(40a:1)שבשעת לקיטתו עישורו דברי רבן גמליאל ר' אליעזר אומר אתרוג שוה לאילן לכל דבר
(40a:1)It is like a vegetable in that at the time of its picking it is tithed; this is the statement of Rabban Gamliel. If it was picked in the third year of the Sabbatical cycle, poor man’s tithe is separated although it ripened in the second year, when the obligation is to separate second tithe and not poor man’s tithe. Rabbi Eliezer says: The halakhic status of the fruit of an etrog tree is like that of a typical fruit tree in every matter. In any case, with regard to ascribing the status of Sabbatical-Year produce to the fruits, it is apparent from the mishna that the status of an etrog of the sixth year that was picked in the seventh year is that of sixth-year produce.
(40a:2)הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא א"ר יוסי אבטולמוס העיד משום חמשה זקנים אתרוג אחר לקיטה למעשר ורבותינו נמנו באושא ואמרו בין למעשר בין לשביעית
(40a:2)The Gemara answers: It was the tanna of the mishna that distinguishes between the lulav and the etrog who stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said that Avtolemos, one of the Sages, testified in the name of five Elders: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes. And our Sages were counted in Usha, reached a decision, and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.
(40a:3)שביעית מאן דכר שמיה חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אתרוג אחר לקיטה למעשר ואחר חנטה לשביעית ורבותינו נמנו באושא ואמרו אתרוג בתר לקיטה בין למעשר בין לשביעית
(40a:3)The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: With regard to the Sabbatical Year, who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of the Sabbatical Year, the discussion of the status of an etrog during the Sabbatical Year is a non sequitur. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking with regard to the halakhot of tithes and determined by the time of its ripening with regard to the Sabbatical Year. And our Sages were counted in Usha and said: The status of an etrog is determined by the time of its picking both with regard to the halakhot of tithes and with regard to the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year.
(40a:4)טעמא דלולב בר ששית הנכנס לשביעית הוא הא דשביעית קדוש אמאי עצים בעלמא הוא ועצים אין בהן משום קדושת שביעית (דתנן) עלי קנים ועלי גפנים שגבבן לחובה על פני השדה לקטן לאכילה יש בהן משום קדוש' שביעית לקטן לעצים אין בהן משום קדושת שביעית
(40a:4)§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the mishna: The reason that a lulav may be purchased from an am ha’aretz during the Sabbatical Year is specifically that it is a lulav of the sixth year that is entering the seventh. This indicates by inference that a lulav of the seventh year is sacred with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: Why is it sacred? It is merely wood, and wood is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to reed leaves and vine leaves that one piled for storage upon the field, if he gathered them for eating, they are subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year; if he gathered them for use as wood, e.g., for kindling, they are not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Apparently, wood or any other non-food product is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.
(40a:5)שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כה, ו) לכם לאכלה לכם דומיא דלאכלה מי שהנאתו וביעורו שוה יצאו עצים שהנאתן אחר ביעורן
(40a:5)The Gemara answers: It is different there, in the case of the reed and vine leaves, as the verse states: “And the Sabbatical produce of the land shall be for you for food” (Leviticus 25:6). From the juxtaposition of the term: For you, and the term: For food, it is derived: For you is similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide. Wood is excluded, as its benefit is subsequent to its consumption. The primary purpose of kindling wood is not accomplished with the burning of the wood; rather, it is with the charcoal that heats the oven. Therefore, it is not subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.
(40a:6)והאיכא עצים דמשחן דהנאתן וביעורן שוה אמר רבא סתם עצים להסקה הן עומדין
(40a:6)The Gemara objects: But isn’t there wood used to provide heat (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), whose benefit coincides with its consumption? Rava said: Undesignated wood exists for fuel, i.e., charcoal, so its benefit is subsequent to its consumption.
(40a:7)ועצים להסקה תנאי היא דתניא אין מוסרין פירות שביעית לא למשרה ולא לכבוסה ר' יוסי אומר מוסרין
(40a:7)§ The Gemara notes: The matter of whether kindling wood, whose benefit is subsequent to its consumption, is subject to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One may neither transfer Sabbatical-Year produce, e.g., wine, for soaking flax to prepare it for spinning, as the benefit derived from the flax is subsequent to its soaking, when the soaked and spun thread is woven into a garment; nor for laundering with it, as the benefit derived is subsequent to the laundering when one wears the clean clothes. Soaking the flax or laundering the garment in wine is consumption of the wine, as it is no longer potable. Rabbi Yosei says: One may transfer Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes.
