## Sukkah Daf 31b

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

בִּבְנֵי כְרַכִּין, שֶׁהָיוּ מוֹרִישִׁין אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן לִבְנֵי בְנֵיהֶן! אָמְרוּ (לָהֶם): מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה? אֵין שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק רְאָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**involving city dwellers** who lived in an area distant from the region where the four species grow, **who would bequeath their *lulavim* to their grandchildren,** even though they were completely dry. The Sages **said to him:** Is there **proof from there** that species that are dry remain fit for use? Actions taken **in exigent circumstances are not proof.** In typical circumstances, it would be prohibited to use those species.


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

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף יְבֵשִׁין כְּשֵׁרִין, מַאי לָאו, אַאֶתְרוֹג! לָא, אַלּוּלָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In any event,** the *Tosefta* **teaches** that **Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry** species **are fit** for use in fulfilling the mitzva. **What, is it not** referring **to an *etrog*** as well, indicating that in his opinion an *etrog* does not require beauty? **No,** he was stating only **that** a dry ***lulav*** is fit for use.


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

אָמַר מָר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מֵהֶן, כָּךְ אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לוּלָב צָרִיךְ אֶגֶד, וְאִי מַיְיתֵי מִינָא אַחֲרִינָא, הַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי וְהַאי לְחוֹדֵיהּ קָאֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The **Master stated** in the *baraita* cited above: **Just as one may not diminish from their** number, **so too, one may not add to their** number. The Gemara asks: That is **obvious.** Why would it be permitted to add an additional species? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said** that **a *lulav* requires a binding,** and that requirement is a fundamental component of the mitzva, **and if you bring another** additional **species, this** species **stands alone and that** species **stands alone,** i.e., because the additional species is not bound with the others, its presence is insignificant, and causes no problem, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda **teaches us** that this is not the case. In fact, one may not bring an additional species.


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

אָמַר מָר: לֹא מָצָא אֶתְרוֹג — לֹא יָבִיא לֹא רִמּוֹן וְלֹא פָּרִישׁ וְלֹא דָּבָר אַחֵר. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לַיְיתֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשָּׁכַח תּוֹרַת אֶתְרוֹג, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, זִימְנִין דְּנָפֵיק חוּרְבָּא מִינֵּיהּ, דְּאָתֵי לְמִסְרַךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The **Master stated** in the *baraita* cited above: **If one cannot find an *etrog*, he may not bring a pomegranate, a quince, or anything else** instead. The Gemara wonders: This is **obvious.** The Gemara answers: **Lest you say: He should bring** these fruits **so that the** halakhic **category of** the ***etrog* will not be forgotten,** therefore, Rabbi Yehuda **teaches us** that it is in fact prohibited because on occasion, **damage will result from** this practice. **Some may come to be drawn** to this practice and use these species even when *etrogim* are available.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֶתְרוֹג הַיָּשָׁן — פָּסוּל, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַכְשִׁיר. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרָבָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara proposes: **Come** and **hear** another proof that, with regard to an *etrog*, Rabbi Yehuda does not require beauty: **An old *etrog* is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit.** This is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion of Rava, who holds that everyone agrees that an *etrog* requires beauty. The Gemara concludes: It is, indeed, **a conclusive refutation** of Rava’s opinion.


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

וְלָא בָּעֵי הָדָר? וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: הַיָּרוֹק כְּכַרָּתֵי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי הָדָר? לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא גְּמַר פֵּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does** Rabbi Yehuda **not require beauty** in an *etrog*? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna: With regard to an *etrog* **that is leek green, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit?** The Gemara asks: Is it **not due to** the fact **that** Rabbi Yehuda **requires beauty** in an *etrog*? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **due to** the fact **that** in the case of a green *etrog* **the fruit did not ripen,** and it is inappropriate to fulfill the mitzva with an unripe fruit.


