Sukkah 34

אבא שאול אומר ערבי שתים אחת ללולב ואחת למקדש

Abba Shaul says: “Willows” in the plural teaches that there are two mitzvot that involve use of the willow branch. One is the willow branch for the lulav, and one is the willow branch taken for the Temple, with which the people would circle the altar on Sukkot.

ורבנן למקדש מנא להו הלכתא גמירי להו דאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן עשר נטיעות ערבה וניסוך המים הלכה למשה מסיני

And the Rabbis, who do not interpret the verse that way, from where do they derive the mitzva of the willow branch for the Temple? It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that they learned through tradition and not from a verse, as Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There are three halakhot for which the Sages unsuccessfully sought a Torah source. The first is the halakha of ten saplings. There is a mitzva by Torah law to extend the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and to begin refraining from plowing thirty days before the Sabbatical Year begins. However, one may plow around individual saplings to sustain them. In a field that is one beit se’a, fifty by fifty cubits, in which there are ten evenly spaced saplings, it is permitted to plow the entire field until the onset of the Sabbatical Year to sustain the saplings. The second halakha is the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple. And the third halakha is the mitzva of the water libation on the altar, which accompanies the daily offerings each day of Sukkot, together with the daily wine libation. No Torah source was found for these halakhot, as each is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.

תנו רבנן ערבי נחל הגדילות על הנחל פרט לצפצפה הגדילה בין ההרים אמר רבי זירא מאי קראה קח על מים רבים צפצפה שמו

The Sages taught an additional baraita: “Willows of the brook” is referring to those that grow by the river, which comes to exclude a tzaftzafa, which grows among the mountains and not near a brook. Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse from which the fact that the tzaftzafa is unfit is derived? It is derived from the reprimand that is written: “He placed it by great waters, and set it as a tzaftzafa” (Ezekiel 17:5). The Jewish people were planted like a willow on great waters, but ultimately became like a tzaftzafa. Apparently, a tzaftzafa does not grow on great waters.

אמר ליה אביי ודילמא פרושי קא מפרש קח על מים רבים ומאי ניהו צפצפה אם כן מאי שמו אמר רבי אבהו אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אני אמרתי שיהו ישראל לפני כקח על מים רבים ומאי ניהו ערבה והן שמו עצמן כצפצפה שבהרים

Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: And perhaps the second part of the verse is merely explaining the first part, and it means: He placed it by great waters, and what is it that He placed there? It is a tzaftzafa. Rabbi Zeira answered: If so, and that is the meaning of the verse, what is the meaning of the term “set it”? Rather, the verse means that the willow branch was transformed into a tzaftzafa. That is how Rabbi Abbahu explained the verse, as Rabbi Abbahu said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that the Jewish people should be before Me as a plant placed by great waters, and what is that plant? It is a willow. And they set themselves as a tzaftzafa of the mountains.

איכא דמתני לה להאי קרא אמתניתא קח על מים רבים צפצפה שמו מתקיף לה רבי זירא ודילמא פרושי קא מפרש קח על מים רבים מאי ניהו צפצפה אם כן מאי שמו אמר רבי אבהו אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אני אמרתי שיהו ישראל לפני כקח על מים רבים ומאי ניהו ערבה והן שמו עצמן כצפצפה שבהרים

Some taught this verse as the conclusion of the baraita and Rabbi Zeira raised the objection, and the response to his objection is unattributed: He placed it by great waters, and set it as a tzaftzafa. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects: And perhaps the second part of the verse is merely explaining the first part, and it means: He placed it by great waters, and what is it that He placed there? It is a tzaftzafa. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, and that is the meaning of the verse, what is the meaning of the term “set it”? Rabbi Abbahu said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that the Jewish people should be before Me as a plant placed by great waters, and what is that plant? It is a willow. And they set themselves as a tzaftzafa of the mountains.

תנו רבנן אי זהו ערבה ואיזהו צפצפה ערבה קנה שלה אדום ועלה שלה משוך ופיה חלק צפצפה קנה שלה לבן ועלה שלה עגול ופיה דומה למגל והא תניא דומה למגל כשר דומה למסר פסול אמר אביי כי תניא ההיא בחילפא גילא

Apropos the defining characteristics of the willow branch, in contrast to similar species that are unfit, the Sages taught: What is a willow and what is a tzaftzafa? With regard to a willow branch, its stem is red, and its leaf is elongated, and the edge of its leaf is smooth. With regard to a tzaftzafa, its stem is white, its leaf is round, and the edge of its leaf is serrated like a sickle. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If the edge of its leaf is serrated like a sickle it is fit, but if it is serrated like a saw, whose teeth are uneven in both size and sequence, it is unfit? Abaye said: When that baraita was taught, it was referring to a particular type of willow called ḥilfa gila, whose leaves are serrated. However, all other types of willow branches have leaves with a smooth edge.

