Sukkah, Daf Lamed Gimmel, Part 2
Introduction
This section continues discussing the concept of "set aside" with regard to the commandment of the lulav. As a reminder, this concept means that once a certain mitzvah has either been fulfilled or something has been rendered invalid, it can no longer become unfulfilled or valid.
לימא כתנאי: עבר ולקטן – פסול, דברי רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק, וחכמים מכשירין.
סברוה: דכולי עלמא לולב אין צריך אגד, ואם תמצי לומר צריך אגד – לא ילפינן לולב מסוכה, דכתיב בה תעשה ולא מן העשוי. מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי: דמאן דפסיל – סבר: אמרינן יש דחוי אצל מצות, ומאן דמכשיר סבר: לא אמרינן יש דחוי אצל מצות!
Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid.
They thought to explain this in the following way: According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make [which implies] but not from that which is already made.
Do they not disagree on the following principle: that the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that we apply the law of "set aside" to commandments, while the one who declares it to be valid is of the opinion that we do not apply the law of "set aside" to commandments?
The passage opens with a dispute about the validity of a hadas on which where there are berries on the hadas at the outset of the festival but one removes them on the festival. The Talmud will now to try to analyze the dispute over whether such a hadas is valid. We should note that in these style of sugyot, there are often multiple possibilities as to how to frame the dispute. But the preference is to isolate each factor. You’ll see what I mean as we go through this sugya.
The discussion begins by alluding to two other possibilities as to how to understand the dispute; these will become clearer later in the sugya. The first has to do with whether one must bind the three species, lulav, hadas and aravah, together. The second has to do with whether one must "make" the lulav, just as one has to "make" the sukkah. We shall clarify how these two issues relate to the hadas with berries below.
For now, we should note that this is a hadas that begins Yom Tov invalid due to the berries. It is now considered "set aside" invalid for the performance of the mitzvah. According to R. Elazar b. Zadok, since it is invalid when Sukkot begins, it remains "set aside" and cannot be remedied. Thus he is the one who holds that the concept of "set aside" does apply to the commandments. The sages, who validate this hadas, would hold that the concept does not apply to mitzvoth. Just because something is "set aside" does not mean that it can’t again become valid.
לא, דכולי עלמא לא אמרינן יש דחוי אצל מצות, והכא במילף לולב מסוכה קא מיפלגי: מר סבר: ילפינן לולב מסוכה. ומר סבר: לא ילפינן לולב מסוכה.
No! All agree that we do not apply the law of "set aside" to commandments, but they disagree here in whether we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah.
One Master holds that we do so deduce them, while the other Master holds that we do not deduce the laws of lulav from sukkah.
The Talmud now tries to find other ways to interpret the dispute between R. Elazar b. Zadok and the sages. The first possibility is that all tannaim hold that there is no concept of "set aside" with regard to mitzvoth. Furthermore, all tannaim hold that the lulav must be bound, which is considered to be an act of "making a lulav."
The only dispute left is whether one has to actively make a lulav, or is a lulav "made on its own" valid. When it came to the Sukkah, all tannaim agreed that one must "make the sukkah" and that one that is "made on its own" is not valid. R. Elazar b. Zadok extends this to the lulav as well if he removes the berries from a lulav that was bound before Yom Tov then he hasn’t made a lulav, rather it was "made on its own" (when he bound it it wasn’t valid, so he never made the lulav by binding three valid species together). The sages do not compare the lulav with the sukkah, and thus although he "made it on its own" it is still valid.
[I know, this is complicated.]
ואיבעית אימא: אי סבירא לן לולב צריך אגד – דכולי עלמא ילפינן לולב מסוכה, והכא בלולב צריך אגד קא מיפלגי, ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי; דתניא: לולב, בין אגוד בין שאינו אגוד כשר, רבי יהודה אומר: אגוד כשר, שאינו אגוד – פסול.
And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah;
But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.
Finally, the Talmud suggests that the dispute concerning the berries may be tied to the dispute concerning binding. If you hold that the three species do not need to be bound, then there is no problem of picking the berries on Yom Tov. Even if you hold that the sukkah cannot be "made on its own" and you would compare the the lulav with the sukkah, if the lulav need not be bound then there is no "making" of the lulav. So he can remove the berries on Yom Tov and the hadas will be valid.
The one who holds that lulav requires binding would hold that this would count as a lulav "made on its own" because it was made (bound) while invalid. So removing the berries on Yom Tov would not validate the hadas.
[Again, I realize that this is complicated].
מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? יליף לקיחה לקיחה מאגודת אזוב. כתיב הכא +ויקרא כג+ ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון וכתיב התם +שמות יב+ ולקחתם אגדת אזוב, מה להלן אגודה – אף כאן אגודה.
ורבנן: לית להו לקיחה לקיחה.
What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces it from the word "take" [which occurs here (Leviticus 23:40) and with] the "taking" with regard to the bundle of hyssop (Exodus 12:22). It is written here, "And you shall take on the first day" and there it is written, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop." Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle.
And the Rabbis? They do not deduce from the mention of the word "take" in the two passages.
Rabbi Judah derives that the lulav must be bundled from the fact that the word "take" is used in the context of the lulav and in the context of the bundle of hyssop used to apply the blood to the doorposts in Exodus 12. Just as the hyssop must be bound into a bundle so too must the lulav. The other rabbis do not deduce the laws of the lulav from the similarity in words.
מאן תנא להא, דתנו רבנן: לולב מצוה לאוגדו, ואם לא אגדו – כשר. מני? אי רבי יהודה – כי לא אגדו אמאי כשר? אי רבנן – מאי מצוה קא עביד?
לעולם רבנן, ומצוה משום +שמות טו+ זה אלי ואנוהו.
Who is it that taught that which our Rabbis have taught: It is a mitzvah to bind the lulav, but [even] if he did not bind it, it is valid? Now who is it? If it is R. Judah, why is it valid if he did not bind it? If it is the rabbis, then what mitzvah did he perform? It is in fact the rabbis, and it is a mitzvah because of "This is my God and I will glorify Him."
The sugya concludes with a baraita which is a bit confusing. On the one hand the baraita says that it is a "mitzvah" to bind the lulav together. This seems to be R. Judah’s opinion. On the other hand it also says that if he doesn’t bind it together it is still valid. This seems to be the other rabbis’ opinion. So which is it?
The answer is that the mitzvah he fulfills here is the general mitzvah of glorifying God by "beautifying the commandments." The lulav looks better when the lulav, hadas and aravah are neatly bound together. However, as far as the actual mitzvah of lulav goes, one need not bind it together in order for it to be valid. This is generally true of the concept called "hiddur mitzvah" the beautification of a mitzvah. One should try to make the lulav, the etrog and other such physical mitzvoth look beautiful, but their validity is not dependent on this.