Question: This is difficult. He certainly holds more like the Rabbanan than Rebbi Shimon Shezuri, as the Rabbanan who argue on him in the Mishnah in Shevi'is (2:9) hold that we look at the status of a Mitzri bean based on its harvest. It would therefore be more logical for Shmuel to rule like the Rabbanan than Rebbi Shimon Shezuri (see Tosfos earlier 13b, "Achar" who says that harvest and the "finishing of the fruit" is the same stage).

Question (cont.): Even if you will say that the Rabbanan in the Beraisa hold that the status of a Mitzri bean is based on when it takes root and that one cannot merely put the beans from both years in one pile (see 13b, and that Shmuel is coming to exclude the law being like these Rabbanan), Shmuel should still state instead that the law follows the Rabbanan in the Mishnah in Shevi'is (ibid.). This would still be better for Shmuel than saying the law follows Rebbi Shimon Shezuri.

Answer: Shmuel is ruling like Rebbi Shimon Shezuri regarding everything, even rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame seeds. However, he does not agree with Rebbi Shimon Shezuri's reasoning for this ruling.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Shimon's reason is that one may pile up everything in the silo as there is a proper mix of new and old produce (see Bach). Shmuel holds that we do not assume there is a proper mix. Rather, we judge its status by the produce being finished.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that in Menachos (30b) he quotes this regarding the Mitzri bean but not regarding rice, millet, and poppy at all. (It therefore seems it is only regarding a Mitzri bean, not as we have stated.)

Answer: This is not difficult, as it was only quoting the relevant difference regarding the Mitzri bean.

Explanation: This is merely an Asmachta, as the main derivation from the Pasuk is to detail the laws of Sechach, as stated earlier (13a) regarding Sukah. Alternatively, the main derivation is regarding the Torah law of Shemitah.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains in the second chapter of Shevi'is that these are Kufrai onions that do not make seeds.

Explanation: If he planted it for seed, the Mishnah in Shevi'is (2:8) says that their status is similarly (to the list in Mishnah 2:7) when they take root, even if he did not refrain from watering them.

Opinion #1: This Mishnah (Shevi'is 2:9), Rashi explains, is according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili.

Opinion #2: However, the opposite seems correct that it is according to Rebbi Akiva and not Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili.

Proof: This is as the Yerushalmi says: Rebbi Mana says that since he withheld water from them for thirty days before Rosh Hashanah, they are made like "Ba'al." This means that they are no longer like vegetables that grow near a water source, and they are like a field that is only watered through rainwater and therefore takes off Ma'aser from the previous year.

Explanation: This reason is valid for Beis Hillel just as it is valid for Beis Shamai. Rather, he is just stating the first opinion first, that according to Beis Shamai the time of blossoming from the rains is the first of Shevat, and according to Beis Hillel it is the fifteenth of Shevat. Any blossoming beforehand is due to rain that fell before Tishrei.

Implied Question: The status of trees does not follow Tishrei as does the one third of growth regarding produce. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because we derive earlier (10a) that sometimes fruits are still Orlah in their fourth year of growth (which could not occur if we established their years starting from Tishrei).

Explanation: If he would have literally taken two Ma'aseros from it, it would not have been permitted. Rather, the Yerushalmi explains that he took off Ma'aser Sheini and redeemed it, and then gave it out to the poor (to fulfill Ma'aser Ani).

Observation: This Mishnah is according to the opinion that the text should read, "Neta Revai" as argued in Berachos (35b).

Implied Question: Shemitah applies to vegetables as well. (Why, then, is an Esrog specifically like a tree and not a vegetable regarding Shemitah?)

Answer: Rather, the Yerushalmi explains in Bikurim (ch.2) that an Esrog from the sixth year that enters Shemitah (and it is then harvested) is owned by the owner of the field like a tree, as its status is determined by when it blossoms. It is exempt from Ma'aser like a vegetable, as regarding Ma'aser we look at when it is harvested.

Implied Question: It does not say that an Esrog is like a tree regarding Kilayim. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because it is not Kilayim in a vineyard, as opposed to vegetables (that are).

