SUKKAH - 035b – סוכה – פרק שלישי – לולב הגזול, לה ע”ב

(Bamidbar 15:19) And it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land — just as there it must be yours and not of maaser, so too here it must be yours and not of maaser.^[1]

והיה באכלכם - this is written regarding challah.

Shall we say this supports him: Dough of maaser sheni is exempt from challah — the words of Rabbi Meir; and the Sages say: it is obligated in challah.^[2]

Shall we say it supports him? It is the very same thing!

היא היא - it certainly supports him, so why say shall we say?

Rather: since they disagree in this case, they also disagree in that case.

אלא ודאי - it supports in this, and the shall we say that we said was said about the support regarding esrog and matzah; and this is what it means: shall we say it supports Rabbi Assi in all of them — since they disagree in this, they also disagree regarding esrog and matzah, for it is one reason, as there too lachem is written, and matzah too is learned from challah.

Or perhaps dough is different, for the verse says (Bamidbar 15:20-21): your doughs, your doughs — twice:

או דלמא שאני עיסה - it is in this that Rabbi Meir says it is exempt, because an extra exclusion is written; but from one exclusion alone we would not derive it, for since it is permitted to be eaten, even though it has no monetary status, lachem applies to it.

One of tamei terumah is invalid:

For it has no permission to be eaten:

And one of tahor terumah he should not take:^[3]

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi disagree about it: one says, because he makes it susceptible to impurity,

שמכשירה - to receive impurity, as we say in the Mishnah (42a): A woman may take it from her son and from her husband and return it to water on Shabbos — for they would soak the bundle on Shabbos so that it should not dry out, and when they touch the esrog it becomes susceptible to impurity, as it is written (Vayikra 11:38): But if water be put upon the seed; and it is forbidden to cause impurity to terumah, as it is written (Bamidbar 18:8): the charge of My terumos — the Torah said: give it guarding.

and one says, because he spoils it.

שמפסידה - its outer peel becomes repulsive through the handling of the hands, and it is forbidden to spoil terumah, as I explained.

What is the difference between them?

Where he designated it as terumah except for its outer peel: according to the one who says because he makes it susceptible, the concern exists; according to the one who says because he spoils it, it does not.^[4]

And if he took it, it is valid:

According to the one who says it is because it has no permission to be eaten — this one does have permission to be eaten;

הרי יש בה היתר אכילה - for a Kohen; and a Yisrael too fulfills his obligation with it if he bought it from a Kohen, since he can feed it to his daughter's son who is a Kohen; but it has no redemption to become permitted for a Yisrael to eat, and one who says so is wicked.

according to the one who says it is because it has no monetary status — this one does have monetary status:

הרי יש בה דין ממון - a Kohen may betroth a woman with it; and a Yisrael too, if the Kohen gave it to him, may betroth a woman with it, and he may sell it to Kohanim and the money is his.

And one of demai:

של דמאי - he bought them from an am ha'aretz, and their produce is ordinarily in doubt whether it was tithed.

What is the reason of Beis Hillel?

מאי טעמייהו דבית הלל - it has no permission to be eaten!

Since, if he wishes, he can declare his property ownerless and become a poor man, and it is fit for him; now too lachem applies to it,^[5]

וחזי ליה - for most amei ha'aretz do tithe, and it is merely a stringency that they established it as a doubt of tevel; and regarding the poor and soldiers billeted on the town they did not apply their decree.

as we learned: We may feed the poor demai, and billeted soldiers demai.

אכסניא - the soldiers of the king, who imposes their food upon the people of the province.

And according to Beis Shammai — does a poor man not eat demai? For we learned: We may feed the poor demai, and billeted guests demai,

and Rav Huna said: It was taught: Beis Shammai say: We may not feed the poor and billeted guests demai; and Beis Hillel say: We may feed the poor demai, and billeted guests demai:

One of maaser sheni that is in Jerusalem:^[6]

According to the one who says because he makes it susceptible — he does make it susceptible;

הרי מכשירה - and maaser sheni requires guarding, for it is called holy, as it is written (Vayikra 27:30): And all the tithe of the land, etc.

according to the one who says because he spoils it — he does spoil it:

And if he took it, it is valid:

According to the one who says it is because it has no permission to be eaten — it is the view of all;

למ"ד - regarding orlah, because it has no permission to be eaten; but if it had permission to be eaten it would be valid, even if it had no monetary status — and this one does have permission to be eaten; and the Mishnah, which teaches that it is valid, is the view of all, and can be explained even according to Rabbi Meir, who says maaser sheni is Divine property, for in this, monetary status is not required, since he eats it, lachem applies to it.

according to the one who says it is because it has no monetary status — whose view is this?

ומ"ד - regarding orlah, because it has no monetary status — for even if it had permission to be eaten he would invalidate it, since it is not property for other benefits, as maaser sheni in Jerusalem according to Rabbi Meir.

It is the Rabbis:^[7]

מתניתין רבנן היא - who say maaser is ordinary property, and not Rabbi Meir, for according to Rabbi Meir it is invalid. This is the reading: אלא אי אתמר אסיפא אתמר.

If a chazazis rose on it:^[8]

Rav Chisda said: Our great teacher said this matter — may the Omnipresent be his help: they taught this only in one place, but in two or three places it is valid.^[9]

Rava said to him: On the contrary! In two or three places it is like a spotted one, and is invalid.^[10]

Rather, if it was said, it was said on the latter clause: on its minority, it is valid;

Rav Chisda said: Our great teacher said this matter — may the Omnipresent be his help: they taught this only in one place, but in two or three places it is like a spotted one, and is invalid.

Rava said: And on its nose, even the slightest amount — it is also invalid:

ובחוטמו - at the thickness of its height, which slopes from there and descends toward its head.

אפילו כל שהוא פסול - for it is visible to the eyes there more than at other places on it, since at that thickness a person sets his eyes.

If its pitam was removed:

Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar taught: if its pestle was removed:

תני רבי יצחק בר אלעזר נטלה בוכנתו - in his Mishnah he taught, in place of this nitlah pitmaso, its pestle, because it is pointed and shaped like a pestle — this is the language of my aged teacher, Rabbeinu Yaakov. But Rabbeinu Yitzchak HaLevi would explain: its pitam and its stem are both at the tail: its stem — where the wood outside the hollow in the esrog was removed, it is valid; its pitam — where the stem was pulled out from within the esrog and made it lacking, therefore it is invalid; and this is what Rabbi Yitzchak bar Elazar taught: its pestle was removed — what enters into the esrog like a pestle that enters and strikes in a mortar. And the language of Rabbeinu Yaakov seems right to me, for we have not found anywhere that a pitma is a stem.

If it was peeled:

Rava said: This esrog that was peeled like a red date is valid.

האי אתרוג דאגליד - was peeled.

כאהינא סומקא - a red date; and this too, after it was peeled, turned reddish, as is the way of all peeled fruits.

But we learned: If it was peeled, it is invalid!

It is not difficult^[11]

Tosafos

Over an esrog purchased from the joint estate, at the end of Yesh Nochalin (Bava Basra 137b); but with matzah, when he ate several kezeisim of it, if a kezayis of his own is there, he has fulfilled his obligation. And for this reason too it is understood that dough of tevel is obligated in challah, as is evident in the Yerushalmi, Demai perek 5, which teaches: One who wishes to separate terumah, terumas maaser and challah at once — and certainly it speaks where he is obliged to separate terumah gedolah, and we do not exempt him because it is written your doughs, for it speaks where there are five quarters without the Kohen's share; although in perek Reishis HaGez ( Chullin 135b ) we learn about dough of partners.

דכתיב עריסותיכם תרי זימני - Although we expound both of them in Menachos, perek Rabbi Yishmael (67a), to exclude dough of a gentile and dough of hekdesh, and further expound it in perek Reishis HaGez (Chullin 135b) for the amount of your doughs — the measure of the dough of the wilderness, here it is merely a deflection.

מפני שמכשירה - For the lulav, as it is bound, is placed in water so that it should not wilt, as we learned in our perek (42a): and returns it to water; and when he takes it, its water drips on the esrog. And he could have said: the difference between them is where it was already made susceptible.

דאי בעי מפקר נכסיה - He did not need this reason; rather because it has permission to be eaten for a poor man, just as for a Yisrael, who fulfills his obligation with terumah, which is fit for a Kohen. And similarly in perek Mefanin (Shabbos 127b), regarding terumah and demai, the Gemara asks: demai — is it not unfit for him? and answers: since if he wishes he can declare his property ownerless — and he could have said: since it is fit for a poor man, just as there terumah in the hands of a Yisrael is permitted since it is fit for a Kohen. And in that case in perek Bechol Me'arvin ( Eruvin 31a ), where we learned: We may make an eruv with demai, and the Gemara explains: because if he wishes he can declare his property ownerless — there it is understood that this reason was needed, to settle it even according to Sumchus, who disagrees about a Yisrael with terumah but does not disagree about this.

מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת האכסנאים דמאי - A Mishnah in the third perek of Demai; and they disagree in the Gemara of the Yerushalmi: Rabbi Yonah said, regarding the poor — chaverim, and regarding billeted guests — like Rabbi Yehoshua, as it explains there, that they are Jews; and Rabbi Yosi said, regarding the poor — it is amei ha'aretz, and regarding billeted guests — a gentile.

ואמר רב הונא תנא ב"ש אומרים אין מאכילין - And the unattributed Mishnah in tractate Demai says we may feed them; and it is puzzling: what does Rav Huna teach us, that Beis Shammai disagree? And one can answer here as it answers in the last perek of Yevamos ( 122a ), where we learned: And we may allow her to remarry on the testimony of a heavenly voice — Rabbah bar Shmuel said in the Gemara: Beis Shammai say we may not allow her to remarry and Beis Hillel say we may; and it asks: what does he teach us? and answers: this he teaches us — that if you find an unattributed teaching saying we may not allow her to remarry, it is Beis Shammai, and we do not rely on it.

עלתה חזזית על רובו - In the Yerushalmi it implies somewhat that only on the [first] day of Yom Tov is it invalid, as I explained at the beginning of our perek.

נטלה בוכנתו - In the Mishnah, Rashi explained in the name of Rabbi Yaakov the elder: its pitam was removed — the head of the esrog, like the pitma of a pomegranate. And here Rashi explained that Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar calls this pitmaso in the Mishnah its pestle, because it is pointed and shaped like a pestle; and in the name of his teacher Rabbeinu Yitzchak HaLevi he explained that its pitam and its stem are both at the tail: its stem — where the wood outside the hollow in the esrog was removed, it is valid; its pitam — where the stem was pulled out from within the esrog and made it lacking, therefore it is invalid; and this is what Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar taught: its pestle was removed — what enters into the esrog like a pestle that enters and strikes in a mortar. And Rashi objected to this, for we have not found anywhere that a pitma is a stem. And Rabbeinu Tam explains that we have found a stem and a pitma in one place, at the end of perek Yotzei Dofen (Niddah 47a), regarding the signs of a bogeres, where we learned: Ben Azzai says: when her pitma darkens; Rabbi Yosi says: when one places his hand on the stem and it sinks and is slow to return — for the stem is the point of the breast that the infant puts into his mouth, and the pitma is the flesh beneath the stem that darkens around it. And it would seem somewhat, since it mentions here regarding the esrog its pitam, its stem and its nose, and likewise there regarding the breasts, that the three are in one place, at the head of the esrog: for sometimes a stem protrudes from its point at its head, like a jutting stem, hard as wood, and therefore it is called a stem; and its pitam was removed, which is its pestle, means that this stem was torn from its place of attachment, leaving a kind of hollow at the head of the esrog. And in perek Yotzei Dofen (ibid.) Rashi explained its nose as a doubt, while here he explained: on its nose, even the slightest amount visible at the thickness of its height, which slopes and descends toward its head. And in the Yerushalmi it says: its pitam was removed — there they say its shoshanah, implying it is toward its head, like a lily blossom. And the Aruch explained in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel: its pitam was removed — it appears that it is the nipple of the nose, like the pitma of a breast, as we learned (Uktzin 2:3): the pitma of a pomegranate. But [that] which Rabbi Yitzchak said, its pestle was removed, is the end of the wood set into the esrog, like that in Shechitas Chullin (42b): this (pestle) of the thigh that slipped from its place is tereifah. From his explanation it is evident that its pitam and its pestle are two different things, one at the stem and one at its head, and Rabbi Eliezer bar Yitzchak did not come to explain but to add to the Mishnah. And in the name of Rabbeinu Gershom Me'or HaGolah, the Aruch explained like the explanation of Rabbeinu Yitzchak bar Yehudah HaLevi.

Notes

1. 1. This continues the words of Rabbi Assi [Sukkah 35a]: according to Rabbi Meir one does not fulfill the mitzvah with an esrog of maaser sheni, for lachem is learned from matzah, and matzah from challah.
2. 2. Challah — the portion of dough given to a Kohen.
3. 3. Terumah — the portion of produce given to a Kohen; it may be eaten only by Kohanim, in purity.
4. 4. That is: the outer peel is not terumah, so handling it does not spoil terumah; but becoming susceptible to impurity still applies.
5. 5. That is: if he declares his property ownerless he becomes a poor man, and a poor man may eat demai.
6. 6. Maaser sheni — the second tithe, eaten by its owners in purity in Jerusalem.
7. 7. According to Rabbi Meir, maaser sheni is Divine property; according to the Rabbis, it is the owner's property.
8. 8. Chazazis — a blister-like growth on the peel of the esrog.
9. 9. Our great teacher — Rav.
10. 10. Spotted — speckled; it is invalid for lack of hadar (beauty).
11. 11. The passage continues on [Sukkah 36a].