Sukkah 31

הושענא מעיקרא נמי לאסא הושענא קרו ליה

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.

תנו רבנן סוכה גזולה והמסכך ברשות הרבים רבי אליעזר פוסל וחכמים מכשירין

§ 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.

אמר רב נחמן מחלוקת בשתוקף את חבירו והוציאו מסוכתו ורבי אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר אין אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בסוכתו של חבירו אי קרקע נגזלת סוכה גזולה היא ואי נמי קרקע אינה נגזלת סוכה שאולה היא

Rav Naḥman 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.

ורבנן לטעמייהו דאמרי אדם יוצא ידי חובתו בסוכתו של חבירו וקרקע אינה נגזלת וסוכה שאולה היא

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.

אבל גזל עצים וסיכך בהן דברי הכל אין לו אלא דמי עצים

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.

ממאי

The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Naḥman 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?

מדקתני דומיא דרשות הרבים מה רשות הרבים קרקע לאו דידיה הוא סוכה נמי לאו קרקע דידיה הוא

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.

ההיא סבתא דאתאי לקמיה דרב נחמן אמרה ליה ריש גלותא וכולהו רבנן דבי ריש גלותא בסוכה גזולה הוו יתבי צווחה ולא אשגח בה רב נחמן אמרה ליה איתתא דהוה ליה לאבוהא תלת מאה ותמני סרי עבדי צווחא קמייכו ולא אשגחיתו בה אמר להו רב נחמן פעיתא היא דא ואין לה אלא דמי עצים בלבד

The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Naḥman. 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’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman 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.

אמר רבינא האי כשורא דמטללתא דגזולה עבדי ליה רבנן תקנתא משום תקנת מריש

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.

פשיטא מאי שנא מעצים מהו דתימא עצים שכיחי אבל האי לא שכיחא אימא לא קא משמע לן

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.

הני מילי בגו שבעה אבל לבתר שבעה הדר בעיניה ואי חברו בטינא ואפילו לאחר שבעה נמי יהיב ליה דמי

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.

תנא יבש פסול רבי יהודה מכשיר אמר רבא מחלוקת בלולב דרבנן סברי מקשינן לולב לאתרוג מה אתרוג בעי הדר אף לולב בעי הדר ורבי יהודה סבר לא מקשינן לולב לאתרוג אבל באתרוג דברי הכל הדר בעינן

§ 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: “Fruit of a beautiful tree” (Leviticus 23:40) and a dry etrog does not meet that criterion.

ובלולב לא בעי רבי יהודה הדר והתנן רבי יהודה אומר יאגדנו מלמעלה מאי טעמא לאו משום דבעי הדר

The Gemara asks: And with regard to a lulav, does Rabbi Yehuda really not require beauty? But didn’t 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?

לא כדקתני טעמא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי טרפון כפות תמרים כפות ואם היה פרוד יכפתנו

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

ולא בעי הדר והתנן אין אוגדין את הלולב אלא במינו דברי רבי יהודה מאי טעמא לאו משום דבעי הדר

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty with regard to the lulav? But didn’t 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?

לא דהא אמר רבא אפילו בסיב ואפילו בעיקרא דדיקלא [ואלא] מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה התם דקא סבר לולב צריך אגד ואי מייתי מינא אחרינא הוה להו חמשה מינין

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.

ובאתרוג מי בעי רבי יהודה הדר והתניא ארבעת מינין שבלולב כשם שאין פוחתין מהן כך אין מוסיפין עליהן לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא פריש ולא רמון ולא דבר אחר כמושין כשרין יבשין פסולין רבי יהודה אומר אף יבשין

The Gemara asks: And with regard to an etrog, does Rabbi Yehuda require beauty? But isn’t 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.

ואמר רבי יהודה מעשה

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident

בבני כרכין שהיו מורישין את לולביהן לבני בניהן אמרו (להם) משם ראיה אין שעת הדחק ראיה

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.

קתני מיהת רבי יהודה אומר אף יבשין כשרין מאי לאו אאתרוג לא אלולב

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.

אמר מר כשם שאין פוחתין מהן כך אין מוסיפין עליהן פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואמר רבי יהודה לולב צריך אגד ואי מייתי מינא אחרינא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי קא משמע לן

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.

אמר מר לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר פשיטא מהו דתימא לייתי כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג קא משמע לן זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה דאתי למסרך

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.

תא שמע אתרוג הישן פסול ורבי יהודה מכשיר תיובתא דרבא תיובתא

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’s opinion.

ולא בעי הדר והא אנן תנן הירוק ככרתי רבי מאיר מכשיר ורבי יהודה פוסל לאו משום דבעי הדר לא משום דלא גמר פירא

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty in an etrog? But didn’t 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.

תא שמע שיעור אתרוג קטן רבי מאיר אומר כאגוז רבי יהודה אומר כביצה לאו משום דבעי הדר לא משום דלא גמר פירא

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.

תא שמע ובגדול כדי שיאחוז שנים בידו אחת דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אפילו אחד בשתי ידיו מאי טעמא לאו משום דבעי הדר לא כיון דאמר רבה לולב בימין ואתרוג בשמאל זימנין דמחלפי ליה ואתי לאפוכינהו ואתי לאיפסולי

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.

ואלא לרבי יהודה הא כתיב הדר

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

ההוא הדר באילנו משנה לשנה:

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.

של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת: ושל אשרה פסול והאמר רבא לולב של עבודה זרה לא יטול ואם נטל כשר

§ 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’s property, are unfit. And is a lulav of an asheira unfit? But didn’t 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.

הכא באשרה דמשה עסקינן דכתותי מיכתת שיעוריה

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’s ruling does not apply to an asheira of that kind.

דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דעיר הנדחת שמע מינה:

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.

נקטם ראשו: אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא נקטם אבל נסדק כשר

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.

ונסדק כשר והתניא לולב כפוף

The Gemara asks: And is a split lulav fit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A lulav that is bent at the top,