Sukkah 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Yehuda said

to prove his words:

An incident

in the towns

whose inhabitants did not live in places with orchards, and date palms were not readily available to them,

who would bequeath their lulavim to their grandchildren.

This demonstrates that they held that a dry lulav is valid, for certainly their lulavim could not have retained their moisture for so many years.

They said to him

the Sages:

Can this serve as proof? An emergency circumstance is no proof.

For it is possible that they did this merely as a remembrance, so that the tradition concerning the lulav would not be forgotten in Israel.

In any event, it teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry ones are valid.

Is it not the case

that “even”

refers to the etrog,

so that Rabbi Yehuda did not require the etrog to meet the criterion of hadar either?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

it refers to the lulav. In this regard Rabbi Yehuda declared valid one that does not meet the criterion of hadar. But with regard to the etrog, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that hadar is required, as it is stated in the Torah.

The Master said:

the four species,

just as one may not decrease their number, so one may not increase their number.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?

Surely we must fulfill the Torah’s command exactly as it is stated.

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say: Since Rabbi Yehuda says that a lulav requires binding, if one brings another species

and does not bind it together with the lulav, he would not violate the prohibition of adding to a mitzva, since

this one stands separately and that one stands separately

[this one stands on its own and that one stands on its own],

it teaches us

that even when he does not bind them together, if he takes them for the purpose of the mitzva, he violates the prohibition of adding to a mitzva.

The Master said:

If

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

And this is difficult:

Is this not obvious?

What novelty is there in this? The Torah required an etrog, not another species.

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say:

When he did not happen to obtain an etrog,

let him bring

even other species,

so that the tradition concerning the etrog would not be forgotten; it teaches us

that one should not do so, because

sometimes harm may result from it

[the matter may sometimes lead to an error],

as

even when he is able to find an etrog,

he may become accustomed

to bringing these species for the mitzva of lulav.

The Gemara now returns to discuss whether Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages concerning the etrog, that hadar is required:

Come and hear: An old etrog

whose moisture has been lost,

is invalid,

because it does not meet the criterion of hadar,

but Rabbi Yehuda declares it valid.

This demonstrates that Rabbi Yehuda also disagreed concerning the etrog and held that it need not meet the criterion of hadar. And we conclude: Indeed,

a refutation of Rava

[who said that the dispute concerns a lulav, but that everyone agrees that hadar is required for an etrog]

is a refutation.

The Gemara asks:

And

if

Rabbi Yehuda does not require

the

hadar

criterion for an etrog—

But we learned:

An etrog

that is green like leek

[a type of vegetable],

Rabbi Meir declares valid, and Rabbi Yehuda declares invalid.

The Gemara reasons: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda, who declares it invalid?

Is it not because he requires hadar,

and this etrog, which appears unripe, is not beautiful?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is not hadar, but

because

a green etrog

has not completed its development as a fruit,

and anything that is not a fully developed fruit is not an etrog.

The Gemara brings another proof:

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

What,

is it not

the reason Rabbi Yehuda requires such a large measure

because Rabbi Yehuda requires

the

hadar

for an etrog, as Rava said?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

here too Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is

because

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

has not completed its development as a fruit.

Come and hear: And for

an

etrog that is large,

its measure is

such that two can be held in one hand. But

an etrog so large that two like it cannot be held in one hand is invalid,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if

the etrog was so large that one must hold an etrog

with both hands,

it is valid.

What is the reason

Rabbi Yehuda invalidates an especially large etrog?

Is it not because he requires hadar

and such a large etrog is not beautiful?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

as a matter of strict law Rabbi Yehuda agrees that even if the etrog were very large, it would be valid. Rather,

since Rabba said:

The procedure for taking the lulav is that one holds the

lulav in the

right

hand and

the

etrog in the left; sometimes they may be switched,

so that one 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 switch 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 thereby become invalid.

The Gemara’s conclusion is therefore that according to Rabbi Yehuda, hadar is not required even for an etrog.

The Gemara consequently asks:

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, this

[after all]

is written

in the verse, “the fruit of a tree

of hadar”!

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

that “hadar” stated in the Torah means: What is the fruit that we are commanded to take? It is the fruit that

is

remains on its tree from year to year.

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

We learned in the Mishna: A lulav

of an asheira or of an apostate city

is invalid.

The Gemara asks:

And

is a lulav

of an asheira invalid?

But Rava said: A lulav of idolatry,

that is, one that was used for idolatry, such as one with which the ground before it was swept, or one whose mode of worship is to pass a lulav before it, and the like,

one should not take,

because it is repulsive before the Omnipresent,

but if one took it, it is valid!

It follows that a lulav of idolatry is invalid only ab initio, but after the fact, if one took it, he fulfilled his obligation with it?!

The Gemara explains:

Here,

in the Mishna, which invalidates an asheira lulav even after the fact,

we are dealing with Moses’ asheira.

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

because

it is destined to be burned,

its measure is regarded as crushed.

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

And

this too is precise: This disqualification indeed applies specifically to Moses’ asheira, which is destined to be burned,

as

it teaches: A lulav of an asheira or of an apostate city. This implies that the asheira is

A lulav from an idolatrous tree and from a city whose inhabitants were led astray, implying that the idolatrous tree is

analogous to an apostate city,

which is subject to burning, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 13:17]: “You shall gather all its spoil into its open square and burn it with fire,”

learn from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

If its top was cut off

the lulav is invalid.

Rav Huna said: They taught

that it is invalid

only

when it was

cut off. But

if the lulav

split,

that is, the tips of the leaves split,

it is valid.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

is a lulav that

split valid?

But it was taught

[we learned in a beraita]:

A bent lulav,

whose top was bent downward like a reed,