Sukkah 40a — the Talmud in English

that its tithe-year is determined by the time of its picking,

that is, with regard to the year of the tithe, we follow its time of picking, like a vegetable,

the words of Rabban Gamaliel.

The reason for this is as explained above: with regard to a tree that grows from rainwater, we follow the formation of the fruit. But with regard to vegetables that grow from irrigation water, we follow their picking. They found support for this matter, for by Torah law only grain, wine, and oil are subject to the tithe, and the determining time for them with regard to the tithe is the beginning of their growth. The Sages instituted that everything should be tithed, and therefore they said that only those resembling grain, wine, and oil—that is, the species of tree that grow from rainwater—are tithed for the previous year [that is, the year that determines with regard to them whether it is the year of maaser sheni or maaser ani—in the third and sixth years maaser ani is given, and in the other years maaser sheni—is the year in which the fruit was formed]; vegetables that grow from all water are excluded, as they are tithed for the following year.

The same law applies to an etrog, which differs from other trees in this regard, as it grows from all water, as explained above; therefore, its tithe-year is determined according to the time of its picking.

Rabbi Eliezer says: An etrog is equal to a tree in every regard,

that is, also with regard to the tithe, we follow its formation. Nevertheless, it is explained that with regard to the seventh year everyone agrees that we follow its formation, like a tree. If so, our tanna, who forbids an etrog of the sixth year that entered the seventh year because we follow its picking, follows neither Rabban Gamaliel nor Rabbi Eliezer?!

The Gemara answers:

It

[the tanna of our Mishna]

is one who says like this tanna

who holds that an etrog is equal to a vegetable also with regard to the seventh year.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders: An etrog follows its picking with regard to the tithe.

And our Sages convened in Usha and said:

An etrog is equal to a tree

both with regard to the tithe and with regard to the seventh year.

And we raise an objection:

The seventh year—who mentioned it?

[Where did our Sages in Usha find in the words of the elders an opinion concerning the seventh year, so that they came to dispute with them]?

And we explain:

The text is deficient, and this is what it teaches:

With regard to an

etrog

we follow

its picking with regard to the tithe, and its formation with regard to the seventh year.

And our Sages convened in Usha and said: An etrog follows its picking, both with regard to the tithe and with regard to the seventh year.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason

that we permitted taking a lulav during the seventh year without concern lest it be holy with the sanctity of the seventh year, and consequently its money would become seized by that sanctity and it would be forbidden to give it to an ignoramus, is

that

it is speaking of a

wild lulav

of the

sixth year that entered the seventh year,

and since we follow its formation, it does not have the sanctity of the seventh year.

But

a lulav

of the seventh year

[which formed in the seventh year]—

is holy

with the sanctity of the seventh year. Consequently, if in the eighth year one takes a lulav that formed in the seventh year, the sanctity of the seventh year applies to its money. And this is difficult:

Why

does the sanctity of the seventh year apply to it? For the lulav

is merely wood,

which is not a fruit,

and wood does not have the sanctity of the seventh year?!

That is, the Gemara now assumes that the seventh-year law applies only to something fit for food, and not to a lulav, which is merely wood. The proof that the sanctity of the seventh year does not apply to mere wood is from this

that was taught:

Reed leaves and vine leaves that one gathered for storage—

that he collected them in order to store them in a hidden place, and now they are still

on the surface of the field,

their law is as follows:

These leaves have two uses: one, as food for an animal, and the other, to kindle fire with them like other wood.

Since this is so, it was newly established with regard to these leaves that their status concerning the sanctity of the seventh year is determined according to the purpose that the person gathering them designated for them at the time of their picking.

Therefore, if

he picked them for food

[for animal food], their status is like that of other types of food, and

they have the sanctity of the seventh year.

But if

he picked them for wood,

they are like other wood, and

they do not have the sanctity of the seventh year.

This beraita proves that the sanctity of the seventh year does not apply to mere wood. If so, why is the lulav holy with the sanctity of the seventh year? The Gemara answers: In truth, the sanctity of the seventh year applies also to wood that is not designated for food, and for this reason the lulav is holy with the sanctity of the seventh year.

And

the case there is different,

with firewood, for only it is not holy with the sanctity of the seventh year. The reason for this is

that the verse says

[Leviticus 25:6]: “And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be

for you for food,”

and we expound it as follows: The Sabbath produce of the land shall apply

“for you.”

That is, the sanctity of the seventh year shall apply to those crops of the land that are “for you,”

analogous to “for food.”

This teaches you that only

that whose benefit and destruction are equal,

that is, when it is consumed, one benefits from it—like food that is eaten, where when one eats and consumes it, one benefits from it—only in that does the sanctity of the seventh year apply.

Wood is excluded,

wood designated for kindling,

whose benefit

is

after its destruction.

