Sukkah, Daf Lamed Daled, Part 4
Introduction
This section begins a new mishnah.
משנה. רבי ישמעאל אומר: שלשה הדסים ושתי ערבות לולב אחד ואתרוג אחד, אפילו שנים קטומים ואחד אינו קטום. רבי טרפון אומר: אפילו שלשתן קטומים. רבי עקיבא אומר: כשם שלולב אחד ואתרוג אחד, כך הדס אחד וערבה אחת.
Mishnah:
Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole.
Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off.
Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.
The Talmud will explain below how the various rabbis derived their halakhot.
גמרא. תניא, רבי ישמעאל אומר: +ויקרא כג+ פרי עץ הדר – אחד, כפת תמרים – אחד, ענף עץ עבת – שלשה, ערבי נחל – שתים, ואפילו שנים קטומים. ואחד שאינו קטום. רבי טרפון אומר: שלשה, ואפילו שלשתן קטומים. רבי עקיבא אומר: כשם שלולב אחד ואתרוג אחד כך הדס אחד וערבה אחת.
Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid].
R. Tarfon said: three, even if all have their tips broken off.
R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.
In this baraita the three tannaim from the mishnah expand, a little bit, upon their opinions.
R. Ishmael explains how he derives the idea that one must hold one etrog, one lulav, three hadasim and two aravot. One etrog might come from the singular word "fruit." One lulav might come from the defective spelling of "branches" which is written כפת and not כפות, the more expansive spelling of the word. Three hadasim probably comes from the three words used to describe this tree. Two aravot comes from the plural form "aravot." Of course, there is not great consistency in these derashot. This just goes to show that R. Ishmael probably had a tradition as to how many of each species one was to take. He then used the verses to support the traditions that he already knew.
R. Tarfon basically reiterates his opinion from the mishnah, showing that he agrees with R. Ishmael that three are necessary, but holds that all three can have their tips cut off.
R. Akiva’s words are the same as those in the Mishnah.
אמר לו רבי אליעזר: יכול יהא אתרוג עמהן באגודה אחת? אמרת: וכי נאמר פרי עץ הדר וכפת תמרים? והלא לא נאמר אלא כפת. ומנין שמעכבין זה את זה – תלמוד לומר ולקחתם – שתהא לקיחה תמה.
R. Eliezer said to him: It is possible that the etrog should be bound with them in one bundle, [to this] you can say, is it written, "the fruit of a goodly tree and branches of palm-trees"? It says only, "branches of palm-trees."
And from where do we know that lack of fulfillment of one prevents fulfillment of the others? Scripture says, "And you shall take" [implying] that the taking must be complete.
This is the continuation of the baraita from above. In the first clause R. Eliezer uses the lack of the word "and" between the "fruit of a goodly tree" (etrog) and "branches of palm-trees" (lulav) to derive the halakhah that the etrog need not be bound up with the other three species mentioned after.
The second clause teaches that if one doesn’t have one of the four species, one cannot partially fulfill the mitzvah with the others. When it comes to the lulav, it’s all or nothing.
ורבי ישמעאל, מה נפשך: אי שלימין בעי – ליבעי נמי כולהו, אי לא בעי שלימין – אפילו חד נמי לא! – אמר ביראה אמר רבי אמי: חזר בו רבי ישמעאל.
As for R. Ishmael, what does he hold? If he requires that the hadasim be whole, why should he not demand that they all be whole, and if he does not require that they be whole why should even one [have to be whole]?
Bira’ah said in the name of R. Ammi: R. Ishmael changed his mind.
R. Ishmael said in the mishnah that two of the hadasim can have their tips broken off but one has to be whole. The Talmud believes this to be inconsistent. Either they all have to be whole or none have to be whole. Bira’ah an amora basically agrees with this difficulty and claims that R. Ishmael changed his mind. He actually holds as he does at the end of his statement. Only one hadas is required, but it must be whole.