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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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?