That is because the normal practice is to bake bread with it only after the wood has burned and become coals, and not while the wood itself is burning.

But with regard to a lulav, its primary benefit is that it is used to sweep the floor, and during the work of sweeping it becomes worn away and consumed. It follows that its benefit and its destruction are equal: at the time of its benefit it is being consumed. Therefore, it has the sanctity of the seventh year.

The Gemara asks concerning what they said—that firewood does not have the sanctity of the seventh year because its benefit is after its destruction:

But there are wood pieces that are used for illumination,

[wood that contains oil],

whose benefit and destruction are equal,

since they are used not only for heating but also for illumination?

That is, the benefit of heating is generally obtained through coals. But in order to illuminate, one specifically uses a torch, that is, wood burning in fire before it dims and becomes a coal. It follows that the primary benefit of this wood is at the time it is being consumed.

And although this wood is also used for heating, nevertheless it is no worse than the reed leaves and vine leaves that we learned above: since they have several uses, the matter depends on the intention of the one picking them. If so, if the one gathering this wood designates it for illumination, why should the sanctity of the seventh year not apply to it?!

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: Ordinary wood is designated for kindling.

That is, with reed leaves and vine leaves, the two uses exist equally: some gather them for food, and some gather them for burning. Therefore, since by their essential nature they are not designated for one use more than another, the intention of the one gathering them determines their nature. But wood used for illumination is primarily used for kindling like other wood. Therefore, his intention is not sufficiently significant to remove from it the status of kindling and establish that its entire purpose is to illuminate, so that its benefit and destruction would be equal. Therefore, its law is like that of other firewood, upon which the sanctity of the seventh year does not apply, since its benefit and destruction are not equal.

And the Gemara adds: The law that the sanctity of the seventh year does not apply to

wood

designated

for kindling,

since its benefit and destruction are not equal,

is a dispute among

the tanna’im.

For we find that the tanna’im disputed the very principle stated above: whether the sanctity of the seventh year applies only to something whose benefit and destruction are equal, or also to something whose benefit is after its destruction. According to the latter view, the verse that equates “for you” with “for food” did not come to exclude something whose benefit is after its destruction, but came to exclude something whose benefit is not equal for every person, since eating applies to every person, as will be explained.

For it was taught: One may not give seventh-year produce

such as wine

for soaking

flax—that he should not soak his flax in wine that is holy with the sanctity of the seventh year—

nor for laundering—

that he should not launder his garments with wine that is holy with the sanctity of the seventh year, since the benefit of these uses is after their destruction. For as soon as he soaks his flax in it, the wine is spoiled, and only afterward does he remove the flax from it and benefit from its use.

Likewise with regard to laundering garments, the wine is spoiled through the act of laundering, whereas he benefits from it only later, when he wears the garments.

But

Rabbi Yosei says: One may give

seventh-year wine for soaking flax and laundering garments.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of the first tanna?

For the verse says:

“And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be for you”

“for food,” and not for soaking,

and not for laundering.

That is, the intention of the verse is to exclude uses whose benefit is after their destruction, since they are not like eating, whose time of eating and destruction are equal.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

The verse says, “for you,”

and we expound:

“For you”—for all your needs, and

it comes to include

even soaking and laundering,

which are permitted even though their benefit and destruction are not equal.

The Gemara asks:

And the first tanna,

what will he answer to Rabbi Yosei’s exposition?

For “for you” is written,

which implies for all your needs?!

We answer:

That “for you”

comes to teach us that the sanctity of the seventh year applies only to something whose “for you” is

analogous to “for food,”

that is,

that whose benefit and destruction are equal,

like eating, whose benefit occurs at the time of its destruction;

so soaking and laundering, whose benefit is after their destruction, are excluded.

The Gemara further asks from the other side:

And Rabbi Yosei—“for food” is written,

which implies that we require a benefit analogous to eating?!

We answer:

That is needed for him

to teach us an additional law: specifically

“for food”

is permitted,

and not for a medicinal poultice—

for healing. Since this use is not intended for every person, but only for the sick, and we require something analogous to “for food,” which is a use intended for every person.

And it is an explicit beraita,

as it was taught: “For food,” and not for a medicinal poultice.

You say

that we expound

“for food” and not for a medicinal poultice, or perhaps it is only “for food”

and not for laundering,

but not for laundering,

as the Rabbis who dispute Rabbi Yosei expounded?!

When it says “for you,” laundering is already stated,

for “for you” means for all your needs—to include soaking and laundering; consequently, you are compelled to say:

Then how do I uphold “for food”? For food, and not for a medicinal poultice.

And

what have you seen to include laundering and exclude the medicinal poultice?

Say the opposite: from the verse “for you” we should include a medicinal poultice, and from the verse “for food” we should exclude laundering?!