Sukkah 36a — the Talmud in English

This

for Rava said that it is fit, this is when the peeling was

over all of it,

and consequently it is not mottled. Whereas

this

that we learned in our Mishna, that it is unfit, is when the peeling was

on part of it,

for it is mottled.

We learned in our Mishna:

it split, it was punctured

and became lacking through the puncture even the slightest amount—it is unfit. But if it was punctured and is not lacking even anything—it is fit.

And

Ulla bar Hanina taught: If it was punctured with a perforation extending through and through,

even if it did not thereby become lacking—it is unfit, and even if the perforation was

the

thickness of

the slightest amount [that is, as thin as the point of a needle].

—that is, as thin as the point of a needle.

And

if it was punctured with a perforation

that does not extend through and through,

such as when a thick peg was driven into it, and the etrog did not thereby become lacking even anything, the measure for declaring it unfit is

the size of an isar.

For if the perforation was as wide as an isar, it is unfit even though nothing at all was lacking. [And our Mishna, which declared it fit when nothing at all was lacking, is speaking of a non-through perforation smaller than an isar].

Rava inquired: If signs of a fatal defect developed in an etrog

like the signs of a fatal defect in an animal [which are brought below],

what is the law?

And the Gemara clarifies:

What is it that he is inquiring about

for Rava?

If

he is inquiring about the status of an etrog that

was peeled,

which is one of the signs of a fatal defect in an animal, namely, “the skinned one,” which has no skin,

we already learned

explicitly in the Mishna what its status is? And

if

he is inquiring about the status of an etrog that

split, which is also one of the signs of a fatal defect in an animal, namely, a windpipe that split entirely, with neither a ring remaining above nor a ring below, this too

which is also one of the signs of a fatal defect in an animal, namely, an animal whose windpipe split completely, with neither a ring remaining above nor a ring remaining below, that too

we already learned

in the Mishna? And

if

he is inquiring about an etrog that was

punctured, which is comparable to a punctured membrane of the brain, which is one of the signs of a fatal defect in an animal, this too

in a manner comparable to a puncture in the membrane of the brain, which is one of the signs of a fatal defect in an animal, that too

we already learned

in the Mishna?

The Gemara explains:

What he is inquiring about

for Rava is

as in the statement of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Yohanan.

For Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A lung that was poured out like a jug,

that is, the flesh within the membrane melted and became like water

, is fit.

And Rava said: And

this law

is

specifically where

the

still

bronchi remain [that the bronchi of the lung still exist];

[that the lung’s bronchi are still present].

but

if

its bronchi do not remain,

it is

a treifa,

it follows that one of the signs of a fatal defect is that the lung’s bronchi were uprooted from it.

And now we inquire:

here, regarding an etrog, when the inside of the etrog has melted, but its seed chambers still remain, with the seeds inside them [which correspond to the bronchi of an animal’s lung],

in the case of an etrog, if the inside of the etrog has melted but its seed chambers, containing the seeds, still exist [which correspond to the animal’s bronchial tubes],

what is the law?

And the explanation of the doubt is: On the one hand, it is possible to distinguish between an animal and an etrog,

for perhaps there

it is not a fatal defect in such a case because, since

air does not rule over it,

the lung is not open to the air, therefore

it becomes healthy again [it returns to its health]. But

[it returns to a healthy state]. But

here, where air rules over it,

in the etrog,

it putrefies

and rots,

that is, it rots because of the contact between the fruit’s flesh and the air.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

Come and hear: An etrog that is swollen, putrid,

or

pickled

in vinegar and mustard, or

boiled [cooked extensively in boiling water], or if the etrog was

[cooked extensively in boiling water], or if the etrog was

black,

or

white, and

likewise an etrog that is

mottled, is unfit.

An etrog

whose shape is

like a ball—

is unfit.

And some say: Even a double one,

that is, two etrogim attached together—is unfit.

An unripe etrog,

that is, one that is as small as a white bean,

Rabbi Akiva declares unfit, but the Sages declare fit.

If they grew in a mold,

that is, one made a particular shape for it while it was still small, and placed it inside it while it was attached to the tree, and it grew there so that it became that shape,

and

through this

he made

that etrog

like another creature

that does not at all resemble an etrog,

it is unfit.

And the Gemara infers:

In any event, it teaches: swollen, putrid.

What, is it not: “swollen”—

meaning that it was diminished and rotted

from the outside, and “putrid”—

meaning that it rotted

from the inside,

that is, comparable to a lung that was poured out like a jug, while its bronchi remain, and nevertheless it is unfit!

The Gemara rejects this:

No. Both this and that,

both “swollen” and “putrid,” are speaking

from the outside

and not of the fruit’s flesh.

And it is not difficult: This

which it teaches, “swollen,” means

that it swelled [

that it became swollen]—

even though it did not rot [

that it did not rot]. Whereas

this

which it teaches

“rotted,”

means

even though it did not swell.

And the Mishna teaches us that whether it rotted or whether it swelled, it is unfit.

The Master said: A black etrog is unfit.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it was taught:

An etrog that is

black,

which grew in the land of Cush,

is fit,

even though it is black, for that is the manner of its growth in that place. But if it was merely

similar to a Cushite,

that is, it grew here and is black,

it is unfit,

because in our places a black appearance is not considered the appearance of an etrog. In any event, it is clear that a Cushite etrog is fit?!

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Indeed, a Cushite etrog is fit, and

when our Mishna also teaches

that it is unfit,

we learned of one similar to a Cushite.

Rava said:

In fact, both our Mishna and the beraita are speaking of a Cushite etrog, and

it is not difficult: This

which we learned in the beraita, that a Cushite etrog is fit, is

for us,

for the Babylonians, who are close to the land of Cush and are accustomed to those etrogim.

And this

which we learned in our Mishna, that a Cushite etrog is unfit, is

for them,

for the people of the Land of Israel, who are not accustomed to them, and for them this is not the appearance of an etrog. In any event, even for the Babylonians who are accustomed to these etrogim, specifically a Cushite etrog is fit. But one similar to a Cushite is unfit, since it is not the natural form of its creation to be black.

We learned in a beraita:

An unripe etrog: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, but the Sages declare it fit.

Rabba said: Rabbi Akiva,

who held here that until the etrog’s ripening is complete it is not considered a fruit,

and Rabbi Shimon,

below,

said one and the same thing.

Rabbi Akiva—

that is

what we said,

that he declared an unripe etrog unfit.

Rabbi Shimon—what is it?

For we learned: Rabbi Shimon exempts etrogim when they are small

from tithes. And his reason is as above: Anything whose ripening is not complete is not significant as a fruit with regard to tithes.

Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is not so, [that is, perhaps it is not as you said, that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon follow one method],

[that is, perhaps it is not as you said, that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon follow one position],

for Rabbi Akiva has said here nothing more than

because

we require

that it be

“hadar,” and

in an unripe etrog

there is no

hadar.

But there,

regarding tithes, it is possible that

he agrees with the Sages,

that an unripe etrog is considered a fruit and is liable for the tithe.

Alternatively [

it can likewise be explained in the opposite manner]:

Rabbi Shimon has said there nothing more than,

that an unripe etrog is exempt from the tithe,

because

it is

written [

Deuteronomy 14:22]:

“You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed,”

and we expound, namely

, in the manner in which people take out for sowing,

which is produce fit to grow, and this is specifically produce that has already grown to its full extent.

But here

it is possible to say that

he agrees with the Sages,

that an unripe etrog is fit.