SUKKAH - 035a – סוכה – פרק שלישי – לולב הגזול, לה ע”א

The Rabbis taught: (Vayikra 23:40) “The fruit of a beautiful tree” (pri eitz hadar)?^[1]

גמ' פרי עץ - whose wood is like its fruit, the same in taste.

A tree whose wood and fruit taste the same.

You must say: this is the esrog.

But say it is pepper?

As it was taught in a beraisa: Rabbi Meir used to say: “From what it says (Vayikra 19:23) ‘And you shall plant every tree’, do I not know that it is a food tree? What does the Torah teach by saying ‘a food tree’?

ממשמע שנאמר ונטעתם - and at its end it is written “it shall not be eaten” — do I not know that the verse speaks of a food tree?

A tree whose wood and fruit taste the same — you must say: this is pepper. It teaches you that pepper is subject to orlah,^[2] and that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it says (Devarim 8:9) ‘You shall lack nothing in it’”?

חייבין בערלה - lest you say it is a kind of vegetable, because it is a low tree, like a broom bush, that does not stand tall above the ground.

לא תחסר כל בה - and the words “a food tree” teach you that even pepper is included.

There it is because it cannot be done. How would we do it?

Should we take one — its taking is not noticeable;

ננקוט חדא - one kernel.

לא מינכרא לקיחתה - because of its smallness.

should we take two or three — the Torah said [one fruit]^[3], and not two or three fruits. So it cannot be done.

Rebbi says: Do not read hadar, but ha-dir, “the pen”.

הדיר - a fruit tree whose tree looks like a sheep pen.

Just as this pen holds large and small, unblemished and blemished, so too this fruit has large and small, unblemished and blemished.

Do other fruits not have large and small, unblemished and blemished?!

אטו כולהו אילני לית בהו פירות גדולים וקטנים - surely the fruits of one tree are never all equal!

Rather, this is what he means: by the time the small ones come, the large ones are still there.

ה"ק עד שבאים קטנים כו' - that is, “large and small” does not mean of one year, but large ones of last year and small ones of this year; for the esrog dwells and grows on its tree two and three years, and when this year’s fruit comes and sets, last year’s large ones are still on it.

Rabbi Abahu said: Do not read “hadar”, but “ha-dar”, “that which dwells”:

הדר - this is the same as Rebbi’s view; they differ only in the meaning of the word: one expounds it as dir, a pen, and the other as dirah, a dwelling.

a fruit that dwells on its tree from year to year.

Ben Azzai says: Do not read “hadar”, but [“hador”],^[4]

for in Greek they call water [hador].

And which fruit grows by every water? You must say: this is the esrog.

One of an asheirah or of an ir hanidachas is invalid:^[5]

What is the reason?

Since it stands to be burned, its size is regarded as crushed.^[6]

One of orlah is invalid:^[7]

What is the reason?

Rabbi Chiya bar Avin and Rabbi Assi disagree about it.

One said: because it has no permission to be eaten;

לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה - and the Merciful One said lachem,^[8] “for yourselves” — fit for you in every way of using it.

and one said: because it has no monetary standing.

לפי שאין בה דין ממון - it is not worth a perutah, since it is forbidden in benefit; therefore it is not “yours”.

It was assumed that the one who requires permission to be eaten does not require monetary standing,

קא סלקא דעתיה מאן דבעי היתר אכילה - if it has permission to be eaten, such as maaser sheni^[9] in Yerushalayim, it does not need monetary standing. Although it is not his property according to Rabbi Meir, who says in Kiddushin (52b) that maaser sheni is property of the Most High and not ordinary property with which to betroth a woman, it is valid for the mitzvah.

and the one who requires monetary standing does not require permission to be eaten.

ומאן דבעי דין ממון לא בעי היתר אכילה - and he declares valid an esrog of tevel,^[10] which is forbidden to eat and permitted in benefit.

We learned in the Mishnah: One of tamei terumah is invalid.^[11]

Granted, according to the one who said “because it has no permission to be eaten” — that is fine;

but according to the one who said “because it has no monetary standing” — why is it invalid?

אלא למ"ד לפי שאין בה דין ממון - but permission to be eaten we do not require, and on account of its monetary standing we call it “yours”.

He may burn it as fuel under his cooking!

הרי מסיקה לזו תחת תבשילו - as we say (Shabbos 25b): “you shall give it to him — and not to its light”, which implies that it is fit to be used for its light.

Rather, all agree that permission to be eaten is required;

אלא בהיתר אכילה דכ"ע בעינן - and even if it has monetary standing, they are not valid without permission to be eaten; since it is not fit for every way of use, it is not “yours”.

where they disagree is monetary standing.