אמר אביי שמע מינה האי חילפא גילא כשר להושענא פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואית ליה שם לווי לא נתכשר קא משמע לן

Abaye said: Conclude from it that this ḥilfa gila is fit for use in the hoshana of the four species. The Gemara wonders: That is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since its name is accompanied by a modifier, as it is called ḥilfa gila, it should not be unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit.

ואימא הכי נמי ערבי נחל אמר רחמנא מכל מקום

The Gemara asks: And say it is indeed so, that since its name is accompanied by a modifier it is unfit. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One states: “Willows of the brook,” in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.

אמר רב חסדא הני תלת מילי אשתני שמייהו מכי חרב בית המקדש חלפתא ערבתא ערבתא חלפתא מאי נפקא מינה ללולב

Apropos the branches of the willow and the tzaftzafa, the Gemara cites what Rav Ḥisda said: These three objects’ names changed since the Temple was destroyed. That which was called willow was called in later generations ḥalfata, which is another name for tzaftzafa, and that which was called ḥalfata was called willow. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the name change? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the mitzva of taking the lulav, as one of the species bound with the lulav is a willow branch, which is now called tzaftzafa.

שיפורא חצוצרתא חצוצרתא שיפורא מאי נפקא מינה לשופר של ראש השנה

In addition, that which was called trumpet was called shofar in later generations, and that which was called shofar was called trumpet in later generations. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference whether a shofar is called shofar or trumpet? The Gemara answers: It is significant with regard to the halakhot of shofar of Rosh HaShana. On Rosh HaShana, one fulfills his obligation only by sounding a shofar. If one comes today and asks what instrument he should use to sound the requisite blasts, he should be told to use a trumpet.

פתורתא פתורא פתורא פתורתא למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר

Also, that which was originally called petora was called in later generations by the name previously used for a small table, petorata, and a petorata was called petora. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from the change of name? The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the halakhot of buying and selling. One who orders a petora should know that he ordered a small table and not a large one.

אמר אביי אף אני אומר בי כסי הובלילא הובלילא בי כסי

Abaye said: I too shall speak of changes in the meaning of terms in this generation. That which was called huvlila, the first compartment of the stomach of animals that chew their cud, is, in recent generations, called bei kasei, the name of the second compartment of the animal’s stomach. Similarly, that which was once called bei kasei is called huvlila in recent generations.

למאי נפקא מינה למחט הנמצא בעובי בית הכוסות

What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is with regard to a needle that is found in the thick wall of the second compartment of the stomach. In the halakhot of tereifot, it is prohibited to eat animals with a life expectancy of less than a year. It was established that if a needle punctures the wall of the second compartment of the stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the needle penetrates the wall in a manner visible from both sides, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. In the first stomach, even if the needle penetrated only one side of the wall, the animal assumes the halakhic status of a tereifa. Therefore, it is crucial to distinguish between the first and the second compartments of the stomach.

אמר רבא בר יוסף אף אני אומר בבל בורסיף בורסיף בבל למאי

Rava bar Yosef said: I too shall speak of changes in the meaning of terms in this generation. The city that in biblical times was called Babylon was called Bursif in later generations, and Bursif was called Babylon in later generations. The Gemara asks: What is

נפקא מינה לגיטי נשים

the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area of women’s bills of divorce. With regard to bills of divorce, special care is devoted to ensuring that the name of the place where the bill is written is not altered. Therefore, it is important to be aware that Babylon underwent a name change in later generations.

מתני׳ רבי ישמעאל אומר שלשה הדסים ושתי ערבות לולב אחד ואתרוג אחד אפילו שנים קטומים ואחד אינו קטום רבי טרפון אומר אפילו שלשתן קטומים רבי עקיבא אומר כשם שלולב אחד ואתרוג אחד כך הדס אחד וערבה אחת

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: The mitzva of the four species is to take three myrtle branches, and two willow branches, one lulav, and one etrog. With regard to the myrtle branches, even if the tops of two are severed and the top of one is not severed, it is fit. Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if the tops of all three are severed, it is fit. Rabbi Akiva says with regard to the number of each of the species: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too there is one myrtle branch and one willow branch.

גמ׳ תניא רבי ישמעאל אומר פרי עץ הדר אחד כפת תמרים אחד ענף עץ עבות שלשה ערבי נחל שתים ואפילו שנים קטומים ואחד שאינו קטום רבי טרפון אומר שלשה ואפילו שלשתן קטומים רבי עקיבא אומר כשם שלולב אחד ואתרוג אחד כך הדס אחד וערבה אחת

