Clarification: Because granted that, as far as planting is concerned, Rosh ha'Shanah is Tishri, when it comes to Orlah of the tree Rosh ha'Shanah is on Tu bi'Shevat ...

Clarification (cont.): As Rebbi Yanai Darshens from the Pasuk "u'va'Shanah ha'Revi'is" "u'va'Shanah ha'Chamishis"

Reason: And the reason that they fixed Sh'vat as Rosh ha'Shanah is because the majority of the year's rain has already fallen - as the Gemara says later (on Daf 14.).

Implied Question: Nevertheless, the ramifications of Tishri (also) being Rosh ha'Shanah ...

Answer: Are where one planted a tree thirty days before Rosh ha'Shanah, that it counts as one year, and we do not consider the thirty days before Tu bi'Shevat as the thirty day period that counts as a year.

Refuted Ruling: There is a Halachos Gedolos which writes that 'After one has redeemed the fruit of the fourth year, it remains forbidden until the year has ended and the fifth year has entered'.

Refutation: But this is a mistake, since our Sugya says nothing about that

Conclusion: Only the fruit that blossomed in the fourth year before Tu bi'Shevat is permanently forbidden, and the fruit that blossoms in the fourth year after Tu bi'Shevat is permitted as soon as it has been redeemed.

Ruling: And the B'hag from Spain writes that the fruit of an orchard of the fourth year is forbidden until one redeems it.

Clarification: At this point, the Gemara does not know the conclusion, that we also require in order to take root.)

Clarification: S'tam 'Par' is three years, as we learn in the Seifa, and it inserts 'Yom Echad' because 'One day in the year is considered a year'.

Clarification (Cont.): And according to Rebbi Elazar it is thirty days, and during those thirty days it has the Din of neither a ben Bakar nor a Par ...

Source: Just like a 'Palgas', at the end of the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 23. & 23:), where the Gemara requires a Pasuk to include it.

Reservations: But perhaps it is different there, since the Mishnah says in the first Perek of Parah (Mishnah 3) that a thirteen-month old sheep is Kasher to be brought neither as a ram nor as a lamb, something that we do not find by a Par.

A Day in a Year is Not Always Considered a Year: Not in all regards do we say that 'One day in the year is considered a year' ...

An alternative interpretation of 'Yom Echad': Since there are some things where one even needs 'Me'eis le'Eis' (within twenty-four hours), as we learned in Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 45.) 'Nine years old and a day'; 'Thirteen years old and a day'' 'Twelve years old and a day'.

An alternative interpretation of 'Yom Echad' (cont.): And that 'one day' comes to complete the Me'eis le'Eis period.

In One Case it is Even a Machlokes: Regarding 'Three year and a day' however, the Tana'im there (on Daf 44:) argue: 'According to Rebbi Meir, she can become betrothed even at the age of two years and a day, because she is considered three years old, since 'One day in a year is considered a year'.

In One Case it is Even a Machlokes (cont.): Whereas the Chachamim require three years and a day - since they require me'Eis me'Eis.

Clarification: '"ben Bakar" has to be two years old, since we equate it with Eigel ben Bakar and not with Par ben Bakar', as is evident in the Toras Kohanim, in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach ...

Source: As the Beraisa there says "Par" - 'Perhaps this refers even to an old bull? Therefore the Torah writes "Ben". In that case, perhaps it refers to a young calf? Therefore it writes "Par". How is that? A bull in its third year, according to the Chachamim.

Source (cont.): Rebbi Meir says - 'Even if it is four or five years old' it is Kasher.

Question: Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, in the Mishnah in the first Perek of Parah (Mishnah 2) states that 'Parim' refers to bulls of two years, as the Torah writes "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas". And the Chachamim say 'Even if they are three years old. Whereas Rebbi Meir declares them Kasher even if they are four or five years old.

Question (cont.): So we see that Rebbi Meir renders Kasher a bull even it is two years old ...

Source: Seeing as adds to the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili,

Question (concl.): Whereas here it implies that according to Rebbi Meir, an Eigel ben Bakar is two years old, but a Par ben Bakar is at least three, and no less?

Answer: we must therefore say that the word 'Even' used by Rebbi meir in Maseches Parah (Ibid.) refers to the Rabbanan and not to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili.

Answer (cont.): And in Toras Kohanim it cites the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili after that of Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim, whereas the Rabbanan there are not the Rabbanan of Maseches Parah.

Clarification: There is no Kashya from the beginning of the Perek, as Tosfos there (Daf 2: DH 'Aval')

Clarification: 'Techilasan' in this case refers to the beginning of the year but the end of the reckoning.

Question: Let us learn from a Zavah, where the Din is the opposite of that of Nidah, by whom the end of the day does not count at the beginning, since that is the Minhag of the Kutim ...

Source: As we learned at the beginning of Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah, Daf 33. & 33:) 'The day on which she concludes her counting is counted in the seven days'?

Query: Even though the Gemara there asks 'let us also count it?'

Answer: We do not hold like that, seeing as the Gemara asks in the last Perek of Nidah (Daf 69.) 'Did Rav make his statement like the Kutim?'

Question (cont.): Nevertheless, the beginning of the day counts for her at the end, according to Rebbi Yossi in Perek keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim, Daf 81.), who says that 'Part of the day is considered like the whole day'.

. Source: Since he cannot find a case of Tum'as ha'Tehom by a Zavah, since she does not cancel her Zivus retroactively, and she only becomes Tamei from now on.

Source (concl.): And even a Zavah Gedolah he only finds in a case where she has a long flow of blood or where she sees on two consecutive Bein ha'Shemashos?

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that the Kal va'Chomer here goes according to the Rabbanan, but not according to Rebbi Yossi.

Question: There is a Kashya even according to the Rabbanan however, in that, granted when she sees on the seventh day, she is Tamei retroactively, nevertheless, since min ha'Torah, she would be permitted to be intimate with her husband immediately after the Tevilah, had the Rabbanan not forbidden it in case she comes to a Safek Isur

Source: As we say in the last Perek of Nidah (Daf 72. & 72:).

Question (cont.): We are therefore forced to say that the beginning of the day counts (according even to them), because otherwise, she would not fulfill what the Torah writes in Shemini - "ve'Safrah lah Shiv'as Yamim ve'Achar Tithar"?

Answer: It therefore seems that one cannot compare a Zavah to the other cases, since the Torah requires 'clean days', so how can the end of the day count, bearing in mind that that day was not clean, seeing as she already saw on it.

Question: And even though in a case of 'Shomeres Yom' the end of the day counts, as Tosfos will explain.

Answer: It is therefore different there, since we learn counting one to one at the end of Nidah Daf (73.) from the word "Yih'yeh".

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, where the Torah writes "Achar Tithar", we Darshen that Tum'ah is not allowed to interrupt.

Answer (concl.): On the other hand, it is logical that the beginning of the day at the end should count, because as long as she has not seen, she is Tahor.

Question: Why, according to Rebbi Yossi, does the Gemara push to find a case of a full-fledged Zavah where she sees during two Beis-ha'Shemachos, why not where she sees in the night, since counting at night is not considered counting ...

Source: As we learned in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 20. & 20:)?

Answer: The Gemara pushes with regard to a Zavah in the day-time, since the Torah writes there "All the days of her Zivus ... ".

Proof #1: That is why, at the end of Nidah (Ibid.) Rebbi Shemayah said to Rebbi Aba 'Let us say that in the day one becomes a Zavah, and in the night, a Nidah?'

Proof #2: And in the first Perek of Horayos (Daf 4.) too, in connection with the Tzedokim, the Gemara says that one only becomes a Zavah in the night.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, because if it were, the Gemara ought to have explicitly stated 'How does one fine a Zavah in the day?'

Refutation #2: Furthermore, when the Gemara answers that 'She saw during two Bein-ha'Shemashos', it should have said 'three'?

Answer to Current Question: At the end of the second Perek of Nazir however, (Daf 16. & 16:) the unanymously-accepted text reads 'K'gon de'Chaza Sheloshah Bein-ha'Shemashos Samuch li'Sheki'as ha'Chamah, de'Lo Havi Shahus ba'Yom le'Salik leih le'Minyana'.

Answer to Previous Question: The reason that the Gemara did not answer that she saw in the nights is because, just as, according to Rebbi Yossi, Shimur helps at the beginning of the day, so too, does it help at the end of the day.

Proof #1: And this is evident at the end of the second Perek of Nazir (Ibid.) ...

Proof (cont.): Since the Gemara asks there 'Since she saw in the middle of the day, let the other half of the day counts as Shimur'.

Refutation: And even though Rabeinu Tam establishes 'the other half' as the other half of the following day ...

Rejection of Refutation: This is not what the Gemara appears to be saying.

Proof #2: Also from the Gemara's answer that 'There was not enough time in the day, and this is not like the Minhag of the Kutim' that she counts the day that she stops ...

Reason: Since by a proper Zavah who requires seven clean days, it says that 'The day on which she stops seeing is not clean'.

Proof #2 (cont.): But in the case of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, the Torah does not write Taharah specifically, only we learn it from an extra Pasuk.

Conclusion: Moreover, when a woman counts seven days, the 'Sof Yom' is like the beginning of the counting, whereas a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, it is the end of the counting, since one day will suffice.

Source: This is a Mishnah in the second Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 6).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains thirty for taking root and thirty for Tosefes Shevi'is'.

