Implied Question: This is despite the fact that according to Rebbi Eliezer the world was created in Tishrei.

Answer: Even though it is appropriate to count years from Tishrei, regarding months we will not call Marcheshvan the second month, as for months we count from Nisan.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that they hold like Rebbi Yehoshua that the world was created in Nisan, which is apparent from the fact that they count the Tekufah from Nisan as does Rebbi Yehoshua. (Why would they count the days of the Mabul according to the opinion Rebbi Eliezer?)

Answer: Even so, they count the days of Noach, the creation of the world, and the solar years from Tishrei as Tishrei is the beginning of years, Shemitah, and Yovalos.

Implied Question: Our Mishnah does not list Nedarim. (Why not?)

Answer: Our Mishnah is not dealing with things that stop years (as Nedarim made for a year before the first of Tishrei are over starting the first of Tishrei), as I explained earlier (7a, DH "b'Hafsakah") regarding Rosh Hashanah for leap years.

Observation: Since the Mishnah says, "vegetables" more than other fruits, the implication is that other fruits are required to have Ma'aser taken from them according to Torah law.

Proof #1: This is implied by the beginning of the Yerushalmi in Ma'aseros which derives all produce as requiring Ma'aser besides vegetables. The Yerushalmi concludes that the obligation of taking Ma'aser from vegetables is Rabbinic in nature.

Proof #1 (cont.): The Yerushalmi says there, "Aser Ti'aser Es Kol Tevuas Zarecha - this is a Klal u'Perat, and this means that there is nothing in the rule that is not stated in the Perat. One might think that there is only an obligation on grain, but not on legumes. This is why the Pasuk states, "v'Chol Ma'aser ha'Aretz mi'Zera ha'Aretz" to include kernels, garlic, and berries.

Proof #1 (cont.): One might think that I would include the seeds of the upper Lof, Kerashin, turnip, radish, and other seeds of his garden that are not eaten. This is why the Pasuk states, "mi'Zera ha'Aretz" implying not all of the seeds of the land. "Pri ha'Eitz" includes all fruit. One might think that this includes Shitah carobs, Tzalmonei, and Gedeirah carobs. This is why the Pasuk states, "mi'Pri ha'Eitz" and not all fruit. How do we know vegetables are obligated in Ma'aseros? Isi ben Akiva states that the obligation of Ma'aseros for vegetables is Rabbinic in nature.

Proof #2: This is also stated in the Yerushalmi at the end of Chalah. The Yerushalmi states that our Rabbis in the exile used to take off Terumos and Ma'aseros until the "Rovim" came and nullified this practice. Who are the Rovim? Rebbi Zeira says this refers to Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel.

Proof #2 (cont.): One can eat from something obligated in Chalah or Terumah in Chutz la'Aretz and afterwards take off from what is left either Chalah or Terumah. Rebbi Aba in the name of Shmuel states that they only required this of grains, grapes, and olives. Rebbi Ila in the name of Shmuel says that they only instituted the taking of Terumah Gedolah, but even this they did not require for vegetables. This is as Isi ben Akavya states that vegetables are only obligated in Ma'aser according to Rabbinic law. All of the above implies that all other fruits are obligated in regular Terumos and Ma'aseros according to Torah law.

Question: However, it is impossible to say this. Later (15b), they say that Ma'aser from carobs is Rabbinic in nature. The Gemara in Berachos (36a) says that Ma'aser from a caper is Rabbinic in nature. The Gemara in Pesachim (44a) says that Ma'aser from spices is Rabbinic in nature.

Question (cont.): Even figs, pomegranates, and dates that are mentioned in the Pasuk, "Eretz Chitah etc." are exempt from Ma'aseros according to Torah law, as the only things that one is obligated to take Ma'aseros from according to Torah law is grain, grapes, and olives. This is as the Gemara says in Bechoros (54a) that grapes (olives) and grain is Torah law while other types are Rabbinic in nature.

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Chulin (120b) says that we compare to learn laws regarding liquids of Kodshim. Regarding Terumah, it only applies to grapes and olives, not other things. It excludes date honey and apple wine. The beginning of Beitzah (3b) that this is the Tana regarding the tool used to cut figs, that any item that is sold by count is not even nullified according to Rabbinic law (implying Ma'aseros of figs is a Rabbinic law).

Implied Question: The Gemara implies in Yevamos (81a) that one fig cake mixed amongst others is not nullified if Terumah nowadays is a Torah law. (This implies Terumah from figs is rooted in Torah law!)

Answer: Despite the fact that taking Terumah from figs is a Rabbinic requirement, its laws are instituted as per the guidelines of Torah laws.

Implied Question: The Beraisa states in Makos (19b) regarding a Kohen who ended up eating a fig that had not been tithed that he receives one set of lashes, as opposed to a non Kohen who would receive two sets of lashes. (Doesn't this imply that taking Terumos u'Ma'aseros from figs is a Torah obligation, as why else would he be liable to receive lashes?)

Implied Question: Similarly, the Mishnah in Parah (11:3) states in the chapter "Tzeluchis she'Hinichah" regarding a fig cake of Terumah that fell into water set aside to be used for the Parah Adumah, that if someone eats it they are liable to be killed.

