Sukkah 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

Let us say that it supports

Rav Asi, who said: Dough made from second tithe is exempt from ḥalla according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a beraita:

“Dough made from second tithe is exempt from ḥalla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: It is obligated in ḥalla.”

The Gemara asks: Why did you say

“Let us say that it supports him,”

when

it is exactly the same!

The statement of the beraita is precisely Rav Asi’s statement.

Rather:

Indeed, with regard to ḥalla, it is certainly a complete source for Rav Asi’s statement and not merely a support,

but I used the expression “Let us say that it supports him” because the statement of the beraita is subject to the following uncertainty: Does the disagreement

in this matter

[with regard to dough]

between

Rabbi Meir and the Sages also apply

in this matter

[with regard to an etrog and matza]?

For they too disagree,

since the reason is the same in both cases: With regard to an etrog, “for you” is written, and matza is derived by a gezera shava from the separation of ḥalla, where “for you” is required.

Or perhaps: Dough is different,

for Rabbi Meir exempted only dough that does not belong to the one eating it, because

the verse

in its regard

says

[Numbers 15:20–21]

“your dough, your dough” twice,

[in verse 20 it says: “From the first of your dough you shall give a portion as a gift,” and in verse 21 it says: “From the first of your dough you shall give a gift to the Lord, throughout your generations”], and we see that the Torah excluded it by an additional exclusion. But where the verse contains only one exclusion, we do not learn from it that a monetary-rights requirement is necessary. Since the food is permitted to be eaten, that alone suffices to render it “for you.”

We learned in the Mishna:

An etrog of impure teruma is invalid.

And the Gemara explains the reason:

Because it has no permission to be eaten.

We learned in our Mishna:

And an etrog of pure teruma

initially

one should not take.

And with regard to the reason for this,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree.

One said: Because it renders

the teruma susceptible to ritual impurity.

For we learned below [42a]: A woman may receive the bundle of the lulav from her son or from her husband and return it to water on Shabbat. This was their practice: They would soak the lulav in water so that it would not dry out [and this teaches us that it is permitted to do so, and that this is not considered handling an object on Shabbat for an unnecessary purpose]. When the wet bundle subsequently touches the etrog and moistens it, the etrog becomes susceptible to ritual impurity, as it is stated [Leviticus 11:38]: “And if water is placed upon seed, and any of their carcasses falls upon it, it is impure for you.” That is, when water comes upon a fruit or the like, and afterward something impure touches it, it thereby becomes impure. Therefore, since it is prohibited to cause teruma to become impure, as it is written, “You shall safeguard My terumot,” which the Sages expounded: Make a safeguard for it, one should not initially take an etrog of teruma.

And one said: Because it causes it a loss.

The outer peel of the etrog becomes unpleasant through handling by the hands, and it is prohibited to cause a loss to teruma, as we derive from the verse cited above, “You shall safeguard My terumot.”

What is the practical difference between them?

The practical difference between them is

a case where he designated it

the etrog

with the designation

of teruma

except for its outer peel.

He consecrated only the flesh of the fruit, but not its peel.

According to the one who says that the reason is because it renders it susceptible to impurity—

here too

there is

a reason for invalidation, since in the end he renders it susceptible to ritual impurity: If it touches something impure, the entire etrog will become impure.

But

according to the one who says that the reason is because it causes it a loss—

there is no

reason for invalidation, since even if its peel becomes damaged, it makes no difference, as he designated as teruma only the flesh of the fruit.

We learned in our Mishna:

And if one took

that etrog of pure teruma,

it is valid.

And the Gemara explains:

According to the one who says

above that the reason one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla is

because it has no permission to be eaten,

here, with regard to an etrog of pure teruma, he has fulfilled his obligation, since

it does have permission to be eaten

by a kohen. Even an Israelite fulfills his obligation with it for this reason, because he can feed it to his daughter’s son, who is a kohen [and this is, for example, where his daughter married a kohen]. And even

according to the one who says

that the reason for the invalidity of orla

is that it has no monetary rights—

an etrog of pure teruma is valid, since

it does have monetary rights,

and a kohen can betroth a woman with it. Even an Israelite fulfills his obligation with it, since it too has monetary rights for him, and he can betroth a woman with it, because she can sell it to kohanim and the money belongs to her.

