Previous daf

1)

(a) Even though Shmuel already stated 'ha'Kol Holech Achar G'mar P'ri' and 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri' he nevertheless needed to add 'la'Kol Ein Bilah Chutz mi'Yayin ve'Shemen' - because of the Seifa 'Chutz mi'Yayin ve'Shemen'. Otherwise, we would have thought that he holds 'Ein Bilah' even with regard to them.

(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei "be'Ospecha mi'Gornecha u'mi'Yikvecha" - that just like the Ma'asering of the contents of the granary and the wine and olive presses is gauged by when it grew a *third of its growth* (which took place *in the previous year*) due to the fact that it grew on the *previous year's* water, so too, is the Ma'asering of all fruit of a tree that grew on the *previous year's* water gauged by when it *budded* (in the *previous year*).

(c) He infers from that Pasuk (by way of an Asmachta) - that the year of vegetables, which grows on *this* year's water (and not on that of the previous year), is gauged by the time they are *picked*.

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva, the criterion is not, whether or not they grow on *last* year's water or on *this* year's - but whether they are able to grow on rain-water alone (like the contents of the granary and the wine and olive presses), or whether, over and above the rain fall, they need to be manually watered (which is the case by vegetables).

(a) The Mishnah in Shevi'is states that if small onions and haricot- beans of the sixth year were *not* watered for thirty days before Rosh Hashanah, they are Ma'asered according to the previous year, and are permitted in the Sh'mitah. If however, they *were* watered within thirty days of the Shmitah - then they are Ma'asered according to the following year.

(b) The author of this Mishnah must be Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, and not Rebbi Akiva - because, according to Rebbi Akiva, it would make no difference whether one watered them within thirty days of Rosh Hashanah or not. Either way, they require watering manually, and are therefore Ma'asered according to the following year.

(a) Chazal fixed Sh'vat as the New Year for trees - because most of that year's rain has already fallen by then.

(b) The words 've'Adayin Rov Tekufah mi'ba'Chutz' added by Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya to his statement, are strange - because they imply that the fact that most of the Tekufah has yet to come, is part of the reason that Chazal fixed the New Year in Sh'vat. But that is not correct. The fact that most of the Tekufah has yet to come, if anything, would deter the budding, and would rather have been a reason for them to *postpone* Rosh Hashanah until *Adar*?

(c) We therefore amend Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Oshaya's statement to read 'Af al Pi she'Rov Tekufah mi'ba'Chutz, Ho'il ve'Yatz'u Rov Gishmei Shanah' (in other words, it is predominantly the rain that causes the trees to bud, and not so much the season).

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that Rebbi Akiva gave *two* Ma'asros from the Esrog that he picked - on the first of Sh'vat.

(b) The two Ma'asros - were Ma'aser Sheini and Ma'aser Ani, because it was the second year of the cycle which ran into the third.

5)

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Akiva's two Ma'asros were based, not on Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, but on Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer. According to Raban Gamliel, when it comes to Esrogim, we go after the picking as regards the Ma'asros - but after the budding as regards Orlah, Reva'i and Shevi'is.

(b) In the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - we go after the *budding* of an Esrog- tree - even as regards Ma'asros, just like by every other tree.

(c) According to Raban Gamliel, an Esrog-tree is different than any other tree - because, like vegetables, it needs to be watered manually, over and above the watering that it receives from the rain.

(a) The Reisha of the Beraisa, which says 'Le'olam Halachah ke'Beis Hillel' - speaks after the Bas-Kol had announced that the Halachah is always like Beis Hillel; whereas the Seifa 've'ha'Rotzeh La'asos ke'Beis Shamai Oseh ... ' - speaks before the Bas-Kol. Consequently, there is no discrepancy between the two parts of the Beraisa.

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Koheles "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech" - that it is foolish to rule like the two Chumros of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel (or of any two other disputants), when they argue.

(c) Before the Bas Kol - it was permitted to rule in two different issues, one like Beis Shamai and the other like Beis Hillel.

(d) The classical case of the point under discussion, is the Shiur of a spinal cord of an animal, which Beis Shamai consider incomplete only when *two* vertebra are missing; according to Beis Hillel, it is *one*. Beis Hillel's opinion is more stringent - with regard to Tereifus (where the animal is already considered a Tereifah with only one vertebrae missing); but more lenient - with regard to Tum'as Ohel (where a spinal cord missing one vertebrae will not transmit Tum'ah).

(a) Bearing in mind the above Pasuk "ve'ha'Kesil ba'Choshech Holech", Rebbi Akiva gave two Ma'asros, one like Beis Shamai and one like Beis Hillel - because he was not sure whether it was Beis Shamai who named the first of Sh'vat as the New Year for trees, and Beis Hillel as the fifteenth, or vice- versa.

(b) We cannot answer simply that Rebbi Akiva was not sure whether the Halachah was like Beis Shamai or like Beis Hillel - because it is not feasible to suggest that Rebbi Akiva did not know the principle 'Halachah ke'Beis Hillel'.

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Akiva's two Ma'asros were based, not on Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, but on Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer. But how can that be? Considering that Rebbi Akiva gave one Ma'aser before the *first* of Sh'vat, and one, after - he must have held like Beis Shamai (and, as we just explained, that is not feasible).

(b) Rebbi Chanina (or Rebbi Chananya) answers that in fact, the fruits of that tree had budded before the *previous* Tu bi'Sh'vat. It may not be common for fruit of most trees to remain on the tree for so long - but a Esrog tree is different. Esrogim tend to remain on the tree for as long as three years.

(c) The deciding date for an Esrog is indeed the *fifteenth* of Sh'vat like Beis Hillel. The Tana states that Rebbi Akiva picked the Esrog on the *first* - not, because he needed to, but because that was when Rebbi Akiva happened to have picked the Esrog.

(d) Ravina answers the original Kashya (in a.) and eliminates this Kashya simultaneously - by incorporating it all into the words of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who specifically added that it was not on the first of Sh'vat that Rebbi Akiva picked the Esrog, but on the fifteenth.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna states that, seeing as by an Esrog, Raban Gamliel goes after the picking (like a vegetable), the New Year for an Esrog tree is Rosh Hashanah. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says in a Beraisa however - that if someone picked two Esrogim on the eve of Tu bi'Sh'vat, one *before* night, and the other, *after* night, he is permitted to Ma'aser them together. From which we see, that the Rosh Hashanah for Esrogim regarding Ma'aser, is Tu bi'Sh'vat, and not Rosh Hashanah.

(b) We know that the author of this Beraisa holds like Raban Gamliel (and not like Rebbi Eliezer) - because he goes after the picking (and not the budding).

(c) The Tana then discusses the *third* year (of Ma'aser Ani) and the *fourth* year (Ma'aser Sheini).

(d) We amend Rabah bar Rav Huna's words to conform with the Beraisa - by changing it to read '*Even though* Raban Gamliel goes by an Esrog after the picking, its New Year is Tu bi'Sh'vat (and not Rosh Hashanah).