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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 12, 2021 | 讚壮 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 36

Today’s daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in memory of her beloved mum, Marjorie Glick, Miriam Chana bat Menachem Mendel and Rachel on the occasion of her stone setting and shloshim. “May her precious neshama glow brightly in the zechut of our learning together. And by Terri Krivosha for the refuah shleima of her dear friend Elisheva Bat Orah. And by the Hadran zoom group for a refuah shleima for Debbie Gevir, Devora Shulamit bat Yocheved Chana. ‘Team Debbie’鈥檚 tefilot, thoughts, and love are with you. May HaShem grant you a speedy and easy recovery.

Rabba asks if defects that cause an animal to be a treifa would also cause the etrog to be tannaitic source, but without success. What is a Cushi etrog and in which case would it be invalid and in which case would it be valid? The gemara compares a dispute in our mishna regarding the unripe etrog with a dispute regarding tithing an unripe etrog. Will those disqualify it for Sukkot, also say that they are exempt from tithing and vice-versa, or not? The gemara brings two different versions regarding the law that Rav said about an etrog chewed by mice – according to one version, he says it is invalid, and according to the other, he says it is kosher. Both versions compare the case to Rabbi Hanina who ate an etrog and used it for the mitzva. The opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the minimum size of etrog are consistent with their opinions in another controversy regarding the carrying of stones for use in the bathroom on Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one can bind a lulav only with something of the same type. So how did the people of Jerusalem bind their lulav鈥檚 with gold bands? Rava says that according to Rabbi Yehuda, one can also bind the lulav with other parts of the palm tree, such as the fibers or the trunk.

讛讗 讘讻讜诇讛 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转讛

this mishna, where it states that if the etrog was peeled it is unfit, is in a case where all of it was peeled. That statement of Rava that if it was peeled it is fit is in a case where only part of it was peeled.

谞住讚拽 谞讬拽讘 转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 谞讬拽讘 谞拽讘 诪驻讜诇砖 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 讘讻讗讬住专

The mishna continues discussing the halakha of an etrog that was split or pierced. Ulla bar 岣nina taught: An etrog that was pierced with a hole that completely goes through its body is unfit with any size hole. If the hole does not completely go through the etrog, it is unfit only with a hole the size of an issar coin.

讘注讬 专讘讗 谞讜诇讚讜 讘讗转专讜讙 住讬诪谞讬 讟专驻讛 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞拽诇祝 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 谞住讚拽 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 谞讬拽讘 转谞讬谞讗

Rava raised a dilemma: If signs of a tereifa developed in the etrog, what is its halakhic status? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma that he is raising? There are similarities between the halakhot of the etrog in the mishna and some of the halakhot of a tereifa, a bird or animal with a condition that will lead to its death within a year. If it is the case where the etrog was peeled, we already learned that case. If it is the case where the etrog was split, we learned that case as well. And if it is the case where the etrog was pierced, we learned that too. After ruling out those defects, the question remains: With regard to what is Rava鈥檚 dilemma?

讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讬讗讛 砖谞砖驻讻讛 讻拽讬转讜谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讜讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 住讬诪驻讜谞讛讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬 住讬诪驻讜谞讛讗 讟专驻讛 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讛讚专 讘专讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 住专讜讞讬 诪住专讞转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara answers: When he raises the dilemma, it is with regard to a case like that which Ulla said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A lung whose contents can be poured like a pitcher, i.e., whose tissue dissolved to the point of liquefaction, is not a sign of tereifa, and the animal is kosher. And Rava said: And that is the halakha only where the bronchia are intact. However, if the bronchia are not intact, it is a sign of tereifa. The dilemma here is with regard to a comparable situation in an etrog, i.e., an etrog that liquefied from within: What is its halakhic status? Perhaps it is there, in the case of the lung, where the air does not affect it since it is completely enclosed in the body, that the lungs can recover, and that is why it is not a tereifa. However, here, in the case of the etrog, where the air affects it, it inevitably decays and spoils and therefore it is a tereifa. Or, perhaps the case of the etrog is no different.

