Sukkah 31b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Judah said

to prove his words:

An incident ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

in the provincial cities

whose inhabitants did not live in a place of orchards, and dates were not commonly available to them,

for they would bequeath their lulavim to their sons’ sons.

It follows that they held that a dry lulav is fit, for surely their lulavim would not have remained moist for so many years.

They said to him

the Sages:

Can a proof be brought from there? A time of distress is not a proof.

For it is possible that they did so only as a mere memorial, so that the tradition of the lulav should not be forgotten from Israel.

In any event, it is taught: Rabbi Judah says: Even dry ones are fit.

Is it not

even

the etrog

that this refers to, and it consequently follows that Rabbi Judah did not require the law of beauty even for an etrog?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

it refers to the lulav, for in this Rabbi Judah declared fit one that is not beautiful. But regarding an etrog, Rabbi Judah agrees that we require beauty, as it is stated in the Torah.

The Master said:

The four species:

just as one does not decrease from them, so one does not add to them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

It is obvious,

for surely we must fulfill the commandment of the Torah as it is explicitly stated in it?

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say: Since Rabbi Judah said that a lulav requires binding, if he brings another species

and does not bind it with the lulav, he does not transgress the prohibition of adding, since

this one stands separately and that one stands separately

[this one stands by itself and that one stands by itself],

it teaches us

that even when he does not bind them together, if he takes them for the sake of the mitzva, he transgresses the prohibition of adding.

The Master said:

If

he did not find an etrog, he should bring neither a pomegranate, nor a quince, nor anything else.

And this is difficult:

It is obvious,

what novelty is this? The Torah required an etrog, and not another species?

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say:

When an etrog did not happen to be available to him,

let him bring

even other species

so that the tradition of the etrog should not be forgotten; it teaches us

that one should not do so, because

at times harm may result from it,

[sometimes this can lead to error],

for

even when he is able to find an etrog,

he may come to become accustomed

to bringing these species for the mitzva of the lulav.

The Gemara now returns to discuss whether Rabbi Judah agrees with the Sages concerning an etrog, that we require beauty:

Come and hear: An old etrog

whose moisture has been lost,

is disqualified

because it is not beautiful,

but Rabbi Judah declares it fit.

It follows that Rabbi Judah also differed concerning an etrog and held that it need not be beautiful. And we conclude: Indeed,

a refutation of Rava

[who said that the dispute is concerning a lulav, but concerning an etrog everyone requires beauty]

is a refutation.

The Gemara asks:

And

if

Rabbi Judah does not require

beauty

in an etrog?

in an etrog,

But did we not learn:

An etrog

that is green like leek

[a type of vegetable],

Rabbi Meir declares fit, and Rabbi Judah disqualifies.

And the Gemara reasons: What is the reason for Rabbi Judah, who disqualifies it?

Is it not because he requires beauty,

and this etrog, which appears like an unripe fruit, is not beautiful?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

Rabbi Judah’s reason is not beauty, but

because

a green etrog

is not a completed fruit,

and anything that is not a complete fruit is not an etrog.

The Gemara brings another proof:

Come and hear: The measure of a small etrog: Rabbi Meir says, like a nut; Rabbi Judah says, like an egg.

What,

is it not

the reason for Rabbi Judah, who requires so large a measure,

because Rabbi Judah requires

beauty

in an etrog,

as Rava said?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

here too, Rabbi Judah’s reason is

because

as long as it has not reached this measure, it is still

not a completed fruit.

Come and hear: And concerning a

large

etrog,

its measure is

such that two can be held in one hand. But

an etrog which, because of its size, cannot be held together with another like it in one hand is disqualified,

the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if

the etrog was so large that one must hold an etrog

with both his hands,

it is fit.

What is the reason

for Rabbi Judah, who disqualifies a very large etrog?

Is it not because he requires beauty,

and such a very large etrog is not beautiful?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

as a matter of fundamental law Rabbi Judah agrees that even if the etrog were very large, it is fit. Rather,

since Rabbah said:

The order of taking the lulav is that he holds the

lulav in the

hand

right and

the

etrog in the left; at times they may be switched,

so that he mistakenly holds the lulav in his left hand and the etrog in his right,

and

when

he comes to reverse them

[when he comes to reverse them], he must hold both of them in one hand for a moment. If the etrog is excessively large, there is concern that it may fall from his hand

and he may come to disqualify it.

It therefore follows from the Gemara’s conclusion that according to Rabbi Judah we do not require beauty even for an etrog.

The Gemara consequently asks:

But then, according to Rabbi Judah, this

[behold]

is written

in the verse: “Fruit of a tree

beautiful”!

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Judah holds that the verse does not intend to require an etrog that is beautiful in appearance, but

that the “beautiful”

stated in the Torah means: Which is the fruit that we were commanded to take? This is the one that

remains on its tree from year to year.

That is, unlike other fruits, the etrog does not grow in a single year, but its growth lasts several years; from this the Sages learned that the Torah wishes to hint to us that we should take specifically an etrog, although the matter was not explicitly stated in the verse.

We learned in the Mishna: A lulav

of an ashera and of an apostate city

is disqualified.

The Gemara asks:

And

is a lulav

of an ashera disqualified?

But Rava said: A lulav of idolatry,

that is, one that was used for idolatry, such as when the ground before it was swept with it, or when its mode of worship is by passing a lulav before it, and the like,

one should not take,

because it is repulsive before the One on High,

but if he took it, it is fit!

It is proved, then, that a lulav of idolatry is disqualified only initially; but after the fact, if he took it, he fulfilled his obligation with it?!

The Gemara explains:

Here,

in the Mishna, where a lulav of an ashera is disqualified even after the fact,

we are dealing with the ashera of Moses.

That is, with those asherot that the Israelites found when they entered the Land, concerning which it is stated [Deuteronomy 12:3]: “And you shall burn their asherot with fire.” Now a lulav requires a measure [four handbreadths], whereas an ashera has no measure,

for

since it stands to be burned,

, its measure is crushed away.

That is, we view it as though it had been crushed and ground exceedingly finely, so that it has no measure at all.

And

this too is precise, that this disqualification was stated specifically concerning the ashera of Moses, which stands to be burned,

from the fact that it teaches:

it teaches:

a lulav of an ashera and of an apostate city, implying that the ashera is

analogous to an apostate city,

whose law is burning, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:17]: “And you shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square and burn it with fire,”

learn from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If its top was severed,

the lulav is disqualified.

Rav Huna said: They taught

that it is disqualified

only

when it is

severed. But

if the lulav

is split,

that is, the tips of the leaves have split,

it is fit.

The Gemara asks:

And

is a lulav that

has split fit?

But it was taught

[behold, we learned in a beraita]:

A bent lulav,

whose top was bent downward like a reed,