Sukkah, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today’s section continues to discuss the topic of whether "their cutting is their making." Here it is connected to the hadas, the myrtle, one of the four species used in the lulav.

 

 

לימא כתנאי: עבר וליקטן – פסול, דברי רבי שמעון בר יהוצדק, וחכמים מכשירין.

 

Can we say that [their dispute matches the dispute of] the following tannaim?: If one transgressed and plucked them, [the hadas is] invalid, the words of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak. But the Sages declare it valid.

 

The Talmud attempts to draw a correlation between Rav and Shmuel’s dispute over whether "their cutting is their making" with regard to the skhakh and a dispute found in a tannaitic source concerning the hadas. This hadas branch had berries on it. These berries invalidate the hadas. According to R. Shimon b. Yehozadak, if he plucked the berries off the hadas is still invalid. The other sages say that it is valid.

 

סברוה: דכולי עלמא לולב צריך אגד, וילפינן לולב מסוכה, דכתיב גבי סוכה תעשה ולא מן העשוי. מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי, דמאן דמכשיר סבר: אמרינן גבי סוכה קציצתן זו היא עשייתן, וגבי לולב נמי אמרינן לקיטתן זו היא עשייתן. ומאן דפסיל, סבר: לא אמרינן גבי סוכה קציצתן זו היא עשייתן, וגבי לולב נמי לא אמרינן לקיטתן זו היא עשייתן?

 

They thought that everyone agrees that [the components of] a lulav must be tied together, and that we deduce [the law of] lulav from that of Sukkah, for it is written concerning the sukkah "You shall make" — but not from what which is already made.

Do they [then] not dispute this principle? That the one who declared it valid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we say that their cutting is their making’, and [therefore] with regard to lulav we also say that their plucking is their making; while the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, and [therefore] with regard to lulav also we do not say that their plucking is their making?

 

The Talmud now tries to correlate the two disputes. At first we suppose that all sages hold that the lulav must be tied together. This is the "making" of a lulav. Plucking off the hadas berries after it is bound would then be turning an invalid, already made lulav into a valid one.

When it comes to the sukkah we have a midrash that states that one cannot make the sukkah from that which is already made. We learned this midrash in the above section. However, not all sages agree. Some sages say that cutting the skhakh is considered making the skhakh and the same would be true for plucking the berries from the already bound lulav. This would be the opinion of the sages. While other sages hold that cutting the skhakh is not sufficient to be considered making the sukkah, and so too plucking the berries is not making the lulav. This would be R. Shimon b. Yehozadak.

 

לא, דכולי עלמא לא אמרינן גבי סוכה קציצתן זו היא עשייתן, והכא במילף לולב מסוכה קמיפלגי. מאן דמכשר – סבר: לא ילפינן לולב מסוכה ומאן דפסל סבר: ילפינן לולב מסוכה.

 

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

 

The Talmud now rejects the above explanation of the baraita and offers an alternative. Both R. Shimon b. Yehozadak and the sages agree that when it comes to the sukkah cutting the skhakh is not considered to be making a sukkah. Therefore one could not simply cut attached skhakh that has already been placed on the sukkah. The question is whether one applies the principles of sukkah to lulav. According to R. Shimon b. Yehozadak one does and therefore plucking is not making a lulav. According to the other sages, we do not derive the laws of lulav from the sukkah and therefore there is no requirement to make the lulav. One can pick the berries off after it has already been tied.

 

ואי בעית אימא אי סבירא לן דלולב צריך אגד כולי עלמא לא פליגי דילפינן לולב מסוכה. והכא בהא קמיפלגי; מר סבר: צריך אגד, ומר סבר: אין צריך אגד. ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי, דתניא: לולב, בין אגוד בין שאינו אגוד כשר. רבי יהודה אומר: אגוד כשר, שאינו אגוד – פסול. מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה? יליף לקיחה לקיחה מאגודת אזוב, כתיב התם +שמות יב+ ולקחתם אגדת אזוב, וכתיב הכא +ויקרא כג+ ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון, מה להלן באגודה – אף כאן נמי באגודה. ורבנן: לקיחה מלקיחה לא ילפינן.

 

And if you wish you may say that if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together; and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught: A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.

What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces the word take from the word take mentioned in connection with the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop," (Exodus 12:22) and it is written here, "And you shall take you on the first day" (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there it was taken in a bundle, so here also it must be taken in a bundle.

And the rabbis? They do not deduce take from take .

 

The final interpretation of the dispute between R. Shimon b. Yehozadak and the sages connects their dispute with the question of whether one must bundle the lulav together. R. Judah says that just as the bundle of hyssop used in the ritual in which the Israelites put blood on their doorposts had to be bundled together, so too the lulav which also uses the word "take" must be bundled together. R. Shimon b. Yehozadak agrees a lulav must be bundled together. If he takes the berries off after it has been bundled, this is a violation of the principle that one must make a lulav and not have one already made (i.e. bundled) then become valid.

The other rabbis say that the lulav does not need to be bundled. Therefore, there is no concept of "making a lulav." One can remove the berries at any time.

 

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא: לולב מצוה לאוגדו, ואם לא אגדו – כשר. אי רבי יהודה – כי לא אגדו אמאי כשר? אי רבנן – אמאי מצוה?

לעולם רבנן היא, ומשום שנאמר +שמות טו+ זה אלי ואנוהו – התנאה לפניו במצות.

 

According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid?

If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them, and if it is according to the Sages, why is it mitzvah’?

It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.

 

The Talmud now cites a baraita that doesn’t accord with either R. Judah or the sages. The baraita says that it is a mitzvah to bind the lulav’s components together but if one does not, it is still valid. This does not accord with either R. Judah who would seem to hold that if one doesn’t bind the lulav together it is not valid or with the sages who hold that the lulav need not be bound together.

The answer is that the baraita follows the rabbis who hold that even if it is not bound it is valid. Nevertheless, one should bind the lulav’s components for that makes them look nicer. The principle that one should make mitzvoth look more aesthetically pleasing is derived from the verse, "This is my God and I will adorn Him."