Sukkah 36b — the Talmud in English

And nothing else.

That is, nothing is to be added to this matter. For certainly Rabbi Shimon did not hold like Rabbi Akiva specifically, and Rabbi Akiva did not hold like 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 beginning of their growth they already have the status of food. And in Tractate Maasrot we learned: “Anything whose beginning and end are food, even though one guards it while it is attached in order to add food [that is, he wishes to leave them on the tree so that they will continue to grow and ripen], is liable for tithes, both at the beginning of its growth and at its end. And anything whose beginning and end are not food is not liable until it becomes food.” And the Mishna adds: “Etrogim and apples are liable whether they are large or small.”

And Rabbi Shimon disagreed with them regarding etrogim, but agrees regarding apples. Since he held that the measure for making them liable for tithes is according to the manner in which people take them for planting, and etrogim before the completion of their ripening are not fit for planting. But apples, even before they ripen, are fit to sprout. However, even in this case he was not speaking of very small ones, for in that case apples too 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 they grew in a mold and he made it like another creature, it is invalid.

Rava said: They taught

that it is invalid

only

if it was made

like another creature. But

if it is

according to its natural form, it is valid.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is this obvious!

That which is

like another creature—is it not what was taught?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary

for that which Rava said only in a case

where it was made

the etrog

leaf upon leaf,

like a mill wheel, and Rava teaches us that even in such a case this is its natural form, for this too displays the appearance of an etrog.

It was stated: An etrog that mice gnawed, Rav said: This is not

considered

“beautiful,”

and it is invalid.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is it so?

[That is, the law is not so,] for

Rabbi Hanina

would

dip from it,

that is, he would eat part of the etrog [in the language of the Gemara this is called “dipping,” because all their eating was through dipping],

and fulfill

[his obligation] with what remained

in it,

and if so, it is proven that a deficient etrog is valid; and why did he invalidate an etrog that mice gnawed?!

And

on the other hand the Gemara raises an objection

to Rabbi Hanina:

How could he dip from it and fulfill [his obligation], since

our Mishna is difficult,

for we learned that a deficient etrog is invalid?!

The Gemara explains:

Granted, our Mishna is not difficult for Rabbi Hanina,

for it can be explained that

here

in the Mishna,

on the first Festival day

of

the festival

it is speaking, when the mitzva of taking it is from the Torah, and therefore we require “a complete taking,” as it is written: “And you shall take,” which we expound: the taking must be complete.

But

here

in the case of Rabbi Hanina,

on the second Festival day

it is speaking, when we do not require “a complete taking,” and even a deficient one is valid.

But for Rav,

who said that the reason an etrog that mice gnawed is invalid is not because of “a complete taking,” but because of “beautiful,” it necessarily follows that this invalidity applies all seven days, for also on the other days of the festival the mitzva must be performed in a beautiful manner, as explained at the beginning of our chapter, that a dry lulav is invalid all seven days, since its invalidity is because of “beautiful.” And if so,

it is difficult

from Rabbi Hanina’s words, who validated a deficient etrog?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav can say to you:

Indeed, an ordinary deficient etrog is valid all seven days. But

different is

an etrog that mice

gnawed,

for there the reason for its invalidity is

that it is repulsive,

and it is not beautiful.

Some say:

Indeed, the reverse:

Rav said:

An etrog that mice gnawed—

this is “beautiful,” for Rabbi Hanina dipped from it and fulfilled [his obligation] with it.

And

nevertheless, the Gemara raises an objection:

For Rabbi Hanina, the Mishna is difficult,

for we learned: a deficient etrog is invalid?!

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult: here, on the first Festival day; here, on the second Festival day.

We learned in the Mishna: The measure of

a small etrog,

Rabbi Meir says, like a nut; Rabbi Judah says, like an egg:

Rafram bar Pappa said: Just as the dispute here

regarding the measure of a small etrog,

so is the dispute regarding

the matter of

stones

that are sharp-edged.

For it was taught with regard to Shabbat: Three sharp-edged stones

[pointed] fit for wiping,

it is permitted to bring

them on Shabbat

into

the

privy

within a measure of four cubits [for this does not constitute carrying four cubits in a karmelit, whose law is like that of the public domain]. The reason for this is that their privy was in the field and was not enclosed by partitions, so there was only the prohibition of moving an object set aside, which is only rabbinic; and because of human dignity they did not decree.

And what is their measure

of those stones?

Rabbi Meir says: like a nut,

for he holds that only at this measure are they fit for wiping. But larger ones are not fit for anything, and they are an object set aside. But

Rabbi Judah says: like an egg.

We learned in our Mishna:

And for a large one, enough that he can hold

two in his hand, the words of Rabbi Judah; and Rabbi Yosei says: even one in his two hands:

it was taught, Rabbi Yosei said: It happened that Rabbi Akiva came to the synagogue and

his

etrog

he carried

on his shoulder

because of its size. And if so, we see that even one that is very large is valid.

Rabbi Judah said to him

to Rabbi Yosei: And do you wish to bring

from that

a

proof

for your words? Why,

they too said to him: This is not beautiful!

Mishna:

They bind the lulav only with its own species,

that is, of the lulav,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Meir says: Even with a cord

[of]

twine

it is possible to bind it, even though it is not of the lulav species.

Rabbi Meir said: It happened with the people of Jerusalem that they would bind their lulavim with gold wires

[curved gold wires. “Gimuniyot,” from the expression “to bend his head like a reed”], and it is proven that it is not necessary to bind it specifically with its own species.

They said to him,

there is no proof from there, since besides the gold wires,

they would bind it with its own species below.

But those gold wires were only for adornment.

Gemara:

Rava said:

What Rabbi Judah said, that they bind the lulav specifically with its own species, means

even with the fiber

that grows around the palm, and

even with the trunk-root of the palm—

that is, to cut shoots from it, peel them, and plane them until they are fit for binding.

And Rava said: What is Rabbi Judah’s reason,

that he must bind the lulav specifically with its own species? It is because

he holds that a lulav requires binding,

and if so, the binding too is part of the mitzva,

and if he brings another species

to bind it with,

there would be five species,

and he transgresses “do not add.” But if the binding were only for adornment, there would be no violation of “do not add,” since it is not made as part of the mitzva.

And Rava said: From where do I say this, that the fiber and the trunk-root of the palm are of the lulav species?

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

For it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 23:40]:

“You shall dwell in sukkot,”

and this implies that it shall be

a sukka of anything, the words of Rabbi Meir.

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

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

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

And the law follows

[that is, this law can be learned by a kal va-chomer]:

Just as a lulav, which does not apply at night as it does by day,

for the mitzva of lulav is specifically by day, as explained below, 43a,

applies only with the four

species,

a sukka, which applies at night as it does by day, is it not surely the case that it should be only with the four species?

They said to him: Every inference

[kal va-chomer]

whose beginning you use to make stringent,

as here, where because of the stringency that exists in sukka over lulav you bring another stringency upon it,

and

through this its

end will be lenient,

as will be explained below,

, is not a valid inference.

That is, this is not a proper kal va-chomer, for the inference teaches a stringency regarding it, while you make its law lenient.