Sukkah, Daf Lamed Vav, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today’s section deals with a new mishnah.

 

משנה. אין אוגדין את הלולב אלא במינו, דברי רבי יהודה. רבי מאיר אומר: אפילו בחוט במשיחה. אמר רבי מאיר: מעשה באנשי ירושלים שהיו אוגדין את לולביהן בגימוניות של זהב. – אמרו לו: במינו היו אוגדין אותו מלמטה.

 

They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: It may be bound even with a cord.

Rabbi Meir said: It happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold.

They answered him: But they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].

 

According to some sages, three of the species (all except the etrog) must be bound together. In the mishnah there is a debate whether the cord used to bind the three together must be from the same species as one of the three species. As we shall see in the Talmud, the problem with it being from another type of tree is that when he picks up the lulav, he will be carrying five species the four mandated ones and the one from which he made his cord. This might be a violation of the prohibition of adding on to the Torah s commandments. The Torah says four species it would be prohibited to add a fifth.

 

גמרא. אמר רבא: אפילו בסיב אפילו בעיקרא דדיקלא.

ואמר רבא: מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה – קסבר: לולב צריך אגד, ואי מייתי מינא אחרינא הוה חמשה מיני.

 

Gemara. Rava stated: A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm.

Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.

 

Rava says that any part of the palm tree can be used to bind the three species together, even the sinew or parts of the base of the tree. The reason that R. Judah demands one use parts of the palm is not so that the lulav looks good, but because if he uses a different species, he would be taking five species, as I explained above.

 

ואמר רבא: מנא אמינא לה דסיב ועיקרא דדיקלא מינא דלולבא הוא – דתניא: +ויקרא כג+ בסוכות תשבו – סוכה של כל דבר, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר אין סוכה נוהגת אלא בארבעה מינים שבלולב. והדין נותן: ומה לולב שאין נוהג בלילות כבימים – אינו נוהג אלא בארבעת מינין, סוכה שנוהגת בלילות כבימים – אינו דין שלא תהא אלא בארבעת מינין? –

 

Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot" a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir.

R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav. And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species?

 

Rava explains that the fact one uses sinews and roots of palm-trees to make a sukkah, and that R. Judah demands that the sukkah be made from any of the four species, proves that these parts of the date-palm count are considered part of the species. We shall return to this point below. For now, we will first explain the baraita itself.

The main dispute in this baraita is quite interesting. R. Meir says that one can use any material to make a sukkah, as long as it follows the normal rules of making a sukkah. In other words, while the skhakh must have grown from the ground, it need not be of the four species.

R. Judah says that it must be one of the four species.

The background of this dispute is Nehemiah 8:15, which is quoted below. In this verse Nehemiah and Ezra and the people who have returned to Israel after the first exile seem to interpret Leviticus 23:40 as if it mandates building the sukkah from the four species. However, their identification of the species slightly differs from the normative rabbinic interpretation and from the precise wording of Leviticus. Biblical scholars nevertheless interpret this verse as referring to building the sukkah from the four species. The rabbinic way of dealing with this verse is found below.

 

אמרו לו: כל דין שאתה דן תחלתו להחמיר וסופו להקל – אינו דין, לא מצא ארבעת מינין – יהא יושב ובטל, והתורה אמרה, בסכות תשבו שבעת ימים – סוכה של כל דבר. וכן בעזרא אומר +נחמיה ח+ צאו ההר והביאו עלי זית ועלי עץ שמן ועלי הדס ועלי תמרים ועלי עץ עבת לעשות סכות ככתוב.

 

They answered him: Any a fortiori argument which begins with a stringency and concludes with a leniency is not a valid argument. If he doesn’t find the four species, he would be sitting and doing nothing while the Torah said, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days"– implying a Sukkah of whatever material. And so with Ezra it says, "Go forth to the mountain, and bring olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees to make Sukkoth, as it is written" (Nehemiah 8:15).

 

The rabbis respond to R. Judah that his stringency (the sukkah must be built of the four species) will actually lead to a leniency, for if he doesn’t find enough of the four species to build a sukkah, he won’t be able to dwell in the sukkah.

Here the rabbis note that in Nehemiah the Jews don’t use just the four species as identified in Leviticus to build their sukkot, they seem to use other species as well. Indeed, five are mentioned, and the etrog seems to be absent. In other words, since the species mentioned here are not exactly the same as those in Leviticus, the rabbis assume that these are different and that the Jews referred to here also took the four species in Leviticus and used them for what we call a lulav. Again, this is not how biblical scholars read the verse. The rabbis read this verse in this manner so it doesn’t contradict their reading of Leviticus.

Paradoxically, while the verse might have originally been the source of R. Judah’s ruling that the sukkah must be built of the four species, here it becomes a difficulty against him. The Jews here use more than just the four species from Leviticus to build their sukkah.

 

ורבי יהודה סבר: הני – לדפנות, עלי הדס ועלי תמרים ועלי עץ עבות – לסכך. ותנן: מסככין בנסרין, דברי רבי יהודה. אלמא: סיב ועיקרא דדיקלא מינא דלולבא הוא, שמע מינה.

 

And R. Judah holds that the other [species] were for the walls, while the myrtle branches and palm-branches and branches of thick trees were for skhakh.

And we have learned: Planks may be used as a skhakh, the words of R. Judah.

Therefore sinews and roots of date-palms are a species of palm-tree. This is conclusive.

 

This section accomplishes two things. First of all, R. Judah offers his interpretation of the verse. The species mentioned in the book of Nehemiah that are not part of the four in Leviticus were used for the walls, and R. Judah agrees that the walls need not be made of the four species. Only the skhakh, according to R. Judah, must be made of the four species.

Now we return to Rava’s statement above that sinews and roots are considered date-palms. R. Judah allows one to use planks to make the skhakh. Since he holds that one must use one of the four species to make the skhakh, it must be that these planks were made of the base of the date-palm. Thus we can see that planks, and probably sinews as well, are halakhically considered part of the date-palm.