Sukkah, Daf Lamed Heh, Part 2
Introduction
Most of today’s section discusses why one cannot use an etrog that is "orlah" fruit during is first three years of growth.
של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת פסול. מאי טעמא? כיון דלשרפה קאי, כתותי מיכתת שיעוריה.
If from an asherah or from a condemned city, it is invalid.
What is the reason? Since it is condemned to be burned, [it is considered as though] its minimum size is destroyed.
This is the same comment we saw above with regard to the lulav. Anything from a city condemned for idol worship is already considered as if it doesn’t exist. Therefore, an etrog from such a city has no minimum measure.
Just a reminder, the condemned city was a theoretical category, one certainly no longer in existence by the rabbinic period.
של ערלה פסול. מאי טעמא? פליגי בה רבי חייא בר אבין ורבי אסי. חד אמר: לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה, וחד אמר: לפי שאין בה דין ממון. קא סלקא דעתיה: מאן דבעי היתר אכילה – לא בעי דין ממון, ומאן דבעי דין ממון – לא בעי היתר אכילה.
If from orlah, it is invalid. What is the reason?
R. Hiyya b. Avin 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.
Now you should think that the one who insists on permission to eat it [in order for it to be valid] does not insist upon [its having] monetary value, and that the one who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it.
The mishnah doesn’t allow one to use an etrog that is orlah, produce during its first three years, from which one cannot derive any tangible benefit. We should note that just because one can’t "benefit" from orlah doesn’t inherently mean it can’t be used in the performance of a mitzvah. When one performs a mitzvah one is not considered to be "benefiting" at least not in any way that would violate a prohibition from benefiting from something. So the Talmud must look for other reasons why one can’t use an orlah etrog.
There are two different reasons given as to why one can’t use such an etrog. First of all, it can’t be eaten. Second, it has no monetary value.
The Talmud notes that right now, until further notice, you should think that these positions are exclusive. Each sage holds one reason why an orlah etrog is disqualified and disagrees with the other. This assumption will change later on in this very passage.
תנן: של תרומה טמאה פסול.
בשלמא למאן דאמר לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה – שפיר, אלא למאן דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון – אמאי? הרי מסיקה תחת תבשילו!
It was taught: [An etrog] of unclean terumah, is invalid.
This goes well according to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, but according to him who explains [that it can’t be used] because it has no monetary value, why not? Behold he can kindle it under his cooking!
The Talmud uses a different section of the mishnah as a difficulty against whichever amora holds that the reason an orlah etrog can’t be used is that it has no monetary value. The mishnah disqualifies an etrog that is taken from unclean terumah (produce given to priest, but has been ritually defiled). It is forbidden to eat unclean terumah, so this mishnah accords with the opinion that holds that orlah can’t be used because it can’t be eaten. But one may derive benefit from unclean terumah not by eating it but by burning it and using the fire. Therefore we see that produce that cannot be eaten but has monetary value (such as unclean terumah) can still not be used for Sukkot.
אלא, בהיתר אכילה, כולי עלמא לא פליגי דבעינן, כי פליגי – בדין ממון. מר סבר: היתר אכילה בעינן, דין ממון לא בעינן. ומר סבר: דין ממון נמי בעינן.
Rather [with regard to] permission to eat it, all agree that it is necessary. They disagree only on the question whether monetary value [is also necessary]: One Master holds that permission to eat it is necessary but monetary value is not necessary, while the other Master holds that monetary value is also necessary.
The Talmud slightly adjusts our previous understanding of the dispute. Both amoraim hold that for the produce to be used in the performance of a mitzvah on Sukkah one must be permitted to eat it. Therefore, unclean terumah is invalid. They disagree whether it must also have monetary value. One holds that it must, and therefore orlah is invalid for two reasons it has no monetary value and one can’t eat it. The other holds that an orlah etrog cannot be used for the same reason that an etrog of unclean terumah cannot be used neither can be eaten.
מאי בינייהו? – איכא בינייהו מעשר שני שבירושלים אליבא דרבי מאיר. למאן דאמר לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה – הרי יש בה היתר אכילה, למאן דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון – מעשר שני ממון גבוה הוא.
What is the practical difference between them?
The difference is the case of second tithe in Jerusalem according to R. Meir.
According to the one who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, [second tithe is valid, since] there is permission to eat it.
According to the one who explains, because it has no monetary value [second tithe is invalid, since] second tithe is God’s money.
The Talmud now asks why should we really care why an orlah etrog can’t be used what practical ramifications are there to this dispute? After all, everyone agrees that it cannot be used.
The answer is that there are ramifications for another type of problematic etrog one that is second tithe. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. So there is permission to eat second tithe. But according to R. Meir it is considered holy property, belonging to God, so it has no monetary value. Now we can see the ramifications that the dispute about orlah has on second tithe. According to the one who holds that orlah can’t be used because it can’t be eaten, since second tithe can be eaten, a second tithe etrog could be used. But to the one who holds that orlah can’t be used because it has no monetary value, a second tithe etrog can also not be used because it too has no monetary value.
תסתיים דרבי אסי דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון, דאמר רבי אסי: אתרוג של מעשר שני לדברי רבי מאיר – אין אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביום טוב, לדברי חכמים – אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביום טוב, תסתיים.
It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfil his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival.
This is proved.
The Talmud now concludes that it is R. Assi who said that an orlah etrog cannot be used because it has no monetary value. We can see this because R. Assi says that whether one can use a second tithe etrog depends on whether one holds like R. Meir or the sages. R. Meir says that second tithe has no monetary value because it belongs to God, whereas the sages say that it belongs to its owner and therefore has monetary value. R. Meir would not allow one to use a second tithe etrog, but the other sages would. Thus it can be concluded that R. Assi holds that orlah can’t be used because it has no monetary value. By deduction R. Hiyya b. Avin is the one that holds that it can’t be used because it can’t be eaten.