an etrog,

on one hand, one follows

the time of its picking with regard to ma'aser, and

on the other hand, one follows

the time of its blossoming with regard to the laws of the Sabbatical Year [and this is in accordance with Rabban Gamliel's opinion above, on page 14b].

And our Sages convened in Usha and concluded

that one follows

the time of its picking both with regard to ma'aser and with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

And this is the meaning of Avtolmos's statement: With regard to an etrog, one follows the time of its picking for ma'aser—both with regard to the prohibition against separating from the new crop for the old crop, and with regard to the second year entering the third year, in which case one separates ma'aser ani from it, as is required in the third year.

And one follows the time of its blossoming with regard to the Sabbatical Year—both with regard to hefker and with regard to bi'ur, as with other trees.

And although with regard to tithes one follows the time of picking, nevertheless an etrog belonging to the Sabbatical Year that enters the eighth year is exempt from ma'aser. Since its blossoming occurred during the Sabbatical Year, the laws of the Sabbatical Year took effect upon it, and it is hefker; and hefker produce is exempt from ma'aser.

And Rabba and Rav Hamnuna hold in accordance with Avtolmos's opinion, that with regard to the Sabbatical Year one follows the time of blossoming entirely. Therefore, produce of the Sabbatical Year that enters the eighth year is subject to bi'ur, since it blossomed during the Sabbatical Year. Whereas produce of the sixth year that enters the Sabbatical Year is exempt from bi'ur, since it blossomed during the sixth year.

Rabba and Rav Hamnuna disagreed regarding Avtolmos's opinion concerning produce of the sixth year that enters the Sabbatical Year:

According to Rav Hamnuna, since the blossoming occurred during the sixth year, the produce is not hefker. Consequently, it is subject to ma'aser. We do not take into consideration the fact that everyone handles it, because that is merely theft.

According to Rabba, however, although the blossoming occurred during the sixth year, nevertheless, since everyone handles it, it is considered hefker, and Avtolmos agrees that it is exempt from ma'aser.

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

that they both said:

An etrog belonging to the sixth year that entered the Sabbatical Year—

always

has the status of the produce of

the sixth year

in every respect. It is therefore subject to ma'aser and exempt from bi'ur [in accordance with Rav Hamnuna's opinion above].

When Ravin

came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan [who lived in Eretz Yisrael]:

An etrog belonging to the sixth year that entered the Sabbatical Year, even

if it grew during the sixth year only to the size of

an olive,

and became

during the Sabbatical Year as large as a

loaf—

one is liable on its account for the prohibition of tevel, because one follows the time of blossoming, and it is not hefker like produce of the Sabbatical Year. Consequently, it is subject to ma'aser.

because one follows its initial formation, and it is not ownerless as produce of the Sabbatical Year; therefore, it is subject to tithing.

The Sages taught:

A tree whose fruits blossomed before the fifteenth of Shevat—

its ma'aser is separated according to the law of

the

previous year [if it was a year of ma'aser sheni, ma'aser sheni is separated from them; and if it was a year of ma'aser ani, ma'aser ani is separated from them].

And a tree whose fruits blossomed

after the fifteenth of Shevat—

its ma'aser is separated according to the law of the

law of the

following year.

Rabbi Neḥemya said: When are these words stated,

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, as follows:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the expression “brood” used by Rabbi Neḥemya, since this expression applies only to actual young birds.

And is it conceivable that there are

two broods—

could this enter your mind!?

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

Rather, say this:

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

like two broods

in one year, whose fruit does not ripen 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 crop ripens and is picked at once,

such as date palms, olives, and carobs—

even though their fruits blossomed before the fifteenth of Shevat,

with regard to them one follows only the time of their picking; rather, they

are tithed according to the following year.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The people followed this practice with regard to carobs

and date palms and olives

in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya,

that one follows the time of their picking.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to him

a contradiction

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

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

White figs [white figs],

white figs],

their Sabbatical Year

is observed in the

second

of the Sabbatical cycle,

because they produce

their fruit

for three years.