Answer #1: All of these places that imply it is a Torah law are just reminding us what the Torah law would be, even though that is not currently the case, and the difference is regarding what would happen if it was Terumah according to Torah law.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is saying he receives lashes because one who would do would receive Rabbinic lashes. It is saying he is killed in order to teach that if he dies he would be buried amongst those who are total evildoers (not that he is actually killed).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Nedarim (55a) says that "grain" means anything that is piled up. This implies that even legumes should have Ma'aseros taken according to Torah law (as the Torah says Ma'aser is taken from Dagan).

Answer: This means that people say Dagan refers to whatever is piled up (and it therefore is what people mean when they make vows, but the Torah has a different definition of Dagan).

Implied Question: The Yerushalmi states that the obligation to take Ma'aser from vegetables is Rabbinic in nature (a ii. above). (How can we understand singling out vegetables if taking Ma'aser from almost all produce is only a Rabbinic obligation?)

Answer #1: Since it is not clearly understood from the Pasuk, it is not considered a complete Asmachta.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Beraisa of Isi ben Akiva is arguing on the previous Beraisa.

Observation: In Peah (1:5), the Mishnah states that one is not obligated to take Peah from Ug and carobs according to Torah law. Rather, one is only obligated to take Peah according to Torah law from olives and grapes as they are mentioned in the Pasuk.

Proof: This is as the Gemara derives in Chulin (131a) that there are four "presents" given to the poor from a vineyard, and two from trees such as olive trees.

Question: If a Rabbinic law is more loved, and this is why the Mishnah in Peah (ibid.) first mentions Ug and carob, let the Mishnah mention olives and grapes only at the very end of the Mishnah. This is as the Gemara asks in Yevamos (3a), "Let it mention his wife's sister at the end" (even though it is not derived from a special derivation, it should be mentioned at the end) and there it mentions them sometimes and in the middle of the Mishnah (which prompts the Gemara's question)! (Accordingly, the Mishnah should only mention olives and grapes at the end of the Mishnah, not in the middle as it does.)

Answer #1: The Mishnah in Peah is only coming to explain those that are gathered at once. This is why it did not have to say an exact order (based on what is an explicit Torah law and what is Rabbinic in nature).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the order of the Mishnah is based on the later items not usually being harvested all at once as are the items listed earlier in the Mishnah. Peah is regarding something that is gathered at once. The Mishnah therefore states its list in the fashion of "not only this (is obligated in Peah as it all grows together) but also this (is considered to all grow together and therefore is obligated in Peah)."

Observation: This is according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon who says in the Mishnah that the first of Tishrei is a Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Beheimah. (In other words, the Beraisa says "Ma'aseros" and not Ma'aser to indicate that it is referring to two very different types of Ma'aser, animals and produce, both of which are on the first of Tishrei.)

Question #1: This is difficult, as it could have answered according to all opinions that "Ma'aseros" indicates all types of Ma'aseros such as Ma'aser Rishon, Sheini, and Ani, as stated in the Mishnah in the beginning of Ma'aseros.

Question #1 (cont.): Earlier (7a), regarding Ba' Ti'acher, it also says Ma'aseros along with Bechor and Ma'aser which means Ma'aser Beheimah. (We therefore see "Ma'aseros" is often used to mean Rishon, Sheini, and Ani while Ma'aser Beheimah is mentioned separately. This is therefore seems to be a better answer!)

Question #2: Additionally, if the question is why does the Beraisa first say a plural term "Ma'aseros," it should have asked regarding "vegetables" as well, as the Beraisa first states vegetables and then Ma'aseros!

Answer: It seems to me that this question is not on the Beraisa, but rather on the Mishnah. The Mishnah states, "and for vegetables" regarding the Rabbinic law requiring the taking of Ma'aseros from vegetables. Why doesn't it just say Ma'aser? I would know that it is referring to all types of Ma'aser, whether vegetable or grain!

Answer (cont.): The Gemara answers that this would imply it applies to both Ma'aser Beheimah and Ma'aser Dagan, as is the opinion of Rebbi Shimon. The Gemara then asks (that if this is the case), the Mishnah should not say "vegetables" in a plural form!

Implied Question: It also could have asked regarding the terms "Shemitin" and "Yovalos." (Why didn't the Gemara ask about these terms as well?)

Answer: However, it only explains what it is able to explain.

Observation: This is stated in Ma'aseros (1:5) regarding his piling it up to be obligated in Ma'aseros. However, regarding what produce is from the new year and what produce is from the previous year, it is dependent on when it is harvested.

Observation: The second part states, "And if he does not fill up the vessel, it is when he gathers as much as he requires."

Observation: The Yerushalmi establishes that this is referring to a Nochri.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that the seed grows within it.

Question: The Yerushalmi in Ma'aseros implies otherwise. It says that the Mishnah says it is enough that it is planted and grows. How does he check this? Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini says in the name of Rebbi Yonasan that he takes a fistful and puts it in the cup of water. If most of it sinks, it is required to take off Ma'aser. If not, it is exempt. Rebbi Yonah asks that if this is the test we should merely say that one must take Ma'aser from whatever sinks and not from what is still afloat! Rather, it must mean that most of each unit is judged (see below).