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, firstly because this is not what the Mishnah seems to be saying (since it is not talking about Tosefes Shevi'is at all, only about taking root)?

Question #2: Moreover, if that is the case, what problem does the Gemara have with establishing the earlier Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar? Just as the Mishnah in Shevi'is says 'thirty days', yet we establish is with regard to taking root, apart from the thirty of Tosefes Shevi'is, so too, can we establish the Beraisa with regard to thirty days of taking root, apart from the thirty of Tosefes Shevi'is?

Question #3: Furthermore, later (on Daf 13:) in connection with 'Rice, millet, poppy-seeds and sesame-seeds, where we distinguish between if they took root before Rosh ha'Shanah and where they took root after Rosh ha'Shanah, it implies that we are not concerned about them taking root during Tosefes Shevi'is ...

Question #3 (cont.): Since it mentions Shevi'is similar ro Ma'aser?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains Rav Nachman to mean - that according to the one who requires thirty days with regard to taking root in the Sh'mitah, one requires another thirty days with regard to Orlah ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because he is only coming to explain the Mishnah in connection with Orlah, but as far as Sh'mitah is concerned, we are concerned only that it should not take root in the Sh'mitah itself.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And according to Rebbi Yehudah, who holds that it takes root in three days, one is permitted to retain it, seeing as it did not take root in the Sh'mitah, even though it was planted be'Isur in the period of Tosefes Shevi'is, three days before Rosh ha'Shanah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Likewise, 'rice, millet, poppy-seeds and sesame-seeds whose planting involves an Isur d'Oraysa, as the Torah writes (in Vayikra 25) "Do not plant!" and they may not be planted in Tosefes Shevi'is. Nevertheless, we are not concerned, provided they take root before Rosh ha'Shanah.

Conclusion: And when the Gemara, at the end of 'ha'Areil' (Yevamos, Daf 83.) cites Rav Nachman in connection with 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yossi be'Andoginus u've'Harkavah' ...

Conclusion (cont.): He is not coming to explain the Mishnah with regard to Shevi'is, but rather to teach us that even regarding the Din of Orlah the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi.

Refuted Explanation: In Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 54.) in connection with Rebbi Meir's statement 'Someone who plants in the Sh'mitah, either be'Shogegor be'Meizid, must uproot what he planted'.

Refuted Explanation (cont.): The Gemara says 'And if you want to say that on Shabbos too, sometimes the thirtieth day falls on Shabbos, and if he plants on that day it is counted as a year, but not if he doesn't'.

Refuted Explanation (concl.): It does not mention 'thirty' because one needs thirty days to be considered a year, ...

Refutation: Seeing as, according to Rebbi Meir, one day will suffice.

Correct Explanation: It mentions 'thirty days', because of the Din of taking root.

Question: In Perek Yotzei Dofen however (in Nidah, Daf 45.) there is a slight indication that there is an in opinion that requires thirty days according to Rebbi Meir.

Refuted Explanation: Since it is impossible to say that it was the second year of the flood, and the reason that it doesn't count it as a year is because only one day passed ...

Refutation: Seeing as another Pasuk (in Bereishis 8) writes "And in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month ... ", without mentioning that it was the six hundred and second year - even though third day had already passed.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi extrapolates from the Pasuk (in Sh'mos 40) "And it was that in the first month of the second year on the first of the month, the Mishkan was erected", that although only one day had passed, it refers to it as the second year.

Refuted Explanation: And there too, one cannot say that it was the third year, and it doesn't reckon it as such because only one day had passed ...

Refutation: Since there too, there is another Pasuk (in Bamidbar 40) which states "And it was in the second year on the twentieth day of the second month, the cloud rose from on the Mishkan".

Explanation #1: Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar hold that the world was created in Nisan ...

Reason: Seeing as they both agree that it was the beginning of the year, since everyone agrees that "ba'Rishon" refers to Nisan ...

Source: Because Nisan is called 'Rishon' - as the Torah writes in Sh'mos (12) "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh lachem ... Rishon ... ".

Explanation #2: Rashi erases this statement from the text ...

Reason: Because it is possible that they hold like Rebbi Eliezer, and the "Rishon" mentioned here (in connection with the flood) is not Nisan, but Tishri, and it calls it 'Rishon' since it is the first month of the creation of the world and of the year.

Support: Indeed, Seider Olam specifically states that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, this "Rishon" refers to Tishri.

Support for Explanation #1: It seems however, that one should retain it in the text, and the Gemara learns it from the fact if they would hold that the world was created in Tishri, perhaps this "Rishon" refers to Nisan, which it calls "Rishon" because it is the first of the months ...

Support for Explanation #1 (cont.): In which case the flood lasted a year and a half, and one can no longer extrapolate that one day in a year is considered a year.