How do you know that the “fruit of the hadar tree” mentioned in the Torah is an etrog? The gemara brings some answers. Why is an etrog of orla (fruits from the first three years of a tree) prohibited? Is it because it cannot be eaten or because it has no monetary value, meaning it is not considered the property of the owner (since it is prohibited to benefit from it)? All agree that it needs to be eaten but there is a debate regarding whether or not it also needs to be the financial property of the owner. The case where they would disagree is regarding the second tithe that is permissible to eat in Jerusalem, but there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis as to whether it is considered the property of God (R. Meir) or the property of its owner (rabbis). There are a few other laws that require it be considered the financial property of the owner and according to Rabbi Meir one would not be able to fulfill his mitzva of eating matza with second tithe produce and also would not be obligated to separate challa from a dough made from second tithe flour. From where are these laws derived? The gemara goes on to explain the reason for the other disqualifications for etrog mentioned in the mishna – from impure truma, pure truma, demai according to Beit Shamai, and second tithes in Jerusalem.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Sukkah 35
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר״, עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אֶתְרוֹג.
GEMARA: The Sages taught that the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree,” meaning, a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. What tree is that? You must say it is the etrog tree.
וְאֵימָא פִּלְפְּלִין; כִּדְתַנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּנְטַעְתֶּם כׇּל עֵץ״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא עֵץ מַאֲכָל? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֵץ מַאֲכָל״, עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה פִּלְפְּלִין. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַפִּלְפְּלִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה. וְאֵין אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲסֵרָה כְּלוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּ״.
The Gemara asks: And say that it is referring to the pepper tree, since the taste of its trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla” (Leviticus 19:23). Rabbi Meir would say that by inference from that which is stated “and plant any tree,” don’t I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? It is to include a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. And which tree is this? You must say this is the pepper tree. This comes to teach you that the peppers, and even its trunk, are edible, and therefore the tree is obligated in the prohibition of orla. And Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing” (Deuteronomy 8:9). From where, then, is it derived that the Torah commands the taking of an etrog as one of the four species? Perhaps the verse is referring to peppers.
הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נִנְקוֹט חֲדָא — לָא מִינַּכְרָא לְקִיחָתַהּ. נִנְקוֹט תְּרֵי אוֹ תְּלָתָא — (אֶחָד) אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֵּירוֹת, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the four species, it is clear that the Torah is not referring to peppers, due to the fact that it is not possible to utilize peppers for this purpose. How shall we proceed? If we take one pepper, its taking is not noticeable due to its small size. If we take two or three peppers, the Torah said one fruit and not two or three fruits. Therefore, it is impossible. The verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” cannot be referring to peppers.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״הַדִּיר״. מָה דִּיר זֶה יֵשׁ בּוֹ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִים וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — הָכִי נָמֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִים וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. אַטּוּ שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת לֵית בְּהוּ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין?! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁבָּאִין קְטַנִּים, עֲדַיִין גְּדוֹלִים קַיָּימִים.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Do not read the verse as it is written, hadar, meaning beautiful, but rather read it hadir, meaning the sheep pen. And it means, just as in this pen there are large and small sheep, unblemished and blemished sheep, so too, this tree has large and small fruits, flawless and blemished fruits. The Gemara wonders: Is that to say that among other fruits there are not large and small fruits, flawless and blemished fruits? How does this description identify the etrog specifically? Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: Just as in a pen, there are both large and small sheep together, so too, on an etrog tree, when the small ones come into being, the large ones still exist on the tree, which is not the case with other fruit trees.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״הַדָּר״ — דָּבָר שֶׁדָּר בְּאִילָנוֹ מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״אִידוֹר״, שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְווֹנִי קוֹרִין לְמַיִם אִידוֹר, וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁגָּדֵל עַל כׇּל מַיִם — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אֶתְרוֹג.
Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read it hadar, but rather read it haddar, meaning one that dwells, referring to an item that dwells on its tree from year to year. Ben Azzai says: Do not read it hadar, but rather read it idur, as in the Greek language one calls water idur. And which is the fruit that grows on the basis of all water sources, and not exclusively through irrigation or rainwater? You must say it is an etrog.
שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת — פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלִשְׂרֵפָה קָאֵי — כַּתּוֹתֵי מְיכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ.
The mishna continues: An etrog from a tree worshipped as idolatry or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Since the etrog is fated for burning, its requisite measure was crushed. Although it has not yet been burned, its legal status is that of ashes.
וְשֶׁל עׇרְלָה פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי אַסִּי. חַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, וְחַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן.
The mishna continues: An etrog of orla is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin and Rabbi Asi disagree about this matter. One said: It is unfit because there is no permission to eat orla. Anything that may not be eaten is not one’s property, and it is therefore unfit for use in this mitzva. And one said: It is unfit because it has no monetary value. Since it is prohibited to benefit from orla, it has no value, and one cannot own an item that has no value. Therefore, it does not fulfill the requirement of taking an etrog from one’s own property.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ מַאן דְּבָעֵי הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה לָא בָּעֵי דִּין מָמוֹן, וּמַאן דְּבָעֵי דִּין מָמוֹן לָא בָּעֵי הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה. תְּנַן: שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה — פְּסוּלָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — אַמַּאי? הֲרֵי מַסִּיקָהּ תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילוֹ!
The Gemara asserts that it may enter one’s mind to say: The one who requires permission to eat the etrog to render it fit does not require that it have monetary value, and the one who requires that it have monetary value does not require permission to eat it. On that basis, the Gemara raises a difficulty from what we learned in the mishna: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. Granted, according to the one who says that an etrog of orla is unfit because there is no permission to eat it, it works out well that an etrog of impure teruma is unfit, as it too may not be eaten. However, according to the one who says that it is unfit because it has no monetary value, why is the etrog of impure teruma unfit? Although eating it is prohibited, a priest burns it as fuel under his cooked food. Since one may benefit from it, impure teruma has monetary value.
אֶלָּא: בְּהֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָעֵינַן, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדִין מָמוֹן. מָר סָבַר: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה בָּעֵינַן, דִּין מָמוֹן לָא בָּעֵינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: דִּין מָמוֹן נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
Rather, contrary to the previous assumption, with regard to permission to eat it, everyone agrees that we require that it be permitted to eat the etrog. When they disagree is with regard to monetary value. One Sage holds: We require permission to eat it, but we do not require that it have monetary value. And one Sage holds: We also require that it have monetary value. The Gemara asks: If so, according to this understanding, what is the practical halakhic difference between them?
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא.
There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha of an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the legal status of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem is that of consecrated property. Although its owner has the right to eat it, just as he may eat from offerings that he sacrifices, it is the property of God, and he has no monetary rights to the produce. According to the one who said: An etrog of orla is unfit because there is no permission to eat it, there is permission to eat second tithe; therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, a second-tithe etrog in Jerusalem is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. And according to the one who said: An etrog of orla is unfit because it has no monetary value, second tithe in Jerusalem is consecrated property of God and has no monetary value to its owner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, it is not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.
תִּסְתַּיַּים דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. תִּסְתַּיַּים.
In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the amora’im, the Gemara suggests: Conclude that Rabbi Asi is the one who said that the reason is because there is no monetary value, as Rabbi Asi said: With an etrog of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the Festival. That is precisely the manner in which the dispute with regard to the need for the etrog to have monetary value is presented above. The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Asi is the one who holds that the etrog must have monetary value as well.
גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. מַצָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה.
