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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 9, 2021 | 讗壮 讘讗诇讜诇 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 33

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Dina Hirshfeld-Becker in memory of her father Alan Hirshfeld, zichrono livracha, on his third yahrzeit that was last week (August 1). “He was a loving father and grandfather who was committed to his daughters learning Torah.”

Can an Egyptian myrtle branch be used for the mitzva of hadas? If the leaves have fallen off, how many need to be left on in order to still be considered able to be used? If the top is cut off but something grows in its place, it can be used. But what if it grew on Yom Tov 鈥 do we say that once an object is rejected for a mitzva, it can no longer be used or not? Do we say this isn鈥檛 the case only to be stringent but not to be lenient? Is there a difference between something that was not worthy in the beginning and became worthy and something that was worthy, then was rejected and then became worthy again? If the berries are more than the leaves, it is no good. But one can fix it. Can one fix it on Yom Tov? There is a debate regarding this manner in a case where one removed them on Yom Tov to eat and it is related to the debate regarding davar sheaino mitkaven on Shabbat (when one does a forbidden action but that was not one鈥檚 intent). Why in this case is it not considered a psik reisha (a case where the melacha will definitely be performed)? How can one fix a binding of the lulav if it untied on Yom Tov? What are disqualifications for arava? In what case will it still be valid even if it is not exactly a willow of the brook?

讘讗住讗 诪爪专讗讛 讚拽讬讬诪讬 砖讘注讛 砖讘注讛 讘讞讚 拽讬谞讗 讚讻讬 谞转专讬 讗专讘注讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转诇转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 讗住讗 诪爪专讗讛 讻砖专 诇讛讜砖注谞讗

in an Egyptian myrtle branch, which has seven leaves emerging from each and every base, as even when four leaves, the majority, fall, three remain, and its dense-leaved nature remains intact. Abaye said: Learn from it that the Sages hold that this Egyptian myrtle branch is fit for use as a hoshana in the mitzva of the four species.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 诇讗 诪转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注抓 注讘讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. It is a myrtle branch. Why would it be unfit? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since its name is accompanied by a modifier, i.e., it is not called simply a myrtle branch but an Egyptian myrtle branch, it is unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit for use. The Gemara asks: And say it is indeed so, that since its name is accompanied by a modifier it is unfit. The Gemara answers: It is fit, as 鈥渄ense-leaved tree鈥 is stated by the Merciful One. As the Torah did not mandate the use of a specific species but rather listed an identifying characteristic, a tree with that characteristic is fit in any case, and the modifier is irrelevant.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讘砖讜 专讜讘 注诇讬讜 讜谞砖讗专讜 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讘讚讬 注诇讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讘专讗砖 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚

The Sages taught: If most of its leaves dried and three branches of moist leaves remained on it, it is fit. Rav 岣sda said: And that is the ruling only if the moist leaves are at the top of each and every one of the branches. However, if the moist leaves are elsewhere on the branch, it is unfit.

谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 讜注诇转讛 讘讜 转诪专讛 讻砖专

搂 The mishna continues: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, it is unfit. Ulla bar 岣nnana taught: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, but a gallnut-like berry grew in that place, it is fit, as the berry fills the void and the top of the branch no longer appears severed.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜注诇转讛 讘讜 转诪专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讛讜 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If the top was severed on the Festival eve, and the berry grew in that place on the Festival, what is the halakha? This dilemma is tied to a more fundamental, wide-ranging dilemma: Is there disqualification with regard to mitzvot or not? Because this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, is the halakha that it is permanently disqualified and cannot be rendered fit? Or perhaps the halakha is that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Once the growth of the berry neutralizes the cause for the disqualification, the myrtle branch is again fit for use.

讜转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻住讛讜 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讻住讛讜 讛专讜讞 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转

The Gemara asks: And resolve this dilemma from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughtered a non-domesticated animal or a bird and is obligated to cover the blood, if he covered the blood and it was then uncovered, he is exempt from the obligation to cover it a second time. However, if the wind blew dust and covered the blood and no person was involved, he is obligated to cover it. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that he is obligated to cover the blood after the wind covered it only if the blood was then exposed. However, if it was not then exposed, he is exempt from the obligation to cover it.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讻讬 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讚讞讬 讗讬讚讞讬

And we discussed this issue and asked: When it was then exposed, why is he obligated to cover it a second time? Since it was disqualified, it should remain disqualified. When the wind covered the blood, he was exempt from covering the blood. If so, even if the blood is subsequently uncovered, he should remain exempt. Why then, is he obligated to cover the blood in that case?

讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

And Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Once the cause of the exemption from the obligation is neutralized, one is once again obligated to fulfill the mitzva. Although there is disqualification with regard to offerings, that is not the case with regard to mitzvot. If so, Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 dilemma is resolved.

讚专讘 驻驻讗 讙讜驻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬驻砖讬讟 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 转讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: It is with regard to Rav Pappa鈥檚 resolution itself that Rabbi Yirmeya raised the dilemma. Is it obvious to Rav Pappa, based on the discussion with regard to the blood, that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot; and there is no difference whether that ruling leads to leniency, as in the case of a myrtle branch whose top was severed and a berry grew in its place, rendering it fit, and there is no difference whether that ruling leads to stringency, as in the case of the blood, where one is obligated to cover it anew? Or, perhaps the tanna was uncertain, and therefore, when that ruling leads to stringency, we say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot, and one must perform the mitzva. However, when that ruling leads to leniency, we do not say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma stands unresolved.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注讘专 讜诇拽讟谉 驻住讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘谉) 爪讚讜拽 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讜诇讘 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter of disqualification with regard to mitzvot is dependent upon a dispute of tanna鈥檌m, as a similar topic was taught in a baraita: If one transgressed and picked the berries that render the myrtle branch unfit on the Festival, it remains unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok. The Sages deem it fit. The Gemara explains: Everyone, both tanna鈥檌m, agree that a lulav does not require binding. And even if you say that a lulav requires binding, nevertheless, we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. With regard to sukka it is written: Prepare it, from which it is derived, and not from that which is already prepared. The sukka must be established by means of an action, not one that was established by itself.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚驻住讬诇 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪讗谉 讚诪讻砖讬专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

What, is it not that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, and the Rabbis are disagreeing about the following? The one who deems the myrtle branch unfit, Rabbi Elazar, holds: We say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Since this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began because the berries outnumbered the leaves, reducing the number of berries will not render it fit. And the one who deems the myrtle branch fit, the Rabbis, holds: We do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Even though this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, once the cause of the disqualification is neutralized, the myrtle branch is rendered fit for use in the performance of the mitzva.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬诇祝 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, one could say that everyone agrees that we do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. And here, it is with regard to deriving lulav from sukka that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, holds: We derive lulav from sukka. Just as a sukka must be rendered fit through building and not by means of an action taken after it was built, so too, a lulav must be rendered fit through binding and not by an action taken after it was bound. Since this myrtle branch was not rendered fit through binding but rather through the removal of the berries after it was bound, it is unfit. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not derive lulav from sukka. Therefore, even if the lulav was rendered fit from that which is already prepared, it is fit.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讘讬谉 讗讙讜讚 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 驻住讜诇

And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. And here, it is with regard to whether or not a lulav requires binding that they disagree, and they disagree in the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诇讬祝 诇拽讬讞讛 诇拽讬讞讛 诪讗讙讜讚转 讗讝讜讘 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜诇拽讞转诐 讗讙讜讚转 讗讝讜讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讙讜讚讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讙讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 诇拽讬讞讛 诇拽讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: He derives the term taking written with regard to the four species from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop by means of a verbal analogy. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: 鈥淭ake a bundle of hyssop鈥 (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讜讙讚讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讻砖专 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专 讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜诪爪讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜

On a related note, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught in the baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav, and if he did not bind it, it is fit? Whose opinion is it? If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when he did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva did he perform? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind them is due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him [ve鈥檃nvehu]鈥 (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna鈥檈] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render the lulav unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注谞讘讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讗讜 砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讻砖专

搂 The mishna continues: Or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav 岣sda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if the berries were concentrated in one place. However, if they were distributed in two or three places throughout the branch, it is fit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗

Rava said to Rav 岣sda:

砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讬 诪谞讜诪专 讜驻住讜诇

If the berries are distributed in two or three places, the myrtle branch is speckled with different colors in different places. It lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注谞讘讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 诪注诇讬讜 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注谞讘讬讜 砖讞讜专讜转 讗讘诇 注谞讘讬讜 讬专讜拽讜转 诪讬谞讬 讚讛讚住 讛讜讗 讜讻砖专

Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated as follows: Or, if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav 岣sda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to ripe, black berries, since they stand in stark contrast to the green leaves of the branch, which then appears speckled. However, if its berries are green, they are considered of the same type as the myrtle branch, as they are the same color. Consequently, the branch does not appear speckled, and therefore it is fit.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讚讜诪讜转 讻砖讞讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讚诐 砖讞讜专 讗讚讜诐 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖诇拽讛

Rav Pappa said: The legal status of red berries is like that of black ones, as Rabbi 岣nina said: In the case of menstrual blood, this black blood is actually red blood, except that it deteriorated. Red and black are considered two shades of the same color.

讗诐 诪讬注讟谉 讻砖专 讚诪注讟讬谞讛讜 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬讛 讚诇讗讙讚讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讘转专 讚诇讗讙讚讬讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

搂 The mishna continues: If he diminished their number, it is fit. The Gemara asks: This is a case where he diminished their number when? If you say that he did so before he bound the lulav, it is obvious that it is fit. When he performs the mitzva with it, the leaves outnumber the berries. Rather, it must be that he diminished their number after he bound the lulav with the other species. If so, it is a case of disqualification from the outset, as it was unfit at the time that it was bound. Resolve from here the dilemma that was raised and conclude that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification.

诇注讜诇诐 讘转专 讚讗讙讚讬讛 讜拽住讘专 讗讙讚 讛讝诪谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讝诪谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Actually, it is a case where he diminished the number of berries after he bound it. And that Sage holds that binding does not render the three bound species a lulav used for a mitzva. Rather, it is mere designation of the species for the mitzva, and mere designation is not anything of significance. The fact that the berries outnumbered the leaves at the time that it was bound is not disqualification from the outset, as binding is a stage prior to the outset.

讜讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗 注讘专 讜诇拽讟谉 诪讗讬 讻砖专 讚讗砖讞讜专 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗砖讞讜专 诪讗转诪讜诇 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

搂 The mishna continues: But one may not diminish the number on the Festival itself. The Gemara asks: But if one violated the prohibition and picked them, what is the halakha? The myrtle branch is fit, as the mishna prohibited doing so ab initio but did not deem it unfit. The Gemara clarifies: This is a case that the berries turned black when? If you say that they were black from yesterday, the Festival eve, the myrtle is disqualified from the outset, as it is unfit at the start of the Festival. If so, resolve from here that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification, as the mishna says that if one picked the berries, the myrtle branch is fit.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗砖讞讜专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讛讜讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讞讜讝专 讜谞专讗讛

Rather, is it not that they turned black on the Festival itself and he picked them that day. That then is a case where the myrtle branch was fit and then disqualified, as at the start of the Festival the berries were green and only later turned black, rendering the myrtle branch unfit. Conclude from it that an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit again, thereby resolving an unresolved dilemma.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗砖讞讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讞讜讝专 讜谞专讗讛 诇讗 转驻砖讜讟

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, actually, it is a case where the berries turned black from the outset, prior to the Festival. Resolve from it that an item disqualified from the outset is not permanently disqualified. However, do not resolve the dilemma concerning whether an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit, as no clear proof can be adduced from here.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪诪注讟讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪转拽谉 诪谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Sages taught: One may not diminish the number of berries on the Festival to render the myrtle branch fit. In the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said: One may diminish their number. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 he preparing a vessel on a Festival, as he renders an unfit myrtle branch fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讟谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

Rav Ashi said: It is a case where he picked them for the purpose of eating them, as it is permitted to pick berries from a branch unattached to the ground, and preparing the myrtle branch for use is permitted because he did not intend to do so. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who said: An unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor inadvertently ensues, is permitted on Shabbat or on a Festival. Here too, one鈥檚 intention is to eat the berries. Although the myrtle branch is prepared for use in the process, picking the berries is permitted because that was not his intention.

讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? Even Rabbi Shimon, who says that an unintentional act is permitted, said so only in cases where the prohibited result is possible but not guaranteed. However, when a prohibited result is inevitable, just as death inevitably ensues from decapitation, the act is prohibited. In the case of picking berries off of a myrtle branch for food, one cannot claim that he did not intend for the prohibited result of preparing the myrtle branch for use to ensue. In this case, the myrtle branch will inevitably be rendered fit; how is this permitted?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讜砖注谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he has another fit myrtle branch. Therefore, one is not considered to be preparing a vessel. Since the ultimate objective is to render the lulav and the accompanying species, which constitute the vessel in question, fit, and those species are already fit, picking the berries from the myrtle branch is not inevitable preparation of a vessel. Therefore, if one ate the berries, and the myrtle branch is thereby rendered fit, it is fit for use in the mitzva.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜转专 讗讙讚讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜讙讚讜 讻讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 讬专拽 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬注谞讘讬讛 诪讬注谞讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注谞讬讘讛 拽砖讬专讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Sages taught: If the binding of the lulav was untied on the Festival, one may bind it again. One may not bind it with a sophisticated knot as before, but with a knot like the one used in a binding of vegetables, by merely winding the string around the species. The Gemara asks: But why merely wind it? Let him tie a bow, which is permitted on Shabbat or a Festival, as he is not tying an actual knot. The Gemara answers: Whose opinion is it in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and therefore it is prohibited to tie one on the Festival.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讙讚 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讘注讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since he holds that a lulav requires binding, as he derived from the Paschal lamb, he requires the binding to be a full-fledged binding. How, then, can winding the string like the binding of vegetables suffice in fulfillment of the mitzva? The Gemara answers: This tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with his opinion in one matter, i.e., that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and disagrees with him in one matter, as the tanna holds that binding the species is merely to enhance the beauty of the mitzva, but it is not a Torah requirement.

诪转谞讬壮 注专讘讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讜讬讘砖讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 驻住讜诇讛 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讛 谞驻专爪讜 注诇讬讛 讜讛爪驻爪驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 讻诪讜砖讛 讜砖谞砖专讜 诪拽爪转 注诇讬讛 讜砖诇 讘注诇 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: A willow branch that was stolen or is completely dry is unfit. One from a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top was severed, or its leaves were severed, or if it is the tzaftzafa, a species similar to, but not actually a willow, it is unfit. However, a willow branch that is slightly dried, and one that a minority of its leaves fell, and a branch from a willow that does not grow by the river, but instead is from a non-irrigated field, is fit.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讛讙讚讬诇讬谉 注诇 讛谞讞诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 砖注诇讛 砖诇讛 诪砖讜讱 讻谞讞诇

GEMARA: The Sages taught: 鈥淲illows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40) means willows that grow by the brook. Alternatively, 鈥渨illows of the brook鈥 is an allusion to the tree in question. It is a tree whose leaf is elongated like a brook.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讜砖诇 讛专讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

It was taught in another baraita: From 鈥渨illows of the brook,鈥 I have derived only actual willows of the brook that grow on the banks of the brook. With regard to willows of the non-irrigated field and willows of the mountains, from where do I derive that they are fit as well? The verse states: 鈥淲illows of the brook,鈥 in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.

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

Kosher Hadasim

Succah Daf 33 Teacher: Tamara Spitz https://youtu.be/ZjbKx7tTkyc  
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 33: Disqualifying Berries

An existential question about mitzvot and if/when the items we use for mitzvot are disqualified from that use. Specifically, a...

Sukkah 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 33

讘讗住讗 诪爪专讗讛 讚拽讬讬诪讬 砖讘注讛 砖讘注讛 讘讞讚 拽讬谞讗 讚讻讬 谞转专讬 讗专讘注讛 驻砖讜 诇讛讜 转诇转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 讗住讗 诪爪专讗讛 讻砖专 诇讛讜砖注谞讗

in an Egyptian myrtle branch, which has seven leaves emerging from each and every base, as even when four leaves, the majority, fall, three remain, and its dense-leaved nature remains intact. Abaye said: Learn from it that the Sages hold that this Egyptian myrtle branch is fit for use as a hoshana in the mitzva of the four species.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 诇讗 诪转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注抓 注讘讜转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara asks: This is obvious. It is a myrtle branch. Why would it be unfit? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since its name is accompanied by a modifier, i.e., it is not called simply a myrtle branch but an Egyptian myrtle branch, it is unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit for use. The Gemara asks: And say it is indeed so, that since its name is accompanied by a modifier it is unfit. The Gemara answers: It is fit, as 鈥渄ense-leaved tree鈥 is stated by the Merciful One. As the Torah did not mandate the use of a specific species but rather listed an identifying characteristic, a tree with that characteristic is fit in any case, and the modifier is irrelevant.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讘砖讜 专讜讘 注诇讬讜 讜谞砖讗专讜 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讘讚讬 注诇讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讘专讗砖 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚

The Sages taught: If most of its leaves dried and three branches of moist leaves remained on it, it is fit. Rav 岣sda said: And that is the ruling only if the moist leaves are at the top of each and every one of the branches. However, if the moist leaves are elsewhere on the branch, it is unfit.

谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 讜注诇转讛 讘讜 转诪专讛 讻砖专

搂 The mishna continues: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, it is unfit. Ulla bar 岣nnana taught: If the top of the myrtle branch was severed, but a gallnut-like berry grew in that place, it is fit, as the berry fills the void and the top of the branch no longer appears severed.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜注诇转讛 讘讜 转诪专讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪讛讜 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 讗讜 诇讗

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If the top was severed on the Festival eve, and the berry grew in that place on the Festival, what is the halakha? This dilemma is tied to a more fundamental, wide-ranging dilemma: Is there disqualification with regard to mitzvot or not? Because this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, is the halakha that it is permanently disqualified and cannot be rendered fit? Or perhaps the halakha is that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Once the growth of the berry neutralizes the cause for the disqualification, the myrtle branch is again fit for use.

讜转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻住讛讜 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讻住讛讜 讛专讜讞 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转

The Gemara asks: And resolve this dilemma from that which we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughtered a non-domesticated animal or a bird and is obligated to cover the blood, if he covered the blood and it was then uncovered, he is exempt from the obligation to cover it a second time. However, if the wind blew dust and covered the blood and no person was involved, he is obligated to cover it. Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They taught that he is obligated to cover the blood after the wind covered it only if the blood was then exposed. However, if it was not then exposed, he is exempt from the obligation to cover it.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 讻讬 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讚讞讬 讗讬讚讞讬

And we discussed this issue and asked: When it was then exposed, why is he obligated to cover it a second time? Since it was disqualified, it should remain disqualified. When the wind covered the blood, he was exempt from covering the blood. If so, even if the blood is subsequently uncovered, he should remain exempt. Why then, is he obligated to cover the blood in that case?

讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

And Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Once the cause of the exemption from the obligation is neutralized, one is once again obligated to fulfill the mitzva. Although there is disqualification with regard to offerings, that is not the case with regard to mitzvot. If so, Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 dilemma is resolved.