转讗 砖诪注 讗转专讜讙 转驻讜讞 住专讜讞 讻讘讜砖 砖诇讜拽 讻讜砖讬 诇讘谉 讜诪谞讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讗转专讜讙 讻讻讚讜专 驻住讜诇 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛转讬讜诐 讗转专讜讙 讛讘讜住专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讙讚诇讜 讘讚驻讜住 讜注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 驻住讜诇

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on that which was taught in a baraita. An etrog that is tafua岣, sarua岣, pickled, boiled, a black Cushite etrog, a white etrog, or a speckled etrog is unfit. An etrog shaped like a ball is unfit, and some say even a twin, conjoined, etrog is unfit. With regard to an etrog that is unripe, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If he grew the etrog in a mold and shaped it to appear like a different entity, and it is no longer shaped like an etrog, it is unfit.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 转驻讜讞 住专讜讞 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转驻讜讞 诪讘讞讜抓 讜住专讜讞 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讘讞讜抓 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚转驻讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 住专讞 讛讗 讚住专讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 转驻讞

In any event, it teaches that an etrog that is tafua岣 or sarua岣 is unfit. What, is it not that tafua岣 means that it decayed on the outside and sarua岣 means that it decayed on the inside? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, both this and that are referring to decay on the outside. And this apparent redundancy is not difficult, as this case, tafua岣, is where it swelled even though it did not decay, and that case, sarua岣, is where it decayed even though it did not swell.

讗诪专 诪专 讗转专讜讙 讻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜砖讬 讻砖专 讚讜诪讛 诇讻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讜诪讛 诇讻讜砖讬 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Master said in the baraita cited above: A Cushite etrog is unfit. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A Cushite etrog is fit, but an etrog that is similar to a Cushite etrog is unfit. Abaye said: When we learned this halakha in the mishna that it is unfit, too, we learned it not in reference to an actual Cushite etrog, but rather in reference to one that is similar to a Cushite etrog. Rava said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a Cushite etrog, and nevertheless, it is not difficult; this, the halakha that it is unfit, is for us in Babylonia because our etrogim are typically light, and the dark Cushite etrogim are conspicuously different. And that, the halakha that it is fit, is for them in Eretz Yisrael, whose etrogim are typically dark. In Eretz Yisrael the dark Cushite etrog is not conspicuously different, and it is therefore fit.

讗转专讜讙 讛讘讜住专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 (讚转谞讬讗) 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讗转专讜讙讬诐 讘拽讜讟谞谉

It was also taught in the baraita: With regard to an unripe etrog, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Rabba said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon said one and the same statement. The Gemara elaborates: The statement of Rabbi Akiva is that which we said; an unripe etrog is unfit. Rabbi Shimon, what is his statement? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts etrogim from the requirement to be tithed while in their small state. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon, too, holds that an unripe etrog is not a fruit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讻讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讛讚专 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Abaye said to Rabba: Perhaps that is not the case and they do not share the same opinion. Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion only here, with regard to an unripe etrog, as we require beauty [hadar] in an etrog and there is none in the case of an unripe etrog due to its color or small size; however, there, with regard to tithes, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is obligated to tithe even a half-ripe etrog.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 注砖专 转注砖专 讗转 讻诇 转讘讜讗转 讝专注讱 讻讚专讱 砖讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讝专讬注讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion only there with regard to the exemption of an unripe etrog from tithes, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall surely tithe all the produce of your planting, which is brought forth in the field year by year鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:22). From that verse it is derived that the obligation to tithe applies only to produce that has developed to the point where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing; one is not obligated to tithe unripe fruit that is not suitable for planting. However, perhaps here he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and would deem an unripe etrog fit.

讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara notes: And there is nothing more to discuss here. Clearly, the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon do not necessarily coincide.

讙讚诇讜 讘讚驻讜住 讜注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 讗讘诇 讻讘专讬讬转讜 讻砖专 驻砖讬讟讗 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 (转谞谉) 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 讚驻讬 讚驻讬

The baraita continues: If he grew the etrog in a mold and shaped it to appear like a different species, it is unfit. Rava said: The Sages taught that it is unfit only if he shaped it to appear like a different species; however, if he shaped the etrog so it still appears like its own species, it is fit. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; the phrase: Like a different species, is explicitly taught in the baraita. If it shaped like its own species, it is fit. The Gemara answers: No, Rava鈥檚 statement is necessary to deem fit an etrog that is shaped into the shape of many planks, i.e., pieces of wood attached to each other. Although its shape is not precisely that of a regular etrog, it sufficiently resembles a regular etrog and is fit.

