Sukkah 32b (לב:) — the Talmud in English

And there are those who present it as a contradiction—

some raised a contradiction between the statement of the Mishna here, which validates iron-mountain palms, and the beraita, which invalidates them; and in the course of resolving this contradiction, Abaye’s distinction was taught.

We learned

in our Mishna:

“Iron-mountain palms are valid.” But was it not taught

in a beraita: “Iron-mountain palms

are invalid”?!

Abaye said: This is not difficult: Here

the Mishna is speaking

where the tip of one reaches the base of the other,

and therefore it validates them; whereas

here

the beraita is speaking

where the tip of one does not reach the base of the other,

and therefore it is invalid.

Rabbi Maryon said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said—and some say that Rabba bar Mari taught it in the name of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: There are two date palms

two palm trees

in

a place called

Gei ben Hinnom,

adjacent to Jerusalem,

and smoke rises between them. And this is what we learned: “Iron-mountain palms are valid”; and this is the opening of Gehinnom.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A lulav that is three handbreadths long,

long enough to wave with, is valid.”

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The measure of a hadas and an arava—

three

handbreadths;

and

the measure of a

lulav is four, so that the lulav extends one

handbreadth

beyond the hadas.

The reason is that, within its species, it is taller than all the others, and the Four Species must be taken in the manner in which they grow.

And Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yohanan

added to his statement: The primary requirement concerns

the spine of the lulav,

which

must extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas,

and it is not enough that the lulav leaves extending from the top of the spine be one handbreadth taller than the hadas.

The Gemara raises an objection:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“A lulav that is three handbreadths long, sufficient to wave with, is valid,”

which clearly indicates that the lulav need not measure four handbreadths?!

The Gemara answers:

Say

this instead [that is, this is how the Mishna is to be understood]: A lulav that is three handbreadths long

and sufficient to wave with,

meaning, in addition, it has another handbreadth with which to wave it,

is valid.

That handbreadth is interpreted

by each master according to his own view.

That is, Shmuel explains it as the upper leaves of the lulav extending one handbreadth beyond the hadas, whereas Rabbi Yohanan explains that this handbreadth is measured from the spine.

The Gemara now discusses whether the halakha follows Shmuel, that this handbreadth is measured from the leaves, or Rabbi Yohanan, that it is measured from the spine:

Come and hear: The measure of a hadas and arava is three

handbreadths,

and the lulav—

four.

The Gemara infers:

Is it not

that these four handbreadths are measured

together with

in addition to

the leaves,

contrary to Rabbi Yohanan?

The Gemara rejects this:

No; apart from the leaves.

That is, the spine itself must extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

As for the matter itself: The measure of a hadas and arava—

three, and the lulav—

four:

Rabbi Tarfon says: According to a cubit of five handbreadths.

The Gemara initially understood Rabbi Tarfon to mean that the measure of a hadas and arava is a cubit consisting of five handbreadths.

Rava said: May his Master forgive him

forgive him

—Rabbi Tarfon!

That is, he ought to ask forgiveness for his statement, as it is astonishing!

For

now,

even a hadas that is

dense

—that is, its leaves are arranged in clusters, with three leaves emerging from each, so that it appears like a chain made of successive links—of

three

handbreadths

we do not readily find

—for most long hadasim are hadashim shotim, whose leaves do not emerge at the same height in each cluster—

of five

handbreadths,

is that even necessary? According to his statement, no one could fulfill his obligation on the festival!

According to his words, no person would fulfill his obligation on the festival!

When Rav Dimi came

to Babylonia, he explained that statement of Rabbi Tarfon and

said

that Rabbi Tarfon indeed agrees that the measure of a hadas and arava is three handbreadths; rather, he means that those three handbreadths must be large, as will be explained.

He said as follows:

A cubit

that ordinarily is

six handbreadths, make it five

handbreadths; that is, each handbreadth should equal one handbreadth and one-fifth, and the three handbreadths are measured using these handbreadths.

Subtract from them

from those handbreadths

three for the hadas, and the remainder for the lulav.

That is, the fourth handbreadth added for the lulav is also measured using these handbreadths.

How much do they amount to

those three large handbreadths—that is, how many ordinary handbreadths are they?

Three

ordinary handbreadths

and three-fifths.

That is, three and three-fifths.

The Gemara raises an objection:

There is a difficulty from Shmuel against Shmuel!

For

here Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The measure of a hadas and arava—

three.

This implies that three ordinary handbreadths suffice.

But

whereas

there

elsewhere

Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

who measures them using large handbreadths?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

Shmuel was imprecise

in his statement here, when he said that their measure is three ordinary handbreadths; the essential ruling is his ruling that the halakha follows Rabbi Tarfon, and these handbreadths must be measured as large handbreadths.

The Gemara raises an objection:

We say that he was imprecise

when the matter will result

in

a

stringency. But

here, because Shmuel was imprecise in his statement, the matter will result

in

a

leniency,

as people will think that three ordinary handbreadths suffice and will take hadasim that are shorter than the required measure. In such a case,

do we say that he was imprecise?!

When Ravin

came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia,

he said

that this is what Shmuel meant:

A cubit of five handbreadths

ordinary handbreadths,

make it

like one of

six

handbreadths. That is, divide this cubit into six handbreadths, so that each of them is smaller than an ordinary handbreadth. Using these handbreadths,

subtract three for the hadas

and arava,

and the remainder for the lulav.

That is, the lulav’s fourth handbreadth is also measured using these smaller handbreadths.

It follows that Rabbi Tarfon came to be lenient, and this is what he said: The three handbreadths by which the hadas and arava are measured should be small, so that they amount to only half a cubit of a five-handbreadth cubit [whereas three ordinary handbreadths are half of a six-handbreadth cubit].

And consequently,

how much do they amount to

those three small handbreadths [that is, how many ordinary handbreadths are they]?

Two and a half.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Ultimately, there is still a difficulty from Shmuel against Shmuel!

For here he said that the measure of a hadas and arava is three handbreadths, implying ordinary handbreadths, whereas there he ruled in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon, who suffices with three small handbreadths?!

The Gemara answers:

Shmuel was imprecise

in his statement, and here this can indeed be said, since

that is

the case in which he was imprecise

in the direction of stringency.

Because he was imprecise in his statement and said that three ordinary handbreadths are required, the matter will result in a stringency, since according to the fundamental law two and a half handbreadths, which are three small handbreadths, suffice, as this is the halakha,

as Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon.

Mishna:

A stolen and a dried-out hadas —

is invalid. [The stolen one, because of the requirement “for you,” and the dried-out one, because of the requirement of hadar, “beauty.”]

The stolen one is unfit because of the requirement “for yourselves,” and the dry one because of the requirement “splendid.”]

One belonging to an asheira or to an idolatrous city—

is invalid. [Because its measure is considered crushed and nonexistent.]

Because its measure is considered crushed and diminished.]

If its top was cut off

[of the spine], or its leaves

were torn away,

fell off,

or its berries

[small green or red fruits that grow from the spine]

were more numerous than its leaves—

it is invalid,

because it does not possess hadar.

But if he reduced them

those berries until they were fewer than its leaves,

it is valid.

And one may not reduce

them

on the Festival day

itself, but only on the eve of the Festival, because of the prohibition of “repairing an implement.” It is forbidden to repair an object on the Festival or on Shabbat in order to render it fit for its purpose.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the Torah [Leviticus 23:40]: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day

the branch of a leafy tree,”

and the meaning of the verse is

that

its

branches should cover

cover

its wood.

That is, the spine should be entirely covered by the leaves, which are arranged like a braid and lie one upon another.

And what is this

tree whose branches cover it?

You must say that this is the hadas.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps

this tree is

an olive tree,

whose branches are all filled with leaves, and because they are numerous, they cover most of the branch?

The Gemara rejects this:

We require it to be dense,

that is, formed like a braided chain, with the leaves arranged one upon another;

and

in an olive tree

this is absent

—it does not have this feature.

But perhaps

this means

a dulba

—a chestnut tree—whose leaves are braided like a chain?

The Gemara answers:

We require

that its

branches cover its wood, and this is absent

in the dulba, since its leaves are not continuous and most of its spine is exposed.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps

“a leafy tree” means

oleander,

a thorny shrub whose leaves are arranged like a braid?

Abaye said:

It is written:

“Its ways are ways of pleasantness”

[Proverbs 3:17],

and this is absent

in the oleander, since the tips of its leaves are sharp like needles and wound the hands.

Rava said: From here

we derive this halakha, as it is stated [Zechariah 8:19]:

“Love truth and peace,”

and this is neither truth nor peace, since it is made into a deadly poison.

The Sages taught: One braided like a braid and resembling a chain—this is the hadas.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

This is how the Sages expounded the verse:

“A branch of a leafy tree”

is the hadas, as it implies:

“A tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste”—you must say that this is the hadas.

A tanna taught: A leafy tree—

is valid; and one that is not leafy—

is invalid.

What are the circumstances of a leafy tree?

Rav Yehuda said: It is where three and three

three at a time

leaves

leaves

in

one

cluster,

with all three emerging from a single stem.

Rav Kahana said: Even if

there were

two

emerging from one stem

and one

rose from below and rested upon them, it is valid.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,

would

seek

specifically

a

hadas that had

two and one,

although if all three emerged from one stem, it would certainly be valid,

since it emerged

in this manner

from Rav Kahana’s mouth.

This teaches us that one should rely on this ruling ab initio.

Mar bar Amemar said to Rav Ashi: Father, that

hadas whose leaves grow two and one,

is called a wild hadas;

how can you take it?

The Sages taught: If most of its leaves fell off

from each and every cluster,

and a minority remained on it,—

it is valid, provided that its dense arrangement remains.

And the Gemara wonders:

This itself is difficult! You said: If most of its leaves fell, it is fit, and then you taught: provided that its dense foliage remains intact,

but behold,

since two fell

from each and every cluster, which constitute the majority of its leaves—

how can its dense foliage be found

to still remain intact?!