Sukkah, Daf Lamed Bet, Part 2

 

Introduction

In today’s section we continue to interpret the mishnah about various problems that invalidate the lulav.

 

נפרצו עליו כו’ אמר רב פפא: נפרצו – דעביד כי חופיא, נפרדו – דאיפרוד אפרודי.

 

If its leaves were detached etc.

R. Papa said. "Detached" means like a broom. "Spread apart" means that they were parted from one another.

 

R. Papa interprets the mishnah. "Detached" doesn’t mean that they were fully detached. Such a lulav is obviously invalid. What it means is that the leaves were separated from the spine like a broom. Such a lulav is invalid, with its leaves wide apart, is invalid. If the leaves were merely spread apart the lulav remains valid.

בעי רב פפא: נחלקה התיומת מהו? תא שמע, דאמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: ניטלה התיומת – פסול.

מאי לאו – הוא הדין נחלקה? – לא, ניטלה שאני, דהא חסר ליה.

 

R. Papa asked: What is the rule if the central leaf is split?

Come and hear what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid.

Is this also true if it is split?

No, if it is removed the law is different, since it is entirely lacking.

 

R. Papa asks now about the central middle leaf of the lulav. This is the middle leaf that you might have seen people looking at with a magnifying glass to see if it is split (especially if you’ve been to the shuk in Jerusalem). R. Yohanan says that if the central leaf is removed, the lulav is invalid. But, the Talmud notes, this is a different question from if it is split.

Note that the Talmud does not really answer R. Papa’s question.

 

איכא דאמרי, אמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: נחלקה התיומת – נעשה כמי שניטלה התיומת, ופסול.

 

There are those that say: R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is split, it is as though it is removed, and [the lulav] is invalid.

 

This is an alternative version of R. Yohanan’s statement. Here he clearly says that if the central leaf is split it is invalid.