## Sukkah Daf 33b

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

שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הָוֵי מְנוּמָּר, וּפְסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the berries are distributed in **two or three places,** the myrtle branch **is speckled** with different colors in different places. It lacks beauty **and is** certainly **unfit.**


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

אֶלָּא, אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר: אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ עֲנָבָיו מְרוּבִּין מֵעָלָיו — פָּסוּל. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה רַבֵּינוּ הַגָּדוֹל אֲמָרוֹ, וְהַמָּקוֹם יִהְיֶה בְּעֶזְרוֹ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא עֲנָבָיו שְׁחוֹרוֹת. אֲבָל עֲנָבָיו יְרוּקּוֹת — מִינֵי דַהֲדַס הוּא, וְכָשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** emend the text: **If** this statement **was stated, it was stated as follows: 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** with regard to ripe, **black berries,** since they stand in stark contrast to the green leaves of the branch, which then appears speckled. **However, if its berries are green,** they **are** considered of **the** same **type as** the **myrtle branch,** as they are the same color. Consequently, the branch does not appear speckled, **and** therefore **it is fit.**


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲדוּמּוֹת כִּשְׁחוֹרוֹת דָּמְיָין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַאי דָּם שָׁחוֹר — אָדוֹם הוּא, אֶלָּא שֶׁלָּקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** The legal status of **red** berries **is like** that of **black** ones, **as Rabbi Ḥanina said:** In the case of menstrual blood, **this black blood is** actually **red** blood, **except that it deteriorated.** Red and black are considered two shades of the same color.


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

אִם מִיעֲטָן — כָּשֵׁר. דְּמַעֲטִינְהוּ אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא מִקַּמֵּיה דְּלֹאגְדֵיהּ — פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לְבָתַר דְּלֹאגְדֵיהּ — דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא! תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ: דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא — לָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **If he diminished their** number, **it is fit.** The Gemara asks: This is a case **where he diminished their** number **when? If you say** that he did so **before he bound** the *lulav*, it is **obvious** that it is fit. When he performs the mitzva with it, the leaves outnumber the berries. **Rather,** it must be that he diminished their number **after he bound** the *lulav* with the other species. If so, **it is** a case of **disqualification from the outset,** as it was unfit at the time that it was bound. **Resolve from here** the dilemma that was raised and conclude that **disqualification from the outset is not** permanent **disqualification.**


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

לְעוֹלָם בָּתַר דְּאַגְדֵּיהּ, וְקָסָבַר: אֶגֶד הַזְמָנָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְהַזְמָנָה בְּעָלְמָא — לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **Actually,** it is a case where he diminished the number of berries **after he bound it. And** that Sage **holds that binding** does not render the three bound species a *lulav* used for a mitzva. Rather, **it is mere designation** of the species for the mitzva, **and mere designation is not anything** of significance. The fact that the berries outnumbered the leaves at the time that it was bound is not disqualification from the outset, as binding is a stage prior to the outset.


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

וְאֵין מְמַעֲטִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב. הָא עָבַר וְלִקְּטָן מַאי? כָּשֵׁר. דְּאַשְׁחוּר אֵימַת? אִילֵּימָא דְּאַשְׁחוּר מֵאֶתְמוֹל — דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא הוּא. תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּלָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: **But one may not diminish** the number **on the Festival** itself. The Gemara asks: **But if one violated** the prohibition **and picked them, what** is the *halakha*? The myrtle branch **is fit,** as the mishna prohibited doing so *ab initio* but did not deem it unfit. The Gemara clarifies: This is a case **that** the berries **turned black when? If you say** that they were black **from yesterday,** the Festival eve, the myrtle **is disqualified from the outset,** as it is unfit at the start of the Festival. If so, **resolve from here that disqualification from the outset is not** permanent **disqualification,** as the mishna says that if one picked the berries, the myrtle branch is fit.


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

אֶלָּא לָאו, דְּאַשְׁחוּר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, נִרְאֶה וְנִדְחֶה הוּא. שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ: נִרְאֶה וְנִדְחֶה — חוֹזֵר וְנִרְאֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not that they turned black on the Festival** itself and he picked them that day. That then **is** a case where the myrtle branch was **fit and** then **disqualified,** as at the start of the Festival the berries were green and only later turned black, rendering the myrtle branch unfit. **Conclude from it** that an item that was **fit and** then **disqualified** can **then** be rendered **fit** again, thereby resolving an unresolved dilemma.


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

לָא, לְעוֹלָם דְּאַשְׁחוּר מֵעִיקָּרָא, דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּלָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי תִּפְשׁוֹט מִינַּהּ, אֲבָל נִרְאֶה וְנִדְחֶה חוֹזֵר וְנִרְאֶה, לָא תִּפְשׁוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that conclusion. **No, actually,** it is a case **where** the berries **turned black from the outset,** prior to the Festival. **Resolve from it** that an item **disqualified from the outset** is not permanently disqualified. **However, do not resolve** the dilemma concerning whether an item that was **fit and** then **disqualified** can **then** be rendered **fit,** as no clear proof can be adduced from here.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מְמַעֲטִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמְרוּ: מְמַעֲטִין. וְהָא קָא מְתַקֵּן מָנָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught: One may not diminish** the number of berries **on the Festival** to render the myrtle branch fit. **In the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said: One may diminish** their number. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t he preparing a vessel on a Festival,** as he renders an unfit myrtle branch fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva?


