Sukkah 35b — the Talmud in English

Let us say that it supports him

Rav Asi, who said: dough of maaser sheni is exempt from challa according to the view of Rabbi Meir, as it was taught:

“Dough of maaser sheni is exempt from challa; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: it is liable for challa.”

The Gemara raises an objection: Why did you say

“let us say that it supports him,”

when

it is exactly the same!

The words of the beraita are precisely the words of Rav Asi?

Rather:

indeed, with regard to challa, it is certainly a complete source for the words of Rav Asi and not merely a support,

but I used the expression “let us say that it supports him” because in the words of the beraita there is room for uncertainty: whether

in this

[with regard to the dough]

Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree,

but

in this

[with regard to the etrog and matza]

they also disagree,

since they have one reason: for with regard to the etrog it is written “for you,” and matza is learned by a gezera shava from the separation of challa, for which “for you” is required.

Or perhaps: dough is different,

for specifically with regard to it Rabbi Meir exempted [the dough] when it is not his, because

the verse

with regard to it

says

[Numbers 15:20–21]

“your dough, your dough” twice,

[in verse 20 it says: “The first of your dough you shall raise 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 Scripture excluded it with an extra exclusion. But when there is only one exclusion in the verse, we do not learn from it that a monetary ownership requirement is necessary, for since there is permission to eat it, that is sufficient for it to be considered “for you.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“That of impure teruma is invalid.”

And the Gemara explains the reason: because

there is no permission to eat it.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And that of pure teruma”

initially

one should not take.

And with regard to the reason,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagree.

One said: because he renders it susceptible

to receive impurity.

For we learned below [42a]: A woman may receive the bundle of the lulav from her son and from her husband, and return them to water on Shabbat, for this was their practice: they would soak the lulav in water so that it would not dry out [and it teaches us that it is permitted to do so and that this does not constitute unnecessary carrying on Shabbat]. And when the wet bundle subsequently touches the etrog and moistens it, it renders it susceptible to receive impurity, as it is stated [Leviticus 11:38]: “But when water is placed on 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 an impure object touches it, it thereby becomes impure. Therefore, since it is forbidden to cause impurity to teruma, as it is written, “the safeguarding of My gifts,” and the Sages expounded: Make safeguarding for it, one should not initially take an etrog of teruma.

And one said: because he damages it.

For the outer peel of the etrog is spoiled through the handling of the hands, and it is forbidden to cause damage to teruma, as we derive from the verse above [“the safeguarding of My gifts”].

What is the difference between them?

There is a difference between them

in a case where he designated it

the etrog

with the designation

of teruma

except for its outer peel.

For he consecrated only the flesh of the fruit and not its peel.

According to the one who says: because he renders it susceptible —

here too

there is

a reason for invalidating it, since in the end he renders it susceptible to receive impurity, for if it touches an impure object, all of it will become impure.

But

according to the one who says: because he damages it —

there is no

reason for invalidating it, since even if its peel becomes damaged, there is no significance to this, for he designated only the flesh of the fruit as teruma.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And if he 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 there is no permission to eat it,

here, with an etrog of pure teruma, he fulfills his obligation, for

there is permission to eat it

for a kohen. And 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 where his daughter married a kohen]. And even

according to the one who says

that the reason for the invalidity of orla is

because it has no monetary status —

it should be valid with an etrog of pure teruma, for

it has monetary status,

and a kohen can betroth a woman with it. And even an Israelite fulfills his obligation with it, for even with regard to him it has monetary status, and he can betroth a woman with it, since she can sell it to kohanim and the money belongs to her.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And that of demai,

the House of Shammai invalidate, and the House of Hillel validate.”

What is the reason of the House of Hillel?

Since, if he wished,

[if he wanted]

he could renounce his property

[he would renounce his property],

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 impose the law of demai upon the poor, but established it according to Torah law, that one follows the majority, and the majority of ordinary people tithe. Therefore

now too

[even before he renounced his property]

“for you” is said with regard to it.

For we learned: One may feed the poor demai.

And

likewise one may feed

the military quarter

[the king’s soldiers, whose sustenance he imposes upon the inhabitants of his country ]

demai.

Since the prohibition of demai is merely an additional stringency, and as explained, the Sages did not uphold their words in a time of pressing need.

And the House of Shammai

disagreed with this law, and held:

A poor person may not eat demai,

and therefore one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of demai.

For we learned: One may feed

the

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

It is thus explicit that the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagree about this matter.

We learned in our Mishna: An etrog

of maaser sheni that is in Jerusalem

— one should not take it. What is the reason?

According to the one who says

that the reason for the invalidity of impure teruma is

because he renders it susceptible

to receive impurity, here too

he renders it susceptible,

since with regard to maaser sheni as well, this law was stated, that it must be safeguarded in purity, for it too is called holy.

And likewise

according to the one who says

there that the reason is

because he damages it

through the handling of the hands, here too

he damages it.

We learned in our Mishna: One should not take maaser sheni in Jerusalem,

and if he took it, it is valid.

According to the one who says

that the reason for the invalidity of orla is

because there is no permission to eat it,

this law, that if he took an etrog of maaser sheni he fulfilled his obligation, is

, according to everyone,

since there is permission to eat it in Jerusalem. But

according to the one who says

there that the reason for the invalidity of orla is

because it has no monetary status,

[this law stated with regard to maaser sheni]

is according to whom

[whose view is it]?

It is according to the Rabbis,

who hold that maaser sheni is the property of an ordinary person. But according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that maaser sheni is the property of the Most High, and one who eats from it is like one who eats from the table of the Most High, he did not fulfill his obligation, for it has no monetary status.

We learned in our Mishna:

If a mottled discoloration arose

on most of the etrog — it is invalid.

Rav Hisda said: This matter

[the following matter]

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

that if a mottled discoloration arose on most of it, it is invalid,

only

when the mottled discoloration arose

in one place. But

if it arose

in two or three places, it is valid.

Rava said to him: On the contrary,

the opposite is more reasonable, for if the mottled discoloration arose

in two or three places, it would be

the etrog

like a spotted one, and invalid

because it is not beautiful!

Rather, if this matter was stated,

this matter

was stated with regard to the latter clause

of the Mishna

it was stated:

For we learned: If the mottled discoloration was

on a minority of it, it is valid.

And concerning this

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

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

only

when it was

in one place. But in two or three places,

even though taken together they comprise only a minority of the etrog —

it would be like a spotted one, and invalid.

Rava said: And

if the mottled discoloration was

on its nose,

that is, on the thickness of its height, from where it slopes downward toward its head [the language of Rashi; see the note ],

even in the slightest amount it is also invalid.

Because there it is visible to the eyes, and any change of appearance detracts from the beauty of the etrog.

We learned in our Mishna:

If its protuberance was removed

it is invalid:

Rabbi Isaac ben Elazar taught

this law in another formulation:

“Its pestle was removed.”

That 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: This etrog that was skinned

[was peeled and thereby became red]

like a red date

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

it is valid,

since this is its normal appearance; it is the appearance of an etrog.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

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

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult.