Sukkah 35A

גמ׳ תנו רבנן: ״פרי עץ הדר״, עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה ⁠— הוי אומר זה אתרוג.

Talmud: A baraita states that the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree,” meaning, a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. What tree is that? You must say it is the etrog tree.

ואימא פלפלין; כדתניא, היה רבי מאיר אומר: ממשמע שנאמר ״ונטעתם כל עץ״, איני יודע שהוא עץ מאכל? מה תלמוד לומר ״עץ מאכל״, עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה ⁠— הוי אומר זה פלפלין. ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה. ואין ארץ ישראל חסרה כלום, שנאמר: ״לא תחסר כל בה״.

The Talmud asks: And say that it is referring to the pepper tree, since the taste of its trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike, as it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you should regard its fruit as orla” (Leviticus 19:23). R' Meir would say that by inference from that which is stated “and plant any tree,” don’t I know that it is referring to a tree that produces food? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? It is to include a tree that the taste of its tree trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike. And which tree is this? You must say this is the pepper tree. This comes to teach you that the peppers, and even its trunk, are edible, and therefore the tree is obligated in the prohibition of orla. And Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you should eat bread without scarceness, you should lack nothing” (Deuteronomy 8:9). From where, then, is it derived that the Torah commands the taking of an etrog as one of the 4 species? Perhaps the verse is referring to peppers.