Sukkah 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

And nothing more.

That is, nothing should be added to this statement. For certainly Rabbi Shimon did not agree specifically with Rabbi Akiva, nor did Rabbi Akiva agree with Rabbi Shimon.

And the reason the tanna stated their dispute with regard to etrogim and not with regard to other fruits is that etrogim and apples differ from other fruits in that, from the very beginning of their growth, they already have the status of food. And we learned in tractate Ma’asrot: “Anything whose beginning and end are food, even if one leaves it attached to the ground in order to add to its food”—that is, he wishes to leave it on the tree so that it will continue to grow and ripen—“is obligated in tithes both at the beginning of its growth and at its end. But anything whose beginning and end are not food is not obligated until it becomes food.” And the Mishna adds: “Etrogim and apples are obligated whether they are large or small.”

And Rabbi Shimon disagreed with them with regard to etrogim, but agrees with regard to apples. He maintains that the measure that renders them liable for tithes is the stage at which people would remove them for planting, and etrogim, before they have fully ripened, are not fit for planting. Apples, however, are fit to sprout even before they have ripened. Nevertheless, this does not refer to very small fruit, since in that case even apples are not fit for planting.

It follows, then, that according to the Sages, everything that is called food is liable for tithes. But according to Rabbi Shimon, it is not liable until it is fit to sprout.

We learned in a beraita:

If it grew in a mold and was made to resemble another creature, it is invalid.

Rava said: They taught

that it is invalid

only

if it was made

to resemble another creature. But

if it is

in its natural form, it is fit.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that obvious?

This

is explicitly taught as resembling another creature!

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

for Rava to state this only with regard to a case

in which it was made

the etrog

layer upon layer,

like a millstone. Rava teaches us that even in such a case it is considered to be in its natural form, since this too is an appearance characteristic of an etrog.

It was stated: With regard to an etrog that mice gnawed, Rav said: This is not

considered

“hadar,”

and it is invalid.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so?

The law is not so, for

Rabbi Ḥanina

was

dipping into it,

that is, he would eat part of the etrog—this is called “dipping” in the language of the Gemara because all their food was eaten by dipping—and

would fulfill

his obligation

with what remained of it.

It follows that an etrog with part missing is fit. Why, then, did Rav invalidate an etrog that mice had gnawed?!

And

conversely, the Gemara raises an objection

to Rabbi Ḥanina:

How could he dip into it and fulfill his obligation?

Our Mishna is difficult,

for we learned that an etrog with part missing is invalid?!

The Gemara explains:

Granted, the Mishna is not difficult for Rabbi Ḥanina,

as it can be explained that

here,

in the Mishna,

the first Festival day

is

being discussed,

when the mitzva of taking the etrog is by Torah law. Therefore, a complete taking is required, as it is written: “And you shall take,” which is expounded to mean that the taking must be complete.

Whereas

here,

in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina,

the second Festival day

is being discussed, when a complete taking is not required, and even an etrog with part missing is fit.

But with regard to Rav,

who said that the reason an etrog gnawed by mice is invalid is not the requirement of a complete taking, but rather “hadar,” it necessarily follows that this disqualification applies throughout all seven days. For even on the other days of the Festival the mitzva must be performed with an attractive object, as explained at the beginning of this chapter: a dried-out lulav is invalid throughout all seven days because its disqualification is due to “hadar.” If so,

it is difficult

from the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, who declared an etrog with part missing fit?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav could say to you:

Indeed, an ordinary etrog with part missing is fit throughout all seven days.

But different

is an etrog that

mice gnawed,

for its disqualification is due to

its being repulsive,

and it is not hadar.

Some say:

Indeed, the reverse is true.

Rav said:

An etrog that mice gnawed

is “hadar,” for Rabbi Ḥanina dipped into it and fulfilled his obligation with it.

And

nevertheless, the Gemara asks:

The Mishna is difficult for Rabbi Ḥanina,

for we learned: An etrog with part missing is invalid?!

The Gemara answers:

This is not difficult: Here, on the first Festival day; there, on the second Festival day.

We learned in the Mishna: The measure of

a small etrog:

Rabbi Meir says, the size of a nut; Rabbi Yehuda says, the size of an egg.

Rafram bar Pappa said: Just as there is a dispute here

regarding the measure of a small etrog,

so there is a dispute concerning

the matter of

stones

that are pointed.

As it was taught with regard to Shabbat: Three pointed stones

sharp and suitable for cleaning oneself

may be brought

on Shabbat

into

the

lavatory

within a distance of four cubits, since this does not constitute carrying four cubits in a karmelit, whose status is like that of a public domain. The reason is that their lavatory was in an open field, without enclosing partitions; therefore, the only prohibition involved was moving an item that is muktze, which is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, and because of human dignity the Sages did not issue their decree.

And what is their measure,

those stones?

Rabbi Meir says: The size of a nut,

as he maintains that they are suitable for cleaning oneself only at this size. But larger stones are not suitable for anything and are muktze.

But Rabbi Yehuda says: The size of an egg.

We learned in our Mishna:

And for a large one, large enough that he can hold

two in his hand, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda; and Rabbi Yosei says: Even one in his two hands.

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who came to the synagogue, and

his

etrog

was carried

on his shoulder

because of its great size. If so, we see that even an exceedingly large etrog is fit.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him:

Rabbi Yosei,

is that

what you wish to bring as

proof

for your view?

They even said to him: This is not hadar!

Mishna:

One may bind the lulav only with its own species,

the species of the lulav,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Meir says: Even with a cord

of

twine

it may be bound, even though it is not of the lulav’s species.

Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the people of Jerusalem, who would bind their lulavim with golden rings

—bent golden cords. The word “rings” is related to the phrase, “to bend his head like a reed”—and this proves that it is not necessary to bind it specifically with its own species.

They said to him:

There is no proof from there, since, in addition to the golden rings,

they would bind it with its own species below.

Those golden rings were used only for adornment.

Gemara:

Rava said:

When Rabbi Yehuda said that the lulav must be bound specifically with its own species, this means

even with the fiber

that grows around the date palm, and

even with the root of the date palm—

that is, one may cut shoots from it, peel and smooth them until they are suitable for binding.

And Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,

that the lulav must be bound specifically with its own species? It is because

he maintains that a lulav requires binding,

and therefore the binding too is part of the mitzva.

And if he brings another species

with which to bind it,

there would be five species,

and he violates the prohibition of adding to the mitzva. But if the binding were only for adornment, there would be no prohibition of adding to the mitzva, since it would not be performed as part of the mitzva.

And Rava said: From where do I say that the fiber and the root of the date palm are of the lulav’s species?

Perhaps one may bind it only with the leaves of the lulav itself?

As it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 23:40]:

“You shall reside in sukkot,”

which implies that the

sukka may be made of anything, the statement of Rabbi Meir.

That is, one may make the sukka from any species he wishes.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The mitzva of sukka applies only with the four species of the lulav.

That is, one must roof the sukka specifically with one of these four species.

And the law follows logically

—that is, this law can be derived by means of a

kal va-chomer:

Since the mitzva of lulav applies during the day but not at night, as the mitzva of lulav is specifically during the day, as will be explained below on page 43a,

it applies only with the four

species,

is it not logical that sukka, whose mitzva applies during the nights as during the days, should apply only with the four species?

They said to him: Any inference

—a

kal va-chomer

—that begins by being stringent,

and

as a result

ends by being lenient,

as will be explained below,

, is not valid.

That is, this is not a proper kal va-chomer, for the law teaches a stringency, while you use it to derive a leniency.