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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 7, 2021 | 讻状讟 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).

  • 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 31

A stolen sukkah 鈥 can it be used? Rabbi Eliezer forbids and the rabbis permit. Rav Nachman limits the case in which they disagree 鈥 only in a case where one kicked another out of his sukkah, but all would agree if one stole wood and used it to build a sukkah, it would be permitted to use the sukkah and one would only need to return the value of the stolen wood. In the vein, the gemara bring a story of an elderly woman who came to Rav Nachman complaining that the Exilarch and the rabbis were sitting in a sukkah made of stolen wood of hers. When he ignored her, she continued to scream and he turned to the rabbis and said that she has no claim and all she can demand is the value of the wood. A braita is quoted that said 鈥渄ry is disqualified by the rabbis but Rabbi Yehuda permits.鈥 What is the subject of the braita? Rava claims it is referring to a lulav, but an etrog needs to be beautiful, hadar. First the gemara questions by bringing seemingly contradictory sources: Does Rabbi Yehuda really not require that a lulav be beautiful? Then they question whether Rabbi Yehuda really requires that the etrog be beautiful. Eventually they reject Rava鈥檚 claim as it seems clear the Rabbi Yehuda does not require hadar, beauty for lulav or etrog. The gemara then questions that assumption from various sources that could indicate that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty by etrog. What is a lulav of ashera and a city of Jews that worshipped idols disqualified?

讛讜砖注谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗住讗 讛讜砖注谞讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛

it is called hoshana, which is a term used to describe the four species. The Gemara answers: This is not a full-fledged change of name, as occasionally it also happens that they initially refer to a myrtle branch as a hoshana while it is attached to the tree.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 住讜讻讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讜讛诪住讻讱 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

The Sages taught: With regard to a stolen sukka and with regard to one who roofs a sukka in the public domain, which is tantamount to robbing land from the public, Rabbi Eliezer deems these sukkot unfit for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, and the Rabbis deem them fit.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖转讜拽祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪住讜讻转讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘住讜讻转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬 拽专拽注 谞讙讝诇转 住讜讻讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 住讜讻讛 砖讗讜诇讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an said: This dispute is limited to a case where one assaults another and forcibly evicts him from his sukka, and takes his place in the sukka. In that case, Rabbi Eliezer deems the sukka unfit. And Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his own reasoning, as he said: A person does not fulfill his obligation with the sukka of another. Therefore, in any event, he does not fulfill his obligation with it. If land can be stolen and acquired by the robber, the sukka from which he evicted the owner is a stolen sukka. And if indeed land cannot be stolen, nevertheless, the robber does not fulfill his obligation according to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is a borrowed sukka.

讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘住讜讻转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜住讜讻讛 砖讗讜诇讛 讛讬讗

And the Rabbis conform to their reasoning, as they said: A person fulfills his obligation with the sukka of another. And since land cannot be stolen and the sukka is merely a borrowed sukka and not a stolen one, the robber fulfills his obligation, despite the fact that he committed a reprehensible act.

讗讘诇 讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讜住讬讻讱 讘讛谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐

However, if one stole wood and roofed a sukka with it, everyone agrees, as Rabbi Eliezer concedes, that the original owner of the wood has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. The wood itself belongs to the robber, so it is not a stolen sukka.

诪诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Na岣an draw the conclusion that the dispute is with regard to a stolen sukka and not with regard to a sukka established with stolen building materials?

诪讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 拽专拽注 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 拽专拽注 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: From the fact that the halakha of a stolen sukka is juxtaposed in the baraita to the halakha of a sukka established in the public domain, the baraita teaches that the legal status of the stolen sukka is similar to the legal status of a sukka established in the public domain. Just as one does not fulfill his obligation with a sukka in the public domain because the land is not his, with regard to the stolen sukka too, one does not fulfill his obligation because the land is not his, not because the building materials were stolen.

讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讻讜诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘住讜讻讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 爪讜讜讞讛 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗讬转转讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛讗 转诇转 诪讗讛 讜转诪谞讬 住专讬 注讘讚讬 爪讜讜讞讗 拽诪讬讬讻讜 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞讬转讜 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻注讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Na岣an. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Exilarch鈥檚 servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Na岣an did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Na岣an said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Exilarch.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻砖讜专讗 讚诪讟诇诇转讗 讚讙讝讜诇讛 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 诪专讬砖

Ravina said: With regard to the stolen large beam of a sukka, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the robber need not return it intact, due to the general ordinance of a beam. By the letter of the law, one who stole a beam and incorporated it in the construction of a new house is required to dismantle the house and return the beam. The Sages instituted an ordinance requiring the robber to repay the monetary value of the beam instead. They instituted this ordinance to facilitate the repentance of the robber, who would be less likely to repent if doing so entailed destruction of the house.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注爪讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注爪讬诐 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. In what way is the beam different from other wood used in establishing the sukka? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Wood is common, and therefore the owners are more likely to despair of recovering the wood and will suffice with receiving monetary restitution and replacing the wood, but, with regard to this large beam, which is not common, say that there is no despair, and the robber is required to return the actual beam, therefore, Ravina teaches us that the ordinance applies even to this beam, and the robber is required to return only its monetary value.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讜 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 诇讘转专 砖讘注讛 讛讚专 讘注讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讞讘专讜 讘讟讬谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖讘注讛 谞诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: This halakha that the robber need not dismantle the sukka and return the beam applies only within the seven days of the Festival. However, after the seven days, the beam returns to the owner intact. And if the robber attached it with mortar and it is affixed permanently to the sukka, then even after the seven days of the Festival, the ordinance remains in effect, and the robber gives the original owner the monetary value of the beam.

转谞讗 讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讜诇讘 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诇讗转专讜讙 诪讛 讗转专讜讙 讘注讬 讛讚专 讗祝 诇讜诇讘 讘注讬 讛讚专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诇讗转专讜讙 讗讘诇 讘讗转专讜讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讚专 讘注讬谞谉

搂 It was taught in the Tosefta: A dry lulav is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. Rava said: The dispute is specifically with regard to a lulav, as the Rabbis hold: We liken the lulav to the etrog, based on their juxtaposition in the verse. Just as the etrog requires beauty, so too, the lulav requires beauty. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not liken the lulav to the etrog. However, with regard to an etrog, everyone agrees that we require beauty [hadar] as the verse states: 鈥淔ruit of a beautiful tree鈥 (Leviticus 23:40) and a dry etrog does not meet that criterion.

讜讘诇讜诇讘 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讗讙讚谞讜 诪诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a lulav, does Rabbi Yehuda really not require beauty? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a lulav whose leaves have spread out, one should bind the lulav from the top. What is the reason to do so? Is it not because he requires beauty in the case of lulav?

诇讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐 讻驻讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜讚 讬讻驻转谞讜

The Gemara rejects this: No, as the reason is taught: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that the same verse states: 鈥淏ranches [kappot] of a date palm.鈥 The Sages interpret the term to mean bound [kafut], indicating that if the leaves of the lulav were spread, one should bind it.

讜诇讗 讘注讬 讛讚专 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讗诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty with regard to the lulav? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One binds the lulav only with its own species, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires the binding to be from its own species? Is it not due to the fact that he requires beauty with regard to the lulav?

诇讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讬讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 [讜讗诇讗] 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚拽讗 住讘专 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诪讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉

The Gemara answers: No, that is not the reason, as Rava said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, one may bind the lulav even with fiber that grows around the trunk of the date palm and even with the root of the date palm, even though these do not meet the criterion of beauty. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that a lulav must be bound with its own species? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that a lulav requires binding, and if one brought another species to bind it, they are five species instead of four, violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah.

讜讘讗转专讜讙 诪讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 诪爪讗 讗转专讜讙 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诇讗 驻专讬砖 讜诇讗 专诪讜谉 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻诪讜砖讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讘砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: And with regard to an etrog, does Rabbi Yehuda require beauty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. If one did not find an etrog, he should not bring a quince, a pomegranate, or any other item instead. If the species are slightly dried, they are fit. If they are completely dry, they are unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry etrogim are fit.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident

讘讘谞讬 讻专讻讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讛谉 讗诪专讜 (诇讛诐) 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 专讗讬讛

involving city dwellers who lived in an area distant from the region where the four species grow, who would bequeath their lulavim to their grandchildren, even though they were completely dry. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there that species that are dry remain fit for use? Actions taken in exigent circumstances are not proof. In typical circumstances, it would be prohibited to use those species.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讘砖讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讗转专讜讙 诇讗 讗诇讜诇讘

In any event, the Tosefta teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry species are fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. What, is it not referring to an etrog as well, indicating that in his opinion an etrog does not require beauty? No, he was stating only that a dry lulav is fit for use.

讗诪专 诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诪讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Master stated in the baraita cited above: Just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Why would it be permitted to add an additional species? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that a lulav requires a binding, and that requirement is a fundamental component of the mitzva, and if you bring another additional species, this species stands alone and that species stands alone, i.e., because the additional species is not bound with the others, its presence is insignificant, and causes no problem, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that this is not the case. In fact, one may not bring an additional species.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗 讗转专讜讙 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诇讗 专诪讜谉 讜诇讗 驻专讬砖 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讬转讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 砖诇讗 转砖讻讞 转讜专转 讗转专讜讙 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讞讜专讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗转讬 诇诪住专讱

The Master stated in the baraita cited above: If one cannot find an etrog, he may not bring a pomegranate, a quince, or anything else instead. The Gemara wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say: He should bring these fruits so that the halakhic category of the etrog will not be forgotten, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that it is in fact prohibited because on occasion, damage will result from this practice. Some may come to be drawn to this practice and use these species even when etrogim are available.

转讗 砖诪注 讗转专讜讙 讛讬砖谉 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear another proof that, with regard to an etrog, Rabbi Yehuda does not require beauty: An old etrog is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, who holds that everyone agrees that an etrog requires beauty. The Gemara concludes: It is, indeed, a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion.

讜诇讗 讘注讬 讛讚专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讬专讜拽 讻讻专转讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讙诪专 驻讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty in an etrog? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to an etrog that is leek green, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit? The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in the case of a green etrog the fruit did not ripen, and it is inappropriate to fulfill the mitzva with an unripe fruit.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讬注讜专 讗转专讜讙 拽讟谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讗讙讜讝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬爪讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讙诪专 驻讬专讗

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: What is the minimum measure of a small etrog? Rabbi Meir says: It may be no smaller than a walnut-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be no smaller than an egg-bulk. The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in that case of an etrog smaller than an egg-bulk, the fruit did not ripen.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讘讙讚讜诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讜讝 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讜诇讘 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讗转专讜讙 讘砖诪讗诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讞诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗驻讜讻讬谞讛讜 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬

Come and hear an additional proof: And in a large etrog, the maximum measure is so that one could hold two in his one hand; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is fit even if it is so large that he can hold only one in his two hands. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, the rationale is as Rabba said: One holds the lulav in the right hand and the etrog in the left. Sometimes, when one is handed the four species, they will exchange them for him, placing the three species in his left hand and the etrog in his right, and then he will come to switch them and place each in the appropriate hand. However, if the etrog is too large, he will be unable to hold the etrog and the lulav together, and he will come to render the etrog unfit, as it is apt to fall.

讜讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛讚专

The Gemara asks: However, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, isn鈥檛 it written: The fruit of a beautiful [hadar] tree? How, then, can he rule that an etrog does not require beauty?

