Sukkah 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

And likewise, a lulav that is

bristling,

that is, whose leaves project from its spine like thorns, or that was

split

[and the Gemara initially understood this to mean that its leaves or spine were split at their tips], or

bent

that

resembles a sickle,

which is shaped like half a granary,

is unfit.

And likewise, a lulav that is

hard like a palm branch,

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

is unfit.

But if it merely

resembled a hard palm branch,

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

it is fit.

In any event, it is evident from the beraita that a split lulav is unfit, contrary to the statement of Rav Huna?!

Rav Pappa said:

What we learned—that a split lulav is unfit—does not refer to one whose leaves or spine split; rather,

it was made like a fork.

That is, the lulav became like a two-pronged fork: the top of the spine divides into two heads, with half the leaves on one side and half on the opposite side.

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

bent and resembled a sickle—

it is unfit.

Rava said: We said

that it is unfit

only

when the lulav became bent

forward,

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

backward

toward the spine,

that is its natural formation.

That is, this is the natural manner of its growth, and it is fit.

Rav Naḥman said:

If the lulav became bent

to the sides,

since this is not its usual manner,

it is considered like one bent forward

and is unfit.

And

some

say

that Rav Naḥman stated the opposite: If it became bent to the sides,

it is considered like one bent backward

and is fit.

And Rava said: This lulav that grows with all its leaves on one side,

meaning that all its leaves emerge from one side of the spine,

is deformed and unfit.

We learned in the Mishna:

If its leaves were torn apart,

it is unfit; if its leaves separated, it is fit.

Rav Pappa said:

What is stated in the Mishna,

“were torn apart,”

means

that it was made like a broom

[which was shaped like a broom used to sweep the house], meaning that its leaves were completely torn away and he bound them together with the spine.

As for what they said concerning

“separated,”

this means

that they separated apart,

meaning that the tips of the leaves separated like the branches of a date palm and no longer lie one upon the other along the spine. At their base, however, they remain attached to the spine.

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: If the central twin leaf split,

that is, if the two middle leaves emerging from the top of the spine and attached to one another split [for this reason it is called a central twin leaf: they are attached to one another like twins], and as a result the spine split down to the point where the leaves below them emerge,

what is

[the halakha—does this disqualify the lulav]?

The Gemara brings a proof:

Come and hear, for Rabbi Matun said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

If

the central twin leaf was removed,

meaning that these leaves were completely torn from the lulav, it

is unfit.

The Gemara understood:

Is it not that the same law

applies, so that it is also disqualified if it merely

split?

The Gemara rejects this:

No; removal is different, for it is lacking

—when it is removed, the lulav becomes deficient, and for that reason it is unfit. But when it is whole and only its central twin leaf has split, it is fit.

Some say: Rabbi Matun said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

If

the central twin leaf split, it is as though the central twin leaf had been removed,

for anything whose central twin leaf is not formed in the manner of its natural growth is considered as though it is absent,

and it is unfit.

According to this version, Rav Pappa’s dilemma is resolved, for it is demonstrated here that if the central twin leaf split, it is unfit.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A lulav whose leaves separated should be bound at the top, so that its leaves will not project to the sides.

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

It is written,

“The branches of date palms,”

which indicates that the lulav must be

bound

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

if it was

a lulav whose leaves were

separated, he should bind it.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where

do you know that what

“the branches of date palms”

written in the verse refers to a

lulav

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

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

we require

the lulav to be

bound,

so that if its leaves separate, one must bind it until its leaves lie one upon the other,

but

with a hard palm branch

there is no

such possibility, for the lulavim emerging from it are hard and cannot be bound over it.

The Gemara further asks:

And say that “the branches of date palms” stated by the Torah refers to

“a palm spathe,”

the trunk,

which is part of the date palm’s trunk, with no branch emerging from that piece in either direction—for what could be more “bound” than this?!

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

“bound,” it follows that there is also

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

separation,

in which case one is required to bind it,

whereas this one is always bound and standing,

since no branch emerges from it.

He said to him: And say that “the branches of date palms” refers to

a young palm spathe,

a young palm branch,

which is also similar to a hard palm branch, except that it has been on the tree for only one year; therefore, the branches emerging from it have not yet fully hardened and can be bound over it?!

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

[Proverbs 3:17]

is written,

but these are made like thorns and scratch the hands.

Rava Tosfa’a said to Ravina: And say that “the branches of date palms” means

two palms of dates

two palms of dates—

two branches holding the dates themselves [for the palm has small, dense branches resembling a hand, at whose tips the dates grow]?!

The Gemara answers:

“Bound” is written,

with the defective spelling, indicating a single palm.

The Gemara further asks:

And say one—

a single branch of dates?!

He said to him:

That is called a palm.

That is, if the verse intended to require a palm branch bearing dates, it should have said kaf rather than kaft. Necessarily, then, the verse’s use of kaft is intended in the sense of “bound,” to teach that if it was separated, one should bind it. This law applies only to a lulav, as explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

The palms of the Iron Mountain

[these lulavim had few leaves, spaced far apart, and their leaves were also short, unlike those of other lulavim]—

are fit.

Abaye said: We said

that the palms of the Iron Mountain are fit

only if

the

tip of

one

leaf reaches the base of

another

leaf,

so that the spine is not exposed. But if

the tip of

one

leaf does not reach the base of

another

leaf—

it is unfit.

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

The Gemara proves its statement from the beraita:

It was taught likewise: The palms of the Iron Mountain are unfit. But did we not learn

in our Mishna that the palms of the Iron Mountain

are fit?! Rather,

certainly

conclude from this that Abaye is correct:

only when the tip of one leaf reaches the base of another is it fit, and this is the case discussed in our Mishna. But if the spine is exposed between one leaf and another, the lulav is unfit, and this is the case discussed in the beraita. And the Gemara concludes:

Conclude from this.