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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 10, 2021 | 讘壮 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 34

In the times of the Temple they would surround the altar with aravot, willow branches. There is a debate whether this is derived from a verse or from a halacha l鈥橫oshe m鈥橲inai. From where do we derive that a tzaftzafa cannot be used as a willow branch for the four minim. How can one tell the difference between an arava and a tzaftzafa? The rabbis list a number of words whose use changed after the destruction of the temple and they also explain what are the halakhic ramifications of those changes. One of the groups of words listed there are the arava and the chalfata (which is tzaftzafa) 鈥 what was once called chalfata became arava and what was once called arava is now chalfata. How much of each of the four species need to be taken? And how many of the hadasim need to be not cut off? There are several opinions in the mishna for both those questions and then gemara tries to explain the different opinions. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that we hold like Rabbi Tarfon that all three hadasim branches can be cut off. The gemara tries to prove this by bringing a story that Shmuel told the hadas sellers that if they didn鈥檛 drop the prices, he would publicly teach that the halakha is like Rabbi Tarfon. The gemara, however, rejects this proof. The mishna lists all the disqualifications of an etrog.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 注专讘讬 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诇诇讜诇讘 讜讗讞转 诇诪拽讚砖

Abba Shaul says: 鈥淲illows鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 诇诪拽讚砖 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

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 Yo岣nan 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鈥檃, 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讛讙讚讬诇讜转 注诇 讛谞讞诇 驻专讟 诇爪驻爪驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讛讛专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 爪驻爪驻讛 砖诪讜

The Sages taught an additional baraita: 鈥淲illows of the brook鈥 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: 鈥淗e 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 爪驻爪驻讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 砖诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 砖讬讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 讻拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注专讘讛 讜讛谉 砖诪讜 注爪诪谉 讻爪驻爪驻讛 砖讘讛专讬诐

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 鈥渟et it鈥? 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讗诪转谞讬转讗 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 爪驻爪驻讛 砖诪讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 爪驻爪驻讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 砖诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 砖讬讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 讻拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注专讘讛 讜讛谉 砖诪讜 注爪诪谉 讻爪驻爪驻讛 砖讘讛专讬诐

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 鈥渟et it鈥? 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讝讛讜 注专讘讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 爪驻爪驻讛 注专讘讛 拽谞讛 砖诇讛 讗讚讜诐 讜注诇讛 砖诇讛 诪砖讜讱 讜驻讬讛 讞诇拽 爪驻爪驻讛 拽谞讛 砖诇讛 诇讘谉 讜注诇讛 砖诇讛 注讙讜诇 讜驻讬讛 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 讻砖专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪住专 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讞讬诇驻讗 讙讬诇讗

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鈥檛 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 岣lfa gila, whose leaves are serrated. However, all other types of willow branches have leaves with a smooth edge.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 讞讬诇驻讗 讙讬诇讗 讻砖专 诇讛讜砖注谞讗 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 谞转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Abaye said: Conclude from it that this 岣lfa 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 岣lfa gila, it should not be unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淲illows of the brook,鈥 in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 讗砖转谞讬 砖诪讬讬讛讜 诪讻讬 讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞诇驻转讗 注专讘转讗 注专讘转讗 讞诇驻转讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诇讜诇讘

Apropos the branches of the willow and the tzaftzafa, the Gemara cites what Rav 岣sda said: These three objects鈥 names changed since the Temple was destroyed. That which was called willow was called in later generations 岣lfata, which is another name for tzaftzafa, and that which was called 岣lfata 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.

砖讬驻讜专讗 讞爪讜爪专转讗 讞爪讜爪专转讗 砖讬驻讜专讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讜驻专 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛

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.

驻转讜专转讗 驻转讜专讗 驻转讜专讗 驻转讜专转讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬 讻住讬 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 讘讬 讻住讬

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鈥檚 stomach. Similarly, that which was once called bei kasei is called huvlila in recent generations.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讞讟 讛谞诪爪讗 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘诇 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讘诇 诇诪讗讬

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

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area of women鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讛讚住讬诐 讜砖转讬 注专讘讜转 诇讜诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讗转专讜讙 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 拽讟讜诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇砖转谉 拽讟讜诪讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诇讜诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讗转专讜讙 讗讞讚 讻讱 讛讚住 讗讞讚 讜注专讘讛 讗讞转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻专讬 注抓 讛讚专 讗讞讚 讻驻转 转诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 砖转讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 拽讟讜诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇砖转谉 拽讟讜诪讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诇讜诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讗转专讜讙 讗讞讚 讻讱 讛讚住 讗讞讚 讜注专讘讛 讗讞转

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: 鈥淭he fruit of a beautiful tree鈥 (Leviticus 23:40); that is one etrog. 鈥淏ranches of a date palm鈥; 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. 鈥淏oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥; these are three, as the verse is referring to a branch with several stems. 鈥淲illows of the brook鈥; 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗转专讜讙 注诪讛谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 驻专讬 注抓 讛讚专 讜讻驻转 转诪专讬诐 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻驻转 讜诪谞讬谉 砖诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇拽讞转诐 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 转诪讛

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鈥檛 it say only 鈥渂ranches of a date palm,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd you shall take [ulka岣em],鈥 from which it is derived based on the etymological similarity that it shall be a complete taking [leki岣 tamma] consisting of all the species.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 砖诇讬诪讬谉 讘注讬 诇讬讘注讬 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 砖诇讬诪讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讬专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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鈥檃 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讛谞讛讜 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讗住讗 讗砖讜讜 讜讝讘讬谞讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚专讬砖谞讗 诇讻讜 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬拽诇 讜诇讬讚专讜砖 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪讬拽诇 讟驻讬 转诇转讗 拽讟讜诪讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讞讚 讜诇讗 拽讟讜诐 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

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鈥檚 ruling is the more lenient.

诪转谞讬壮 讗转专讜讙 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 砖诇 注专诇讛 驻住讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专

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鈥檃retz, 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.

注诇转讛 讞讝讝讬转 注诇 专讜讘讜 谞讟诇讛 驻讟诪转讜 谞拽诇祝 谞住讚拽 谞讬拽讘 讜讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 注诇转讛 讞讝讝讬转 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 谞讟诇 注讜拽爪讜 谞讬拽讘 讜诇讗 讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 讗转专讜讙 讛讻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬专讜拽 讻讻专转讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 砖讬注讜专 讗转专讜讙 讛拽讟谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讗讙讜讝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬爪讛 讜讘讙讚讜诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讝 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜

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.

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 35 – 41 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 4th species, the Etrog and what makes it valid or invalid. We will...
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 34: A Rose by Any Other Name…

And now the willow - if it's dry, it is not kosher for the 4 minim, in the same formulation...

Sukkah 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 34

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 注专讘讬 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诇诇讜诇讘 讜讗讞转 诇诪拽讚砖

Abba Shaul says: 鈥淲illows鈥 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.

讜专讘谞谉 诇诪拽讚砖 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

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 Yo岣nan 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鈥檃, 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讛讙讚讬诇讜转 注诇 讛谞讞诇 驻专讟 诇爪驻爪驻讛 讛讙讚讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讛讛专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪讗讬 拽专讗讛 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 爪驻爪驻讛 砖诪讜

The Sages taught an additional baraita: 鈥淲illows of the brook鈥 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: 鈥淗e 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 爪驻爪驻讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 砖诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 砖讬讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 讻拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注专讘讛 讜讛谉 砖诪讜 注爪诪谉 讻爪驻爪驻讛 砖讘讛专讬诐

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 鈥渟et it鈥? 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗讬 拽专讗 讗诪转谞讬转讗 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 爪驻爪驻讛 砖诪讜 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讚讬诇诪讗 驻专讜砖讬 拽讗 诪驻专砖 拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 爪驻爪驻讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讗讬 砖诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 砖讬讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 诇驻谞讬 讻拽讞 注诇 诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 注专讘讛 讜讛谉 砖诪讜 注爪诪谉 讻爪驻爪驻讛 砖讘讛专讬诐

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 鈥渟et it鈥? 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬 讝讛讜 注专讘讛 讜讗讬讝讛讜 爪驻爪驻讛 注专讘讛 拽谞讛 砖诇讛 讗讚讜诐 讜注诇讛 砖诇讛 诪砖讜讱 讜驻讬讛 讞诇拽 爪驻爪驻讛 拽谞讛 砖诇讛 诇讘谉 讜注诇讛 砖诇讛 注讙讜诇 讜驻讬讛 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讙诇 讻砖专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪住专 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讞讬诇驻讗 讙讬诇讗

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鈥檛 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 岣lfa gila, whose leaves are serrated. However, all other types of willow branches have leaves with a smooth edge.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗讬 讞讬诇驻讗 讙讬诇讗 讻砖专 诇讛讜砖注谞讗 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 谞转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Abaye said: Conclude from it that this 岣lfa 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 岣lfa gila, it should not be unfit. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that it is fit.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淲illows of the brook,鈥 in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讬 转诇转 诪讬诇讬 讗砖转谞讬 砖诪讬讬讛讜 诪讻讬 讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讞诇驻转讗 注专讘转讗 注专讘转讗 讞诇驻转讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诇讜诇讘

Apropos the branches of the willow and the tzaftzafa, the Gemara cites what Rav 岣sda said: These three objects鈥 names changed since the Temple was destroyed. That which was called willow was called in later generations 岣lfata, which is another name for tzaftzafa, and that which was called 岣lfata 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.

砖讬驻讜专讗 讞爪讜爪专转讗 讞爪讜爪专转讗 砖讬驻讜专讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇砖讜驻专 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛

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.

驻转讜专转讗 驻转讜专讗 驻转讜专讗 驻转讜专转讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讬 讻住讬 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 讛讜讘诇讬诇讗 讘讬 讻住讬

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鈥檚 stomach. Similarly, that which was once called bei kasei is called huvlila in recent generations.

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪讞讟 讛谞诪爪讗 讘注讜讘讬 讘讬转 讛讻讜住讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讘讘诇 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讜专住讬祝 讘讘诇 诇诪讗讬

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

谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讟讬 谞砖讬诐

the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area of women鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讛讚住讬诐 讜砖转讬 注专讘讜转 诇讜诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讗转专讜讙 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 拽讟讜诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇砖转谉 拽讟讜诪讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诇讜诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讗转专讜讙 讗讞讚 讻讱 讛讚住 讗讞讚 讜注专讘讛 讗讞转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻专讬 注抓 讛讚专 讗讞讚 讻驻转 转诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 注谞祝 注抓 注讘讜转 砖诇砖讛 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 砖转讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 拽讟讜诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讟讜诐 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇砖转谉 拽讟讜诪讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖诇讜诇讘 讗讞讚 讜讗转专讜讙 讗讞讚 讻讱 讛讚住 讗讞讚 讜注专讘讛 讗讞转

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: 鈥淭he fruit of a beautiful tree鈥 (Leviticus 23:40); that is one etrog. 鈥淏ranches of a date palm鈥; 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. 鈥淏oughs of a dense-leaved tree鈥; these are three, as the verse is referring to a branch with several stems. 鈥淲illows of the brook鈥; 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讗转专讜讙 注诪讛谉 讘讗讙讜讚讛 讗讞转 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 驻专讬 注抓 讛讚专 讜讻驻转 转诪专讬诐 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻驻转 讜诪谞讬谉 砖诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇拽讞转诐 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 转诪讛

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鈥檛 it say only 鈥渂ranches of a date palm,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd you shall take [ulka岣em],鈥 from which it is derived based on the etymological similarity that it shall be a complete taking [leki岣 tamma] consisting of all the species.

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 砖诇讬诪讬谉 讘注讬 诇讬讘注讬 谞诪讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 砖诇讬诪讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讘讬专讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讞讝专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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鈥檃 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讗讝讚讗 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讛谞讛讜 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讗住讗 讗砖讜讜 讜讝讘讬谞讜 讜讗讬 诇讗 讚专讬砖谞讗 诇讻讜 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬拽诇 讜诇讬讚专讜砖 诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诪讬拽诇 讟驻讬 转诇转讗 拽讟讜诪讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讞讚 讜诇讗 拽讟讜诐 诇讗 砖讻讬讞

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鈥檚 ruling is the more lenient.

诪转谞讬壮 讗转专讜讙 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 砖诇 注专诇讛 驻住讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜住诇讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖诇 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇讗 讬讟讜诇 讜讗诐 谞讟诇 讻砖专

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鈥檃retz, 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.

注诇转讛 讞讝讝讬转 注诇 专讜讘讜 谞讟诇讛 驻讟诪转讜 谞拽诇祝 谞住讚拽 谞讬拽讘 讜讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻住讜诇 注诇转讛 讞讝讝讬转 注诇 诪讬注讜讟讜 谞讟诇 注讜拽爪讜 谞讬拽讘 讜诇讗 讞住专 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻砖专 讗转专讜讙 讛讻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇 讜讛讬专讜拽 讻讻专转讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讻砖讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 砖讬注讜专 讗转专讜讙 讛拽讟谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讗讙讜讝 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬爪讛 讜讘讙讚讜诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讝 砖谞讬诐 讘讬讚讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜

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.

Scroll To Top