Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

SUKKAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 5

Kehati

A stolen or withered Etrog is invalid - as in the case of Lulav, the Torah stating: "And you shall take unto you" meaning it must be yours - and not one acquired by robbery. Furthermore, a mitzvah performed with a stolen article is voided for being performed through a transgression. A withered Etrog is invalid, since it is not Hadar.

Of an Ashera or of a condemned city - which had embraced idolatry - is invalid - since it has to be burnt and so lacks the minimum requisite size, as explained in respect of the Lulav (mishnah 1, above).

[An Etrog] of Orlah - of a tree less than three years old -

Is invalid. The Gemara supplies the reason: Since the Torah has stated "And you shall take unto you", the Etrog must be fit for you (for your personal benefit), whereas this one is forbidden as food or enjoyment, being an Etrog of Orlah.

One of defiled terumah is invalid - since such fruit may not be eaten (Gemara), as in the case of orlah. Furthermore, defiled terumah must be burned, and hence already lacks the requisite minimum size (as explained in the case of Asherah and the condemned city).

[An Etrog] of undefiled terumah is not to be taken - the Gemara explains: Since the Lulav is kept in water and is then taken out for the recitation of the blessing, the moist Lulav would touch the Etrog and so render it susceptible to ritual defilement. However, it is prohibited to cause terumah to become defiled.

But if one did take - an Etrog of ritually pure terumah

It is valid - he does fulfil his obligation, since undefiled terumah is fit food for Kohanim.

[An Etrog] of Demai - fruit acquired from the ignorant (am ha'aretz), who are suspected of neglecting to separate tithes, is called Demai, i.e. "Doubtful" as to whether tithed. (See introduction to the tractate Demai in the Hebrew edition of this commentary). Such produce may not be eaten until the tithes have been removed. Now if the Etrog was of Demai produce

Bet Shammai declare it invalid - i.e., unfit for the mitzvah of the Four Species, since it may not be eaten, as explained above,

But Bet Hillel declare it valid - since it may be given to the poor, as has been taught (Demain 3:1): "Demai is fed to the poor".

[An Etrog] of Second Tithe in Jerusalem - Second Tithe fruit must be eaten in Jerusalem (Deut. 15:22ff) -

Shall not be taken - for the same reason that an Etrog of ritually pure Heave-Offering should not; brought into proximity with the Lulav, it will become susceptible to ritual defilement by the moisture, and Second Tithe, too, being termed "holy" (Lev. 27:30), it is forbidden to cause it to become ritually defiled.

But if one did take it - to fulfill the mitzvah - it is valid - i.e. he has performed the mitzvah of taking the Four Species. Outside Jerusalem, however, Second Tithe fruits may not be eaten until redeemed for money. Hence even after the fact such an Etrog is unacceptable (Rashi, Bartenura). Others hold that post facto, even outside Jerusalem, the mitzvah has been fulfilled, Jerusalem being mentioned in the mishnah merely to teach that, at the outset, even there such an Etrog should not be used (R. Nissim, Tosefot Yom Tov).

SUKKAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 6

Kehati

Or if its nipple - the bud-like wooden tip of the citron -

Was removed or if it was peeled - of the thin outer rind -

Or it was split - some explain that it was split lengthwise on both sides - others, that even if it was split to the core on one side, or even if it was not split to the core, but through most of the thick outer rind (R. Nissim)

Or it was perforated and even the slightest part was missing - the hole did not extend right through, but some substance was missing (Rashi); others explain: "It was perforated right through even though nothing was missing - "or else" the perforation did not extend right through the entire Etrog, but "even the slightest part" was missing (Rambam); in all these cases - it - the Etrog - is invalid.

In the Gemara, the distinction is drawn between an Etrog that is completely peeled and one that is only partially peeled. Rashi comments that a partially peeled Etrog is invalid because it appears speckled. However, a completely peeled Etrog, of so thin the layer of the rind, that the fruit still retains its green color (Bartenura) is valid. Hence the mishnah disqualifies only a partially, but not a completely, peeled Etrog. Others hold the opposite view, that the Mishnah rules out a completely peeled Etrog; partially peeled, it remains valid (R. Hananel).

If scabs covered its lesser part - i.e., a single scab (Hazazit) in a single place (Rambam)

Or if the stalk - by which it was attached to the tree -

Is missing, or it was perforated but nothing was missing - e.g. a needle had been thrust into the Etrog and withdrawn before penetrating right through - it - the Etrog - is valid - but if the scabs spread over two or three separate places, even though the total area covered is less than half the surface, the Etrog is invalid. Furthermore if the slightest scab appeared where the Etrog narrows towards the nipple, it is invalid (Gemara, Rambam).

An Ethiopian Etrog - i.e., black, the color of an Ethiopian - is invalid - some authorities hold that this qualification applies only to where citrons are not normally black, as in Eretz Yisrael, but where black Etrogim do grow, they would be valid (Gemara, Bartenura).

If green as a leek - or as grass (Rosh) - R. Meir declares it valid and R. Yehudah invalid - according to the Gemara, R. Yehudah regards such an Etrog as lacking Hadar or else because the fruit has not ripened properly. R. Yehudah's view is accepted.

Sunday | Monday | Tuesday | Wednesday
Thursday | Friday | Shabbat

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives