Rosh Hashanah

it,1 one2 in accordance with the ruling of Beth Shammai and one3 in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel.4 R. Jose b. Judah said: He did not follow the [two] rulings of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, but the [two] rulings of Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer, as we have learnt:5 ‘A citron tree follows the rule of a tree in three respects and of a vegetable in one respect. It follows the rule of a tree in three respects — for ‘uncircumcision,’6 for fourth-year fruit, and for the Sabbatical year. It follows the rule of a vegetable in one respect, its tithe [year] being determined by its plucking. So Rabban Gamaliel. R. Eliezer, however, says that a citron follows the rule of a tree in all respects. 7 But is it right to adopt the harder rule from both sides?8 Has it not been taught: ‘As a general principle, the halachah follows Beth Hillel. If one prefers, however, to adopt the rule of Beth Shammai, he may do so, and if he desires to adopt the rule of Beth Hillel he may do so. One, however, who adopts the more lenient rulings of both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel [on the same subject] is a bad man, while to one who adopts the more stringent rulings of both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel may be applied the verse, But the fool walketh in darkness.9 No; either one must follow Beth Shammai both where they are more severe and more lenient or Beth Hillel both where they are more severe and more lenient’? — [The answer is that] R. Akiba was doubtful about the tradition, and did not know whether Beth Hillel fixed [the New Year for trees] on the first of Shebat or on the fifteenth of Shebat.10 ‘R. Jose b. Judah said: He did not adopt the two rulings of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, but of Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer [But would R. Jose hold that] in respect of the first of Shebat he adopted the ruling of Beth Shammai?11 — R. Hanina (or some say R. Hananiah) said: The case here is one of a citron which had blossomed before the fifteenth of Shebat of the previous year,12 and R. Akiba might equally well have done the same thing at all earlier date,13 but this happened to be the actual date. Rabina said: Combine14 the two statements. It was not the first of Shebat but the fifteenth of Shebat,15 and he [R. Akiba] did not adopt the two rulings of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel but of Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer. Rabbah son of R. Huna said: Seeing that Rabban Gamaliel has said that the tithe year of a citron tree is determined by its plucking like that of a vegetable, its New Year [like that of a vegetable] must be the first of Tishri. The following was cited in objection to this: ‘R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: If a man plucked the fruit of a citron tree on the eve of the fifteenth of Shebat before sunset, and then plucked some more after sunset, terumah and tithe must not be given from one lot for the other because terumah and tithe are not given from the new for the old nor from the old for the new. [If it was at the meeting point of the third and] fourth years, [from the fruit of] the third year he gives first tithe and the tithe of the poor, and from the fruit of the fourth year the first tithe and the second tithe’.16 Akiba gave two tithes. one point and the other in respect of the other. For instance, Beth Shammai rule that the lack of one vertebra in a human spine still leaves it capable of defiling by ‘overshadowing’ (v. Glos. s.v. ohel) but does not make an animal trefa (v. Glos.) whereas Beth Hillel says that it makes an animal trefa but leaves it incapable of defiling by overshadowing. Here Beth Shammai are more stringent in the matter of defilement and Beth Hillel in the matter of trefa (v. ‘Er. 6b). So here, R. Akiba took on himself two burdens when one would have sufficed. tithe of third year, which would not begin before the fifteenth of Shebat.] place in the second year.