## Sukkah Daf 36a

###### Sukkah 36a:1
[Sukkah 36a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:1)

הָא בְּכוּלַּהּ, הָא בְּמִקְצָתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**this** mishna, where it states that if the *etrog* was peeled it is unfit, is **in** a case where **all of it** was peeled. **That** statement of Rava that if it was peeled it is fit is **in** a case where only **part of it** was peeled.


###### Sukkah 36a:2
[Sukkah 36a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:2)

נִסְדַּק, נִיקַּב. תָּנֵי עוּלָּא בַּר חֲנִינָא: נִיקַּב נֶקֶב מְפוּלָּשׁ — בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפוּלָּשׁ — בִּכְאִיסָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues discussing the *halakha* of an *etrog* that was **split** or **pierced. Ulla bar Ḥanina taught:** An *etrog* that was **pierced with a hole that** completely **goes through** its body is unfit **with any** size hole. If **the hole does not** completely **go through** the *etrog*, it is unfit only **with** a hole **the size of an *issar*** coin.


###### Sukkah 36a:3
[Sukkah 36a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:3)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: נוֹלְדוּ בָּאֶתְרוֹג סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה, מַהוּ? מַאי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אִי נִקְלַף — תְּנֵינָא! אִי נִסְדַּק — תְּנֵינָא! אִי נִיקַּב — תְּנֵינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised a dilemma:** If **signs of a *tereifa* developed in the *etrog*, what is** its halakhic status? The Gemara clarifies: **What is the dilemma** that **he is raising?** There are similarities between the *halakhot* of the *etrog* in the mishna and some of the *halakhot* of a *tereifa*, a bird or animal with a condition that will lead to its death within a year. **If** it is the case where the *etrog* was **peeled, we** already **learned** that case. **If** it is the case where the *etrog* was **split, we learned** that case as well. And **if** it is the case where the *etrog* was **pierced, we learned** that too. After ruling out those defects, the question remains: With regard to what is Rava’s dilemma?


###### Sukkah 36a:4
[Sukkah 36a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:4)

כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ כִּדְעוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּשְׁפְּכָה כְּקִיתוֹן — כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמַר רָבָא: וְהוּא דְּקָיְימִי סִימְפּוֹנַהָא. הָא לָא קָיְימִי סִימְפּוֹנַהָא — טְרֵפָה. הָכָא מַאי? דִּלְמָא הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא שָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא, הֲדַר בָּרְיָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּשָׁלֵיט בַּהּ אַוֵּירָא — סָרוֹחֵי מַסְרְחָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When he raises the dilemma,** it is with regard to a case **like** that **which Ulla** said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A lung whose** contents **can be poured like a pitcher,** i.e., whose tissue dissolved to the point of liquefaction, is not a sign of *tereifa*, and the animal is **kosher. And Rava said: And that is** the *halakha* only **where the bronchia are intact.** However, **if the bronchia are not intact, it is** a sign of ***tereifa*.** The dilemma **here** is with regard to a comparable situation in an *etrog*, i.e., an *etrog* that liquefied from within: **What** is its halakhic status? **Perhaps it is there,** in the case of the lung, **where the air does not affect it** since it is completely enclosed in the body, that the lungs **can recover,** and that is why it is not a *tereifa*. **However, here,** in the case of the *etrog*, **where the air affects it, it** inevitably **decays** and spoils and therefore it is a *tereifa*. **Or, perhaps** the case of the *etrog* is **no different.**


###### Sukkah 36a:5
[Sukkah 36a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֶתְרוֹג תָּפוּחַ סָרוּחַ, כָּבוּשׁ, שָׁלוּק, כּוּשִׁי, לָבָן, וּמְנוּמָּר — פָּסוּל. אֶתְרוֹג כְּכַדּוּר — פָּסוּל, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַתְּיוֹם. אֶתְרוֹג הַבּוֹסֶר — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא פּוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. גִּדְּלוֹ בִּדְפוּס וַעֲשָׂאוֹ כְּמִין בְּרִיָּה אַחֶרֶת — פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma based on that which was taught in a *baraita*. **An *etrog* that is *tafuaḥ*, *saruaḥ*, pickled, boiled,** a black **Cushite** *etrog*, **a white** *etrog*, **or a speckled** *etrog* **is unfit. An *etrog*** shaped **like a ball is unfit, and some say even a twin,** conjoined, *etrog* is unfit. With regard to **an *etrog* that is unripe, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If he grew** the *etrog* **in a mold and shaped it** to appear **like a different entity,** and it is no longer shaped like an *etrog*, it is **unfit.**


###### Sukkah 36a:6
[Sukkah 36a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:6)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת תָּפוּחַ סָרוּחַ, מַאי לָאו: תָּפוּחַ מִבַּחוּץ, וְסָרוּחַ מִבִּפְנִים! לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי מִבַּחוּץ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּתְפַח אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא סְרַח, הָא דִּסְרַח אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא תְּפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event, it teaches** that an *etrog* that is ***tafuaḥ*** or ***saruaḥ*** is unfit. **What, is it not** that ***tafuaḥ*** means that it decayed **on the outside and *saruaḥ*** means that it decayed **on the inside?** The Gemara rejects this explanation: **No,** both **this and that are** referring to decay **on the outside. And this** apparent redundancy is **not difficult,** as **this** case, *tafuaḥ*, **is where it swelled even though it did not decay, and that** case, *saruaḥ*, **is where it decayed even though it did not swell.**


###### Sukkah 36a:7
[Sukkah 36a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:7)

אָמַר מָר: אֶתְרוֹג כּוּשִׁי — פָּסוּל. וְהָתַנְיָא: כּוּשִׁי כָּשֵׁר, דּוֹמֶה לְכוּשִׁי — פָּסוּל! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תְּנַן נָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין, דּוֹמֶה לְכוּשִׁי תְּנַן. רָבָא אָמַר: לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא לַן, וְהָא לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita* cited above: **A Cushite *etrog* is unfit.** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a different *baraita*: **A Cushite *etrog* is fit,** but an *etrog* that is **similar to a Cushite** *etrog* **is unfit. Abaye said: When we learned** this *halakha* **in the mishna** that it is unfit, **too, we learned** it not in reference to an actual Cushite *etrog*, but rather in reference to one that is **similar to a Cushite** *etrog*. **Rava said:** Actually, the mishna is referring to a Cushite *etrog*, and nevertheless, it is **not difficult; this,** the *halakha* that it is unfit, **is for us** in Babylonia because our *etrogim* are typically light, and the dark Cushite *etrogim* are conspicuously different. **And that,** the *halakha* that it is fit, **is for them** in Eretz Yisrael, whose *etrogim* are typically dark. In Eretz Yisrael the dark Cushite *etrog* is not conspicuously different, and it is therefore fit.


###### Sukkah 36a:8
[Sukkah 36a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:8)

אֶתְרוֹג הַבּוֹסֶר — רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי הִיא — (דְּתַנְיָא:) רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הָאֶתְרוֹגִים בְּקוֹטְנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was also taught in the *baraita*: With regard to **an unripe *etrog*, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Rabba said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon said one** and the same **statement.** The Gemara elaborates: The statement of **Rabbi Akiva** is **that which we said;** an unripe *etrog* is unfit. **Rabbi Shimon, what is** his statement? It is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon exempts *etrogim*** from the requirement to be tithed while **in their small** state. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon, too, holds that an unripe *etrog* is not a fruit.


###### Sukkah 36a:9
[Sukkah 36a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָכָא, דְּבָעֵינַן ״הָדָר״ וְלֵיכָּא, אֲבָל הָתָם — כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabba: **Perhaps that is not** the case and they do not share the same opinion. **Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion only here,** with regard to an unripe *etrog*, **as we require beauty [*hadar*]** in an *etrog* **and there is none** in the case of an unripe *etrog* due to its color or small size; **however, there,** with regard to tithes, perhaps **he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis** that one is obligated to tithe even a half-ripe *etrog*.


###### Sukkah 36a:10
[Sukkah 36a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/36a:10)

אִי נָמֵי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָתָם, אֶלָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כׇּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה. אֲבָל הָכָא, כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion only there** with regard to the exemption of an unripe *etrog* from tithes, **as it is written: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your planting,** which is brought forth in the field year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22). From that verse it is derived that the obligation to tithe applies only to produce that has developed to the point where it is **typical for people to take it out** to the field **for sowing;** one is not obligated to tithe unripe fruit that is not suitable for planting. **However,** perhaps **here he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and would deem an unripe *etrog* fit.