Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 6, 2021 | 讻状讞 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband Rabbi Hayim Herring.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sukkah 30

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jennifer and Daniel Geretz in memory of Rachel “Chela” Geretz, ob”m, on the occasion of her second yahrtzeit.

The law that one cannot perform a mitzva through a transgression is learned from verses relating to sacrifices. From there, Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai learned that a stolen lulav is disqualified all the days of Sukkot. But Rabbi Yitzchak disagrees and holds that it is only disqualified for one day and because it is not considered one鈥檚 own and the verse says 鈥淥ne should take for oneself on the first day鈥 鈥 from one鈥檚 own. Due to the disqualification of a stolen lulav, Rav Huna suggested to those middlemen who buy from idol worshippers, who were known to steal land from others, to have the idol worshippers cut the myrtle branches to put on the lulav to ensure that the middlemen wouldn鈥檛 be using stolen items. Since one who land is stolen from never gives up hope on getting back the land, stolen land is still considered owned by the original owner (no yeush) Therefore if they would cut it themselves, the owner would give up hopes of getting it back after it was cut and the middlemen would be considered to have stolen them. If it is cut by the idol worshipped, the theft happens in their hands and then when ownership rights are transferred to the middlemen, that is enough to have it no longer considered stolen property. The gemara raises a few questions on this 鈥 why would binding it not be considered a change through action and changing the name from myrtle to hoshana? If those would be considered significant changes, then also it would help to remove it from being considered stolen property.

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 讙讝讜诇 讜讗转 讛驻住讞 讜讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 讙讝讜诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻住讞 诪讛 驻住讞 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讗祝 讙讝讜诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖

It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord鈥 (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬拽专讬讘 诪讻诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讛讗 拽谞讬讬讛 讘讬讗讜砖 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, before the despair of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. The Merciful One says: 鈥淲hen a person sacrifices from yours an offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The term 鈥渇rom yours鈥 indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, and this stolen animal is not his. However, after the despair of the owner, didn鈥檛 the robber acquire the animal with the despair? Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? Rather, is it not because the offering is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression? Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗谞讬 讛壮 讗讜讛讘 诪砖驻讟 砖讜谞讗 讙讝诇 讘注讜诇讛 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖讛讬讛 注讜讘专 注诇 讘讬转 讛诪讻住 讗诪专 诇注讘讚讬讜 转谞讜 诪讻住 诇诪讜讻住讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 讛诪讻住 讻讜诇讜 砖诇讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪诪谞讬 讬诇诪讚讜 讻诇 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讘专讬讞讜 注爪诪谉 诪谉 讛诪讻住 讗祝 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗谞讬 讛壮 砖讜谞讗 讙讝诇 讘注讜诇讛 诪诪谞讬 讬诇诪讚讜 讘谞讬 讜讬讘专讬讞讜 注爪诪谉 诪谉 讛讙讝诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淔or I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering鈥 (Isaiah 61:8)? The Gemara cites a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn鈥檛 all the tax in its entirety belong to you? If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? He said to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and will not evade payment of the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: 鈥淚 the Lord… hate robbery in a burnt-offering.鈥 Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: From My conduct, My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery, even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings.

讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讚专 讙讝讜诇 驻住讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛

It was also stated: Rabbi Ami said: A dry lulav is unfit because it does not meet the criterion of beauty, and a stolen lulav is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 诪转讜讱 砖讬讜爪讗 讘砖讗讜诇 讬讜爪讗 谞诪讬 讘讙讝讜诇

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Ami disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitzhak bar Na岣ani said that Shmuel said: The Sages taught that the halakha that a stolen lulav is unfit applies only with regard to the first day of the festival of Sukkot. However, beginning on the second day of the Festival, there is no longer a Torah requirement to use a lulav from one鈥檚 own property. Since one fulfills his obligation with a borrowed lulav, one fulfills his obligation with a stolen one as well.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讜诇讘 讛讙讝讜诇 讜讛讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 讛讗 砖讗讜诇 讻砖专 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讜拽转谞讬 讙讝讜诇 驻住讜诇

Rabbi Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raises an objection from the mishna: A lulav that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit. By inference, one concludes that a borrowed lulav is fit for use. The Gemara asks: When does this halakha apply? If you say that it applies only on the first day of the Festival, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day,鈥 indicating that the four species must be taken from your own property, and this borrowed lulav is not his? Clearly, the mishna is not referring to the first day. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to the second day of the Festival, and the mishna teaches that a stolen lulav is unfit on this day too, contrary to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion?

(专讘讗 讗诪专) 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讗讜诇 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讙讝讜诇 讗讬诪讗 住转诐 讙讝讬诇讛 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讜讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava said: Actually, the mishna can be explained as referring to the first day of the Festival, and the tanna is stating the halakha employing the didactic style: It was not necessary. It was not necessary to state that one does not fulfill his obligation with a borrowed lulav, as it is not his. However, with regard to a stolen lulav, say: Barring extraordinary circumstances, standard robbery is a case that leads to despair of the owners, and despite the fact that a stolen lulav was acquired by means of a transgression, its legal status is like the robber鈥檚 own property. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so. One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav. The mishna is not a refutation of Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讛谞讛讜 讗讜讜谞讻专讬 讻讬 讝讘谞讬转讜 讗住讗 诪讙讜讬诐 诇讗 转讙讝讝讜 讗转讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讙讝讝讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讻讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住转诐 讙讜讬诐 讙讝诇谞讬 讗专注转讗 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 Apropos the unfitness of four species acquired through robbery, the Gemara relates: Rav Huna said to the merchants [avankarei] selling the four species: When you purchase myrtle branches from gentiles, don鈥檛 you cut them off the tree? Rather, let the gentiles cut them and give them to you. What is the reason for this advice? It is because typical gentiles are land robbers,

讜拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讛诇讻讱 诇讙讝讝讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讜 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 讚讬讚讛讜 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讬讬讻讜

and land is not stolen. When one seizes land, the land remains the property of its original owner, even if that owner has despaired. In this case, there is concern that these myrtle branches were stolen from Jews. Therefore, let the gentiles cut the myrtle branches, so that the despair of the owners will be when the myrtle branches are still in the hands of the gentiles and the change of possession will be accomplished through their purchase and transfer into your hands. The combination of owner鈥檚 despair and change of possession will render the myrtle branches the property of the merchants, and it will not be a mitzva fulfilled by means of a transgression.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讙讝讝讜 讗讜讜谞讻专讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讗讜讜谞讻专讬 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, even when the merchants cut the myrtle branches, let it be a case of despair in their hands, and the change of possession is accomplished through the purchase and transfer of the myrtle branches into the hands of the buyers. Why did Rav Huna advise them to have the gentiles cut the myrtle branches? The same result is achieved through their sale. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Huna to advise the merchants to allow the gentiles to cut the myrtle branches only with regard to the myrtle branches of the merchants themselves, which will not undergo another change of possession. The only way to ensure that the merchants are fulfilling the mitzva with myrtle branches that belong to them is to have the gentiles cut them and have the change of possession accomplished through the purchase from the gentiles.

讜诇讬拽谞讬讜讛 讘砖讬谞讜讬 诪注砖讛 拽讗 住讘专 诇讜诇讘 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚

The Gemara asks: And let them acquire the myrtle branches with a physical change accomplished by the action of binding them with the lulav and the willow branch. Just as despair followed by a change in possession effects acquisition, despair followed by a physical change effects acquisition for the one who implements that change. In that case, too, the myrtle branches no longer belong to the original owner. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna holds: A lulav does not require binding. There is no mitzva to bind the four species together. One need only hold them unbound in his hand; therefore, the myrtle branches undergo no action that effects physical change.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 讛讜讗 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 砖讬谞讜讬

And even if you want to say that a lulav requires binding, and therefore the myrtle branches undergo a physical change, it is a change after which the object reverts to its original state. Binding the species effects no change in the myrtle branches themselves. Once the binding is removed, the myrtle branches are restored to their original state. And the principle is: A change after which the object reverts to its original state is not considered a change. It is of no significance with regard to effecting acquisition.

讜诇讬拽谞讬讜讛 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗住讗 讜讛砖转讗

The Gemara asks: And let the merchants acquire a myrtle branch with a change of name that it underwent, as initially it was called a myrtle branch, and now that it is designated for use in fulfilling the mitzva,

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 28 – 34 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn if your Sukka is valid if your table is in your house instead of in...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 30: Sourcing Not-Stolen Merchandise

The third perek - and a shift away from the mitzvah of sukkah to that of lulav. We open with...

Sukkah 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 30

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讘讗转诐 讙讝讜诇 讜讗转 讛驻住讞 讜讗转 讛讞讜诇讛 讙讝讜诇 讚讜诪讬讗 讚驻住讞 诪讛 驻住讞 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讗祝 讙讝讜诇 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖

It is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression, which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord鈥 (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of a stolen animal is equivalent to that of a lame animal. Just as a lame animal, because it is blemished, has no remedy and is unfit for use, so too, a stolen animal has no remedy. There is no difference before the owners reach a state of despair of recovering the stolen animal, and there is no difference after despair. In both cases there is no remedy.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇驻谞讬 讬讗讜砖 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬拽专讬讘 诪讻诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 讬讗讜砖 讛讗 拽谞讬讬讛 讘讬讗讜砖 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛

The Gemara elaborates: Granted, before the despair of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. The Merciful One says: 鈥淲hen a person sacrifices from yours an offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2). The term 鈥渇rom yours鈥 indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, and this stolen animal is not his. However, after the despair of the owner, didn鈥檛 the robber acquire the animal with the despair? Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? Rather, is it not because the offering is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression? Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讗谞讬 讛壮 讗讜讛讘 诪砖驻讟 砖讜谞讗 讙讝诇 讘注讜诇讛 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖讛讬讛 注讜讘专 注诇 讘讬转 讛诪讻住 讗诪专 诇注讘讚讬讜 转谞讜 诪讻住 诇诪讜讻住讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 讛诪讻住 讻讜诇讜 砖诇讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 诪诪谞讬 讬诇诪讚讜 讻诇 注讜讘专讬 讚专讻讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讘专讬讞讜 注爪诪谉 诪谉 讛诪讻住 讗祝 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗诪专 讗谞讬 讛壮 砖讜谞讗 讙讝诇 讘注讜诇讛 诪诪谞讬 讬诇诪讚讜 讘谞讬 讜讬讘专讬讞讜 注爪诪谉 诪谉 讛讙讝诇

And Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淔or I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering鈥 (Isaiah 61:8)? The Gemara cites a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn鈥檛 all the tax in its entirety belong to you? If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? He said to them: From my conduct, all travelers will learn and will not evade payment of the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: 鈥淚 the Lord… hate robbery in a burnt-offering.鈥 Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: From My conduct, My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery, even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings.

讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讬谉 讛讚专 讙讝讜诇 驻住讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诪爪讜讛 讛讘讗讛 讘注讘讬专讛

It was also stated: Rabbi Ami said: A dry lulav is unfit because it does not meet the criterion of beauty, and a stolen lulav is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 诪转讜讱 砖讬讜爪讗 讘砖讗讜诇 讬讜爪讗 谞诪讬 讘讙讝讜诇

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Ami disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitzhak bar Na岣ani said that Shmuel said: The Sages taught that the halakha that a stolen lulav is unfit applies only with regard to the first day of the festival of Sukkot. However, beginning on the second day of the Festival, there is no longer a Torah requirement to use a lulav from one鈥檚 own property. Since one fulfills his obligation with a borrowed lulav, one fulfills his obligation with a stolen one as well.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讜诇讘 讛讙讝讜诇 讜讛讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 讛讗 砖讗讜诇 讻砖专 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讜拽转谞讬 讙讝讜诇 驻住讜诇

Rabbi Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raises an objection from the mishna: A lulav that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit. By inference, one concludes that a borrowed lulav is fit for use. The Gemara asks: When does this halakha apply? If you say that it applies only on the first day of the Festival, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day,鈥 indicating that the four species must be taken from your own property, and this borrowed lulav is not his? Clearly, the mishna is not referring to the first day. Rather, is it not that the mishna is referring to the second day of the Festival, and the mishna teaches that a stolen lulav is unfit on this day too, contrary to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion?