讗讬转诪专 讗转专讜讙 砖谞拽讘讜讛讜 注讻讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讝讛 讛讚专 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讟讘讬诇 讘讛 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讛 讜诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to an etrog that mice pierced. Rav said: That is not beautiful. Is that so? But wouldn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina dip his etrog, eat part of it, and fulfill his obligation with what remained of it? The Gemara asks: And for Rabbi 岣nina, the mishna is difficult, as it states that an incomplete etrog is unfit.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 注讻讘专讬诐 讚诪讗讬住讬

The Gemara explains: Granted, for Rabbi 岣nina, the mishna is not difficult, as it can be explained that here, when the mishna prohibits one from using an incomplete etrog, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, when a complete taking of the species is required; and there, when Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 conduct leads to the conclusion that an incomplete etrog is fit, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the second day of the Festival or thereafter. However, according to Rav, who said an etrog that was pierced by mice is unfit, Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 conduct is difficult, as the requirement of beauty applies on all seven days. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as Rav could have said to you: Mice are different, as they are repulsive. When mice pierce an etrog, what remains is antithetical to beauty. When a person bites an etrog, what remains can still be considered beautiful.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讛 讛讚专 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讟讘讬诇 讘讛 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讛 讜诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬

Some say this exchange differently. Rav said with regard to an etrog that mice pierced: That is beautiful, as Rabbi 岣nina would dip his etrog, eat part of it, and fulfill his obligation with what remained of it, indicating that an incomplete etrog is fit. The Gemara asks: And for Rabbi 岣nina, the mishna is difficult, as it states that an incomplete etrog is unfit. The Gemara answers: The mishna is not difficult; here, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the first day of the festival of Sukkot; there, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the second day of the Festival or thereafter.

讗转专讜讙 拽讟谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讻讗谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 讚转谞讬讗 讘砖讘转 砖诇砖 讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 诪讜转专 诇讛讻谞讬住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专谉 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

A dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is cited in a mishna with regard to the minimum measure of a small etrog. Rafram bar Pappa said: Like the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to the matter of rounded stones, as it was taught in a baraita: On Shabbat three rounded stones may be taken into the bathroom in order to clean oneself with them. Although generally one may not move stones on Shabbat because they are set aside from use, the Sages permitted doing so in the interest of human dignity. However, they disagreed, with regard to the size of these stones. And what is their measure? Rabbi Meir says: A walnut-bulk; Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk. Clearly the rationales for these disputes are different; however, since the respective measures are identical, the analogy can serve as a mnemonic.

讜讘讙讚讜诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讝 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讘讗 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讗转专讜讙讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗祝 讛诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 讛讚专

The mishna continues: 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. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who came to the synagogue, and his etrog was so large that he carried it on his shoulder. Apparently, one can fulfill his obligation with a large etrog. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is there proof from there? In that case, too, the Sages said to him: That is not beauty.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讗诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜讟 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 讘讙讬诪讜谞讬讜转 砖诇 讝讛讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘诪讬谞讜 讛讬讜 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诇诪讟讛

MISHNA: One may bind the lulav only with its own species; i.e., one of the four species taken with the lulav. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may do so even with a string or with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the men of Jerusalem who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: They would bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讬讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽住讘专 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诪讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬

GEMARA: Rava said: One may bind the lulav even with fibers that grow around the trunk of the date palm, and even with a piece of the trunk of the date palm. And Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? He holds that a lulav requires binding, and if one brings another species to bind the lulav, there will be five species and he will violate the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚住讬讘 讜注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬谞讗 讚诇讜诇讘讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 住讜讻讛 砖诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 住讜讻讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讜诪讛 诇讜诇讘 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 住讜讻讛 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉

And Rava further said: From where do I say this halakha that fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the lulav? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), which means a sukka of any material, as the Torah was not particular about the material to be used for the roofing; any species may be used as long as it grew from the ground and it is not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The mitzva of sukka is practiced only with the four species of the lulav as roofing. And, he claims, logic dictates that it is so, as it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as the mitzva of lulav, which is not practiced at night as it is during the day, is practiced only with the four species, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, which is practiced at night as it is during the day, is it not right that its roofing should be only from the four species?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻诇 讚讬谉 砖讗转讛 讚谉 转讞诇转讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜住讜驻讜 诇讛拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉

The Rabbis said to him: That is not an a fortiori inference, as any a fortiori inference that you infer initially to be stringent, but ultimately it is to be lenient, is not a legitimate a fortiori inference. If ultimately the stringency leads to a leniency, the entire basis of the inference is undermined.

