Sukkah 33b (לג:) — 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 mottled,

for the leaves are green while the grapes are black,

and it is disqualified

because it lacks beauty?!

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated

as follows:

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or if its berries are more numerous than its leaves, it is disqualified.” Rav Ḥisda said: This matter was stated by our great teacher—and may the Omnipresent assist him: They taught

that this

hadass is disqualified

only when its

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

berries are green, it is of the species of hadass,

for they appear to be part of the hadass and it is not mottled,

and it is

fit.

Rav Pappa said:

Grapes that are

red

are considered like black grapes,

and the hadass is disqualified.

For Rabbi Ḥanina said

with regard to menstrual blood:

This black blood

is red, but it was stricken

and became black, and therefore it is one of the five types of impure blood.

We learned in our Mishna: If its berries are more numerous than its leaves, it is disqualified,

but if one reduced them, it is fit.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

When did he reduce them [i.e., when is the case referring to one who reduced them]?

(When is the Mishna speaking of reducing them?)

If we say he reduced them before he bound it, it is obvious

that it is fit! For there is no deficiency here of “you shall make it, and not of something already made,” since it was bound while fit; and it should not be disqualified on account of deḥuy, rejection, since at the time of the rejection it had not yet acquired the status of a

hadass for the mitzva.

Rather, he reduced them

after he had bound it;

then

it was rejected from the outset,

for at the time of its binding it had already been designated as a disqualified hadass. And from the fact that the tanna nevertheless declared it fit,

derive from it

at least with regard to

rejection from the outset,

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

that it is not considered rejected!

However, if it was fit for the mitzva at the beginning of the Festival and was subsequently rejected, this case cannot prove that it never becomes rejected through that process. Rejection from the outset is more lenient than something that was fit and then rejected, since something rejected from the outset is not considered rejected at all; it is like an offering that has just now been consecrated. But when it was already fit for the mitzva and was then rejected from it, perhaps it is rejected permanently.

The Gemara rejects this:

Actually,

he reduced them

after he had bound it, but he holds that binding is merely preparation, and mere preparation is of no consequence.

Therefore, the binding of the lulav is not considered a designation, such that it would acquire the status of a lulav for the mitzva that had been rejected from its mitzva. Consequently, it is not considered even rejected from the outset until the day of the mitzva arrives and it is still disqualified. Since the time of the mitzva has arrived and it is not fit for the mitzva, it is considered rejected. But before that time, it is not rejected.

We learned in our Mishna:

“And one may not reduce”

[the berries of the hadass]

“on Yom Tov.”

The Gemara infers:

This

means that

if he transgressed and picked them

on Yom Tov,

what is the ruling?

It is fit!

And this is so even though it had already been bound beforehand, since it is forbidden to bind it on Yom Tov. The Gemara considers:

When did it turn black

[i.e., when did the grapes turn black]

—when?

[For green grapes do not disqualify it.]

If we say the case

is one in which

it turned black yesterday

[before Yom Tov],

it was rejected from the outset,

for when Yom Tov began and the time for the mitzva arrived, it was not fit for the mitzva. If so,

derive from it

at least with regard to

rejection from the outset, that it is not considered rejection!

But

Rather, is it not the case

in which

it turned black on Yom Tov

itself? Then

it was initially fit and was subsequently rejected,

for the hadass was fit for the mitzva when Yom Tov began, and only afterward, on Yom Tov, was it rejected. If so,

you can learn from it

that even if it

was initially fit and was subsequently rejected

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

it becomes fit again!

The Gemara rejects this:

No; actually

the case

is one in which

it turned black from the outset

[before Yom Tov], and indeed, with regard to

rejection from the outset, which is not considered rejection, you can derive it from here.

But with regard to something that

was initially fit and was subsequently rejected,

that it becomes fit again, you cannot derive

it from here, since the Mishna did not speak of such a case. Moreover, something rejected from the outset is more readily restored to fitness than something that was fit and then rejected, as explained above.

The Sages taught: One may not reduce

the berries

on Yom Tov.

They said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon: One may reduce

them on Yom Tov.

The Gemara asks: How could Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon permit reducing them on Yom Tov?

But

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

is he not

[thereby]

repairing a utensil

[a utensil]

on Yom Tov?!

Rav Ashi said: What Rabbi Eliezer permitted one to reduce on Yom Tov applies specifically

to a case

such as when he picked

[the berries]

for

the purpose of

eating,

and did not explicitly intend to repair it for use in the mitzva.

And Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Shimon agrees with his father

[Rabbi Shimon],

who said: An unintentional act is permitted.

Therefore, since he did not intend to repair the utensil, but rather to eat the berries, it is permitted to do so on Yom Tov, even though the hadass is thereby automatically repaired and rendered fit for the mitzva.

The Gemara asks:

But Abaye and Rava both say:

Although Rabbi Shimon holds that an unintentional act is permitted,

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

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

When Rabbi Shimon said that an unintentional act is permitted, it is in a case where it is possible for the act to be performed without the prohibition, such as one who drags a bed or bench across the ground on Shabbat. He may drag them even though he might make a furrow in the ground, provided that he does not intend to make a furrow. For although dragging the bench might make a furrow in the ground, since he does not intend to do so and it is possible that dragging the bench will not make a furrow, even if a furrow is ultimately made, it is of no consequence. But when it is certain that through his act he will perform one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is forbidden.

If so, here too, since he will certainly repair the hadass by picking the grapes, even Rabbi Shimon should agree that it is forbidden?!

The Gemara answers:

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

and he does not specifically need this hadass in order to fulfill the mitzva. Therefore, this is not considered repairing a utensil.

The Sages taught: If its binding was permitted

of the lulav

on Yom Tov,

[for it is forbidden 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 labors of Shabbat, and this is a permanent knot, as he has no intention of undoing it ever],

he should bind it

by mere wrapping, by wrapping the binding around it and inserting its end into the wrapping,

as

they bind

a bundle of vegetables.

The Gemara asks:

But why

did you force yourself to explain that he binds it only by wrapping,

let him tie it with a looped knot

[that is, let him tie it with a looped knot, which is permitted to make on Yom Tov]? This method is preferable, since it is an actual knot and not merely a wrapping?!

The Gemara answers:

Whose opinion is this? It is Rabbi Yehuda’s, who said

[Shabbat 113a]: A

looped knot

is a proper knot

and it is forbidden to make it on Yom Tov.

The Gemara asks:

If

the discussion in our sugya follows

Rabbi Yehuda’s

opinion, how does wrapping it alone help? For

a proper binding is required,

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

The Gemara answers:

This tanna

here

agrees with him

—with Rabbi Yehuda—

in one matter,

as he holds that a looped knot is forbidden on Shabbat,

but disagrees with him in one matter,

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

Nevertheless, it is clear that for binding the lulav, mere wrapping is insufficient; rather, one must make a proper knot for it, tying the two ends of the cord together. And although the halakha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that binding the lulav is indispensable, the Sages nevertheless agree that it should be bound as an enhancement of the mitzva, because of “This is my God and I will glorify Him.” Presumably, their intention is to require the same binding that Rabbi Yehuda required.

Mishna:

A stolen arava

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

And

likewise an arava

that is dry

is disqualified.

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

An

arava of an ashera, and

an arava

of an apostate city, is disqualified.

Since it is destined to be burned, its measure is considered crushed and nullified, as explained above, 31a.

If its top was cut off

of the arava, or if

its leaves were torn away —

it is disqualified.

And

likewise

the tzaftzafa,

which is of the species of arava, except that its leaf is round, is

disqualified,

as we derive in the Gemara from verses.

But an arava

that is wilted,

which has not completely dried out and still contains moisture,

and some of its leaves have fallen, and

likewise an arava

of the field,

that is, one that grew in a field rather than on the banks of a stream,

is fit.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

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

willows of the brook”—

and this indicates that the primary mitzva of lulav is with aravot

that grow beside the brook.

However, one need not take them specifically from those riverbanks; it is sufficient that they be of a species that ordinarily grows beside streams, as will be derived below.

Alternatively

[the verse may be expounded in another manner]:

“Willows of the brook”—

that

its

leaf should be elongated like a brook,

that is, it should not be round; this excludes the species of tzaftzafa, whose leaf is round.

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

those of

the field and of the mountains

[which grow on the mountaintop],

from where

do we know that they are fit [when they are of the same species that grows beside a stream]?

The verse

states: “Willows of the brook,” in any case.

That is, from the fact that the Torah uses the plural form “willows,” it follows that it comes to include willows of the field and of the mountains.