Introduction
Today’s section deals with how long the lulav, hadas and aravah must be. This sugya does contain a little bit of math, but I think you will be fine, so no worries.
לולב שיש בו שלשה טפחים.
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: שיעור הדס וערבה – שלשה, ולולב ארבעה, כדי שיהא לולב יוצא מן ההדס טפח.
ורבי פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן: שדרו של לולב צריך שיצא מן ההדס טפח.
A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas. And R. Parnakh said in the name of R. Yohanan, The spine of the lulav should extend a handbreadth beyond the hadas.
Here we can see that all amoraim agree that the hadas and aravah must be three handbreadths. They also all agree that despite the fact that the mishnah says that the lulav needs to be three handbreadths, it actually needs to be four. They disagree whether the whole lulav needs to be four, or that the spine, which ends before the top of the lulav, needs to be four. This would make the whole lulav longer.
תנן: לולב שיש בו שלשה טפחים כדי לנענע בו – כשר. – אימא: וכדי לנענע בו כשר. מר כדאית ליה, ומר כדאית ליה.
Have we not learned, a lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid? Say "and long enough to wave"; and each one explains it according to his own view.
The mishnah says that the lulav needs to be only three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it. This is a difficulty on all of the amoraim who said that it needs to be four handbreadths.
To resolve the difficulty the Talmud adds a "vav" to the mishnah. Instead of saying "three handbreadths, long enough to wave" it reads, "three handbreadth and long enough to wave." The "and" implies that the "long enough to wave" is in addition to the three handbreadths. Now each of the amoraim from above can debate how much longer this is one handbreadth beyond three, or one handbreadth of the spine beyond the three. But both can resolve the mishnah
תא שמע: שעור הדס וערבה – שלשה, ולולב – ארבעה. מאי לאו – בהדי עלין!
לא, לבד מעלין.
Come and hear: [We have learned: the [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four. Is this not including the leaves?
No, excluding the leaves.
This baraita is assumed to be a difficulty on R. Yohanan who holds that the spine of the lulav must be four handbreadths. At first we assume that the four handbreadths referred to in the baraita includes the leaves, meaning the part of the leaves that goes beyond the spine. However, the Talmud quickly resolves that we can understand the baraita to refer to just the spine. The four handbreadths does not include the part where the leaves go beyond the spine.
גופא, שיעור הדס וערבה – שלשה, ולולב – ארבעה. רבי טרפון אומר: באמה בת חמשה טפחים. אמר רבא: שרא ליה מריה לרב טרפון! השתא עבות שלשה לא משכחינן, בת חמשה מבעיא?
The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four.
R. Tarfon says. A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.
Rava said: May the master forgive R. Tarfon! Now that we cannot find a valid hadas three [handbreadths] long, would one of five handbreadths be required?
R. Tarfon seems to say that the hadas and aravah need to be a full cubit consisting of five handbreadths. Rava, a Babylonian amora, complains bitterly about this. In his day people seem to have had trouble finding even a smaller hadas, one of four cubits, so how can R. Tarfon require an even larger one.
כי אתא רב דימי אמר: אמה בת ששה טפחים עשה אותה בת חמשה, צא מהן שלשה להדס, והשאר ללולב, כמה הוו להו – תלתא ותלתא חומשי.
When R. Dimi came he said. [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit which has [normally] six handbreadths, into five. Deduct from these the three for the myrtle and the remainder is for the palm-branch. How much then is it? Three and three fifths?
R. Dimi reinterprets R. Tarfon’s statement such that his stringency is reduced. R. Tarfon doesn’t say that they must be five handbreadths. Rather he says that the handbreadths used here are not handbreadths in which there are six in a cubit, but rather five in a cubit. This means that each handbreadth is 1 1/5 of the handbreadths in a six handbreadth cubit. The result is larger handbreadths (if you’re having trouble understanding, think of what would happen if there were 10 inches in a foot each inch would be bigger than it is now).
So if we reckon this in 6 handbreadth to a cubit handbreadths, the hadas needs to be only 3 3/5 (3 x 1 1/5). The lulav will be 4 4/5. This is not such a huge stringency.
קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל, הכא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: שיעור הדס וערבה שלשה, והתם אמר רב הונא אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי טרפון!
לא דק.
אימר דאמרינן לא דק לחומרא, לקולא מי אמרינן לא דק?
Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another,for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel, The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon?
[Shmuel] was not precise.
Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency?
The amora Shmuel seems to contradict himself. On the one hand he rules that the hadas and aravah need only be three normal handbreadths. On the other hand, he holds that R. Tarfon says that the hadas and aravah need to be 3 3/5 handbreadths.
The Talmud tries to answer by saying that Shmuel’s statement wasn’t precise. He said three, but what he meant was really 3 3/5. However, this is not a satisfying answer. It is one thing not to be precise in order to create a stringency (to say that it must be 3 3/5 when it only needs to be 3), but an amora should not create a leniency through lack of precision.
כי אתא רבין אמר: אמה בת חמשה טפחים עשה אותה ששה, צא מהן שלשה להדס והשאר ללולב.
כמה הוי להו – תרי ופלגא.
סוף סוף קשיא דשמואל אדשמואל!
לא דק, והיינו לחומרא לא דק, דאמר רב הונא אמר שמואל: הלכה כרבי טרפון.
When Rabin came he said: [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit of five normal handbreadths and make it into one of six handbreadths. Deduct of these three for the hadas, and the remainder is for the lulav.
How much is it? Two and a half.
Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel?
He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.
Rabin, a different amora, offers an alternative explanation of R. Tarfon’s words. R. Tarfon said to take a cubit measured with five handbreadths and then turn it into six. Each handbreadth when measured against the old handbreadth will now be 5/6 of the length. Three of these are used for the hadas, making it 2.5 handbreadths (3 x 5/6). The extra fourth handbreadth goes for a lulav.
Now when Shmuel said that the hadas needs to be 3 handbreadths his imprecision lead to a stringency. In reality, the hadas needs to be only 2.5 handbreadths (halakhah is according to R. Tarfon), so when he said that it needs to be 3 handbreadths, it was a small stringency.