ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) When Rebbi Yirmeyahu asked Rebbi Zeira in surprise how the Rabanan knew to determine so accurately that any produce that is cut on Sukos must have grown one third of its full growth - he replied that every Shi'ur that the Rabanan gave was exact to the minutest fraction.
(b) To illustrate his point, Rebbi Zeira gave a number of examples. 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 Shi'ur of ...
1. ... food that is subject to Tum'as Ochlin - is a k'Beitzah.
2. ... a seat that is subject to Tum'as Midras - is three by three Tefachim.
(a) Rebbi Yirmeyahu retracted his query, based on a She'eilah that the Chevraya asked Rav Kahana. The problem with bringing the Omer the year Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael was where it came from, since we learn from the word "Ketzirchem" (in the Pasuk in Emor "Reishis Ketzirchem el ha'Kohen") - that produce that came from a Nochri is not eligible for the Omer.
(b) And we learn from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "va'Yochlu me'Avur ha'Aretz mi'Mocharas ha'Pesach" - that they must have brought the Omer; otherwise, why did they wait six days before eating from it.
(c) Rebbi Yirmeyahu finally solves the problem - by establishing that the produce had not yet grown up to one third of its full growth in the domain of Nochrim, and only did so after Yisrael crossed the Yarden.
(d) And he proves from there - that it is possible to distinguish between less than a third grown and a third grown (in which case there is no reason why the Chachamim should not also know that whatever is cut on Sukos must have grown at least one third by Rosh Hashanah [see Gilyon ha'Shas]).
(a) We establish the situation in Eretz Yisrael that year, differently than the way Rebbi Yirmeyahu did - by suggesting that the produce may well not have grown at all before Yisrael entered the land (something that anyone can see).
(b) But once the produce has grown a quarter of its full growth or so - it may well be that the Rabanan do not know how to distinguish between less than a third, and a third (repudiating Rebbi Yirmeyahu's proof).
(c) We ...
1. ... initially refute the possibility that nothing had grown when Yisrael arrived in Eretz Yisrael - because it is not possible for the produce to have grown from scratch in only five days.
2. ... refute the suggestion that perhaps it had grown a quarter (a fifth) or a sixth of its full growth when they entered - by exactly the same token. How could it reach a third of its growth in a mere five days.
(d) The Pasuk in Daniel "Eretz Tzvi" - answers both questions, because it teaches us that just as a deer is faster than all other animals, so too, is Eretz Yisrael faster than all other countries in yielding its produce, and it is able to grow from scratch to a third in five days, no less than from a quarter, a fifth or a sixth to a third in the same period of time.
(a) This entire Sugya is based on the premise that "v'Chag "Asif" means 'harvest'. Rebbi Chanina puts a spoke in the wheel however, by quoting the Pasuk in Re'eh "b'Ospecha mi'Gornecha u'mi'Yikvecha", from which Mar in Sukah learns - that it is the leftovers from the granary that are Kasher for Sechach. Consequently, 'Chag ha'Asif' is the name of the Chag, and it refers to the materials connected with the ingathering season, and not to the harvest.
(b) We finally cite Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef in a Beraisa, who quotes the Pasuk in Behar "v'Asas es ha'Tevu'ah li'Shelosh Shanim" - which he interprets 'Al Tikri li'Shelosh Ela li'Shelish' (implying that regarding Shemitah, produce is considered ready when it reaches a third of its full growth).
(c) We do not need this Pasuk to teach us that, in the sixth year, enough will grow to last for three years, provided we observe the Shemitah properly) - because we already know that from the Pasuk there ("u'Zera'atem es ha'Shanah ha'Shaminis, va'Achaltem ... ad ha'Shanah ha'Teshi'is").
(a) According to the Mishnah in Shevi'is, 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 'Perachin Perachin' - 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 Yosi ben Kipar in the name of 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 take root before Rosh Hashanah, and some after - Rebbi Yosi 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' (meaning that 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) To answer Abaye's query therefore, Rabah establishes the Mishnah in Shevi'is, which rules that we go after the time that they take root, and does not permit mixing them - holds like the Rabanan of Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, who hold 'Ein Bilah'.
(a) The Sevara of the Rabanan, who say 'Ein Bilah' - is that we cannot rely that the two are properly mixed, and we therefore suspect that the majority of the Ma'aser that he took is either from the old crops or from the new.
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni Amar Shmuel rules - 'Yesh Bilah', like Rebbi Yosi ben Kipar in the name of Rebbi Shimon Shezuri.
(c) Rebbi Zeira queries Shmuel from another ruling of his, where he rules 'Ein bilah', except for two commodities - wine and oil.
(a) We resolve the discrepancy by citing yet a third statement of Shmuel, which Rebbi Zeira seems to have forgotten. When Shmuel said 'ha'Kol Holech Achar Gmar Pri', he meant - that 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), even with regard to legumes.
(b) Consequently, when Shmuel rules like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, it is not because of Bilah, but - because (unlike Rebbi Shimon Shezuri) he maintains that both what took root before R.H. and what took root after R.H. are only completed after R.H.
(c) But as far as Bilah is concerned - he holds 'Ein Bilah'.
(d) Having ruled ...
1. ... 'Halachah k'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, Shmuel nevertheless needs to issue the ruling 'la'Kol Ein Bilah Chutz mi'Yayin v'Shemen' - because, otherwise, we might have thought that he holds 'Yesh Bilah'.
2. ... 'la'Kol Ein Bilah Chutz ... ', he nevertheless needs to rule like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - because otherwise, we might have thought that he rules completely like the Rabanan (in whose opinion mixing does not help at old).
3. ... the above two rulings, he nevertheless needs to rule 'ha'Kol Holech Achar Gmar Pri' - because otherwise, we would have remained with a contradiction in Shmuel's rulings, without knowing how to resolve it.
4. ... 'ha'Kol Holech Achar Gmar Pri', he nevertheless needs to rule like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri - because otherwise, we would have thought that 'ha'Kol' includes produce and olives. Therefore he needs to add 'Halachah k'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri' (restricting his ruling to legumes, the issue over which he argues with the Rabanan), but as far as produce and olives are concerned, Shmuel will agree that their year is determined by when they are one third grown.
(a) Even though Shmuel already stated 'ha'Kol Holech Achar Gmar Pri' and 'Halachah k'Rebbi Shimon Shezuri' he nevertheless needs to add 'la'Kol Ein Bilah Chutz mi'Yayin v'Shemen' - because of the Seifa 'Chutz mi'Yayin v'Shemen'. Otherwise, we would have thought that he holds 'Ein Bilah' even with regard to them.