## Sukkah Daf 32a

###### Sukkah 32a:1
[Sukkah 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:1)

קָווּץ, סָדוּק, עָקוֹם דּוֹמֶה לְמַגָּל — פָּסוּל. חָרוּת — פָּסוּל. דּוֹמֶה לְחָרוּת — כָּשֵׁר. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דַּעֲבִיד כְּהֶימְנֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that is **thorny, split,** or **curved** to the extent that it is shaped **like a sickle** is **unfit.** If it became **hard** as wood it is **unfit.** If it merely appears **like hard** wood but is not yet completely hardened, it is **fit.** Apparently, a split *lulav* is unfit. **Rav Pappa said:** The split *lulav* in the *baraita* is so split that **it is shaped like a fork [*heimanak*],** with the two sides of the split completely separated, and it appears that the *lulav* has two spines.


###### Sukkah 32a:2
[Sukkah 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:2)

עָקוֹם דּוֹמֶה לְמַגָּל, אָמַר רָבָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְפָנָיו, אֲבָל לְאַחֲרָיו — בִּרְיָיתֵיהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If it is **curved** to the extent that it is shaped **like a sickle,** it is unfit. **Rava said: We said** that it is unfit **only** when it is curved **forward** away from the spine; **however,** if it is curved **backward,** toward the spine, it is fit for use because that **is its nature,** and that is the way a *lulav* typically grows.


###### Sukkah 32a:3
[Sukkah 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לִצְדָדִין — כִּלְפָנָיו דָּמֵי. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: כִּלְאַחֲרָיו דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** The legal status of a *lulav* that is curved **to** either of **the sides is like** that of a *lulav* curved **forward,** and it is unfit. **And some say:** Its legal status **is like** that of a *lulav* curved **backward,** and it is fit.


###### Sukkah 32a:4
[Sukkah 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:4)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: הַאי לוּלַבָּא דְּסָלֵיק בְּחַד הוּצָא — בַּעַל מוּם הוּא, וּפָסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava said: This *lulav* that grew with one leaf,** i.e., leaves on only one side of the spine, **is blemished and unfit.**


###### Sukkah 32a:5
[Sukkah 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:5)

נִפְרְצוּ עָלָיו כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: נִפְרְצוּ — דְּעָבֵיד כִּי חוּפְיָא. נִפְרְדוּ — דְּאִיפָּרוּד אִפָּרוֹדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **If the** palm **leaves were severed** from the spine of the *lulav*, it is unfit; if its leaves were spread, it is fit. **Rav Pappa said: Severed** means that the leaves are completely detached from the spine, and one ties them to the *lulav*, so **that** the *lulav* **is made like a broom. Spread** means that the leaves remain attached but are merely **separated** from the spine in that they jut outward.


###### Sukkah 32a:6
[Sukkah 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:6)

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: נֶחְלְקָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר (רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן) אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נִיטְּלָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת — פָּסוּל. מַאי לָאו, הוּא הַדִּין נֶחְלְקָה? לָא, נִיטְּלָה שָׁאנֵי, דְּהָא חֲסַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: **What is** the *halakha* if **the** central **twin-leaf split?** The Gemara cites proof to resolve the dilemma. **Come** and **hear** that **which Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:** If **the** central **twin-leaf was removed,** the *lulav* **is unfit. What, is it not** that **the same is true if** the twin-leaf **split?** The Gemara answers: **No,** the case where it **was removed is different, because** the result is that **it is lacking,** and an incomplete *lulav* is certainly unfit. However, if the leaf remains in place, even though it is split, it does not necessarily render the *lulav* unfit.


###### Sukkah 32a:7
[Sukkah 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:7)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר (רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן) אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נֶחְלְקָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה הַתְּיוֹמֶת וּפְסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:** If **the** central **twin-leaf split, it becomes as** a *lulav* whose central **twin-leaf was removed, and** it is **unfit.** According to this version of the statement, the dilemma is resolved.


