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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 8, 2021 | 诇壮 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 32

Today’s daf is sponsored by Josh Waxman in memory of his father, Nahum Waxman, Nahum Gedalia ben Yirmiyahu and Faiga Mina who passed away a few days ago. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

The gemara brings a list of disqualifications of lulav and delves into them. How do we know that the verse in the Torah 鈥渂ranches of a date palm鈥 refer to a lulav and not to a different part of the lulav? What is the minimum height needed for hadas, arava and lulav? Tana Kama holds three handbreadths for hadas and arava and four for lulav. Rabbi Tarfon says: A cubit that is 5 handbreadths. What does he mean by this? What disqualifies a hadas? How do we know that the verse 鈥渂oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥 is referring to a hadas, a myrtle branch?

拽讜讜抓 住讚讜拽 注拽讜诐 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 驻住讜诇 讞专讜转 驻住讜诇 讚讜诪讛 诇讞专讜转 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚注讘讬讚 讻讛讬诪谞拽

that is thorny, split, or curved to the extent that it is shaped like a sickle is unfit. If it became hard as wood it is unfit. If it merely appears like hard wood but is not yet completely hardened, it is fit. Apparently, a split lulav is unfit. Rav Pappa said: The split lulav in the baraita is so split that it is shaped like a fork [heimanak], with the two sides of the split completely separated, and it appears that the lulav has two spines.

注拽讜诐 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬讜 讘专讬讬转讬讛 讛讜讗

The baraita continues: If it is curved to the extent that it is shaped like a sickle, it is unfit. Rava said: We said that it is unfit only when it is curved forward away from the spine; however, if it is curved backward, toward the spine, it is fit for use because that is its nature, and that is the way a lulav typically grows.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇爪讚讚讬谉 讻诇驻谞讬讜 讚诪讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻诇讗讞专讬讜 讚诪讬

Rav Na岣an said: The legal status of a lulav that is curved to either of the sides is like that of a lulav curved forward, and it is unfit. And some say: Its legal status is like that of a lulav curved backward, and it is fit.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诇讜诇讘讗 讚住诇讬拽 讘讞讚 讛讜爪讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜驻住讜诇

And Rava said: This lulav that grew with one leaf, i.e., leaves on only one side of the spine, is blemished and unfit.

谞驻专爪讜 注诇讬讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 谞驻专爪讜 讚注讘讬讚 讻讬 讞讜驻讬讗 谞驻专讚讜 讚讗讬驻专讜讚 讗驻专讜讚讬

搂 The mishna continues: If the palm leaves were severed from the spine of the lulav, it is unfit; if its leaves were spread, it is fit. Rav Pappa said: Severed means that the leaves are completely detached from the spine, and one ties them to the lulav, so that the lulav is made like a broom. Spread means that the leaves remain attached but are merely separated from the spine in that they jut outward.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 (专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬讟诇讛 讛转讬讜诪转 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 谞讞诇拽讛 诇讗 谞讬讟诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讞住专 诇讬讛

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the central twin-leaf split? The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the central twin-leaf was removed, the lulav is unfit. What, is it not that the same is true if the twin-leaf split? The Gemara answers: No, the case where it was removed is different, because the result is that it is lacking, and an incomplete lulav is certainly unfit. However, if the leaf remains in place, even though it is split, it does not necessarily render the lulav unfit.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 (专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讬讟诇讛 讛转讬讜诪转 讜驻住讜诇

Some say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the central twin-leaf split, it becomes as a lulav whose central twin-leaf was removed, and it is unfit. According to this version of the statement, the dilemma is resolved.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转谞讬讗 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 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜讚 讬讻驻转谞讜

搂 The mishna continues. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the leaves were spread, one should bind the lulav from the top. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that the 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐 讚诇讜诇讘讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 讞专讜转讗 讘注讬谞讗 讻驻讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where is it ascertained that this term, 鈥渂ranches of a date palm,鈥 is referring to the branches of the lulav? Say it is referring to the hardened branch of the date palm. Rav Ashi answered: That cannot be, as we require the lulav to be bound, and there is no binding, since at that stage the hardened leaves point outward, and binding them is impossible.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜驻转讗 讻驻讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 驻专讜讚 讜讛讗讬 讻驻讜转 讜注讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: If the fundamental requirement of the mitzva is a lulav that appears as one unit, say that one takes the trunk of the date palm. The Gemara answers: The term bound, from which it is derived that the branch should appear as one unit, indicates that there is the possibility that it could be spread. However, this trunk is perpetually bound, as it can never become separated.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜驻专讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And say the verse is referring to the branch of the date palm [kufra] that has not yet hardened completely and could still be bound, albeit with difficulty. Abaye said that it is written in praise of the Torah: 鈥淚ts way are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace鈥 (Proverbs 3:17). At that stage of development, some of the leaves are thorns that potentially wound. The Torah would not command to use that type of branch in fulfilling the mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬诪讗 转专转讬 讻驻讬 讚转诪专讬 讻驻转 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讻祝 拽专讬 诇讬讛

Rava, the expert in Tosefta, said to Ravina: Since the verse states 鈥渂ranches of a date palm鈥 in the plural, say that one is obligated to take two palm branches in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. Ravina answered: Although the word is vocalized in the plural, based on tradition kappot is written without the letter vav, indicating that only one is required. The Gemara suggests: And say that one is required to take only one leaf? The Gemara answers: If that were the intention of the Torah, it would not have written kappot without a vav. That single leaf is called kaf. Kappot without the vav indicates both plural, i.e., multiple leaves, and singular, i.e., one branch.

爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 诇爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛 驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna continues: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. It has few leaves on its spine, and those leaves are not crowded together like the leaves on a standard lulav. Abaye said: The Sages taught that this type of lulav is fit only in a case in which the top of this leaf reaches the base of that leaf above it on the spine. However, if there are so few leaves that the top of this leaf does not reach the base of that leaf, it is unfit.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻砖专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

That was taught in a baraita as well: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain are unfit. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that it is fit? Rather, learn from it in accordance with the statement of Abaye, that there is a distinction based on the configuration of the leaves on the lulav. Indeed, learn from it.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖专 讜讛转谞讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 诇爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 诇爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛

And others raise it as a contradiction. We learned in the mishna: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It is unfit? Abaye said: This is not difficult: Here, in the mishna, where the lulav is fit, it is referring to a case where the top of this leaf reaches the base of that next leaf, whereas, there, in the baraita, where the lulav is unfit, it is referring to a case where the top of this leaf does not reach the base of that next leaf.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪专讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖转讬 转诪专讜转 讬砖 讘讙讬讗 讘谉 讛谞诐 讜注讜诇讛 注砖谉 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讝讛讜 砖砖谞讬谞讜 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖专讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐

The Gemara describes the location of these lulavim. Rabbi Maryon said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, and some say that Rabba bar Mari taught this baraita in the name of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: There are two date palms in the valley of ben Hinnom, and smoke arises from between them. And this is the place about which we learned in the mishna: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. And that site is the entrance of Gehenna.

诇讜诇讘 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讜诇讘 讗专讘注讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讜诇讘 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讛讚住 讟驻讞

The mishna continues: A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and a willow branch is three handbreadths. And the minimum measure of a lulav is four handbreadths. The difference between the measures is so that the lulav will extend at least one handbreadth from the myrtle branch.

讜专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讚专讜 砖诇 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讛讚住 讟驻讞

And Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The spine of the lulav, and not merely its leaves, must be at least four handbreadths long, so that it will extend from the myrtle branch at least one handbreadth.

转谞谉 诇讜诇讘 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 诇谞注谞注 讘讜 讻砖专 讗讬诪讗 讜讻讚讬 诇谞注谞注 讘讜 讻砖专 诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva? That indicates that a lulav three handbreadths long is fit. The Gemara answers: Emend the language of the mishna and say: A lulav that has three handbreadths and an additional handbreadth that is sufficient to enable one to wave with it is fit. This emendation is understood by each amora according to his opinion. It is understood by this Sage, Shmuel, as per his opinion that only one additional handbreadth is required including the leaves; and it is understood by this Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, as per his opinion that the additional handbreadth must be in the length of the spine of the lulav, and the leaves are not taken into consideration.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讜诇讘 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讚讬 注诇讬谉 诇讗 诇讘讚 诪注诇讬谉

The Gemara cites proof from a baraita. Come and hear: The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and of a willow branch is three handbreadths, and that of a lulav is four handbreadths. What, is it not that this measure is calculated with the leaves, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it can be understood that the measure is calculated without the leaves.

讙讜驻讗 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讜诇讘 讗专讘注讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

Apropos the baraita cited above, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and of a willow branch is three handbreadths, and that of a lulav is four handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon says: With a cubit of five handbreadths. The preliminary understanding of Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 opinion is that the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is five handbreadths, not three.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖专讗 诇讬讛 诪专讬讛 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛砖转讗 注讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞讬谞谉 讘转 讞诪砖讛 诪讘注讬讗

Rava said: May his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgive Rabbi Tarfon for this extreme stringency. Now, we do not find even a dense-leaved myrtle branch three handbreadths long; is it necessary to say that finding one five handbreadths long is nearly impossible?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注砖讛 讗讜转讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讛讚住 讜讛砖讗专 诇诇讜诇讘 讻诪讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 转诇转讗 讜转诇转讗 讞讜诪砖讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this is the correct understanding of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon: Take a cubit of six handbreadths, and render it a cubit of five handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon is saying that for the purpose of measuring the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav, the standard six-handbreadth cubit is divided into five handbreadths, each slightly larger than the standard handbreadth. Take three of these large handbreadths for the myrtle branch, and three of these handbreadths plus the extra handbreadth for the lulav. The Gemara calculates: How many standard handbreadths are there in the minimum measure of a myrtle branch or willow branch? There are three and three-fifths standard handbreadths.

拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讛转诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讗 讚拽 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗 讚拽 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗 讚拽

However, on that basis, there is a difficulty, as one statement ofShmuel contradicts another statement of Shmuel. Here, RabbiYehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum measure of the myrtle branch and of the willow branch is three handbreadths, and there, Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who requires a larger handbreadth. There is a discrepancy of three-fifths of a handbreadth between the measures. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the measure is three handbreadths, he was not precise and merely approximated the measure. The Gemara asks: Say that we say: He was not precise when the approximation leads to stringency, but when it leads to leniency, do we say: He was not precise? That would result in using an unfit myrtle branch in performing a mitzva.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注砖讛 讗讜转讛 砖砖讛 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讛讚住 讜讛砖讗专 诇诇讜诇讘 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 讜驻诇讙讗

When Rabin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this is the correct understanding of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon: Take a cubit of five handbreadths, and render it a cubit of six handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon said that for the purpose of measuring the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav, a five-handbreadth cubit is divided into six handbreadths, each slightly smaller than the standard handbreadth. Take three of these smaller handbreadths for the myrtle branch, and three of these handbreadths plus the extra handbreadth for the lulav. The Gemara calculates: How many standard handbreadths are there in the minimum measure of a myrtle branch or willow branch? There are two and a half standard handbreadths.

住讜祝 住讜祝 拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讚拽 讜讛讬讬谞讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讗 讚拽 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, there remains a difficulty, as one statement of Shmuel contradicts another statement of Shmuel. In one statement he said the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is two and a half handbreadths, and in another he said that the measure is three handbreadths. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the measure is three handbreadths, he was not precise and merely approximated the measure. And this is a case of: He was not precise, where the approximation leads to a stringency, as Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Shmuel holds that the actual measure required is two and a half handbreadths, and he rounded it off to three, which is a more stringent measure.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讚住 讛讙讝讜诇 讜讛讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 驻住讜诇 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 谞驻专爪讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注谞讘讬讜 诪专讜讘讜转 诪注诇讬讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗诐 诪讬注讟谉 讻砖专 讜讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

MISHNA: A myrtle branch that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit. A myrtle branch of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] or a myrtle branch from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, if the leaves were severed completely, or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. If one diminished their number by plucking berries so that they no longer outnumbered the leaves, the myrtle branch is fit. But one may not diminish the number on the Festival itself.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转 砖注谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 注爪讜 讜讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚住 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讬转讗 讘注讬谞谉 注讘讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It is written: 鈥淏oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥 (Leviticus 23:40); this is referring to a tree whose leaves obscure its tree. And which tree is that? You must say it is the myrtle tree. The Gemara suggests: And say it is the olive tree, whose leaves obscure the tree. The Gemara answers: We require a 鈥渄ense-leaved鈥 tree, whose leaves are in a chain-like configuration, and that is not the case with an olive tree.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讜诇讘讗 讘注讬谞谉 注谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 注爪讜 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara suggests: And say it is the Oriental plane tree, whose leaves are in a braid-like configuration. The Gemara answers: We require a tree whose leaves obscure its tree, and that is not the case with an Oriental plane tree.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬专讚讜祝 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讜诇讬讻讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜

The Gemara suggests: And say the verse is referring to oleander, which has both characteristics. Abaye said: It is written with regard to the Torah: 鈥淚ts ways are ways of pleasantness鈥 (Proverbs 3:17), and that is not the case with the oleander tree, because it is a poisonous plant and its sharp, thorn-like leaves pierce the hand of one holding it. Rava said: The unfitness of the oleander is derived from here: 鈥淟ove truth and peace鈥 (Zechariah 8:19), and poisonous plants that pierce are antithetical to peace.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽诇讜注 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬注讛 讜讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖诇转 讝讛讜 讛讚住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚住

The Sages taught: Plaited like a braid and chain-like; that is characteristic of the myrtle branch used in the fulfillment of the mitzva. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says another characteristic. It is written: 鈥淏oughs of a dense-leaved tree,鈥 indicating a tree that the taste of its branches and the taste of its fruit are alike. You must say this is the myrtle branch.

转谞讗 注抓 注讘讜转 讻砖专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 注讘讜转 驻住讜诇

A Sage taught in the Tosefta: A dense-leaved branch is fit, and one that is not dense-leaved is unfit, even though it is a myrtle branch.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注讘讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讜讗 讚拽讬讬诪讬 转诇转讗 转诇转讗 讟专驻讬 讘拽讬谞讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 讜讞讚 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讛讚专 讗转专讬 讜讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讛讚住 砖讜讟讛 拽专讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of 鈥渄ense-leaved tree鈥? Rav Yehuda said: And it is a configuration where three leaves emerge from each base. Rav Kahana said: Even two leaves emerging from one base and one leaf that covers the other two emerging from a lower base is called thick. Rav A岣, son of Rava, would purposely seek a myrtle branch configured with two leaves emerging from one base and one emerging from a lower base, since this statement emerged from the mouth of Rav Kahana. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: My father called a myrtle branch with that configuration a wild myrtle branch.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖专讜 专讜讘 注诇讬讜 讜谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 诪讬注讜讟 讻砖专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 注讘讜转讜 拽讬讬诪转

The Sages taught: If most of its leaves fell and only a minority of the leaves remained, the myrtle branch is fit, provided that its dense-leaved nature remains intact.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞砖专讜 专讜讘 注诇讬讜 讻砖专 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 注讘讜转讜 拽讬讬诪转 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转专讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 注讘讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara wonders: This matter itself is difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in this baraita. On the one hand, you said: If most of its leaves fell it is fit, and then the baraita taught: Provided that its dense-leaved nature remains intact. Once two of every three leaves fell, how can you find a branch whose dense-leaved nature is intact?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Abaye said: You can find it

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

alon shvut women

A Fit Lulav

Succah, Daf 32 Teachers: Yehudit Epstein & Dena Rock https://youtu.be/5eix3Qgn97M
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...
Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Pleasantness, Truth, and Peace – Sukkah – Gefet 5

Gefet: Gemara Rashi and Tosafot. Delve into commentaries on the daf in this advanced level shiur with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni....
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 32: Its Ways Are Ways of Pleasantness

Lulavim from the Iron Mountain - are these kosher with an exception that is not, or not kosher with an...

Sukkah 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 32

拽讜讜抓 住讚讜拽 注拽讜诐 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 驻住讜诇 讞专讜转 驻住讜诇 讚讜诪讛 诇讞专讜转 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚注讘讬讚 讻讛讬诪谞拽

that is thorny, split, or curved to the extent that it is shaped like a sickle is unfit. If it became hard as wood it is unfit. If it merely appears like hard wood but is not yet completely hardened, it is fit. Apparently, a split lulav is unfit. Rav Pappa said: The split lulav in the baraita is so split that it is shaped like a fork [heimanak], with the two sides of the split completely separated, and it appears that the lulav has two spines.

注拽讜诐 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专讬讜 讘专讬讬转讬讛 讛讜讗

The baraita continues: If it is curved to the extent that it is shaped like a sickle, it is unfit. Rava said: We said that it is unfit only when it is curved forward away from the spine; however, if it is curved backward, toward the spine, it is fit for use because that is its nature, and that is the way a lulav typically grows.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇爪讚讚讬谉 讻诇驻谞讬讜 讚诪讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻诇讗讞专讬讜 讚诪讬

Rav Na岣an said: The legal status of a lulav that is curved to either of the sides is like that of a lulav curved forward, and it is unfit. And some say: Its legal status is like that of a lulav curved backward, and it is fit.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诇讜诇讘讗 讚住诇讬拽 讘讞讚 讛讜爪讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讗 讜驻住讜诇

And Rava said: This lulav that grew with one leaf, i.e., leaves on only one side of the spine, is blemished and unfit.

谞驻专爪讜 注诇讬讜 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 谞驻专爪讜 讚注讘讬讚 讻讬 讞讜驻讬讗 谞驻专讚讜 讚讗讬驻专讜讚 讗驻专讜讚讬

搂 The mishna continues: If the palm leaves were severed from the spine of the lulav, it is unfit; if its leaves were spread, it is fit. Rav Pappa said: Severed means that the leaves are completely detached from the spine, and one ties them to the lulav, so that the lulav is made like a broom. Spread means that the leaves remain attached but are merely separated from the spine in that they jut outward.

讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 (专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讬讟诇讛 讛转讬讜诪转 驻住讜诇 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 谞讞诇拽讛 诇讗 谞讬讟诇讛 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讞住专 诇讬讛

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if the central twin-leaf split? The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear that which Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the central twin-leaf was removed, the lulav is unfit. What, is it not that the same is true if the twin-leaf split? The Gemara answers: No, the case where it was removed is different, because the result is that it is lacking, and an incomplete lulav is certainly unfit. However, if the leaf remains in place, even though it is split, it does not necessarily render the lulav unfit.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 (专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉) 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 谞讞诇拽讛 讛转讬讜诪转 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讬讟诇讛 讛转讬讜诪转 讜驻住讜诇

Some say that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the central twin-leaf split, it becomes as a lulav whose central twin-leaf was removed, and it is unfit. According to this version of the statement, the dilemma is resolved.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转谞讬讗 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 讗诐 讛讬讛 驻专讜讚 讬讻驻转谞讜

搂 The mishna continues. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the leaves were spread, one should bind the lulav from the top. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that the 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪诪讗讬 讚讛讗讬 讻驻讜转 转诪专讬诐 讚诇讜诇讘讗 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 讞专讜转讗 讘注讬谞讗 讻驻讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where is it ascertained that this term, 鈥渂ranches of a date palm,鈥 is referring to the branches of the lulav? Say it is referring to the hardened branch of the date palm. Rav Ashi answered: That cannot be, as we require the lulav to be bound, and there is no binding, since at that stage the hardened leaves point outward, and binding them is impossible.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜驻转讗 讻驻讜转 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 驻专讜讚 讜讛讗讬 讻驻讜转 讜注讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐

The Gemara asks: If the fundamental requirement of the mitzva is a lulav that appears as one unit, say that one takes the trunk of the date palm. The Gemara answers: The term bound, from which it is derived that the branch should appear as one unit, indicates that there is the possibility that it could be spread. However, this trunk is perpetually bound, as it can never become separated.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜驻专讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐 讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: And say the verse is referring to the branch of the date palm [kufra] that has not yet hardened completely and could still be bound, albeit with difficulty. Abaye said that it is written in praise of the Torah: 鈥淚ts way are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace鈥 (Proverbs 3:17). At that stage of development, some of the leaves are thorns that potentially wound. The Torah would not command to use that type of branch in fulfilling the mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬诪讗 转专转讬 讻驻讬 讚转诪专讬 讻驻转 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讻祝 拽专讬 诇讬讛

