## Sukkah Daf 31a

###### Sukkah 31a:1
[Sukkah 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:1)

הוֹשַׁעְנָא! מֵעִיקָּרָא, נָמֵי לְאַסָּא ״הוֹשַׁעְנָא״ קָרוּ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is called ***hoshana*,** which is a term used to describe the four species. The Gemara answers: This is not a full-fledged change of name, as occasionally it **also** happens that **they initially refer to a myrtle branch as a *hoshana*** while it is attached to the tree.


###### Sukkah 31a:2
[Sukkah 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סוּכָּה גְּזוּלָה, וְהַמְסַכֵּךְ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** With regard to **a stolen *sukka* and** with regard to **one who roofs** a *sukka* **in the public domain,** which is tantamount to robbing land from the public, **Rabbi Eliezer deems** these *sukkot* **unfit** for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, **and the Rabbis deem** them **fit.**


###### Sukkah 31a:3
[Sukkah 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁתּוֹקֵף אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִסּוּכָּתוֹ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּסוּכָּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ. אִי קַרְקַע נִגְזֶלֶת — סוּכָּה גְּזוּלָה הִיא. וְאִי נָמֵי קַרְקַע אֵינָהּ נִגְזֶלֶת — סוּכָּה שְׁאוּלָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** This **dispute is** limited to a case **where one assaults another and** forcibly **evicts him from his *sukka*,** and takes his place in the *sukka*. In that case, Rabbi Eliezer deems the *sukka* unfit. **And Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his** own **reasoning, as he said: A person does not fulfill his obligation with the *sukka* of another.** Therefore, in any event, he does not fulfill his obligation with it. **If land** can **be stolen** and acquired by the robber, the *sukka* from which he evicted the owner **is a stolen *sukka*. And if indeed land cannot be stolen,** nevertheless, the robber does not fulfill his obligation according to Rabbi Eliezer, as **it is a borrowed *sukka*.**


###### Sukkah 31a:4
[Sukkah 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:4)

וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמְרִי: אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בְּסוּכָּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְקַרְקַע אֵינָהּ נִגְזֶלֶת, וְסוּכָּה שְׁאוּלָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis conform to their reasoning, as they said: A person fulfills his obligation with the *sukka* of another. And** since **land cannot be stolen and** the *sukka* **is** merely **a borrowed** *sukka* and not a stolen one, the robber fulfills his obligation, despite the fact that he committed a reprehensible act.


###### Sukkah 31a:5
[Sukkah 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:5)

אֲבָל גָּזַל עֵצִים וְסִיכֵּךְ בָּהֶן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי עֵצִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However,** if **one stole wood and roofed** a *sukka* **with it, everyone agrees,** as Rabbi Eliezer concedes, that the original owner of the wood **has** rights **only** to **the monetary value of the wood.** The wood itself belongs to the robber, so it is not a stolen *sukka*.


###### Sukkah 31a:6
[Sukkah 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:6)

מִמַּאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** does Rav Naḥman draw the conclusion that the dispute is with regard to a stolen *sukka* and not with regard to a *sukka* established with stolen building materials?


###### Sukkah 31a:7
[Sukkah 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:7)

מִדְּקָתָנֵי: דּוּמְיָא דִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מָה רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — קַרְקַע לָאו דִּידֵיהּ הוּא, סוּכָּה נָמֵי — לָאו קַרְקַע דִּידֵיהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **From the fact that** the *halakha* of a stolen *sukka* is juxtaposed in the *baraita* to the *halakha* of a *sukka* established in the public domain, the *baraita* **teaches** that the legal status of the stolen *sukka* is **similar to** the legal status of a *sukka* established in **the public domain. Just as** one does not fulfill his obligation with a *sukka* in **the public domain** because **the land is not his,** with regard to the stolen ***sukka* too,** one does not fulfill his obligation because **the land is not his,** not because the building materials were stolen.