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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...
talking talmud_square

Sukkah 36: Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder?

The many different ways that an etrog can be invalidated for use for the mitzvah of the 4 minim -...

Sukkah 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 36

讛讗 讘讻讜诇讛 讛讗 讘诪拽爪转讛

this mishna, where it states that if the etrog was peeled it is unfit, is in a case where all of it was peeled. That statement of Rava that if it was peeled it is fit is in a case where only part of it was peeled.

谞住讚拽 谞讬拽讘 转谞讬 注讜诇讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 谞讬拽讘 谞拽讘 诪驻讜诇砖 讘诪砖讛讜 讜砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻讜诇砖 讘讻讗讬住专

The mishna continues discussing the halakha of an etrog that was split or pierced. Ulla bar 岣nina taught: An etrog that was pierced with a hole that completely goes through its body is unfit with any size hole. If the hole does not completely go through the etrog, it is unfit only with a hole the size of an issar coin.

讘注讬 专讘讗 谞讜诇讚讜 讘讗转专讜讙 住讬诪谞讬 讟专驻讛 诪讛讜 诪讗讬 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞拽诇祝 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 谞住讚拽 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬 谞讬拽讘 转谞讬谞讗

Rava raised a dilemma: If signs of a tereifa developed in the etrog, what is its halakhic status? The Gemara clarifies: What is the dilemma that he is raising? There are similarities between the halakhot of the etrog in the mishna and some of the halakhot of a tereifa, a bird or animal with a condition that will lead to its death within a year. If it is the case where the etrog was peeled, we already learned that case. If it is the case where the etrog was split, we learned that case as well. And if it is the case where the etrog was pierced, we learned that too. After ruling out those defects, the question remains: With regard to what is Rava鈥檚 dilemma?

讻讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讬讗讛 砖谞砖驻讻讛 讻拽讬转讜谉 讻砖专讛 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讛讜讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 住讬诪驻讜谞讛讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬 住讬诪驻讜谞讛讗 讟专驻讛 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 讛讚专 讘专讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚砖诇讬讟 讘讛 讗讜讬专讗 住专讜讞讬 诪住专讞转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

The Gemara answers: When he raises the dilemma, it is with regard to a case like that which Ulla said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: A lung whose contents can be poured like a pitcher, i.e., whose tissue dissolved to the point of liquefaction, is not a sign of tereifa, and the animal is kosher. And Rava said: And that is the halakha only where the bronchia are intact. However, if the bronchia are not intact, it is a sign of tereifa. The dilemma here is with regard to a comparable situation in an etrog, i.e., an etrog that liquefied from within: What is its halakhic status? Perhaps it is there, in the case of the lung, where the air does not affect it since it is completely enclosed in the body, that the lungs can recover, and that is why it is not a tereifa. However, here, in the case of the etrog, where the air affects it, it inevitably decays and spoils and therefore it is a tereifa. Or, perhaps the case of the etrog is no different.

转讗 砖诪注 讗转专讜讙 转驻讜讞 住专讜讞 讻讘讜砖 砖诇讜拽 讻讜砖讬 诇讘谉 讜诪谞讜诪专 驻住讜诇 讗转专讜讙 讻讻讚讜专 驻住讜诇 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛转讬讜诐 讗转专讜讙 讛讘讜住专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讙讚诇讜 讘讚驻讜住 讜注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 驻住讜诇

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on that which was taught in a baraita. An etrog that is tafua岣, sarua岣, pickled, boiled, a black Cushite etrog, a white etrog, or a speckled etrog is unfit. An etrog shaped like a ball is unfit, and some say even a twin, conjoined, etrog is unfit. With regard to an etrog that is unripe, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. If he grew the etrog in a mold and shaped it to appear like a different entity, and it is no longer shaped like an etrog, it is unfit.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 转驻讜讞 住专讜讞 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 转驻讜讞 诪讘讞讜抓 讜住专讜讞 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 诪讘讞讜抓 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚转驻讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 住专讞 讛讗 讚住专讞 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 转驻讞

In any event, it teaches that an etrog that is tafua岣 or sarua岣 is unfit. What, is it not that tafua岣 means that it decayed on the outside and sarua岣 means that it decayed on the inside? The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, both this and that are referring to decay on the outside. And this apparent redundancy is not difficult, as this case, tafua岣, is where it swelled even though it did not decay, and that case, sarua岣, is where it decayed even though it did not swell.

讗诪专 诪专 讗转专讜讙 讻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讜砖讬 讻砖专 讚讜诪讛 诇讻讜砖讬 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 转谞谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讜诪讛 诇讻讜砖讬 转谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇谉 讜讛讗 诇讛讜

The Master said in the baraita cited above: A Cushite etrog is unfit. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a different baraita: A Cushite etrog is fit, but an etrog that is similar to a Cushite etrog is unfit. Abaye said: When we learned this halakha in the mishna that it is unfit, too, we learned it not in reference to an actual Cushite etrog, but rather in reference to one that is similar to a Cushite etrog. Rava said: Actually, the mishna is referring to a Cushite etrog, and nevertheless, it is not difficult; this, the halakha that it is unfit, is for us in Babylonia because our etrogim are typically light, and the dark Cushite etrogim are conspicuously different. And that, the halakha that it is fit, is for them in Eretz Yisrael, whose etrogim are typically dark. In Eretz Yisrael the dark Cushite etrog is not conspicuously different, and it is therefore fit.

讗转专讜讙 讛讘讜住专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 (讚转谞讬讗) 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讗转专讜讙讬诐 讘拽讜讟谞谉

It was also taught in the baraita: With regard to an unripe etrog, Rabbi Akiva deems it unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. Rabba said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon said one and the same statement. The Gemara elaborates: The statement of Rabbi Akiva is that which we said; an unripe etrog is unfit. Rabbi Shimon, what is his statement? It is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon exempts etrogim from the requirement to be tithed while in their small state. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon, too, holds that an unripe etrog is not a fruit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讻讗 讚讘注讬谞谉 讛讚专 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Abaye said to Rabba: Perhaps that is not the case and they do not share the same opinion. Rabbi Akiva stated his opinion only here, with regard to an unripe etrog, as we require beauty [hadar] in an etrog and there is none in the case of an unripe etrog due to its color or small size; however, there, with regard to tithes, perhaps he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that one is obligated to tithe even a half-ripe etrog.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 注砖专 转注砖专 讗转 讻诇 转讘讜讗转 讝专注讱 讻讚专讱 砖讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讝专讬注讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Alternatively, Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion only there with regard to the exemption of an unripe etrog from tithes, as it is written: 鈥淵ou shall surely tithe all the produce of your planting, which is brought forth in the field year by year鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:22). From that verse it is derived that the obligation to tithe applies only to produce that has developed to the point where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing; one is not obligated to tithe unripe fruit that is not suitable for planting. However, perhaps here he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Akiva and would deem an unripe etrog fit.

讜转讜 诇讗 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara notes: And there is nothing more to discuss here. Clearly, the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon do not necessarily coincide.

讙讚诇讜 讘讚驻讜住 讜注砖讗讜 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 讗讘诇 讻讘专讬讬转讜 讻砖专 驻砖讬讟讗 讻诪讬谉 讘专讬讛 讗讞专转 (转谞谉) 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚注讘讬讚讗 讚驻讬 讚驻讬

The baraita continues: If he grew the etrog in a mold and shaped it to appear like a different species, it is unfit. Rava said: The Sages taught that it is unfit only if he shaped it to appear like a different species; however, if he shaped the etrog so it still appears like its own species, it is fit. The Gemara asks: That is obvious; the phrase: Like a different species, is explicitly taught in the baraita. If it shaped like its own species, it is fit. The Gemara answers: No, Rava鈥檚 statement is necessary to deem fit an etrog that is shaped into the shape of many planks, i.e., pieces of wood attached to each other. Although its shape is not precisely that of a regular etrog, it sufficiently resembles a regular etrog and is fit.

讗讬转诪专 讗转专讜讙 砖谞拽讘讜讛讜 注讻讘专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讝讛 讛讚专 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讟讘讬诇 讘讛 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讛 讜诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉

It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to an etrog that mice pierced. Rav said: That is not beautiful. Is that so? But wouldn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣nina dip his etrog, eat part of it, and fulfill his obligation with what remained of it? The Gemara asks: And for Rabbi 岣nina, the mishna is difficult, as it states that an incomplete etrog is unfit.

讘砖诇诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 注讻讘专讬诐 讚诪讗讬住讬

The Gemara explains: Granted, for Rabbi 岣nina, the mishna is not difficult, as it can be explained that here, when the mishna prohibits one from using an incomplete etrog, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, when a complete taking of the species is required; and there, when Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 conduct leads to the conclusion that an incomplete etrog is fit, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the second day of the Festival or thereafter. However, according to Rav, who said an etrog that was pierced by mice is unfit, Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 conduct is difficult, as the requirement of beauty applies on all seven days. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as Rav could have said to you: Mice are different, as they are repulsive. When mice pierce an etrog, what remains is antithetical to beauty. When a person bites an etrog, what remains can still be considered beautiful.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讝讛 讛讚专 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讟讘讬诇 讘讛 讜谞驻讬拽 讘讛 讜诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 讻讗谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖谞讬

Some say this exchange differently. Rav said with regard to an etrog that mice pierced: That is beautiful, as Rabbi 岣nina would dip his etrog, eat part of it, and fulfill his obligation with what remained of it, indicating that an incomplete etrog is fit. The Gemara asks: And for Rabbi 岣nina, the mishna is difficult, as it states that an incomplete etrog is unfit. The Gemara answers: The mishna is not difficult; here, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the first day of the festival of Sukkot; there, it is referring to performing the mitzva on the second day of the Festival or thereafter.

讗转专讜讙 拽讟谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讘专 驻驻讗 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讻讗谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 讚转谞讬讗 讘砖讘转 砖诇砖 讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 诪讜转专 诇讛讻谞讬住 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗 讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专谉 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

A dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is cited in a mishna with regard to the minimum measure of a small etrog. Rafram bar Pappa said: Like the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to the matter of rounded stones, as it was taught in a baraita: On Shabbat three rounded stones may be taken into the bathroom in order to clean oneself with them. Although generally one may not move stones on Shabbat because they are set aside from use, the Sages permitted doing so in the interest of human dignity. However, they disagreed, with regard to the size of these stones. And what is their measure? Rabbi Meir says: A walnut-bulk; Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk. Clearly the rationales for these disputes are different; however, since the respective measures are identical, the analogy can serve as a mnemonic.

讜讘讙讚讜诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讝 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讘讗 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讜讗转专讜讙讜 注诇 讻转驻讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讗祝 讛诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讝讛 讛讚专

The mishna continues: 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. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who came to the synagogue, and his etrog was so large that he carried it on his shoulder. Apparently, one can fulfill his obligation with a large etrog. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is there proof from there? In that case, too, the Sages said to him: That is not beauty.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讗诇讗 讘诪讬谞讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜讟 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 讘讙讬诪讜谞讬讜转 砖诇 讝讛讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘诪讬谞讜 讛讬讜 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诇诪讟讛

MISHNA: One may bind the lulav only with its own species; i.e., one of the four species taken with the lulav. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may do so even with a string or with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the men of Jerusalem who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: They would bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住讬讘 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽住讘专 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 讗讙讚 讜讗讬 诪讬讬转讬 诪讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讞诪砖讛 诪讬谞讬

GEMARA: Rava said: One may bind the lulav even with fibers that grow around the trunk of the date palm, and even with a piece of the trunk of the date palm. And Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? He holds that a lulav requires binding, and if one brings another species to bind the lulav, there will be five species and he will violate the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚住讬讘 讜注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 诪讬谞讗 讚诇讜诇讘讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 住讜讻讛 砖诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 住讜讻讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讜讛讚讬谉 谞讜转谉 讜诪讛 诇讜诇讘 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 住讜讻讛 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘诇讬诇讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗诇讗 讘讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉

And Rava further said: From where do I say this halakha that fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the lulav? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), which means a sukka of any material, as the Torah was not particular about the material to be used for the roofing; any species may be used as long as it grew from the ground and it is not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The mitzva of sukka is practiced only with the four species of the lulav as roofing. And, he claims, logic dictates that it is so, as it is derived by means of an a fortiori inference: Just as the mitzva of lulav, which is not practiced at night as it is during the day, is practiced only with the four species, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, which is practiced at night as it is during the day, is it not right that its roofing should be only from the four species?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讻诇 讚讬谉 砖讗转讛 讚谉 转讞诇转讜 诇讛讞诪讬专 讜住讜驻讜 诇讛拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉

The Rabbis said to him: That is not an a fortiori inference, as any a fortiori inference that you infer initially to be stringent, but ultimately it is to be lenient, is not a legitimate a fortiori inference. If ultimately the stringency leads to a leniency, the entire basis of the inference is undermined.

Scroll To Top