Sukkah 29b (כט:) — the Talmud in English

c.

And because it was within the power

of the householders

to protest

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

and

nevertheless

they did not protest.

d.

And

the householders

who publicly pledge charity

to give it to the poor,

but do not give it.

Rav said:

For four matters, the possessions of householders are destroyed,

buried and ruined on their own:

a.

For withholding the wages of a hired worker,

putting off his worker with, “Go and come back.”

b.

And for robbing a hired worker of his wages,

taking his wages from him entirely.

c.

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

d.

And for arrogance,

becoming haughty and lording it over their brothers because of their wealth [Rashi’s wording].

And arrogance —

is equivalent to all of them.

But concerning the humble it is written: “And the humble shall inherit the land and delight in abundant peace.”

We have completed for you the chapter “One who sleeps beneath the bed.”

Regarding the mitzva of the lulav, the Torah states [Leviticus 23:40]:

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

This chapter explains how all the laws of the four species, including their details and precise requirements, are derived from this verse.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses the laws of the lulav. The laws of the other species—the etrog, hadas, and arava—will be explained separately in the following mishnayot, including which laws apply equally to all four species and which are unique to each species.

A stolen lulav, and a

lulav that is

dry,

are invalid.

The reason a stolen lulav is invalid is that it is written: “And you shall take for yourselves,” and the Sages expounded: “for yourselves”—the lulav must belong to you, as explained below in the Gemara.

The reason a dry lulav is invalid, meanwhile, is that it is not beautiful. This is based on the Sages’ exposition of the verse [Exodus 15:2], “This is my God and I will glorify Him” [the expression “I will glorify Him” indicates beauty], namely, that one must adorn and perform God’s mitzvot in the most beautiful and choice manner. Therefore, one should seek a beautiful lulav, a beautiful shofar, and the like, and for this reason a dry lulav was disqualified. Moreover, they asked: The Gemara below [31a] explains that a dry lulav is invalid because it is compared to an etrog, concerning which “beautiful” is stated. The Sages learned that the Torah thereby intended to distinguish the law of an etrog from that of the other mitzvot: with an etrog, the requirement of “beautiful” prevents fulfillment of the mitzva, and the lulav was compared to the etrog. If so, it is clear that this law is derived from the verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree,” and not from the law of “This is my God and I will glorify Him”!

the fruit of a beautiful tree, and the Kafot Temarim wrote in response that even according to Rashi, the disqualification of a dry lulav is learned from the etrog, concerning which “beautiful” is stated. However, without the halakhic tradition of “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” we would not have compared the lulav to the etrog so as to require a beautiful lulav. Only after the Torah revealed that God’s mitzvot must be performed in the most beautiful manner do we logically compare the lulav to the etrog. [For an explanation of this matter, see what Rashi the Arukh la-Ner wrote.] He offered another explanation: The verse “This is my God and I will glorify Him—adorn yourself before Him through mitzvot” does not have the same status everywhere. Sometimes it is merely a preferred initial requirement, and sometimes it prevents fulfillment of the mitzva; the verse entrusted the Sages with explaining which form of adornment is required initially and which is indispensable. A third way of resolving their difficulty is based on what Tosafot asked below [s.v. “we require beauty, but it is absent”]. The Gemara explains that the disqualification of “beauty” applies throughout all seven days, whereas the disqualification of “for yourselves”—that the lulav must be one’s own—applies only on the first day. Tosafot asked: How did the Sages learn to distinguish between these laws? Both were learned from the same verse. If the verse refers only to the first day, then a dry lulav should also be valid throughout the remaining days; and if it refers to the other days as well, the same should apply to the disqualification of “for yourselves”! According to the approach of Rashi it may be said that, indeed, by Torah law the verse refers only to the first day. However, because of “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” the Sages enacted that the lulav be taken throughout all seven days, in a manner analogous to the Torah requirement with regard to the disqualification of “beauty.” Kafot Temarim. Likewise, a lulav of an

ashera,

a lulav from a tree that is worshipped as idolatry,

and a

lulav

from an idolatrous city are invalid.

The reason a lulav from an idolatrous city is invalid is that the city and all its property are destined to be burned, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:17]: “You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn it with fire.” A lulav must contain a measure of four handbreadths, as the Gemara explains below [32b]. Since this lulav is destined to be burned, “its measure is crushed away”: we view it as burned, as though its required measure no longer exists.

Likewise, a lulav from an ashera is invalid because “its measure is crushed away.” Below [31b] it will be explained that this refers to the wood of an ashera found by the Israelites at the time of the conquest of the Land, whose law is that it must be burned, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 12:3]: “You shall burn their asherot with fire.”