§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Asi said: With an etrog of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the Festival. With matza of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Passover because it is not his. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover. Similarly, according to Rabbi Meir, dough of second tithe is exempt from the obligation of separating ḥalla. According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla. In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: בִּשְׁלָמָא עִיסָּה, כְּתִיב: ״רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶתְרוֹג נָמֵי — כְּתִיב: ״לָכֶם״, מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם. אֶלָּא מַצָּה, מִי כְּתִיב ״מַצַּתְכֶם״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא: אָתְיָא ״לֶחֶם״ ״לֶחֶם״. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted, with regard to dough, it is written: “The first of your dough, ḥalla you shall offer as a gift” (Numbers 15:20). “Your dough” indicates that one is obligated to separate ḥalla only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the etrog too it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves,” indicating that it must be from your own property. However, with regard to matza, why does he not fulfill his obligation with second tithe? Is it written: Your matza? Rabba bar Shmuel said, and some say it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between bread written with regard to matza and bread written with regard to ḥalla. It is written here, with regard to matza: “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to ḥalla:
״וְהָיָה בַּאֲכׇלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ״. מָה לְהַלָּן — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף כָּאן — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.
“And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, with regard to ḥalla, one is obligated only if the dough is from yours and not from second tithe, here too, with regard to matza, one fulfills his obligation only if it is from yours and not from second tithe.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ? הִיא הִיא!
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports the statement of Rabbi Asi: Dough of the second tithe is exempt from ḥalla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla. The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara’s suggestion. Let us say it supports his opinion. The baraita is not similar to the statement of Rav Asi; it is precisely the statement itself.
אֶלָּא: מִדִּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי — בְּהָא נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: שָׁאנֵי עִיסָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי.
Rather, this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that from the fact that they disagree with regard to this case of ḥalla, they disagree with regard to that case of matza as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: “Your dough…your dough” (Numbers 15:20–21) twice. Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla; however, with regard to matza, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one fulfills his obligation, even in the case of second tithe in Jerusalem, according to Rabbi Meir. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here in support of Rav Asi’s statement.
שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה פְּסוּלָה. דְּלֵית בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה.
§ The mishna continues: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. The reason is, as explained above, that there is no permission to eat it.
וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל. פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ.
The mishna stated: And with regard to an etrog of pure teruma, one should not take it ab initio. However, if he did, it is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed about this. Why may one not take it ab initio? One of them said: It is because one renders it susceptible to impurity. All vegetation cannot become ritually impure, even if it came into contact with a source of impurity, unless it was moistened by one of seven liquids (see Leviticus 11:37–38). However, once one touches the etrog with wet hands, which are wet because he removed the other three species from the water in which they were kept to preserve their freshness, he renders the etrog susceptible to impurity. The Sages prohibited taking an etrog of teruma, lest it become impure, as it is prohibited to impurify teruma. And one said: It is because he damages it. By handling the etrog, the peel is rendered disgusting, and it is prohibited to damage teruma.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם חוּץ מִקְּלִיפָּתָהּ חִיצוֹנָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ — אִיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ — לֵיכָּא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one accorded the entire etrog the status of teruma, to the exclusion of the peel, whose status remains non-sacred. According to the one who said: Because one renders it susceptible to impurity, there is a prohibition, as failure to sanctify the peel as teruma does not prevent the fruit from becoming susceptible to impurity. However, according to the one who said: Because he damages the teruma, there is no prohibition, as the peel that might be damaged was never teruma.
וְאִם נָטַל כְּשֵׁרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן.
The mishna continues: And if he took an etrog of teruma, it is fit, and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because there is no permission to eat the etrog, there is permission to eat it. According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because it has no monetary value, it has monetary value.
וְשֶׁל דְּמַאי. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל — כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי ״לָכֶם״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.
§ The mishna cites a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to an etrog of demai. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Hillel, who deem it fit? It is prohibited to eat demai, due to the concern that it is actually untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Because, if one wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless, and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. Now too, even though he did not declare it ownerless, it is considered to meet the criterion of “and you shall take for yourselves.” As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai, and one may feed soldiers [akhsanya] whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai.
וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, עָנִי לָא אָכֵיל דְּמַאי, דִּתְנַן: (אֵין) מַאֲכִילִין הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי.
The Gemara asks: And why, then, do Beit Shammai deem it unfit? The Gemara answers: A pauper may not eat demai, as we learned in a mishna: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. On that basis, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to an etrog of demai is clear.
שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ — הֲרֵי מַכְשִׁירָהּ, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ — הֲרֵי מַפְסִידָה.
§ The mishna continues: With regard to an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it, ab initio. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that an etrog of pure teruma is unfit because one renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, here too, he renders it susceptible. According to the one who says it is unfit because one damages the peel, here too, he damages the peel.
וְאִם נָטַל — כְּשֵׁרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — הָא מַנִּי רַבָּנַן הִיא.
The mishna continues: And if one took an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, it is fit. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because there is no permission to eat the etrog, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, agrees that one fulfills his obligation, because in Jerusalem one may eat second tithe. However, according to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because it has no monetary value, in accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not consider second tithe the property of God; it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — כָּשֵׁר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְנוּמָּר, וּפָסוּל.
§ The mishna continues: If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog, it is unfit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the blemishes are concentrated in one place; however, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, it is fit. Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: If the blemishes are distributed in two or three places, it is as if the etrog were speckled with different colors in different places; it lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.
אֶלָּא: אִי אִתְּמַר אַסֵּיפָא אִתְּמַר. עַל מִיעוּטוֹ — כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, וְהַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְנוּמָּר, וּפָסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: וְעַל חוֹטְמוֹ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ נָמֵי פָּסוּל.
Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause of the mishna: If boil-like blemishes arose only on its minority, it is fit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if the blemishes are concentrated in one place. However, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, even if their total remains a minority, it is as if the etrog were speckled, and it is unfit. Rava said: If there is a blemish on its upper, blossom end, which is clearly visible and comprises the essence of the beauty of the etrog, even if the blemish is of any size, the etrog is unfit.
נִטְּלָה פִּטְמָתוֹ. תָּנָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: נִטְּלָה בּוּכְנָתוֹ.
§ The mishna continues: If its pitam was removed, it is unfit. Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar taught a baraita: This means if its pestle-like protuberance at its upper end was removed.
נִקְלַף. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי אֶתְרוֹגָא דְּאַגְלֵיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: נִקְלַף — פָּסוּל! לָא קַשְׁיָא,
The mishna continues: An etrog that was peeled is unfit. Rava said: This etrog that was peeled like a red date so that only its thin, outer peel is removed but the rest remains intact, is fit. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: If the etrog was peeled it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Bronx, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Sukkah 35
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר״, עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אֶתְרוֹג.
GEMARA: The Sages taught that the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree,” meaning, a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. What tree is that? You must say it is the etrog tree.
וְאֵימָא פִּלְפְּלִין; כִּדְתַנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּנְטַעְתֶּם כׇּל עֵץ״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא עֵץ מַאֲכָל? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֵץ מַאֲכָל״, עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה פִּלְפְּלִין. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַפִּלְפְּלִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה. וְאֵין אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲסֵרָה כְּלוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּ״.
The Gemara asks: And say that it is referring to the pepper tree, since the taste of its trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla” (Leviticus 19:23). Rabbi Meir would say that by inference from that which is stated “and plant any tree,” don’t I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? It is to include a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. And which tree is this? You must say this is the pepper tree. This comes to teach you that the peppers, and even its trunk, are edible, and therefore the tree is obligated in the prohibition of orla. And Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing” (Deuteronomy 8:9). From where, then, is it derived that the Torah commands the taking of an etrog as one of the four species? Perhaps the verse is referring to peppers.
הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נִנְקוֹט חֲדָא — לָא מִינַּכְרָא לְקִיחָתַהּ. נִנְקוֹט תְּרֵי אוֹ תְּלָתָא — (אֶחָד) אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֵּירוֹת, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the four species, it is clear that the Torah is not referring to peppers, due to the fact that it is not possible to utilize peppers for this purpose. How shall we proceed? If we take one pepper, its taking is not noticeable due to its small size. If we take two or three peppers, the Torah said one fruit and not two or three fruits. Therefore, it is impossible. The verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” cannot be referring to peppers.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״הַדִּיר״. מָה דִּיר זֶה יֵשׁ בּוֹ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִים וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — הָכִי נָמֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִים וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. אַטּוּ שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת לֵית בְּהוּ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין?! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁבָּאִין קְטַנִּים, עֲדַיִין גְּדוֹלִים קַיָּימִים.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Do not read the verse as it is written, hadar, meaning beautiful, but rather read it hadir, meaning the sheep pen. And it means, just as in this pen there are large and small sheep, unblemished and blemished sheep, so too, this tree has large and small fruits, flawless and blemished fruits. The Gemara wonders: Is that to say that among other fruits there are not large and small fruits, flawless and blemished fruits? How does this description identify the etrog specifically? Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying: Just as in a pen, there are both large and small sheep together, so too, on an etrog tree, when the small ones come into being, the large ones still exist on the tree, which is not the case with other fruit trees.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״הַדָּר״ — דָּבָר שֶׁדָּר בְּאִילָנוֹ מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״אִידוֹר״, שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְווֹנִי קוֹרִין לְמַיִם אִידוֹר, וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁגָּדֵל עַל כׇּל מַיִם — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אֶתְרוֹג.
Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read it hadar, but rather read it haddar, meaning one that dwells, referring to an item that dwells on its tree from year to year. Ben Azzai says: Do not read it hadar, but rather read it idur, as in the Greek language one calls water idur. And which is the fruit that grows on the basis of all water sources, and not exclusively through irrigation or rainwater? You must say it is an etrog.
שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת — פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלִשְׂרֵפָה קָאֵי — כַּתּוֹתֵי מְיכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ.
The mishna continues: An etrog from a tree worshipped as idolatry or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Since the etrog is fated for burning, its requisite measure was crushed. Although it has not yet been burned, its legal status is that of ashes.
וְשֶׁל עׇרְלָה פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי אַסִּי. חַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, וְחַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן.
The mishna continues: An etrog of orla is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin and Rabbi Asi disagree about this matter. One said: It is unfit because there is no permission to eat orla. Anything that may not be eaten is not one’s property, and it is therefore unfit for use in this mitzva. And one said: It is unfit because it has no monetary value. Since it is prohibited to benefit from orla, it has no value, and one cannot own an item that has no value. Therefore, it does not fulfill the requirement of taking an etrog from one’s own property.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ מַאן דְּבָעֵי הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה לָא בָּעֵי דִּין מָמוֹן, וּמַאן דְּבָעֵי דִּין מָמוֹן לָא בָּעֵי הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה. תְּנַן: שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה — פְּסוּלָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — אַמַּאי? הֲרֵי מַסִּיקָהּ תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילוֹ!
The Gemara asserts that it may enter one’s mind to say: The one who requires permission to eat the etrog to render it fit does not require that it have monetary value, and the one who requires that it have monetary value does not require permission to eat it. On that basis, the Gemara raises a difficulty from what we learned in the mishna: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. Granted, according to the one who says that an etrog of orla is unfit because there is no permission to eat it, it works out well that an etrog of impure teruma is unfit, as it too may not be eaten. However, according to the one who says that it is unfit because it has no monetary value, why is the etrog of impure teruma unfit? Although eating it is prohibited, a priest burns it as fuel under his cooked food. Since one may benefit from it, impure teruma has monetary value.
אֶלָּא: בְּהֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָעֵינַן, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדִין מָמוֹן. מָר סָבַר: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה בָּעֵינַן, דִּין מָמוֹן לָא בָּעֵינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: דִּין מָמוֹן נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?
Rather, contrary to the previous assumption, with regard to permission to eat it, everyone agrees that we require that it be permitted to eat the etrog. When they disagree is with regard to monetary value. One Sage holds: We require permission to eat it, but we do not require that it have monetary value. And one Sage holds: We also require that it have monetary value. The Gemara asks: If so, according to this understanding, what is the practical halakhic difference between them?
אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא.
There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha of an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the legal status of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem is that of consecrated property. Although its owner has the right to eat it, just as he may eat from offerings that he sacrifices, it is the property of God, and he has no monetary rights to the produce. According to the one who said: An etrog of orla is unfit because there is no permission to eat it, there is permission to eat second tithe; therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, a second-tithe etrog in Jerusalem is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. And according to the one who said: An etrog of orla is unfit because it has no monetary value, second tithe in Jerusalem is consecrated property of God and has no monetary value to its owner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, it is not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.
תִּסְתַּיַּים דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. תִּסְתַּיַּים.
In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the amora’im, the Gemara suggests: Conclude that Rabbi Asi is the one who said that the reason is because there is no monetary value, as Rabbi Asi said: With an etrog of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the Festival. That is precisely the manner in which the dispute with regard to the need for the etrog to have monetary value is presented above. The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude that Rabbi Asi is the one who holds that the etrog must have monetary value as well.
גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. מַצָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה.
§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Asi said: With an etrog of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the Festival. With matza of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Passover because it is not his. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover. Similarly, according to Rabbi Meir, dough of second tithe is exempt from the obligation of separating ḥalla. According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla. In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: בִּשְׁלָמָא עִיסָּה, כְּתִיב: ״רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶתְרוֹג נָמֵי — כְּתִיב: ״לָכֶם״, מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם. אֶלָּא מַצָּה, מִי כְּתִיב ״מַצַּתְכֶם״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא: אָתְיָא ״לֶחֶם״ ״לֶחֶם״. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם
Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted, with regard to dough, it is written: “The first of your dough, ḥalla you shall offer as a gift” (Numbers 15:20). “Your dough” indicates that one is obligated to separate ḥalla only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the etrog too it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves,” indicating that it must be from your own property. However, with regard to matza, why does he not fulfill his obligation with second tithe? Is it written: Your matza? Rabba bar Shmuel said, and some say it was Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya who said: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between bread written with regard to matza and bread written with regard to ḥalla. It is written here, with regard to matza: “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to ḥalla:
״וְהָיָה בַּאֲכׇלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ״. מָה לְהַלָּן — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף כָּאן — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.
“And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, with regard to ḥalla, one is obligated only if the dough is from yours and not from second tithe, here too, with regard to matza, one fulfills his obligation only if it is from yours and not from second tithe.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ? הִיא הִיא!
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports the statement of Rabbi Asi: Dough of the second tithe is exempt from ḥalla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla. The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara’s suggestion. Let us say it supports his opinion. The baraita is not similar to the statement of Rav Asi; it is precisely the statement itself.
אֶלָּא: מִדִּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי — בְּהָא נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: שָׁאנֵי עִיסָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי.
Rather, this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that from the fact that they disagree with regard to this case of ḥalla, they disagree with regard to that case of matza as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: “Your dough…your dough” (Numbers 15:20–21) twice. Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla; however, with regard to matza, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one fulfills his obligation, even in the case of second tithe in Jerusalem, according to Rabbi Meir. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here in support of Rav Asi’s statement.
שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה פְּסוּלָה. דְּלֵית בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה.
§ The mishna continues: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. The reason is, as explained above, that there is no permission to eat it.
וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל. פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ.
