Sukkah 35a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

it is written:

“the fruit of a beautiful tree,”

and this implies—

a tree whose wood tastes the same as its fruit.

For thus they expounded: “the fruit of a tree”—the tree like the fruit—that their tastes are the same.

You must say: this is the etrog.

The Gemara raises an objection: From where do you know that this means specifically an etrog,

but perhaps

it means

peppers,

for also in them the taste of the wood and the fruit are the same?

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From the implication of what is stated [Leviticus 19:23]:

“You shall plant every tree,”

do I not know that it is a food-bearing tree? What does “food-bearing tree” come to teach?!

Rather, it means

a tree whose wood tastes the same as its fruit; you must say: this is peppers.

And the verse came

to teach you that peppers are subject to the prohibition of orla.

We also learn from this verse that

the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 8:9]:

“You shall lack nothing in it,”

and the verse “You shall plant every tree” came to teach you that peppers too are included in

“you shall lack nothing in it.”

In any event, it is explained in his words that the taste of peppers is like the taste of the wood, and if so, perhaps this is what the verse intended when it said, “the fruit of a beautiful tree”?!

And the Gemara answers:

There [that is, the reason it is obvious to us that the verse does not intend that the mitzva of the four species be fulfilled with peppers]

is because it is not possible

to fulfill the mitzva of taking them, for

how shall we act?

If

we

take [take]

one [one pepper in the hand], then

its taking is not recognizable,

because it is exceedingly small; and if you say that

we should take two or three,

that is certainly impossible! For

the Merciful One said, “one fruit,” and not two or three fruits.

that is certainly impossible, for

Therefore it is not possible.

Rabbi says, this is how the verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” is to be expounded:

Do not read “hadar,” but rather “hadir.”

That is to say, the fruit mentioned by the verse is from a tree resembling a sheepfold.

Just as in this sheepfold there are

large and small sheep,

unblemished [whole]

and blemished ones, so too

this tree

has

fruits

large and small, unblemished and blemished,

and this is the etrog.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that to say that other fruits do not have large and small, unblemished and blemished ones?

For in every kind of tree the fruits are not equal in their size and appearance?!

Rather,

the verse does not mean to say that among the fruits of the same year some are large and some small. Rather, the large ones are the fruits of the previous year, and the small ones are the fruits of this year, and

this is what it says: “the fruit of a beautiful tree,”

for

until

the

small

fruits of this year

still

the

large

fruits of the previous year

remain

on the tree. This exists only with an etrog, whose fruits remain on the tree for two or three years. But other fruits grow on the tree for only one season, and when the fruits of this year arrive, the fruits of the previous year were harvested long before.

Rabbi Abahu said: Do not read “hadar,” but rather something that dwells on its tree from year to year.

And this is actually the same as Rabbi’s interpretation, but they disagreed over how the matter is derived from the verse: Rabbi expounded the expression “dir,” and Rabbi Abahu expounded the expression “dwellings.”

Ben Azzai says: Do not read “hadar,” but rather “hadur,” for in the Greek language they call water hadur. And which is it [that is, which tree]

that grows on all water

that requires frequent irrigation?

You must say: this is the etrog.

We learned in the Mishna: An etrog

of an ashera and of an idolatrous city is unfit.

And

what is the reason

it is unfit?

For

since it stands to be burned, its measure is regarded as crushed.

[See above, 31b.]

it is invalid?

Because

since it is destined to be burned, its measure is considered crushed and nonexistent

We learned in the Mishna: An etrog

of orla is unfit. What is the reason? Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin and Rabbi Asi disagreed about it. One said: this is the reason:

of orla is invalid.

What is the reason?

because it does not have permission for eating,

and the Torah said “for you”—that it must be fit for you for all its forms of benefit.

The reason is

that it is not permitted to be eaten,

And one said: Because it does not have monetary status,

for it is not worth a peruta, because it is forbidden for benefit; and therefore it is not “for you,” since “for you” means—belonging to you. It might have entered the mind [the Gemara’s assumption to say]: That the one who requires that it have

as it is not worth even one peruta, because it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. Therefore, it is not “for you,” since “for you” means that it belongs to you.

permission for eating does not require

that it have

monetary status,

and if it has permission for eating, even though it does not have permission of ownership, such as second tithe in Jerusalem, which is permitted and must be eaten, nevertheless it does not have monetary status, for Rabbi Meir holds [Sanhedrin 112b]: second tithe belongs to the Most High, and one who eats from it eats from the table of the Most High; and even so, this is sufficient for the mitzva of lulav.

And the one who requires

that it have

monetary status does not require permission for eating,

and consequently an etrog of tevel, although it is forbidden to eat, is fit for the mitzva of lulav, since it is permitted for benefit and has monetary status.

We learned [we learned in the Mishna]: An etrog

of impure teruma is unfit.

Granted, according to the one who says

that the reason for the disqualification of an etrog of orla is

because it does not have permission for eating, this is well,

that is, it is understandable why they disqualified an etrog of impure teruma, for it too is forbidden to eat.

But according to the one who says

that the reason for the disqualification of an etrog of orla is

because it does not have monetary status, why

did they disqualify an etrog of impure teruma?

For one may use it as fuel beneath his stew, [that is, it is permitted to use it for fuel], and since it is permitted for benefit, it has monetary status?!

Rather, everyone agrees that permission for eating is required,

and therefore, even if it has monetary status, as long as it is forbidden to eat it is not considered “for you,” since it is not fit for all one’s needs of benefit.

They disagree—

concerning monetary status.

One Sage holds: permission for eating is required, but monetary status is not required.

And one Sage holds: monetary status is also required.

And therefore, if it does not have monetary status, even though it is permitted to eat, it is unfit.

What is the practical difference between them?

There is a practical difference between them: second tithe in Jerusalem,

and

according to Rabbi Meir,

who says that second tithe belongs to the Most High.

According to the one who says

that the reason for the disqualification of an etrog of orla is

because it does not have permission for eating,

second tithe in Jerusalem is fit for taking, for

it has permission for eating.

But

according to the one who says

that the reason for the disqualification of an etrog of orla is

because it does not have monetary status, second tithe

also

belongs to the Most High,

and it does not have monetary status, and it is unfit.

And according to him, what we learned in our Mishna—that an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem is fit—is according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir and hold that second tithe belongs to an ordinary person, and one may betroth a woman with it; consequently, it has monetary status and is fit according to everyone.

And the Gemara adds:

It can be concluded that it is Rabbi Asi

who

said

that the reason for the disqualification of an etrog of orla is

because it does not have monetary status. For Rabbi Asi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir

who says that second tithe belongs to the Most High,

a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the festival. But according to the Sages

who say that second tithe belongs to an ordinary person,

a person fulfills his obligation with it on the festival.

And certainly the reason is that monetary status is required, and according to Rabbi Meir it does not belong to him.

And we conclude:

It can be concluded.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Asi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on the festival. But according to the Sages, a person fulfills his obligation with it on the festival.

And likewise

matza of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it

to eat matza

on

the first night of

Passover. But according to the Sages

who say that second tithe belongs to an ordinary person,

a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover.

And below it will be explained from where there is a law of “for you” with matza.

And likewise

dough of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, is exempt from hallah,

whereas

according to the Sages, it is obligated

in

hallah.

Rav Pappa challenged it: Granted, dough

of second tithe is exempt from the separation of hallah, because

it is written [Numbers 15:20]

“the first of your kneading,”

and this implies that this obligation is stated only with regard to “your kneading”—that which is yours

and not that of the Most High; and likewise

an etrog

of second tithe

also

is unfit according to Rabbi Meir because

it is written, “for you,”

and this implies belonging to you.

an etrog

of second tithe

also

But matza—is “your matza” written

in it?

“Your matza,”

from where did the Sages learn that the matza must belong to you?!

Rabba bar Shmuel said, and some say Rav Yemar bar Shelamya: “Bread,” “bread”

comes through a gzera shava.

It is written here [Deuteronomy 16:3]

with regard to the mitzva of eating matza:

“poor man’s bread,” and it is written there

with regard to hallah [Numbers 15:19]:

“And when you eat of the bread of the land,” just as there with regard to hallah, the dough must be belonging to you specifically,

and not belonging to second tithe,

as it is stated, “the first of your kneading,”

so too here,

with matza, it must be

belonging to you

specifically,

and not belonging to second tithe.

and not second-tithe property,

as it is stated, “the first portion of your dough”;

so too here,

with regard to matza, it must be

your own

specifically,

and not second-tithe property

.