## Sukkah Daf 35a

###### Sukkah 35a:1
[Sukkah 35a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר״, עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אֶתְרוֹג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** that the verse states: **“Fruit of a beautiful tree,”** meaning, **a tree that the taste of its tree** trunk **and** the taste of its **fruit are alike.** What tree is that? **You must say it is** the ***etrog*** tree.


###### Sukkah 35a:2
[Sukkah 35a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:2)

וְאֵימָא פִּלְפְּלִין; כִּדְתַנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּנְטַעְתֶּם כׇּל עֵץ״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא עֵץ מַאֲכָל? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֵץ מַאֲכָל״, עֵץ שֶׁטַּעַם עֵצוֹ וּפִרְיוֹ שָׁוֶה — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה פִּלְפְּלִין. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַפִּלְפְּלִין חַיָּיבִין בְּעׇרְלָה. וְאֵין אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲסֵרָה כְּלוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And say** that it is referring to the **pepper** tree, since the taste of its trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike, **as it was taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as *orla*” (Leviticus 19:23). **Rabbi Meir would say** that **by inference from that which is stated** “and plant any tree,” **don’t I know that it is** referring to **a tree** that produces **food? Rather,** for **what** purpose **does the verse state: “Any tree for food”?** It is **to include a tree that the taste of its tree** trunk **and** the taste of its **fruit are alike. And which** tree **is this? You must say this is the pepper** tree. This comes **to teach you that the peppers,** and even its trunk, are edible, and therefore the tree is **obligated** in the prohibition of ***orla*. And Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing”** (Deuteronomy 8:9). From where, then, is it derived that the Torah commands the taking of an *etrog* as one of the four species? Perhaps the verse is referring to peppers.


###### Sukkah 35a:3
[Sukkah 35a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:3)

הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נִנְקוֹט חֲדָא — לָא מִינַּכְרָא לְקִיחָתַהּ. נִנְקוֹט תְּרֵי אוֹ תְּלָתָא — (אֶחָד) אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה פֵּירוֹת, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** with regard to the four species, it is clear that the Torah is not referring to peppers, **due to** the fact **that it is not possible** to utilize peppers for this purpose. **How shall we proceed?** If **we take one** pepper, **its taking is not noticeable** due to its small size. If **we take two or three** peppers, **the Torah said one** fruit **and not two or three fruits. Therefore, it is impossible.** The verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” cannot be referring to peppers.


###### Sukkah 35a:4
[Sukkah 35a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:4)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״הַדִּיר״. מָה דִּיר זֶה יֵשׁ בּוֹ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִים וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין — הָכִי נָמֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִים וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. אַטּוּ שְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת לֵית בְּהוּ גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין?! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁבָּאִין קְטַנִּים, עֲדַיִין גְּדוֹלִים קַיָּימִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Do not read** the verse as it is written, ***hadar*,** meaning beautiful, **but rather** read it ***hadir*,** meaning the sheep pen. And it means, **just as** in **this pen there are large and small** sheep, **unblemished and blemished** sheep, **so too,** this tree **has large and small** fruits, **flawless and blemished** fruits. The Gemara wonders: **Is that to say** that **among other fruits there are not large and small** fruits, **flawless and blemished** fruits? How does this description identify the *etrog* specifically? **Rather, this is** what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **is saying:** Just as in a pen, there are both large and small sheep together, so too, on an *etrog* tree, **when** the **small ones come** into being, the **large ones still exist** on the tree, which is not the case with other fruit trees.


###### Sukkah 35a:5
[Sukkah 35a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:5)

רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״הַדָּר״ — דָּבָר שֶׁדָּר בְּאִילָנוֹ מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״הָדָר״, אֶלָּא ״אִידוֹר״, שֶׁכֵּן בְּלָשׁוֹן יְווֹנִי קוֹרִין לְמַיִם אִידוֹר, וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁגָּדֵל עַל כׇּל מַיִם — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה אֶתְרוֹג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read** it ***hadar*, but rather** read it ***haddar*,** meaning one **that dwells,** referring to **an item that dwells on its tree from year to year. Ben Azzai says: Do not read** it ***hadar*, but rather** read it ***idur*, as in the Greek language one calls water *idur*. And which is** the fruit **that grows on** the basis of **all water** sources, and not exclusively through irrigation or rainwater? **You must say it is an *etrog*.**


###### Sukkah 35a:6
[Sukkah 35a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:6)

שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת — פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלִשְׂרֵפָה קָאֵי — כַּתּוֹתֵי מְיכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: An *etrog* **from a tree worshipped as idolatry or from a city** whose residents were **incited** to idolatry is unfit. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason?** The Gemara answers: **Since** the *etrog* **is fated for burning, its** requisite **measure was crushed.** Although it has not yet been burned, its legal status is that of ashes.


###### Sukkah 35a:7
[Sukkah 35a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:7)

וְשֶׁל עׇרְלָה פָּסוּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי אַסִּי. חַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, וְחַד אָמַר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: An *etrog* **of *orla* is unfit.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin and Rabbi Asi disagree** about **this** matter. **One said:** It is unfit **because there is no permission to eat** *orla*. Anything that may not be eaten is not one’s property, and it is therefore unfit for use in this mitzva. **And one said:** It is unfit **because it has no monetary** value. Since it is prohibited to benefit from *orla*, it has no value, and one cannot own an item that has no value. Therefore, it does not fulfill the requirement of taking an *etrog* from one’s own property.