Question (cont.): This implies that the term, "when it grows into seeds" implies that they are so ripe that if someone harvests them and plants them somewhere else, they will grow.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that grain and grapes are called "Tevuah," as the Pasuk states, "k'Tevuas Goren u'ki'Tevuas Yekev."

Question #1: This is impossible. First of all, if this is so it should not say olives and it should be included in Tevuah just like grapes, as both of them are included in Tevuas Yekev.

Question #2: Additionally, there is a different amount mentioned regarding grapes in the Mishnah in Ma'aseros (1:2). The Mishnah there states, "v'ha'Beushim mi'she'Yavishu." Beushim are a type of grape, as the Pasuk states in Yeshayah (5:2), "And he made Beushim."

Question #2 (cont.): Some have the text, "ha'Beushim." The Yerushalmi has the text, "ha'Anavim v'ha'Beushim mi'she'Yavishu." Rebbi Zeira says in the name of Rebbi Yasa that grapes at one point start to be called Beushim.

Question #2 (cont.): It indeed requires explanation why we do not say that when grapes grow one third of their normal growth they are obligated in Ma'aser, just like grains and olives, from the Pasuk mentioned in our Gemara. What is the source for all of these amounts that are specific to each fruit as stated in the first chapter of Ma'aseros regarding figs, grapes, pomegranates, and more that are discussed there?

Question #2 (cont.): If not for grapes, I would not have a question on the rest of these various fruits, as they are not obligated in Ma'aseros according to Torah law. However, one is obligated to take Ma'aseros from grapes according to Torah law, as the Pasuk says, "grapes and olives."

Answer: It appears that all of those amounts (stated in Ma'aseros) are when these fruits have grown one third. It does not merely say, "when it reaches one third of its growth" as it states regarding grains and olives because regarding all of them it is possible to give an external sign indicating it has reached one third of its growth, as opposed to grains and olives where there is no clear external sign that it is one third grown.

Proof: This is also implied in the Yerushalmi. Regarding fenugreek being obligated in Ma'aser when it grows, Rebbi Zeira derives that since the Pasuk says, "You should take Ma'aser from the Tevuah of your seed etc." it implies this refers to anything that is planted and it will grow, as opposed to things that have not grown one third that will not grow if planted. Rebbi Chanina says in the name of Rebbi that liquids that come out of olives and grapes that have not grown one third of their growth do not cause items to be able to become impure.

Question: How can we derive an obligation of Ma'aser from Shemitah? Regarding Shemitah, the status of all trees is regarding when they blossom. Grapes are included in this, as stated later that the Rabbanan say that the status of trees is established when they blossom, as opposed to the status of vegetables which is established when they are harvested, and the status of grains and olives that are established when they reach one third of their growth. Even so, regarding being obligated in Ma'aser they should all have the same amount stated in Ma'aseros (1:3)!

Answer: It is possible to answer that regarding all of them it is understandable as they are only fit to be used once they have grown their specific amount. However, grains and olives are fit to be used before they are one third grown. This is as the Gemara in Shabbos (80b) says that Anfikanon is olive oil from olives that are not even one third grown. This oil removes hairs and causes skin to be healthy. We similarly say in Pesachim (42b) that Amilan Shel Tabachim is bread from grain that is not even one third grown.

Answer (cont.): For this reason it is understandable why the question, "how do we know that the status is dependent on when they grown one third of their growth" is specifically regarding these things. This is because they were fit to be used beforehand.

Answer (cont.): He brought a proof from Shemitah, showing that even regarding Shemitah the status is determined when it grows one third. Certainly this is the case regarding when Ma'aser needs to be taken, as other trees whose status is determined regarding Shemitah only after they blossom are not obligated to have Ma'aser taken until they reach their specific amount of growth stated regarding each one.

Question: This is difficult. Earlier (9a), we derived from "b'Charish uvi'Katzir Tishbos" that this is referring to the grain grown in Shemitah that ends up being harvested after Shemitah. Rashi explains that this refers to grain that grew one third of its growth during Shemitah, and that one should apply the laws of Shemitah to it even though it is harvested in the eighth year. (Why do we need both the derivation of "Mikeitz etc." quoted in our Gemara and the derivation from "b'Charish etc.?")

Answer: If this would be the source, I would think that applying the custom of Shemitah in the eighth year refers to them having the holiness of Shemitah, meaning that one cannot do business with them, they are obligated to be destroyed at a certain time, and other similar laws of Shemitah produce.

Answer (cont.): However, I would not have thought that it would be forbidden to plow, harvest, and trim that produce. This is because the prohibition against working the land on Shemitah seemingly only applies during the year of Shemitah, and once Shemitah is finished it should not longer apply even if done for produce that has holiness of Shemitah. This is why that Pasuk is also necessary.

Observation: It is now understandable why we learn from "b'Charish" that one must add onto Shemitah. Otherwise, what laws are there to add regarding fruit that grew during Shemitah and is now forbidden in the eighth year?