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: “The fruit of a beautiful tree” (Leviticus 23:40); that is one etrog. “Branches of a date palm”; that is one lulav. Based on tradition, kappot is written without the letter vav. Although the word is vocalized in the plural, the lack of the vav indicates that only one is required. “Boughs of a dense-leaved tree”; these are three, as the verse is referring to a branch with several stems. “Willows of the brook”; these are two, as it is plural. Even if the tops of two are severed and the top of one is not severed, it is fit. Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if the tops of all three are severed, it is fit. Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too, there is one myrtle branch and one willow branch.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר יכול יהא אתרוג עמהן באגודה אחת אמרת וכי נאמר פרי עץ הדר וכפת תמרים והלא לא נאמר אלא כפת ומנין שמעכבין זה את זה תלמוד לומר ולקחתם שתהא לקיחה תמה

Rabbi Eliezer said to him that the species cannot be equated. I might have thought that the etrog should be bound with the other species in one bundle. However, you could say in response: Does it say: The fruit of a beautiful tree and branches of a date palm, with the conjunction joining them? Doesn’t it say only “branches of a date palm,” without a conjunction? That indicates that the etrog is taken separately from the other three species, which are joined in the verse by conjunctions: Branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, are taken together. And from where is it derived that failure to take each of the species prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The verse states: “And you shall take [ulkaḥtem],” from which it is derived based on the etymological similarity that it shall be a complete taking [lekiḥa tamma] consisting of all the species.

ורבי ישמעאל מה נפשך אי שלימין בעי ליבעי נמי כולהו אי לא בעי שלימין אפילו חד נמי לא אמר ביראה אמר רבי אמי חזר בו רבי ישמעאל

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who deems the lulav fit even if the tops of two of the myrtle branches were severed, whichever way you look at it, his statement is problematic. If he requires whole myrtle branches, and those whose tops are severed do not fill the criterion of beauty, let him require all of them to be whole. And if he does not require whole myrtle branches, even one branch should not be required to be whole either, as Rabbi Tarfon said. The Sage Bira’a said that Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Yishmael retracted his statement. He concedes that, fundamentally, only one myrtle branch is required, and that branch must be whole.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי טרפון ואזדא שמואל לטעמיה דאמר להו שמואל להנהו דמזבני אסא אשוו וזבינו ואי לא דרישנא לכו כרבי טרפון

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. And Shmuel conforms to his line of reasoning, as Shmuel said to those who were selling myrtle branches: Equate the price that you demand for myrtle branches to their value and sell your myrtle branches. And if you do not do so and overcharge, I will teach the halakha in public for you in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who allows the use of myrtle branches whose tops are severed.

מאי טעמא אילימא משום דמיקל ולידרוש להו כרבי עקיבא דמיקל טפי תלתא קטומי שכיחי חד ולא קטום לא שכיח

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel said that to them? If you say it is because Rabbi Tarfon is lenient in his ruling, let him say to them that he will teach the halakha in public for them in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who is even more lenient in his ruling, as he requires only one myrtle branch. The Gemara answers: That is not the case, as three myrtle branches whose tops are severed are common, but one complete myrtle branch whose top is not severed is not common. In practical terms, Rabbi Tarfon’s ruling is the more lenient.

מתני׳ אתרוג הגזול והיבש פסול של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת פסול של ערלה פסול של תרומה טמאה פסול של תרומה טהורה לא יטול ואם נטל כשר של דמאי בית שמאי פוסלין ובית הלל מכשירין של מעשר שני בירושלים לא יטול ואם נטל כשר

MISHNA: An etrog 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. An etrog that is fruit that grew on a tree during the three years after it was planted [orla] is unfit, because it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from it. An etrog of impure teruma is unfit. With regard to an etrog of pure teruma, one may not take it ab initio, and if one took it, it is fit, and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. With regard to an etrog of demai, which is produce acquired from an am ha’aretz, who does not reliably tithe his produce, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. With regard to an etrog of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it ab initio; and if he took it, it is fit.

עלתה חזזית על רובו נטלה פטמתו נקלף נסדק ניקב וחסר כל שהוא פסול עלתה חזזית על מיעוטו נטל עוקצו ניקב ולא חסר כל שהוא כשר אתרוג הכושי פסול והירוק ככרתי רבי מאיר מכשיר ורבי יהודה פוסל שיעור אתרוג הקטן רבי מאיר אומר כאגוז רבי יהודה אומר כביצה ובגדול כדי שיאחז שנים בידו דברי רבי יהודה ורבי יוסי אומר אפילו אחד בשתי ידיו

If boil-like blemishes arose on the majority of the etrog; if its pestle-like protuberance on the upper, blossom end was removed; if the etrog was peeled, split, or pierced and is missing any amount, it is unfit. However, if boil-like blemishes arose only on its minority; if its stem, which connects it to the tree, was removed; or it was pierced but is not missing any amount, it is fit. A Cushite etrog, which is black like a Cushite, is unfit. And with regard to an etrog that is leek green, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit. What is the minimum measure of a small etrog? Rabbi Meir says: It may be no smaller than a walnut-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: It may be no smaller than an egg-bulk. And in a large etrog, the maximum measure is so that one could hold two in his one hand; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: It is fit even if it is so large that he can hold only one in his two hands.