Parallel
סוכה 40:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
in that its tithing is determined by the time of its gathering. So R. Gamaliel. R. Eliezer ruled, The ethrog is like a tree in all respects? — He holds the same opinion as that Tanna of whom it has been taught: R. Jose stated, Abtolmos gave evidence in the name of five elders that the tithing of the ethrog depends upon [the time of its] gathering, but our Rabbis voted in Usha and laid down [that this applies] both to tithing and the Sabbatical Year. But who mentioned the Sabbatical Year? — There is a lacuna in the text, and so it should be read: The tithing of the ethrog depends upon [the time of its] gathering, and its subjection to the laws of the Sabbatical Year depends on [the time of its] blossoming, but our Rabbis voted in Usha and laid down that the ethrog is dependent on the time of its gathering as regards both tithing and the Sabbatical Year. The reason then for the [permission to purchase a] lulab is that it is [the product of] the sixth year which entered the seventh, but if it were of the Sabbatical Year it would have been sacred? But why? Is it not mere wood, and wood does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it has been taught, Leaves of reeds and leaves of the vine which have been heaped up as a hiding-place upon a field, if they were gathered for [animal] food, they possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, but if they were gathered for firewood, they have not the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year? — There the case is different, since Scripture says, ‘For you for food’ thus comparing ‘for you’ to ‘for food’, i.e., that [product is forbidden] the benefit from which comes at the time of its consumption; firewood therefore is excluded since the benefit from it comes after its consumption. But is there not the wood of the pine tree, the benefit from which is derived at the same time as its consumption? — Raba replied, Wood, as a rule, is used for heating. And the question of whether [the restrictions of the Sabbatical Year apply to] wood that is used for heating is one in dispute between Tannas, as it has been taught: The produce of the Sabbatical Year may not be used either for steeping or for washing. R. Jose ruled, they may be so used. What is the reason of the first Tanna? — Because Scripture says ‘for food’, [implying] but not for steeping or for washing. What is the reason of R. Jose? — Because Scripture says, ‘for you’ [implying], ‘for all your needs’, even for steeping and for washing. But, according to the first Tanna, is it not written, ‘for you’? — That ‘for you’ is compared with ‘for food’, viz., the benefit from which comes at the same time as its consumption, thus excluding [produce used for] steeping and washing the benefit from which comes after their consumption. But according to R. Jose, is it not written ‘for food’? — He employs this phrase for the deduction, ‘for food’, but not for an emollient, as it has been taught, ‘for food’, but not for an emollient. You say that ‘for food’ implies but not for an emollient; why not say, ‘[For food’] but not for washing? When it says, ‘for you’ washing is included, what then can I deduce from the phrase, ‘for food’? ‘For food’, but not for an emollient. But what reason do you see for including washing and excluding an emollient?
—