Sukkah 39b — the Talmud in English

and he came

to his house,

and eats them

those fruits for which he transferred the sanctity of the money—

with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year.

That is, he uses them for the permitted benefits derived from fruits of the Sabbatical year, such as eating, drinking, anointing, and lighting the lamp.

When are these words said

that food for three meals may initially be handed over to them?

When purchasing from that which is ownerless.

For a haver saw that an am ha-aretz had gathered the fruits in an ownerless field, which had not been guarded during the Sabbatical year. Since we did not see him explicitly transgressing the prohibitions of the Sabbatical year, we do not suspect him with regard to such a small sum. However, more money than this may not be given to him, lest, because it is a large sum, his eye become covetous of it and he conceal it.

But when purchasing from that which is guarded,

for that field had been guarded with a fence and lock, that am ha-aretz is suspected of not making his field ownerless as commanded by the Torah; and the fact that he sells the fruits little by little, not in the manner of commerce, is merely a deception. Therefore,

even for half an issar

it is forbidden

to purchase from him.

Rav Sheshet objected: “And from that which is ownerless”

only the amount of

three meals

is permitted to give him,

and no more?

And we raise a contradiction: The rue, the pigweed, the wheat, the purslane, the coriander of the mountains, the river celery, and the field cress

[they are all types of herbs or legumes],

are exempt from tithes

all the years. The reason for this, as will be explained, is that people do not customarily guard them or consider them important, and they make them all ownerless. That which is ownerless is exempt from tithes, as it is written: “And the Levite shall come, because he has no portion or inheritance with you”; and we expound: specifically with regard to something in which he has no portion or inheritance with you did the Torah grant him the tithe [for the Levites have no portion in the inheritance of the Land]. But with regard to ownerless gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field, which are ownerless for everyone, he has a portion and inheritance with you, and therefore he does not take tithes from them.

And

so

are purchased

these herbs

from anyone during the Sabbatical year,

and there is no concern lest prohibited labor was performed with them during the Sabbatical year,

because nothing like them is guarded

—for people do not customarily consider them important and guard them. [The mere fact that it is customary to make them ownerless is not a reason to permit them during the Sabbatical year, for the sanctity of the Sabbatical year applies also to ownerless fruits.] In any event, it is explained that an ownerless thing may be purchased from anyone during the Sabbatical year, including an am ha-aretz, even though through this he hands him money possessing the sanctity of the Sabbatical year; and they did not limit this to the amount of three meals?!

The Gemara answers:

he

[Rav Sheshet]

raised it

that objection,

and he

himself

resolved it

[answered it]: Indeed, what we learned there, “and are purchased from anyone during the Sabbatical year,”

was taught with the amount of

[the amount of his provisions]

and no more,

namely, food for three meals.

And likewise Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: “It was taught with the amount of man.”

And

from where is it evident that this “man” is an expression of provisions?

As it is written

[Daniel 1:5]:

“And the king provided for them, etc.”

And there it is speaking about matters of a meal.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

since the money of fruits of the Sabbatical year is not handed over to an am ha-aretz, why did they state this law only with regard to an etrog?

A lulav also

should not be purchased from him, for the lulav also has the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, as will be explained below? The Gemara answers:

This lulav

is

one belonging to the sixth year that entered the seventh year.

That is, it is necessarily so that the lulav did not grow during those fifteen days between Rosh Hashanah and the festival of Sukkot, for it is established that with regard to a tree we follow blossoming, and since the lulav blossomed in the sixth year, it does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical year.

The Gemara objects:

If so,

with regard to

the etrog too is one belonging to the sixth year that entered the seventh year,

for the etrog also is a fruit of a tree, and with regard to it one should follow blossoming?!

The Gemara answers: No! With regard to

an etrog, we follow picking.

For it differs from other trees, and its law is like that of a vegetable, with regard to which they followed picking.

That is, because the reason for the distinction between a tree and a vegetable is that the fruits of a tree grow through rainwater alone, and after most of the rain has fallen, the trees blossom with their fruits and grow them through drawing in those waters. It follows that the principal growth of the fruit is determined at the time of its blossoming. But a vegetable grows through all water and not only through rainwater; it follows that as long as it has not been picked and is still being watered, its growth has not been completed, and therefore its year is determined according to the time of its picking. In this, an etrog resembles a vegetable, for it too grows through all water; therefore, its tithing follows its picking.

The Gemara objects: How can you say that with regard to an etrog we follow the time of its picking, like a vegetable,

but behold, between

according to the method of

Rabban Gamaliel and between

according to the method of

Rabbi Eliezer, with regard to the Sabbatical year we follow blossoming for an etrog?!

For we learned: An etrog is equal to a tree in three ways, and to a vegetable in one way.

It is equal to a tree in three ways: with regard to orla,

for it has the law of orla like other trees, and not like a vegetable, with regard to which this law was not stated.

And

so

with

regard to

the fourth year, and the Sabbatical year.

For with regard to the Sabbatical year, we follow blossoming for it, as with a tree, and not its picking.

And

it is equal

to a vegetable in one way: