Sukkah, Daf Lamed Vav, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week’s daf begins with several small sugyot concerning various physical defects that would disqualify the etrog.

 

נטלה פטמתו. תנא רבי יצחק בן אלעזר: נטלה בוכנתו.

 

If its pitom is removed. R. Yitzhak b. Elazar taught,: If its upper stem was removed.

 

R. Yitzhak b. Elazar explains that the "pitom" is the upper stem of the etrog. If it has been removed, the etrog is invalid. Note, that some etrogim do not have a pitom. These etrogim are valid because there pitom was not removed they just never had one.

 

נקלף, אמר רבא: האי אתרוגא דאגליד כאהינא סומקא – כשרה.

והא אנן תנן: נקלף פסול!

לא קשיא; הא – בכולה, הא – במקצתה.

 

If it is peeled.

Raba ruled: An etrog which was peeled so as to resemble a red date is valid.

But have we not learned, if it is peeled . . . It is invalid?

There is no difficulty: this refers to where all of it [was peeled], this to where only a part was peeled.

 

The mishnah rules that an etrog that has been peeled is invalid. In contrast, Rava seems to rule that an etrog that has been peeled is valid.

The Talmud resolves this difficulty by saying that the mishnah invalidates an etrog that was totally peeled, whereas Rava validates an etrog that was only partially peeled.

 

נסדק ניקב.

תני עולא בר חנינא: ניקב נקב מפולש – במשהו, ושאינו מפולש – בכאיסר.

 

Split, pierced: Ulla b. Hanina taught: If it is completely perforated [it is invalid even if the hole is] of the smallest size; if it is not completely perforated [the hole must be of the minimum size] of an issar.

 

The mishnah teaches that if it was pierced it is invalid. Ulla b. Hanina clarifies that there is a difference between a piercing that goes all the way through to the other side. Such an etrog is invalid no matter the size of the piercing. But if the pierced point does not go all the way through, it is only invalid if it is the size of an issar, a coin.

 

בעי רבא: נולדו באתרוג סימני טרפה מהו?

מאי קמיבעיא ליה? אי נקלף – תנינא, אי נסדק – תנינא, אי ניקב – תנינא.

כי קא מיבעיא ליה – כדעולא אמר רבי יוחנן: ריאה שנשפכה כקיתון – כשרה. ואמר רבא: והוא דקיימא סימפונהא, הא לא קיימי סימפונהא – טרפה.

הכא מאי? דלמא התם הוא דלא שליט בה אוירא – הדר בריא, אבל הכא דשליט בה אוירא – סרוחי מסרחת, או דלמא לא שנא?

 

Rava asked: If there developed in an etrog the symptoms [which render an animal] terefah, what is the law?

What is he asking about? If it is peeled, have we not [already] learned it? If it is split have we not learned it also? If it was pierced have we not learned it also?

He asked in accordance with the statement of Ulla in the name of R. Yohanan who said: If the [contents of the] lung pour out as from a ladle [the animal] is fit to be eaten, and Raba explained that this applies only when the arteries are still whole, but if the arteries are rotted [the animal is] terefah.

What is the ruling here? Is it possible that in that case where the air does not affect it, it could become healthy again, but in this case where the air does affect it, it decays, or is it possible that there is no difference?

 

Rava asks a question about an etrog that has symptoms that make it look like an animal that is a terefah. A "terefah" is an animal that has some sort of disease or physical defect that will cause the animal to die.

At first, the Talmud doesn’t even understand the question. After all, the mishnah has already discussed the cases of an etrog that is pierced, peeled or split. What defect could Rava be addressing that is not found already in the Mishnah?

The answer is that he is referring to an etrog whose innards seem to be pouring out, like an animal whose lungs are pouring out. Such an animal is not considered a terefah as long as the arteries are still whole.

So Rava’s question is whether an etrog is treated like the animal. The animal might not have died from the lung probelm because it’s all still inside the animal. But the etrog’s innards are spilling out, they are not inside the etrog. So the question is does this make a difference?

 

תא שמע: אתרוג תפוח, סרוח, כבוש, שלוק, כושי, לבן, ומנומר – פסול. אתרוג ככדור – פסול, ויש אומרים: אף התיום. אתרוג הבוסר, רבי עקיבא פוסל, וחכמים מכשירין. גדלו בדפוס ועשאו כמין בריה אחרת – פסול.

 

Come and hear: An etrog which is swollen, decayed, pickled, boiled, Ethiopian (black), white or speckled, is invalid. An etrog which is round as a ball is invalid. And some say: also if two are grown together. An etrog which is half-ripe, R. Akiva declares it invalid, and the sages valid.

If it was grown in a cast, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid.

 

This baraita lists various physical problems that render an etrog invalid. Below we will see how this baraita functions as an answer to Rava’s question.

 

קתני מיהת: תפוח, סרוח, מאי לאו: תפוח – מבחוץ, וסרוח – מבפנים!

לא, אידי ואידי מבחוץ, ולא קשיא: הא – דתפח אף על גב דלא סרח, הא – דסרח אף על גב דלא תפח.

 

At any rate it teaches "swollen or decayed." Is it not, swollen from without and decayed from within?

No! Both refer to the outside, and yet there is no difficulty. One refers to a case where the etrog is swollen even although it is not decayed; the other to a case where it was decayed without being swollen.

 

The baraita taught that a swollen or decayed etrog is invalid. At first we understand this to mean that swollen refers to the outside of the etrog and decayed is from the inside. This would mean that the answer to Rava’s question is negative an etrog that is a terefah would be invalid.

But the Talmud rejects this understanding of the baraita. Both swollen and decayed are on the outside of the etrog, and an etrog is disqualified even if it is only swollen or only decayed. It need not have both defects.