Sukkah, Daf Lamed Zayin, Part 1
Introduction
The first half of this section is a continuation of yesterday’s section, where R. Judah said that the skhakh had to be made of the four species. The second half continues with a discussion of the material used to bind the lulav.
ומי אמר רבי יהודה ארבעת מינין – אין, מידי אחרינא – לא, והתניא: סיככה בנסרים של ארז שיש בהן ארבעה טפחים – דברי הכל פסולה, אין בהן ארבעה טפחים – רבי מאיר פוסל, ורבי יהודה מכשיר. ומודה רבי מאיר שאם יש בין נסר לנסר כמלא נסר – שמניח פסל ביניהן וכשירה!
But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else?
Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.
The Talmud now cites a baraita in which it seems quite clear that R. Judah does not demand that the skhakh be made of one of the four species. The particular details of the baraita are not our concern here. What is our concern is that it contradicts that which we taught above.
מאי ארז – הדס; כדרבה בר רב הונא, דאמר רבה בר רב הונא, אמרי בי רב: עשרה מיני ארזים הן, שנאמר +ישעיהו מא+ אתן במדבר ארז שטה והדס וגו’.
What is meant by cedar ? Myrtle. Like Rabbah son of R. Huna, since Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: In the school of Rav they said that there were ten species of cedar, as it is said, "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, and the myrtle" etc. (Isaiah 41:19).
Conveniently, the Talmud is able to use a biblical verse in order to interpret "cedar" as "myrtle." Thus, R. Judah doesn’t allow one to use cedar planks, just myrtle planks. Now, how one can make a plank out of myrtle, a plank that is four handbreadths wide, that’s another story .
רבי מאיר אומר אפילו במשיחה כו’. תניא, אמר רבי מאיר: מעשה ביקירי ירושלים שהיו אוגדין את לולביהן בגימוניות של זהב, אמרו לו: משם ראיה? במינו היו אוגדין אותו מלמטה.
R. Meir says even with a cord.
It has been taught: R. Meir said: It happened with the nobility of Jerusalem that they bound their lulavs with [strands of] gold. They said to him: Is that evidence? They bound it in fact with strands of its own species underneath.
R. Meir in the mishnah allowed one to use a cord made of any type of material to bind the lulav. Here he cites a story where the nobility of Jerusalem used gold strands to bind their lulav.
However, as usually happens, the proof from the story is rejected. The other sages say that the nobility used gold on top of binding material made of the same material as the lulav. Thus it was bound with its own species, and the gold was merely decorative.
אמר להו רבה להנהו מגדלי הושענא דבי ריש גלותא. כי גדליתו הושענא דבי ריש גלותא – שיירי ביה בית יד, כי היכי דלא תיהוי חציצה. רבא אמר: כל לנאותו אינו חוצץ.
Rabbah said to those who bind the hoshanna at the house of the Exilarch: When you bind the hoshannas at the house of the Exilarch, [be careful to] leave a handle so that there should be no interposition.
Rava said: Whatever is used to beautify it is not an interposition.
According to Rabbah, when one holds the lulav, his hand must touch the lulav itself. If something else is there, it interposes. Here, the binding put around the hoshanna (the Aramaic word for the lulav) would interpose and prevent him from performing the mitzvah. Therefore, according to Rabbah, he should leave space for his hand so that his hand isn’t blocked.
Rava says that since the binding is only there to make the lulav look good, it doesn’t interpose. Rava, as we can see here, holds that the lulav need not be bound.