## Sukkah Daf 34b

###### Sukkah 34b:1
[Sukkah 34b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:1)

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the practical** halakhic **difference** that emerges from this change of names? It is in the area **of women’s bills of divorce.** With regard to bills of divorce, special care is devoted to ensuring that the name of the place where the bill is written is not altered. Therefore, it is important to be aware that Babylon underwent a name change in later generations.


###### Sukkah 34b:2
[Sukkah 34b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה הֲדַסִּים וּשְׁתֵּי עֲרָבוֹת, לוּלָב אֶחָד, וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד. אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם קְטוּמִים, וְאֶחָד אֵינוֹ קָטוּם. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קְטוּמִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוּלָב אֶחָד וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד — כָּךְ הֲדַס אֶחָד וַעֲרָבָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Yishmael says:** The mitzva of the four species is to take **three myrtle branches, and two willow branches, one *lulav*, and one *etrog*.** With regard to the myrtle branches, **even if** the tops of **two are severed and** the top of **one is not severed,** it is fit. **Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if** the tops of **all three are severed,** it is fit. **Rabbi Akiva says** with regard to the number of each of the species: **Just as** there is **one *lulav* and one *etrog*, so too** there is **one myrtle branch and one willow branch.**


###### Sukkah 34b:3
[Sukkah 34b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר״ — אֶחָד. ״כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים״ — אֶחָד. ״עֲנַף עֵץ עָבוֹת״ — שְׁלֹשָׁה. ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״ — שְׁתַּיִם. וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם קְטוּמִים, וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָטוּם. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קְטוּמִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁלּוּלָב אֶחָד וְאֶתְרוֹג אֶחָד, כָּךְ הֲדַס אֶחָד וַעֲרָבָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yishmael says: “The fruit of a beautiful tree”** (Leviticus 23:40); that is **one** *etrog*. **“Branches of a date palm”;** that is **one** *lulav*. Based on tradition, *kappot* is written without the letter *vav*. Although the word is vocalized in the plural, the lack of the *vav* indicates that only one is required. **“Boughs of a dense-leaved tree”;** these are **three,** as the verse is referring to a branch with several stems. **“Willows of the brook”;** these are **two,** as it is plural. **Even if** the tops of **two are severed and** the top of **one is not severed,** it is fit. **Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if** the tops of **all three are severed,** it is fit. **Rabbi Akiva says: Just as** there is **one *lulav* and one *etrog*, so too,** there is **one myrtle branch and one willow branch.**


###### Sukkah 34b:4
[Sukkah 34b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:4)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: יָכוֹל יְהֵא אֶתְרוֹג עִמָּהֶן בַּאֲגוּדָּה אַחַת? אָמַרְתָּ, וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר וְכַפֹּת תְּמָרִים״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״כַּפֹּת״! וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְקַחְתֶּם״ — שֶׁתְּהֵא לְקִיחָה תַּמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to him** that the species cannot be equated. I **might** have thought that **the *etrog* should be** bound **with** the other species **in one bundle.** However, **you** could **say** in response: **Does it say: The fruit of a beautiful tree and branches of a date palm,** with the conjunction joining them? **Doesn’t it say only “branches** of a date palm,” without a conjunction? That indicates that the *etrog* is taken separately from the other three species, which are joined in the verse by conjunctions: Branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, are taken together. **And from where** is it derived **that** failure to take each of the species **prevents** fulfillment of the mitzva **with the others? The verse states: “And you shall take [*ulkaḥtem*],”** from which it is derived based on the etymological similarity that **it shall be a complete taking [*lekiḥa tamma*]** consisting of all the species.


###### Sukkah 34b:5
[Sukkah 34b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:5)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי שְׁלֵימִין בָּעֵי — לִיבְעֵי נָמֵי כּוּלְּהוּ, אִי לָא בָּעֵי שְׁלֵימִין — אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי לָא! אָמַר בִּירָאָה אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: חָזַר בּוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **Rabbi Yishmael,** who deems the *lulav* fit even if the tops of two of the myrtle branches were severed, **whichever way you** look at it, his statement is problematic. **If he requires whole** myrtle branches, and those whose tops are severed do not fill the criterion of beauty, **let him require all of them** to be whole. **And if he does not require whole** myrtle branches, **even one branch** should **not** be required to be whole **either,** as Rabbi Tarfon said. The Sage **Bira’a said** that **Rabbi Ami said: Rabbi Yishmael retracted his** statement. He concedes that, fundamentally, only one myrtle branch is required, and that branch must be whole.


