lulav

MISHNAH: Lulav and willow six and seven; Hallel and joy eight. Sukkah and water libation seven, and the fife five and six. When is the lulav seven? If the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, the lulav is taken seven times; on all other days six. How the willow seven? If the seventh day of willow falls on a Sabbath, the willow is seven {days}, on all other days six.

MISHNAH: Lulav and willow six and seven; Hallel and joy eight. Sukkah and water libation seven, and the fife five and six. When is the lulav seven? If the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, the lulav is taken seven times; on all other days six. How the willow seven? If the seventh day of willow falls on a Sabbath, the willow is seven {days}, on all other days six.

MISHNAH: Lulav and willow six and seven; Hallel and joy eight. Sukkah and water libation seven, and the fife five and six. When is the lulav seven? If the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, the lulav is taken seven times; on all other days six. How the willow seven? If the seventh day of willow falls on a Sabbath, the willow is seven {days}, on all other days six.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

HALAKHAH: “Lulav and willow six and seven,” etc. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said, the willow is a word of the Torah: and brook willows, two. One willow for the lulav, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: willow and pouring water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah: On the second day and their libations. On the sixth say, and its libations. On the seventh day, and its rules. מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: Willow, water libation, and ten saplings are institution of the prophets. Do they disagree? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Levi: That was the current practice; they forgot it, but the later ones got up and agreed to the opinion of the earlier ones to teach you that everything the court insists on will come to be in the end just as Moses was told on Sinai, as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty word, if it is empty it is from you. Why? Because you do not exert yourselves. Because it is your life; when is it your life? At the time that you exert yourselves. Rebbi Joḥanan said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Babylonian, two things came from you, prostrating oneself on the fast day, and the willow of the seventh day. The rabbis of Caesarea say, also the moving.

MISHNAH: How is the order of the lulav? Everybody brings their lulav to the Temple Mount; the beadles accept from them and arrange them on the roof of the stoa; but the Elders deposit theirs in the lodge. One teaches them to say, it should be a gift to anybody into whose hands my lulav will come. They come early and the beadles throw them before them, and they grab and hit one another. When the Court saw that it involves danger they instituted that each person should take it in his house.

MISHNAH: How is the order of the lulav? Everybody brings their lulav to the Temple Mount; the beadles accept from them and arrange them on the roof of the stoa; but the Elders deposit theirs in the lodge. One teaches them to say, it should be a gift to anybody into whose hands my lulav will come. They come early and the beadles throw them before them, and they grab and hit one another. When the Court saw that it involves danger they instituted that each person should take it in his house.

MISHNAH: How is the order of the lulav? Everybody brings their lulav to the Temple Mount; the beadles accept from them and arrange them on the roof of the stoa; but the Elders deposit theirs in the lodge. One teaches them to say, it should be a gift to anybody into whose hands my lulav will come. They come early and the beadles throw them before them, and they grab and hit one another. When the Court saw that it involves danger they instituted that each person should take it in his house.

HALAKHAH: “The fife five and six,” etc. Therefore the one of sacrifices supersedes. The Mishnah is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s, as it was stated: The fife accompanying the sacrifices supersedes the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but the Sages say, it supersedes neither the Sabbath nor the holiday. There we have stated: “On twelve days in the year the fife beats the time before the altar, at the sacrifice of the First Pesaḥ, the sacrifice of the Second Pesaḥ, on the first day of Passover, on the day of Pentecost, and on the eight days of Tabernacles.” Are there eight days without a Sabbath? Rebbi Yose said it anonymously, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah’s. In the opinion of those rabbis why does it not supersede? Because it is not clear. But is it not written, and the people blew fifes? That is written for Solomon’s festivity. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: And heartfelt joy like one marching with a fife. Any time one uses a fife one recites the Hallel. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: Why does one recite Hallel all seven days of Tabernacles? Corresponding to the lulav which is renewed all seven days. And why a fife for all these things? We have stated, for one is at stated times and the other is at stated times; this is beloved and that is beloved. They attached the beloved to the beloved. “On Pentecost one says to him, here you have maṣsah, here you have leavened.” There are Tannaim who state, here you have leavened, [here you have maṣsah.] He who said, here you have maṣsah, because it is beloved; he who said, here you have leavened, because it is frequent.

MISHNAH: Originally the lulav was taken at the Temple for seven {days}and in the country one day. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country for seven {days} as a remembrance of the Temple, and that the day of waving be entirely forbidden.

MISHNAH: Originally the lulav was taken at the Temple for seven {days}and in the country one day. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country for seven {days} as a remembrance of the Temple, and that the day of waving be entirely forbidden.

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

HALAKHAH: It is written: and you shall enjoy before the Eternal, your God, for seven days. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices. There are Tannaim who state, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of the lulav. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of well-being sacrifices, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from a word of the Torah, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of a word from the Torah. For him who is saying, the verse speaks of the enjoyment of lulav, the first day is from a word of the Torah and the other days are from their words, and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted on the basis of their words. But is there institution after institution?

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one may bring neither a small child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah scroll into the public domain, but the House of Hillel permit it.

HALAKHAH: “From when does one mention the Power of rains,” etc. The reason of Rebbi Eliezer, because these four kinds grow on water, they become attorneys for water. Another explanation, when the slave serves all his master’s needs he asks for his reward from him. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is it not that when the slave has served all his master’s needs and his master is satisfied with him that he asks his [sustenance] from him? Another explanation. The slave asks for his reward only close to the time when his reward is due. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, from the time one takes the lulav; Rebbi Joshua says, from the time he puts it down. In the opinion of the latter Tanna, the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the first is his opinion in the latter. The argument of Rebbi Joshua is inverted. There, he says from the concluding holiday, but here he says, from the time he puts it down. Rebbi Mana says, because the entire day is qualified to take the lulav. Should he not mention in the evening? Not everybody is there. Then he should mention it in the morning. He would think that maybe they mentioned in the evening and he will mention. Since he sees that they do not mention in the first {prayer} but mention in the later {prayer}, he understands that they did not mention in the evening. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to him, so was your father Rebbi Jonah arguing it.

HALAKHAH: “From when does one mention the Power of rains,” etc. The reason of Rebbi Eliezer, because these four kinds grow on water, they become attorneys for water. Another explanation, when the slave serves all his master’s needs he asks for his reward from him. Rebbi Joshua said to him, is it not that when the slave has served all his master’s needs and his master is satisfied with him that he asks his [sustenance] from him? Another explanation. The slave asks for his reward only close to the time when his reward is due. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, from the time one takes the lulav; Rebbi Joshua says, from the time he puts it down. In the opinion of the latter Tanna, the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in the first is his opinion in the latter. The argument of Rebbi Joshua is inverted. There, he says from the concluding holiday, but here he says, from the time he puts it down. Rebbi Mana says, because the entire day is qualified to take the lulav. Should he not mention in the evening? Not everybody is there. Then he should mention it in the morning. He would think that maybe they mentioned in the evening and he will mention. Since he sees that they do not mention in the first {prayer} but mention in the later {prayer}, he understands that they did not mention in the evening. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius said to him, so was your father Rebbi Jonah arguing it.

MISHNAH: The entire day is qualified for reading the Scroll, and to read the Hallel, and to blow the shofar, and to take the lulav, and for the musaf prayer, and for musaf sacrifices, for confessions with bulls, and for the declaration of tithes and for the confessions of the Day of Atonement. For leaning on, slaughter, weaving and presenting, taking a handful, burning on the altar, breaking the neck, receiving, sprinkling, and to let the suspected adulteress drink, and to break the neck of the calf, and to purify the sufferer from skin disease.

HALAKHAH: “The entire day is qualified to read the Scroll,” as it is written, on the day the enemies of the Jews thought they would rule over them. To read the Hallel, as it is written, this is the day the Eternal made, let us enjoy and be happy on it. To blow the shofar, as it is written, a day to shofar blowing it shall be for you. To take the lulav, as it is written, you shall take for yourselves on the first day. For the musaf prayer, and for musaf sacrifices, as it is written, on the day on which He commanded the Children of Israel, etc.

The words of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba disagree, for Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rebbi Yudan, son of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai’s daughter, stated that Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated: Honoring father and mother is great because the Holy One, praise to Him, preferred it over His own honor. It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” How do you honor Him? From your property! One gives gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, one gives terumah, the First and Second Tithes and the tithe for the poor, ḥallah, one makes a sukkah, and lulav,shofar, and tefillin, and ẓiẓit, one feeds the hungry and gives to drink to the thirsty. If you have the wherewhithal, you are obliged for all of these; if you have nothing, you are not obliged even for one of them. But when it comes to honoring father and mother, whether you own property or you do not, you must honor father and mother, even if you are a beggar at people’s doors.

“One does not intercalate a year unless it be missing most of a month. How much is most of a month? 16 days. Rebbi Jehudah says two thirds of a month, 21 days.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only that the ˋOmer should be brought at the end of Nisan of equinoxes. Rebbi Yose said, before Passover. Rav Mattaniah said, only that lulav be taken at the end of Tishre of equinoxes.

MISHNAH: For an intentional vain oath one is liable to be flogged; if in error one is not liable. What is a vain oath? One swears to change what is known to man, about a stone pillar that it is of gold, a man that he is a woman, or a woman that she is a man. One swears about an impossibility, if I did not see a flying camel, if I did not see a snake like the beam of the olive press. If one said to witnesses come and testify for me, an oath that we shall not testify for you. One swears not to keep commandments: not to make a booth, not to take the lulav, not to put on phylacteries; these are vain oaths for which one is liable to be flogged if intentional, and free from prosecution of unintentional.

They thought that everyone agrees that a lulav must be tied together, and that we deduce [the law of] lulav from that of Sukkah, for it is written concerning the sukkah "You shall make" -- but not from what which is already made.

They thought that everyone agrees that a lulav must be tied together, and that we deduce [the law of] lulav from that of Sukkah, for it is written concerning the sukkah "You shall make" -- but not from what which is already made.

Do they [then] not dispute this principle? That the one who declared it valid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we say that ‘their cutting is their making', and[therefore] with regard to lulav we also say that their plucking is their making; while the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that ‘their cutting is their making, and [therefore] with regard to lulav also we do not say that their plucking is their making?

Do they [then] not dispute this principle? That the one who declared it valid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we say that ‘their cutting is their making', and[therefore] with regard to lulav we also say that their plucking is their making; while the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that ‘their cutting is their making, and [therefore] with regard to lulav also we do not say that their plucking is their making?

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.

And if you wish you may say hat if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together; and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught: A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.

And if you wish you may say hat if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together; and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught: A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.

And if you wish you may say hat if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah. But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together; and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught: A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.

According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid? If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them. and if it is according to the Sages, why is it ‘mitzvah'? It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.

Are not myrtle-branches, the same as branches of thick trees? R. Hisda said: The wild myrtle [were to be fetched] for the Sukkah, while the branches of thick trees, for the lulav.

It has been taught: R. Eliezer said: Just as one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, since it is written, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Leviticus 23:40) i.e., from your own possessions, so too one cannot fulfill his obligation with a Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "The festival of Sukkot you shalt keep for yourself for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13) i.e. from your own possession.

The sages say: Although they said that one cannot fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, he may nevertheless fulfill his obligation with the Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "All that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:42) this teaches that all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah

Mishnah: A Lulav that is stolen or dried is invalid; [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or a wayward city is invalid; [If a Lulav's] top was cut off, or its leaves were detaching, it is invalid; If it's leave were separating [from one another], it is valid; Rabbi Yehudah says One should tie it [additionally] from the top. The fronds of the Iron Mountain are valid. A Lulav that has three hand-breadths, so that one can shake it, is valid.

Mishnah: A Lulav that is stolen or dried is invalid; [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or a wayward city is invalid; [If a Lulav's] top was cut off, or its leaves were detaching, it is invalid; If it's leave were separating [from one another], it is valid; Rabbi Yehudah says One should tie it [additionally] from the top. The fronds of the Iron Mountain are valid. A Lulav that has three hand-breadths, so that one can shake it, is valid.

Mishnah: A Lulav that is stolen or dried is invalid; [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or a wayward city is invalid; [If a Lulav's] top was cut off, or its leaves were detaching, it is invalid; If it's leave were separating [from one another], it is valid; Rabbi Yehudah says One should tie it [additionally] from the top. The fronds of the Iron Mountain are valid. A Lulav that has three hand-breadths, so that one can shake it, is valid.

It makes sense for the dry [Lulav]; we need a beautiful one, and it is not. However, with a stolen [Lulav]- it makes sense on the first day of the holiday, as it is written, "For you (Leviticus 23:40)"- meaning from that which is yours. Rather, on the second day of the holiday, why not?

It makes sense for the dry [Lulav]; we need a beautiful one, and it is not. However, with a stolen [Lulav]- it makes sense on the first day of the holiday, as it is written, "For you (Leviticus 23:40)"- meaning from that which is yours. Rather, on the second day of the holiday, why not?

It was also said: Rabbi Ami said, "A dry [Lulav] is invalid because it is not beautiful, [and] a stolen [Lulav] is invalid because it is for him (the user) a commandment fulfilled through a transgression."

It was also said: Rabbi Ami said, "A dry [Lulav] is invalid because it is not beautiful, [and] a stolen [Lulav] is invalid because it is for him (the user) a commandment fulfilled through a transgression."

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

(Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being invalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].

After all, if the merchants cut it, there would be the despair of owners in their hands, and the change of ownership in the buyer's (lit. our ) hands [and therefore it seems that], We do not need [this solution]! [Rather, Rav Huna was trying to validate] the Hadasim of the merchants themselves. [But are they not able] to acquire it through a change [which takes place through] action [by tying it in the Lulav bundle]?

He must have thought, A Lulav does not require a tie [to bundle the four species].

And even if you find [that we need] to say that a Lulav requires a tie, a change that does not affect the actual object (lit. goes back to its original form) it is, and a change that goes back to its original form is not called a change [for halakhic purposes].

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

And regarding the Lulav, Rabbi Yehudah does not require beauty? And isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yehudah says [about a Lulav whose leaves are splitting], 'He should tie it on top' [presumably to add beauty]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

And regarding the Lulav, Rabbi Yehudah does not require beauty? And isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yehudah says [about a Lulav whose leaves are splitting], 'He should tie it on top' [presumably to add beauty]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

And he doesn't require beauty? And isn't it taught, "We only bind the Lulav with its species; the words of Rabbi Yehudah [presumably because it looks nice]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

No. For didn't Rava say [about Rabbi Yehudah's use of the phrase 'with its own species'], "[One can bind the Lulav] even with the vines, and even with the bark, of the palm [which are not beautiful]. Rather, what is the reasoning for Rabbi Yehudah's [statement] there? He had thought, "A Lulav needs binding, and if he brings another species [as binding material], it would be for him five species."

No. For didn't Rava say [about Rabbi Yehudah's use of the phrase 'with its own species'], "[One can bind the Lulav] even with the vines, and even with the bark, of the palm [which are not beautiful]. Rather, what is the reasoning for Rabbi Yehudah's [statement] there? He had thought, "A Lulav needs binding, and if he brings another species [as binding material], it would be for him five species."

But regarding a Etrog, does Rabbi Yehudah really require beauty? And isn't it taught, "[Regarding] the four species in the Lulav [bundle], just as we may not take away from them, so too we may not add. If he could not find a Etrog, he should not bring: not a quince, not a pomegranate, and not any other thing. Wilted ones are valid, but dried ones are invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Even dried [plants are valid].

Still, as it taught, Rabbi Yehudah says [that] Even dried ones are valid. Does [this] not [refer] to the Etrog? No. [This refers] to the Lulav.

A Master said, "Just like we do not take away from the [four species], so too we do not add to them." This is obvious [seeing as we are not allowed to add to commandments]! You might have said, Seeing as Rabbi Yehudah said that a Lulav [bundle] needs binding, if you bring another species [outside of the bundle], than [you might think that] this [i.e. the Lulav bundle] is one group, and this [i.e. the new species] is one group. We learn from the [above statement that you cannot add to the four species].

A Master said, "Just like we do not take away from the [four species], so too we do not add to them." This is obvious [seeing as we are not allowed to add to commandments]! You might have said, Seeing as Rabbi Yehudah said that a Lulav [bundle] needs binding, if you bring another species [outside of the bundle], than [you might think that] this [i.e. the Lulav bundle] is one group, and this [i.e. the new species] is one group. We learn from the [above statement that you cannot add to the four species].

Come and hear: "An old Etrog is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah validates it." This is a rejection of Rava, and [his opinion that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates a dry Lulav] is rejected.

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].

(Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"

(Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"

Here [ie. in the Mishnah], we are dealing with a worshipped tree [from the days] of Moses, for [it must be burnt, and therefore it is treated as ashes, and so] its size is crushed [to below the minimum size of a Lulav. The worshipped tree of Rava is a tree worshipped after the days of Moses, which does not need to be burnt].

(Mishnah:) [If] its top was severed [ it is invalid]. Rav Huna said, They only taught [that the Lulav is invalid in the case of its top being] severed, but [if the Lulav was] slit, it is valid.

(Mishnah:) [If] its top was severed [ it is invalid]. Rav Huna said, They only taught [that the Lulav is invalid in the case of its top being] severed, but [if the Lulav was] slit, it is valid.

And [a] slit [Lulav] is valid? But isn't it taught, "A bent Lulav,

And [a] slit [Lulav] is valid? But isn't it taught, "A bent Lulav,

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."

[Regarding a Lulav that is] bent, like a scythe, Rava said, "They only said [that it is invalid if it was bent] forward, but [if it were bent] backward, that is its natural state."

Rava further said: A lulav all of which grows on one side is a blemished plant and is invalid.

If the central leaf is split, it is as though it is removed, and [the lulav] is invalid. R. Judah says It has been taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon, “Branches (kapot) of palm-trees,” kapot [means that if palm-branches must be] were separated, he must tie them up (yikhtefenu).

Ravina said to R. Ashi: How do we know that “branches of palm-trees” refers to the lulav? ... Perhaps it means [branches of] the hardened palm? It must be [a branch the leaves of which can be] bound up, and this one cannot.

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas.

And R. Parnakh said in the name of R. Yohanan, The spine of the lulav should extend a handbreadth beyond the hadas.

Have we not learned, a lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid? Say " and long enough to wave"; and each one explains it according to his own view.

Come and hear: [We have learned: the [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four Is this not including the leaves? No, excluding the leaves.

The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four. R. Tarfon says. A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.

When Rabin came he said: [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit of five normal handbreadths and make it into one of six handbreadths. Deduct of these three for the hadas, and the remainder is for the lulav How much is it? Two and a half.

Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid. They thought to explain his in the following way: According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made.

Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid. They thought to explain his in the following way: According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made.

No! All agree that we do not apply the law of "set aside" to commandments, but they disagree here in whether we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah. One Master holds that we do so deduce them, while the other Master holds that we do not deduce the laws of lulav from sukkah.

No! All agree that we do not apply the law of "set aside" to commandments, but they disagree here in whether we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah. One Master holds that we do so deduce them, while the other Master holds that we do not deduce the laws of lulav from sukkah.