Sukka 35 a, b

We begin with the Gemara of yesterday's Mishna regarding which etrogim are fit.  Are beautiful fruit those fruit that look pretty?  The rabbis guess that a beautiful fruit refers to a fruit that tastes similarly to its trunk.  The etrog meets this standard, as does the pepper tree (black pepper).  However, the pepper fruit is tiny and thus at least two or three fruits would be required to meet the required size - but we have been told to use one fruit only.  The rabbis wonder if the fruit was not intended to be hadar, beautiful, but another similar word.

The rabbis move into a complex conversation regarding the status of the etrog and its fitness as a consecrated object.  The are are concerned about whether we are discussing etrogim of second tithe, whether we are discussing an etrog of orla - and whether or not they have any monetary value.  They wonder whether or not they can use the taking of challah - based on the matzah, bread of affliction - as an analogy.  I am not fully clear about these particular details.   I understand the rabbis' reasoning, but the concepts that they are assuming we have mastered are still challenging for me.

If an etrog is of impure terumah, it is unfit because we are not permitted to eat it.  The rabbis name a number of ways that the etrog might become impure.  If an etrog is of second tithe in Jerusalem, it is fit. Regarding the blemishes on the exterior of the fruit, the rabbis discuss exactly which blemishes they are discussing.  They continue to be concerned about the physical beauty of the fruit.  We are taught about many possible blemishes and when the etrog is deemed fit.

Today's daf was a combination of very familiar halachot and extremely alien concepts.  It is both intriguing and frustrating to engage with a text that draws me in and immediately block me out.   I can't put the responsibility for this on the text, though - this is about my learning and my lack of knowledge.