Sukkah, Daf Lamed Aleph, Part 5
Introduction
The Talmud continues to discuss R. Judah’s position on the issue of which if any of the four species need to be "goodly." Earlier, Rava had stated that R. Judah agrees that the etrog must be "goodly." Here the Talmud questions whether this is really so.
ובאתרוג מי בעי רבי יהודה הדר? והתניא: ארבעת מינין שבלולב, כשם שאין פוחתין מהן – כך אין מוסיפין עליהן. לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא פריש ולא רמון ולא דבר אחר. כמושין – כשרין, יבשין – פסולין. רבי יהודה אומר: אף יבשין. ואמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בבני כרכין שהיו מורישין את לולביהן לבני בניהן. אמרו (להם) +מסורת הש"ס: [לו]+ משם ראיה? אין שעת הדחק ראיה.
But does R. Judah demand that the etrog be goodly? Has it not been taught: The four species of the lulav, just as one may not reduce their number, so one may not add to them. If he cannot find an etrog, he may not bring a quince or a pomegranate, or any other thing. Withered [ones] are valid, dried up ones are invalid. R. Judah says, Even dried ones [are valid]. And R. Judah: It happened that city dwellers used to bequeath their lulavs to their grandchildren. They said to him: Is that proof? An emergency situation does not constitute a proof.
The Talmud cites a baraita from which it seems that R. Judah holds that a dried up etrog is still valid. The baraita teaches that one must use only four species one cannot put another species in there. Secondly, one cannot bring a substitute for the etrog, even if etrogim are hard to find, as I’m sure they were. Then the baraita gets into the subjected of dried up species, assumedly dried up etrogim. If they are only partly dried up, withered, they are valid. But if they’re fully dried up, they are invalid. R. Judah, on the other hand, says that they are always valid, even if they are dried up. He even cites a story of city dwellers who probably did not have access to etrogim and would therefore pass down their etrogim from generation to generation. Interestingly, the other rabbis respond by saying that this was an emergency situation and therefore cannot demonstrate the general rule. However, we do see from here that even the rabbis tolerated an old dried up etrog in an emergency situation, when no other etrog could be procured.
קתני מיהת, רבי יהודה אומר: אף יבשין כשרין. מאי לאו – אאתרוג? לא, אלולב.
At all events it is taught that R. Judah says that even dried up ones are valid. Does this not refer to the etrog?
No! It refers to the lulav.
The Talmud now completes the difficulty and then resolves it. While it might seem that R. Judah was referring to the etrog, in reality he too agrees that the etrog must be "goodly" and not dried up. The rest of the lulav, though, can be dried up.
אמר מר: כשם שאין פוחתין מהן כך אין מוסיפין עליהן.
פשיטא! – מהו דתימא: הואיל ואמר רבי יהודה לולב צריך אגד, ואי מייתי מינא אחרינא – האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי – קא משמע לן.
It has said, Just as one may not reduce their number, so one may not add to it." Is this not obvious? What might I have thought? Since R. Judah said that the lulav must be bound, if one bring another species, each is regarded as separate, therefore he teaches us [that it is not so].
The Talmud asks why the baraita even needed to say that one is not allowed to bring an extra species. Isn’t that obvious one is never allowed to add on to the mitzvoth! The answer is that we might have thought that if he binds the four species together (actually three, the etrog is not bound with the others) and then holds a fifth species separately, he hasn’t transgressed the prohibition of adding on to the commandments. To counter this notion, the baraita needed to teach that one may not bring an additional species.
אמר מר: לא מצא אתרוג לא יביא לא רמון ולא פריש ולא דבר אחר.
פשיטא! – מהו דתימא: לייתי, כי היכי שלא תשכח תורת אתרוג, קא משמע לן זימנין דנפיק חורבא מיניה, דאתי למסרך.
It has said, If he cannot find an etrog, he may not bring a pomegranate or a quince, or any other thing.’
But isn’t this obvious? What might I have said? Let him bring [the other species] in order that the law of the etrog might not be forgotten, therefore he informs us [that it is forbidden lest] at times the result be disastrous, since one might confuse [the one species with the other].
Again, the Talmud asks, isn’t it obvious that one can’t bring another species in place of the etrog. The Torah says "etrog" (at least that’s the way the rabbis interpret the Torah). Why then does the baraita need to state the obvious?
The answer is that without this baraita I might have thought that he should bring another species so that he doesn’t forget that he’s supposed to bring a fourth species. In other words, the quince for instance, would remind him that he should have brought an etrog but that he just didn’t have one. To prevent one from bringing an etrog substitute so that he will remember the law of the etrog, the baraita forbids doing so. The Talmud explains that if we allowed him to bring a different species he (or someone watching him) might think that that species is the one he’s supposed to bring. And in subsequent years, when he does have access to an etrog, he would bring the quince instead, remembering how he acted last year when he didn’t have an etrog. Therefore, if one doesn’t have an etrog, he shouldn’t bring a substitute.