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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 16, 2021 | 讞壮 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 40

The gemara concludes from the previous discussion that a lulav has sanctity of the shmita year, k鈥檇ushat shviit. A difficulty is raised – why should there be a k鈥檇ushat shviit in a lulav if it appears in a braita that leaves of a tree do not have k鈥檇ushat shviit if they are not collected for eating? The answer is that there is a difference between the trees who provide enjoyment after they are destroyed and the lulav whose enjoyment is at the same time as its destruction (same as produce that is eaten). There is controversy over this point about whether trees not collected for eating would have k鈥檇ushat shviit. For what needs can a k鈥檇ushat shviit fruit be used 鈥 how do Tana Kama and Rabbi Yossi disagree on this matter? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan disagree regarding passing on sanctification of shmita produce to other items 鈥 money, other foods, etc. Is it done only by a sale or also by redeeming it (like second tithes)? The gemara brings the reason behind each opinion and also braitot to support each opinion.

砖讘砖注转 诇拽讬讟转讜 注讬砖讜专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗转专讜讙 砖讜讛 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专

It is like a vegetable in that at the time of its picking it is tithed; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. If it was picked in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle, poor man鈥檚 tithe is separated although it ripened in the second year, when the obligation is to separate second tithe and not poor man鈥檚 tithe. Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhic status of the fruit of an etrog tree is like that of a typical fruit tree in every matter. In any case, with regard to ascribing the status of Sabbatical-Year produce to the fruits, it is apparent from the mishna that the status of an etrog of the sixth year that was picked in the seventh year is that of sixth-year produce.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讛注讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讗转专讜讙 讗讞专 诇拽讬讟讛 诇诪注砖专 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 讘讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讬谉 诇砖讘讬注讬转

The Gemara answers: It was the tanna of the mishna that distinguishes between the lulav and the etrog who stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said that Avtolemos, one of the Sages, testified in the name of five Elders: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes. And our Sages were counted in Usha, reached a decision, and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.

砖讘讬注讬转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗转专讜讙 讗讞专 诇拽讬讟讛 诇诪注砖专 讜讗讞专 讞谞讟讛 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 讗转专讜讙 讘转专 诇拽讬讟讛 讘讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讬谉 诇砖讘讬注讬转

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: With regard to the Sabbatical Year, who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of the Sabbatical Year, the discussion of the status of an etrog during the Sabbatical Year is a non sequitur. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes and determined by the time of its ripening with regard to the Sabbatical Year. And our Sages were counted in Usha and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讜诇讘 讘专 砖砖讬转 讛谞讻谞住 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讛讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 拽讚讜砖 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜注爪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转 (讚转谞谉) 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 讜注诇讬 讙驻谞讬诐 砖讙讘讘谉 诇讞讜讘讛 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诇拽讟谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇拽讟谉 诇注爪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the mishna: The reason that a lulav may be purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz during the Sabbatical Year is specifically that it is a lulav of the sixth year that is entering the seventh. This indicates by inference that a lulav of the seventh year is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: Why is it sacred? It is merely wood, and wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves that one piled for storage upon the field, if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year; if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 诇讻诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗讻诇讛 诪讬 砖讛谞讗转讜 讜讘讬注讜专讜 砖讜讛 讬爪讗讜 注爪讬诐 砖讛谞讗转谉 讗讞专 讘讬注讜专谉

The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the reed and vine leaves, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you for food鈥 (Leviticus 25:6). From the juxtaposition of the term: For you, and the term: For food, it is derived: For you is similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide. Wood is excluded, as its benefit is subsequent to its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, it is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 注爪讬诐 讚诪砖讞谉 讚讛谞讗转谉 讜讘讬注讜专谉 砖讜讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 住转诐 注爪讬诐 诇讛住拽讛 讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there wood used to provide heat (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), whose benefit coincides with its consumption? Rava said: Undesignated wood exists for fuel, i.e., charcoal, so its benefit is subsequent to its consumption.

