Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 11, 2021 | 讙壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband Rabbi Hayim Herring.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sukkah 35

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 鈥 from impure truma, pure truma, demai according to Beit Shamai, and second tithes in Jerusalem.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讬 注抓 讛讚专 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讗转专讜讙

GEMARA: The Sages taught that the verse states: 鈥淔ruit of a beautiful tree,鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 驻诇驻诇讬谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讟注转诐 讻诇 注抓 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 注抓 诪讗讻诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注抓 诪讗讻诇 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 驻诇驻诇讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞住专讛 讻诇讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讞住专 讻诇 讘讛

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: 鈥淲hen you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). Rabbi Meir would say that by inference from that which is stated 鈥渁nd plant any tree,鈥 don鈥檛 I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎ny tree for food鈥? 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: 鈥淎 land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing鈥 (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.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞谞拽讜讟 讞讚讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诇拽讬讞转讛 谞谞拽讜讟 转专讬 讗讜 转诇转讗 (讗讞讚) 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讬专讜转 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

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 鈥渢he fruit of a beautiful tree鈥 cannot be referring to peppers.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇 转拽专讬 讛讚专 讗诇讗 讛讚讬专 诪讛 讚讬专 讝讛 讬砖 讘讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讟讜 砖讗专 驻讬专讜转 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬谉 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖讘讗讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 注讚讬讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 拽讬讬诪讬诐

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.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讗诇 转拽专讬 讛讚专 讗诇讗 讛讚专 讚讘专 砖讚专 讘讗讬诇谞讜 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇 转拽专讬 讛讚专 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讜专 砖讻谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讬讜讜谞讬 拽讜专讬谉 诇诪讬诐 讗讬讚讜专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讙讚诇 注诇 讻诇 诪讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讗转专讜讙

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.

砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇砖专驻讛 拽讗讬 讻转讜转讬 诪讬讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛

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.

讜砖诇 注专诇讛 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉

The mishna continues: An etrog of orla is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi 岣yya 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 own property.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诇讗 讘注讬 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 转谞谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讛专讬 诪住讬拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讜

The Gemara asserts that it may enter one鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讘讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诪专 住讘专 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗

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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转住转讬讬诐

In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the amora鈥檌m, 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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪爪讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛

搂 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 岣lla. According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of separating 岣lla. In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬住讛 讻转讬讘 专讗砖讬转 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐 讗转专讜讙 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 讗诇讗 诪爪讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪爪转讻诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 讗转讬讗 诇讞诐 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted, with regard to dough, it is written: 鈥淭he first of your dough, 岣lla you shall offer as a gift鈥 (Numbers 15:20). 鈥淵our dough鈥 indicates that one is obligated to separate 岣lla only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the etrog too it is written: 鈥And you shall take for yourselves,鈥 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 岣lla. It is written here, with regard to matza: 鈥淏read of affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to 岣lla:

讜讛讬讛 讘讗讻诇讻诐 诪诇讞诐 讛讗专抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪砖诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 诪注砖专 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪砖诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 诪注砖专

鈥淎nd it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, with regard to 岣lla, 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports the statement of Rabbi Asi: Dough of the second tithe is exempt from 岣lla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to the obligation of separating 岣lla. The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讚讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讬住讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬

Rather, this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that from the fact that they disagree with regard to this case of 岣lla, they disagree with regard to that case of matza as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: 鈥淵our dough鈥our dough鈥 (Numbers 15:20鈥21) twice. Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of 岣lla; however, with regard to matza, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one would be obligated, 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鈥檚 statement.

砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The mishna continues: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. The reason is, as explained above, that there is no permission to eat it.

讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讛

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鈥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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 讞讜抓 诪拽诇讬驻转讛 讞讬爪讜谞讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讛 诇讬讻讗

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.

讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉

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.

讜砖诇 讚诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讻诐 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬

搂 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 鈥渁nd you shall take for yourselves.鈥 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.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注谞讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 (讗讬谉) 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讗讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讗讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讗讬诐 讚诪讗讬

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.

砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 讛专讬 诪讻砖讬专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讛 讛专讬 诪驻住讬讚讛

搂 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.

讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

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.

注诇转讛 讞讝讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪谞讜诪专 讜驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna continues: If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog, it is unfit. Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda: 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗转诪专 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪谞讜诪专 讜驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讜注诇 讞讜讟诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪砖讛讜 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇

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 岣sda 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.

谞讟诇讛 驻讟诪转讜 转谞讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞讟诇讛 讘讜讻谞转讜

搂 The mishna continues: If its pitam was removed, it is unfit. Rabbi Yitzak ben Elazar taught a baraita: This means if its pestle-like protuberance at its upper end was removed.

谞拽诇祝 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讗转专讜讙讗 讚讗讙诇讬讚 讻讗讛讬谞讗 住讜诪拽讗 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 谞拽诇祝 驻住讜诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

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鈥檛 we learn explicitly in the mishna: If the etrog was peeled it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 35 – 41 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 4th species, the Etrog and what makes it valid or invalid. We will...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 35: A Peculiar Fruit

It's the etrog's turn - one that is stolen or dry cannot be used for the 4 species. Plus, the...
lulav replica shalom al yisrael

Who Knows Four?

Ask a Jew today what is THE symbol of the Jewish people and chances are she will say the Magen...

Sukkah 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 35

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讬 注抓 讛讚专 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讗转专讜讙

GEMARA: The Sages taught that the verse states: 鈥淔ruit of a beautiful tree,鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 驻诇驻诇讬谉 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞讟注转诐 讻诇 注抓 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 注抓 诪讗讻诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注抓 诪讗讻诇 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 驻诇驻诇讬谉 诇诇诪讚讱 砖讛驻诇驻诇讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘注专诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞住专讛 讻诇讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讞住专 讻诇 讘讛

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: 鈥淲hen you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as orla鈥 (Leviticus 19:23). Rabbi Meir would say that by inference from that which is stated 鈥渁nd plant any tree,鈥 don鈥檛 I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: 鈥淎ny tree for food鈥? 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: 鈥淎 land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing鈥 (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.

讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞谞拽讜讟 讞讚讗 诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 诇拽讬讞转讛 谞谞拽讜讟 转专讬 讗讜 转诇转讗 (讗讞讚) 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 驻讬专讜转 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

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 鈥渢he fruit of a beautiful tree鈥 cannot be referring to peppers.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇 转拽专讬 讛讚专 讗诇讗 讛讚讬专 诪讛 讚讬专 讝讛 讬砖 讘讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讬砖 讘讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬诐 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讟讜 砖讗专 驻讬专讜转 诇讬转 讘讛讜 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜拽讟谞讬诐 转诪讬诪讬谉 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖讘讗讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 注讚讬讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 拽讬讬诪讬诐

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.

专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讗诇 转拽专讬 讛讚专 讗诇讗 讛讚专 讚讘专 砖讚专 讘讗讬诇谞讜 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇 转拽专讬 讛讚专 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讜专 砖讻谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讬讜讜谞讬 拽讜专讬谉 诇诪讬诐 讗讬讚讜专 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖讙讚诇 注诇 讻诇 诪讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讗转专讜讙

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.

砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇砖专驻讛 拽讗讬 讻转讜转讬 诪讬讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛

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.

讜砖诇 注专诇讛 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉

The mishna continues: An etrog of orla is unfit. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Rabbi 岣yya 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 own property.

拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 讘注讬 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诇讗 讘注讬 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 转谞谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讗诪讗讬 讛专讬 诪住讬拽讛 转讞转 转讘砖讬诇讜

The Gemara asserts that it may enter one鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讘讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诪专 住讘专 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 谞诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

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?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪诪讜谉 讙讘讜讛 讛讜讗

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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 转住转讬讬诐

In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the amora鈥檌m, 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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪爪讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘驻住讞 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛

搂 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 岣lla. According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of separating 岣lla. In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讬住讛 讻转讬讘 专讗砖讬转 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐 讗转专讜讙 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 讗诇讗 诪爪讛 诪讬 讻转讬讘 诪爪转讻诐 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讬讬诪专 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 讗转讬讗 诇讞诐 诇讞诐 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 诇讞诐 注讜谞讬 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted, with regard to dough, it is written: 鈥淭he first of your dough, 岣lla you shall offer as a gift鈥 (Numbers 15:20). 鈥淵our dough鈥 indicates that one is obligated to separate 岣lla only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the etrog too it is written: 鈥And you shall take for yourselves,鈥 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 岣lla. It is written here, with regard to matza: 鈥淏read of affliction鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:3), and it is written there, with regard to 岣lla:

讜讛讬讛 讘讗讻诇讻诐 诪诇讞诐 讛讗专抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪砖诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 诪注砖专 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪砖诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 诪注砖专

鈥淎nd it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, with regard to 岣lla, 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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 注讬住讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘讞诇讛 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports the statement of Rabbi Asi: Dough of the second tithe is exempt from 岣lla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to the obligation of separating 岣lla. The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讚讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讬住讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬

Rather, this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that from the fact that they disagree with regard to this case of 岣lla, they disagree with regard to that case of matza as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: 鈥淵our dough鈥our dough鈥 (Numbers 15:20鈥21) twice. Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of 岣lla; however, with regard to matza, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one would be obligated, 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鈥檚 statement.

砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇讛 讚诇讬转 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The mishna continues: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. The reason is, as explained above, that there is no permission to eat it.

讜砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讛

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鈥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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖拽专讗 注诇讬讛 砖诐 讞讜抓 诪拽诇讬驻转讛 讞讬爪讜谞讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讛 诇讬讻讗

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.

讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讛专讬 讬砖 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉

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.

讜砖诇 讚诪讗讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讘讬转 讛诇诇 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讻诐 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讗讻住谞讬讗 讚诪讗讬

搂 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 鈥渁nd you shall take for yourselves.鈥 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.

讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 注谞讬 诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讚诪讗讬 讚转谞谉 (讗讬谉) 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讗讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转谞讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讗讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛注谞讬讬诐 讚诪讗讬 讜讗转 讛讗讻住谞讗讬诐 讚诪讗讬

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.

砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 砖讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讻砖讬专讛 讛专讬 诪讻砖讬专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪驻住讬讚讛 讛专讬 诪驻住讬讚讛

搂 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.

讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专讛 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讛讬转专 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 讚讬谉 诪诪讜谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

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.

注诇转讛 讞讝讝讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讻砖专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讚专讘讛 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪谞讜诪专 讜驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna continues: If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog, it is unfit. Rav 岣sda 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 岣sda: 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讗住讬驻讗 讗转诪专 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诪谞讜诪专 讜驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讜注诇 讞讜讟诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪砖讛讜 谞诪讬 驻住讜诇

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 岣sda 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.

谞讟诇讛 驻讟诪转讜 转谞讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 谞讟诇讛 讘讜讻谞转讜

搂 The mishna continues: If its pitam was removed, it is unfit. Rabbi Yitzak ben Elazar taught a baraita: This means if its pestle-like protuberance at its upper end was removed.

谞拽诇祝 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 讗转专讜讙讗 讚讗讙诇讬讚 讻讗讛讬谞讗 住讜诪拽讗 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 谞拽诇祝 驻住讜诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

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鈥檛 we learn explicitly in the mishna: If the etrog was peeled it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;

Scroll To Top