###### Sukkah 35a:8
[Sukkah 35a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:8)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ מַאן דְּבָעֵי הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה לָא בָּעֵי דִּין מָמוֹן, וּמַאן דְּבָעֵי דִּין מָמוֹן לָא בָּעֵי הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה. תְּנַן: שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה — פְּסוּלָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — אַמַּאי? הֲרֵי מַסִּיקָהּ תַּחַת תַּבְשִׁילוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asserts **that it may enter one’s mind** to say: The **one who requires permission to eat** the *etrog* to render it fit **does not require** that it have **monetary** value, **and** the **one who requires** that it have **monetary** value **does not require permission to eat it.** On that basis, the Gemara raises a difficulty from what **we learned in the mishna:** An *etrog* **of impure *teruma* is unfit. Granted, according to the one who says** that an *etrog* of *orla* is unfit **because there is no permission to eat it,** it works out **well** that an *etrog* of impure *teruma* is unfit, as it too may not be eaten. **However, according to the one who says** that it is unfit **because it has no monetary value, why** is the *etrog* of impure *teruma* unfit? Although eating it is prohibited, a priest **burns it** as fuel **under his cooked food.** Since one may benefit from it, impure *teruma* has monetary value.


###### Sukkah 35a:9
[Sukkah 35a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:9)

אֶלָּא: בְּהֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּבָעֵינַן, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בְּדִין מָמוֹן. מָר סָבַר: הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה בָּעֵינַן, דִּין מָמוֹן לָא בָּעֵינַן, וּמָר סָבַר: דִּין מָמוֹן נָמֵי בָּעֵינַן. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** contrary to the previous assumption, **with regard to permission to eat** it, **everyone agrees that we require** that it be permitted to eat the *etrog*. **When they disagree is with regard to monetary** value. One **Sage holds: We require permission to eat it,** but **we do not require** that it have **monetary** value. **And** one **Sage holds: We also require** that it have **monetary** value. The Gemara asks: If so, according to this understanding, **what is the** practical halakhic difference **between them?**


###### Sukkah 35a:10
[Sukkah 35a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:10)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to the *halakha* of an *etrog* of **second tithe in Jerusalem, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir,** who holds that the legal status of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem is that of consecrated property. Although its owner has the right to eat it, just as he may eat from offerings that he sacrifices, it is the property of God, and he has no monetary rights to the produce. According **to the one who said:** An *etrog* of *orla* is unfit **because there is no permission to eat** it, **there is permission to eat** second tithe; therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, a second-tithe *etrog* in Jerusalem is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. **And** according **to the one who said:** An *etrog* of *orla* is unfit **because it has no monetary** value, **second tithe** in Jerusalem **is** consecrated **property of God** and has no monetary value to its owner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, it is not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.


###### Sukkah 35a:11
[Sukkah 35a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:11)

תִּסְתַּיַּים דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. תִּסְתַּיַּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the *amora’im*, the Gemara suggests: **Conclude that Rabbi Asi** is the one **who said** that the reason is **because there is no monetary** value, **as Rabbi Asi said:** With **an *etrog* of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on** the **Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on** the **Festival.** That is precisely the manner in which the dispute with regard to the need for the *etrog* to have monetary value is presented above. The Gemara determines: Indeed, **conclude** that Rabbi Asi is the one who holds that the *etrog* must have monetary value as well.


###### Sukkah 35a:12
[Sukkah 35a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:12)

גּוּפָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֶתְרוֹג שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. מַצָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח. עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to **the matter itself, Rabbi Asi said:** With **an *etrog* of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on** the **Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on** the **Festival.** With ***matza* of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Passover** because it is not his. **According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover.** Similarly, **according to Rabbi Meir, dough of second tithe is exempt from the obligation of** separating ***ḥalla*. According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of** separating ***ḥalla*.** In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God.


###### Sukkah 35a:13
[Sukkah 35a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35a:13)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: בִּשְׁלָמָא עִיסָּה, כְּתִיב: ״רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶתְרוֹג נָמֵי — כְּתִיב: ״לָכֶם״, מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם. אֶלָּא מַצָּה, מִי כְּתִיב ״מַצַּתְכֶם״? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב יֵימַר בַּר שֶׁלֶמְיָא: אָתְיָא ״לֶחֶם״ ״לֶחֶם״. כְּתִיב הָכָא ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted,** with regard to **dough, it is written: “The first of your dough,** *ḥalla* you shall offer as a gift” (Numbers 15:20). “Your dough” indicates that one is obligated to separate *ḥalla* only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the ***etrog* too it is written: “**And you shall take **for yourselves,”** indicating that it must be **from your own** property. **However,** with regard to ***matza*,** why does he not fulfill his obligation with second tithe? **Is it written: Your *matza*? Rabba bar Shmuel said, and some say** it was **Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya** who said: This is **derived** by means of a verbal analogy between **bread** written with regard to *matza* and **bread** written with regard to *ḥalla*. **It is written here,** with regard to *matza*: **“Bread of affliction”** (Deuteronomy 16:3), **and it is written there,** with regard to *ḥalla*: