## Sukkah Daf 35b

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

״וְהָיָה בַּאֲכׇלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ״. מָה לְהַלָּן — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף כָּאן — מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land** you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:19). **Just as there,** with regard to *ḥalla*, one is obligated only if the dough is **from yours and not from** second **tithe, here too,** with regard to *matza*, one fulfills his obligation only if it is **from yours and not from** second **tithe.**


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

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: עִיסָּה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי פְּטוּרָה מִן הַחַלָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חַיֶּיבֶת בַּחַלָּה. לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ? הִיא הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that** this *baraita* **supports** the statement of Rabbi Asi: **Dough of** the **second tithe is exempt from *ḥalla*;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to** the obligation of separating ***ḥalla*.** The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara’s suggestion. **Let us say it supports his** opinion. The *baraita* is not similar to the statement of Rav Asi; **it is** precisely the statement **itself.**


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

אֶלָּא: מִדִּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי — בְּהָא נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: שָׁאנֵי עִיסָּה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that **from the fact that they disagree** with regard to **this** case of *ḥalla*, **they disagree** with regard to **that** case of *matza* **as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: “Your dough…your dough”** (Numbers 15:20–21) **twice.** Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of *ḥalla*; however, with regard to *matza*, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one fulfills his obligation, even in the case of second tithe in Jerusalem, according to Rabbi Meir. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here in support of Rav Asi’s statement.


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

שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה פְּסוּלָה. דְּלֵית בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: An *etrog* **of impure *teruma* is unfit.** The reason is, as explained above, **that there is no permission to eat it.**


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

וְשֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל. פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna stated: **And** with regard to an *etrog* **of pure *teruma*, one should not take it** *ab initio*. However, if he did, it is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. **Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed about this.** Why may one not take it *ab initio*? **One** of them **said:** It is **because one renders it susceptible** to impurity. All vegetation cannot become ritually impure, even if it came into contact with a source of impurity, unless it was moistened by one of seven liquids (see Leviticus 11:37–38). However, once one touches the *etrog* with wet hands, which are wet because he removed the other three species from the water in which they were kept to preserve their freshness, he renders the *etrog* susceptible to impurity. The Sages prohibited taking an *etrog* of *teruma*, lest it become impure, as it is prohibited to impurify *teruma*. **And one said:** It is **because he damages it.** By handling the *etrog*, the peel is rendered disgusting, and it is prohibited to damage *teruma*.


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

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם חוּץ מִקְּלִיפָּתָהּ חִיצוֹנָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ — אִיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ — לֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between them?** The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case **where one accorded** the entire *etrog* **the status** of *teruma*, to the **exclusion of the peel,** whose status remains non-sacred. **According to the one who said: Because one renders it susceptible** to impurity, **there is** a prohibition, as failure to sanctify the peel as *teruma* does not prevent the fruit from becoming susceptible to impurity. However, **according to the one who said: Because he damages** the *teruma*, **there is no** prohibition, as the peel that might be damaged was never *teruma*.


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

וְאִם נָטַל כְּשֵׁרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — הֲרֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And if he took** an *etrog* of *teruma*, **it is fit,** and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara explains: **According to the one who said** that one does not fulfill his obligation **because there is no permission to eat** the *etrog*, **there is permission to eat it. According to the one who said** that one does not fulfill his obligation **because it has no monetary** value, **it has monetary** value.


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

וְשֶׁל דְּמַאי. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּבֵית הִלֵּל — כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי ״לָכֶם״ קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna cites a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to an *etrog* **of *demai*.** The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion of **Beit Hillel,** who deem it fit? It is prohibited to eat *demai*, due to the concern that it is actually untithed produce. The Gemara answers: **Because, if one wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless, and he would be a pauper,** in which case the *demai* would be **fit for his** consumption. **Now too,** even though he did not declare it ownerless, **it is considered** to meet the criterion of “and you shall take **for yourselves.” As we learned** in a mishna: **One may feed the impoverished *demai*, and** one may feed **soldiers [*akhsanya*]** whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, ***demai*.**


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

וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, עָנִי לָא אָכֵיל דְּמַאי, דִּתְנַן: (אֵין) מַאֲכִילִין הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי, וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי וְאֶת הָאַכְסְנָאִים דְּמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** why, then, do **Beit Shammai** deem it unfit? The Gemara answers: **A pauper may not eat *demai*, as we learned in** a mishna: **One may not feed the impoverished *demai* and** one may not feed **soldiers *demai*. And Rav Huna said: It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished *demai* and** one may not feed **soldiers** whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, ***demai*. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished *demai* and** one may feed **soldiers** whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, ***demai*.** On that basis, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to an *etrog* of *demai* is clear.


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

שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּכְשִׁירָהּ — הֲרֵי מַכְשִׁירָהּ, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידָהּ — הֲרֵי מַפְסִידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: With regard to an *etrog* **of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it,** *ab initio*. The Gemara explains: **According to the one who says** that an *etrog* of pure *teruma* is unfit **because one renders it susceptible** to ritual impurity, **here too, he renders it susceptible. According to the one who says** it is unfit **because one damages** the peel, **here too, he damages** the peel.


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

וְאִם נָטַל — כְּשֵׁרָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ הֶיתֵּר אֲכִילָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דִּין מָמוֹן — הָא מַנִּי רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **And if one took** an *etrog* of second tithe in Jerusalem, **it is fit.** The Gemara explains: **According to the one who said** that one does not fulfill his obligation with an *etrog* of *orla* **because there is no permission to eat** the *etrog*, **everyone,** i.e., Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, **agrees** that one fulfills his obligation, because in Jerusalem one may eat second tithe. However, **according to the one who said** that one does not fulfill his obligation with an *etrog* of *orla* **because it has no monetary value,** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who do not consider second tithe the property of God; it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


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

עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, הַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — כָּשֵׁר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְנוּמָּר, וּפָסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **If boil-like blemishes arose** on the majority of the *etrog*, it is unfit. **Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi,** Rav, **and may the Omnipresent** come **to his assistance.** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case where the blemishes are concentrated **in one place; however,** if they are distributed **in two or three places** throughout the *etrog*, **it is fit.** Rava **said to** Rav Ḥisda: If the blemishes are distributed in **two or three places, it is as if** the *etrog* were **speckled** with different colors in different places; it lacks beauty **and is** certainly **unfit.**


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

אֶלָּא: אִי אִתְּמַר אַסֵּיפָא אִתְּמַר. עַל מִיעוּטוֹ — כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, וְהַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּמְנוּמָּר, וּפָסוּל. אָמַר רָבָא: וְעַל חוֹטְמוֹ — וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ נָמֵי פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** emend the text: **If** this statement **was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause** of the mishna: **If boil-like blemishes arose** only **on its minority, it is fit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi,** Rav, **and may the Omnipresent** come **to his assistance.** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** if the blemishes are concentrated **in one place. However,** if they are distributed **in two or three places** throughout the *etrog*, even if their total remains a minority, **it is as if** the *etrog* were **speckled, and** it is **unfit. Rava said:** If there is a blemish **on its upper,** blossom **end,** which is clearly visible and comprises the essence of the beauty of the *etrog*, **even if** the blemish **is** of **any size,** the *etrog* is **unfit.**


###### Sukkah 35b:14
[Sukkah 35b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35b:14)

נִטְּלָה פִּטְמָתוֹ. תָּנָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: נִטְּלָה בּוּכְנָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **If its *pitam* was removed,** it is unfit. **Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar taught** a *baraita*: This means **if its pestle**-like protuberance at its upper end **was removed.**


###### Sukkah 35b:15
[Sukkah 35b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/35b:15)

נִקְלַף. אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי אֶתְרוֹגָא דְּאַגְלֵיד כַּאֲהִינָא סוּמָּקָא — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: נִקְלַף — פָּסוּל! לָא קַשְׁיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: An *etrog* that **was peeled** is unfit. **Rava said: This *etrog* that was peeled like a red date** so that only its thin, outer peel is removed but the rest remains intact, **is fit.** The Gemara objects: **But didn’t we learn** explicitly in the mishna: If the *etrog* **was peeled** it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult;**