Sukkah 40b — the Talmud in English

The beraita explains:

I include washing, which is equal for every person

as analogous to eating, and it is more reasonable that we permit it in the seventh year,

and I exclude the poultice—

which is not equal for every person,

for only the sick need it.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is the tanna for that which the Sages taught in a beraita:

“For eating”—

and not for a poultice,

“for eating”—

and not for sprinkling [

their practice was to sprinkle wine in the house for a pleasant fragrance], for that is a benefit that is not equal for every person.

“For eating,” and not to make from it an apiktoizin [

medicinal substances that cause vomiting; this designation is an acronym: “afik”—removal, “zayin”—food]. For this too is a benefit that is not equal for every person, since it is only for the sick.

According to whom? According to Rabbi Yosei.

For he excluded not benefits whose consumption and benefit are equal, but rather kinds of benefits that are not equal for every person.

For if

it were according to

the Rabbis, there is also soaking and washing,

for they too are uses that are forbidden with seventh-year produce for another reason, since their benefit and their consumption are not equal.

For understanding the laws below, a little introduction to the laws of the seventh year is necessary:

A. Seventh-year produce never leaves its sanctity, not even through redemption.

B. Seventh-year produce “seizes its value” with the sanctity of the seventh year: if a person sold seventh-year produce for money, the sanctity of the seventh year takes effect upon the money, and it is forbidden to trade with it. Rather, he must eliminate it at the time of elimination of the seventh-year produce, or purchase with it food that is fit to be eaten with the sanctity of the seventh year, and eat it before the time of elimination.

This law also applies to “substitutes of the seventh year”: if a person exchanged his seventh-year produce for food, the sanctity of the seventh year takes effect upon the food.

C. Although seventh-year produce never leaves its sanctity forever, nevertheless the money of the seventh year [money with which seventh-year produce was purchased], or substitutes of the seventh year, leave their sanctity if they were exchanged for something else, since with the money of the seventh year the law of redemption applies—the sanctity of the seventh year passes to their substitutes. This law will be explained below at length.

D. The Gemara below brings a dispute: whether the seventh year seizes its value only by way of a purchase, through the fact that one purchased it with money, or also by way of “transfer of sanctity,” similar to the redemption of consecrated property, when a person says: These seventh-year fruits shall be transferred onto money that I have in my possession.

Rabbi Elazar said: There is no

sanctity of

the seventh year transferred

so as to seize its value, so that the sanctity of the seventh year should take effect upon it,

except by way of a purchase.

That is, when he purchases seventh-year produce with money. But if he takes money in his hand and says, “Let these fruits be transferred onto money that I have in my possession,” the sanctity of the seventh year does not take effect upon the money.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

the seventh year seizes its value

both by way of a “purchase” and by way of “transfer of sanctity.”

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar?

For it is written [

Leviticus 25:13, concerning the laws of the Jubilee, which in their essential nature resemble the laws of the seventh year]: “

In this year of the Jubilee

you shall return, each man, to his holding,” and

and

in the verse that

is adjacent to it

it is written:

“And when you sell a sale,”

and from the juxtaposition of the passages we learn that Scripture came to teach that the seventh year is transferred only

by way of

a purchase,

as the wording of Scripture is, “And when you sell a sale,”

and not by way of transfer of sanctity.

And Rabbi Yohanan,

who disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that the seventh year is also transferred by way of transfer of sanctity,

what is his reason?

For it is written

there, in that same passage:

“For it is the Jubilee; it is holy.”

And we derive:

Just as consecrated property [

consecrated property] is redeemed—

both

by

way of a purchase and

by

way of transfer of sanctity, so too the seventh year

seizes its value

both by way of a purchase and by way of transfer of sanctity.

And the Gemara adds to explain:

And Rabbi Yohanan, what does he do with this

juxtaposition of passages of

“when you sell a sale,”

from which Rabbi Elazar derived that specifically a purchase is required,

what does he do with it [

how does he expound it]?

He needs it for that which Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina taught.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: Come and see how severe is the “dust” of the seventh year,

that is, come and see how severe are the lightest laws among the prohibitions of the seventh year [a light matter is compared to dust, which is not the principal substance]. That is because the principal prohibition of the seventh year is in working the land, whereas the prohibition of trade in this produce is only a prohibition accompanying it.

