Sukkah 34b — the Talmud in English

What practical difference is there? ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

What practical difference is there?

With regard to women’s bills of divorce.

We maintain as an established ruling in tractate Gittin [2a]: One who brings a bill of divorce from outside Eretz Yisrael must say: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” The Gemara there gave two reasons for this: either because witnesses who are available in Eretz Yisrael to validate it are not commonly found abroad, and there is concern that perhaps the husband will deny it; or because people outside Eretz Yisrael are not expert in writing the bill of divorce for her sake, as explained there.

However, one who brings a bill of divorce from Eretz Yisrael to outside Eretz Yisrael need not make this declaration, because pilgrims are commonly found who recognize the signature and can validate it, and the people of Eretz Yisrael are expert in writing it for her sake.

The Gemara there [6a] said that Babylonia has the status of Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, because its inhabitants are Torah scholars and are expert in writing the bill of divorce for her sake, and students of the academies frequently leave there to study Torah in all places, and consequently witnesses are available to validate it.

But Bursif is a place adjacent to Babylonia where there are no Torah scholars. Therefore, one who brings a bill of divorce from there must say: “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” Now their names have become interchanged. Therefore, one who brings a bill of divorce from Babylonia must make the declaration “It was written in my presence.” But one who brings a bill of divorce from Bursif has the status of one who brings it from Eretz Yisrael.

Mishna:

Rabbi Yishmael says:

This is the number of the four species:

three myrtle branches, two willow branches, one lulav, and one etrog.

The three myrtle branches are valid

even

if

two

of them

are truncated, and

only

one is not truncated.

And the Gemara challenged this from either perspective: If truncated branches are valid, why must one of them be whole? And if truncated branches are invalid, why need they not all be whole?

Rabbi Tarfon says: Even

if

all three are truncated,

they are valid. His reason is that he holds that the requirement of hadar does not apply to the myrtle branch, since the Torah mentions the requirement of hadar only with regard to the etrog, and the Sages expounded that this requirement also applies to the lulav, which is juxtaposed to the etrog. But it does not apply to the other species.

Rabbi Akiva says: Just as

only one

lulav and one etrog are brought, so

only one

myrtle branch and one willow branch are brought.

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael says:

It is written in the Torah: “And you shall take for yourselves

the fruit of a tree that is hadar”;

the wording is singular, indicating that one etrog suffices,

one.

And likewise, with regard to the lulav it is written:

“The branch of date palms,”

the wording is singular [although the verse reads “branches,” which is plural; nevertheless, the written form is defective], indicating that one lulav suffices,

one.

But with regard to myrtle branches it is written:

“A branch of a leafy tree,”

which indicates

, three,

as the Sages expounded: “branch”—one; “tree”—two; “leafy”—three.

Whereas with regard to the willow it is written:

“Willows of the brook,”

in the plural, indicating

two,

because the minimum of a plural is two.

And

Rabbi Yishmael held:

Even

if

two

of them

are truncated, and

only

one that is not truncated

is valid.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

The number of myrtle branches is

three,

and even

if

all three are truncated,

it is valid.

Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one myrtle branch and one willow branch.

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Could it be that the etrog is with them

[with the other species]

in one bundle,

and not as we do, taking it in the other hand and merely resting it against the bundle?

The Gemara rejects this:

You said: Is it written, “the fruit of a tree that is hadar and the branch of date palms,”

which would indicate that the vav in “and the branch of date palms” comes to add the latter matter to the first, so that the lulav must be joined with the etrog?

But it says only “the branch,”

without a vav. Therefore, the lulav need not be bound together with the etrog in one bundle.

But with regard to the myrtle branches it is written, “and a branch of a leafy tree,” and with regard to the willow it is written, “and willows of the brook.” Both contain a vav, teaching us that the lulav, myrtle branches, and willows must be bound together in one bundle.

And from where

do we know that the four species

preclude one another,

so that if one cannot take one of them, there is no mitzva in taking the others?

The verse states: “And you shall take,”

which indicates

, that the taking must be complete

[whole], with all four species. For so the Sages expounded: “And you shall take”—“and you shall take a complete [set].”

The Gemara now returns to explain Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, that even if two are truncated and only one is whole, one has fulfilled his obligation, and it asks:

And Rabbi Yishmael

what is his reason?

From either perspective: If

myrtle branches

must be whole—

let all of them also be required

to be

all

whole;

and if it is not required

that they be

whole,

then

even one

whole branch

should not be

required?!

The Gemara answers:

Biraya said in the name of Rabbi Ami: Rabbi Yishmael retracted his initial statement

that three myrtle branches are required, and held that one myrtle branch suffices. Therefore, he said that if one comes to add three, he may give two of them in truncated form, since they are not required for the mitzva itself; and even if they were entirely absent, he has fulfilled his obligation. But the myrtle branch required for the mitzva must be whole, because of the requirement of “beauty.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

that truncated myrtle branches are valid,

and Shmuel followed his own reasoning.

That is, we find that Shmuel acted in practice in accordance with this ruling of his.

For Shmuel said to those who sell myrtle branches

[to the sellers of myrtle branches]:

Set a fair price and sell.

That is, agree to a fair price and do not raise the price for those who specifically request whole myrtle branches,

and if

you do not

agree to a fair price, I will expound for you in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon,

who is lenient and holds that even truncated branches are valid. Consequently, the buyers will refrain from paying more to acquire whole branches.

And

for what reason

did he admonish them in this way?

If you say that it was because

Rabbi Tarfon

is lenient

in this law and validates three truncated branches, then

let him expound for them in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, for

he

is even more lenient,

since he requires only one myrtle branch?!

The Gemara answers: Even so, Rabbi Tarfon is more lenient, because

three truncated branches are common. But one branch that is not truncated

as Rabbi Akiva requires

is not common.

Mishna:

A stolen etrog, and a dry one —

is invalid.

One belonging to an idolatrous tree and one belonging to a condemned city—

is invalid.

An etrog

of orla

[which grew on a tree within three years of its planting]—

is invalid.

The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

An etrog

of impure teruma is invalid,

because it is forbidden to eat and does not satisfy the requirement of “for yourselves.” [See the note.]

With regard to pure teruma, one should not take it,

but if he took it, it is valid.

This is because it is permitted to eat it and it also has monetary status, as explained in the Gemara.

An etrog

of demai,

meaning one purchased from an ignoramus suspected of failing to separate tithes [although by Torah law it is permitted to eat produce from such people, because the majority of ignoramuses tithe; nevertheless, the Sages decreed that it may not be eaten without tithing],

Beit Shammai deem invalid,

because it is forbidden to eat and is not “for yourselves,”

but Beit Hillel deem valid,

since the Sages did not impose the law of demai upon the poor, and he can declare his property ownerless and eat it like the other poor. That suffices for it to be considered “for yourselves.”

An etrog

of second tithe, in Jerusalem,

where it is permitted to eat second tithe,

one should not take it initially,

as we found above with regard to pure teruma,

but

nevertheless

if he took it—

it is valid,

since it has monetary status and is permitted to eat.

But outside Jerusalem, where it is forbidden to eat it, it is invalid, as it is written: “for yourselves,” indicating that it must be fit for you for all your needs.

If a scab developed

[like fine blisters ]

on

the majority

of the etrog, or if

its pitom was removed

[the top of the etrog], or if it

was peeled,

or

split,

or if it

was pierced and

as a result became

deficient by any amount, it is invalid.

But if

a scab developed

only

on a minority of it,

or if

its stem was removed

[its tail—the lower part by which it was attached to the tree], or if it

was pierced but did not become deficient

as a result by

any amount,

for example, if a needle was inserted into it and removed,

it is valid.

A Cushite etrog

that came from the land of Cush and is entirely black

is invalid.

And with regard to a green etrog like a leek, Rabbi Meir validates, whereas Rabbi

Yehuda invalidates. [See above, 31b, where the Gemara was uncertain whether the reason is that it is not “beautiful,” or that its growth has not been completed.]

См. выше, 31б, где Гемара сомневалась, объясняется ли это тем, что он не имеет красивого вида, или тем, что его рост еще не завершен.]

The measure of a small etrog: Rabbi Meir says:

Until it is

like a walnut. But

if it is smaller than this, it is invalid.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Until it is

like an egg.

And with regard to

the etrog that is

large,

its measure is: Until

one can hold two of them in his hand,

but if it is so large that one cannot take two etrogim of that size in one hand, it is invalid,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yosei says: Even one

that he can hold

in both hands—

it is valid. That is, there is no upper limit to its size.