Sukkah, Daf Lamed Heh, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today’s section deals with using a terumah etrog, either unclean or clean terumah. Unclean terumah may not be eaten while clean terumah can be eaten but only by a priest.

 

 

של תרומה טמאה פסולה, דלית בה היתר אכילה.

 

Or of unclean terumah, it is invalid; because there is no permission to eat it.

 

As we learned earlier, one cannot use an etrog that is unclean terumah (produce that must be given to the priest) because it cannot be eaten. While the etrog is not meant to be eaten during Sukkot, it must not be of a substance that can never be eaten.

ושל תרומה טהורה לא יטול. פליגי בה רבי אמי ורבי אסי; חד אמר: מפני שמכשירה, וחד אמר מפני שמפסידה.

 

If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it.

 

The mishnah says that one shouldn’t use a terumah etrog, even though it has not been defiled. Two amoraim debate why it can’t be used. One says that by doing so he will get it wet which will cause it to become susceptible to impurity (see Tractate Makhshirin in the Mishnah Yomit commentary). Since one doesn’t want terumah to become impure, one shouldn’t use the etrog as part of the lulav.

The other amora holds that with so much use the outer layer of the etrog will be ruined and one should not cause terumah to be diminished.

 

מאי בינייהו? כגון שקרא עליה שם חוץ מקליפתה חיצונה. למאן דאמר מפני שמכשירה – איכא, למאן דאמר מפני שמפסידה – ליכא.

 

What is the practical difference between them?

For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.

 

As happened in yesterday’s section, the Talmud now asks what practical difference there is between their two explanations. After all, both amoraim hold that one shouldn’t use a terumah etrog, so why should it matter why one cannot do so.

The Talmud has to dream up a weird case to answer the question. If one says that all of the etrog is terumah except for the outside peel, then we still have to worry about it becoming susceptible to impurity, but we wouldn’t have to worry about it being diminished, because the part being diminished, the outside, is not terumah.

We should note how theoretical this case is. After all, how could one give the inside of the etrog to the Kohen and keep the outside for himself?

 

ואם נטל כשרה. למאן דאמר מפני שאין בה היתר אכילה – הרי יש בה היתר אכילה, למאן דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון – הרי יש בה דין ממון.

 

But if he did take it, it is valid. According to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, this is permitted to be eaten, and according to him who explains, because it has no monetary value, this has monetary value.

 

While one should not use a terumah etrog, if he did use it, it is valid. This is true for all amoraic explanations as to why certain things cannot be used for the lulav (see yesterday’s section). Terumah can be eaten, at least by a priest, and terumah has monetary value (people can sell it). Therefore, if one uses a terumah etrog, he has fulfilled his obligation.