A person conducts business with seventh-year produce; in the end he sells his movable property and his utensils, as it is stated: “In this year of the Jubilee you shall return, each man, to his holding,” and adjacent to it: “And when you sell a sale to your fellow.”

That is, because he transgressed the prohibitions of the seventh year, he ultimately comes to poverty, until he is forced to sell all his possessions.

The Gemara adds to explain from the other side:

And Rabbi Elazar,

who holds that the seventh year is transferred only by way of a purchase,

what does he do with this verse of Rabbi Yohanan, “

for it is the Jubilee; it is holy,”

what does he do with it?

He needs it for that which was taught in a beraita: [

Leviticus 25]:

“For it is the Jubilee; it is holy.”

Just as consecrated property seizes its value,

so that when it is redeemed, its sanctity takes effect upon its value,

, so too the seventh year seizes its value.

However, only by way of a purchase and not by way of transfer of sanctity. That is, according to Rabbi Yohanan, we derive from this verse the manner in which the seventh year seizes its value—analogous to consecrated property. But according to Rabbi Elazar, from here they learned only the fundamental law: that the sanctity of the seventh year seizes its value.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, and it was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan:

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Elazar: The seventh year seizes its value, as it is stated, “For it is the Jubilee; it is holy; it shall be holy for you,”

and we derive:

Just as consecrated property seizes its value and is forbidden

in benefit according to the law of consecrated property,

so too the seventh year seizes its value and is forbidden

in trade and the like.

If [

you might say],

just as consecrated property seized its value and emerges

into unconsecrated status,

for through redemption the sanctity departs from the consecrated property,

so too the seventh year

shall

seize its value and emerge into unconsecrated status?

Scripture says: “It shall be”—

it shall remain in its state.

That is, even after the redemption the sanctity does not depart from the produce; rather, both are holy—the produce and its value.

How so?

If he purchased meat with seventh-year produce

and the like

, both this and that are eliminated in the seventh year,

for both are holy.

And if afterward

he purchased fish with the meat, it departed

the

meat

from its sanctity, since this limitation of “it shall be” was stated only with regard to the seventh-year produce itself, which does not leave its sanctity through redemption. But the value leaves its sanctity through redemption,

and

therefore

the fish entered

into sanctity in its place, and the meat enters unconsecrated status.

And likewise, if

he purchased wine with the fish, the fish departed and the wine entered. If he purchased oil with the wine—

the wine departed and the oil entered.

How so?

The last

of the values

enters into the seventh year,

and the earlier one enters unconsecrated status,

but

if

the produce

of the seventh year

itself

forever

is forbidden

with the sanctity of the seventh year, for it does not depart from the produce itself.

And the Gemara infers:

Since it teaches

in the wording of the beraita

“he purchased,” “he purchased,” it follows: By way of a purchase, yes.

That is, if he transferred their sanctity by way of a purchase—he purchased meat and the like with the produce—only then does the seventh year seize its value. But if he did so

by way of transfer of sanctity

and redemption,

no.

It follows that the beraita holds like Rabbi Elazar, that specifically by way of a purchase the seventh year seizes its value.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: Both the seventh year and second tithe are transferred onto a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird, whether alive or slaughtered—these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Onto slaughtered animals—

they are transferred,

whereas

onto living animals—

they are not transferred,

and the reason is

a decree, lest

he keep them with him and

raise herds from them.

And this is forbidden to do with second tithe, because it is forbidden for a person to keep his tithes, but he is obligated to bring them up and eat them in Jerusalem; and with seventh-year produce the matter is forbidden for another reason, since the Torah prohibited a person from increasing his wealth through seventh-year produce. For this reason they prohibited trade with it; rather, he is obligated to declare it ownerless, so that everyone may benefit from it, and to eliminate it at the time of elimination.

Nevertheless, from the anonymous wording of the beraita it follows that it is not necessary to transfer the sanctity specifically by way of a purchase; rather, both by way of a purchase and by way of transfer of sanctity the sanctity is seized by the value, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

Rava said: The dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Meir—whether it is permitted to transfer the sanctity onto animals that have not been slaughtered—is only

with males,

for although they do not reproduce, the Sages held that it is forbidden to keep them, lest he come to keep females and raise herds from them.