###### Sukkah 31a:8
[Sukkah 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:8)

הָהִיא סָבְתָּא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא וְכוּלְּהוּ רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בְּסוּכָּה גְּזוּלָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. צָוְוחָה וְלָא אַשְׁגַּח בָּהּ רַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהָא תְּלָת מְאָה וְתַמְנֵי סְרֵי עַבְדֵי צָוְוחָא קַמַּיְיכוּ וְלָא אַשְׁגְּחִיתוּ בַּהּ?! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: פָּעִיתָא הִיא דָּא, וְאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי עֵצִים בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain old woman who came before Rav Naḥman. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen *sukka*.** She claimed that the Exilarch’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the *sukka*. **She screamed, but Rav Naḥman did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father,** Abraham, our forefather, **had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her?** She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. **Rav Naḥman said to** the Sages: **This** woman **is a screamer, and she has** rights **only** to **the monetary value of the wood.** However, the *sukka* itself was already acquired by the Exilarch.


###### Sukkah 31a:9
[Sukkah 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:9)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הַאי כְּשׁוּרָא דִמְטַלַּלְתָּא דִּגְזוּלָה, עָבְדִי לַיהּ רַבָּנַן תַּקַּנְתָּא, מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת מָרִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** With regard to **the stolen** large **beam of a *sukka*, the Sages instituted an ordinance** that the robber need not return it intact, **due to the** general **ordinance of a beam.** By the letter of the law, one who stole a beam and incorporated it in the construction of a new house is required to dismantle the house and return the beam. The Sages instituted an ordinance requiring the robber to repay the monetary value of the beam instead. They instituted this ordinance to facilitate the repentance of the robber, who would be less likely to repent if doing so entailed destruction of the house.


###### Sukkah 31a:10
[Sukkah 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:10)

פְּשִׁיטָא, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵעֵצִים? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא עֵצִים שְׁכִיחִי, אֲבָל הַאי לָא שְׁכִיחָא — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This is **obvious.** In **what** way **is** the beam **different from** other **wood** used in establishing the *sukka*? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say: Wood is common,** and therefore the owners are more likely to despair of recovering the wood and will suffice with receiving monetary restitution and replacing the wood, **but,** with regard to **this** large beam, which **is not common, say** that there is **no** despair, and the robber is required to return the actual beam, therefore, Ravina **teaches us** that the ordinance applies even to this beam, and the robber is required to return only its monetary value.


###### Sukkah 31a:11
[Sukkah 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:11)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּגוֹ שִׁבְעָה, אֲבָל לְבָתַר שִׁבְעָה — הָדַר בְּעֵינֵיהּ. וְאִי חִבְּרוֹ בְּטִינָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר שִׁבְעָה נָמֵי יָהֵיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **This** *halakha* that the robber need not dismantle the *sukka* and return the beam **applies** only **within** the **seven** days of the Festival. **However, after** the **seven** days, the beam **returns** to the owner **intact. And if** the robber **attached it with mortar** and it is affixed permanently to the *sukka*, then **even after** the **seven** days of the Festival, the ordinance remains in effect, and the robber **gives** the original owner **the monetary value** of the beam.


###### Sukkah 31a:12
[Sukkah 31a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:12)

תָּנָא: יָבֵשׁ — פָּסוּל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. אָמַר רָבָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּלוּלָב, דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מַקְּשִׁינַן לוּלָב לְאֶתְרוֹג, מָה אֶתְרוֹג בָּעֵי ״הָדָר״ — אַף לוּלָב בָּעֵי ״הָדָר״. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: לָא מַקְּשִׁינַן לוּלָב לְאֶתְרוֹג. אֲבָל בְּאֶתְרוֹג — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הָדָר בָּעֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was taught in the *Tosefta*: **A dry *lulav* is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems** it **fit. Rava said: The dispute is** specifically **with regard to a *lulav*, as the Rabbis hold: We liken the *lulav* to the *etrog*,** based on their juxtaposition in the verse. **Just as the *etrog* requires beauty, so too, the *lulav* requires beauty. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not liken the *lulav* to the *etrog*. However, with regard to an *etrog*, everyone agrees that we require beauty [*hadar*]** as the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree” (Leviticus 23:40) and a dry *etrog* does not meet that criterion.


###### Sukkah 31a:13
[Sukkah 31a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:13)

וּבְלוּלָב לָא בָּעֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״הָדָר״? וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יַאַגְדֶנּוּ מִלְמַעְלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא — לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי ״הָדָר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to a *lulav*, does Rabbi Yehuda** really **not require beauty? But didn’t we learn in the mishna** that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** With regard to a *lulav* whose leaves have spread out, **one should bind** the *lulav* **from the top. What is the reason** to do so? Is it **not because he requires beauty** in the case of *lulav*?


###### Sukkah 31a:14
[Sukkah 31a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:14)

לָא, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: ״כַּפּוֹת תְּמָרִים״ — כְּפוֹת, וְאִם הָיָה פָּרוּד יִכְפְּתֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, as the reason is taught: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon** that the same verse states: **“Branches [*kappot*] of a date palm.”** The Sages interpret the term to mean **bound [*kafut*],** indicating that **if** the leaves of the *lulav* **were spread, one should bind it.**


###### Sukkah 31a:15
[Sukkah 31a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:15)

וְלָא בָּעֵי ״הָדָר״? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין אוֹגְדִין אֶת הַלּוּלָב אֶלָּא בְּמִינוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי ״הָדָר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** Rabbi Yehuda **not require beauty** with regard to the *lulav*? **But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One binds the *lulav* only with its own species,** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? What is the reason** that Rabbi Yehuda requires the binding to be from its own species? Is it **not due to** the fact that **he requires beauty** with regard to the *lulav*?


###### Sukkah 31a:16
[Sukkah 31a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:16)

לָא, דְּהָא אָמַר רָבָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּסִיב, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּעִיקָּרָא דְּדִיקְלָא. [וְאֶלָּא] מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָתָם? דְּקָא סָבַר לוּלָב צָרִיךְ אֶגֶד, וְאִי מַיְיתֵי מִינָא אַחֲרִינָא — הָוֵה לְהוּ חֲמִשָּׁה מִינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** that is not the reason, **as Rava said:** According to Rabbi Yehuda, one may bind the *lulav* **even with fiber** that grows around the trunk of the date palm **and even with the root of the date palm,** even though these do not meet the criterion of beauty. The Gemara asks: **Rather, what is the rationale** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda there,** that a *lulav* must be bound with its own species? The Gemara answers: It is **because he holds** that **a *lulav* requires binding, and if one brought another species** to bind it, **they are five species** instead of four, violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah.


###### Sukkah 31a:17
[Sukkah 31a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:17)

וּבְאֶתְרוֹג מִי בָּעֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָדָר? וְהָתַנְיָא: אַרְבַּעַת מִינִין שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מֵהֶן כָּךְ אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן. לֹא מָצָא אֶתְרוֹג — לֹא יָבִיא לֹא פָּרִישׁ וְלֹא רִמּוֹן וְלֹא דָּבָר אַחֵר. כְּמוּשִׁין — כְּשֵׁרִין, יְבֵשִׁין — פְּסוּלִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף יְבֵשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to an *etrog*, does Rabbi Yehuda require beauty? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **the four species of the *lulav*, just as one may not diminish from their** number, **so too, one may not add to their** number. **If one did not find an *etrog*, he should not bring a quince, a pomegranate, or any other item** instead. If the species are slightly **dried,** they **are fit.** If they are completely **dry,** they **are unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry *etrogim* are fit.**


###### Sukkah 31a:18
[Sukkah 31a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/31a:18)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda said:** There was **an incident**