讛讛讜讗 讛讚专 讘讗讬诇谞讜 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds: That verse means that one should take a fruit that dwells [hadar] in its tree from year to year. It remains on the tree and does not wither and fall at the end of the season as do most fruits. That is characteristic of the etrog.

砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讜砖诇 讗砖专讛 驻住讜诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诇讘 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专

搂 The mishna continues: The lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] and a lulav from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, which must be burned along with all the city鈥檚 property, are unfit. And is a lulav of an asheira unfit? But didn鈥檛 Rava say with regard to a lulav of idolatry: One should not take it to fulfill the mitzva ab initio; however, if he took it, it is fit and he fulfills his obligation after the fact? Apparently, a lulav from an asheira is fit.

讛讻讗 讘讗砖专讛 讚诪砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻转讜转讬 诪讬讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛

The Gemara explains: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with the asheira of Moses, depicted in the Torah. The mishna is not referring to a tree planted in deference to idolatry, but rather to a tree that was itself worshipped as an idol. There is an obligation to burn idolatry and destroy it. Therefore, legally, the latter tree is considered as if it were already burned. The requisite measure of the lulav was crushed, and it is therefore unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rava鈥檚 ruling does not apply to an asheira of that kind.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara notes: The formulation of the mishna is also precise and indicates that the reference is to an asheira of Moses, as the juxtaposition of the halakha of an asheira to the halakha of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry teaches that the legal status of the asheira is similar to that of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, in which all the property must be burned. In both cases, the lulav is considered already burned and lacking the requisite measure. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the reason that the lulav is unfit.

谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞拽讟诐 讗讘诇 谞住讚拽 讻砖专

The mishna continues: If the top of the lulav was severed it is unfit. Rav Huna said: They taught that it is unfit only when it was completely severed; however, if the top merely split, the lulav is fit.

讜谞住讚拽 讻砖专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讻驻讜祝

The Gemara asks: And is a split lulav fit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A lulav that is bent at the top,

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 31: Saving the Lulav for the Grandchildren

What if you use stolen land to erect your sukkah? On the claim that at the resh galuta's home that...

Sukkah 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 31

讛讜砖注谞讗 诪注讬拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗住讗 讛讜砖注谞讗 拽专讜 诇讬讛

it is called hoshana, which is a term used to describe the four species. The Gemara answers: This is not a full-fledged change of name, as occasionally it also happens that they initially refer to a myrtle branch as a hoshana while it is attached to the tree.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 住讜讻讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讜讛诪住讻讱 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉

The Sages taught: With regard to a stolen sukka and with regard to one who roofs a sukka in the public domain, which is tantamount to robbing land from the public, Rabbi Eliezer deems these sukkot unfit for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, and the Rabbis deem them fit.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖转讜拽祝 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪住讜讻转讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘住讜讻转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讬 拽专拽注 谞讙讝诇转 住讜讻讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 谞诪讬 拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 住讜讻讛 砖讗讜诇讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an said: This dispute is limited to a case where one assaults another and forcibly evicts him from his sukka, and takes his place in the sukka. In that case, Rabbi Eliezer deems the sukka unfit. And Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his own reasoning, as he said: A person does not fulfill his obligation with the sukka of another. Therefore, in any event, he does not fulfill his obligation with it. If land can be stolen and acquired by the robber, the sukka from which he evicted the owner is a stolen sukka. And if indeed land cannot be stolen, nevertheless, the robber does not fulfill his obligation according to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is a borrowed sukka.

讜专讘谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘住讜讻转讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜拽专拽注 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讝诇转 讜住讜讻讛 砖讗讜诇讛 讛讬讗

And the Rabbis conform to their reasoning, as they said: A person fulfills his obligation with the sukka of another. And since land cannot be stolen and the sukka is merely a borrowed sukka and not a stolen one, the robber fulfills his obligation, despite the fact that he committed a reprehensible act.

讗讘诇 讙讝诇 注爪讬诐 讜住讬讻讱 讘讛谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐

However, if one stole wood and roofed a sukka with it, everyone agrees, as Rabbi Eliezer concedes, that the original owner of the wood has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. The wood itself belongs to the robber, so it is not a stolen sukka.

诪诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Na岣an draw the conclusion that the dispute is with regard to a stolen sukka and not with regard to a sukka established with stolen building materials?

诪讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讛 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 拽专拽注 诇讗讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 住讜讻讛 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 拽专拽注 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: From the fact that the halakha of a stolen sukka is juxtaposed in the baraita to the halakha of a sukka established in the public domain, the baraita teaches that the legal status of the stolen sukka is similar to the legal status of a sukka established in the public domain. Just as one does not fulfill his obligation with a sukka in the public domain because the land is not his, with regard to the stolen sukka too, one does not fulfill his obligation because the land is not his, not because the building materials were stolen.

讛讛讬讗 住讘转讗 讚讗转讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讻讜诇讛讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讘住讜讻讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 爪讜讜讞讛 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讗讬转转讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讘讜讛讗 转诇转 诪讗讛 讜转诪谞讬 住专讬 注讘讚讬 爪讜讜讞讗 拽诪讬讬讻讜 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞讬转讜 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻注讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Na岣an. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Exilarch鈥檚 servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Na岣an did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Na岣an said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Exilarch.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讻砖讜专讗 讚诪讟诇诇转讗 讚讙讝讜诇讛 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 转拽谞转讗 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 诪专讬砖

Ravina said: With regard to the stolen large beam of a sukka, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the robber need not return it intact, due to the general ordinance of a beam. By the letter of the law, one who stole a beam and incorporated it in the construction of a new house is required to dismantle the house and return the beam. The Sages instituted an ordinance requiring the robber to repay the monetary value of the beam instead. They instituted this ordinance to facilitate the repentance of the robber, who would be less likely to repent if doing so entailed destruction of the house.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注爪讬诐 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注爪讬诐 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讘诇 讛讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. In what way is the beam different from other wood used in establishing the sukka? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Wood is common, and therefore the owners are more likely to despair of recovering the wood and will suffice with receiving monetary restitution and replacing the wood, but, with regard to this large beam, which is not common, say that there is no despair, and the robber is required to return the actual beam, therefore, Ravina teaches us that the ordinance applies even to this beam, and the robber is required to return only its monetary value.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讙讜 砖讘注讛 讗讘诇 诇讘转专 砖讘注讛 讛讚专 讘注讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 讞讘专讜 讘讟讬谞讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 砖讘注讛 谞诪讬 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: This halakha that the robber need not dismantle the sukka and return the beam applies only within the seven days of the Festival. However, after the seven days, the beam returns to the owner intact. And if the robber attached it with mortar and it is affixed permanently to the sukka, then even after the seven days of the Festival, the ordinance remains in effect, and the robber gives the original owner the monetary value of the beam.

转谞讗 讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诇讜诇讘 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诇讗转专讜讙 诪讛 讗转专讜讙 讘注讬 讛讚专 讗祝 诇讜诇讘 讘注讬 讛讚专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诇讗转专讜讙 讗讘诇 讘讗转专讜讙 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讚专 讘注讬谞谉

搂 It was taught in the Tosefta: A dry lulav is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. Rava said: The dispute is specifically with regard to a lulav, as the Rabbis hold: We liken the lulav to the etrog, based on their juxtaposition in the verse. Just as the etrog requires beauty, so too, the lulav requires beauty. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not liken the lulav to the etrog. However, with regard to an etrog, everyone agrees that we require beauty [hadar] as the verse states: 鈥淔ruit of a beautiful tree鈥 (Leviticus 23:40) and a dry etrog does not meet that criterion.

