Sukkah, Daf Lamed Aleph, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today’s section begins to discuss the second reason that a lulav is invalid it is dry and withered up.

 

תנא: יבש פסול, רבי יהודה מכשיר.

אמר רבא: מחלוקת בלולב. דרבנן סברי: מקשינן לולב לאתרוג, מה אתרוג בעי הדר – אף לולב בעי הדר. ורבי יהודה סבר: לא מקשינן לולב לאתרוג, אבל באתרוג דברי הכל הדר בעינן.

 

A Tanna taught: A withered [lulav] is invalid; R. Judah declares it valid.

Rava said: There is a dispute concerning the lulav. The rabbis compare the lulav to the etrog, just as the etrog must be a goodly [fruit] so must the lulav be goodly.

While R. Judah holds that we do not compare the lulav to the etrog; but with regard to the etrog, all agree that it must be a goodly [fruit].

 

In this baraita there is a dispute between the sages and R. Judah concerning whether some part of the lulav is invalidated if it is dried up. However, it is not entirely clear whether the baraita refers to all four species or just to the etrog. The reason we might think that it refers just to the etrog is that the Torah specifically calls the etrog "the fruit of a goodly tree." So it seems clear that a etrog that is withered cannot be used.

Rava says that the debate is over whether the lulav (the palm-branch) is compared with the etrog. The rabbis say that it is just as the etrog must be goodly (not withered) so too must the lulav. R. Judah says that we do not make such a comparison.

ובלולב לא בעי רבי יהודה הדר? והתנן, רבי יהודה אומר: יאגדנו מלמעלה. מאי טעמא – לאו משום דבעי הדר? –

 

And with regard to a lulav R. Judah does not require that it be goodly?

But have we not learned, R. Judah says: he should bind it from above. What is the reason? Is it not because it should be "goodly"?

 

The first difficulty the Talmud raises is whether R. Judah really holds that the lulav (the palm-branch) need not be goodly. To prove that he does require that the lulav be aesthetically pleasing the Talmud cites a baraita where R. Judah says that he must bind the lulav, the palm-branch, from above. For now, we assume that this is because he requires that it be aesthetically pleasing.

 

לא, כדקתני טעמא, רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי טרפון: כפת תמרים – כפות, ואם היה פרוד יכפתנו.

 

No! As the reason has been taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon, "Branches of palm-trees" [implying that one must] tie them up. And if they were separated, one must tie them up.

 

The Torah calls the lulav "branches of palm-trees." The word which I have translated as "branches" is כפות which also means in Hebrew bind up (this is not the real meaning in the Bible). Thus R. Judah makes a midrash using this word to teach that the top of the lulav must be bound. But this has nothing to do with the lulav being "goodly." R. Judah does not require this.

ולא בעי הדר? והתנן: אין אוגדין את הלולב אלא במינו, דברי רבי יהודה. מאי טעמא – לאו משום דבעי הדר?

But does he not then require that it be goodly? Have we not learned: They do not bind the lulav with anything but its own species, the words of R. Judah. What is the reason? It is not because it must be goodly?

 

The Talmud presses its case by citing a mishnah in which R. Judah says that the lulav must be bound with something that is its own species, a piece of the palm tree itself. The initial assumption is that by using something that matches the lulav itself, the binding will be more aesthetically pleasing.

 

לא, דהא אמר רבא: אפילו בסיב ואפילו בעיקרא דדיקלא. [ואלא] מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה התם – דקא סבר: לולב צריך אגד, ואי מייתי מינא אחרינא – הוה להו חמשה מינין.

 

No! For Rava said [that it may be bound] even with the sinew or the root of the palm. What then is the reason of R. Judah? Because he holds that the [components] of the lulav must be bound together and if one uses another species, the number of species becomes five.

 

The Talmud now provides a different reason why R. Judah holds that the lulav must be bound with something that is part of the palm tree itself. Rava stated that one could use even a sinew or a piece of the root, parts of the palm that are clearly not so pretty to look at. Thus the reason that R. Judah says that whatever is used for binding must be part of the palm is that if one uses a different species he will transgress the prohibition of adding on to the commandments. The Torah said to use four species, not five. If binding the lulav is mandatory then it too must be from one of the four species. But R. Judah doesn’t hold that the lulav must be "goodly."

To summarize where we are up till now R. Judah holds that withered lulav is valid, while the sages say it is invalid. But when it comes to the etrog, all sages hold that it must be goodly, i.e. not withered.