סוכה 35 — parallel

35:1

GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught, ‘The fruit of a goodly tree’ implies a tree the taste of whose ‘fruit’ and ‘wood’ is the same. Say then that it is the ethrog. Might it not be said to be pepper, as it has been taught. ‘R. Meir used to say, From the implication of the text, And ye have planted all manner of trees, do I not know that the reference is to a tree for food? What then does Scripture teach by the [next phrase] "for food"? [That the reference is to] a tree the taste of whose fruit and wood is the same. Say then that it is pepper. This is to teach you that the pepper tree is subject to the law of ‘orlah and that the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said, Thou shalt not lack anything in it’? — There [pepper is excluded] since it is impossible [to use it]. For how shall he proceed? If he take one [pepper seed], it is unrecognizable; if he takes two or three, the Divine Law surely said, one ‘fruit’ and not two or three fruits. [Its use] therefore is impossible. Rabbi said, Read not hadar but ha-dir; just as the stable contains large and small [animals], perfect and blemished ones, so also [the fruit spoken of must have] large and small, perfect and blemished. Have not then other fruits large and small, perfect and blemished? — It is this rather that was meant: Before the small ones come, the large are still existent [on the tree]. R. Abbahu said, Read not hadar, but ha-dar, a fruit which remains upon its tree from year to year. Ben ‘Azzai said, Read not hadar, but hudor for in Greek water is called hudor. Now what fruit is it that grows by every water? Say, of course, it is the ethrog. IF FROM AN ASHERAH OR FROM A CONDEMNED CITY, IT IS INVALID. What is the reason? — Since it is condemned to be burnt, [it is considered as though] its minimum size is destroyed. IF FROM ‘ORLAH, IT IS INVALID. What is the reason? R. Hiyya b. Abin and R. Assi disagree on this point. One explains because there is no permission to eat it, and the other explains because it has no monetary value. It is now assumed that the authority who insists on permission to eat it [in order to render it valid] does not insist upon [its having] monetary value, and that he who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it. Now we learned, OR OF UNCLEAN TERUMAH, IT IS INVALID. This is well according to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, but according to him who explains, because it has no monetary value, why [should unclean terumah be invalid] seeing that the man can kindle it under his cooking? The fact is [that with regard to] permission to eat it, all agree that it is an essential, and they disagree only on the question whether monetary value [is also necessary]. One Master is of the opinion that permission to eat it is necessary but not monetary value, while the other Master is of the opinion that monetary value is also necessary. What is the practical difference between them? — The case of the Second Tithe in Jerusalem differentiates them according to R. Meir. According to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it [it is valid, since] in this case there is permission to eat it. According to him who explains, because it has no monetary value [it is invalid, since] the Second Tithe is sacred money. It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who gives [also] the reason that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said, [With] an ethrog of the Second Tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfil his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfil his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved. [Turning to] the main text, R. Assi said: [With] an ethrog of the Second Tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfil his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfil his obligation with it on the Festival. With unleavened bread of the Second Tithe, according to R. Meir, a man cannot fulfil his obligation on Passover, and according to the Sages he may fulfil his obligation with it on the Passover. Dough of the Second Tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah; according to the Sages it is liable to hallah. R. Papa demurred: This is well with regard to dough, since it is written, Of the first of your dough. With regard to the ethrog also it is written, To you [implying that — it should be yours. With regard however to unleavened bread, does Scripture say, ‘your unleavened bread’? — Rabbah b. Samuel, or as some say, R. Yemar b. Shelemiah, replied. We deduce it from the word ‘bread’ which is common to both passages. In this connection it is written, The bread of affliction and there it is written,

—

35:2

Then it shall be when ye eat of the bread of the land; just as in the latter case [the reference is to] what is yours and not of the tithe, so in the former case, [it must be] yours and not of the tithe. Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of the Second Tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? — ‘Can we say that the following supports [this view]’! Is it not the identical statement? Rather [say that the question was whether we can say that] since they dispute in this instance, they also dispute in the others or perhaps dough is exceptional because Scripture repeated the words ‘your dough’. OR OF UNCLEAN TERUMAH, IT IS INVALID; because there is no permission to eat it. IF IT WAS OF CLEAN TERUMAH, HE SHOULD NOT TAKE IT. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree on the reason of the ruling. One explains, Because he [thereby] renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains. Because he depreciates its value. What is the practical difference between them? The case where one assigned the name of terumah to it except to its outer peel. According to him who explains, Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], this does apply; according to him who explains, Because he depreciates its value, it does not apply. BUT IF HE DID TAKE IT, IT IS VALID; [since] according to him who explains, Because there is no permission to eat it, this is permitted to be eaten, and according to him who explains, Because it has no monetary value, this surely has monetary value. IF IT WAS DEMAI. What is the reason of Beth Hillel?-Because, if he wishes, he may declare his property to be hefker and thereby become a pauper who is entitled to benefit [from demai] we may now also apply to it the expression ‘to you’. For we have learnt, Poor men and billeted troops may be fed with demai. [But on the view of] Beth Shammai a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learnt, Poor men and billeted troops may eat demai and R. Huna stated, A Tanna taught: Beth Shammai say that poor men and billeted troops may not be fed with demai, while Beth Hillel say that poor men and billeted troops may be fed with demai. IF IT WAS OF SECOND TITHE . . . IN JERUSALEM. According to him who explained, Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness] it is [here forbidden] since he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained. Because he depreciates its value [it is forbidden] since here also he depreciates its value. BUT IF HE TOOK IT, IT IS VALID. According to him who explains. Because there is no permission to eat it, [the ruling] is according to all. According to him who explains, Because it has no monetary value, according to whom [is the ruling]? According to the Rabbis. IF THE LARGER PART OF IT IS COVERED WITH SCARS. R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may the Omnipresent be his help! This was taught only [where they were] in one place, but if they were in two or three places, [the ethrog] is valid. Raba said, On the contrary! If they were in two or three places the ethrog is as though speckled and invalid. Rather if the statement was at all made, it was made in connection with the latter part [of our Mishnah]: IF ITS LESSER PART ONLY IS COVERED WITH SCARS . . . IT IS VALID. R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may the Omnipresent be his help! This was taught only [if they were] in one place, but if in two or three places the ethrog is as speckled and invalid. Raba said, But [if a scar is] on the oblate part, even if it is one of the slightest extent, the ethrog is invalid. IF ITS NIPPLE IS REMOVED. R. Isaac b. Eleazar taught, If its peduncle was removed. IF IT IS PEELED. Raba ruled, An ethrog which was peeled so as to resemble a red date is valid. But have we not learnt, IF IT IS PEELED . . . IT IS INVALID? — This is no difficulty,

—