Implied Question: It did not say that regarding its Rosh Hashanah it is Shevat, as is the Rosh Hashanah for all trees. (Why not?)

Answer: This as the Gemara explains that the only laws stated here are when the status of one of them (i.e. trees) depends on when it blossoms, and one of them (vegetables) when it is harvested.

Question: Why don't we say that the status of an Esrog is always determined by when it is harvested? Since it grows because of all water (rainwater and drawn water) like a vegetable, it should be included in the derivation that we explained earlier (14a) is needed to determine the Torah laws of Shemitah (specifically the difference between fruits and vegetables)!

Answer: Since we derive earlier (10a) regarding Orlah that sometimes it is a fourth year fruit and it is still forbidden due to Orlah, it is clear that it cannot be judged as a vegetable (whose year is determined from Tishrei).

Question: Our Gemara implies that the status of vegetables on Shemitah is based on when they are harvested.

Question (cont.): In Shevi'is (9:1), the Mishnah states that all Sefichin are permitted besides those from cabbage. The Rash there explains, based on the Yerushalmi, that the Mishnah is referring to Sefichin of the sixth year that enter the seventh year. He uses this to answer a question from the Gemara in Pesachim (51b) that quotes a Beraisa with the opposite conclusion, namely that all Sefichin are forbidden besides those from cabbage.

Answer: It appears that when we say the status of vegetables is determined by the harvesting, this is only when they have not finished growing in the sixth year. However, if they finished growing in the sixth year they are permitted, both according to Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, since they are like the Saris onions discussed earlier that did not have rain for thirty days before Rosh Hashanah.

Answer (cont.): Even the one who argues there would agree here that according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, since they already finished growing they clearly grew on last years waters, and not those of the coming year. According to Rebbi Akiva as well, since they do not grow on all (kinds of) water they are not like vegetables that grow using all kinds of water. This is as stated in the Yerushalmi, and as we explained earlier regarding the onions that they are like a Beis ha'Ba'al field that only uses rainwater and therefore has its Ma'aser taken based on the previous year.

Answer (cont.): Similarly, Shmuel earlier (13b) said that rice and millet have the status of a vegetable that is determined by when they are harvested. Shmuel also said that the status is determined by the finishing of the produce. This implies that the finishing is the main time its status is determined.

Answer (cont.): [This is understandable because harvesting and finishing are really referring to the same time.] Harvesting is often given as the time the status is determined because people usually harvest when the produce is finished growing. Rice and millet finish growing together but do not finish drying at the same time, as we say that they are harvested in small bunches.

Question: However, there is a difficulty from the Gemara later regarding Esrog, as it says that here we are referring to an Esrog whose fruit blossomed before Tu b'Shevat of the previous year. This implies that Rebbi Chanina (who said this) had a doubt whether we should follow the blossoming of the Esrog as per the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer or the harvesting of the Esrog as per the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. He therefore took both Ma'aseros (Sheini and Ani). This implies that we follow the harvesting even though the fruit had already been finished. This is apparent from the fact that it blossomed before Tu b'Shevat of the previous year, and it was not harvested until the next Shevat.

Answer #1: Perhaps an Esrog is different than other fruits because it normally can stay on a tree for two or three years. As long as it stays on the tree, it keeps growing.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even though it blossoms in Shevat, sometimes it does not finish growing until next Shevat. It is now understandable why Rebbi Yochanan later says (15b) regarding Esrog, "even if it was a Kzayis and it grew to the size of a loaf," as the water of the next year helps it continue to grow.

Implied Question: It does not seem that Rebbi Yochanan literally meant a Kzayis, as Rebbi Yochanan says that its status is determined once it blossoms. (It is not a Kzayis when it first blossoms. What did Rebbi Yochanan mean?)

Answer: Perhaps Rebbi Yochanan does not consider blossoming significant until an Esrog is the size of a Kzayis.

Explanation: This is even if he knows who the Halachah is like and he is stringent for himself.

Implied Question: The Gemara did not want to answer that Rebbi Akiva was unsure who the Halachah is like and he therefore was stringent. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because we can presume that he knew the Halachah was like the opinion of Beis Hillel.