Sukkah 36a (לו.) — the Talmud in English

This

statement of Rava that it is fit applies when the peeling was

over its entirety,

and consequently it is not mottled. Whereas

this

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

over part of it,

so that it is mottled.

We learned in our Mishna:

If it was split, punctured

and anything at all was missing because of the puncture, it is unfit. But if it was punctured and nothing at all is missing, it is fit.

And

Ulla bar Ḥanina taught: If it was punctured by a perforating hole

it is unfit even if nothing was made missing through it, and even if the hole was

through a

thickness of

the slightest amount

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

And

if it was punctured by a hole

that was not perforating,

for example, one drove a thick peg into it, and the etrog was not diminished by even the slightest amount, the measure that renders it unfit is

the size of an issar.

If the hole was as wide as an issar, it is unfit even though nothing at all is missing. [The case in our Mishna that declares it fit when nothing at all is missing is discussing a non-perforating hole smaller than an issar.]

Rava inquired: If signs of a tereifa developed in an etrog

like the signs of a tereifa in an animal [which are cited below],

what is its status?

The Gemara clarifies:

What is Rava asking

?

If

he is asking about the status of an etrog that was

peeled,

which is one of the signs of a tereifa in an animal, namely, an animal stripped of its skin, is

it not already taught

explicitly in our Mishna what its status is? And

if

he is asking about the status of an etrog that was

split,

which is also one of the signs of a tereifa in an animal, namely, a windpipe that was completely split, with neither a vertebra remaining above nor a vertebra remaining below, is this not also

already taught

in our Mishna? And

if he is asking about an etrog that was

punctured,

what is the question? An etrog punctured in a manner analogous to a punctured membrane of the brain, which is one of the signs of a tereifa in an animal, is this not also

already taught

in our Mishna?

in the Mishna.

The Gemara explains:

What Rava is asking

is

in accordance with what Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

For Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A lung that has dissolved like a jug

—that is, the flesh within the membrane has liquefied and become like water—

, is fit.

And Rava said: And

this ruling

applies

specifically where

the

bronchi

still remain

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

But

if

its bronchi do not remain,

it is

a tereifa,

so one of the signs of a tereifa is that the lung’s bronchi have been uprooted.

And now we have a question:

here,

in the case of an etrog, when the inside of the etrog has liquefied but its seed chambers, in which the seeds are located, still remain [which correspond to the bronchi of an animal’s lung],

what is the ruling?

The explanation of the question is as follows: On the one hand, perhaps one should distinguish between an animal and an etrog,

for perhaps there it is

not a tereifa in such a case because,

since air does not enter it,

as the lung is not open to the air,

it can recover

[it returns to health]. But

here, where air enters it,

in the etrog,

it will rot

and become rotten,

that is, it rots because the flesh of the fruit comes into contact with the air.

Or perhaps there is no difference?

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

or

pickled

in vinegar or mustard, or

cooked

[thoroughly boiled in hot water], or if the etrog was

black,

or

white, and

likewise an etrog that was

mottled, is unfit.

An etrog

whose shape is

like a ball

is unfit.

And some say: Even a double etrog,

that is, two etrogim joined 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 it grew in a mold,

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

and

through this

made

that etrog

like another creature

that does not resemble an etrog at all,

it is unfit.

The Gemara infers:

In any event, it teaches: Swollen, rotten.

What, is it not: “swollen”

meaning that it has become enlarged and rotted

from the outside, and “rotten”

meaning that it rotted

from the inside,

that is, analogous to a lung that dissolved like a jug while its bronchi remained, and nevertheless it is unfit?!

The Gemara rejects this:

No. Both this and that,

both “swollen” and “rotten,”

from the outside

is the case being discussed, and not the flesh of the fruit.

And there is no difficulty: This

that it teaches “swollen” means

that it swelled

[that it became swollen]—

even though it did not rot

[it did not become rotten]. Whereas

this

that it teaches

“rotten,”

means

even though it did not swell.

Our Mishna thereby teaches us that whether it rotted or whether it swelled, it is unfit.

The Master said: An etrog that is black is unfit.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it was taught

that an etrog that is

black

and grew in the land of Cush

is fit,

even though it is black, since that is the manner in which it grows in that place. But if it merely

resembles a Cushite,

that is, it grew here and is black,

it is unfit,

because in our regions a black appearance is not considered the appearance of an etrog. In any event, it is evident that an etrog from Cush is fit?!

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

Indeed, an etrog from Cush is fit, and

when our Mishna also teaches

that it is unfit,

it teaches the case of one that resembles a Cushite.

Rava said:

Actually, both our Mishna and the beraita are discussing an etrog from Cush, and

there is no difficulty: This

that we learned in the beraita, that an etrog from Cush is fit, applies

to us,

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

And this

that we learned in our Mishna, that an etrog from Cush is unfit, applies

to them,

to the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, 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 an etrog from Cush is fit. But one that merely resembles a Cushite is unfit, since it is not the natural form of its growth 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

stated the same position.

Rabbi Akiva

—that is

the statement we said,

that he declared an unripe etrog unfit.

Rabbi Shimon—what is it?

As we learned: Rabbi Shimon exempts small etrogim

from tithes. His reasoning is as stated above: Anything whose ripening is not complete is not considered sufficiently important 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 position],

as Rabbi Akiva stated here only

because

we require

that it be

“beautiful,” and

in the case of an unripe etrog

there is no

beauty.

But there,

with regard to tithes, perhaps he

holds in accordance with the Sages,

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

Alternatively

[it can likewise be explained in the opposite manner]:

Rabbi Shimon stated there only

that an unripe etrog is exempt from tithing

because

it says

“You shall surely tithe”

[Deuteronomy 14:22]:

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

and we interpret this to mean

, in the manner that people take out for sowing,

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

But here

it is possible that he

holds in accordance with the Sages,

that an unripe etrog is fit.