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: שִׁיעוּר אֶתְרוֹג קָטָן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֶּאֱגוֹז, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּבֵיצָה. לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי הָדָר? לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא גְּמַר פֵּירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an additional proof. **Come** and **hear:** What is **the** minimum **measure of a small *etrog*? Rabbi Meir says:** It may be no smaller than **a walnut-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says:** It may be no smaller than **an egg-bulk.** The Gemara asks: Is it **not due to** the fact **that** Rabbi Yehuda **requires beauty** in an *etrog*? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **due to** the fact **that** in that case of an *etrog* smaller than an egg-bulk, **the fruit did not ripen.**


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

תָּא שְׁמַע: וּבְגָדוֹל כְּדֵי שֶׁיֶּאֱחוֹז שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו. מַאי טַעְמָא, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי הָדָר? לָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: לוּלָב בְּיָמִין וְאֶתְרוֹג בִּשְׂמֹאל, זִימְנִין דְּמִחַלְּפִי לֵיהּ וְאָתֵי לְאַפּוּכִינְהוּ וְאָתֵי לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** an additional proof: **And in a large** *etrog*, the maximum measure is **so that one could hold two in his one hand;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says:** It is fit **even** if it is so large that he can hold only **one in his two hands.** The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Is it **not due to** the fact **that** Rabbi Yehuda **requires beauty** in an *etrog*? The Gemara answers: **No,** the rationale is **as Rabba said:** One holds **the *lulav* in the right** hand **and the *etrog* in the left. Sometimes,** when one is handed the four species, **they will exchange them for him,** placing the three species in his left hand and the *etrog* in his right, **and** then **he will come to switch them** and place each in the appropriate hand. However, if the *etrog* is too large, he will be unable to hold the *etrog* and the *lulav* together, and he will **come to render** the *etrog* **unfit,** as it is apt to fall.


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

וְאֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא כְּתִיב ״הָדָר״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **However,** even according **to Rabbi Yehuda, isn’t it written:** The fruit of **a beautiful [*hadar*]** tree? How, then, can he rule that an *etrog* does not require beauty?


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

הַהוּא הַדָּר בְּאִילָנוֹ מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds: **That** verse means that one should take **a fruit that dwells [*hadar*] in its tree from year to year.** It remains on the tree and does not wither and fall at the end of the season as do most fruits. That is characteristic of the *etrog*.


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

שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. וְשֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה — פָּסוּל? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: לוּלָב שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה — לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם נָטַל — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: The *lulav* **of a tree worshipped as idolatry [*asheira*] and** a *lulav* **from a city** whose residents were **incited** to idolatry, which must be burned along with all the city’s property, are unfit. **And is** a *lulav* **of an *asheira* unfit? But didn’t Rava say** with regard to **a *lulav* of idolatry: One should not take it** to fulfill the mitzva *ab initio*; **however, if he took it, it is fit** and he fulfills his obligation after the fact? Apparently, a *lulav* from an *asheira* is fit.


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

הָכָא בַּאֲשֵׁרָה דְמֹשֶׁה עָסְקִינַן, דְּכַתּוֹתֵי מְיכַתַּת שִׁיעוּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Here,** in the mishna, **we are dealing with the *asheira* of Moses,** depicted in the Torah. The mishna is not referring to a tree planted in deference to idolatry, but rather to a tree that was itself worshipped as an idol. There is an obligation to burn idolatry and destroy it. Therefore, legally, the latter tree is considered as if it were already burned. The requisite **measure** of the *lulav* **was crushed,** and it is therefore unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rava’s ruling does not apply to an *asheira* of that kind.


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

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: דּוּמְיָא דְּעִיר הַנִּדַּחַת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: The formulation of the mishna **is also precise** and indicates that the reference is to an *asheira* of Moses, **as** the juxtaposition of the *halakha* of an *asheira* to the *halakha* of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry **teaches** that the legal status of the *asheira* **is similar to** that of **a city** whose residents were **incited** to idolatry, in which all the property must be burned. In both cases, the *lulav* is considered already burned and lacking the requisite measure. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from here** that this is the reason that the *lulav* is unfit.


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

נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא נִקְטַם, אֲבָל נִסְדַּק — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If **the top** of the *lulav* **was severed** it is unfit. **Rav Huna said: They taught** that it is unfit **only** when it was completely **severed; however,** if the top merely **split,** the *lulav* **is fit.**


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

וְנִסְדַּק כָּשֵׁר? וְהָתַנְיָא: לוּלָב כָּפוּף,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is a split** *lulav* **fit? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **A *lulav*** that is **bent** at the top,