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁלִּקְּטָן לַאֲכִילָה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** It is a case **where he picked them for** the purpose of **eating them,** as it is permitted to pick berries from a branch unattached to the ground, and preparing the myrtle branch for use is permitted because he did not intend to do so. **And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with** the opinion of **his father, who said: An unintentional act,** i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor inadvertently ensues, **is permitted** on Shabbat or on a Festival. Here too, one’s intention is to eat the berries. Although the myrtle branch is prepared for use in the process, picking the berries is permitted because that was not his intention.


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

וְהָא אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּ״פְסִיק רֵישֵׁיהּ וְלָא יְמוּת״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But didn’t Abaye and Rava both say** that **Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die?** Even Rabbi Shimon, who says that an unintentional act is permitted, said so only in cases where the prohibited result is possible but not guaranteed. However, when a prohibited result is inevitable, just as death inevitably ensues from decapitation, the act is prohibited. In the case of picking berries off of a myrtle branch for food, one cannot claim that he did not intend for the prohibited result of preparing the myrtle branch for use to ensue. In this case, the myrtle branch will inevitably be rendered fit; how is this permitted?


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

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּאִית לֵיהּ הוֹשַׁעְנָא אַחֲרִיתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** It is with a case **where he has another** fit **myrtle branch.** Therefore, one is not considered to be preparing a vessel. Since the ultimate objective is to render the *lulav* and the accompanying species, which constitute the vessel in question, fit, and those species are already fit, picking the berries from the myrtle branch is not inevitable preparation of a vessel. Therefore, if one ate the berries, and the myrtle branch is thereby rendered fit, it is fit for use in the mitzva.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּתַּר אַגְדּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב — אוֹגְדוֹ כַּאֲגוּדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק. וְאַמַּאי? לִיעְנְבֵיהּ מִיעְנָב! הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עֲנִיבָה — קְשִׁירָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: If the binding** of the *lulav* **was untied on the Festival, one may bind it** again. One may not bind it with a sophisticated knot as before, but with a knot **like** the one used in **a binding of vegetables,** by merely winding the string around the species. The Gemara asks: **But why** merely wind it? **Let him tie a bow,** which is permitted on Shabbat or a Festival, as he is not tying an actual knot. The Gemara answers: **Whose** opinion **is** it in **this** *baraita*? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **a bow is a full-fledged knot,** and therefore it is prohibited to tie one on the Festival.


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

אִי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֶגֶד מְעַלַּיְיתָא בָּעֵי! הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּווֹתֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** since he holds that a *lulav* requires binding, as he derived from the Paschal lamb, **he requires** the binding to be **a full-fledged binding.** How, then, can winding the string like the binding of vegetables suffice in fulfillment of the mitzva? The Gemara answers: **This *tanna*** of the *baraita* **holds in accordance with his** opinion **in one** matter, i.e., that a bow is a full-fledged knot, **and disagrees with him in one** matter, as the *tanna* holds that binding the species is merely to enhance the beauty of the mitzva, but it is not a Torah requirement.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** עֲרָבָה גְּזוּלָה וִיבֵשָׁה — פְּסוּלָה. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת — פְּסוּלָה. נִקְטַם רֹאשָׁהּ, נִפְרְצוּ עָלֶיהָ, וְהַצַּפְצָפָה — פְּסוּלָה. כְּמוּשָׁה, וְשֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ מִקְצָת עָלֶיהָ, וְשֶׁל בַּעַל — כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **A willow branch** that was **stolen or is** completely **dry is unfit.** One **from a tree worshipped as idolatry [*asheira*] or from a city** whose residents were **incited** to idolatry **is unfit. If the top was severed, or its leaves were severed, or** if it is **the *tzaftzafa*,** a species similar to, but not actually a willow, it **is unfit.** However, a willow branch that is **slightly dried, and one that a minority of its leaves fell, and** a branch from a willow **that** does not grow by the river, but instead **is from a non-irrigated** field, **is fit.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״ — הַגְּדֵילִין עַל הַנַּחַל. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״, שֶׁעָלֶה שֶׁלָּהּ מָשׁוּךְ כְּנַחַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught: “Willows of the brook”** (Leviticus 23:40) means willows **that grow by the brook. Alternatively, “willows of the brook”** is an allusion to the tree in question. It is a tree **whose leaf is elongated like a brook.**


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

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עַרְבֵי נַחַל. שֶׁל בַּעַל וְשֶׁל הָרִים מִנַּיִין — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was taught in another** *baraita*: From **“willows of the brook,” I have** derived **only** actual **willows of the brook** that grow on the banks **of the brook.** With regard to willows **of the non-irrigated** field **and** willows **of the mountains, from where** do I derive that they are fit as well? **The verse states: “Willows of the brook,”** in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit **in any case.**