###### Sukkah 34b:6
[Sukkah 34b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:6)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. וְאַזְדָּא שְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְהָנְהוּ דִּמְזַבְּנֵי אַסָּא: אַשְׁווֹ וְזַבִּינוּ, וְאִי לָא — דָּרֵישְׁנָא לְכוּ כְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon. And Shmuel conforms to his** line of **reasoning, as Shmuel said to those who were selling myrtle branches: Equate** the price that you demand for myrtle branches to their value **and sell** your myrtle branches. **And if** you do **not** do so and overcharge, **I will teach** the *halakha* in public **for you in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon,** who allows the use of myrtle branches whose tops are severed.


###### Sukkah 34b:7
[Sukkah 34b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:7)

מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵיקֵל — וְלִידְרוֹשׁ לְהוּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּמֵיקֵל טְפֵי! תְּלָתָא קְטִימִי שְׁכִיחִי, חַד וְלָא קְטִים לָא שְׁכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that Shmuel said that to them? **If you say it is because** Rabbi Tarfon **is lenient** in his ruling, **let him** say to them that he will **teach** the *halakha* in public **for them in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who is even more lenient** in his ruling, as he requires only one myrtle branch. The Gemara answers: That is not the case, as **three** myrtle branches whose tops are **severed are common,** but **one** complete myrtle branch whose top **is not severed** is **not common.** In practical terms, Rabbi Tarfon’s ruling is the more lenient.


###### Sukkah 34b:8
[Sukkah 34b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֶתְרוֹג הַגָּזוּל וְהַיָּבֵשׁ — פָּסוּל. שֶׁל אֲשֵׁרָה וְשֶׁל עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת — פָּסוּל. שֶׁל עׇרְלָה — פָּסוּל. שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה — פָּסוּל. שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם נָטַל — כָּשֵׁר. שֶׁל דְּמַאי — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם — לֹא יִטּוֹל, וְאִם נָטַל — כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **An *etrog*** 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.** An *etrog* that is **fruit that grew on a tree during the three years after it was planted [*orla*] is unfit,** because it is prohibited to eat and derive benefit from it. An *etrog* **of impure *teruma* is unfit.** With regard to an *etrog* **of pure *teruma*, one may not take it** *ab initio*, **and if one took it, it is fit,** and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. With regard to an *etrog* of ***demai*,** which is produce acquired from an *am ha’aretz*, who does not reliably tithe his produce, **Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit.** With regard to an *etrog* **of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it** *ab initio*; **and if he took it, it is fit.**


###### Sukkah 34b:9
[Sukkah 34b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/34b:9)

עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית עַל רוּבּוֹ, נִטְּלָה פִּטְמָתוֹ, נִקְלַף, נִסְדַּק, נִיקַּב וְחָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — פָּסוּל. עָלְתָה חֲזָזִית עַל מִיעוּטוֹ, נִטַּל עוּקְצוֹ, נִיקַּב וְלֹא חָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא — כָּשֵׁר. אֶתְרוֹג הַכּוּשִׁי — פָּסוּל, וְהַיָּרוֹק כְּכַרָּתֵי — רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַכְשִׁיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל. שִׁיעוּר אֶתְרוֹג הַקָּטָן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֶּאֱגוֹז, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כְּבֵיצָה. וּבַגָּדוֹל — כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחַז שְׁנַיִם בְּיָדוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **boil-like blemishes arose on** the **majority** of the *etrog*; if **its pestle**-like protuberance on the upper, blossom end **was removed;** if the *etrog* **was peeled, split, or pierced and is missing any amount, it is unfit.** However, if **boil-like blemishes arose** only **on its minority; if its stem,** which connects it to the tree, **was removed; or it was pierced** but **is** not **missing any amount, it is fit. A Cushite *etrog*,** which is black like a Cushite, **is unfit.** And with regard to an *etrog* **that is leek green, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit.** 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. 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.**