Sukkah

GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught, ‘The fruit of a goodly tree’1 implies2 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,3 do I not know that the reference is to a tree for food?4 What then does Scripture teach by the [next phrase] "for food"? [That5 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 tree6 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’?7 — There8 [pepper is excluded] since it is impossible [to use it].9 For how shall he proceed? If he take one [pepper seed],9 it is unrecognizable;10 if he takes two or three, the Divine Law surely said, one ‘fruit’11 and not two or three fruits. [Its use] therefore is impossible. Rabbi said, Read not hadar12 but ha-dir;13 just as the stable contains large and small [animals], perfect and blemished ones, so also [the fruit spoken of8 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 ones14 come, the large15 are still existent [on the tree].16 R. Abbahu17 said, Read not hadar,12 but ha-dar,18 a fruit which remains upon its tree from year to year. Ben ‘Azzai said, Read not hadar, but hudor19 for in Greek water is called hudor.19 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.20 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,21 and the other explains because it22 has no monetary value.23 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,24 and that he who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it. 25 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,26 but according to him who explains, because it has no monetary value,27 why [should unclean terumah be invalid] seeing that the man can kindle it under his cooking?28 The fact is [that with regard to] permission to eat it, all agree that it is an essential,29 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 necessary29 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.30 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.31 It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who gives [also] the reason that it has no monetary value,32 since R. Assi said, [With] an ethrog of the Second Tithe according to R. Meir,33 a person cannot fulfil his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages34 he may fulfil his obligation with it on the Festival.35 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 obligation36 on Passover,37 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;38 according to the Sages it is liable to hallah. R. Papa demurred: This39 is well with regard to dough, since it is written, Of the first of your dough.40 With regard to the ethrog also it is written, To you41 [implying that — it should be yours.42 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 affliction43 and there44 it is written, regarded as having monetary value since its owner according to R. Meir is not permitted to use it for such a purpose for instance as the betrothal of a wife (cf. Kid. 52b). derived from it. monetary value and that an ethrog of Second Tithe is, according to R. Meir, invalid.