Previous daf

1)

(a) When Rebbi Yirmiyah asked in surprise how the Rabbanan knew to determine to so accurately that any produce that is cut on Sukos, must have grown to one third of its growth - he replied that every Shiur that the Rabbanan gave was exact to the minutest fraction.

(b) If a Kurtuv is missing from the forty Sa'ah that a Mikvah requires, it is Pasul. A Kurtuv is one sixty-fourth of a Lug (less than a tenth of an egg-volume).

(c) The minimum Shiur of ...

1. ... food that is subject to Tum'as Ochlin - is a k'Beitzah.
2. ... a seat that is subject to Tum'as Medras - is three by three Tefachim.

(a) Although Yisrael crossed the Yarden on the tenth of Nisan - they only ate from the produce of Eretz Yisrael six days later on the sixteenth (the day that they brought the Omer).

(b) The problem with bringing the Omer that year - is that the new produce appears to have ripened before Yisrael entered the Land, and the Omer can only be brought from crops that grew at the hand of Jews, seeing as the Torah writes in Emor (in connection with the Omer) "Ketzirchem" (*your* harvest)? We know for certain that they brought the Omer that year, because otherwise, they would have been forbidden to eat the Omer until the *seventeenth* of Nisan - see Tosfos DH 'u'Meheichan').

(c) The produce must not have grown up to one third of its full growth in the Reshus of Nochrim, in order to be Kosher for the Omer.

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah infers from the above that Chazal must have known that the crops had not grown one third in the possession of the Nochrim - in which case there is no reason why they should not also know that whatever is cut on Sukos must have grown at least one third by Rosh Hashanah.

(a) We repudiate Rebbi Yirmiyah's proof, on the grounds that the produce may well not have grown at all before Yisrael entered the land - something that is hardly a feat of knowledge to know. If that is so, Rebbi Yirmiyah's proof will no longer stand (because it may well be that the Rabbanan do not know how to distinguish between a quarter grown and a third, after all).

(b) It would indeed have been impossible for the produce to grow in five days from scratch. However - it was hardly less of a miracle for it to have grown to completion from less than a third of its full growth in such a short time. So, since a miracle must anyway have taken place, it may just as well have been a bigger one. Maybe the produce did indeed grow from scratch, and Rebbi Yirmiyah's proof falls away.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Eretz Tzvi" - that just like a deer is the swiftest of all the animals, so too, is Eretz Yisrael the swiftest of all the lands when it comes to the ripening of its fruit.

5)

(a) We finally learn that regarding Shemitah, we go after grain that is one third grown, from the Tana, who quotes the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Asas es ha'Tevu'ah li'Shelosh Shanim" - which he interprets 'Al Tikri li'*Shelosh* Ela li'*Shelish*' (a broad hint that produce is considered ready when it a third grown).

(b) We do not need that Pasuk for its simple interpretation (i.e. to inform us that, in the sixth year, enough will grow to last for three years - assuming that we observe the Sh'mitah properly) - because, for that, we have another Pasuk ("u'Zera'atem es ha'Shanah ha'Shaminis, va'Achaltem ... ad ha'Shanah ha'Teshi'is").

6)

(a) What determines the year of rice, millet and poppy-seeds - is whether they *take root* before or after Rosh Hashanah.

(b) The fourth thing listed by the Mishnah in Shevi'is - is sunflower-seeds.

(c) What these four have in common - is that they all fall under the category of legumes.

(d) We have already learned that the year of trees is determined by their budding, that of vegetables, by the picking, and that of grain and olives, when they are one third grown. The reason that Rabah gives for the Chachamim having fixed the year of legumes by the time that they take root - is because they do not all ripen at the same time. They come out 'P'rachin P'rachin' - meaning that one rolls them in the hand (a Lashon that is confined to legumes) in batches (and not all simultaneously).

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar quoting Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, the year of Egyptian (haricot) beans that one planted ...

1. ... to eat the seeds - is determined by whether they took root before Rosh Hashanah or afterwards.
2. ... to eat the beans - by when they are picked.

(b) Should some of them have taken root *before* Rosh Hashanah, and some *after* - Rebbi Yossi ben Kipar quoting Rebbi Shimon Shezuri suggests that one mixes them together and separates one lot of Ma'asros.

(c) His reason for this is - because he holds 'Yesh Bilah' i.e. the two mix together, even by solids (provided they are very small pieces), so that with each batch that one separates, one is taking from the old on to the old and from the new on to the new.

(d) The Mishnah in Shevi'is, which rules that we go after the time that they take root, and does not concede that mixing them is permitted - holds like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, who hold 'Ein Bilah'.

(a) The Sevara of the Rabbanan, who say 'Ein Bilah' - is that we cannot rely that the two are properly mixed, and we must suspect that the majority of the Ma'aser that he took is either from the old crops or from the new.

(b) Shmuel rules 'Ein Bilah - except for wine and oil (because liquids mix better than solids.

(c) We reconcile this with Shmuel's other ruling 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri' - inasmuch as with regard to Bilah, he holds 'Ein Bilah', like the Rabbanan, and the reason that he rules like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, is not because of Bilah, but because he maintains (unlike Rebbi Shimon Shezuri) that by fruit, the year is not determined by the time that it takes root, but by the time that it is fully-grown (which, in our case, is *after* Rosh Hashanah - which is why mixing them together is effective [perhaps mixing them is not even necessary]) Note: See also Tosfos DH 'Achar' that the stage of fully-grown is close to the time that they are picked. They are also puzzled by the fact that Shmuel appears to argue with the Tana'im on the Amud (Rashi points out that Shmuel found a Tana who ruled that way - conforming with Tosfos elsewhere who inform us that Shmuel had his own set of Beraisos, as did a number of other Amora'im).

(d) Having ruled ...

1. ... 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, Shmuel nevertheless needed to issue the ruling 'la'Kol Ein Bilah Chutz ... ' - because, otherwise, we might have thought that he holds 'Yesh Bilah'.
2. ... 'la'Kol Ein Bilah Chutz ... ', he nevertheless needed to rule like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - because otherwise, we might have thought that he rules completely like the Rabbanan (in whose opinion mixing does not even help).
3. ... the above two rulings, he nevertheless needed to rule 'ha'Kol Holech Achar G'mar P'ri' - because otherwise, we would have remained with a contradiction in Shmuel's rulings, without knowing how to resolve it.
4. ... 'ha'Kol Holech Achar G'mar P'ri', he nevertheless needed to rule like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - because otherwise, we would have thought that 'ha'Kol' includes produce and olives. Therefore he needed to add 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri' (restricting his ruling to legumes, the issue over which he argues with the Rabbanan), but as far as produce and olives are concerned, Shmuel will agree that their year is determined by when they are one third grown.