One master holds: permission to be eaten is required, monetary standing is not required;

דין ממון לא בעינן - if it may be eaten, such as maaser sheni in Yerushalayim, it is valid even according to Rabbi Meir; and our Mishnah, which teaches that one of maaser sheni in Yerushalayim is valid, is explained even according to Rabbi Meir, who says that maaser sheni is property of the Most High.

and the other master holds: monetary standing is also required.

דין ממון נמי בעינן - so maaser sheni is invalid according to Rabbi Meir, and our Mishnah, which teaches that it is valid, follows the Rabbis, who say it is ordinary property and a woman may be betrothed with it.

What is the difference between them?

The difference between them is maaser sheni in Yerushalayim, according to Rabbi Meir:

according to the one who said “because it has no permission to be eaten” — this one does have permission to be eaten;

according to the one who said “because it has no monetary standing” — maaser sheni is property of the Most High.

Conclude that it is Rabbi Assi who said “because it has no monetary standing”,

תסתיים דר' אסי הוא דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון - that even where it has permission to be eaten, monetary standing is also required, and one of maaser is invalid according to Rabbi Meir.

for Rabbi Assi said: An esrog of maaser sheni — according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfil his obligation with it on Yom Tov; according to the Sages, a person does fulfil his obligation with it on Yom Tov. Conclude so.

The matter itself:^[12] Rabbi Assi said: An esrog of maaser sheni — according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfil his obligation with it on Yom Tov; according to the Sages, a person does fulfil his obligation with it on Yom Tov.

Matzah of maaser sheni — according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfil his obligation with it on Pesach; according to the Sages, a person does fulfil his obligation with it on Pesach.

אין יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח - the obligation of eating matzah on the first night; and below the Gemara challenges: is it written “your matzah”?

Dough of maaser sheni — according to Rabbi Meir, it is exempt from challah; according to the Sages, it is obligated in challah.^[13]

פטורה מן החלה - for it is written “your dough”, and this belongs to the Most High; although it has permission to be eaten, since it lacks the status of ordinary property, it is not his.

Rav Pappa challenged it: Granted dough — it is written (Bamidbar 15:20) “the first of your dough”; the esrog too — it is written “for yourselves”, from what is yours; but matzah — is it written “your matzah”?

Rabbah bar Shmuel said, and some say Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya: It is learned from “bread”, “bread”.^[14]

It is written here (Devarim 16:3) “bread of affliction”, and it is written there^[15]

Tosfos

ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה - “lest you say it is a kind of vegetable, because it is a low tree like a broom bush that does not stand tall” — so Rashi explains. But this is difficult: the matter does not depend on that, for many low plants have the status of a tree. Rather, the reason is this: we say in the last perek of Yoma (81b) that one who chews pepper on Yom Kippur is exempt, and the Gemara asks from the teaching that pepper is subject to orlah, and answers: this one is fresh, that one is dry. One might have thought that since it ends up dry, even fresh pepper is exempt. And if you ask: how do we know the verse speaks of pepper? Say the esrog, or say fenugreek — for in the esrog the taste of wood and fruit is the same, as is said here, and so in fenugreek, as we say at the end of the first perek of Beitzah (13a). One can answer: for the esrog it is no novelty that it is subject to orlah; and fenugreek is a kind of vegetable, since it is counted as kilayim in a vineyard, as we learned in Maseches Orlah (3:6), brought at the beginning of Beitzah (3a) and at the end of perek HaAreil (Yevamos 81a): “one who had bundles of fenugreek of kilayim of the vineyard.”

לפי שאין בו היתר אכילה - and the Merciful One said lachem — fit for you in every way of benefit. And although regarding tamei terumah we expound in perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 25a) from “lecha”, “yours it shall be, to burn under your cooking” — since it became tamei and the Torah forbade it, it is fitting to expound “lecha”, his, regarding the other benefits, like the “lachem” of the lulav, where eating does not apply. And if you ask: regarding a lulav of an asheirah or of an ir hanidachas (above, Sukkah 31a), why do we need the reason that its size is crushed? Derive it from the requirement of monetary standing; for even the one who is not concerned here about monetary standing for an esrog holds so because its main purpose is eating, but for the lulav, which is not eaten, “lachem”, his, is written with regard to monetary standing. One can answer: it gives the reason that its size is crushed in order to disqualify it on the second day of Yom Tov.^[16] And if you ask: an esrog of orlah — derive it from its size being crushed, since its mitzvah is burning, for it is counted in Temurah, the last perek (33b), among the things that are burned, and we say there that things to be burned are not buried; and possibly even by Torah law orlah is burned, for we learn it from kilayim of the vineyard, of which it is written “pen tikdash”, and we expound (Chullin 115a) “lest it be kindled with fire”. And for this reason too an esrog of tamei terumah is invalid, since its mitzvah is burning — so why do we need the reason of permission to be eaten? One can answer: certainly it was not needed, but they disagreed over these reasons regarding orlah because there is a practical difference regarding maaser sheni, as we conclude: the difference between them is maaser sheni, according to Rabbi Meir (and the one who validates it does so according to the Rabbis). And it could also have said: maaser sheni outside Yerushalayim, according to everyone, as is proven at the end of perek Chelek (Sanhedrin 112b) that it is property of the Most High.