The mishna stated: And with regard to an etrog of pure teruma, one should not take it ab initio. However, if he did, it is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed about this. Why may one not take it ab initio? One of them said: It is because one renders it susceptible to impurity. All vegetation cannot become ritually impure, even if it came into contact with a source of impurity, unless it was moistened by one of seven liquids (see Leviticus 11:37–38). However, once one touches the etrog with wet hands, which are wet because he removed the other three species from the water in which they were kept to preserve their freshness, he renders the etrog susceptible to impurity. The Sages prohibited taking an etrog of teruma, lest it become impure, as it is prohibited to impurify teruma. And one said: It is because he damages it. By handling the etrog, the peel is rendered disgusting, and it is prohibited to damage teruma.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם חוּץ מִקְּלִיפָּתָהּ חִיצוֹנָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ — אִיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ — לֵיכָּא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one accorded the entire etrog the status of teruma, to the exclusion of the peel, whose status remains non-sacred. According to the one who said: Because one renders it susceptible to impurity, there is a prohibition, as failure to sanctify the peel as teruma does not prevent the fruit from becoming susceptible to impurity. However, according to the one who said: Because he damages the teruma, there is no prohibition, as the peel that might be damaged was never teruma.
וְאִם נָטַל כְּשֵׁרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן.
The mishna continues: And if he took an etrog of teruma, it is fit, and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because there is no permission to eat the etrog, there is permission to eat it. According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because it has no monetary value, it has monetary value.
וְשֶׁל דְּמַאי. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל — כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי ״לָכֶם״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.
§ The mishna cites a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to an etrog of demai. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Hillel, who deem it fit? It is prohibited to eat demai, due to the concern that it is actually untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Because, if one wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless, and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. Now too, even though he did not declare it ownerless, it is considered to meet the criterion of “and you shall take for yourselves.” As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai, and one may feed soldiers [akhsanya] whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai.
וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, עָנִי לָא אָכֵיל דְּמַאי, דִּתְנַן: (אֵין) מַאֲכִילִין הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי.
The Gemara asks: And why, then, do Beit Shammai deem it unfit? The Gemara answers: A pauper may not eat demai, as we learned in a mishna: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. On that basis, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to an etrog of demai is clear.
שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ — הֲרֵי מַכְשִׁירָהּ, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ — הֲרֵי מַפְסִידָה.
§ The mishna continues: With regard to an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it, ab initio. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that an etrog of pure teruma is unfit because one renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, here too, he renders it susceptible. According to the one who says it is unfit because one damages the peel, here too, he damages the peel.
וְאִם נָטַל — כְּשֵׁרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — הָא מַנִּי רַבָּנַן הִיא.
The mishna continues: And if one took an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, it is fit. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because there is no permission to eat the etrog, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, agrees that one fulfills his obligation, because in Jerusalem one may eat second tithe. However, according to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because it has no monetary value, in accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not consider second tithe the property of God; it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — כָּשֵׁר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְנוּמָּר, וּפָסוּל.
§ The mishna continues: If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog, it is unfit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the blemishes are concentrated in one place; however, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, it is fit. Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: If the blemishes are distributed in two or three places, it is as if the etrog were speckled with different colors in different places; it lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.
אֶלָּא: אִי אִתְּמַר אַסֵּיפָא אִתְּמַר. עַל מִיעוּטוֹ — כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, וְהַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְנוּמָּר, וּפָסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: וְעַל חוֹטְמוֹ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ נָמֵי פָּסוּל.
Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause of the mishna: If boil-like blemishes arose only on its minority, it is fit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if the blemishes are concentrated in one place. However, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, even if their total remains a minority, it is as if the etrog were speckled, and it is unfit. Rava said: If there is a blemish on its upper, blossom end, which is clearly visible and comprises the essence of the beauty of the etrog, even if the blemish is of any size, the etrog is unfit.
נִטְּלָה פִּטְמָתוֹ. תָּנָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: נִטְּלָה בּוּכְנָתוֹ.
§ The mishna continues: If its pitam was removed, it is unfit. Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar taught a baraita: This means if its pestle-like protuberance at its upper end was removed.
נִקְלַף. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי אֶתְרוֹגָא דְּאַגְלֵיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: נִקְלַף — פָּסוּל! לָא קַשְׁיָא,
The mishna continues: An etrog that was peeled is unfit. Rava said: This etrog that was peeled like a red date so that only its thin, outer peel is removed but the rest remains intact, is fit. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: If the etrog was peeled it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;