(40a:8)מ"ט דת"ק דאמר קרא לאכלה ולא למשרה ולא לכבוסה מ"ט דרבי יוסי אמר קרא לכם לכם לכל צרכיכם ואפילו למשרה ולכבוסה ות"ק הא כתיב לכם ההוא לכם דומיא דלאכלה מי שהנאתו וביעורו שוה יצאו משרה וכבוסה שהנאתן אחר ביעורן
(40a:8)The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the statement of the first tanna? It is as the verse states with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: “For food,” from which it is inferred: And not for soaking and not for laundering. What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yosei permitting one to do so? It is as the verse states: “For you,” from which it is inferred: For you, for all your needs, and even for soaking and for laundering. The Gemara asks: But according to the first tanna, isn’t it written: “For you”? How does he explain that term? The Gemara answers: From that term “for you” it is derived: For you, similar to for food; the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect on those items whose benefit and whose consumption coincide, which excludes soaking and laundering, where the items’ benefit is subsequent to their consumption.
(40a:9)ורבי יוסי הא כתיב לאכלה ההוא מיבעי ליה לאכלה ולא למלוגמא כדתניא לאכלה ולא למלוגמא אתה אומר לאכלה ולא למלוגמ' או אינו אלא ולא לכבוסה כשהוא אומר לכם הרי לכבוסה אמור הא מה אני מקיים לאכלה לאכלה ולא למלוגמא מה ראית לרבות את הכבוסה ולהוציא את המלוגמא
(40a:9)The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, isn’t it written: “For food,” indicating that it may not be used for any other purpose? The Gemara answers: He needs that phrase to teach: For food, and not for a remedy [melugma], as it is taught in a baraita: For food and not for a remedy. The baraita continues: Do you say: For food and not for a remedy, or perhaps it is only: For food and not for laundering? When the verse says: “For you,” for laundering is already stated as permitted since it includes all one’s bodily needs. How, then, do I uphold that which the verse states: “For food”? It is: For food, and not for a remedy. And should one ask: What did you see that led you to include the use of Sabbatical-Year produce for laundering and to exclude the use of Sabbatical-Year produce as a remedy?
(40b:1)מרבה אני את הכבוסה ששוה בכל אדם ומוציא את המלוגמא שאינה שוה לכל אדם
(40b:1)Rabbi Yosei could respond: I include laundering, which applies equally to every person, as everyone needs clean clothes, and I exclude a remedy, which does not apply equally to every person; it is only for the ill.
(40b:2)מאן תנא להא דת"ר לאכלה ולא למלוגמא לאכלה ולא לזילוף לאכלה ולא לעשות ממנה אפיקטויזין כמאן כר' יוסי דאי רבנן הא איכא נמי משרה וכבוסה
(40b:2)The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to Sabbatical-Year produce: For food, and not for a remedy; for food, and not for sprinkling wine in one’s house to provide a pleasant fragrance; for food, and not to make it an emetic [apiktoizin] to induce vomiting? In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as, if it were in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, isn’t there also soaking and laundering that should have been excluded in the baraita, as in their opinion, use of Sabbatical-Year produce for those purposes is prohibited?
(40b:3)אמר ר' אלעזר אין שביעית מתחללת אלא דרך מקח ורבי יוחנן אמר בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול
(40b:3)§ Rabbi Elazar said: Sabbatical-Year produce is deconsecrated only by means of purchase; however, it cannot be deconsecrated through redemption. Merely declaring that the sanctity of that produce is transferred to money or other produce is ineffective. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is deconsecrated both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.
(40b:4)מ"ט דר' אלעזר דכתיב (ויקרא כה, יג) בשנת היובל הזאת וגו' וסמיך ליה וכי תמכרו ממכר דרך מקח ולא דרך חילול ורבי יוחנן מ"ט דכתיב כי יובל היא קדש מה קדש בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול אף שביעית בין דרך מקח בין דרך חילול
(40b:4)What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? It is as it is written: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it it is written: “And if you sell an item to your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:14); this indicates that in the Jubilee Year, during which the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year are in effect, one deconsecrates the produce by means of purchase and not by means of redemption. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the rationale for his opinion? It is as it is written: “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you” (Leviticus 25:12); this indicates that just as one redeems consecrated items both by means of purchase and by means of redemption, so too, Sabbatical-Year produce can be redeemed both by means of purchase and by means of redemption.
(40b:5)ורבי יוחנן האי כי תמכרו ממכר מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדר' יוסי בר חנינא דתניא א"ר יוסי בר חנינא בוא וראה כמה קשה אבקה של שביעית וכו' אדם נושא ונותן בפירות שביעית לסוף מוכר את מטלטליו ואת כליו שנאמר בשנת היובל הזאת תשובו איש אל אחוזתו וסמיך ליה וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך וגו'
(40b:5)The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what does he do with this juxtaposition of the Jubilee Year to the verse: “If you sell an item”? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive a halakha in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: Come and see how severe even the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year is; as the prohibition against commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is not one of the primary prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, and its punishment is harsh. A person who engages in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce is ultimately punished with the loss of his wealth to the point that he is forced to sell his movable property and his vessels, as it is stated: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it, it is written: “And if you sell an item to your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:14).
(40b:6)ור' אלעזר האי קרא דר' יוחנן מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא כה, יב) כי יובל היא קדש מה קדש תופס את דמיו אף שביעית תופסת את דמיה
(40b:6)The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what does he do with this verse from which Rabbi Yoḥanan derived his opinion? The Gemara answers: He needs it to derive in accordance with that which is taught in a baraita: “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you” (Leviticus 25:12); just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed.
(40b:7)תניא כוותיה דר' אלעזר ותניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן תניא כוותיה דרבי אלעזר שביעית תופסת את דמיה שנאמר כי יובל היא קדש תהיה לכם מה קדש תופס את דמיו ואסור אף שביעית תופסת את דמיה ואסורה
(40b:7)It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Gemara elaborates that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: Sabbatical-Year sanctity takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which the produce is redeemed, as it is stated: “For it is a Jubilee; it shall be consecrated unto you”; just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed and it is prohibited to use the money for non-sacred purposes, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and it is prohibited to use this money for purposes for which Sabbatical-Year produce may not be used.
(40b:8)אי מה קדש תופס דמיו ויוצא לחולין אף שביעית תופסת את דמיה ויוצאת לחולין תלמוד לומר תהיה בהוייתה תהא
(40b:8)Or perhaps extend the analogy and derive that just as the sanctity of consecrated items takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which they are redeemed, and the consecrated item assumes non-sacred status, so too, the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on money or objects in exchange for which it is redeemed, and the Sabbatical-Year produce assumes non-sacred status. Therefore, the verse states: “It shall be consecrated unto you,” meaning: It shall be as it is. Although the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect on the money, the produce remains consecrated as well.
(40b:9)הא כיצד לקח בפירות שביעית בשר אלו ואלו מתבערין בשביעית לקח בבשר דגים יצא בשר ונכנסו דגים לקח בדגים יין יצאו דגים ונכנס יין לקח ביין שמן יצא יין ונכנס שמן
(40b:9)The Gemara explains: How so? If one purchased meat with Sabbatical-Year produce, both this, the produce, and that, the meat, must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. The meat may be eaten only as long as the produce in exchange for which it was purchased may be eaten, i.e., as long as produce of that kind remains in the field. However, if he purchased fish in exchange for the meat, the meat emerges from its consecrated status, and the fish assumes consecrated status. If he then purchased wine in exchange for the fish, the fish emerges from its consecrated status, and the wine assumes consecrated status. If he purchased oil in exchange for the wine, the wine emerges from its consecrated status, and the oil assumes consecrated status.
(40b:10)הא כיצד אחרון אחרון נכנס בשביעית ופרי עצמו אסור מדקתני לקח לקח אלמא דרך מקח אין דרך חילול לא
(40b:10)How so? The last item purchased assumes the consecrated status of produce of the Sabbatical Year, and the produce itself remains consecrated and forbidden and never loses its consecrated status. The Gemara notes: From the fact that the baraita teaches each case using the term: Purchased, purchased, apparently it means that by means of transaction, yes, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year takes effect; however, by means of redemption, no, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year does not take effect.
(40b:11)תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן אחד שביעית ואחד מעשר שני מתחללין על בהמה חיה ועוף בין חיין בין שחוטין דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים על שחוטין מתחללין על חיין אין מתחללין גזירה שמא יגדל מהן עדרים
(40b:11)The Gemara continues: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and fowl, whether they are alive or whether they are slaughtered; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Upon slaughtered animals, they are deconsecrated; upon animals that are alive, they are not deconsecrated. The reason is that a rabbinic decree was issued lest one raise flocks from them. If one breeds a herd from that consecrated animal, the entire herd would be sacred and the potential for misuse of second-tithe property would be great.
(40b:12)אמר רבא מחלוקת
(40b:12)Rava said: This dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis
