Sukkah, Daf Lamed Heh, Part 6

 

Introduction

This section continues explaining new parts of the mishnah.

 

של מעשר שני שבירושלים. למאן דאמר מפני שמכשירה – הרי מכשירה. למאן דאמר מפני שמפסידה – הרי מפסידה.

 

If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it.

 

The mishnah says that one should not use a second tithe etrog in Jerusalem, even though one may eat second tithe. This is in some ways like terumah although these products can be eaten, they still should not be used for the etrog.

The same explanations that applied to terumah apply here. The one who says he shouldn’t use it because by making it wet it becomes susceptible to impurity, the same problem exists with second tithe. It too should not be defiled. And according to the one who says that a terumah etrog shouldn’t be used because one diminishes it by making the outside layer dirty, the same thing is true of second tithe. It too should not be diminished.

ואם נטל כשרה. למאן דאמר מפני שאין בה היתר אכילה – דברי הכל, למאן דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון, הא מני – רבנן היא.

 

But if he took it, it is valid. According to him who explains: Because there is no permission to eat it, [the ruling] is according to all.

According to him who explains: Because it has no monetary value, according to whom [is the ruling]? It is according to the rabbis.

 

If one used a second tithe etrog in Jerusalem, even though he was not supposed to do so, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Talmud now correlates this with the opinions as to why someone hasn’t fulfilled his obligation with an orlah etrog. Second tithe can be eaten in Jerusalem, so the one who explains that orlah can’t be used because it can’t be eaten, can that since second tithe can be eaten, if one uses it on Sukkot, he has fulfilled his obligation.

But the one who holds that orlah can’t be used because it has no monetary value would have to explain this section according to the rabbis who rule that second tithe has value. Rabbi Meir holds that second tithe has no value, so he would hold that one who uses a second tithe etrog has not fulfilled his obligation.

 

 

עלתה חזזית. אמר רב חסדא: דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו, המקום יהיה בעזרו; לא שנו אלא במקום אחד, אבל בשנים ושלשה מקומות – כשר.

אמר ליה רבא: אדרבה, בשנים ושלשה מקומות הוה ליה כמנומר, ופסול.

 

If a rash spread out on the majority of it [it is invalid].

R. Hisda said: The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [where they were] in one place, but if they were in two or three places, [the etrog] is valid.

Rava said: On the contrary! If they were in two or three places the etrog is as though it is striped and it is invalid.

 

The mishnah said that if the larger part of the etrog is covered with a rash, it is invalid. R. Hisda says this is true only if the rash was in one spot. But if the rash was in two or three spots, the etrog is valid.

We should note that R. Hisda said nearly the same words on the bottom of 33a in connection with berries that appear on the hadas. It is possible that R. Hisda himself made this statement on only one occasion and the editors of the Talmud moved it to the other place. Rava’s response below is also nearly the same as that found earlier.

Rava responds that if there is a rash in several spots the etrog will look striped, which would invalidate it. Therefore, R. Hisda’s statement must be rejected.

 

אלא אי אתמר אסיפא אתמר: על מיעוטו – כשר.

אמר רב חסדא: דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו, והמקום יהיה בעזרו. לא שנו אלא במקום אחד, אבל בשנים ושלשה מקומות – הוה ליה כמנומר, ופסול.

אמר רבא: ועל חוטמו, ואפילו במשהו נמי פסול.

 

Rather if the statement was at all made, it was made in connection with the latter part [of the mishnah]: if on its lesser part it is valid.

R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [if they were] in one place, but if in two or three places the etrog is as speckled and invalid.

Rava said: And if it is on its nose, even the smallest rash, the etrog is invalid.

 

Due to his above difficulty, Rava emends R. Hisda’s statement. Now, R. Hisda refers to the latter clause of the mishnah, which stated that a rash on a small part of the etrog doesn’t disqualify it for use. R. Hisda, according to this version, limits this to a case where the rash is only on one spot. But if there is a rash in several spots the etrog is considered striped and is invalid.

Rava adds that if the rash appears on the nose, which Rashi defines as the upper edge of the etrog leading up to the part where the pitom is, this etrog is invalid, even if the rash is very minor. This halakhah is why you will find people carefully examining this part of their etrog.