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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 13, 2021 | 讛壮 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 37

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Tali Brown Kozlowski 鈥渋n honor of the first yahrzeit of my grandfather Harvey Brown, Chayim Eli Ben Yehuda Noach who was an avid learner, always found with a sefer in hand, even on the beach. And also in honor of the first yahrzeit of Rabbi David Moss father of Talia Moss and former Executive Director of Ohr Torah Stone. May their Neshamot have an Aliya.”

Does one need to use s’chach from one of the arba minim? From a braita where there is a debate regarding this issue, one can derive that Rabbi Yehuda holds that other parts of the palm tree are considered the same type as lulav for purposes of using it for binding. How? Raba is considered in a number of situations regarding barriers between the person and the four minim as well as between the four minim themselves. In each case Rava disagrees and thinks there is no reason for concern. Can one smell an etrog or hadas used for the mitzva? On Shabbat is one allowed to smell each of them or is there concern they may rip it out of the ground/tree? Why do we take the lulav in the right hand and the etrog in the left? Why do we make the blessing “on taking the lulav” and not the other species? When in Hallel do we shake the lulav? How do we shake and why?

诇讗 诪爪讗 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 讬讛讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 住讜讻讛 砖诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讻谉 讘注讝专讗 讗讜诪专 爪讗讜 讛讛专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 注诇讬 讝讬转 讜注诇讬 注抓 砖诪谉 讜注诇讬 讛讚住 讜注诇讬 转诪专讬诐 讜注诇讬 注抓 注讘讜转 (讜注砖讜) 住讜讻讜转 讻讻转讜讘

According to your reasoning, if one did not find any of the four species to roof his sukka, he will sit idly and fail to fulfill the mitzva of sukka; and the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), meaning a sukka of any material. Likewise, in the book of Ezra, which can refer also to the book of Nehemiah, it says: 鈥淕o forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, to make sukkot, as it is written鈥 (Nehemiah 8:15). Apparently, a sukka may be constructed even with materials other than the four species.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛谞讬 诇讚驻谞讜转 注诇讬 讛讚住 讜注诇讬 转诪专讬诐 讜注诇讬 注抓 注讘讜转 诇住讻讱 讜转谞谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘谞住专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇诪讗 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 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: These olive branches and pine branches mentioned in the verse were for the walls of the sukka, which need not be built from the four species. Myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, i.e., again myrtle, all of which are among the four species, were for the roofing. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one may roof the sukka only with the four species. And we learned in a mishna: One may roof the sukka with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. As boards can be produced from one of the four species only if the trunk of the date palm is considered a lulav, apparently, fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the lulav. The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讻讻讛 讘谞住专讬诐 砖诇 讗专讝 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 谞住专 诇谞住专 讻诪诇讗 谞住专 砖诪谞讬讞 驻住诇 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讻砖讬专讛

The Gemara wonders: And did Rabbi Yehuda say with regard to the materials fit for roofing a sukka that the four species, yes, they are fit, but other materials, no, they are not fit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one roofed the sukka with cedar [erez] boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress between the boards and the sukka is fit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda permits one to roof the sukka with cedar wood, which is not one of the four species.

诪讗讬 讗专讝 讛讚住 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 注砖专讛 诪讬谞讬 讗专讝讬诐 讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗转谉 讘诪讚讘专 讗专讝 砖讬讟讛 讜讛讚住 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara responds: What is the erez to which the mishna refers? It is in fact a myrtle tree, in accordance with that which Rabba bar Rav Huna said, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said that they say in the school of Rav: There are ten types of erez, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will place in the wilderness the cedar [erez], the acacia-tree, the myrtle, and pine tree; I will set in the plain the juniper, the box-tree, and the cypress all together鈥 (Isaiah 41:19). All the trees listed in this verse are types of cedar, and the myrtle is one of them.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讬拽讬专讬 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 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讘诪讬谞讜 讛讬讜 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诇诪讟讛

搂 The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says: One may tie the lulav even with a cord. It is taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the prominent residents of Jerusalem who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there? They would bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讛 诇讛谞讛讜 诪讙讚诇讬 讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讻讬 讙讚诇讬转讜 讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 砖讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讘讬转 讬讚 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛

Rabba said to those who would bind the four species [hoshana] of the house of the Exilarch: When you bind the four species of the house of the Exilarch, leave room for a handgrip on it where there is neither binding nor decoration so that there will not be an interposition between the lulav and the hand of the person taking it.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 诇谞讗讜转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇讬谞拽讬讟 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讜砖注谞讗 讘住讜讚专讗 讚讘注讬谞讗 诇拽讬讞讛 转诪讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛

Rava said: That is unnecessary, as any addition whose purpose is to beautify does not interpose. And Rabba said: Let a person not take the four species with a cloth [sudara] around his hand, since I require a complete taking, and there is none in this case due to the interposition between his hand and the lulav. And Rava said: That is not a problem, as taking by means of another object is considered taking.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛 讚转谞谉 讗讝讜讘 拽爪专 诪住驻拽讜 讘讞讜讟 讜讘讻讜砖 讜讟讜讘诇 讜诪注诇讛 讜讗讜讞讝 讘讗讝讜讘 讜诪讝讛 讗诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞 讜讟讘诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛

Rava said: From where do I say that taking by means of another object is considered taking? It is as we learned in a mishna: One undergoing purification from impurity imparted by a corpse must be sprinkled with purification water with the ashes of the red heifer. If the hyssop used to sprinkle the water was short and did not reach the water in the receptacle, one renders it sufficiently long by attaching a string or a spindle, and then he dips the hyssop into the water, removes it, grasps the hyssop, and sprinkles the water on the one undergoing purification. And why may he do so? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One say in the Torah: 鈥淎nd a ritually pure person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it鈥 (Numbers 19:18), indicating that one must take the hyssop while dipping it? Rather, may one not conclude from this that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻诇 诪砖驻讜驻专转 诇砖讜拽转 驻住讜诇

This proof is rejected: From where can that be proven? Perhaps it is different there; since he attached the string to the hyssop, its legal status is like that of the hyssop itself. However, the legal status of the cloth is not like that of the lulav, since it is not attached to the lulav. Rather, the fact that taking by means of another object is considered taking can be learned from here: If the ashes of the red heifer fell from the tube in which they were held into the trough in which the spring water was located, the water is unfit, since taking the ashes and placing them in the water must be performed intentionally.

讛讗 讛驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讻砖专 讗诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛

By inference, if he spilled the ashes intentionally from the tube into the water, it is fit. Why? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One say in the Torah: 鈥淎nd for the impure they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin, and he places running water upon them in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). Apparently, one must mix the water and the ashes intentionally. Rather, may one not conclude from it that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇讚讜抓 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讜诇讘讗 讘讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讚诇诪讗 谞转专讬 讟专驻讬 讜讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

And Rabba said with regard to the lulav: After binding the myrtle branches and willow branches, let a person not insert the lulav into the binding of the four species, as perhaps as a result the leaves will fall from the branches and the leaves will constitute an interposition between the various species. And Rava said: An object of one species does not interpose before an object of the same species.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇讬讙讜讝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讜诇讘讗 讘讛讜砖注谞讗 讚诪砖转讬讬专讬 讛讜爪讗 讜讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

And Rabba said: Let a person not cut the lulav in order to shorten it while it is in the binding of the four species, as perhaps as a result leaves will become detached and will constitute an interposition between the various species. And Rava said: An object of one species does not interpose before an object of the same species.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讚住 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讗住讜专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 诪讜转专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚住 讚诇专讬讞讗 拽讗讬 讻讬 讗拽爪讬讬讛 诪专讬讞讗 讗拽爪讬讬讛 讗转专讜讙 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗讬 讻讬 讗拽爪讬讬讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讗拽爪讬讬讛

And Rabba said: It is prohibited to smell the myrtle branch used in fulfillment of the mitzva. However, it is permitted to smell the etrog used in fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the distinction between them? The Gemara answers: With regard to a myrtle branch, which exists primarily for its fragrance, when he sets it aside exclusively for the mitzva, he sets it aside from enjoying its fragrance. With regard to an etrog, on the other hand, which exists primarily for eating, when he sets it aside exclusively for the mitzva, he sets it aside from eating. However, he never intended to prohibit this ancillary pleasure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讚住 讘诪讞讜讘专 诪讜转专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 讗转专讜讙 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗住讜专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚住 讚诇讛专讬讞 拽讗讬 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛 讗转专讜讙 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗讬 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛

And Rabba said: With regard to a myrtle branch, while it is attached to the tree, it is permitted to smell it on Shabbat. With regard to an etrog, while it is attached to the tree, it is prohibited to smell it. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between them? With regard to a myrtle branch, which exists primarily to smell it, if you permit him to smell it, he will not come to cut it. Once he has smelled it, he has no further use for it. With regard to an etrog, which exists primarily for eating, one may not smell it because if you permit him to do so, the concern is that he will come to cut it from the tree to eat it.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讜诇讘 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讗转专讜讙 讘砖诪讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛谞讬 转诇转讗 诪爪讜转 讜讛讗讬 讞讚讗 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 诪讗讬 讟注诐 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讗诇讗 注诇 谞讟讬诇转 诇讜诇讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讘讜讛 诪讻讜诇谉 讜诇讙讘讛讬讛 诇讗转专讜讙 讜诇讘专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘诪讬谞讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讻讜诇谉

And Rabba said: One takes the lulav bound with the other two species in the right hand and the etrog in the left. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for that arrangement? These species constitute three mitzvot, and this etrog is only one mitzva. One accords deference to the greater number of mitzvot by taking the three species in the right hand. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: What is the reason that we recite the blessing only with the formula: About taking the lulav, with no mention of the other species? Rabbi Zerika said to him: Since it is highest of them all and the most conspicuous, the other species are subsumed under it. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: And if that is the only reason, let him lift the etrog higher than the lulav and recite the blessing mentioning it. Rabbi Zerika said to him that he meant: Since the tree of its species is the tallest of them all, it is the most prominent, and therefore it is appropriate for the formula of the blessing to emphasize the lulav.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讛讬讻谉 讛讬讜 诪谞注谞注讬谉 讘讛讜讚讜 诇讛壮 转讞讬诇讛 讜住讜祝 讜讘讗谞讗 讛壮 讛讜砖讬注讛 谞讗 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬谉 讗祝 讘讗谞讗 讛壮 讛爪诇讬讞讛 谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 爪讜驻讛 讛讬讬转讬 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讻诇 讛注诐 讛讬讜 诪谞注谞注讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 讜讛诐 诇讗 谞注谞注讜 讗诇讗 讘讗谞讗 讛壮 讛讜砖讬注讛 谞讗

MISHNA: And where in the recitation of hallel would they wave the lulav? They would do so at the verse: 鈥淭hank the Lord, for He is good鈥 (Psalms 118:1, 29) that appears at both the beginning and the end of the psalm, and at the verse: 鈥淟ord, please save us鈥 (Psalms 118:25); this is the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammai say: They would wave the lulav even at the verse: 鈥淟ord, please grant us success鈥 (Psalms 118:25). Rabbi Akiva said: I was observing Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua and saw that all the people were waving their lulavim, and the two of them waved their lulav only at: 鈥淟ord, please save us,鈥 indicating that this is the halakha.

讙诪壮 谞注谞讜注 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讻诇 诇讜诇讘 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 诇谞注谞注 讘讜 讻砖专 讜拽讗诪专 讛讬讻谉 诪谞注谞注讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the premise of the mishna. With regard to waving, who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of waving the lulav, it is a non sequitur when the tanna begins discussion of the details of the custom. The Gemara answers: The tanna is basing himself on the mishna there (29b), which states: Any lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. As the custom of waving the lulav was already established there, here the tanna is saying: Where would they wave the lulav?

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪谞讬讞 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 砖谞讬 讛讻讘砖讬谉 讜诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬祝 讜诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 诪注诇讛 讜诪讜专讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 讛讜谞祝 讜讗砖专 讛讜专诐

We learned in a mishna there (Mena岣t 61a): With regard to the two loaves and the two lambs offered on the festival of Shavuot, how does he perform their waving before the altar? He places the two loaves atop the two lambs, and places his hand beneath them, and waves to and fro to each side, and he raises and lowers them, as it is stated: 鈥淲hich is waved and which is lifted鈥 (Exodus 29:27), indicating that there is waving to the sides as well as raising and lowering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 诇诪讬 砖讛讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 砖诇讜 诪注诇讛 讜诪讜专讬讚 诇诪讬 砖讛砖诪讬诐 讜讛讗专抓 砖诇讜 讘诪注专讘讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讻讚讬 诇注爪讜专 专讜讞讜转 专注讜转 诪注诇讛 讜诪讜专讬讚 讻讚讬 诇注爪讜专 讟诇诇讬诐 专注讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬诇讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He moves them to and fro to dedicate them to He Whom the four directions are His. He raises and lowers them to He Whom the heavens and earth are His. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they taught it as follows. Rabbi 岣ma bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: He moves them to and fro in order to request a halt to harmful winds, storms and tempests that come from all directions; he raises and lowers them in order to halt harmful dews and rains that come from above. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei bar Zevila who said: That is to say,

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 37: Waving in the Rainy Season

Anything that is present to beautify the 4 species will not be a barried to separate between the person doing...

Sukkah 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 37

诇讗 诪爪讗 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 讬讛讗 讬讜砖讘 讜讘讟诇 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 住讜讻讛 砖诇 讻诇 讚讘专 讜讻谉 讘注讝专讗 讗讜诪专 爪讗讜 讛讛专 讜讛讘讬讗讜 注诇讬 讝讬转 讜注诇讬 注抓 砖诪谉 讜注诇讬 讛讚住 讜注诇讬 转诪专讬诐 讜注诇讬 注抓 注讘讜转 (讜注砖讜) 住讜讻讜转 讻讻转讜讘

According to your reasoning, if one did not find any of the four species to roof his sukka, he will sit idly and fail to fulfill the mitzva of sukka; and the Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), meaning a sukka of any material. Likewise, in the book of Ezra, which can refer also to the book of Nehemiah, it says: 鈥淕o forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, to make sukkot, as it is written鈥 (Nehemiah 8:15). Apparently, a sukka may be constructed even with materials other than the four species.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讛谞讬 诇讚驻谞讜转 注诇讬 讛讚住 讜注诇讬 转诪专讬诐 讜注诇讬 注抓 注讘讜转 诇住讻讱 讜转谞谉 诪住讻讻讬谉 讘谞住专讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇诪讗 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 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And Rabbi Yehuda holds: These olive branches and pine branches mentioned in the verse were for the walls of the sukka, which need not be built from the four species. Myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, i.e., again myrtle, all of which are among the four species, were for the roofing. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one may roof the sukka only with the four species. And we learned in a mishna: One may roof the sukka with boards; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. As boards can be produced from one of the four species only if the trunk of the date palm is considered a lulav, apparently, fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the lulav. The Gemara determines: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讻讻讛 讘谞住专讬诐 砖诇 讗专讝 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讟驻讞讬诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 驻讜住诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗诐 讬砖 讘讬谉 谞住专 诇谞住专 讻诪诇讗 谞住专 砖诪谞讬讞 驻住诇 讘讬谞讬讛谉 讜讻砖讬专讛

The Gemara wonders: And did Rabbi Yehuda say with regard to the materials fit for roofing a sukka that the four species, yes, they are fit, but other materials, no, they are not fit? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If one roofed the sukka with cedar [erez] boards that have four handbreadths in their width, everyone agrees that it is unfit. If they do not have four handbreadths in their width, Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another board a gap the complete width of a board, then one places fit roofing from the waste of the threshing floor and the winepress between the boards and the sukka is fit. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda permits one to roof the sukka with cedar wood, which is not one of the four species.

诪讗讬 讗专讝 讛讚住 讻讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 注砖专讛 诪讬谞讬 讗专讝讬诐 讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗转谉 讘诪讚讘专 讗专讝 砖讬讟讛 讜讛讚住 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara responds: What is the erez to which the mishna refers? It is in fact a myrtle tree, in accordance with that which Rabba bar Rav Huna said, as Rabba bar Rav Huna said that they say in the school of Rav: There are ten types of erez, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will place in the wilderness the cedar [erez], the acacia-tree, the myrtle, and pine tree; I will set in the plain the juniper, the box-tree, and the cypress all together鈥 (Isaiah 41:19). All the trees listed in this verse are types of cedar, and the myrtle is one of them.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪砖讬讞讛 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪注砖讛 讘讬拽讬专讬 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 诪砖诐 专讗讬讛 讘诪讬谞讜 讛讬讜 讗讜讙讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪诇诪讟讛

搂 The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says: One may tie the lulav even with a cord. It is taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the prominent residents of Jerusalem who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there? They would bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讛 诇讛谞讛讜 诪讙讚诇讬 讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讻讬 讙讚诇讬转讜 讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讘讬 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 砖讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讘讬转 讬讚 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讬讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛

Rabba said to those who would bind the four species [hoshana] of the house of the Exilarch: When you bind the four species of the house of the Exilarch, leave room for a handgrip on it where there is neither binding nor decoration so that there will not be an interposition between the lulav and the hand of the person taking it.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻诇 诇谞讗讜转讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇讬谞拽讬讟 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讜砖注谞讗 讘住讜讚专讗 讚讘注讬谞讗 诇拽讬讞讛 转诪讛 讜诇讬讻讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛

Rava said: That is unnecessary, as any addition whose purpose is to beautify does not interpose. And Rabba said: Let a person not take the four species with a cloth [sudara] around his hand, since I require a complete taking, and there is none in this case due to the interposition between his hand and the lulav. And Rava said: That is not a problem, as taking by means of another object is considered taking.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛 讚转谞谉 讗讝讜讘 拽爪专 诪住驻拽讜 讘讞讜讟 讜讘讻讜砖 讜讟讜讘诇 讜诪注诇讛 讜讗讜讞讝 讘讗讝讜讘 讜诪讝讛 讗诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞 讜讟讘诇 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛

Rava said: From where do I say that taking by means of another object is considered taking? It is as we learned in a mishna: One undergoing purification from impurity imparted by a corpse must be sprinkled with purification water with the ashes of the red heifer. If the hyssop used to sprinkle the water was short and did not reach the water in the receptacle, one renders it sufficiently long by attaching a string or a spindle, and then he dips the hyssop into the water, removes it, grasps the hyssop, and sprinkles the water on the one undergoing purification. And why may he do so? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One say in the Torah: 鈥淎nd a ritually pure person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it鈥 (Numbers 19:18), indicating that one must take the hyssop while dipping it? Rather, may one not conclude from this that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讘专讬讛 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻诇 诪砖驻讜驻专转 诇砖讜拽转 驻住讜诇

This proof is rejected: From where can that be proven? Perhaps it is different there; since he attached the string to the hyssop, its legal status is like that of the hyssop itself. However, the legal status of the cloth is not like that of the lulav, since it is not attached to the lulav. Rather, the fact that taking by means of another object is considered taking can be learned from here: If the ashes of the red heifer fell from the tube in which they were held into the trough in which the spring water was located, the water is unfit, since taking the ashes and placing them in the water must be performed intentionally.

讛讗 讛驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讻砖专 讗诪讗讬 讜诇拽讞讜 讜谞转谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇拽讬讞讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 砖诪讛 诇拽讬讞讛

By inference, if he spilled the ashes intentionally from the tube into the water, it is fit. Why? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One say in the Torah: 鈥淎nd for the impure they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin, and he places running water upon them in a vessel鈥 (Numbers 19:17). Apparently, one must mix the water and the ashes intentionally. Rather, may one not conclude from it that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇讚讜抓 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讜诇讘讗 讘讛讜砖注谞讗 讚讚诇诪讗 谞转专讬 讟专驻讬 讜讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

And Rabba said with regard to the lulav: After binding the myrtle branches and willow branches, let a person not insert the lulav into the binding of the four species, as perhaps as a result the leaves will fall from the branches and the leaves will constitute an interposition between the various species. And Rava said: An object of one species does not interpose before an object of the same species.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 诇讬讙讜讝 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讜诇讘讗 讘讛讜砖注谞讗 讚诪砖转讬讬专讬 讛讜爪讗 讜讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

And Rabba said: Let a person not cut the lulav in order to shorten it while it is in the binding of the four species, as perhaps as a result leaves will become detached and will constitute an interposition between the various species. And Rava said: An object of one species does not interpose before an object of the same species.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讚住 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 讗住讜专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 讗转专讜讙 砖诇 诪爪讜讛 诪讜转专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚住 讚诇专讬讞讗 拽讗讬 讻讬 讗拽爪讬讬讛 诪专讬讞讗 讗拽爪讬讬讛 讗转专讜讙 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗讬 讻讬 讗拽爪讬讬讛 诪讗讻讬诇讛 讗拽爪讬讬讛

And Rabba said: It is prohibited to smell the myrtle branch used in fulfillment of the mitzva. However, it is permitted to smell the etrog used in fulfillment of the mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the distinction between them? The Gemara answers: With regard to a myrtle branch, which exists primarily for its fragrance, when he sets it aside exclusively for the mitzva, he sets it aside from enjoying its fragrance. With regard to an etrog, on the other hand, which exists primarily for eating, when he sets it aside exclusively for the mitzva, he sets it aside from eating. However, he never intended to prohibit this ancillary pleasure.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讚住 讘诪讞讜讘专 诪讜转专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 讗转专讜讙 讘诪讞讜讘专 讗住讜专 诇讛专讬讞 讘讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚住 讚诇讛专讬讞 拽讗讬 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛 讗转专讜讙 讚诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗讬 讗讬 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇诪讙讝讬讬讛

And Rabba said: With regard to a myrtle branch, while it is attached to the tree, it is permitted to smell it on Shabbat. With regard to an etrog, while it is attached to the tree, it is prohibited to smell it. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for the difference between them? With regard to a myrtle branch, which exists primarily to smell it, if you permit him to smell it, he will not come to cut it. Once he has smelled it, he has no further use for it. With regard to an etrog, which exists primarily for eating, one may not smell it because if you permit him to do so, the concern is that he will come to cut it from the tree to eat it.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讜诇讘 讘讬诪讬谉 讜讗转专讜讙 讘砖诪讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛谞讬 转诇转讗 诪爪讜转 讜讛讗讬 讞讚讗 诪爪讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 诪讗讬 讟注诐 诇讗 诪讘专讻讬谞谉 讗诇讗 注诇 谞讟讬诇转 诇讜诇讘 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讘讜讛 诪讻讜诇谉 讜诇讙讘讛讬讛 诇讗转专讜讙 讜诇讘专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘诪讬谞讜 讙讘讜讛 诪讻讜诇谉

And Rabba said: One takes the lulav bound with the other two species in the right hand and the etrog in the left. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for that arrangement? These species constitute three mitzvot, and this etrog is only one mitzva. One accords deference to the greater number of mitzvot by taking the three species in the right hand. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: What is the reason that we recite the blessing only with the formula: About taking the lulav, with no mention of the other species? Rabbi Zerika said to him: Since it is highest of them all and the most conspicuous, the other species are subsumed under it. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: And if that is the only reason, let him lift the etrog higher than the lulav and recite the blessing mentioning it. Rabbi Zerika said to him that he meant: Since the tree of its species is the tallest of them all, it is the most prominent, and therefore it is appropriate for the formula of the blessing to emphasize the lulav.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讛讬讻谉 讛讬讜 诪谞注谞注讬谉 讘讛讜讚讜 诇讛壮 转讞讬诇讛 讜住讜祝 讜讘讗谞讗 讛壮 讛讜砖讬注讛 谞讗 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬谉 讗祝 讘讗谞讗 讛壮 讛爪诇讬讞讛 谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 爪讜驻讛 讛讬讬转讬 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讻诇 讛注诐 讛讬讜 诪谞注谞注讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 讜讛诐 诇讗 谞注谞注讜 讗诇讗 讘讗谞讗 讛壮 讛讜砖讬注讛 谞讗

MISHNA: And where in the recitation of hallel would they wave the lulav? They would do so at the verse: 鈥淭hank the Lord, for He is good鈥 (Psalms 118:1, 29) that appears at both the beginning and the end of the psalm, and at the verse: 鈥淟ord, please save us鈥 (Psalms 118:25); this is the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammai say: They would wave the lulav even at the verse: 鈥淟ord, please grant us success鈥 (Psalms 118:25). Rabbi Akiva said: I was observing Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua and saw that all the people were waving their lulavim, and the two of them waved their lulav only at: 鈥淟ord, please save us,鈥 indicating that this is the halakha.

讙诪壮 谞注谞讜注 诪讗谉 讚讻专 砖诪讬讛 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讻诇 诇讜诇讘 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 诇谞注谞注 讘讜 讻砖专 讜拽讗诪专 讛讬讻谉 诪谞注谞注讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the premise of the mishna. With regard to waving, who mentioned it? As no previous mention was made of waving the lulav, it is a non sequitur when the tanna begins discussion of the details of the custom. The Gemara answers: The tanna is basing himself on the mishna there (29b), which states: Any lulav that has three handbreadths in length, sufficient to enable one to wave with it, is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. As the custom of waving the lulav was already established there, here the tanna is saying: Where would they wave the lulav?

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讻讬爪讚 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 诪谞讬讞 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 砖谞讬 讛讻讘砖讬谉 讜诪谞讬讞 讬讚讜 转讞转讬讛谉 讜诪谞讬祝 讜诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 诪注诇讛 讜诪讜专讬讚 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 讛讜谞祝 讜讗砖专 讛讜专诐

We learned in a mishna there (Mena岣t 61a): With regard to the two loaves and the two lambs offered on the festival of Shavuot, how does he perform their waving before the altar? He places the two loaves atop the two lambs, and places his hand beneath them, and waves to and fro to each side, and he raises and lowers them, as it is stated: 鈥淲hich is waved and which is lifted鈥 (Exodus 29:27), indicating that there is waving to the sides as well as raising and lowering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 诇诪讬 砖讛讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 砖诇讜 诪注诇讛 讜诪讜专讬讚 诇诪讬 砖讛砖诪讬诐 讜讛讗专抓 砖诇讜 讘诪注专讘讗 诪转谞讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜诇讬讱 讜诪讘讬讗 讻讚讬 诇注爪讜专 专讜讞讜转 专注讜转 诪注诇讛 讜诪讜专讬讚 讻讚讬 诇注爪讜专 讟诇诇讬诐 专注讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬诇讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He moves them to and fro to dedicate them to He Whom the four directions are His. He raises and lowers them to He Whom the heavens and earth are His. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they taught it as follows. Rabbi 岣ma bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: He moves them to and fro in order to request a halt to harmful winds, storms and tempests that come from all directions; he raises and lowers them in order to halt harmful dews and rains that come from above. Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yosei bar Zevila who said: That is to say,

Scroll To Top