Sukkah 29b — the Talmud in English

3.

And for the fact that it was within the power of

the householders

to protest

against the idolaters of their generation, whose words were heeded on account of their wealth and whom people feared,

and

nevertheless

they did not protest.

4.

And concerning

householders

who publicly pledge charity

that they will give it to the poor,

but do not give.

Rav said:

Because of four things the assets of householders go to waste,

become buried and perish on their own:

a.

For withholding the wage of a hired worker,

he puts off his worker with “Go and return.”

b.

And for oppressing the wage of a hired worker,

he robs him of his wage entirely.

c.

And for casting off the yoke from their necks and placing it upon their fellows.

d.

And for haughtiness,

they become arrogant and rule over their brothers on account of their wealth [the wording of Rashi].

And haughtiness—

corresponds to all of them.

But concerning the humble it is written: “And the humble shall inherit the land, and they shall delight in the abundance of peace.”

We will return to you, chapter “The one who sleeps under the bed.”

It is stated in the Torah concerning the mitzva of lulav [Leviticus 23:40]:

“And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a splendid tree, date-palm fronds, and a branch of a braided tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God.”

In the chapter before us it is explained how all the laws of the four species, their details and their exact particulars, are learned from this verse.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses the laws of the lulav, and in the following mishnayot the laws of the other species [etrog, hadas, and arava] will be explained separately: which laws are equal in all four species, and which are unique to each species individually.

A stolen lulav, and

likewise a lulav

that is dry,

is invalid.

And the reason for the invalidity of a stolen lulav is that it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves,” and the Sages expounded: “for yourselves”—that the lulav should be your own, as will be explained below in the Gemara.

But the reason for the invalidity of a dry lulav is that it is not beautiful, and this follows from what the Sages expounded from the verse [Exodus 15:2] “This is my God and I shall glorify Him” [“I shall glorify Him” is an expression of beauty and splendor]: one must beautify and fulfill God’s mitzvot in the most beautiful and distinguished manner. Therefore one should seek a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, and the like, and for this reason they invalidated a dry lulav.

And likewise a lulav

of an asheira,

a lulav from a tree that is worshiped as idolatry,

and

a lulav

of an apostate city, is invalid.

The reason for the invalidity of a lulav of an apostate city is that the city and all its property are destined to be burned, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:17]: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its square, and burn it with fire.” Now, a lulav needs to contain a measure of four handbreadths, as explained below in the Gemara [32b]; and since this lulav is destined to be burned, “its measure is crushed away”: it is regarded as burned, as though its required measure no longer exists.

And likewise, a lulav of an asheira is invalid, because “its measure is crushed away.” And below [31b] it will be explained that this refers to asheira trees that the Israelites found at the time of the conquest of the Land, whose law is that they must be burned, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 12:3]: “And you shall burn their asheirim with fire.”

A lulav whose

top was broken off,

and likewise a lulav whose

leaves were split

apart,

that is, they were completely separated from the spine, and he then returned and attached them to it by means of a binding [like a broom of straw], is invalid.

And the reason for the matter is that they are not splendid.

But if only

its leaves were split apart,

that is, the leaves are attached at their lower ends to the spine, but separate from it above, like the branches of a tree [for this is the way of the branches of a palm as they grow], then it is

valid.

Rabbi Judah says:

If the leaves of the lulav were separated at their tops from the spine,

he should bind it from above,

so that through binding them, the leaves of the lulav will rise together with the spine, like other lulavim.

The Tzinei [

palms]

of the Iron Mountain,

lulavim whose leaves are few and small, and are very far apart from one another, so that the top of one leaf does not reach the base of the leaf above it, and the spine is partly exposed,

are valid.

Until now the Mishna explained which lulav is valid for fulfilling the mitzva; now the Mishna explains what the required measure of the lulav is:

A lulav that has

in its spine

three handbreadths

corresponding to the length of a hadas, since its leaves rise one additional handbreadth above the spine, which is the required measure

so that it can be shaken with it, is valid.

Below, on 37b, the Gemara said that one must shake the lulav toward the four directions of the heavens, in order to restrain evil winds and harmful dews. And the Gemara disputed whether the spine of the lulav must extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas, or whether it is sufficient that the leaves themselves rise one handbreadth.

Gemara:

The tanna stated

the ruling in the Mishna without qualification,

and taught: “A stolen lulav and a dry one are invalid.” And it implies that

it makes no difference whether on the first Festival day

of the festival, whose obligation is from the Torah, as it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a splendid tree, date-palm fronds, and a branch of a braided tree and willows of the brook,”

or whether on the second Festival day.

That is, on the remaining days of the festival, whose obligation in the provinces is only rabbinic, for they ordained taking it as a remembrance of the Temple, as explained below, 41a,

on both of them a stolen and a dry lulav are invalid.

And seemingly,

it is understandable

that a

dry

lulav is invalid both on the first day and on the remaining days of the festival, because

“we require ‘splendid,’ and there is none.”

That is, since the Sages ordained taking the lulav even on the remaining days as a remembrance of the Temple, certainly the mitzva must also be fulfilled with beautification on the remaining days of the festival.

But concerning a stolen one, it is understandable

that

on the first Festival day

of the festival,

for it is written

“And you shall take

for yourselves,”

whose meaning is

“it shall be your own,”

for this reason they invalidated a stolen lulav.

But on the second Festival day, why not

fulfill his obligation with a stolen lulav? For even in the Temple, where its obligation all seven days was from the Torah, it was not explained in the verse that the lulav should be “your own,” since the law of “for yourselves” is stated in the verse concerning the first day בלבד, whereas the obligation of lulav on the remaining days is learned from the continuation of the verse, which says: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days”?!

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: