In yesterday's discussion, we explored the laws of tithes, or ma'aser, concerning specific seeds: rice, millet, poppy, and sesame. For these items, the critical point for determining the year of ma'aser is the time of their rooting, known as hashrashah. The Gemara explains that this rule was established to prevent confusion. Since these seeds are harvested frequently and in small quantities, basing the ma'aser year on the harvest date would lead to old and new crops getting mixed, making it impossible to properly separate tithes without mixing the old with the new, or vice-versa, which is halachically problematic. By establishing hashrashah as the cut-off point, all seeds rooted in a given year are considered to belong to that year's crop, regardless of when they are picked. This ensures that any portion taken for ma'aser is always from the same year's produce.
The Gemara then presented the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri, who held that such mixing is not problematic due to the principle of bila, meaning "mixture." According to him, if old and new crops are mixed, one can assume that a handful taken from the pile contains both old and new, thus allowing for proper tithing. The Rabbis, however, disagreed, asserting that bila applies only to liquids like wine and oil, which mix thoroughly, but not to dry goods. Our discussion concluded with this point.
Today, the Gemara asks whose opinion is followed in practice regarding bila. Rav Yitzhak bar Nahmani, in the name of Shmuel, states that the halakha follows Rabbi Yose ben Kifar, who spoke in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri. This implies that Shmuel agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri's concept of bila. However, Rabbi Zeira challenges this, citing other statements by Shmuel. Specifically, Shmuel explicitly stated that bila does not apply to dry goods, only to liquids. This creates an apparent contradiction within Shmuel's own teachings.
To resolve this, the Gemara introduces a second statement by Shmuel: that for certain items, the cut-off point for ma'aser is not hashrashah, but rather when the fruit reaches its final stage of development, known as gemar peri. Rashi clarifies that this applies to grains and legumes (such as rice, millet, poppy, and sesame), meaning their ma'aser is not determined by hashrashah. Therefore, when Shmuel agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri regarding the Egyptian bean (fula mitzri), it is not because he accepts the principle of bila for dry goods. Instead, Shmuel agrees because he believes that for these specific items, the gemar peri occurs in the same year, after Rosh Hashanah. Thus, when they are picked, they are all considered "new" produce from the same year, and mixing them is not problematic, not due to bila, but because they are all halachically identical. So, Shmuel agrees with the outcome of Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri's ruling but for a different reason.
The Gemara then asks why all three of Shmuel's statements are necessary: 1) The halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri; 2) There is no bila for dry goods; 3) Everything follows gemar peri. Rashi explains that if Shmuel had only stated that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri, we might have assumed he adopted Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri's reasoning of bila, which would contradict the Rabbis who say no bila for dry goods. If he had only said there is no bila, we might have thought he agreed with the Rabbis entirely, meaning mixing is problematic. Therefore, he had to state both that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Shizuri and that there is no bila, to clarify that his agreement is based on a different principle. And if he had only stated that everything follows gemar peri, we might have assumed this applies to all produce, even wheat and olives, which is not the case. Thus, all three statements are crucial to understand Shmuel's nuanced position.
The Gemara then introduces a Baraita, where Rabbi Yose the Galilean interprets the verse "when you gather your grain from your threshing floor and your wine from your press" (Deuteronomy 16:13). From this verse, the Sages derived the rule for tithing vegetables (ma'aser yarak). While the Torah does not explicitly mention tithing vegetables, this verse alludes to it. According to the Rabbis, the year of ma'aser for vegetables is determined by the year they are picked. Rabbi Yose the Galilean explains this by analogy: just as grain and grapes are tithed based on the year they reach one-third of their growth, relying on the previous year's rains, so too, most produce relies on the previous year's rains once it reaches a certain stage. However, vegetables are an exception. They constantly benefit from new rains, not just stored water. Therefore, their ma'aser year is determined by the year of picking, as they are continuously nourished by current year's water.
Rabbi Akiva offers a different analogy but reaches the same conclusion. He states that just as grain and grapes are unique in that they grow primarily from rainwater (rov mayim), so too, items like trees that depend mostly on rainwater will have their ma'aser determined by the previous year's rains. Vegetables, however, are different; they grow from "all waters" (kol mayim), meaning they require not only rainwater but also irrigation and constant watering. This continuous need for water means their ma'aser year is determined by the year of picking. The verse "You will water it with your feet, like a vegetable garden" (Deuteronomy 11:10) is cited to illustrate the constant watering required for vegetables.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference (nafka mina) between Rabbi Yose the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva, since both conclude that vegetables are tithed based on the year of picking? Rabbah bar Rav Huna responds that a difference emerges concerning specific types of onions (betzalim haharisim) and Egyptian beans (fula mitzri). A Mishnah states that if these crops were not watered for 30 days before Rosh Hashanah, their ma'aser is determined by the previous year. If the next year is a Sabbatical year (Shemitah), and watering ceased 30 days before it, the produce is considered from the sixth year. If watered within 30 days, it's considered from the seventh year. Rashi explains that these items have both a legume and a vegetable aspect, and the Mishnah refers to them when planted for their vegetable part.
