The audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically the edition of Masechet Rosh Hashanah, is generously sponsored by Mr. Solly and Cheryl Mizrahi, may they be blessed with success and joy in their families. Today's daf, Daf Tet Vav, is dedicated to the recovery of Yaakov ben Jamila, who is undergoing surgery today. We pray for his complete healing, both of body and spirit. Additionally, we study in memory of Avraham ben Esther, may his soul be elevated in Gan Eden.
We begin our study on Yud Dalet Amud Bet, where we encounter the teaching of Abba bar Huna. He states that according to Rabban Gamliel, the halachic status of the etrog is determined by its picking. Specifically, the etrog is treated like a vegetable concerning its maaser, meaning the laws governing its tithe follow the rules of vegetables. Thus, the Rosh Hashanah for the maaser of vegetables is on Aleph Tishrei, which aligns with the idea that the etrog is considered a vegetable for this purpose.
However, the Gemara raises a challenge from Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who states that if one picked an etrog before Tu B'Shvat and then picked another after sunset on Tu B'Shvat, one cannot take maaser from one to the other. This is because the cutoff point for determining the year of the fruit is Tu B'Shvat. If the picking occurs before Tu B'Shvat, it is considered one year; if after, it is considered another year. This contradicts the assertion that the cutoff is Aleph Tishrei, as it shows that Tu B'Shvat is indeed the determining factor for the etrog.
The Gemara illustrates this distinction further by providing an example of the third year transitioning into the fourth year. In the third year, one gives maaser ani, while in the fourth year, one gives maaser sheni. Therefore, the etrog picked before Tu B'Shvat is treated as third-year produce, while after Tu B'Shvat, it is treated as fourth-year produce. This shows that the etrog, despite being treated like a vegetable for other halachic purposes, follows the laws of trees regarding its Rosh Hashanah.
Rabban Gamliel's opinion is reaffirmed when the Gemara questions who holds that the etrog follows the picking. The answer is clear: it is Rabban Gamliel who maintains this view, as it aligns with the laws of vegetables. However, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar argues that the etrog should follow the emergence date, which is Tu B'Shvat, not Aleph Tishrei. This leads to a nuanced discussion regarding the etrog's status and the implications for maaser.
The Gemara continues to explore the implications of this halachic discussion. It states that even though Rabban Gamliel's position is that the etrog is treated like a vegetable, the Rosh Hashanah for the etrog remains Tu B'Shvat, aligning with the laws governing trees. This creates a fascinating intersection between the laws of vegetables and trees, illustrating the complexity of halachic classifications.
Next, the Gemara presents a case where a fruit emerges in the sixth year but is picked in the seventh year. Rabba states that this fruit is exempt from maaser and b'iyur because it is considered sixth-year produce, as it emerged before the seventh year. However, the Gemara raises a question about the status of fruit that emerged in the seventh year. It illustrates that such fruit must be treated according to the laws of shemitah, which requires b'iyur, or abandonment, of the fruit once it is no longer available in the fields.
Rav Hamnuna presents an opposing view, stating that a fruit that emerges in the sixth year and is picked in the seventh is still considered sixth-year produce and thus subject to maaser. He argues that the halachic status of the fruit is determined by its emergence, and therefore the laws of shemitah do not apply. This leads to a debate between the two sages regarding the classification of the fruit and its obligations.
The Gemara concludes that there is a distinction between the opinions of Rabba and Rav Hamnuna, particularly concerning the implications of the laws of shemitah. It becomes clear that the classification of fruit is not merely a theoretical exercise but has real-world implications for how one must treat their produce.
In summary, the Talmudic discussion highlights the complexities of halachic rulings regarding the etrog, maaser, and shemitah. The distinctions made between the picking and emergence of fruit illustrate the nuanced nature of Jewish law and its application to agricultural practices. As we continue our studies, we are reminded of the importance of these distinctions and their relevance to our lives.