(专讘讗 讗诪专) 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 砖讗讜诇 讚诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讙讝讜诇 讗讬诪讗 住转诐 讙讝讬诇讛 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 讛讜讗 讜讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava said: Actually, the mishna can be explained as referring to the first day of the Festival, and the tanna is stating the halakha employing the didactic style: It was not necessary. It was not necessary to state that one does not fulfill his obligation with a borrowed lulav, as it is not his. However, with regard to a stolen lulav, say: Barring extraordinary circumstances, standard robbery is a case that leads to despair of the owners, and despite the fact that a stolen lulav was acquired by means of a transgression, its legal status is like the robber鈥檚 own property. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not so. One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav. The mishna is not a refutation of Shmuel鈥檚 opinion.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讛谞讛讜 讗讜讜谞讻专讬 讻讬 讝讘谞讬转讜 讗住讗 诪讙讜讬诐 诇讗 转讙讝讝讜 讗转讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讙讝讝讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讻讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 住转诐 讙讜讬诐 讙讝诇谞讬 讗专注转讗 谞讬谞讛讜

搂 Apropos the unfitness of four species acquired through robbery, the Gemara relates: Rav Huna said to the merchants [avankarei] selling the four species: When you purchase myrtle branches from gentiles, don鈥檛 you cut them off the tree? Rather, let the gentiles cut them and give them to you. What is the reason for this advice? It is because typical gentiles are land robbers,

讜拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讛诇讻讱 诇讙讝讝讜讛 讗讬谞讛讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讛讜讜 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 讚讬讚讛讜 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讬讬讻讜

and land is not stolen. When one seizes land, the land remains the property of its original owner, even if that owner has despaired. In this case, there is concern that these myrtle branches were stolen from Jews. Therefore, let the gentiles cut the myrtle branches, so that the despair of the owners will be when the myrtle branches are still in the hands of the gentiles and the change of possession will be accomplished through their purchase and transfer into your hands. The combination of owner鈥檚 despair and change of possession will render the myrtle branches the property of the merchants, and it will not be a mitzva fulfilled by means of a transgression.

住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 讙讝讝讜 讗讜讜谞讻专讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讬讗讜砖 讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讗讜讜谞讻专讬 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, even when the merchants cut the myrtle branches, let it be a case of despair in their hands, and the change of possession is accomplished through the purchase and transfer of the myrtle branches into the hands of the buyers. Why did Rav Huna advise them to have the gentiles cut the myrtle branches? The same result is achieved through their sale. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Huna to advise the merchants to allow the gentiles to cut the myrtle branches only with regard to the myrtle branches of the merchants themselves, which will not undergo another change of possession. The only way to ensure that the merchants are fulfilling the mitzva with myrtle branches that belong to them is to have the gentiles cut them and have the change of possession accomplished through the purchase from the gentiles.

讜诇讬拽谞讬讜讛 讘砖讬谞讜讬 诪注砖讛 拽讗 住讘专 诇讜诇讘 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚

The Gemara asks: And let them acquire the myrtle branches with a physical change accomplished by the action of binding them with the lulav and the willow branch. Just as despair followed by a change in possession effects acquisition, despair followed by a physical change effects acquisition for the one who implements that change. In that case, too, the myrtle branches no longer belong to the original owner. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna holds: A lulav does not require binding. There is no mitzva to bind the four species together. One need only hold them unbound in his hand; therefore, the myrtle branches undergo no action that effects physical change.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 讛讜讗 讜砖讬谞讜讬 讛讞讜讝专 诇讘专讬讬转讜 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 砖讬谞讜讬

And even if you want to say that a lulav requires binding, and therefore the myrtle branches undergo a physical change, it is a change after which the object reverts to its original state. Binding the species effects no change in the myrtle branches themselves. Once the binding is removed, the myrtle branches are restored to their original state. And the principle is: A change after which the object reverts to its original state is not considered a change. It is of no significance with regard to effecting acquisition.

讜诇讬拽谞讬讜讛 讘砖讬谞讜讬 讛砖诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗住讗 讜讛砖转讗

The Gemara asks: And let the merchants acquire a myrtle branch with a change of name that it underwent, as initially it was called a myrtle branch, and now that it is designated for use in fulfilling the mitzva,

Scroll To Top