## Sukkah Daf 33a

###### Sukkah 33a:1
[Sukkah 33a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:1)

בְּאַסָּא מִצְרָאָה דְּקָיְימִי שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה בְּחַד קִינָּא, דְּכִי נָתְרִי אַרְבְּעָה, פָּשׁוּ לְהוּ תְּלָתָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הַאי אַסָּא מִצְרָאָה כָּשַׁר לְהוֹשַׁעְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**in an Egyptian myrtle branch, which has seven** leaves emerging from **each and every base, as** even **when four** leaves, the majority, **fall, three remain,** and its dense-leaved nature remains intact. **Abaye said: Learn from it** that the Sages hold that **this Egyptian myrtle branch is fit for use as a *hoshana*** in the mitzva of the four species.


###### Sukkah 33a:2
[Sukkah 33a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:2)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הוֹאִיל וְאִית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי, לָא מִתַּכְשַׁר — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! ״עֵץ עָבוֹת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: This is **obvious.** It is a myrtle branch. Why would it be unfit? The Gemara answers: **Lest you say that since its** name is accompanied by **a modifier,** i.e., it is not called simply a myrtle branch but an Egyptian myrtle branch, **it is unfit.** Therefore, Abaye **teaches us** that it is fit for use. The Gemara asks: **And say it is indeed so,** that since its name is accompanied by a modifier it is unfit. The Gemara answers: It is fit, as **“dense-leaved tree” is stated by the Merciful One.** As the Torah did not mandate the use of a specific species but rather listed an identifying characteristic, a tree with that characteristic is fit **in any case,** and the modifier is irrelevant.


###### Sukkah 33a:3
[Sukkah 33a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָבְשׁוּ רוֹב עָלָיו וְנִשְׁאֲרוּ בּוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּדֵּי עָלִין לַחִין כָּשֵׁר. וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: וּבְרֹאשׁ כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** If **most of its leaves dried and three branches of moist leaves remained on it, it is fit. Rav Ḥisda said: And** that is the ruling only if the moist leaves are **at the top of each and every** one of the branches. However, if the moist leaves are elsewhere on the branch, it is unfit.


###### Sukkah 33a:4
[Sukkah 33a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:4)

נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ. תָּנֵי עוּלָּא בַּר חִינָּנָא: נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ וְעָלְתָה בּוֹ תְּמָרָה — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: If **the top** of the myrtle branch **was severed,** it is unfit. **Ulla bar Ḥinnana taught:** If **the top** of the myrtle branch **was severed, but** a gallnut-like **berry grew in** that place, **it is fit,** as the berry fills the void and the top of the branch no longer appears severed.


###### Sukkah 33a:5
[Sukkah 33a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:5)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נִקְטַם רֹאשׁוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְעָלְתָה בּוֹ תְּמָרָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מַהוּ? יֵשׁ דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת, אוֹ לֹא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:** If **the top was severed on the Festival eve, and the berry grew in** that place **on the Festival, what is the *halakha*?** This dilemma is tied to a more fundamental, wide-ranging dilemma: **Is there disqualification with regard to mitzvot or not?** Because this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, is the *halakha* that it is permanently disqualified and cannot be rendered fit? Or perhaps the *halakha* is that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. Once the growth of the berry neutralizes the cause for the disqualification, the myrtle branch is again fit for use.


###### Sukkah 33a:6
[Sukkah 33a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:6)

וְתִפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה — פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. כִּסָּהוּ הָרוּחַ — חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה — פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And resolve** this dilemma **from that which we learned** in a mishna: With regard to one who slaughtered a non-domesticated animal or a bird and is obligated to cover the blood, if **he covered** the blood **and it** was **then uncovered, he is exempt** from the obligation to cover it a second time. However, **if the wind** blew dust and **covered** the blood and no person was involved, **he is obligated** to cover it. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught that** he is obligated to cover the blood after the wind covered it **only if the blood was then exposed. However, if it was not then exposed, he is exempt from** the obligation **to cover** it.


###### Sukkah 33a:7
[Sukkah 33a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:7)

וְהָוֵינַן בָּהּ: כִּי חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה אַמַּאי חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת? הוֹאִיל וְאִידְּחִי אִידְּחִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed this** issue and asked: **When it was then exposed, why is he obligated to cover** it a second time? **Since it was disqualified, it** should remain **disqualified.** When the wind covered the blood, he was exempt from covering the blood. If so, even if the blood is subsequently uncovered, he should remain exempt. Why then, is he obligated to cover the blood in that case?


###### Sukkah 33a:8
[Sukkah 33a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:8)

וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot.** Once the cause of the exemption from the obligation is neutralized, one is once again obligated to fulfill the mitzva. Although there is disqualification with regard to offerings, that is not the case with regard to mitzvot. If so, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma is resolved.


###### Sukkah 33a:9
[Sukkah 33a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:9)

דְּרַב פָּפָּא גּוּפָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מִיפְשָׁיט פְּשִׁיט לֵיהּ דְּאֵין דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת — לָא שְׁנָא לְקוּלָּא וְלָא שְׁנָא לְחוּמְרָא, אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ — לְחוּמְרָא אָמְרִינַן, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is with regard to **Rav Pappa’s** resolution **itself** that Rabbi Yirmeya **raised the dilemma. Is it obvious to** Rav Pappa, based on the discussion with regard to the blood, **that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot;** and there is **no difference whether** that ruling leads **to leniency,** as in the case of a myrtle branch whose top was severed and a berry grew in its place, rendering it fit, **and** there is **no difference whether** that ruling leads **to stringency,** as in the case of the blood, where one is obligated to cover it anew? **Or, perhaps** the *tanna* **was uncertain,** and therefore, when that ruling leads **to stringency, we say** that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot, and one must perform the mitzva. However, when that ruling leads **to leniency, we do not say** that there is no disqualification with regard to mitzvot. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **stands** unresolved.


###### Sukkah 33a:10
[Sukkah 33a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:10)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: עָבַר וְלִקְּטָן — פָּסוּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר (בֶּן) צָדוֹק, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. סַבְרוּהָ דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, לוּלָב אֵין צָרִיךְ אֶגֶד. וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר צָרִיךְ אֶגֶד, לָא יָלְפִינַן לוּלָב מִסּוּכָּה דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ: ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״ — וְלֹא מִן הֶעָשׂוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this matter of disqualification with regard to mitzvot is dependent upon **a dispute of *tanna’im*,** as a similar topic was taught in a *baraita*: **If one transgressed and picked** the berries that render the myrtle branch unfit on the Festival, **it** remains **unfit;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok. The Sages deem it fit.** The Gemara explains: **Everyone,** both *tanna’im*, **agree that a *lulav* does not require binding. And even if you say that a *lulav* requires binding,** nevertheless, **we do not derive** the *halakhot* of ***lulav* from** the *halakhot* of ***sukka*. With regard to** *sukka* **it is written: Prepare it,** from which it is derived, **and not from that which is already prepared.** The *sukka* must be established by means of an action, not one that was established by itself.


###### Sukkah 33a:11
[Sukkah 33a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:11)

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמַאן דְּפָסֵיל סָבַר: אָמְרִינַן יֵשׁ דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת, וּמַאן דְּמַכְשַׁיר סָבַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן יֵשׁ דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not that** Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, and the Rabbis **are disagreeing about the following? The one who deems** the myrtle branch **unfit,** Rabbi Elazar, **holds: We say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot.** Since this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began because the berries outnumbered the leaves, reducing the number of berries will not render it fit. **And the one who deems** the myrtle branch **fit,** the Rabbis, **holds: We do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot.** Even though this myrtle branch was unfit when the Festival began, once the cause of the disqualification is neutralized, the myrtle branch is rendered fit for use in the performance of the mitzva.


###### Sukkah 33a:12
[Sukkah 33a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:12)

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא אָמְרִינַן יֵשׁ דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת, וְהָכָא בְּמֵילַף לוּלָב מִסּוּכָּה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. מָר סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן לוּלָב מִסּוּכָּה, וּמַר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן לוּלָב מִסּוּכָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion. **No,** one could say that **everyone agrees that we do not say there is disqualification with regard to mitzvot. And here,** it is **with regard to deriving *lulav* from *sukka* that they disagree.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, **holds: We derive *lulav* from *sukka*.** Just as a *sukka* must be rendered fit through building and not by means of an action taken after it was built, so too, a *lulav* must be rendered fit through binding and not by an action taken after it was bound. Since this myrtle branch was not rendered fit through binding but rather through the removal of the berries after it was bound, it is unfit. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds: We do not derive *lulav* from *sukka*.** Therefore, even if the *lulav* was rendered fit from that which is already prepared, it is fit.


###### Sukkah 33a:13
[Sukkah 33a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:13)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִי סְבִירָא לַן לוּלָב צָרִיךְ אֶגֶד, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָלְפִינַן לוּלָב מִסּוּכָּה, וְהָכָא בְּלוּלָב צָרִיךְ אֶגֶד קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: לוּלָב, בֵּין אָגוּד, בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָגוּד — כָּשֵׁר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָגוּד — כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָגוּד — פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **If we hold that *lulav* requires binding, everyone agrees** that **we derive** the *halakhot* of ***lulav* from** the *halakhot* of ***sukka*. And here,** it is **with regard to** whether or not **a *lulav* requires binding that they disagree, and** they disagree **in the dispute of these *tanna’im*, as it was taught** in a *baraita*: **A *lulav*, whether** it is **bound** with the myrtle and willow **and whether** it is **not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If** it is **bound** it is **fit; if** it is **not bound** it is **unfit.**


###### Sukkah 33a:14
[Sukkah 33a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:14)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? יָלֵיף ״לְקִיחָה״ ״לְקִיחָה״ מֵאֲגוּדַּת אֵזוֹב. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגוּדַּת אֵזוֹב״. מָה לְהַלָּן — אֲגוּדָּה, אַף כָּאן — אֲגוּדָּה. וְרַבָּנַן לֵית לְהוּ ״לְקִיחָה״ ״לְקִיחָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the rationale** for the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?** From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: **He derives** the term **taking** written with regard to the four species **from** the term **taking** written with regard to **the bundle of hyssop** by means of a verbal analogy. **It is written here,** in the context of the four species: **“And you shall take for yourselves on the first day** the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40). **and it is written there,** in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: **“Take a bundle of hyssop”** (Exodus 12:22), **Just as there,** with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically **in a bundle, so too here,** the mitzva to take the four species is specifically **in a bundle. And the Rabbis** hold: **We do not derive** the term **taking from** the term **taking** by means of the verbal analogy.


###### Sukkah 33a:15
[Sukkah 33a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:15)

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוּלָב מִצְוָה לְאוֹגְדוֹ, וְאִם לֹא אֲגָדוֹ כָּשֵׁר. מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, כִּי לֹא אֲגָדוֹ אַמַּאי כָּשֵׁר? אִי רַבָּנַן, מַאי מִצְוָה קָא עָבֵיד? לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וּמִצְוָה מִשּׁוּם ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On a related note, the Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** in the *baraita*: There is **a mitzva to bind the** myrtle and the willow with the ***lulav*, and if he did not bind it, it is fit? Whose** opinion is it? **If** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, when he did not bind it, why is it fit? If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis, what mitzva did he perform?** The Gemara answers: **Actually, it is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. And** the reason that there is a mitzva to bind them is **due to** the fact **that it is stated: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [*ve’anvehu*]”** (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [*hitna’e*] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render the *lulav* unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the *lulav* is bound.


###### Sukkah 33a:16
[Sukkah 33a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:16)

אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עֲנָבָיו מְרוּבִּין. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה, רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, וְהַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנַיִם אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **Or** if **its berries were more numerous** than its leaves, it is unfit. **Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi,** Rav, **and may the Omnipresent** come **to his assistance.** The Sages **taught** this *halakha* **only** if the berries were concentrated **in one place. However,** if they were distributed **in two or three places** throughout the branch, **it is fit.**


###### Sukkah 33a:17
[Sukkah 33a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/33a:17)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Rav Ḥisda: