Parallel
סוכה 40
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?
—
I include washing since it is a requirement common to all men and exclude an emollient since it is not common to all men. Who is the author of that [statement] which our Rabbis taught: ‘For food’ implies but not for an emollient, ‘for food’, but not for perfume, ‘for food’ but not for an emetic? — In agreement with whom is this statement? It is in agreement with R. Jose; for were it [to be suggested, with] the Rabbis, [it could be retorted,] surely there is also steeping and washing [to be excluded]. R. Eleazar ruled, The produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed only by way of sale, while R. Johanan ruled, Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Eleazar? — Since it is written, In this year of jubilee ye shall return etc. and there follows immediately the verse, And if thou sell aught to thy neighbour, [which implies,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange. And what is the reason of R. Johanan? — Since it is written, For it is a jubilee, it shall be holy; just as sacred objects can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange, so the produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange. But what does R. Johanan do with the verse, ‘And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour’? — He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Jose b. Hanina, as it has been taught, R. Jose b. Hanina observed, Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year, etc. For if a man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the result is that he will eventually have to sell his movables and his tools, as it is said, ‘In this year of jubilee ye shall return, each man to his possession’ and there immediately follows the verse, ‘And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour etc.’ What, however, does R. Eleazar do with the verse of R. Johanan? — He needs it in accordance with what has been taught, ‘For it is a jubilee, it shall be holy unto you’; just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity, so with the products of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity. It has been taught in agreement with R. Eleazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Johanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Eleazar: [In the case of the produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, ‘For it is a jubilee it shall be holy unto you’; just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden. [But] in case [you would say] that just as, with holy objects, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes its sanctity and [the holy object itself] becomes profaned, so also with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money for which it is redeemed assumes its sanctity and the [produce itself] becomes profaned Scripture explicitly says, ‘it shall be’ i.e., it remains in its original consecrated state. How so? If with the produce of the Sabbatical Year one purchased meat, both the meat and the produce must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. If, however, one purchased with the meat fish, the meat emerges [from the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical Year], and the fish assumes it. If one purchased with the fish wine, the fish emerges [from the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical Year], and the wine assumes it. If one purchased with the wine oil, the wine emerges [from Its state of sanctity] and the oil assumes it. How does this come about? The last [object for which the previous one is redeemed] assumes [the sanctity] of the Sabbatical Year, but the produce itself remains under restriction. Now since the term ‘purchased’ repeatedly is used, it is evident that only by way of sale [does it become redeemed], but not by way of exchange. It was taught in agreement with R. Johanan: Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered. These are the words of R. Meir, while the Sages ruled, With slaughtered [animals and fowls] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, this being a preventive measure against one's possible rearing of flocks from them. Raba said, The dispute applies only
—