A lulav whose top

has been cut off,

and likewise a lulav whose leaves

have been split

away,

meaning that they have become completely detached from the spine, and he then reattached them to it by means of a binding [like a straw broom], is invalid. As for the amount of cutting that disqualifies the lulav: In his glosses to the Shulchan Arukh, the Gaon of Vilna wrote that even the slightest cutting invalidates it. However, Ritva wrote in the name of the teachers of Rabbeinu Yona that it is disqualified only when most of a leaf has been cut off. Nevertheless, based on the precise wording of the Mishna, Ritva wrote that one should be concerned even about the slightest cutting, “for they made the top of the lulav analogous to the nose of an etrog, where even the slightest defect matters.” Rema also added there in the name of Mordekhai that only initially, when one can find an intact lulav, should one not take a lulav whose top has been cut off. But after the fact, where there are no other lulavim, one may take such a lulav and recite a blessing over it. See Taz, subsection 7, and Magen Avraham, subsection 6, which discuss his words at length. Kafot Temarim explained the position of Rif as an intermediate view between Rashi and Tosafot: the leaves have become somewhat detached from the spine but still remain hanging from it. He cited Raavad [Tamim De'im, section 229] as stating that according to Rif the matter is determined by the majority: if the leaves have become detached through most of the place where they are attached, and hang from the spine only slightly, the lulav is invalid; but if they remain attached through most of their point of attachment, the lulav is valid under the law of “split apart.” However, Ran wrote that Rif explained it like Rashi, and the Beit Yosef wrote that Rashi explained it like Rif.

The reason for this disqualification is that they are not beautiful.

But if only

its leaves have split apart,

meaning that the leaves remain attached to the spine at their bottom, but separate from it above like the branches of a tree [as is the natural growth of date-palm branches], it is

valid.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If the leaves of the lulav have separated from the spine at their tops,

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

he should bind it above,

so that, by binding them, the leaves of the lulav will rise together with the spine, as in other lulavim.

The palms

of

Mount Iron,

lulavim whose leaves are few and small and are spaced far apart, so that the tip of one leaf does not reach the base of the leaf above it, leaving part of the spine exposed,

are valid.

Until now, the Mishna explained which lulav is fit for fulfillment of the mitzva. It now explains the required measure of a lulav:

A lulav whose

spine is

three handbreadths

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

so that one can wave it, is valid.

The Gemara below, on 37b, states that one must wave the lulav toward the four directions of the heavens, in order to restrain harmful winds and harmful dews. The Gemara disagrees whether the spine of the lulav must extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas, or whether it is sufficient for the leaves themselves to extend one handbreadth beyond it.

Gemara:

The tanna stated

the ruling in the Mishna without qualification,

and taught: “A stolen lulav and a dry lulav are invalid.” This implies that

it makes no difference

whether it is on the first Festival day,

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

or whether it is on the second Festival day.

That is, on the remaining days of the festival, when the obligation in the provinces is only rabbinic, as the Sages enacted that the lulav be taken as a remembrance of the Temple, as explained below, on 41a, the stolen and dry lulav are invalid in both cases.

Apparently,

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 beauty, but it is absent.”

That is, since the Sages enacted that the lulav be taken on the remaining days as a remembrance of the Temple, the mitzva must certainly be fulfilled with adornment on those days as well.

Tosafot answered: One must distinguish between disqualifications stated with regard to the act of “taking” itself, such as “beauty,” which is an adornment of the mitzva itself, and laws that are not fundamental to the act of taking, such as “stolen” and “borrowed,” which are merely conditions for fulfillment of the mitzva. Raavad [Laws of Lulav], however, ruled that even disqualifications of “beauty” apply only on the first day. When they said, “It is understandable that a dry lulav is invalid—we require beauty, but it is absent,” implying that the disqualification of “beauty” applies on the remaining days of the festival as well, this is because the questioner held that “a verse is expounded with regard to what precedes it, but not with regard to what follows it.” That is, the words in the verse “on the first day,” which imply the exclusion of the remaining days, are expounded with regard to “for yourselves,” which precedes them, whereas with regard to disqualifications of “beauty,” the verse says: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.” He offered another explanation: The disqualification of a dry lulav is not learned from the etrog, concerning which “beauty” is stated; rather, it is based on a logical consideration—“the dead do not praise God.” This consideration applies throughout all seven days. See Ramban. For additional statements of the Rishonim on this matter, see the extensive discussion in the Yalkut Mefarshim. However, according to Rashi, who explained that the disqualification of a dry lulav is not learned from the etrog, concerning which “beauty” is stated, but rather that a mitzva must be performed in an enhanced manner because of “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” Tosafot’s difficulty does not arise at all, since this law was certainly not stated specifically with regard to the first day; it is a general law applying to all mitzvot. See Meiri. But concerning a stolen lulav, it is understandable that on the

first Festival day

of the festival,

as it is written

“And you shall take

for yourselves,”

meaning

that it must be your own,

and therefore a stolen lulav was disqualified.

But on the second Festival day, why is he not

fulfilling his obligation with a stolen lulav? Even in the Temple, where the obligation applied for all seven days by Torah law, the verse did not state that the lulav must be “your own,” since the law of “for yourselves” is stated in the verse only with regard to the first day. The obligation to take the lulav on the remaining days is derived from the continuation of the verse, which states: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days”?!

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

Page 30a