Sukkah 32

קווץ סדוק עקום דומה למגל פסול חרות פסול דומה לחרות כשר אמר רב פפא דעביד כהימנק

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.

עקום דומה למגל אמר רבא לא אמרן אלא לפניו אבל לאחריו ברייתיה הוא

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.

אמר רב נחמן לצדדין כלפניו דמי ואמרי לה כלאחריו דמי

Rav Naḥman 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.

ואמר רבא האי לולבא דסליק בחד הוצא בעל מום הוא ופסול

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

נפרצו עליו כו׳ אמר רב פפא נפרצו דעביד כי חופיא נפרדו דאיפרוד אפרודי

§ 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.

בעי רב פפא נחלקה התיומת מהו תא שמע דאמר (רבי יוחנן) אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי ניטלה התיומת פסול מאי לאו הוא הדין נחלקה לא ניטלה שאני דהא חסר ליה

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 Yoḥanan 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.

איכא דאמרי אמר (רבי יוחנן) אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי נחלקה התיומת נעשה כמי שניטלה התיומת ופסול

Some say that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

רבי יהודה אומר תניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי טרפון כפות תמרים כפות אם היה פרוד יכפתנו

§ 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: “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.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי ממאי דהאי כפות תמרים דלולבא הוא אימא חרותא בעינא כפות וליכא

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where is it ascertained that this term, “branches of a date palm,” 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.

ואימא אופתא כפות מכלל דאיכא פרוד והאי כפות ועומד לעולם

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.

ואימא כופרא אמר אביי דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום כתיב

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: “Its way are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace” (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.

אמר ליה רבא תוספאה לרבינא ואימא תרתי כפי דתמרי כפת כתיב ואימא חדא לההוא כף קרי ליה

Rava, the expert in Tosefta, said to Ravina: Since the verse states “branches of a date palm” 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.

ציני הר הברזל כשרה אמר אביי לא שנו אלא שראשו של זה מגיע לצד עיקרו של זה אבל אין ראשו של זה מגיע צד עיקרו של זה פסול

§ 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.

תניא נמי הכי ציני הר הברזל פסולה והא אנן תנן כשרה אלא שמע מינה כאביי שמע מינה

That was taught in a baraita as well: A lulav from the palms of the Iron Mountain are unfit. The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.

ואיכא דרמי ליה מירמא תנן ציני הר הברזל כשר והתניא פסולה אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן שראשו של זה מגיע לצד עיקרו של זה כאן שאין ראשו של זה מגיע לצד עיקרו של זה

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’t 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.

אמר רבי מריון אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי ואמרי לה תני רבה בר מרי משום רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שתי תמרות יש בגיא בן הנם ועולה עשן מביניהם וזהו ששנינו ציני הר הברזל כשרות וזו היא פתחה של גיהנם

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 Yoḥanan 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.

לולב שיש בו שלשה טפחים אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שיעור הדס וערבה שלשה ולולב ארבעה כדי שיהא לולב יוצא מן ההדס טפח

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.

ורבי פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן שדרו של לולב צריך שיצא מן ההדס טפח

And Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

תנן לולב שיש בו שלשה טפחים כדי לנענע בו כשר אימא וכדי לנענע בו כשר מר כדאית ליה ומר כדאית ליה

The Gemara asks: Didn’t 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 Yoḥanan, 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.

תא שמע שיעור הדס וערבה שלשה ולולב ארבעה מאי לאו בהדי עלין לא לבד מעלין

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.

גופא שיעור הדס וערבה שלשה ולולב ארבעה רבי טרפון אומר באמה בת חמשה טפחים

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’s opinion is that the minimum measure of a myrtle branch is five handbreadths, not three.

אמר רבא שרא ליה מריה לרבי טרפון השתא עבות שלשה לא משכחינן בת חמשה מבעיא

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?

כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמה בת ששה טפחים עשה אותה בת חמשה צא מהן שלשה להדס והשאר ללולב כמה הוו להו תלתא ותלתא חומשי

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.

קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל הכא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שיעור הדס וערבה שלשה והתם אמר רב הונא אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי טרפון לא דק אימר דאמרינן לא דק לחומרא לקולא מי אמרינן לא דק

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.

כי אתא רבין אמר אמה בת חמשה טפחים עשה אותה ששה צא מהן שלשה להדס והשאר ללולב כמה הוי להו תרי ופלגא

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.

סוף סוף קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל לא דק והיינו לחומרא לא דק דאמר רב הונא אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי טרפון

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.

מתני׳ הדס הגזול והיבש פסול של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת פסול נקטם ראשו נפרצו עליו או שהיו ענביו מרובות מעליו פסול ואם מיעטן כשר ואין ממעטין ביום טוב

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ענף עץ עבות שענפיו חופין את עצו ואי זה הוא הוי אומר זה הדס ואימא זיתא בעינן עבות וליכא

GEMARA: The Sages taught: It is written: “Boughs of a dense-leaved tree” (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 “dense-leaved” tree, whose leaves are in a chain-like configuration, and that is not the case with an olive tree.

ואימא דולבא בעינן ענפיו חופין את עצו וליכא

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.

ואימא הירדוף אמר אביי דרכיה דרכי נועם וליכא רבא אמר מהכא האמת והשלום אהבו

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: “Its ways are ways of pleasantness” (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: “Love truth and peace” (Zechariah 8:19), and poisonous plants that pierce are antithetical to peace.

תנו רבנן קלוע כמין קליעה ודומה לשלשלת זהו הדס רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר ענף עץ עבות עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה הדס

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’akov says another characteristic. It is written: “Boughs of a dense-leaved tree,” 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.

תנא עץ עבות כשר ושאינו עבות פסול

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.

היכי דמי עבות אמר רב יהודה והוא דקיימי תלתא תלתא טרפי בקינא רב כהנא אמר אפילו תרי וחד רב אחא בריה דרבא מהדר אתרי וחד הואיל ונפיק מפומיה דרב כהנא אמר ליה מר בר אמימר לרב אשי אבא לההוא הדס שוטה קרי ליה

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of “dense-leaved tree”? 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 Aḥa, 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.

תנו רבנן נשרו רוב עליו ונשתיירו בו מיעוט כשר ובלבד שתהא עבותו קיימת

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.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת נשרו רוב עליו כשר והדר תני ובלבד שתהא עבותו קיימת כיון דנתרי להו תרי עבות היכי משכחת לה

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?

אמר אביי משכחת לה

Abaye said: You can find it