אתיא לחם לחם - It is puzzling: in perek Kol Sha’ah (Pesachim 35b) it says that one does not fulfil the obligation of matzah with tevel, since it is written “You shall not eat chametz with it; seven days you shall eat matzos with it” — excluding something whose prohibition is “do not eat”. Derive it instead from the requirement that matzah be “yours”, and tevel is not counted as “yours”, as is proven here regarding the esrog: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagree only about demai,^[17] because if he wishes he may declare his property ownerless, become a poor man, and then it is fit for him; but about tevel, certainly all agree. One can answer that they are not alike: one cannot fulfil the obligation with an esrog of tevel because it is like an esrog owned by partners, in which the kohen and the Levi have a share, and it resembles brothers who bought an esrog from the estate’s funds, at the end of Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra 137b); but with matzah, when he eats several olive-sizes of it, if an olive’s size of it is his own, he has fulfilled his obligation. For this reason too it is well that dough of tevel is obligated in challah, as is proven in the Yerushalmi on Demai, perek five, where it is taught: one who wishes to separate terumah, terumas maaser and challah together — and certainly it speaks where he still must separate terumah gedolah, and we do not exempt him because it is written “your dough”, for it speaks where there are five quarter-kav without the kohen’s share; (although) in perek Reishis HaGez (Chullin 135b) we derive the law of dough owned by partners.

Notes

1. 1. Pri eitz hadar is one of the four species taken on Sukkos: “the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of date palms, a bough of a thick tree and willows of the brook” (Vayikra 23:40). The verse does not name the fruit; the beraisa identifies it from the tree whose wood tastes like its fruit.
2. 2. Orlah: the fruit of a tree in its first three years after planting is forbidden both to eat and to benefit from (Vayikra 19:23). The pepper plant is low and shrub-like, so one might have thought it is not a “tree” for this law.
3. 3. The Torah says pri, “fruit”, in the singular, so a single fruit is taken. One peppercorn is too small for its taking to be noticed, and two or three would be more than one fruit; so pepper cannot be the fruit meant.
4. 4. Hydor is the Greek word for water. Ben Azzai reads hadar as “the one of water”: the esrog grows by every water, for it needs constant watering.
5. 5. The Mishnah (Sukkah 34b) rules that an esrog from an asheirah — a tree worshipped as an idol — or from an ir hanidachas — a city most of whose people worshipped idols, whose spoils must be burned — is invalid. The Gemara asks the reason.
6. 6. Kesusei mechatas shiureih: something the Torah requires to be burned is treated as if it were already burned and crushed to ash. So the esrog is regarded as lacking the minimum size an esrog must have.
7. 7. The Mishnah also rules that an esrog of orlah is invalid. Orlah is forbidden both in eating and in benefit; the question is which of these makes it unfit for the mitzvah.
8. 8. “And you shall take for yourselves” (Vayikra 23:40). From “for yourselves” the Gemara learns that on the first day the four species must belong to the one who takes them; Rashi reads it here also as “fit for you” in every use.
9. 9. Maaser sheni, the second tithe, is set aside from produce in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the shemittah cycle and eaten in Yerushalayim. According to Rabbi Meir it is “property of the Most High”, not fully the owner’s, so a man cannot betroth a woman with it.
10. 10. Tevel: produce from which terumah and maasros have not yet been separated. It may not be eaten until they are separated, but one may benefit from it in other ways.
11. 11. Terumah that has become tamei may not be eaten and is burned; while it burns the kohen may use it as fuel, so it still has some benefit. The Mishnah rules that an esrog of tamei terumah is invalid.
12. 12. Gufa, “the matter itself”: the Gemara returns to Rabbi Assi’s statement, cited above in part as a proof, and brings it in full.
13. 13. Challah: a portion of every dough given to a kohen (Bamidbar 15:20). The Torah says “your dough”, so dough that is not fully one’s own is exempt.
14. 14. A gezeirah shavah: a law carried from one passage to another because the same word appears in both. Here the word “bread” links matzah to challah: just as challah applies only to what is yours, so too matzah.
15. 15. The derivation continues at the top of the next amud (Sukkah 35b).
16. 16. On the first day of Sukkos the four species must be one’s own (lachem); on the second day of Yom Tov that requirement does not apply. A flaw in ownership would not disqualify then, but a lack of size does, so the Gemara gives the reason of crushed size.
17. 17. Demai: produce bought from an am ha’aretz, who may not have tithed it, so the buyer separates maaser out of doubt. A poor man may eat demai, so one who declares his property ownerless may use it.