“And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:19). Just as there, with regard to ḥalla, one is obligated only if the dough is from yours and not from second tithe, here too, with regard to matza, one fulfills his obligation only if it is from yours and not from second tithe.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita supports the statement of Rabbi Asi: Dough of the second tithe is exempt from ḥalla; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to the obligation of separating ḥalla. The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara’s suggestion. Let us say it supports his opinion. The baraita is not similar to the statement of Rav Asi; it is precisely the statement itself.

Rather, this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that from the fact that they disagree with regard to this case of ḥalla, they disagree with regard to that case of matza as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: “Your dough…your dough” (Numbers 15:20–21) twice. Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of ḥalla; however, with regard to matza, where there is no such duplication, perhaps one fulfills his obligation, even in the case of second tithe in Jerusalem, according to Rabbi Meir. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here in support of Rav Asi’s statement.

§ The mishna continues: An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. The reason is, as explained above, that there is no permission to eat it.

The mishna stated: And with regard to an etrog of pure teruma, one should not take it ab initio. However, if he did, it is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed about this. Why may one not take it ab initio? One of them said: It is because one renders it susceptible to impurity. All vegetation cannot become ritually impure, even if it came into contact with a source of impurity, unless it was moistened by one of seven liquids (see Leviticus 11:37–38). However, once one touches the etrog with wet hands, which are wet because he removed the other three species from the water in which they were kept to preserve their freshness, he renders the etrog susceptible to impurity. The Sages prohibited taking an etrog of teruma, lest it become impure, as it is prohibited to impurify teruma. And one said: It is because he damages it. By handling the etrog, the peel is rendered disgusting, and it is prohibited to damage teruma.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one accorded the entire etrog the status of teruma, to the exclusion of the peel, whose status remains non-sacred. According to the one who said: Because one renders it susceptible to impurity, there is a prohibition, as failure to sanctify the peel as teruma does not prevent the fruit from becoming susceptible to impurity. However, according to the one who said: Because he damages the teruma, there is no prohibition, as the peel that might be damaged was never teruma.

The mishna continues: And if he took an etrog of teruma, it is fit, and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because there is no permission to eat the etrog, there is permission to eat it. According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation because it has no monetary value, it has monetary value.

§ The mishna cites a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to an etrog of demai. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Beit Hillel, who deem it fit? It is prohibited to eat demai, due to the concern that it is actually untithed produce. The Gemara answers: Because, if one wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless, and he would be a pauper, in which case the demai would be fit for his consumption. Now too, even though he did not declare it ownerless, it is considered to meet the criterion of “and you shall take for yourselves.” As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the impoverished demai, and one may feed soldiers [akhsanya] whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai.

The Gemara asks: And why, then, do Beit Shammai deem it unfit? The Gemara answers: A pauper may not eat demai, as we learned in a mishna: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers demai. And Rav Huna said: It was taught in a baraita that Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished demai and one may not feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished demai and one may feed soldiers whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, demai. On that basis, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to an etrog of demai is clear.

§ The mishna continues: With regard to an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it, ab initio. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that an etrog of pure teruma is unfit because one renders it susceptible to ritual impurity, here too, he renders it susceptible. According to the one who says it is unfit because one damages the peel, here too, he damages the peel.

The mishna continues: And if one took an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, it is fit. The Gemara explains: According to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because there is no permission to eat the etrog, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, agrees that one fulfills his obligation, because in Jerusalem one may eat second tithe. However, according to the one who said that one does not fulfill his obligation with an etrog of orla because it has no monetary value, in accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not consider second tithe the property of God; it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

§ The mishna continues: If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog, it is unfit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the blemishes are concentrated in one place; however, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, it is fit. Rava said to Rav Ḥisda: If the blemishes are distributed in two or three places, it is as if the etrog were speckled with different colors in different places; it lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.

Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause of the mishna: If boil-like blemishes arose only on its minority, it is fit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if the blemishes are concentrated in one place. However, if they are distributed in two or three places throughout the etrog, even if their total remains a minority, it is as if the etrog were speckled, and it is unfit. Rava said: If there is a blemish on its upper, blossom end, which is clearly visible and comprises the essence of the beauty of the etrog, even if the blemish is of any size, the etrog is unfit.

§ The mishna continues: If its pitam was removed, it is unfit. Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar taught a baraita: This means if its pestle-like protuberance at its upper end was removed.

The mishna continues: An etrog that was peeled is unfit. Rava said: This etrog that was peeled like a red date so that only its thin, outer peel is removed but the rest remains intact, is fit. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn explicitly in the mishna: If the etrog was peeled it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;