讜讘诇讜诇讘 诇讗 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讗讙讚谞讜 诪诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a lulav, does Rabbi Yehuda really not require beauty? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a lulav whose leaves have spread out, one should bind the lulav from the top. What is the reason to do so? Is it not because he requires beauty in the case of lulav?

诇讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 讟注诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐 讻驻讜转 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜讚 讬讻驻转谞讜

The Gemara rejects this: No, as the reason is taught: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that the same verse states: 鈥淏ranches [kappot] of a date palm.鈥 The Sages interpret the term to mean bound [kafut], indicating that if the leaves of the lulav were spread, one should bind it.

讜诇讗 讘注讬 讛讚专 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讗诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty with regard to the lulav? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: One binds the lulav only with its own species, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires the binding to be from its own species? Is it not due to the fact that he requires beauty with regard to the lulav?

诇讗 讚讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讬讘 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 [讜讗诇讗] 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛转诐 讚拽讗 住讘专 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诪讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讛讜 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬谉

The Gemara answers: No, that is not the reason, as Rava said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, one may bind the lulav even with fiber that grows around the trunk of the date palm and even with the root of the date palm, even though these do not meet the criterion of beauty. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that a lulav must be bound with its own species? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that a lulav requires binding, and if one brought another species to bind it, they are five species instead of four, violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah.

讜讘讗转专讜讙 诪讬 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讚专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诇讗 诪爪讗 讗转专讜讙 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诇讗 驻专讬砖 讜诇讗 专诪讜谉 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻诪讜砖讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 讬讘砖讬谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讘砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: And with regard to an etrog, does Rabbi Yehuda require beauty? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. If one did not find an etrog, he should not bring a quince, a pomegranate, or any other item instead. If the species are slightly dried, they are fit. If they are completely dry, they are unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry etrogim are fit.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident

讘讘谞讬 讻专讻讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讜专讬砖讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 诇讘谞讬 讘谞讬讛谉 讗诪专讜 (诇讛诐) 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗讬谉 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 专讗讬讛

involving city dwellers who lived in an area distant from the region where the four species grow, who would bequeath their lulavim to their grandchildren, even though they were completely dry. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there that species that are dry remain fit for use? Actions taken in exigent circumstances are not proof. In typical circumstances, it would be prohibited to use those species.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讘砖讬谉 讻砖专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讗转专讜讙 诇讗 讗诇讜诇讘

In any event, the Tosefta teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry species are fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. What, is it not referring to an etrog as well, indicating that in his opinion an etrog does not require beauty? No, he was stating only that a dry lulav is fit for use.

讗诪专 诪专 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 驻讜讞转讬谉 诪讛谉 讻讱 讗讬谉 诪讜住讬驻讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诪讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 讜讛讗讬 诇讞讜讚讬讛 拽讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Master stated in the baraita cited above: Just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Why would it be permitted to add an additional species? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that a lulav requires a binding, and that requirement is a fundamental component of the mitzva, and if you bring another additional species, this species stands alone and that species stands alone, i.e., because the additional species is not bound with the others, its presence is insignificant, and causes no problem, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that this is not the case. In fact, one may not bring an additional species.

讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 诪爪讗 讗转专讜讙 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诇讗 专诪讜谉 讜诇讗 驻专讬砖 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讬转讬 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 砖诇讗 转砖讻讞 转讜专转 讗转专讜讙 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚谞驻讬拽 讞讜专讘讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讗转讬 诇诪住专讱

The Master stated in the baraita cited above: If one cannot find an etrog, he may not bring a pomegranate, a quince, or anything else instead. The Gemara wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say: He should bring these fruits so that the halakhic category of the etrog will not be forgotten, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that it is in fact prohibited because on occasion, damage will result from this practice. Some may come to be drawn to this practice and use these species even when etrogim are available.