Rava, the expert in Tosefta, said to Ravina: Since the verse states 鈥渂ranches of a date palm鈥 in the plural, say that one is obligated to take two palm branches in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. Ravina answered: Although the word is vocalized in the plural, based on tradition kappot is written without the letter vav, indicating that only one is required. The Gemara suggests: And say that one is required to take only one leaf? The Gemara answers: If that were the intention of the Torah, it would not have written kappot without a vav. That single leaf is called kaf. Kappot without the vav indicates both plural, i.e., multiple leaves, and singular, i.e., one branch.

爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 诇爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛 驻住讜诇

搂 The mishna continues: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. It has few leaves on its spine, and those leaves are not crowded together like the leaves on a standard lulav. Abaye said: The Sages taught that this type of lulav is fit only in a case in which the top of this leaf reaches the base of that leaf above it on the spine. However, if there are so few leaves that the top of this leaf does not reach the base of that leaf, it is unfit.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 讻砖专讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

That was taught in a baraita as well: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain are unfit. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that it is fit? Rather, learn from it in accordance with the statement of Abaye, that there is a distinction based on the configuration of the leaves on the lulav. Indeed, learn from it.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讬专诪讗 转谞谉 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖专 讜讛转谞讬讗 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 诇爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛 讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗砖讜 砖诇 讝讛 诪讙讬注 诇爪讚 注讬拽专讜 砖诇 讝讛

And others raise it as a contradiction. We learned in the mishna: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: It is unfit? Abaye said: This is not difficult: Here, in the mishna, where the lulav is fit, it is referring to a case where the top of this leaf reaches the base of that next leaf, whereas, there, in the baraita, where the lulav is unfit, it is referring to a case where the top of this leaf does not reach the base of that next leaf.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪专讬讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 转谞讬 专讘讛 讘专 诪专讬 诪砖讜诐 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖转讬 转诪专讜转 讬砖 讘讙讬讗 讘谉 讛谞诐 讜注讜诇讛 注砖谉 诪讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讝讛讜 砖砖谞讬谞讜 爪讬谞讬 讛专 讛讘专讝诇 讻砖专讜转 讜讝讜 讛讬讗 驻转讞讛 砖诇 讙讬讛谞诐

The Gemara describes the location of these lulavim. Rabbi Maryon said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, and some say that Rabba bar Mari taught this baraita in the name of Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai: There are two date palms in the valley of ben Hinnom, and smoke arises from between them. And this is the place about which we learned in the mishna: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain is fit. And that site is the entrance of Gehenna.

诇讜诇讘 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讜诇讘 讗专讘注讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讜诇讘 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讛讚住 讟驻讞

The mishna continues: A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and a willow branch is three handbreadths. And the minimum measure of a lulav is four handbreadths. The difference between the measures is so that the lulav will extend at least one handbreadth from the myrtle branch.

讜专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讚专讜 砖诇 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讛讚住 讟驻讞

And Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The spine of the lulav, and not merely its leaves, must be at least four handbreadths long, so that it will extend from the myrtle branch at least one handbreadth.

转谞谉 诇讜诇讘 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 诇谞注谞注 讘讜 讻砖专 讗讬诪讗 讜讻讚讬 诇谞注谞注 讘讜 讻砖专 诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诪专 讻讚讗讬转 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: A lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva? That indicates that a lulav three handbreadths long is fit. The Gemara answers: Emend the language of the mishna and say: A lulav that has three handbreadths and an additional handbreadth that is sufficient to enable one to wave with it is fit. This emendation is understood by each amora according to his opinion. It is understood by this Sage, Shmuel, as per his opinion that only one additional handbreadth is required including the leaves; and it is understood by this Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, as per his opinion that the additional handbreadth must be in the length of the spine of the lulav, and the leaves are not taken into consideration.

转讗 砖诪注 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讜诇讘 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讚讬 注诇讬谉 诇讗 诇讘讚 诪注诇讬谉

The Gemara cites proof from a baraita. Come and hear: The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and of a willow branch is three handbreadths, and that of a lulav is four handbreadths. What, is it not that this measure is calculated with the leaves, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it can be understood that the measure is calculated without the leaves.

讙讜驻讗 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜诇讜诇讘 讗专讘注讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐

Apropos the baraita cited above, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. The minimum measure of a myrtle branch and of a willow branch is three handbreadths, and that of a lulav is four handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon says: With a cubit of five handbreadths. The preliminary understanding of Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 opinion is that the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is five handbreadths, not three.

讗诪专 专讘讗 砖专讗 诇讬讛 诪专讬讛 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛砖转讗 注讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞讬谞谉 讘转 讞诪砖讛 诪讘注讬讗

Rava said: May his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgive Rabbi Tarfon for this extreme stringency. Now, we do not find even a dense-leaved myrtle branch three handbreadths long; is it necessary to say that finding one five handbreadths long is nearly impossible?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗诪讛 讘转 砖砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注砖讛 讗讜转讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讛讚住 讜讛砖讗专 诇诇讜诇讘 讻诪讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 转诇转讗 讜转诇转讗 讞讜诪砖讬

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this is the correct understanding of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon: Take a cubit of six handbreadths, and render it a cubit of five handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon is saying that for the purpose of measuring the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav, the standard six-handbreadth cubit is divided into five handbreadths, each slightly larger than the standard handbreadth. Take three of these large handbreadths for the myrtle branch, and three of these handbreadths plus the extra handbreadth for the lulav. The Gemara calculates: How many standard handbreadths are there in the minimum measure of a myrtle branch or willow branch? There are three and three-fifths standard handbreadths.

拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讬注讜专 讛讚住 讜注专讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讜讛转诐 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讗 讚拽 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗 讚拽 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讗 讚拽

However, on that basis, there is a difficulty, as one statement ofShmuel contradicts another statement of Shmuel. Here, RabbiYehuda said that Shmuel said: The minimum measure of the myrtle branch and of the willow branch is three handbreadths, and there, Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who requires a larger handbreadth. There is a discrepancy of three-fifths of a handbreadth between the measures. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the measure is three handbreadths, he was not precise and merely approximated the measure. The Gemara asks: Say that we say: He was not precise when the approximation leads to stringency, but when it leads to leniency, do we say: He was not precise? That would result in using an unfit myrtle branch in performing a mitzva.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 讗诪讛 讘转 讞诪砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 注砖讛 讗讜转讛 砖砖讛 爪讗 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 诇讛讚住 讜讛砖讗专 诇诇讜诇讘 讻诪讛 讛讜讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 讜驻诇讙讗

When Rabin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that this is the correct understanding of the statement of Rabbi Tarfon: Take a cubit of five handbreadths, and render it a cubit of six handbreadths. Rabbi Tarfon said that for the purpose of measuring the myrtle branch, willow branch, and lulav, a five-handbreadth cubit is divided into six handbreadths, each slightly smaller than the standard handbreadth. Take three of these smaller handbreadths for the myrtle branch, and three of these handbreadths plus the extra handbreadth for the lulav. The Gemara calculates: How many standard handbreadths are there in the minimum measure of a myrtle branch or willow branch? There are two and a half standard handbreadths.

住讜祝 住讜祝 拽砖讬讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讚拽 讜讛讬讬谞讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讗 讚拽 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, there remains a difficulty, as one statement of Shmuel contradicts another statement of Shmuel. In one statement he said the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is two and a half handbreadths, and in another he said that the measure is three handbreadths. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the measure is three handbreadths, he was not precise and merely approximated the measure. And this is a case of: He was not precise, where the approximation leads to a stringency, as Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Shmuel holds that the actual measure required is two and a half handbreadths, and he rounded it off to three, which is a more stringent measure.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讚住 讛讙讝讜诇 讜讛讬讘砖 驻住讜诇 砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 驻住讜诇 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 谞驻专爪讜 注诇讬讜 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注谞讘讬讜 诪专讜讘讜转 诪注诇讬讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗诐 诪讬注讟谉 讻砖专 讜讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

MISHNA: A myrtle branch that was stolen or that is completely dry is unfit. A myrtle branch of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] or a myrtle branch from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, if the leaves were severed completely, or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. If one diminished their number by plucking berries so that they no longer outnumbered the leaves, the myrtle branch is fit. But one may not diminish the number on the Festival itself.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转 砖注谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 注爪讜 讜讗讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚住 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讬转讗 讘注讬谞谉 注讘讜转 讜诇讬讻讗

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It is written: 鈥淏oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥 (Leviticus 23:40); this is referring to a tree whose leaves obscure its tree. And which tree is that? You must say it is the myrtle tree. The Gemara suggests: And say it is the olive tree, whose leaves obscure the tree. The Gemara answers: We require a 鈥渄ense-leaved鈥 tree, whose leaves are in a chain-like configuration, and that is not the case with an olive tree.

讜讗讬诪讗 讚讜诇讘讗 讘注讬谞谉 注谞驻讬讜 讞讜驻讬谉 讗转 注爪讜 讜诇讬讻讗

The Gemara suggests: And say it is the Oriental plane tree, whose leaves are in a braid-like configuration. The Gemara answers: We require a tree whose leaves obscure its tree, and that is not the case with an Oriental plane tree.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬专讚讜祝 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讜诇讬讻讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讛讗诪转 讜讛砖诇讜诐 讗讛讘讜

The Gemara suggests: And say the verse is referring to oleander, which has both characteristics. Abaye said: It is written with regard to the Torah: 鈥淚ts ways are ways of pleasantness鈥 (Proverbs 3:17), and that is not the case with the oleander tree, because it is a poisonous plant and its sharp, thorn-like leaves pierce the hand of one holding it. Rava said: The unfitness of the oleander is derived from here: 鈥淟ove truth and peace鈥 (Zechariah 8:19), and poisonous plants that pierce are antithetical to peace.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽诇讜注 讻诪讬谉 拽诇讬注讛 讜讚讜诪讛 诇砖诇砖诇转 讝讛讜 讛讚住 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转 注抓 砖讟注诐 注爪讜 讜驻专讬讜 砖讜讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚住

The Sages taught: Plaited like a braid and chain-like; that is characteristic of the myrtle branch used in the fulfillment of the mitzva. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says another characteristic. It is written: 鈥淏oughs of a dense-leaved tree,鈥 indicating a tree that the taste of its branches and the taste of its fruit are alike. You must say this is the myrtle branch.

转谞讗 注抓 注讘讜转 讻砖专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 注讘讜转 驻住讜诇

A Sage taught in the Tosefta: A dense-leaved branch is fit, and one that is not dense-leaved is unfit, even though it is a myrtle branch.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 注讘讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讜讗 讚拽讬讬诪讬 转诇转讗 转诇转讗 讟专驻讬 讘拽讬谞讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 讜讞讚 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪讛讚专 讗转专讬 讜讞讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻讬拽 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 诇讛讛讜讗 讛讚住 砖讜讟讛 拽专讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of 鈥渄ense-leaved tree鈥? Rav Yehuda said: And it is a configuration where three leaves emerge from each base. Rav Kahana said: Even two leaves emerging from one base and one leaf that covers the other two emerging from a lower base is called thick. Rav A岣, son of Rava, would purposely seek a myrtle branch configured with two leaves emerging from one base and one emerging from a lower base, since this statement emerged from the mouth of Rav Kahana. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: My father called a myrtle branch with that configuration a wild myrtle branch.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖专讜 专讜讘 注诇讬讜 讜谞砖转讬讬专讜 讘讜 诪讬注讜讟 讻砖专 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 注讘讜转讜 拽讬讬诪转

The Sages taught: If most of its leaves fell and only a minority of the leaves remained, the myrtle branch is fit, provided that its dense-leaved nature remains intact.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞砖专讜 专讜讘 注诇讬讜 讻砖专 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖转讛讗 注讘讜转讜 拽讬讬诪转 讻讬讜谉 讚谞转专讬 诇讛讜 转专讬 注讘讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara wonders: This matter itself is difficult, as there is an internal contradiction in this baraita. On the one hand, you said: If most of its leaves fell it is fit, and then the baraita taught: Provided that its dense-leaved nature remains intact. Once two of every three leaves fell, how can you find a branch whose dense-leaved nature is intact?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Abaye said: You can find it

Scroll To Top