Sukkah 32a — the Talmud in English

And likewise a lulav that is

thorny,

that is, from whose spine [the leaves] protruded like thorns, or that was

split

[and the Gemara now understood that it was split at the tops of the leaves or at the spine], or

bent

that

resembled a sickle

made like half a granary,

is invalid.

And likewise a lulav that is

woody,

that is, hard [for this is the way of the lulav: its leaves fall during the rainy season and its spine becomes hard like wood ],

is invalid.

But if it was only

resembling a woody branch,

having begun to harden but not yet having become hard like wood,

it is valid.

In any event, from the words of the beraita it is clear that a split lulav is invalid, contrary to the words of Rav Huna?!

Rav Pappa said:

What we learned—that a split lulav is invalid—does not refer to one whose leaf-tops or spine split; rather,

it was made like a fork.

That is, the lulav became like a fork with two prongs. This means that the top of the spine divides into two tops, with half the leaves on this side and half on the side opposite it.

We also learned above in the beraita: If the lulav was

We further learned in the beraita above: If the lulav was

bent and resembled a sickle—

it is invalid.

Rava said: We said

only

that it is invalid when the lulav became bent

forward,

toward the side opposite the spine, the place toward which the leaves incline. But if it became bent

backward

toward the spine,

that is its natural formation.

That is, this is the manner of its growth by the nature of its formation, and it is valid.

Rav Naḥman said:

If the lulav became bent

to the sides,

since this is not its usual way,

it is considered like [bending] forward

and is invalid.

And

some

say it

as the statement of Rav Naḥman in reverse: If it became bent to the sides,

it is considered like [bending] backward

and is valid.

And Rava said: This lulav that rises with one leaf,

whose leaves all emerge from one side of the spine,

is blemished and invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Its leaves were torn away”

it is invalid; “its leaves separated,” it is valid.

Rav Pappa said:

What is stated in the Mishna,

“were torn away,”

means

“it was made like a broom,”

[that it was made like a broom used to sweep the house], that its leaves were completely torn away and he bound them together with the spine. But what they said,

“separated,”

means

“separated apart,”

that the tops of the leaves separated like the branches of a date palm and do not lie one upon the other along the spine. But at their bottom they remain attached to the spine.

Rav Pappa raised a question: The central paired leaf split,

that is, the two middle leaves emerging from the top of the spine and attached together

[for this reason it is called a central paired leaf, since they are joined to one another like twins], and through this the spine split until the place from which the leaves below them emerge, what is [the law]?

[Is the lulav thereby invalidated?]

And the Gemara brings a proof: Come and hear, for Rabbi Matun said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

If

the central paired leaf was removed,

that these leaves were completely torn from the lulav,

it is invalid.

And the Gemara reasoned:

What, is it not the same law

that we should invalidate it even if it merely

split?

The Gemara rejects this:

No; removal is different, for it is lacking because of it.

For through its removal the lulav becomes deficient, and for that reason it is invalid. But when it is whole and only its central paired leaf split, it is valid.

There are those who say: Rabbi Matun said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

If

the central paired leaf split, it becomes as one whose central paired leaf was removed,

for anything whose central paired leaf is not formed according to its manner of growth is considered as though it is absent,

and it is invalid.

According to this approach, Rav Pappa’s uncertainty is resolved, for it is proven here that if the central paired leaf split, it is invalid.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A lulav whose leaves separated—he should bind it above, so that its leaves will not extend to the sides.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon:

It is written,

“the branch of a date palm,”

and it implies that the lulav must be

bound

[from the language of binding—tied, as we find in tractate Makkot 22b regarding lashes: “He binds his two hands to the pillar”], and from here Rabbi Yehuda learned that

if it was

a lulav

separated, he shall bind it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where [do you know] that this

which is written in the verse,

“the branch of a date palm,” refers to a lulav? Let us say

that it is

a woody branch

[a date-palm branch that grew on the tree for two or three years and has already hardened like wood, from which many lulavim emerge, which likewise have already hardened like wood and whose leaves fell during the rainy season; this is what the Torah required for fulfillment of the mitzva]?!

The Gemara answers: It certainly cannot be explained in this way, for

we require

that the lulav be

bound,

for if its leaves separated, one must bind it until its leaves lie one upon the other,

but

with a woody branch

there is none

of this law, for those lulavim that emerge from it are hard and it is impossible to bind them over it.

The Gemara adds and asks:

And let us say that “the branch of a date palm” stated by the Torah means

the palm core,

which is part of the trunk of the date palm, and no branch emerges from that piece in either direction, so that there is nothing more “bound” than it?!

The Gemara answers: From the fact that the Torah required the lulav to be

“bound,” it follows that there is

also

separated,

in which case it is incumbent upon you to bind it,

whereas this is bound and permanently stands [as bound],

for no branch emerges from it.

He said to him: And let us say that “the branch of a date palm” means

the young palm branch,

which is likewise a kind of woody branch, except that it was on the tree for only one year, and therefore the branches emerging from it have not yet hardened fully and can be bound over it?!

He said to him: And say that “the branch of a date palm” refers to

a young palm spathe,

a young branch,

Abaye said: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace”

[Proverbs 3:17] is written, for these are made like thorns and scratch the hands. Rava Tosafaa said to Ravina: And let us say that “the branch of a date palm” means the two palms of the dates— two palms that hold the dates themselves [which the palm has, in the form of small, dense branches resembling a palm, at whose tops the dates grow]?! The Gemara answers: “Bound” is written,

[Proverbs 3:17]

is written,

whereas these are made like thorns and scratch the hands.

with defective spelling, and this implies one palm.

The Gemara adds and asks:

And let us say one—

one palm of dates?!

He said to him:

That is called a palm.

That is, if the verse’s intention were to require a palm of dates, it should not have said “bound” but “palm”; and necessarily one must say that when the verse said “bound,” its intention was the expression “bound,” to tell you that if it was separated, he should bind it. This halakha applies only to a lulav, as explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

The iron-mountain palms

[These lulavim had few leaves, spaced far apart; in addition, the leaves were short, unlike those of other lulavim]—

are valid.

Abaye said: We said [this] only

that the iron-mountain palms are valid

when

the

top of

this

leaf

reaches the side of the base of

this

leaf,

so that the spine was not exposed. But if

the top of

this leaf

does not reach the side of the base of

this

leaf—

it is invalid.

one leaf

does not reach the side of the base of

the other

And the Gemara proves its words from the beraita:

It was taught likewise: The iron-mountain palms are invalid. But we learned in our Mishna

that the iron-mountain palms are valid?! Rather, certainly

conclude from it according to Abaye,

that only when the top of one reaches the side of the base of the other is it valid, and this is the case discussed by our Mishna. But if the spine was exposed between one leaf and another, the lulav is invalid, and this is the case discussed by the beraita. And the Gemara concludes:

Conclude from it.

are fit?! Rather,

certainly

conclude from this that the ruling is in accordance with Abaye:

only when the tip of one leaf reaches the side of the base of the other is it fit, and this is the case discussed by our Mishna. But if the central stem is exposed between one leaf and the next, the lulav is unfit, and this is the case discussed by the beraita. The Gemara concludes:

Conclude from this.