וּפֵירוֹת נְטִיעָה זוֹ אֲסוּרִין עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בִּשְׁבָט, אִם לְעׇרְלָה — עׇרְלָה, וְאִם לִרְבָעִי — רְבָעִי. And if the planting, layering, or grafting took place more than thirty days before Rosh HaShana, the fruit of this planting is prohibited until the fifteenth of Shevat of the fourth year since the tree’s planting, even though the three years were already completed the previous Rosh HaShana. This principle applies both for orla during the year of orla, when it is prohibited to eat the fruit, and for fourth-year produce during the year of fourth-year produce, which must be eaten in Jerusalem or redeemed before it is eaten outside Jerusalem.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּמָטוּ בָּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִית וּבַשָּׁנָה הַחֲמִישִׁית״. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that the prohibitions of orla and fourth-year produce extend past Tishrei until the fifteenth of Shevat? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, and some determined that it was stated in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The verse states: “Three years shall it be as prohibited to you; it shall not be eaten. And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be sacred for praise-giving to the Lord. And in the fifth year shall you eat of its fruit, that it may yield to you its increase; I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:23–25).
פְּעָמִים שֶׁבָּרְבִיעִית וַעֲדַיִין אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם עׇרְלָה, וּפְעָמִים שֶׁבַּחֲמִישִׁית וַעֲדַיִין אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם רְבָעִי. The baraita explains: The repetition of the word “and,” indicated by the conjunctive vav that joins these verses, teaches that there are times that the tree is already in its fourth year and yet the fruit is forbidden as orla, from the verses “three years…and in the fourth year”; and there are times that the tree is already in its fifth year and yet the fruit is forbidden as fourth-year produce, from the verses “in the fourth year…and in the fifth year.”
לֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָא אָמַר: יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה. דְּתַנְיָא: פַּר הָאָמוּר בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, didn’t Rabbi Meir say that even one day in a year is considered a year? As it is taught in a baraita: The term bullock [par] mentioned in the Torah without specification is referring to a bullock that is twenty-four months and one day old, as although it is known by tradition that a bullock is three years old, once it is one day into its third year, it is already considered three years old; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חֹדֶשׁ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עֵגֶל בַּתּוֹרָה סְתָם — בֶּן שָׁנָה, ״בֶּן בָּקָר״ — בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּר״ — בֶּן שָׁלֹשׁ. The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar says: The term bullock is referring to an animal that is twenty-four months and thirty days old. As Rabbi Meir would say: Wherever a calf [egel] is stated in the Torah without specification, the reference is to a calf that is one year old; a young ox [ben bakar] is referring to a cow that is two years old; and a bullock is referring to a cow that is three years old. Since the baraita dealing with planting requires that the tree be planted thirty days before Rosh HaShana, rather than one day, it would seem that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר יוֹם אֶחָד בַּשָּׁנָה חָשׁוּב שָׁנָה — בְּסוֹף שָׁנָה, אֲבָל בִּתְחִלַּת שָׁנָה — לָא. The Gemara rejects this argument: Even if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it can be explained as follows. When Rabbi Meir said that one day in a year is considered a full year, this is only when the day is at the end of the year; since the count of a new year is about to begin, the day is considered like a whole year. But if the day is at the beginning of the year, that one day is not considered like a whole year.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא? וּמָה נִדָּה, שֶׁאֵין תְּחִילַּת הַיּוֹם עוֹלָה לָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ — סוֹף הַיּוֹם עוֹלֶה לָהּ בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ. שָׁנָה, שֶׁיּוֹם אֶחָד עוֹלֶה לָהּ בְּסוֹפָהּ — Against this claim Rava said: But can we not invoke an a fortiori argument to prove just the opposite? Whereas in the case of a menstruating woman, where the beginning of the day is not counted as a full day at the end of her seven-day period of ritual impurity and instead she must wait until the end of the seventh day and immerse in a ritual bath only in the evening, yet nevertheless the end of the day is counted as a full day at the beginning of her ritually impure period, since if she experienced bleeding shortly before sunset that day is considered as the first day of her seven-day period of impurity; if so, in the case of a year, where one day is counted as a full year at the end of the year,