Sukkah 40a (מ.) — the Talmud in English

whose tithing year is determined by the time of its gathering,

that is, with regard to the year of the tithe, it follows the time of gathering, like a vegetable,

the statement of Rabban Gamliel.

The reason for this is as explained above: with regard to a tree that grows from rainwater, we follow the time of its blossoming. But with regard to vegetables that grow through irrigation, we follow the time of their gathering. Support for this distinction was found in the following: By Torah law, only grain, wine, and oil are obligated in tithes, and the determining time for their tithes is the beginning of their growth. The Sages instituted tithing for everything, and therefore they said that only those species resembling grain, wine, and oil—that is, species of trees that grow from rainwater—are tithed according to the previous year [that is, the year that determines whether their tithe is 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 blossomed]. Vegetables, which grow from any water, are excluded; they are tithed according to the following year.

The same law applies to an etrog, which differs from other trees in this regard, as it grows from any water, as explained above. Therefore, its tithing year is determined by the time of its gathering.

Rabbi Eliezer says: An etrog is like a tree in every respect,

meaning that, even with regard to tithes, we follow its blossoming. Nevertheless, it is clear that with regard to the Sabbatical Year everyone agrees that we follow its blossoming, as with a tree. If so, the tanna of our Mishna, who prohibits an etrog of the sixth year that entered the Sabbatical Year because we follow the time of its gathering, follows neither Rabban Gamliel nor Rabbi Eliezer?!

The Gemara answers:

It

the tanna of our Mishna

is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna,

who holds that an etrog is like a vegetable even with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Avtulmos testified in the name of five Elders: With regard to tithes, an etrog follows its gathering.

And our Sages convened in Usha and said:

An etrog is like a tree

both with regard to tithes and with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

We are astonished:

The Sabbatical Year—who mentioned it?

Where did our Sages in Usha find, in the words of the Elders, an opinion concerning the Sabbatical Year over which they could disagree with them?

The Gemara explains:

A section is missing, and this is what it teaches: With regard to an

an

etrog,

we follow

its gathering with regard to tithes, and its blossoming with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

And our Sages convened in Usha and said: An etrog follows its gathering, both with regard to tithes and with regard to the Sabbatical Year.

The Gemara infers:

The reason

that we permitted one to purchase a lulav during the Sabbatical Year without concern that it might be imbued with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, and consequently that its money might assume that sanctity and be forbidden to give to an am ha'aretz, is

that

the discussion concerns a

wild lulav

of the

sixth year that entered the Sabbatical Year,

and since we follow its blossoming, it does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

But a lulav

of the

Sabbatical Year

[which blossomed during the Sabbatical Year]

is sacred

with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Consequently, if in the eighth year one takes a lulav that blossomed during the Sabbatical Year, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year applies to its money. This is difficult:

Why

should the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year apply to it? After all, the lulav

is merely wood,

not a fruit,

and there is no sanctity of the Sabbatical Year in mere wood?!

That is, the Gemara now assumes that the laws of the Sabbatical Year apply only to something fit for consumption, and not to a lulav, which is merely wood. The proof that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to mere wood is from the following

that was taught in a beraita:

Reeds and vine leaves that one gathered for storage

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

spread across the field,

their law is as follows:

These leaves have two uses: one, as food for animals; and the other, as fuel for kindling a fire, like other wood.

Since this is so, a new principle was established concerning these leaves: their status with regard to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is determined by the purpose assigned to them by the person gathering them, at the time of their gathering.

Therefore, if he

gathered them for consumption

[as animal fodder], they have the status of other types of food, and

the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year applies to them.

But if he

gathered them for wood,

they have the status of other wood, and

the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to them.

This beraita proves that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to wood alone. If so, why is the lulav sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year? The Gemara answers: In fact, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year applies even to wood that is not intended for consumption, and for this reason the lulav is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

But

there it is different,

with regard to wood used as fuel; only such wood is not sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. The reason is

that the verse says

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

yours to eat,”

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

“to you.”

That is, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year applies to those products of the land that are “for you,”

analogous to “to eat.”

This teaches that only

something whose benefit and destruction occur simultaneously,

that is, when it is consumed, one benefits from it—like food that is eaten, from which one benefits as it is eaten and consumed—is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

Wood is excluded,

wood intended for fuel,

whose benefit

is

after its destruction.

This is because the ordinary 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 while the sweeping is being done it is worn down and consumed. Thus, its benefit and destruction occur simultaneously: at the time of its benefit it is being consumed. Therefore, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year applies to it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning what was said—that wood used as fuel is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year because its benefit is after its destruction:

But there is wood containing oil,

[wood that contains oil],

whose benefit and destruction occur simultaneously,

since it is used not only for heating but also for illumination?

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

Although this wood is also used for heating, nevertheless, its status is no worse than that of the reeds and vine leaves discussed above. Since they have several uses, the matter depends on the intention of the person gathering them. If so, if the person gathering this wood intended it for illumination, why should the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year not apply to it?!

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: Ordinary wood is presumed to be intended for fuel.

That is, reeds and vine leaves have two equally established uses: some people gather them for consumption, and others gather them to burn. Therefore, since by their very nature they are not intended for one use more than another, the intention of the gatherer determines their status. But wood containing oil is primarily used as fuel like other wood. Therefore, the person’s intention is not sufficiently significant to remove it from the category of fuel and define its entire purpose as illumination, with the result that its benefit and destruction occur simultaneously. Consequently, it has the status of other fuel wood, to which the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply because its benefit and destruction do not occur simultaneously.

And the Gemara adds: This halakha—that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not apply to

wood

intended

for

fuel,

because its benefit and destruction do not occur simultaneously—is

a dispute between tannaim.

For we find that tannaim disagree concerning the very principle stated above: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year apply only to something whose benefit and destruction occur simultaneously, or does it also apply to something whose benefit occurs after its destruction? According to the latter view, the verse’s comparison of “to you” with “to eat” does not exclude something whose benefit occurs after its destruction. Rather, it excludes something whose benefit is not equally applicable to everyone, since eating applies to everyone, as will be explained.

As it was taught in a beraita: Sabbatical-Year produce may not be given

such as wine

for soaking

linen—that one may not soak one’s flax in wine sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year—

or for laundering

that one may not launder one’s clothes with wine sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, because the benefit from these uses occurs after their destruction. As soon as one soaks the flax in the wine, the wine is spoiled, and only afterward does one remove the flax from it and benefit from its use.

Likewise, with regard to laundering clothes, the wine is spoiled through the laundering, whereas one benefits from it only later, when one wears the clothes.

But

Rabbi Yosei says: One may give

Sabbatical-Year wine for soaking linen and laundering clothes.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason of the first tanna?

For the verse says: “And the Sabbath produce of the land shall be yours

‘to eat,’

and not for soaking,

and not for laundering.

That is, the intention of the verse is to exclude uses whose benefit occurs after their destruction, since they are unlike eating, whose time of eating and destruction coincide.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

The verse says, “to you,”

and we derive:

“To you”—for all your needs, and

it comes to include

even soaking and laundering,

although their benefit and destruction do not occur simultaneously; they are permitted.

The Gemara asks:

And the first tanna,

what does he answer to Rabbi Yosei’s interpretation,

for is it not written, “to you,”

which implies for all your needs?!

The Gemara answers:

That “to you”

comes to teach us that the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year applies only to something whose “to you” is

analogous to “to eat,”

that is,

something whose benefit and destruction occur simultaneously,

as with eating, whose benefit occurs at the time of its destruction.

So soaking and laundering are excluded, since their benefit occurs after their destruction.

The Gemara further raises the opposite difficulty:

And Rabbi Yosei, is it not written, “to eat,”

which implies that the benefit must be analogous to eating?!

The Gemara answers:

That expression is needed

to teach us an additional halakha: Only

“to eat”

is permitted,

but not for a medicinal poultice

for healing. Since this use is intended not for everyone but only for the ill, we require it to be analogous to “to eat,” which is a use intended for everyone.

And it is an explicit beraita,

as it was taught: “To eat,” and not for a medicinal poultice.

You say

that we derive

“to eat” and not for a medicinal poultice; or perhaps it means “to eat”

and not for laundering,

as the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yosei expounded?!

as the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yosei derive?!

When it says, “to you,” laundering is already included,

for “to you” means for all your needs, including soaking and laundering. Consequently, you must necessarily say:

How do I realize “to eat”? To eat, and not for a medicinal poultice.

But

what have you seen that leads you to include laundering and exclude a medicinal poultice?

Let the opposite be said: Let the verse “to you” include a medicinal poultice, and let the verse “to eat” exclude laundering?!