According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, this Mishnah's ruling makes sense. Since watering ceased 30 days before Rosh Hashanah, the produce is benefiting from the previous year's waters, similar to wheat that reaches one-third growth. Therefore, its ma'aser belongs to the previous year. However, Rabbi Akiva would disagree. For him, these are vegetables, and all vegetables, by their nature, grow on kol mayim (all waters). The fact that watering was stopped is an external circumstance that doesn't change the intrinsic nature of the species. Therefore, according to Rabbi Akiva, their ma'aser should always follow the year of picking, regardless of when watering ceased.
The Gemara then shifts to the cut-off point for trees (ilanot). For fruit trees, the cut-off point for determining the ma'aser year is the 1st of Shevat, according to Beit Shammai, or the 15th of Shevat (Tu B'Shevat), according to Beit Hillel. This date determines whether the fruit belongs to the previous or current year's ma'aser cycle. The Gemara explains that Beit Shammai chose the 1st of Shevat because by then, the majority of the rainy season has passed. The tree has received most of the water it needs for the sap to produce fruit, making it effectively a "new" year for the fruit. Even though the majority of the winter season (tekufat Tevet) might not have passed by then, the decisive factor is the rains.
The Gemara then discusses the etrog (citron), which has unique halachic characteristics. A Baraita relates that Rabbi Akiva once picked an etrog on the 1st of Shevat and separated two sets of tithes: Ma'aser Ani (poor man's tithe) and Ma'aser Sheni (second tithe). This implies he was following two different opinions simultaneously. The Gemara offers two explanations for Rabbi Akiva's actions. The first explanation suggests he was navigating the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the cut-off date for trees (1st vs. 15th of Shevat). If it was the 1st of Shevat, it could be considered the third year (requiring Ma'aser Ani) according to Beit Shammai, or still the second year (requiring Ma'aser Sheni) according to Beit Hillel. He took both stringencies.
However, the Gemara questions this, citing a principle that one cannot follow the lenient opinions (kulot) of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel in the same halachic matter, as this would be considered wicked (rasha). This rule applies when the leniencies contradict each other. For example, regarding ritual impurity (tumah) from a human spine, Beit Hillel is lenient, declaring it impure only if one vertebra is missing, while Beit Shammai is stringent, requiring two missing vertebrae for impurity. Conversely, regarding an animal's fitness for consumption (terefah), Beit Shammai is lenient, declaring it fit even with one missing vertebra, while Beit Hillel is stringent, declaring it a terefah if one is missing. Taking the leniency of Beit Hillel for tumah and the leniency of Beit Shammai for terefah in the same case is prohibited. The Gemara clarifies that the permission to follow Beit Shammai's opinion, even though the halakha follows Beit Hillel, was only valid before a heavenly voice (Bat Kol) declared that the halakha is always according to Beit Hillel.
Therefore, the Gemara offers a second explanation for Rabbi Akiva's actions: he held a tradition that the halakha follows Beit Hillel, but he was uncertain whether Beit Hillel's cut-off point was the 1st or the 15th of Shevat. Thus, he was not combining opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, but rather applying stringency within Beit Hillel's own view due to uncertainty. A third explanation, offered by Ravina, reframes the story: Rabbi Akiva picked the etrog on the 15th of Shevat (Tu B'Shevat), and his doubt was not between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, but between two other Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel. Rabbi Eliezer held that for etrogim, the ma'aser year is determined by hanatah (the emergence of the fruit), like other trees. Rabban Gamliel, however, held that it follows likitah (the picking), like vegetables. If the etrog emerged before Tu B'Shevat of the previous year (making it a second-year fruit) but was picked on Tu B'Shevat of the current year (making it a third-year fruit), Rabbi Akiva would separate both Ma'aser Sheni (according to hanatah) and Ma'aser Ani (according to likitah), resolving his doubt by taking both stringencies. This explanation removes the involvement of Beit Shammai entirely, aligning Rabbi Akiva's actions with a different halachic dispute.