讚专讘 驻驻讗 讙讜驻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬驻砖讬讟 驻砖讬讟 诇讬讛 讚讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 转讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: It is with regard to Rav Pappa鈥檚 resolution itself that Rabbi Yirmeya raised the dilemma. Is it obvious to Rav Pappa, based on the discussion with regard to the blood, that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot; and there is no difference whether that ruling leads to leniency, as in the case of a myrtle branch whose top was severed and a berry grew in its place, rendering it fit, and there is no difference whether that ruling leads to stringency, as in the case of the blood, where one is obligated to cover it anew? Or, perhaps the tanna was uncertain, and therefore, when that ruling leads to stringency, we say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot, and one must perform the mitzva. However, when that ruling leads to leniency, we do not say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma stands unresolved.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 注讘专 讜诇拽讟谉 驻住讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘谉) 爪讚讜拽 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 住讘专讜讛 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讜诇讘 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 转注砖讛 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛注砖讜讬

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter of disqualification with regard to mitzvot is dependent upon a dispute of tanna鈥檌m, as a similar topic was taught in a baraita: If one transgressed and picked the berries that render the myrtle branch unfit on the Festival, it remains unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok. The Sages deem it fit. The Gemara explains: Everyone, both tanna鈥檌m, agree that a lulav does not require binding. And even if you say that a lulav requires binding, nevertheless, we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. With regard to sukka it is written: Prepare it, from which it is derived, and not from that which is already prepared. The sukka must be established by means of an action, not one that was established by itself.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪讗谉 讚驻住讬诇 住讘专 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 讜诪讗谉 讚诪讻砖讬专 住讘专 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

What, is it not that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, and the Rabbis are disagreeing about the following? The one who deems the myrtle branch unfit, Rabbi Elazar, holds: We say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Since this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began because the berries outnumbered the leaves, reducing the number of berries will not render it fit. And the one who deems the myrtle branch fit, the Rabbis, holds: We do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Even though this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, once the cause of the disqualification is neutralized, the myrtle branch is rendered fit for use in the performance of the mitzva.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬诇祝 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛

The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, one could say that everyone agrees that we do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. And here, it is with regard to deriving lulav from sukka that they disagree. One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, holds: We derive lulav from sukka. Just as a sukka must be rendered fit through building and not by means of an action taken after it was built, so too, a lulav must be rendered fit through binding and not by an action taken after it was bound. Since this myrtle branch was not rendered fit through binding but rather through the removal of the berries after it was bound, it is unfit. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: We do not derive lulav from sukka. Therefore, even if the lulav was rendered fit from that which is already prepared, it is fit.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇谉 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪住讜讻讛 讜讛讻讗 讘诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讘讬谉 讗讙讜讚 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讙讜讚 讻砖专 砖讗讬谞讜 讗讙讜讚 驻住讜诇

And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka. And here, it is with regard to whether or not a lulav requires binding that they disagree, and they disagree in the dispute of these tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诇讬祝 诇拽讬讞讛 诇拽讬讞讛 诪讗讙讜讚转 讗讝讜讘 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜诇拽讞转诐 诇讻诐 讘讬讜诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜诇拽讞转诐 讗讙讜讚转 讗讝讜讘 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讙讜讚讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讙讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 诇拽讬讞讛 诇拽讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: He derives the term taking written with regard to the four species from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop by means of a verbal analogy. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: 鈥淭ake a bundle of hyssop鈥 (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: 鈥淎nd you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜诇讘 诪爪讜讛 诇讗讜讙讚讜 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讻砖专 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 诇讗 讗讙讚讜 讗诪讗讬 讻砖专 讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讜诪爪讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讝讛 讗诇讬 讜讗谞讜讛讜

On a related note, the Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught in the baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav, and if he did not bind it, it is fit? Whose opinion is it? If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when he did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva did he perform? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind them is due to the fact that it is stated: 鈥淭his is my God and I will glorify Him [ve鈥檃nvehu]鈥 (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna鈥檈] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render the lulav unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注谞讘讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬诐 讗讜 砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讻砖专

搂 The mishna continues: Or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav 岣sda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance. The Sages taught this halakha only if the berries were concentrated in one place. However, if they were distributed in two or three places throughout the branch, it is fit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗

Rava said to Rav 岣sda:

砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪拽讜诪讜转 讛讜讬 诪谞讜诪专 讜驻住讜诇

If the berries are distributed in two or three places, the myrtle branch is speckled with different colors in different places. It lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗转诪专 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 注谞讘讬讜 诪专讜讘讬谉 诪注诇讬讜 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讘专 讝讛 专讘讬谞讜 讛讙讚讜诇 讗诪专讜 讜讛诪拽讜诐 讬讛讬讛 讘注讝专讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 注谞讘讬讜 砖讞讜专讜转 讗讘诇 注谞讘讬讜 讬专讜拽讜转 诪讬谞讬 讚讛讚住 讛讜讗 讜讻砖专

Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated as follows: Or, if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav 岣sda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to ripe, black berries, since they stand in stark contrast to the green leaves of the branch, which then appears speckled. However, if its berries are green, they are considered of the same type as the myrtle branch, as they are the same color. Consequently, the branch does not appear speckled, and therefore it is fit.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讚讜诪讜转 讻砖讞讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讗讬 讚诐 砖讞讜专 讗讚讜诐 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖诇拽讛

Rav Pappa said: The legal status of red berries is like that of black ones, as Rabbi 岣nina said: In the case of menstrual blood, this black blood is actually red blood, except that it deteriorated. Red and black are considered two shades of the same color.

讗诐 诪讬注讟谉 讻砖专 讚诪注讟讬谞讛讜 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪拽诪讬讛 讚诇讗讙讚讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讘转专 讚诇讗讙讚讬讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

搂 The mishna continues: If he diminished their number, it is fit. The Gemara asks: This is a case where he diminished their number when? If you say that he did so before he bound the lulav, it is obvious that it is fit. When he performs the mitzva with it, the leaves outnumber the berries. Rather, it must be that he diminished their number after he bound the lulav with the other species. If so, it is a case of disqualification from the outset, as it was unfit at the time that it was bound. Resolve from here the dilemma that was raised and conclude that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification.

诇注讜诇诐 讘转专 讚讗讙讚讬讛 讜拽住讘专 讗讙讚 讛讝诪谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讜讛讝诪谞讛 讘注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Actually, it is a case where he diminished the number of berries after he bound it. And that Sage holds that binding does not render the three bound species a lulav used for a mitzva. Rather, it is mere designation of the species for the mitzva, and mere designation is not anything of significance. The fact that the berries outnumbered the leaves at the time that it was bound is not disqualification from the outset, as binding is a stage prior to the outset.

讜讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗 注讘专 讜诇拽讟谉 诪讗讬 讻砖专 讚讗砖讞讜专 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗砖讞讜专 诪讗转诪讜诇 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

搂 The mishna continues: But one may not diminish the number on the Festival itself. The Gemara asks: But if one violated the prohibition and picked them, what is the halakha? The myrtle branch is fit, as the mishna prohibited doing so ab initio but did not deem it unfit. The Gemara clarifies: This is a case that the berries turned black when? If you say that they were black from yesterday, the Festival eve, the myrtle is disqualified from the outset, as it is unfit at the start of the Festival. If so, resolve from here that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification, as the mishna says that if one picked the berries, the myrtle branch is fit.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗砖讞讜专 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讛讜讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讞讜讝专 讜谞专讗讛

Rather, is it not that they turned black on the Festival itself and he picked them that day. That then is a case where the myrtle branch was fit and then disqualified, as at the start of the Festival the berries were green and only later turned black, rendering the myrtle branch unfit. Conclude from it that an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit again, thereby resolving an unresolved dilemma.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讗砖讞讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬 转驻砖讜讟 诪讬谞讛 讗讘诇 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讞讜讝专 讜谞专讗讛 诇讗 转驻砖讜讟

The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, actually, it is a case where the berries turned black from the outset, prior to the Festival. Resolve from it that an item disqualified from the outset is not permanently disqualified. However, do not resolve the dilemma concerning whether an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit, as no clear proof can be adduced from here.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪诪注讟讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪转拽谉 诪谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Sages taught: One may not diminish the number of berries on the Festival to render the myrtle branch fit. In the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said: One may diminish their number. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 he preparing a vessel on a Festival, as he renders an unfit myrtle branch fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讙讜谉 砖诇拽讟谉 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讜转专

Rav Ashi said: It is a case where he picked them for the purpose of eating them, as it is permitted to pick berries from a branch unattached to the ground, and preparing the myrtle branch for use is permitted because he did not intend to do so. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who said: An unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor inadvertently ensues, is permitted on Shabbat or on a Festival. Here too, one鈥檚 intention is to eat the berries. Although the myrtle branch is prepared for use in the process, picking the berries is permitted because that was not his intention.

讜讛讗 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘驻住讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讜诇讗 讬诪讜转

The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? Even Rabbi Shimon, who says that an unintentional act is permitted, said so only in cases where the prohibited result is possible but not guaranteed. However, when a prohibited result is inevitable, just as death inevitably ensues from decapitation, the act is prohibited. In the case of picking berries off of a myrtle branch for food, one cannot claim that he did not intend for the prohibited result of preparing the myrtle branch for use to ensue. In this case, the myrtle branch will inevitably be rendered fit; how is this permitted?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讜砖注谞讗 讗讞专讬转讬

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he has another fit myrtle branch. Therefore, one is not considered to be preparing a vessel. Since the ultimate objective is to render the lulav and the accompanying species, which constitute the vessel in question, fit, and those species are already fit, picking the berries from the myrtle branch is not inevitable preparation of a vessel. Therefore, if one ate the berries, and the myrtle branch is thereby rendered fit, it is fit for use in the mitzva.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜转专 讗讙讚讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜讙讚讜 讻讗讙讜讚讛 砖诇 讬专拽 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬注谞讘讬讛 诪讬注谞讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 注谞讬讘讛 拽砖讬专讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Sages taught: If the binding of the lulav was untied on the Festival, one may bind it again. One may not bind it with a sophisticated knot as before, but with a knot like the one used in a binding of vegetables, by merely winding the string around the species. The Gemara asks: But why merely wind it? Let him tie a bow, which is permitted on Shabbat or a Festival, as he is not tying an actual knot. The Gemara answers: Whose opinion is it in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and therefore it is prohibited to tie one on the Festival.

讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讙讚 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讘注讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since he holds that a lulav requires binding, as he derived from the Paschal lamb, he requires the binding to be a full-fledged binding. How, then, can winding the string like the binding of vegetables suffice in fulfillment of the mitzva? The Gemara answers: This tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with his opinion in one matter, i.e., that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and disagrees with him in one matter, as the tanna holds that binding the species is merely to enhance the beauty of the mitzva, but it is not a Torah requirement.

诪转谞讬壮 注专讘讛 讙讝讜诇讛 讜讬讘砖讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖诇 讗砖专讛 讜砖诇 注讬专 讛谞讚讞转 驻住讜诇讛 谞拽讟诐 专讗砖讛 谞驻专爪讜 注诇讬讛 讜讛爪驻爪驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 讻诪讜砖讛 讜砖谞砖专讜 诪拽爪转 注诇讬讛 讜砖诇 讘注诇 讻砖专讛

MISHNA: A willow branch that was stolen or is completely dry is unfit. One from a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top was severed, or its leaves were severed, or if it is the tzaftzafa, a species similar to, but not actually a willow, it is unfit. However, a willow branch that is slightly dried, and one that a minority of its leaves fell, and a branch from a willow that does not grow by the river, but instead is from a non-irrigated field, is fit.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讛讙讚讬诇讬谉 注诇 讛谞讞诇 讚讘专 讗讞专 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 砖注诇讛 砖诇讛 诪砖讜讱 讻谞讞诇

GEMARA: The Sages taught: 鈥淲illows of the brook鈥 (Leviticus 23:40) means willows that grow by the brook. Alternatively, 鈥渨illows of the brook鈥 is an allusion to the tree in question. It is a tree whose leaf is elongated like a brook.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 砖诇 讘注诇 讜砖诇 讛专讬诐 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

It was taught in another baraita: From 鈥渨illows of the brook,鈥 I have derived only actual willows of the brook that grow on the banks of the brook. With regard to willows of the non-irrigated field and willows of the mountains, from where do I derive that they are fit as well? The verse states: 鈥淲illows of the brook,鈥 in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.

Scroll To Top