Sukkah 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

Abaye said: You find it

tochnoe raspolozhenie stranitsy")

in the Egyptian myrtle,

the myrtle that grows along the boundaries of the field, which, since it has a great deal of available space, grows more robustly,

as there are

on it

seven or seven

leaves

on a single stem,

and not merely three,

so that when four fall

of them, which constitute the majority of its leaves, there nevertheless

remain three,

and its braided appearance remains.

Abaye said: Learn from this

from this explanation that

this Egyptian myrtle

is fit for the hoshana.

And the Gemara wonders:

It is obvious!

Why should it not be fit? What deficiency is there in the fact that many leaves grow on it?!

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say: Since it has

this myrtle

an accompanying name,

as it is not called simply myrtle, but Egyptian myrtle,

it is not rendered fit,

as this is not the myrtle mentioned in the Torah,

it teaches us

that nevertheless it is fit.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps this is indeed so,

perhaps this myrtle truly is not fit for this reason?!

The Gemara answers:

“A thickly leaved tree,” the Merciful One stated,

and this indicates

in any event,

meaning that all myrtles are fit for the mitzva, provided that their thickly leaved appearance remains.

The Sages taught:

If

the majority of its leaves have dried

of the myrtle,

and there remain three branches of

leaves—that is, three stems, each of which had three

fresh leaves

[for with fewer than this it does not have the appearance of a thickly leaved branch] —

it is fit.

And Rav Ḥisda said: And

that is specifically when those three fresh leaves remain

at the top of each and every one

of the branches. But if they remain in the middle of the branches, it does not have the requisite beauty.

We learned in the Mishna:

If its top was cut off

the myrtle—it is unfit:

Ulla bar Ḥinnana taught: If its top was cut off and there grew on it

a kind of

date,

which resembles a green fruit attached to the top of the central stalk [the phenomenon is especially common in willow leaves, and in antiquity they used it to dye clothing]—

it is fit.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: If its top was cut off on the eve of the Festival,

and a date grew on it during the Festival,

after it had been bound together with the other species,

what is the halakha? [Even after it has been detached, a date can grow on it.] And this was his uncertainty: We hold with regard to offerings that if an animal was fit to be offered, and after it was slaughtered it was disqualified from being fit as an offering, it can no longer become fit as an offering, even if the cause of its disqualification is removed. [For example, if the offering was slaughtered and, before it was burned on the altar, the altar became defective, as it is stated in tractate Zevaḥim 59a: Once it has been rejected for even one moment, it is rejected forever].

«Palma» mozhet vyiti na nem dazhe posle togo, kak ego sorvali]. Ved nam izvestno v otnoshenii zhertvoprinosheniy, chto esli zhivotnoe bylo prigodno dlya zhertvoprinosheniya, a posle ego zaklaniya stalo neotvetchayushchim usloviyam prigodnosti zhertvy, ono bolshe ne mozhet stat prigodnym, dazhe esli prichina ego otstraneniya byla ustranena. [Naprimer, zhertvu zakololi, no do vozlozheniya yeye chastey na altar altar poluchil povrezhdenie; kak skazano v traktate Zevahim, 59a: poskolku ona byla otvergnuta hotya by na odin moment, ona otvergnuta navsegda].

And therefore he raised the following dilemma: Is there

a

principle of

rejection

also

with regard to mitzvot,

meaning, once the myrtle was disqualified when its top was cut off, is it no longer fit forever, and therefore, since its top was cut off, it would not be fit even if a date grew on it,

or

perhaps

no

such halakha was stated with regard to mitzvot?

We considered the matter:

Let us resolve

this uncertainty

from that which we learned

with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood:

If a person covered

the blood of a wild animal or bird,

and

afterward

the blood became exposed,

the blood—he is

exempt from

covering it

again,

as he has already fulfilled his mitzva. But if

the wind covered it

initially, before he had an opportunity to fulfill the mitzva—he is

obligated to cover it.

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught

not

that when the wind covered it he must uncover it and cover it again,

but

only where

the blood returned

and

became exposed

afterward. But if

it did not return and become exposed, he is exempt from covering it.

And we considered the matter: When it returned and became exposed

also,

why is he obligated to cover it

again, and why do we not say that

since it was rejected

from its mitzva through the wind’s covering it, for as long as it was covered he was exempt from covering it

it was rejected

from its mitzva entirely, even after it became exposed?

And Rav Pappa said: That is to say,

it is proven from here that

there is no principle of rejection with regard to mitzvot.

The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Yirmeya did not in fact raise the question of whether the law of mitzvot is the same in this regard as the law of offerings. Rather, this is precisely what

Rav Pappa

inferred

from

the beraita

itself—

he raised a dilemma:

Did

the tanna resolve completely

for himself

that there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot, and it makes no difference

whether the matter is

lenient,

as in the case here, where if there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot, the myrtle is fit when a date grows on it,

or it makes no difference

whether the matter is

stringent,

as in that case, with regard to covering the blood, where since there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot, if the blood returns and becomes exposed, he must cover it again?

Or perhaps: He was uncertain

about the tanna’s view as to whether there is rejection with regard to mitzvot or not, and therefore, because of the uncertainty,

as a stringency—

we say

that there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot, and in the case where the wind covered the blood and it subsequently became exposed, he must cover it again. But

as a leniency, we do not say

that there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot; therefore, this myrtle, on which a date grew, may not be deemed fit, because perhaps there is rejection with regard to mitzvot.

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say

that we should conclude that this uncertainty, whether there is rejection with regard to mitzvot or not, is

subject to a dispute between tannaitic authorities,

who disagree about this matter?

As we learned: A myrtle whose berries are [the small fruits that grow from the myrtle] more numerous than its leaves is unfit; but if one reduced their number, it is fit. One may not reduce them on the Festival [because of the prohibition of “making an object fit for use”].

If he transgressed and removed them

on the Festival—

it is unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Tzadok, but the Sages deem it fit.

They assumed

that the Sages, the members of the academy, intended the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Sages to be understood as follows:

Everyone

holds

that a lulav does not require binding.

That is, as a matter of law, it need not be bound together with the other species; binding is required only as a mitzva of the highest standard, for the beautification of the mitzva. Therefore, although at the time when the myrtle was bound together with the other species it was unfit, this does not create the deficiency of “you shall make it, and not one already made through disqualification,” since the act of “making” does not apply to their binding.

And

even

if you should conclude

that the lulav

requires binding

and its binding is considered part of the making of the mitzva, it should nevertheless not be disqualified because of “you shall make it, and not one already made through disqualification,” since the word “make” is not written with regard to the lulav. Therefore, they held:

We do not derive the law of lulav from the law of sukka, in which “make” is written

[“For seven days you shall make a Festival of sukkot for yourself”], and we expound: “make it”

and not one already made through disqualification,

meaning that even with regard to a lulav, its making must take place in a fit manner.

Is that not the point of their dispute: The one who disqualifies

this myrtle

holds that we say there is rejection with regard to mitzvot,

and therefore, since it was bound while disqualified, and the status of “a lulav for the mitzva” had already taken effect upon it at the time of its rejection, it is rejected forever and is not fit even if its berries are reduced.

And the one who deems it fit

this myrtle

holds that we do not say there is rejection with regard to mitzvot,

but only with regard to offerings; therefore, although the myrtle was bound while disqualified, it was not rejected forever.

[The fact that the tanna stated their dispute specifically in a case where the berries were reduced on the Festival is not exact; it is because, presumably, by the onset of the Festival he had certainly already bound his lulav, and since he reduced the berries on the Festival after it had been bound, the principle of rejection with regard to mitzvot applies. Nevertheless, it is evident that the principle of rejection with regard to mitzvot applies only to an object that is already considered “an object of a mitzva,” such as a bound lulav. But if it was rejected before it became “a lulav for the mitzva,” there is no deficiency.]

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

It may be said that

everyone

holds that

we do not say that there is rejection with regard to mitzvot. Here, they disagree with regard to deriving the law of lulav from the law of sukka:

One

[Rabbi Elazar]

holds that we derive the law of lulav from the law of sukka

by means of a binyan av, meaning that just as there is a law of “making” with regard to a sukka, so too there is a law of “making” with regard to a lulav. Therefore, just as with regard to a sukka its making must take place in a fit manner, so too, if the lulav was bound while disqualified, it is not fit for the mitzva because of “you shall make it, and not one already made through disqualification.”

And the other holds that we do not derive the law of lulav from the law of sukka.

And if you prefer, say: If

it is

our view

that

a lulav requires binding—

everyone

would

hold that we derive the law of lulav from the law of sukka,

so as to disqualify it when it was made while disqualified.

Here, they disagree with regard to whether a lulav requires binding, and it is subject to the dispute between these tannaitic authorities:

As it was taught in a beraita: A lulav, whether bound or unbound—

is fit.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A bound lulav is fit, but an unbound lulav—

is unfit.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

He derives

by means of the gzera shava of

“taking” and “taking” from the bound bundle of hyssop.

It is written here

[Leviticus 23:40]:

“And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,” and it is written there

[Exodus 12:22]:

“And you shall take a bundle of hyssop.” Just as there

with regard to the mitzva of taking hyssop for the Passover in Egypt, it was necessary specifically to have a

bundle, so too here,

with regard to the lulav, the mitzva of taking it is specifically with

a bundle.

And the Sages,

who said that a lulav does not require binding,

do not accept

this gzera shava of

“taking” and “taking.”

Who is the tanna of this, as the Sages taught in a beraita: “It is a mitzva to bind the lulav, but if he did not bind it”—

it is fit?

Who is it

[which tanna holds this view]?

If it is Rabbi Yehuda, why is it fit if he did not bind it?

For Rabbi Yehuda holds that a lulav requires binding, implying that this is indispensable for fulfilling the mitzva.

And if it is the Sages, what “mitzva” has he performed

by binding it, given that according to their view the lulav need not be bound?

The Gemara explains:

Actually, it is the Sages

who hold this view,

and

although as a matter of the essential mitzva of taking the lulav it need not be bound, nevertheless

it is a mitzva

—

because of

[Exodus 15:2]:

“This is my God, and I will glorify Him,”

as we expound: Adorn yourself before Him through mitzvot—take a beautiful lulav, beautiful ritual fringes, a beautiful shofar, and the like.

We learned in the Mishna:

Or if its berries were more numerous

than its leaves—it is unfit:

Rav Ḥisda said: Our great teacher

[he intended one of the early amoraim]

said this matter, and may the Omnipresent assist him: They taught

that this myrtle is unfit

only

when its fruits were

in one place

[provided that they were more numerous than its leaves]. But if they were scattered

in two or three places—

it is fit.

Rava said to him: