Succah 35a

סוכה ל״ה ע״א

Sukkah 35a

Learn Succah 35a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Succah 35a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Identifying the אתרוג, and why certain אתרוגים are פסול

Overview

The גמרא opens with a ברייתא that identifies "פרי עץ הדר" as the אתרוג, because its wood tastes like its fruit. It rejects pepper, which also has this feature, because one peppercorn is too small to notice and the Torah wants one fruit. רבי, רבי אבהו and בן עזאי each reread the word הדר to point to the אתרוג: the pen, the fruit that stays on its tree, and the fruit that grows by all water. The גמרא then explains the משנה's rulings. An אתרוג of אשרה or עיר הנדחת is פסול because something set aside for burning counts as crushed. For ערלה, רבי חייא בר אבין and רבי אסי disagree: one says it may not be eaten, and the other says it has no money value. After a challenge from impure תרומה, the גמרא concludes that both require permission to eat, and רבי אסי also requires money value. The difference between them shows up with an אתרוג of מעשר שני according to רבי מאיר. רבי אסי applies the same idea to מצה and חלה. רב פפא asks where the Torah says מצה must be yours, and the answer, a גזרה שוה from the word "לחם", continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (23)

1. StatementThe fruit whose tree tastes like its fruit is the אתרוג
2. ChallengeWhy not peppers, whose wood also tastes like the fruit?
3. ResolutionPeppers cannot work for the מצוה
4. Statementרבי reads הָדָר as הַדִּיר, the pen
5. ChallengeDon't other fruits also come big, small, and blemished?
6. ResolutionOld and new fruits on the tree together
7. Statementרבי אבהו: the fruit that stays on its tree
8. Statementבן עזאי: the fruit that grows on all water
9. QuestionWhy is an אתרוג of an אשרה or an עיר הנדחת invalid?
10. ResponseIt is set for burning, so it counts as ashes
11. QuestionWhy is an אתרוג of ערלה invalid?
12. ResponseTwo reasons: no permission to eat, or no money value
13. StatementFirst assumption: each view needs only its own condition
14. ChallengeChallenge from impure תרומה: it does have money value
15. ResolutionEveryone requires permission to eat; the argument is only about money value
16. QuestionWhat practical difference is there between the two views?
17. ResponseThe difference: an אתרוג of מעשר שני in ירושלים according to רבי מאיר
18. ProofProof that רבי אסי holds the 'money value' view
19. ConclusionThe proof is accepted
20. Statementרבי אסי's full statement: the אתרוג of מעשר שני
21. StatementThe same argument applied to מצה and חלה
22. Challengeרב פפא asks: where does the תורה say מצה must be yours?
23. Resolutionמצה is linked to חלה through the shared word 'bread'