Sukkah, Daf Lammed Tet, Part 5
Introduction
In yesterday’s section a baraita ruled that when one buys sabbatical produce from an am haaretz, he may only buy enough for three meals. If he gives him more than that, the am haaretz is not trusted to treat the money with the proper sanctity. And even this is allowed only if we can see that the am haaretz has declared his field ownerless.
In our section, R. Sheshet cites a different baraita that seems to contradict this.
מתיב רב ששת: ומן המופקר שלש סעודות ותו לא? ורמינהי: הפיגם, והירבוזין, והשיטים, וחלגלוגות, והכוסבר שבהרים, והכרפס שבנהרות, והגרגיר של אפר – פטורין מן המעשר, וניקחין מכל אדם בשביעית, לפי שאין כיוצא בהן נשמר!
R. Sheshet objected: And [if one buys] from what is ownerless, [may he buy] three meals and no more? But there is a contradiction: Rue, asparagus, fenugreek, coriander of the mountains, water-parsley and meadow-eruca are always exempt from tithe and may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical Year, since the like of these is not guarded.
In the baraita that R. Sheshet cites there is a list of types of produce that are not subject to the laws of tithes because people don’t store these types of produce. They are always just left to grow ownerless. Also, a person can buy them from an am haaretz during the Sabbatical year and there is no limit to how much he is allowed to buy. This proves that if something is not guarded, meaning it is left out in the field to grow and anyone can come and pick it, then one is allowed to buy as much of that produce as he wants from anyone. The earlier baraita had limited this to three meals.
הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה: בכדי מן שנו.
וכן אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן: בכדי מן שנו.
מאי משמע דהאי מן לישנא דמזוני הוא – דכתיב +דניאל א+ וימן להם המלך וגו’.
He raised the objection and he himself solved to it: They taught [that only as much as is] sufficient for one’s food (mano) [may be bought].
And so said Rabbah b. bar Hana in the name of R. Yohanan. They taught [that only as much as is] sufficient for food (mano) [may be bought].
How do we know that "man" means food? Since it is written: "And the king appointed (vayaman) for them a daily portion of the king’s food" (Daniel 1:5).
R. Sheshet solves the problem by limiting the permission to buy from an am haaretz to an amount sufficient for daily food, which is never more than three meals (three meals on Shabbat, two are sufficient for the week). Thus this baraita is brought into harmony with the earlier baraita that said one can buy only enough for three meals when purchasing sabbatical year produce from an am haaretz.
As it did earlier on this daf, the Talmud again asks how we know that the word "man" from the phrase "mano" means food. The prooftext is a verse from Daniel where the king appoints food and the verb used is "vayaman."
אי הכי, לולב נמי! לולב בר ששית הנכנס לשביעית הוא.
אי הכי, אתרוג נמי בת ששית הנכנסת לשביעית היא!
אתרוג בתר לקיטה אזלינן.
But if so, the lulav also [should not be bought]?
The lulav is a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh.
But if so, might not the etrog also a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh?
In the case of the etrog we compute from the time of its gathering.
The original mishnah which started this discussion implied that one can buy a lulav from an am haaretz during the sabbatical year. The lulav wasn’t the problem the etrog was. But if it’s true that one can’t buy sabbatical year produce from an am haaretz, why is one allowed to buy a lulav? Later on the next page, the Talmud will explain why the lulav is subject to the laws of sabbatical year produce when the lulav is not edible.
The answer is that this lulav grew during the sixth year, so it’s not a sabbatical year lulav. Even though it was picked during the seventh year, the status of most trees vis a vis the sabbatical year is determined by the year that they started to demonstrate real growth.
But this leads to yet another problem why not say the same thing about the etrog? After all, this etrog that was picked right before Sukkot surely did not just start growing during the sabbatical year?
The answer is that the etrog’s sabbatical status is determined by the day it is picked, not when it begins to demonstrate growth. Thus the lulav is a sixth year lulav, while the etrog picked at the same time, is a seventh year etrog. I know confusing. Be comforted that the Talmud itself seems to find this a bit difficult!