Sukkah 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

And he comes

to his home,

and he eats them

in the status of those fruits for which he transferred the sanctity of the money

with the sanctity of the seventh year.

That is, he uses them for the permitted forms of benefit from produce of the seventh year, such as eating, drinking, anointing, and lighting a lamp.

When are these matters stated?

That it is initially permitted to give him food sufficient for three meals

when one purchases from produce that was ownerless.

That is, a haver saw an am ha-aretz gather the produce in an ownerless field that had not been guarded during the seventh year. Since we did not see him explicitly transgress the prohibitions of the seventh year, we do not suspect him with regard to such a small sum. However, one does not give him more money than this, lest, because the sum is substantial, he become miserly with it and conceal it.

But when one purchases from produce that was guarded,

meaning that the field was guarded by a fence and lock, that am ha-aretz is suspected of failing to declare his field ownerless as required by the Torah. His selling the produce little by little, not in the usual manner of commerce, is merely a deception; therefore

even for half an issar

it is forbidden

to purchase from him.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection: And from ownerless produce

only an amount sufficient for

three meals

may be given to him

and no more?

And we raise a contradiction from the following: Rue, mallow, wheat, purslane, mountain coriander, river celery, and rocket of the ashes

[all of these are types of herbs or legumes]

are exempt from tithes

in every year. The reason, as will be explained, is that people do not customarily guard or attach importance to them, and they declare them all ownerless. Ownerless produce 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 [since the Levites have no share 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 does have a portion and inheritance with you, and therefore he does not take tithes from them.

And

so

these may be purchased

—these herbs—

from anyone during the seventh year,

and there is no concern that prohibited labor was performed on their behalf during the seventh year,

because nothing like them is guarded

—for people do not customarily attach importance to them or guard them. [The fact that they are customarily declared ownerless is not itself a reason to permit them during the seventh year, since the sanctity of the seventh year applies even to ownerless produce.] In any event, it is clear that ownerless produce may be purchased from anyone during the seventh year, including an am ha-aretz, even though by doing so one gives him money possessing the sanctity of the seventh year; and they did not limit this to an amount sufficient for three meals?!

The Gemara answers:

He

[Rav Sheshet]

raised

that objection,

and he

himself

resolved

it [answered it]: Indeed, what we learned there, “And these may be purchased from anyone during the seventh year,”

was taught with regard to the measure of

[the measure of his sustenance]

and no more,

namely, food sufficient for three meals.

And so Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught this with regard to the measure of manna.

And

from where is it indicated that this “man” is an expression for sustenance?

As it is written

[Daniel 1:5]:

“And the king apportioned them, and so on.”

And that passage deals with matters of a meal.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

if one may not give the money for produce of the seventh year to an am ha-aretz, why did they state this law only with regard to an etrog?

A lulav as well

should not be purchased from him, since a lulav also possesses the sanctity of the seventh year, as will be explained below? The Gemara answers:

This lulav

is

from the sixth year entering the seventh year.

That is, it necessarily did not grow during those fifteen days between Rosh HaShana and the festival of Sukkot, since it is an established principle that with regard to a tree we follow the time of blossoming, and since the lulav blossomed during the sixth year, it does not possess the sanctity of the seventh year.

The Gemara asks:

If so,

with regard to an

etrog as well, it is from the sixth year entering the seventh year,

since the etrog too is fruit of a tree, and its status should be determined by its blossoming?!

The Gemara answers: No! With regard to an

etrog, we follow its picking.

It differs from other trees, and its law is like that of a vegetable, for which we follow the time of picking.

The reason is that the distinction between a tree and a vegetable is that the fruit of a tree grows only through rainwater. Once most of the rains have fallen, the trees cause their fruit to blossom and grow it by drawing in that water. It follows that the principal growth of the fruit is determined at the time of its blossoming. A vegetable, however, grows from all types of water and not only from rainwater. Thus, as long as it has not been picked and is still being watered, its growth is not complete; therefore, its year is determined according to the time of its picking. In this respect, an etrog is similar to a vegetable, since it too grows from all types of water, and therefore its year is determined by the time it is picked.

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

But whether

according to the position of

Rabban Gamliel and whether

according to the position of

Rabbi Eliezer, with regard to the seventh year we follow the etrog’s blossoming?!

As we learned in the Mishna: 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 is subject to the law of orla like other trees, unlike a vegetable, to which this law does not apply.

And

so

with

regard to

reva'i and the seventh year.

For with regard to the seventh year, we follow its blossoming, as with a tree, and not the time of its picking.

And

it is equal

to a vegetable in one way: