Sukkah 3

לוּלָב הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל. נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלָיו, פָּסוּל. נִפְרְדוּ עָלָיו, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, יֶאֶגְדֶנּוּ מִלְמָעְלָה. צִנֵּי הַר הַבַּרְזֶל, כְּשֵׁרוֹת. לוּלָב שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה טְפָחִים כְּדֵי לְנַעְנֵעַ בּוֹ, כָּשֵׁר:

A stolen lulav or a dried out lulav is pasul, [(a stolen lulav) it being written (Leviticus 23:40): "And you shall take for yourselves" — of what is yours. And after the yeush (resignation) of the owners, though he may acquire the lulav with this yeush, still, it is a mitzvah which comes through a transgression (and, therefore, no mitzvah). (and a dried out lulav is pasul), for all (four species) require "hadar" ("beautiful"), which does not obtain in such an instance.] A lulav from an asheirah [a tree that is worshipped], or from a city gone astray (after idolatry) is pasul, [having to be burned. A lulav must be of a certain size, which these, designated for burning, lack.] If its head were severed, [in which instance it is not hadar] or if its leaves were broken [and held together only by being tied], it is pasul. If its leaves were separated, [i.e., If they were joined on the spine, but inclined in different directions on top, like the branches of a tree], it is kasher. R. Yehudah says: He must tie them on top. [If the leaves became separated, he must tie them so that they rise together with the spine, as (on) other lulavim. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] The palms of Har Habarzel are kasher. [There are palms the leaves of whose lulavim are very short and do not rise along the length of the spine. If they are so long that the head of one reaches the base of the other, they are kasher. A lulav which is three tefachim (handbreadths) long [alongside the hadas, and an additional tefach] in order to shake it [(a lulav requiring "shaking," as explained below)] is kasher. [("in order to shake it":) Read it: "And in order to shake it"; that is, a tefach in addition to the three tefachim].

הֲדַס הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל. נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלָיו אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עֲנָבָיו מְרֻבּוֹת מֵעָלָיו, פָּסוּל. וְאִם מִעֲטָן, כָּשֵׁר. וְאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב:

A stolen or dried out hadas is pasul. (A hadas) from an asheirah or from a city gone astray (after idolatry) is pasul. If its head were severed, or if its leaves were broken, or if its grapes were more than its leaves, it is pasul. And if he diminished them, it is kasher. But they may not be diminished on the festival. [("If its head were severed, etc.":) The halachah is not in accordance with the anonymous Mishnah, but according to R. Tarfon, who says below (3:4) that even if all three were severed, it is kasher. ("its grapes":) It has a fruit similar to grapes. ("If its grapes were more than its leaves, etc.":) This is so only with black or red grapes; but if they were green, they are one with the hadas, and it is kasher. ("But they may not be diminished, etc.":) For this is "amending" (which is forbidden on a festival)].

עֲרָבָה גְזוּלָה וִיבֵשָׁה, פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פְּסוּלָה. נִקְטַם רֹאשָׁהּ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלֶיהָ, וְהַצַּפְצָפָה, פְּסוּלָה. כְּמוּשָׁה, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ מִקְצָת עָלֶיהָ, וְשֶׁל בַּעַל, כְּשֵׁרָה:

A stolen or dried out aravah is pasul. (An aravah) from an asheirah or from a city gone astray (after idolatry) is pasul. If its head were severed, [(This, too, is not the halachah)] or if its leaves were broken, and (if it were) a tzaftzafa [a kind of aravah with a round leaf], it is pasul. If it were withered, if some of its leaves had fallen, or if it grew in a field [and not in a brook], it is kasher, [Scripture stating (Leviticus 23:40): "willows of the brook," only because that is the common instance.]

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה הֲדַסִּים וּשְׁתֵּי עֲרָבוֹת, לוּלָב אֶחָד וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם קְטוּמִים וְאֶחָד אֵינוֹ קָטוּם. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קְטוּמִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוּלָב אֶחָד וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד, כָּךְ הֲדַס אֶחָד וַעֲרָבָה אֶחָת:

R. Yishmael says: (There must be) three hadasim, two aravoth, one lulav, and one ethrog — even if two of them were severed and one not. [This refers to the hadasim. The gemara asks: If a severed hadas is pasul, and three are required, let three whole ones be required; and if a severed hadas is kasher, let three severed ones be kasher! And the gemara concludes that R. Yishmael retracted his ruling that three hadasim are required and he permitted even two severed ones. And the same (that it is kasher) would apply if he did not bring them at all, for a severed hadas is considered non-existent.] R. Tarfon says: Even if (all) three were severed, (it is kasher) ["hadar" not being required in a hadas. The halachah is in accordance with R. Tarfon.] R. Akiva says: Just as one lulav and one ethrog (are required), so one hadas and one aravah.

אֶתְרוֹג הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל עָרְלָה, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה, פָּסוּל. שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה, לֹא יִטֹּל, וְאִם נָטַל, כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁל דְּמַאי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, לֹא יִטֹּל, וְאִם נָטַל, כָּשֵׁר:

A stolen or dried out ethrog is pasul. (An ethrog) from an asheirah or from a city gone astray (after idolatry) is pasul. (An ethrog) of arlah (forbidden fruit of the first three years) is pasul, [it being written (Leviticus 23:40): "And you shall take for yourselves" — it must be fit for you.] (An ethrog) of unclean terumah is pasul. Of clean terumah — he should not take it; but if he does, it is kasher. Of demai (suspect of not having been tithed) — Beth Shammai rule it pasul, and Beth Hillel rule it kasher, [it being fit for the poor, as it was taught: "The poor may be fed demai."] Of ma'aser sheni, in Jerusalem, he should not take it; but if he took it, it is kasher; [but not outside Jerusalem, for "for yourselves" must be satisfied, i.e., that it be fit for you.]

עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית עַל רֻבּוֹ, נִטְּלָה פִטְמָתוֹ, נִקְלַף, נִסְדַּק, נִקַּב וְחָסַר כָּל שֶׁהוּא, פָּסוּל. עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית עַל מִעוּטוֹ, נִטַּל עֻקְצוֹ, נִקַּב וְלֹא חָסַר כָּל שֶׁהוּא, כָּשֵׁר. אֶתְרוֹג הַכּוּשִׁי, פָּסוּל. וְהַיָרוֹק כְּכַרְתִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל:

If most of it (the ethrog) were covered with lichen (it is pasul) [It is in one place that "most of it" is required (to render it "pasul"); but in two or three places, even (if lichen covered) the lesser part of it, it is pasul. And on its pitma (its upper protuberance, as in "the pitma of a pomegranate"), even any amount (so covered) renders it pasul, it being more conspicuous there than in other places.] If its pitma were removed, if it were peeled, if it were split, if it were punctured and something of it were missing, it is pasul. [("if it were peeled":) Only if most of it were peeled; but if part of it, it is kasher. Others say the opposite, viz.: If part of it were peeled, it is pasul; for then it looks "spotted." But if all of it were peeled, it is kasher. "peeled" here does not mean that the skin was removed so that the white could be seen; for in that instance it would be chasser ("lacking") and pasul; but that a thin layer was removed and its appearance is green as before. ("punctured":) If it were punctured through and through, even a very slight puncture, it is pasul. And if it did not go through and nothing were lost, as when he stuck a thick peg into it — if the hole were as wide as an issar (a Roman coin), it is pasul; if less than that, it is kasher. And this is the intent of "if it were punctured but lacked nothing" below, i.e., not punctured through and through, and not as wide as an issar.] If its lesser part were covered with lichen, if its uketz ("tail," peduncle) were removed, or if it were punctured but lacked nothing, it is kasher. An Ethiopian ethrog [one that grows here (in Eretz Yisrael), but is black] is pasul. [But such an ethrog growing in Ethiopia is the norm and is kasher. A leek-green ethrog — R. Meir rules it kasher; R. Yehudah rules it pasul. [All of these are pasul only on the first festival, but on the second and the intervening days, everything is kasher.]

שִׁעוּר אֶתְרוֹג הַקָּטָן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּאֱגוֹז. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כַּבֵּיצָה. וּבְגָדוֹל, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחַז שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו:

The (minimum) size for a small ethrog — R. Meir says: The size of a nut. R. Yehudah says: The size of an egg. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] If it is less than the size of an egg, it is pasul.] The (maximum) size for a large one — so that two can be held in one hand. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: Even if one can be held (only) in two hands. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]

אֵין אוֹגְדִין אֶת הַלּוּלָב אֶלָּא בְמִינוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ בִמְשִׁיחָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַעֲשֶׂה בְאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹגְדִין אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן בְּגִימוֹנִיּוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, בְּמִינוֹ הָיוּ אוֹגְדִין אוֹתוֹ מִלְּמָטָּה:

The lulav may be bound only with its kind. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: Even with rope. R. Meir said: Once the men of Jerusalem bound their lulavim with gimoniyoth of gold [golden bands bent like a gimon (bulrush), as in (Isaiah 58:5): "to bend his head as an agmon."] They said to him: They bound it on the bottom with its kind [to fulfill the mitzvah of eged (the bond), and this (the gimoniyoth) was only for decorative purposes. R. Yehudah is consistent with his view that a lulav requires a bond, so that if he bound it with something not of its kind there are five species (instead of the prescribed four). And we hold that a lulav does not require a bond, for which reason the halachah here is in accordance with R. Meir.]

וְהֵיכָן הָיוּ מְנַעְנְעִין, בְּהוֹדוּ לַה' תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, וּבְאָנָּא ה' הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אַף בְּאָנָּא ה' הַצְלִיחָה נָא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, צוֹפֶה הָיִיתִי בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁכָּל הָעָם הָיוּ מְנַעְנְעִים אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן, וְהֵן לֹא נִעְנְעוּ אֶלָּא בְאָנָּא ה' הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא. מִי שֶׁבָּא בַדֶּרֶךְ וְלֹא הָיָה בְיָדוֹ לוּלָב לִטֹּל, לִכְשֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ יִטֹּל עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ. לֹא נָטַל שַׁחֲרִית, יִטֹּל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁכָּל הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר לַלּוּלָב:

And where (i.e., at which point) did they shake it? [Now the tanna returns to (3:2): "A lulav which is three tefachim long in order to shake it" — whence we see that it is a mitzvah to shake it. Where did they shake it? ] At the beginning [of the verse (in the Hallel): "Give thanks to the L rd"] and at the end [of the verse: "For His lovingkindness is forever." Others explain: "beginning" — the first "Give thanks"; "the end" — the last "Give thanks," at the end of the Hallel. This (the latter) is the probable meaning. And how does he shake it? He moves it forward and back to ward off injurious winds, shaking it three times with each movement; and so with the up and down movements, three times with each movement. ] And (he shakes it) at "I pray You, O L rd, save, I pray." These are the word of Beth Hillel. And Beth Shammai say: Also at "I pray You, O L rd, prosper, I pray." R. Akiva said: I observed R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua when all the people were shaking their lulavim, and they shook them only at "I pray You, O L rd, save, I pray." [And the halachah here is only in accordance with Beth Hillel.] If one were on the road and had no lulav to take, when he comes home, he takes it at his table. [If he forgot, and did not take it before his meal, he stops eating and takes it at his table.] If he did not take it in the morning, he takes it in the afternoon; for the entire day is kasher for lulav.

מִי שֶׁהָיָה עֶבֶד אוֹ אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן מַקְרִין אוֹתוֹ, עוֹנֶה אַחֲרֵיהֶן מַה שֶּׁהֵן אוֹמְרִין, וּתְהִי לוֹ מְאֵרָה. אִם הָיָה גָדוֹל מַקְרֵא אוֹתוֹ, עוֹנֶה אַחֲרָיו הַלְלוּיָהּ:

If a bondsman, or a woman, or a minor recites (the Hallel) on one's behalf, he repeats what they say after them. [If one is not obligated in something, he cannot fulfill another's obligations (in that thing) for him, for which reason he must repeat every word after him.] And may a blight come upon him [for not having learned (to do so himself)]! If an adult recites it for him, he answers "Hallelukah!" after him [for every thing that he says, this being their practice in responding to the reader of the Hallel. For every thing — "Hallelukah!"]

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִכְפֹּל, יִכְפֹּל. לִפְשֹׁט, יִפְשֹׁט. לְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרָיו, יְבָרֵךְ אַחֲרָיו. הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ לוּלָב מֵחֲבֵרוֹ בַשְּׁבִיעִית, נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶתְרוֹג בְּמַתָּנָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין רַשַּׁאי לְלָקְחוֹ בַשְּׁבִיעִית:

In those places where it is the custom to double [each verse, from "Odechah" down, until the end of the Hallel], he doubles it, [for that entire section from "Hodu" until "Odechah" is all doubled (stylistically) in Scripture; and from "Odechah" down it is not doubled, for which reason they were wont to double those (latter) verses.] (In those places where it is the custom to bless at its conclusion, he blessed at its conclusion — all according to the custom of the place. [But the introductory blessing of Hallel is a mitzvah everywhere and is not subject to custom.] If one buys a lulav from his neighbor [an am ha'aretz (an unlearned person)] on shevi'ith (the sabbatical year), he gives him the ethrog as a gift, for it is not permitted to buy it on shevi'ith. [For an am ha'aretz is suspect vis-à-vis shevi'ith. Though he may pay him for the lulav, the lulav being merely a kind of tree-growth, which is not subject to the sanctity of shevi'ith, he may not pay him for the ethrog. For the fruits of shevi'ith must be removed on shevi'ith — they and their monies. Therefore, he must take the ethrog from him as a gift and not give him money for it, lest the am ha'aretz fail to remove it in the sanctity of shevi'ith.]

בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה לוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שִׁבְעָה, וּבַמְּדִינָה יוֹם אֶחָד. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא לוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמְּדִינָה שִׁבְעָה, זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָשׁ. וְשֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הָנֵף כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר:

In the beginning, the lulav was taken in the Temple seven days, [as the verse is expounded (Leviticus 23:40): "…before the L rd your G d seven days" — and not in the borders, seven days], and in the province [Jerusalem (it, too, being regarded as "the borders" in this connection)] (it was taken) one day. When the Temple was destroyed, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai decreed that the lulav be taken in the province seven days in remembrance of the Temple and that the day of "hanef" [the waving of the omer, i.e., the sixteenth of Nissan] be entirely forbidden. [In the time of the Temple, after the omer offering, they would eat chadash (new produce) on that day, it being written (Leviticus 23:14): "…until you have brought the offering of your G d." And when the Temple was destroyed, it was permitted at first light, one verse reading (Ibid.): "until this self-same day," implying (that chadash may not be eaten) until first light, and another: "until you have brought the offering." How is this to be reconciled? When the omer obtains (i.e., when there is a Temple), "until you have brought." When the omer does not obtain, "until this self-same day." And R. Yochanan b. Zakkai forbade the entire day to them by reason of: "The Temple will speedily be rebuilt, and they will say: 'Last year, did we not eat (chadash) at first light? This year, we shall do so, too.'"]

יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, כָּל הָעָם מוֹלִיכִין אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. לַמָּחֳרָת מַשְׁכִּימִין וּבָאִין, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְנוֹטְלוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג בְּלוּלָבוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הֶחָג, אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּלוּלָבוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ:

If the first day of the festival falls out on Shabbath, everyone takes his lulav to the synagogue (on Sabbath eve). [For it is stated later that the mitzvah of lulav overrides the Sabbath on the first day of the festival alone. Therefore, they would bring their lulavim there from Sabbath eve.] The next day, they rise early and come (to the synagogue). Everyone recognizes his own and takes it. For the sages have said: One does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his neighbor's lulav, [it being written (Leviticus 23:40): "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day." And if his neighbor gives it to him as a gift, even on condition that he return it, it is a bona fide gift, and he takes it and fulfills his obligation with it and then returns it. And if he does not return it, it is seen retroactively that it had been stolen by him to begin with — in which instance he has not fulfilled his obligation.] And the other days of the festival, one does fulfill his obligation with his neighbor's lulav.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַלּוּלָב לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ בִרְשׁוּת:

R. Yossi says: If the first day of the festival fell out on Shabbath, and he forgot and took out his lulav to the public domain, he is not liable (for a sin-offering), having taken it out under (Torah) sanction. [This, in an instance where he had not yet fulfilled his obligation of taking the lulav at the time he took it out. But if he had fulfilled his obligation beforehand, he is liable, not being occupied thenceforward in the performance of a mitzvah. But how is it possible that he had not fulfilled his obligation before he took it out? Had he not fulfilled it (automatically) the very moment he picked it up! (The answer:) Such an instance does obtain if he inverted it; for a man has not fulfilled his obligation in respect to all mitzvoth (of this kind) unless he performs them (handling them, e.g., lulav, hadas), in the direction of their growth, viz. (Exodus 26:15): "standing shittim wood" — standing in the direction of their growth. Or else, (the instance is one in which) he took it out in a vessel. For taking it "demeaningly" through something else is not called "taking." The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]

מְקַבֶּלֶת אִשָּׁה מִיַּד בְּנָהּ וּמִיַּד בַּעְלָהּ וּמַחֲזִירָתוֹ לַמַּיִם בְּשַׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּשַׁבָּת מַחֲזִירִין, בְּיוֹם טוֹב מוֹסִיפִין, וּבַמּוֹעֵד מַחֲלִיפִין. קָטָן הַיּוֹדֵעַ לְנַעְנֵעַ, חַיָּב בַּלּוּלָב:

A woman may receive [the lulav] from the hand of her son or her husband, [and we do not say that she is moving something that is not fit for her], and she may return it to the water on the Sabbath [so that it not wither]. On the Sabbath, it may be returned, [having been taken thence that day; but water may not be added, and, it goes without saying, it may not be changed. On the festival water may be added (but it may not be replaced with colder water, this constituting "exertion to amend something"], and on Chol Hamoed (the intermediate days), it is [a mitzvah] to change the water. If a child knows how to shake the lulav, he is obligated in lulav [i.e., It is a rabbinic ordinance that he be trained in it.]