Sukkah, Daf Lamed Heh, Part 3
Introduction
Today’s section deals with using produce from second tithe in the performance of a mitzvah.
גופא, אמר 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. מצה של מעשר שני, לדברי רבי מאיר – אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח, לדברי חכמים – אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח. עיסה של מעשר שני, לדברי רבי מאיר – פטורה מן החלה, לדברי חכמים – חייבת בחלה.
The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival.
Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.
R. Assi refers to three separate subjects etrog, matzah and hallah (the small piece of dough separated from the larger batch of dough and given to the priest). In all three cases R. Meir says that if it is of second tithe it is not subject to the mitzvah and the sages disagree. We could, at least for now, understand this to mean that R. Meir holds that this is not regular food it can be eaten but it belongs to God. The other sages hold that it is regular food, just that it has restrictions such as it must be eaten in Jerusalem. Still, it counts as one’s property.
מתקיף לה רב פפא: בשלמא עיסה – כתיב +במדבר טו+ ראשית ערסתכם, אתרוג נמי – כתיב לכם משלכם. אלא מצה, מי כתיב מצתכם? –
R. Papa raised a difficulty: This is well with regard to dough, since it is written, "The first of your dough" (Numbers 15:20). And with regard to the etrog also it is written, "To you" it must be yours.
But with regard to matzah, does Scripture say, "your matzah"?
R. Papa raises a difficulty on R. Assi. R. Assi implies that one must own one’s dough, matzah and etrog in order for it to be part of the mitzvah. Since R. Meir holds that one doesn’t own second tithe, R. Meir would hold that one cannot use second tithe in the performance of these mitzvoth. Now there is a verse that calls it "your dough" implying that if you don’t own the dough it is not liable for hallah. There is also a verse saying "take from yours" when it comes to the four species. As we have seen, this verse is used to teach that one must own one’s lulav (and hadas, aravah and etrog). But there is no verse or halakhah saying that one must own one’s matzah. So why should R. Meir disqualify second tithe matzah.
אמר רבה בר שמואל, ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא: אתיא לחם לחם, כתיב הכא +דברים טז+ לחם עני וכתיב התם+במדבר ט"ו+ והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ, מה להלן משלכם ולא משל מעשר – אף כאן משלכם ולא משל מעשר.
Rabbah bar Shmuel, or as some say, R. Yemar bar Shelemia said: It can be deduced from the word "bread" which is common to both passages. It is written here, "The bread of affliction" (Deuteronomy 16:3) and there it is written, "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land" (Numbers 15:19); just as in the latter case it must be yours and not of tithe, so in the former case, [it must be] yours and not of tithe.
The answer is that the law that matzah cannot be of second tithe is derived from the use of the same word "bread" in the passage concerning matzah and concerning dough. Since both passages use the same word, halakhot that apply to one can be applied to the other. This technique is called a "gezerah shavah" and it is a little like a wormhole of rabbinic midrash, transferring material from one context to another.
לימא מסייע ליה: עיסה של מעשר שני – פטורה מן החלה, דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים: חייבת בחלה.
לימא מסייע ליה? היא היא!
אלא: מדבהא פליגי – בהא נמי פליגי, או דלמא: שאני עיסה דאמר קרא +במדבר טו+ ערסתכם ערסתכם תרי זימני.
Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of 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]! It is the identical statement! Rather [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 says the words "your dough."
Usually when the Talmud states "Can we say that the following supports [this view]" it takes a baraita and tries to use it as a support for an amoraic statement. The problem is that in this case, the baraita that they cite is exactly the same as the statement of R. Assi above.
Therefore, the Talmud adjusts the question. The question is whether the fact that R. Meir and the sages disagree over whether second tithe dough is liable for hallah implies that they also disagree over whether one can use second tithe matzah or an etrog. It might be that the three issues are all the same, as R. Assi stated, or it might be that the dough of second tithe is different because the Torah twice states, "your dough." Since this is stated twice by the Torah, clearly R. Meir would say that second tithe dough is exempt from hallah. But it is not certain that he would say that one cannot use second tithe matzah or a second tithe etrog.