For the fruits that blossom on them ripen only after three years. Therefore, fruit that ripened during the second year is certainly fruit that blossomed during the seventh year [that is, three years earlier].

And from here it follows that with regard to white figs one follows blossoming, even though they are picked all at once. This is contrary to your statement, Rabbi Yohanan, as you said that with regard to such fruit one follows picking!

He was silent.

Rabbi Yohanan remained silent and did not answer Reish Lakish.

The Gemara understood that Rabbi Yohanan's silence was interpreted as an admission, meaning that he conceded to Reish Lakish.

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

Why did Rabbi Yohanan remain silent?

Let him say to him—

he could have answered Reish Lakish and said to him:

I told you [I said to you]: the halakha is in accordance with

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

Rabbi Neḥemya,

who explicitly said in the beraita that with regard to carobs and similar fruit one follows the time of picking.

And

if

you had raised

an objection to my words from the words of

the Sages?!

What kind of objection is that? Rabbi Neḥemya explicitly said in accordance with my position!

Rabbi Yosei the koen answered: Rabbi Yohanan did not answer in this manner,

because Reish [this is what he would have said to him]

Lakish said to him:

would have said to him:

But

would you abandon the Sages,

leaving the words of the majority of Sages,

and follow Rabbi Neḥemya,

who is a lone authority? When a single authority and the majority disagree, the halakha follows the majority!

Rabbi Abba the koen asked again:

Let him say to him;

Rabbi Yohanan could have answered Reish Lakish and said to him:

I told you;

I said to you that

the people followed

the practice of Rabbi Neḥemya.

And you say to me,

while you challenge me from a Mishna that proves that the people committed

a prohibition!?

I too agree that it is forbidden to act in this manner. Rather, the people followed this practice, and we do not protest against them.

Rabbi Yosei the koen answered: Rabbi Yohanan did not answer in this manner, because

Reish Lakish could have said to him:

When there is

an

prohibition—

because they have adopted this practice, do we leave them to it!?

When the people practice something prohibited, do we allow them to violate the prohibition without protesting against them?!

Rabbi Abba the koen asked again:

Let him say to him;

Rabbi Yohanan could have answered Reish Lakish and said to him:

When I told you,

everything I said to you concerned

ma'aser of carobs

and similar produce, which is

rabbinic,

since by Torah law there is an obligation to tithe only grain, wine, and oil [Tosafot 12b].

And

if

you had raised

an objection to me from

the Sabbatical Year,

which applies by

Torah law

to all types of fruit and vegetables— there is a distinction to be made: with regard to the Sabbatical Year, one follows blossoming, as required by Torah law; but with regard to ma'aser, which in the case of carobs and similar produce is rabbinic, the Sages were lenient and followed the time of picking!

Rabbi Yosei the koen found no answer to this argument.

Rather, Rabbi Abba the koen said: I am perplexed;

I am uncertain [Ritva]

whether Reish Lakish responded with this answer,

whether Reish Lakish raised this argument in order to refute Rabbi Yohanan's words.

And we ask: How could Rabbi Abba the koen have been uncertain

whether

Reish Lakish responded?

He certainly raised it!

It is known that he responded!

Rather, say that Rabbi Abba the koen said as follows:

I am perplexed [I am uncertain]

whether Rabbi Yohanan accepted

Reish Lakish's argument and remained silent because he retracted his position,

or [perhaps]

perhaps

he did not accept

Reish Lakish's argument, and remained silent because Reish Lakish's objection did not seem to him to be a significant objection.

For one can distinguish between ma'aser of fruit, which is rabbinic, and the Sabbatical Year with regard to fruit, which is mandated by Torah law: with regard to the Sabbatical Year, one follows blossoming, as required by Torah law, whereas with regard to rabbinic ma'aser, the Sages were lenient and followed the time of picking.