###### Sukkah 32a:8
[Sukkah 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: ״כַּפּוֹת תְּמָרִים״ — כְּפוֹת, אִם הָיָה פָּרוּד יִכְפְּתֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If the leaves were spread, one should bind the *lulav* from the top. **It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon** that the 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 32a:9
[Sukkah 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״כַּפּוֹת תְּמָרִים״ דְּלוּלַבָּא הוּא? אֵימָא חֲרוּתָא! בָּעֵינָא כְּפוֹת וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where** is it ascertained **that this** term, **“branches of a date palm,” is** referring to the branches **of the *lulav*? Say** it is referring to **the hardened branch** of the date palm. Rav Ashi answered: That cannot be, as **we require** the *lulav* **to be bound, and there is no** binding, since at that stage the hardened leaves point outward, and binding them is impossible.


###### Sukkah 32a:10
[Sukkah 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:10)

וְאֵימָא אוּפְתָּא! ״כְּפוֹת״ — מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא פָּרוּד, וְהַאי כָּפוּת וְעוֹמֵד לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the fundamental requirement of the mitzva is a *lulav* that appears as one unit, **say** that one takes **the trunk** of the date palm. The Gemara answers: The term **bound,** from which it is derived that the branch should appear as one unit, **indicates that there is** the possibility that it could be **spread. However, this** trunk **is perpetually bound,** as it can never become separated.


###### Sukkah 32a:11
[Sukkah 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:11)

וְאֵימָא כּוּפְרָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם וְכׇל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And say** the verse is referring to **the branch of the date palm [*kufra*]** that has not yet hardened completely and could still be bound, albeit with difficulty. **Abaye said** that **it is written** in praise of the Torah: **“Its way are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace”** (Proverbs 3:17). At that stage of development, some of the leaves are thorns that potentially wound. The Torah would not command to use that type of branch in fulfilling the mitzva.


###### Sukkah 32a:12
[Sukkah 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא תּוֹסְפָאָה לְרָבִינָא: וְאֵימָא תַּרְתֵּי כַּפֵּי דְתַמְרֵי? ״כַּפַּת״ כְּתִיב. וְאֵימָא חֲדָא? לְהָהוּא — ״כַּף״ קָרֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava, the expert in *Tosefta*, said to Ravina:** Since the verse states “branches of a date palm” in the plural, **say** that one is obligated to take **two palm branches** in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species. Ravina answered: Although the word is vocalized in the plural, based on tradition ***kappot* is written** without the letter *vav*, indicating that only one is required. The Gemara suggests: **And say** that one is required to take only **one** leaf? The Gemara answers: If that were the intention of the Torah, it would not have written *kappot* without a *vav*. **That** single leaf **is called *kaf*.** *Kappot* without the *vav* indicates both plural, i.e., multiple leaves, and singular, i.e., one branch.


###### Sukkah 32a:13
[Sukkah 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:13)

צִינֵּי הַר הַבַּרְזֶל — כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה מַגִּיעַ לְצַד עִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, אֲבָל אֵין רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה מַגִּיעַ לְצַד עִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה — פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: A *lulav* from the **palms of the Iron Mountain is fit.** It has few leaves on its spine, and those leaves are not crowded together like the leaves on a standard *lulav*. **Abaye said:** The Sages **taught that** this type of *lulav* is fit **only** in a case in which **the top of this** leaf **reaches the base of that** leaf above it on the spine. **However,** if there are so few leaves that **the top of this** leaf **does not reach the base of that** leaf, **it is unfit.**


###### Sukkah 32a:14
[Sukkah 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/32a:14)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: צִינֵּי הַר הַבַּרְזֶל פְּסוּלָה. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן כְּשֵׁרָה! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כְּאַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That was taught** in a *baraita* **as well:** A *lulav* from the **palms of the Iron Mountain are unfit.** The Gemara asks: **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that it is **fit? Rather, learn from it in accordance with** the statement of **Abaye,** that there is a distinction based on the configuration of the leaves on the *lulav*. Indeed, **learn from it.**