讜注爪讬诐 诇讛住拽讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗 诇诪砖专讛 讜诇讗 诇讻讘讜住讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜住专讬谉

搂 The Gemara notes: The matter of whether kindling wood, whose benefit is subsequent to its consumption, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One may neither transfer Sabbatical-Year produce, e.g., wine, for soaking flax to prepare it for spinning, as the benefit derived from the flax is subsequent to its soaking, when the soaked and spun thread is woven into a garment; nor for laundering with it, as the benefit derived is subsequent to the laundering when one wears the clean clothes. Soaking the flax or laundering the garment in wine is consumption of the wine, as it is no longer potable. Rabbi Yosei says: One may transfer Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪砖专讛 讜诇讗 诇讻讘讜住讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 爪专讻讬讻诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪砖专讛 讜诇讻讘讜住讛 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 讛讛讜讗 诇讻诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗讻诇讛 诪讬 砖讛谞讗转讜 讜讘讬注讜专讜 砖讜讛 讬爪讗讜 诪砖专讛 讜讻讘讜住讛 砖讛谞讗转谉 讗讞专 讘讬注讜专谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of the first tanna? It is as the verse states with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: 鈥淔or food,鈥 from which it is inferred: And not for soaking and not for laundering. What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yosei permitting one to do so? It is as the verse states: 鈥淔or you,鈥 from which it is inferred: For you, for all your needs, and even for soaking and for laundering. The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or you鈥? How does he explain that term? The Gemara answers: From that term 鈥渇or you鈥 it is derived: For you, similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, which excludes soaking and laundering, where the items鈥 benefit is subsequent to their consumption.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗讻诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讜诇讗 诇讻讘讜住讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻诐 讛专讬 诇讻讘讜住讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诇讗讻诇讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻讘讜住讛 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪诇讜讙诪讗

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or food,鈥 indicating that it may not be used for any other purpose? The Gemara answers: He needs that phrase to teach: For food, and not for a remedy [melugma], as it is taught in a baraita: For food and not for a remedy. The baraita continues: Do you say: For food and not for a remedy, or perhaps it is only: For food and not for laundering? When the verse says: 鈥淔or you,鈥 for laundering is already stated as permitted since it includes all one鈥檚 bodily needs. How, then, do I uphold that which the verse states: 鈥淔or food鈥? It is: For food, and not for a remedy. And should one ask: What did you see that led you to include the use of Sabbatical-Year produce for laundering and to exclude the use of Sabbatical-Year produce as a remedy?

诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讻讘讜住讛 砖砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪诇讜讙诪讗 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讜讛 诇讻诇 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yosei could respond: I include laundering, which applies equally to every person, as everyone needs clean clothes, and I exclude a remedy, which does not apply equally to every person; it is only for the ill.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讬诇讜祝 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇注砖讜转 诪诪谞讛 讗驻讬拽讟讜讬讝讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖专讛 讜讻讘讜住讛

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: For food, and not for a remedy; for food, and not for sprinkling wine in one鈥檚 house to provide a pleasant fragrance; for food, and not to make it an emetic [apiktoizin] to induce vomiting? In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, isn鈥檛 there also soaking and laundering that should have been excluded in the baraita, as in their opinion, use of Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes is prohibited?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪转讞诇诇转 讗诇讗 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇

Rabbi Elazar said: Sabbatical-Year produce is deconsecrated only by means of purchase; however, it cannot be deconsecrated through redemption. Merely declaring that the sanctity of that produce is transferred to money or other produce is ineffective. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is deconsecrated both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讛讝讗转 讜讙讜壮 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讜诇讗 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 诪讛 拽讚砖 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇

What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? It is as it is written: 鈥淚n this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell an item to your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 25:14); this indicates that in the Jubilee Year, during which the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are in effect, one deconsecrates the produce by means of purchase and not by means of redemption. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the rationale for his opinion? It is as it is written: 鈥淔or it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12); this indicates that just as one redeems consecrated items both by means of purchase and by means of redemption, so too, Sabbatical-Year produce can be redeemed both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讛 讗讘拽讛 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻讜壮 讗讚诐 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 讜讗转 讻诇讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讛讝讗转 转砖讘讜 讗讬砖 讗诇 讗讞讜讝转讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does he do with this juxtaposition of the Jubilee Year to the verse: 鈥淚f you sell an item鈥? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive a halakha in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: Come and see how severe even the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year is; as the prohibition against commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is not one of the primary prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, and its punishment is harsh. A person who engages in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is ultimately punished with the loss of his wealth to the point that he is forced to sell his movable property and his vessels, as it is stated: 鈥淚n this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell an item to your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 25:14).

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what does he do with this verse from which Rabbi Yo岣nan derived his opinion? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淔or it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12); just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讗住讜专 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛 讜讗住讜专讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara elaborates that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: Sabbatical-Year sanctity takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which the produce is redeemed, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you鈥; just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed and it is prohibited to use the money for non-sacred purposes, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and it is prohibited to use this money for purposes for which Sabbatical-Year produce may not be used.

讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛 讜讬讜爪讗转 诇讞讜诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讛讬讛 讘讛讜讬讬转讛 转讛讗

Or perhaps extend the analogy and derive that just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, and the consecrated item assumes non-sacred status, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and the Sabbatical-Year produce assumes non-sacred status. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be consecrated unto you,鈥 meaning: It shall be as it is. Although the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on the money, the produce remains consecrated as well.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讘砖专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转讘注专讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诇拽讞 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讬爪讗 讘砖专 讜谞讻谞住讜 讚讙讬诐 诇拽讞 讘讚讙讬诐 讬讬谉 讬爪讗讜 讚讙讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 讬讬谉 诇拽讞 讘讬讬谉 砖诪谉 讬爪讗 讬讬谉 讜谞讻谞住 砖诪谉

The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with Sabbatical-Year produce, both this, the produce, and that, the meat, must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. The meat may be eaten only as long as the produce in exchange for which it was purchased may be eaten, i.e., as long as produce of that kind remains in the field. However, if he purchased fish in exchange for the meat, the meat emerges from its consecrated status, and the fish assumes consecrated status. If he then purchased wine in exchange for the fish, the fish emerges from its consecrated status, and the wine assumes consecrated status. If he purchased oil in exchange for the wine, the wine emerges from its consecrated status, and the oil assumes consecrated status.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞讻谞住 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜驻专讬 注爪诪讜 讗住讜专 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇拽讞 诇拽讞 讗诇诪讗 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 诇讗

How so? The last item purchased assumes the consecrated status of produce of the Sabbatical Year, and the produce itself remains consecrated and forbidden and never loses its consecrated status. The Gemara notes: From the fact that the baraita teaches each case using the term: Purchased, purchased, apparently it means that by means of transaction, yes, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect; however, by means of redemption, no, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not take effect.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讞讬讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 砖讞讜讟讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讞讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛谉 注讚专讬诐

The Gemara continues: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon domesticated animals, undomesticated animals,and fowl, whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Upon slaughtered animals, they are deconsecrated; upon animals that are alive, they are not deconsecrated. The reason is that a rabbinic decree was issued lest one raise flocks from them. If one breeds a herd from that consecrated animal, the entire herd would be sacred and the potential for misuse of second-tithe property would be great.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rava said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis

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

alon shvut women

Shmitah in Sukah

Succah, Daf 40 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/byZhynXP9_g
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...

Sukkah 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 40

砖讘砖注转 诇拽讬讟转讜 注讬砖讜专讜 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗转专讜讙 砖讜讛 诇讗讬诇谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专

It is like a vegetable in that at the time of its picking it is tithed; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. If it was picked in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle, poor man鈥檚 tithe is separated although it ripened in the second year, when the obligation is to separate second tithe and not poor man鈥檚 tithe. Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhic status of the fruit of an etrog tree is like that of a typical fruit tree in every matter. In any case, with regard to ascribing the status of Sabbatical-Year produce to the fruits, it is apparent from the mishna that the status of an etrog of the sixth year that was picked in the seventh year is that of sixth-year produce.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讟讜诇诪讜住 讛注讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 讝拽谞讬诐 讗转专讜讙 讗讞专 诇拽讬讟讛 诇诪注砖专 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 讘讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讬谉 诇砖讘讬注讬转

The Gemara answers: It was the tanna of the mishna that distinguishes between the lulav and the etrog who stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said that Avtolemos, one of the Sages, testified in the name of five Elders: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes. And our Sages were counted in Usha, reached a decision, and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.

砖讘讬注讬转 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗转专讜讙 讗讞专 诇拽讬讟讛 诇诪注砖专 讜讗讞专 讞谞讟讛 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 谞诪谞讜 讘讗讜砖讗 讜讗诪专讜 讗转专讜讙 讘转专 诇拽讬讟讛 讘讬谉 诇诪注砖专 讘讬谉 诇砖讘讬注讬转

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: With regard to the Sabbatical Year, who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of the Sabbatical Year, the discussion of the status of an etrog during the Sabbatical Year is a non sequitur. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes and determined by the time of its ripening with regard to the Sabbatical Year. And our Sages were counted in Usha and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讜诇讘 讘专 砖砖讬转 讛谞讻谞住 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讛讜讗 讛讗 讚砖讘讬注讬转 拽讚讜砖 讗诪讗讬 注爪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜注爪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转 (讚转谞谉) 注诇讬 拽谞讬诐 讜注诇讬 讙驻谞讬诐 砖讙讘讘谉 诇讞讜讘讛 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 诇拽讟谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇拽讟谉 诇注爪讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讘讬注讬转

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of the mishna: The reason that a lulav may be purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz during the Sabbatical Year is specifically that it is a lulav of the sixth year that is entering the seventh. This indicates by inference that a lulav of the seventh year is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: Why is it sacred? It is merely wood, and wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves that one piled for storage upon the field, if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year; if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 诇讗讻诇讛 诇讻诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗讻诇讛 诪讬 砖讛谞讗转讜 讜讘讬注讜专讜 砖讜讛 讬爪讗讜 注爪讬诐 砖讛谞讗转谉 讗讞专 讘讬注讜专谉

The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the reed and vine leaves, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you for food鈥 (Leviticus 25:6). From the juxtaposition of the term: For you, and the term: For food, it is derived: For you is similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide. Wood is excluded, as its benefit is subsequent to its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, it is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 注爪讬诐 讚诪砖讞谉 讚讛谞讗转谉 讜讘讬注讜专谉 砖讜讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 住转诐 注爪讬诐 诇讛住拽讛 讛谉 注讜诪讚讬谉

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 there wood used to provide heat (Rabbeinu 岣nanel), whose benefit coincides with its consumption? Rava said: Undesignated wood exists for fuel, i.e., charcoal, so its benefit is subsequent to its consumption.

讜注爪讬诐 诇讛住拽讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪讜住专讬谉 驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗 诇诪砖专讛 讜诇讗 诇讻讘讜住讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜住专讬谉

搂 The Gemara notes: The matter of whether kindling wood, whose benefit is subsequent to its consumption, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One may neither transfer Sabbatical-Year produce, e.g., wine, for soaking flax to prepare it for spinning, as the benefit derived from the flax is subsequent to its soaking, when the soaked and spun thread is woven into a garment; nor for laundering with it, as the benefit derived is subsequent to the laundering when one wears the clean clothes. Soaking the flax or laundering the garment in wine is consumption of the wine, as it is no longer potable. Rabbi Yosei says: One may transfer Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪砖专讛 讜诇讗 诇讻讘讜住讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 爪专讻讬讻诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪砖专讛 讜诇讻讘讜住讛 讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 讛讛讜讗 诇讻诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诇讗讻诇讛 诪讬 砖讛谞讗转讜 讜讘讬注讜专讜 砖讜讛 讬爪讗讜 诪砖专讛 讜讻讘讜住讛 砖讛谞讗转谉 讗讞专 讘讬注讜专谉

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of the first tanna? It is as the verse states with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: 鈥淔or food,鈥 from which it is inferred: And not for soaking and not for laundering. What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yosei permitting one to do so? It is as the verse states: 鈥淔or you,鈥 from which it is inferred: For you, for all your needs, and even for soaking and for laundering. The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or you鈥? How does he explain that term? The Gemara answers: From that term 鈥渇or you鈥 it is derived: For you, similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, which excludes soaking and laundering, where the items鈥 benefit is subsequent to their consumption.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讗讻诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讜诇讗 诇讻讘讜住讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讻诐 讛专讬 诇讻讘讜住讛 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诇讗讻诇讛 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻讘讜住讛 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪诇讜讙诪讗

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or food,鈥 indicating that it may not be used for any other purpose? The Gemara answers: He needs that phrase to teach: For food, and not for a remedy [melugma], as it is taught in a baraita: For food and not for a remedy. The baraita continues: Do you say: For food and not for a remedy, or perhaps it is only: For food and not for laundering? When the verse says: 鈥淔or you,鈥 for laundering is already stated as permitted since it includes all one鈥檚 bodily needs. How, then, do I uphold that which the verse states: 鈥淔or food鈥? It is: For food, and not for a remedy. And should one ask: What did you see that led you to include the use of Sabbatical-Year produce for laundering and to exclude the use of Sabbatical-Year produce as a remedy?

诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讻讘讜住讛 砖砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪诇讜讙诪讗 砖讗讬谞讛 砖讜讛 诇讻诇 讗讚诐

Rabbi Yosei could respond: I include laundering, which applies equally to every person, as everyone needs clean clothes, and I exclude a remedy, which does not apply equally to every person; it is only for the ill.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇诪诇讜讙诪讗 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讝讬诇讜祝 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇注砖讜转 诪诪谞讛 讗驻讬拽讟讜讬讝讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗讬 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诪砖专讛 讜讻讘讜住讛

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: For food, and not for a remedy; for food, and not for sprinkling wine in one鈥檚 house to provide a pleasant fragrance; for food, and not to make it an emetic [apiktoizin] to induce vomiting? In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, isn鈥檛 there also soaking and laundering that should have been excluded in the baraita, as in their opinion, use of Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes is prohibited?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 砖讘讬注讬转 诪转讞诇诇转 讗诇讗 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇

Rabbi Elazar said: Sabbatical-Year produce is deconsecrated only by means of purchase; however, it cannot be deconsecrated through redemption. Merely declaring that the sanctity of that produce is transferred to money or other produce is ineffective. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is deconsecrated both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讻转讬讘 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讛讝讗转 讜讙讜壮 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讜诇讗 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 诪讛 拽讚砖 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇

What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? It is as it is written: 鈥淚n this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell an item to your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 25:14); this indicates that in the Jubilee Year, during which the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are in effect, one deconsecrates the produce by means of purchase and not by means of redemption. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the rationale for his opinion? It is as it is written: 鈥淔or it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12); this indicates that just as one redeems consecrated items both by means of purchase and by means of redemption, so too, Sabbatical-Year produce can be redeemed both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗讬 讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讜讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讛 讗讘拽讛 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讻讜壮 讗讚诐 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 讜讗转 讻诇讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讛讝讗转 转砖讘讜 讗讬砖 讗诇 讗讞讜讝转讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, what does he do with this juxtaposition of the Jubilee Year to the verse: 鈥淚f you sell an item鈥? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive a halakha in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: Come and see how severe even the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year is; as the prohibition against commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is not one of the primary prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, and its punishment is harsh. A person who engages in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is ultimately punished with the loss of his wealth to the point that he is forced to sell his movable property and his vessels, as it is stated: 鈥淚n this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: 鈥淎nd if you sell an item to your neighbor鈥 (Leviticus 25:14).

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what does he do with this verse from which Rabbi Yo岣nan derived his opinion? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: 鈥淔or it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you鈥 (Leviticus 25:12); just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讜讘诇 讛讬讗 拽讚砖 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讗住讜专 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛 讜讗住讜专讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. The Gemara elaborates that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: Sabbatical-Year sanctity takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which the produce is redeemed, as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you鈥; just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed and it is prohibited to use the money for non-sacred purposes, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and it is prohibited to use this money for purposes for which Sabbatical-Year produce may not be used.

讗讬 诪讛 拽讚砖 转讜驻住 讚诪讬讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗祝 砖讘讬注讬转 转讜驻住转 讗转 讚诪讬讛 讜讬讜爪讗转 诇讞讜诇讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讛讬讛 讘讛讜讬讬转讛 转讛讗

Or perhaps extend the analogy and derive that just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, and the consecrated item assumes non-sacred status, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and the Sabbatical-Year produce assumes non-sacred status. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be consecrated unto you,鈥 meaning: It shall be as it is. Although the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on the money, the produce remains consecrated as well.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 讘砖专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪转讘注专讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 诇拽讞 讘讘砖专 讚讙讬诐 讬爪讗 讘砖专 讜谞讻谞住讜 讚讙讬诐 诇拽讞 讘讚讙讬诐 讬讬谉 讬爪讗讜 讚讙讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 讬讬谉 诇拽讞 讘讬讬谉 砖诪谉 讬爪讗 讬讬谉 讜谞讻谞住 砖诪谉

The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with Sabbatical-Year produce, both this, the produce, and that, the meat, must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. The meat may be eaten only as long as the produce in exchange for which it was purchased may be eaten, i.e., as long as produce of that kind remains in the field. However, if he purchased fish in exchange for the meat, the meat emerges from its consecrated status, and the fish assumes consecrated status. If he then purchased wine in exchange for the fish, the fish emerges from its consecrated status, and the wine assumes consecrated status. If he purchased oil in exchange for the wine, the wine emerges from its consecrated status, and the oil assumes consecrated status.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讞专讜谉 讗讞专讜谉 谞讻谞住 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讜驻专讬 注爪诪讜 讗住讜专 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇拽讞 诇拽讞 讗诇诪讗 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 诇讗

How so? The last item purchased assumes the consecrated status of produce of the Sabbatical Year, and the produce itself remains consecrated and forbidden and never loses its consecrated status. The Gemara notes: From the fact that the baraita teaches each case using the term: Purchased, purchased, apparently it means that by means of transaction, yes, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect; however, by means of redemption, no, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not take effect.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讞讚 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讞讬讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注诇 砖讞讜讟讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讞讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛谉 注讚专讬诐

The Gemara continues: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan. Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon domesticated animals, undomesticated animals,and fowl, whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Upon slaughtered animals, they are deconsecrated; upon animals that are alive, they are not deconsecrated. The reason is that a rabbinic decree was issued lest one raise flocks from them. If one breeds a herd from that consecrated animal, the entire herd would be sacred and the potential for misuse of second-tithe property would be great.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rava said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis

Scroll To Top