We learned in our Mishna:

And an etrog of demai,

the School of Shammai deem invalid, while the School of Hillel deem valid.

What is the reason of the School of Hillel?

Since, if he wishes,

he could

declare his property ownerless

[and thereby relinquish ownership of his possessions],

and

through this

he would become poor, and it would be fit for him

[and these fruits would be fit for him], because the Sages did not apply the law of demai to the poor. They left the matter under Torah law, according to which we follow the majority, and the majority of unlearned people separate tithes. Therefore,

now too

[even before he relinquishes ownership of his possessions]

we call it “for you.”

As we learned: One may feed the poor demai.

And

likewise one may feed

military guests

[the king’s soldiers, whose sustenance is imposed upon the inhabitants of the country ]

demai.

Since the prohibition of demai is merely a rabbinic stringency, as explained, the Sages did not enforce their decree in a time of pressing need.

And the School of Shammai

disagreed with this ruling, and held:

A poor person may not eat demai,

and for this reason one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of demai.

As we learned: One may feed

the

poor demai, and one may feed military guests demai. And Rav Huna said: A tanna taught: The School of Shammai say: One may not feed the poor or military guests demai, while the School of Hillel say: One may feed the poor demai and one may feed military guests demai.

It is therefore explicit that the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel disagree about this matter.

We learned in our Mishna: An etrog

of second tithe in Jerusalem

one should not take. What is the reason?

According to the one who says

that the reason an etrog of impure teruma is invalid

is because it renders it susceptible

to ritual impurity, here too

it renders it susceptible,

since this halakha was also stated with regard to second tithe: It must be safeguarded in purity, as it too is called sacred.

And likewise,

according to the one who says

there that the reason is

because it causes it a loss

through handling by the hands, here too

it causes it a loss.

We learned in our Mishna: One should not take an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem,

but if he took it, it is valid.

According to the one who says

that the reason for the invalidity of orla

is because it has no permission to be eaten,

this halakha—that if one took an etrog of second tithe he has fulfilled his obligation—

, according to everyone

since it has permission to be eaten in Jerusalem. But

according to the one who says

there that the reason for the invalidity of orla

is that it has no monetary rights,

[this halakha stated with regard to second tithe]

is according to whom

[whose opinion is it]?

It is according to the Rabbis,

who hold that second tithe is the property of an ordinary person. But according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that second tithe belongs to the Most High, and that one who eats it is like one who eats from the table of the Most High, he has not fulfilled his obligation, since it has no monetary rights.

We learned in our Mishna:

If a discoloration developed

on most of the etrog, it is invalid.

Rav Ḥisda said: This matter

[the statement that follows]

was stated by our great teacher, may the Omnipresent assist him: We taught

that if a discoloration developed on most of it, it is invalid

only

when the discoloration developed

in one place. But

if it developed

in two or three places, it is valid.

Rava said to him: On the contrary,

the opposite is more reasonable, for if the discoloration developed

in two or three places, it would be

the etrog

like a spotted object, and invalid,

because it is not beautiful!

Rather, if this matter was stated,

this statement

was stated with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna

was stated:

As we learned: If the discoloration was

on a minority of it, it is valid.

And with regard to this

Rav Ḥisda said: This matter was stated by our great teacher, and may the Omnipresent assist him. We taught

that if it was on a minority of it, it is valid

only

when it was

in one place. But if it was in two or three places,

even though altogether it covers only a minority of the etrog —

it is like a spotted object, and invalid.

Rava said: And

if the discoloration was

on its nose,

that is, on the thickness of its elevated portion, from which it slopes downward toward its top [in the language of Rashi; see the note

and even the slightest amount renders it invalid.

This is because it is conspicuous there, and any change of color detracts from the beauty of the etrog.

We learned in our Mishna:

If its protuberance was removed,

it is invalid.

Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar taught

this halakha in a different formulation:

“If its pestle was removed.”

This is because the protuberance of the etrog is pointed and resembles a pestle.

We learned in our Mishna:

If it was peeled,

it is invalid.

Rava said: In the case of this etrog, whose skin peeled

[and as a result it became red]

like a red date

[a red date], since it is the nature of peeled fruits to become red—

it is valid,

because this is its ordinary appearance; it is considered the appearance of an etrog.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But did we not learn in the Mishna: If it was peeled, it is invalid?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.