Sukkah, Daf Lamed Bet, Part 1
Introduction
This new week’s daf begins to discuss the second line of the mishnah that opened the chapter. This line stated that a lulav taken from an asherah, a tree that was part of idolatrous worship (Deuteronomy 16:21) or taken from a tree found in a city condemned to death due to mass idolatry (Deuteronomy 13:13-19), cannot be used to fulfill the mitzvah.
של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת. ושל אשרה פסול? והאמר רבא: לולב של עבודה זרה לא יטול, ואם נטל – כשר! – הכא באשרה דמשה עסקינן, דכתותי מיכתת שיעוריה. דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דעיר הנדחת, שמע מינה.
One that came from an asherah or from a condemned city.
Is then [a lulav that came from] an asherah invalid? But didn’t Rava say, One should not take a lulav of idolatry, but if he did nevertheless take it, it is valid?
Here we are dealing with an asherah [from the time of] Moses, whose [minimum] size [is regarded as] crushed.
We can also deduce this from the wording [of the mishnah] since it is compared with a condemned city. Learn from it.
The mishnah invalidates a lulav taken from an asherah tree, assumedly because it was used in idol worship. In contrast, Rava, a Babylonian amora, says that one can use fulfill his obligation with a lulav that had been involved in idol worship. This seems to be a blatant contradiction.
The Talmud resolves this by positing that the mishnah prohibits only an asherah that was used in the time of Moses. The Israelites were commanded to destroy all idolatrous objects when they conquered the land of Israel. Since there was a mitzvah to destroy all such trees they have no "minimum measure," meaning it is as if they no longer have any quantity whatsoever. Since the lulav does have a minimum measure (we shall learn about this later), these trees cannot be used in the performance of a mitzvah. But there is no mitzvah to destroy trees used in idolatry during rabbinic times, when Rava lives. Therefore, these trees have a "minimum measure." So while one still should not use such a lulav, if one does so, he has fulfilled his obligation.
The section concludes by "proving" that the mishnah refers to an asherah from the time of Moses. The mishnah groups the asherah with a lulav from a "condemned city." The rabbis stated that the laws concerning a condemned city were no longer practiced in their times. So too the asherah also refers to the type of asherah no longer in existence.
We should note that it is interesting that Rava says that one can use a lulav from an Asherah tree. It is possible (although not certain) that Rava was concerned that many trees in his region in Babylonia were from idolatrous roots. To disqualify all such lulavim might have been simply impossible.
נקטם ראשו. אמר רב הונא: לא שנו אלא נקטם, אבל נסדק – כשר. –
If its top was broken off.
R. Huna said: It was only taught if it was broken off, but if it was split, it is valid.
The mishnah says that if the top of the lulav was broken off, it is invalid. From here R. Huna deduces that if the top was only split, which is less of an injury to the lulav, then it remains valid.
ונסדק כשר? והתניא: לולב כפוף, קווץ, סדוק, עקום דומה למגל – פסול. חרות – פסול. דומה לחרות – כשר! – אמר רב פפא: דעביד כהימנק.
Is it then valid if it is split? Has it not been taught: A lulav which is bent, thorny, split or curved like a sickle is invalid. If it has become hardened, it is invalid. If it only appears as though it is hardened, it is valid?
R. Papa answered: It refers to where it is like a prong.
R. Huna said that a lulav whose top has been split is valid. However, this contradicts a baraita that explicitly says that a lulav whose top is split is invalid.
R. Papa resolves the contradiction by saying the baraita refers to a lulav with top like a prong in other words split really badly. If the split is less pronounced, it is valid.
עקום דומה למגל אמר רבא: לא אמרן אלא לפניו, אבל לאחריו – ברייתיה הוא.
אמר רב נחמן: לצדדין כלפניו דמי,
ואמרי לה: כלאחריו דמי.
"If it is curved like a sickle:" Rava said: This refers only to its front, but towards its back, it is its nature [to be curved].
R. Nahman said: At the sides is the same as at the front, and some say, the same as at its back.
The mishnah says that a curved lulav is invalid. Rava says that only if the lulav is curved to its front is it invalid. But if it is curved back it is valid, because that is the natural way for it to grow.
There are different traditions concerning what R. Nahman said about a lulav that grows to the sides. Some say he thinks it is like a lulav that grows to the front, and it is invalid. Others say it is valid like a lulav that grows towards its back and it is valid.
ואמר רבא: האי לולבא דסליק בחד הוצא – בעל מום הוא, ופסול.
Rava further said: A lulav all of which grows on one side is a blemished plant and is invalid.
If all of the lulav’s leaves go to one side the lulav is invalid.