(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sukah 40

SUKA 36-56 (End of Maseches) have been dedicated by the wife and daughters of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will long be remembered.


1) According to Raban Gamliel (in the Mishnah in Bikurim), an Esrog has the same Din as other trees as regards Orlah, Neta Revai and Shemitah - meaning that they all go after the year in which they budded.


(a) One gauges vines and olive-trees for Ma'asros - by when the fruit have grown one third of their full size.

(b) Vegetables have a different Din regarding Ma'asros, than corn, wine and oil (which one is Chayav to Ma'aser min ha'Torah) - because, unlike corn, wine and oil, vegetables require water constantly. Constantly, they are Ma'asered by the year in which they are picked (when they still require water) - i.e. if they are picked for example, in the *second* year of the three-year cycle, then the owner gives Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser *Sheini*; whereas if it is the *third* year, he gives Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser *Ani*.

(c) Raban Gamliel gives an *Esrog* the same Din as *vegetables* as regards Ma'asros - because *it* too, needs to be watered constantly.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer says that an Esrog-tree has the same Din as other trees in all regards - even as regards Ma'aser.

3) Even though both Tana'im in the Mishnah in Bikurim, consider an Esrog like any other tree as regards Shevi'is - the Tana of *our* Mishnah (goes after the time of picking and) gives the Esrog the Din of a *seventh* year Esrog, and not of a *sixth* - because he holds like Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, who, after quoting Avtulmus in the name five elders who follow the opinion of Raban Gamliel, adds that Raboseinu concluded in Usha that the Esrog goes after the time it is picked not only as regards *Ma'aser*, but also, as regards *Shemitah*.


(a) If cane or vine-shoots were gathered ...
  1. ... as animal food - they *would* have Kedushas Shevi'is.
  2. ... as firewood - they would *not*.
(b) A Lulav is not eaten (even by animals). Yet it has Kedushas Shevi'is - because, like food that *is*, one benefits from it as it is being used up. We learn this from the Pasuk in Behar "Lachem le'Ochlah", from which we learn 'for your benefit, similar to what is eaten'.

(c) Wood that is specifically used for lighting, gives benefit as it burns, and therefore has Kedushas Shevi'is. This will not however, apply to ordinary wood, which is normally used as fire-wood, and which is therefore permitted, even if someone had specifically in mind to use it for lighting (since we will apply the principle 'Batlah Da'to Eitzel Kol Adam').

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa forbids using Shemitah-fruit for soaking flax or washing clothes - because he holds of the Derashah that we just quoted. Consequently, just as fruit that is generally designated for a use from which one only benefits *after* it has been used up is permitted, so too, does the same Derashah, forbid using fruit from which one normally derives benefit as they are being used up, in such a way that only gives one benefit only *after* they have been used up.

(b) Rebbi Yossi permits it. He explains "Lachem le'Ochlah" to preclude medicines.

(c) He includes washing clothes in "le'Ochlah" - because everyone needs to wash clothes, but precludes using them for medicinal purposes - since not everyone needs medicines.




(a) Another Beraisa learns from "le'Ochlah" to preclude Melugma and Ziluf. Melugma means a type of cure, as in the previous Beraisa - 'Ziluf' means sprinkling wine around the house to create a pleasant smell.

(b) The author of this Beraisa be Rebbi Yossi, and not the Rabbanan - who would have added soaking flax and washing clothes to the list.

(a) Rebbi Elazar requires Shemitah produce to be redeemed through a sale; Rebbi Yochanan permits it through Chilul (transferring the Kedushah on to his own money - like Hekdesh).

(b) Rebbi Elazar derives his Din from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Chi Simkeru Mimkar la'Amisecha" and that of "bi'Shenas ha'Yovel ha'Zos". Rebbi Yochanan learns from there - that for the sin of doing business with Shemitah, one's business will begin to deteriorate, until one is forced to sell first his movable goods, then his land etc.

(c) *'Avkah* shel Shevi'is' (like *Avak* Ribis and *Avak* Lashon ha'Ra) means the secondary sin of doing business with Shemitah produce, since the main sin in the Shemitah-year, is working the land.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk there "Ki Yovel Hi, Kodesh ... ' - that Shevi'is is compared to Hekdesh, which can be redeemed either through a sale ("ve'Im Lo Yiga'el, ve've'Nimkar be'Erkecha") or through Chilul ("u'Padah be'Erkecha"), both in Bechukosai.

(b) Rebbi Elazar learns from that Pasuk - that Shevi'is, like Hekdesh, transfers its Kedushah on to the article with which one is buying it.

(a) If someone swaps fruit of Shemitah for meat - the Kedushah of the fruit transfers on to the meat, but the fruit itself remains Kadosh. Consequently, when the time of Bi'ur arrives, one is obligated to destroy both.

(b) If he then swapped the meat for fish - the meat goes out to Chulin, whilst the fish adopts the Kedushah of the meat (like by regular Hekdesh).

(c) The Din here differs from the previous case - because the word "Tihyeh" ('it remains as it is' from which we learn the previous Halachah) is confined to the original fruit, but not to what one paid for it. Consequently, the first and the last object remain Kadosh, but all the rest go out to Chulin.

(d) This Beraisa supports Rebbi Elazar - because, on each occasion, the Tana only speaks about *buying* the fruit, but does not contend with the possibility of *Chilul*.

(a) In another Beraisa which supports Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Meir permits the transfer of the Kedushah of both Shevi'is and Ma'aser Sheini on to any kind of animal, even if it is *alive*. The Chachamim forbid transferring their Kedushah on to a *live* animal - because they are afraid that one may come to raise entire herds of animals (which will survive the time of Bi'ur).

(b) Rava establishes their Machlokes by male animals (i.e. whether we decree males because of females) - female animals, even Rebbi Meir agrees are forbidden.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,