Sukkah 33b — the Talmud in English

On the contrary, if the grapes were in

two or three places,

it should be disqualified even more because

it is spotted,

for the leaves are green and the grapes are black,

and it is disqualified

because it is not beautiful?!

Rather, if it was stated,

this is how it was stated:

We learned in the Mishna:

Or if its grapes were more numerous than its leaves, it is disqualified. Rav Hisda said: Our great master said this matter, and may the Omnipresent be his help: They taught

that this myrtle is disqualified

only

when

its grapes were black [since the way of these grapes is that at the beginning of their growth they are green and afterward they turn black]. But if

(for these grapes are green at the beginning of their growth and later become black). But if

its grapes were green, they are of the kind of the myrtle,

for they appear as part of the myrtle and it is not spotted,

and it is valid.

Rav Pappa said:

Grapes

that are red

are considered like black ones,

and it is disqualified.

For Rabbi Hanina said

concerning menstrual blood:

this black blood

is red, but it was stricken

and became black, and therefore it is among the five impure bloods.

We learned in our Mishna: If its grapes were more numerous than its leaves, it is disqualified, and

if he reduced them, it is valid.

And we raised a question about it:

When did he reduce them [when is it speaking of a case in which he reduced them]?

(When is the Mishna speaking of reducing them?)

If you say before he bound it, it is obvious

that it is valid! For there is here no deficiency of “You shall make it, and not that which has already been made,” since it was bound in a valid manner; and it should not be disqualified on account of rejection, since at the time of the rejection the designation of a myrtle of a mitzva had not yet taken effect upon it.

Rather,

that he reduced them

after he had bound it,

it is

an initially rejected object,

for at the time of its binding it had already been designated a disqualified myrtle, and from the fact that nevertheless the tanna validated it,

resolve from it

at least concerning

initial rejection,

that is, that it was never fit for the mitzva, that

it is not considered rejected!

But if it was fit for the mitzva at the beginning of the festival and afterward became rejected, one cannot prove from here that once rejected it is never so again, since initial rejection is preferable to something that was fit and became rejected. For in initial rejection it is not considered rejected at all, since it is like a sacrifice that has just now been consecrated. But when it had already appeared fit for the mitzva and was rejected from it, it is possible that it thereby becomes rejected forever.

The Gemara rejects this:

Actually,

he reduced them

after he bound it, and he holds: binding is merely preparation, and mere preparation is nothing.

Therefore the binding of the lulav is not considered a designation, such that the designation of a lulav of a mitzva that was rejected from its mitzva should take effect upon it. Thus it is not considered even initially rejected until the day becomes sanctified over it and it still remains in its disqualified state; for once the time of the mitzva arrives and it is unfit for the mitzva, it is considered rejected. But before this time it is not rejected.

We learned in our Mishna:

And one may not reduce [the grapes of the myrtle]

(the grapes of the myrtle)

on the festival day:

And the Gemara infers:

But

if

he transgressed and picked them

on the festival day,

what—

it is valid!

Even though it had already been bound beforehand, since it is forbidden to bind it on the festival day. And one must examine:

when did they turn black [when the grapes turned black]

(When did the grapes turn black?)

when? [for green grapes do not disqualify].

(For green grapes do not disqualify it.)

If you say

it is speaking

of their having turned black yesterday [before the festival],

(before the Festival),

it is an initially rejected object,

for when the festival entered and the time of the mitzva arrived, it was not fit for its mitzva; and if so,

resolve from it

at least concerning

initial rejection, that it is not considered rejection!

And

is it not rather

speaking

of their having turned black on the festival day

itself? Then

it is something that was fit and became rejected,

for the myrtle had already been fit for the mitzva at the entry of the festival, and only afterward, on the festival day, became rejected. And if so,

you learn from it

that even if

it was fit and became rejected [that is, even if it was fit for the mitzva at the beginning of the time of its obligation and afterward became rejected],

(that is, even if it was fit for the mitzva at the beginning of the time of the obligation and was subsequently rejected),

it becomes fit again!

The Gemara rejects this:

No, actually

it is speaking

of their having turned black initially [before the festival], and indeed concerning

(before the Festival), and indeed, with regard to

initial rejection, that it is not considered rejection, resolve from it. But

concerning something that

was fit and became rejected

that it should be

fit again, do not resolve

from here, since the Mishna did not speak of such a case, and it is more reasonable to validate something initially rejected than something that was fit and became rejected, as explained above.

The Sages taught: One may not reduce

the grapes

on the festival day.

In the name of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon they said: One may reduce

them on the festival day.

And the Gemara asks: How did Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon permit reducing them on the festival day,

for

since by doing so he renders them fit for the mitzva,

is he not [for]

that

repairing a utensil [a vessel]

(a tool)

on the festival day?!

Rav Ashi said: What Rabbi Eliezer permitted—to reduce them on the festival day—was specifically

what Rabbi Eliezer permitted to reduce on the festival day, specifically

in a case such as where he picked [the grapes]

(the grapes)

for

the purpose of

eating,

and he did not explicitly intend to repair it for its mitzva.

And Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon holds like his father [Rabbi Shimon],

who said: An unintended act is permitted.

who said: An act performed without intention is permitted.

Therefore, since he did not intend to repair the utensil, but [intended] for eating, it is permitted to do this on the festival day, even though through this the myrtle is automatically repaired and made fit for the mitzva.

The Gemara asks:

But Abaye and Rava both said:

Even though Rabbi Shimon holds that an unintended act is permitted,

Rabbi Shimon agrees in the case of “cut off its head and it will not die.”

That is, one who says, “I shall cut off the head of this animal on Shabbat, and I do not want it to die”—since it is impossible for it not to die, he is liable as though he killed it intentionally. Likewise here, although he wishes to pick them for the purpose of eating, since he will necessarily thereby repair the myrtle and make it fit for the mitzva, it is as though he repaired it intentionally.

And what Rabbi Shimon said, that an unintended act is permitted, applies when it is possible for the act to be done without the prohibition, such as one who drags a bed or bench across the ground on Shabbat, who is permitted to drag them even though he may make a furrow in the ground, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow. For although he may thereby make a furrow in the ground, since he does not intend this, and it is possible that he will not make a furrow through dragging the bench, even if in the end a furrow is made, there is nothing in this. But when it is clear that through his act he will violate one of the labors forbidden on Shabbat, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is forbidden.

And if so, here, since he will certainly repair the myrtle by picking the grapes, Rabbi Shimon too agrees that it is forbidden?!

The Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With a case in which he has another hoshana,

and he does not specifically need this myrtle for fulfilling the mitzva; therefore this is not considered repairing a utensil.

The Sages taught: Its binding was permitted

of the lulav

on the festival day [for it is forbidden to bind it again with a complete knot, by tying the two ends of the binding together, since making a permanent knot is one of the labors of Shabbat, and this is a permanent knot, since he does not intend to undo it ever],

(when it is prohibited to bind it again with a permanent knot, by tying the two ends of the binding together, since making a permanent knot is one of the forms of labor prohibited on Shabbat, and this is a permanent knot because he does not intend ever to untie it),

he binds it

with a mere wrapping, in which he wraps the binding around it and inserts its end into the wrapping,

as

the manner in which one binds

a bundle of vegetables.

And the Gemara asks:

But why

did you force yourself to explain that he binds it with a mere wrapping?

Let him tie it with a loop knot [that is, let him bind it with a loop knot, which is permitted to make on the festival day],

for in this manner it is better, since it is an actual knot and not merely a wrapping?!

The Gemara answers:

Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Judah’s, who says [Shabbat 113a]: A knot of

(Shabbat 113a) that a

a loop—

is a proper tying

and it is forbidden to make it on the festival day.

The Gemara asks:

If

our discussion

is Rabbi Judah’s

how does merely wrapping it help? For

a proper binding is required,

since according to Rabbi Judah a lulav that is not bound is disqualified for the mitzva, as explained above?!

The Gemara answers:

This tanna

here

holds like him

Rabbi Judah

in one matter,

for he holds that a loop knot is forbidden on Shabbat,

and disagrees with him in one matter,

namely, he holds that a lulav does not require binding.

In any event, it is explained that to bind the lulav, a mere wrapping is insufficient; rather, one must make for it a complete knot, tying the two ends of the cord together. And although the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Judah, who holds that the binding of the lulav is indispensable, nevertheless the Sages agree that it should be bound for the enhancement of the mitzva, because of “This is my God and I will glorify Him,” and presumably their intention is to require the same binding that Rabbi Judah required.

Mishna:

A stolen willow

is disqualified by the law of “for you,” like the other species.

And

likewise a willow

that is dry—

it is disqualified. [For the reason for this matter, see above, 29b.]

[For the reason, see above, 29b.]

A willow

of an asheira, and

a willow

of a condemned city, is disqualified.

Since it is destined to be burned, and its measure is regarded as crushed, as explained above, 31b.

If its top was broken off

of the willow, or

its leaves were torn away —

it is disqualified.

And

likewise

the poplar

which is of the willow species, except that its leaf is round—is

disqualified,

as we derive in the Gemara from verses.

But a willow

that is withered,

which has not dried completely and still has moisture in it,

and some of its leaves have fallen, and

likewise a willow

of cultivated land,

that is, one that grew in a field and not on the banks of a stream,

is valid.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 23:40]: “And you shall take for yourselves, etc.

willows of the brook”—

and it implies that the principal mitzva of lulav is with willows

that grow by the stream.

However, it is not necessary to take specifically from those growing on the banks of the stream; it is sufficient that they be of the species that ordinarily grows on the banks of streams, as we derive below.

Alternatively [the verse may be expounded in another manner]:

(the verse can be expounded in another way):

“Willows of the brook”—

that

there shall be

its leaf elongated like a brook,

that is, it shall not be round; and this comes to exclude the poplar species, whose leaf is round.

It was taught in another [beraita]: “Willows of the brook”—I have only willows of the brook; those

of the

cultivated field and of the mountains [growing at the top of the mountain]

(those that grow at the top of a mountain);

from where

?]]that it is valid [when it is of the same species that grows on the banks of the stream]?

The verse

says: “Willows of the brook,” in any event.

That is, from the fact that the Torah used “willows” in the plural, it implies the inclusion of the willows of cultivated fields and mountains.