28.3 - Sukkah Daf 35 A (15 lines Up)

Today’s learning sponsored by   Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here  https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU= An esrog of orlah is possul. The reason for this is a debate between Rabbi Chiya bar Avin and Rav Asi. According to one: Because it cannot be eaten*. According to the other: Because it is not considered your property** (because it is ossur b’hana’ah). Everyone agrees that the esrog must be suitable to eat. They only differ as to whether it must also be the owner’s property. The difference is that according to Rabbi Meir: Maaser Sheini is considered Hashem’s property which we are allowed to eat when we are in Yerushalayim. Such an esrog is not one’s property but is permissible to eat.  Summary   A proof that Rabbi Asi is the one who says ‘Because it is not considered your property’. Rabbi Asi: An esrog of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.  Response: Indeed, it is a proof. Full Statement: Rabbi Asi: An esrog of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim.  Matzah of maaser sheini cannot be used according to Rabbi Meir but it may be used according to the Chachomim. Dough of maaser sheini is not chayav in challah according to Rabbi Meir but it is according to the Chachomim.  Challenge: Rav Papa: Regarding dough, the possuk states “arisoseichem” - that it must belong to you. Similarly, regarding esrog the possuk states “lachem” - that it must belong to you. But where does it state that matzah must “belong to you”?  Rabbah bar Shmuel or perhaps Rav Yeimar bar Shlamya: We know from a gezeirah shaveh, since both matzah and challah are called lechem. Just as challah must be yours and not maaser sheini, the same goes for matzah*.  Suggestion: Perhaps a proof can be brought from the following: “Dough of maaser sheini is not chayav in challah, according to Rabbi Meir. Chachomim: It is chayav in challah.   Challenge: Why is it only a possible proof?  Resolution: It is certainly a proof regarding challah. The question is only if we can deduce that the same principle applies to esrog and matzah. Perhaps Rabbi Meir only holds this view regarding challah where the possuk emphasizes that it “must belong to you” twice. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A-4M31kqYxUmxd9md4plSm42n5c-RHul/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos explains that since the Torah states ‘lachem’, one must be able to derive benefit by eating it. Tosfos resolves a difficulty on this from masichta Shabbos. * *Tosfos explains that this requirement only applies to the first day. This is why the gemara prefers to give a different reason for disqualifying an esrog of Asherah or ir hanidachas.  * Tosfos explains that this cannot be given as the reason to disqualify matzah of revel since tevel is technically the property of its owner, it’s just that the kohen and levi who are owed terumah are looked at as partners. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate