Sukkah, Daf Mem Aleph, Part One
Introduction
Since this sugya comes at the beginning of a new daf and a new week, I am going to quote the baraita that appeared at the end of daf mem which serves as the basis for a lot of today’s section.
Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered, the words of R. Meir.
But the sages say: With slaughtered [animals and birds] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks from them.
For a commentary on the baraita, see 40, part 6. We now turn to this week’s daf. Again, I realize this is difficult material. Good luck!
אמר רבא: מחלוקת בזכרים, אבל בנקבות – דברי הכל על שחוטין מתחללין, על חיין אין מתחללין, גזרה שמא יגדל מהן עדרים.
Rava said: The dispute applies only to male [animals and birds], but with regard to female ones, all agree that they may be redeemed with slaughtered animals, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks with them.
According to Rava the dispute between the sages and R. Meir is only about male animals. In such a case R. Meir allows one to use males to redeem second tithe and sabbatical year produce because one doesn’t use male animals to raise flocks. Only one male is needed to impregnate large numbers of females. But when it comes to female animals even R. Meir agrees that one cannot use them to redeem second tithe and sabbatical year produce.
אמר רב אשי: מחלוקת בפרי ראשון, אבל בפרי שני – דברי הכל בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול. והא דקתני לקח לקח – איידי דתנא רישא לקח, תנא נמי סיפא לקח.
R. Ashi said: The dispute concerns only the original produce itself, but with regard to secondary produce, both agree that [it can be redeemed] either by way of sale or by way of exchange. And the reason that the term purchased was repeated is that since in the first clause the term purchased was used it was used in the latter clause also.
Rav Ashi refers to the dispute on the previous daf between R. Elazar, who allowed one to redeem sabbatical year produce only by selling it and R. Yohanan who was more lenient, allowing for redemption by sale and by exchange. R. Ashi says that this dispute is only over the actual sabbatical year produce itself. Such produce may be redeemed only through a sale, according to R. Elazar. But "secondary produce," which refers to the money used to buy sabbatical year produce and now has the sanctity that the produce had, can be redeemed through exchange or sale.
On the previous page R. Elazar was supported by a baraita which used the word "sale" or "sold" to refer to redeeming sabbatical year produce. R. Ashi explains that the baraita repeatedly uses the word sale because of the sale of the original produce this can only be redeemed by selling it (see the baraita there). The baraita could have used the word "exchange" after the first clause, but it didn’t because once it began to use the word "sale" it just continued to do so.
איתיביה רבינא לרב אשי: מי שיש לו סלע של שביעית וביקש ליקח בו חלוק כיצד יעשה? ילך אצל חנווני הרגיל אצלו, ואומר לו: תן לי בסלע פירות ונותן לו. וחוזר ואומר לו: הרי פירות הללו נתונים לך במתנה. והוא אומר לו: הא לך סלע זו במתנה. והלה לוקח בהן מה שירצה. והא הכא, דפרי שני הוא, וקתני דרך מקח – אין, דרך חילול – לא!
Ravina raised an objection against R. Ashi: [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela [gained through selling the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase with it a shirt, what should he do? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, Give me a sela worth of fruit and give it to him. Then he tells him, Behold this fruit is given [back]] to you as a gift , and [the shopkeeper] answers him, And here is a gift for you of a sela.’ And then he may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange?
In this section Ravina uses a baraita to raise a difficulty on R. Ashi. The baraita describes a person who has a sela, a coin that he used to buy sabbatical year produce. The coin now has the sanctity of sabbatical year produce and cannot be used to buy a shirt. But the clever rabbis find a way for him to nevertheless purchase the shirt with the sela. He goes to a shopkeeper he knows and who knows what to do. He uses the sela to buy some produce. Now the sela is no longer sacred. Then he takes the produce and gives it back to the seller and the seller gives him back the sela coin. The sela now can be used to buy the shirt. [The produce will have the sanctity of the sabbatical year].
The problem for R. Ashi with this baraita is that the original sela is "secondary produce." So why did he have to sell it to the shopkeeper? He could have just taken his own produce and exchanged it for the sela, making his own produce have the sanctity of sabbatical year produce. Why bother with the shopkeeper? This proves that even secondary produce can be redeemed only by way of sale and not by way of exchange.
אלא אמר רבי אשי: מחלוקת בפרי שני, אבל בפרי ראשון, דברי הכל דרך מקח – אין, דרך חילול לא.
Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange.
Due to Ravina’s difficulty, R. Ashi modifies his original statement. Now he claims that R. Elazar holds that even secondary produce must be redeemed by way of sale and not by an exchange. R. Yohanan disagrees with regard to secondary produce, but when it comes to the original produce picked from the ground, it may be redeemed only by way of sale, not by exchange.
והא דקתני אחד שביעית ואחד מעשר שני מאי שביעית – דמי שביעית. דאי לא תימא הכי – מעשר מעשר ממש? והא כתיב +דברים יד+ וצרת הכסף בידך! אלא – דמי מעשר, הכא נמי – דמי שביעית.
And as to what has been stated, "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]" this refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged. For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe. But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].
The problem that R. Ashi now faces is the baraita that was taught on daf 40 as a proof for R. Yohanan. This baraita (cited above in the intro) teaches that "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed by exchange." R. Ashi interprets "produce of the Sabbatical Year" to mean money used to buy produce of the Sabbatical Year. His proof for this interpretation is that the baraita also refers to "tithe." If you interpreted this to mean second tithe produce, then the baraita would seem to say that you could exchange second tithe produce for animals. But the Torah says that second tithe produce can be exchanged only for money. Therefore, "tithe" must refer to "second tithe money." So too, the words "Sabbatical Year produce" do not refer to the original produce itself but to money used to buy such produce.