转讗 砖诪注 讗转专讜讙 讛讬砖谉 驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara proposes: Come and hear another proof that, with regard to an etrog, Rabbi Yehuda does not require beauty: An old etrog is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, who holds that everyone agrees that an etrog requires beauty. The Gemara concludes: It is, indeed, a conclusive refutation of Rava鈥檚 opinion.

讜诇讗 讘注讬 讛讚专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讛讬专讜拽 讻讻专转讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讙诪专 驻讬专讗

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty in an etrog? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: With regard to an etrog that is leek green, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit? The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in the case of a green etrog the fruit did not ripen, and it is inappropriate to fulfill the mitzva with an unripe fruit.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讬注讜专 讗转专讜讙 拽讟谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讗讙讜讝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬爪讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讙诪专 驻讬专讗

The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: What is the minimum measure of a small etrog? Rabbi Meir says: It may be no smaller than a walnut-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be no smaller than an egg-bulk. The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in that case of an etrog smaller than an egg-bulk, the fruit did not ripen.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讘讙讚讜诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讜讝 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讛讚专 诇讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讜诇讘 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讗转专讜讙 讘砖诪讗诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪讞诇驻讬 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗驻讜讻讬谞讛讜 讜讗转讬 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬

Come and hear an additional proof: And in a large etrog, the maximum measure is so that one could hold two in his one hand; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is fit even if it is so large that he can hold only one in his two hands. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, the rationale is as Rabba said: One holds the lulav in the right hand and the etrog in the left. Sometimes, when one is handed the four species, they will exchange them for him, placing the three species in his left hand and the etrog in his right, and then he will come to switch them and place each in the appropriate hand. However, if the etrog is too large, he will be unable to hold the etrog and the lulav together, and he will come to render the etrog unfit, as it is apt to fall.

讜讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛讚专

The Gemara asks: However, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, isn鈥檛 it written: The fruit of a beautiful [hadar] tree? How, then, can he rule that an etrog does not require beauty?

讛讛讜讗 讛讚专 讘讗讬诇谞讜 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds: That verse means that one should take a fruit that dwells [hadar] in its tree from year to year. It remains on the tree and does not wither and fall at the end of the season as do most fruits. That is characteristic of the etrog.

砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 讜砖诇 讗砖专讛 驻住讜诇 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诇讘 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专

搂 The mishna continues: The lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] and a lulav from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, which must be burned along with all the city鈥檚 property, are unfit. And is a lulav of an asheira unfit? But didn鈥檛 Rava say with regard to a lulav of idolatry: One should not take it to fulfill the mitzva ab initio; however, if he took it, it is fit and he fulfills his obligation after the fact? Apparently, a lulav from an asheira is fit.

讛讻讗 讘讗砖专讛 讚诪砖讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讻转讜转讬 诪讬讻转转 砖讬注讜专讬讛

The Gemara explains: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with the asheira of Moses, depicted in the Torah. The mishna is not referring to a tree planted in deference to idolatry, but rather to a tree that was itself worshipped as an idol. There is an obligation to burn idolatry and destroy it. Therefore, legally, the latter tree is considered as if it were already burned. The requisite measure of the lulav was crushed, and it is therefore unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rava鈥檚 ruling does not apply to an asheira of that kind.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara notes: The formulation of the mishna is also precise and indicates that the reference is to an asheira of Moses, as the juxtaposition of the halakha of an asheira to the halakha of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry teaches that the legal status of the asheira is similar to that of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, in which all the property must be burned. In both cases, the lulav is considered already burned and lacking the requisite measure. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the reason that the lulav is unfit.

谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 谞拽讟诐 讗讘诇 谞住讚拽 讻砖专

The mishna continues: If the top of the lulav was severed it is unfit. Rav Huna said: They taught that it is unfit only when it was completely severed; however, if the top merely split, the lulav is fit.

讜谞住讚拽 讻砖专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讻驻讜祝

The Gemara asks: And is a split lulav fit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A lulav that is bent at the top,

Scroll To Top