The Eri B. Sitt Edition and Audio Series of the Talmud Bavli, tractate Sukkah, has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jamal, may God bless and protect them, for the success of their dear children. May they derive much satisfaction from all of them; may they all grow up, marry at the proper time, and have children in health and happiness, with blessing and success. May Celia and Isaac see descendants and the descendants of their descendants, until the coming of the righteous redeemer. Amen.
The tractate has also been dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Sara bat Adel Ruwa. May God grant her rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen. Again, by Celia and Isaac Jamal. May they merit success.
Today's page is being dedicated by our dear friends from Aventura, Florida, Mr. Roger and Raquel Baghdadi, may God bless and protect them. Today's page is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther. May God grant him rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
Today's page is also being studied for the elevation of the soul of Amiruhemet Mazal bat Frida Sheneferet, who passed away at a young age. May God grant her rest in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
We begin today's study three lines from the bottom of the page, with the words, “We learned in our Mishnah.” The Mishnah discusses the citron. If the citron was peeled, meaning that its outer layer—the shiny yellow skin on the outside—was removed, the Mishnah says that the citron is disqualified.
The Gemara begins to explain. It says: This citron became peeled and turned red, like a red date. The Mishnah says, in the name of Rava, that this type of citron is still valid. When the outer layer of the citron is removed, the next layer is greenish. When that greenish layer turns red, like a date, the Gemara is telling us that the citron is still valid.
If you look in the picture books—we are using the Hadar V’Hadar version—picture 160, you can see what happens when the citron begins to be peeled: it develops a reddish color. The Gemara is telling us that even in this condition, it remains valid.
The Gemara asks: What do you mean? We learned in our Mishnah that if the citron is peeled, it is disqualified.
The Gemara answers: There is no difficulty. One case is where the entire citron was peeled, and the other is where only part of it was peeled. Rashi explains that when the entire citron is peeled, it is valid, but when it is only partially peeled—meaning that it has spots—it is disqualified because it looks like a spotted citron. Rashi follows his opinion that a spotted citron is disqualified because it lacks beauty.
According to Rashi, picture 163 shows a completely peeled citron, while picture 164 shows one that is only partially peeled and therefore appears spotted. According to Rashi, the partially peeled citron is disqualified.
It should be noted that the majority of the early commentators disagree with Rashi and explain the cases in exactly the opposite way. According to them, a completely peeled citron is disqualified, while a partially peeled citron is valid.
They bring a strong proof from a later passage in the Gemara, concerning the defects that render an animal unfit for consumption. We will see later that certain defects that render an animal unfit likewise render a citron disqualified. One of the defects that renders an animal unfit is when all of its outer skin has been peeled away. Therefore, similarly, if the entire outer skin of a citron is removed, it should be disqualified, just as the corresponding defect renders an animal unfit. This is the opinion of those early commentators.
We continue: “Split; pierced.” We learned in the Mishnah that if the citron is split, or if it is pierced—in other words, if a hole is made in it—and it is missing even the smallest amount, the citron is disqualified. However, if it has a hole but is not missing anything, the Mishnah says that it is valid.
We are now discussing the law of a hole. A teaching was transmitted in the name of Ulla bar Hanina: If the citron has a hole, and the hole passes completely through it, it is disqualified even if it is missing only the smallest amount.
What does it mean for the hole to pass completely through? Most of the early commentators explain that it means the hole actually goes through the entire citron: a needle enters one side and emerges from the other. In picture 184, you can see a needle passing all the way through the citron.
Other early commentators say that “passing completely through” does not require the hole to emerge from the opposite side. It is sufficient for the needle to pierce the layers of the citron and reach the inner part, where the liquid pulp is found. That is already considered a hole that passes completely through.
Regardless of which explanation one follows, the law is as follows: If the hole passes completely through, the citron is disqualified even if it is missing only the smallest amount. But if the hole does not pass completely through, the required measurement is the size of an issar, a type of coin.
What is the Gemara discussing? Let us read Rashi. Rashi explains that this passage concerns a case in which the needle passed through the citron, but nothing was missing; that is, the citron was not lacking any part of its substance. The teacher of the Mishnah said that such a citron is valid, while the teacher of the teaching states that if the hole passes from one side to the other, the citron is disqualified even when nothing is missing.
Rashi’s explanation introduces a significant stringency. Even though the citron remains entirely intact, if the needle passes all the way through it, the citron is disqualified. However, if the hole does not pass completely through, the measurement is the size of an issar. For example, if there is a mold or hole the size of an issar in the citron, but the hole does not pass through the entire citron and no material is missing, it is not necessarily disqualified.
Thus, if the hole passes all the way through, even a pinprick made by a needle disqualifies the citron, despite the fact that no material is missing. If the hole does not pass all the way through, the measurement is an issar. Rashi explains that even if the hole is the size of an issar, it disqualifies the citron although nothing is missing, such as when a stake has a certain width at its end.
Accordingly, the case in the Mishnah—where a hole in the citron does not cause it to be lacking—must have two characteristics: first, the hole is smaller than an issar, and second, it does not pass all the way through the citron.
That is Rashi’s opinion. I must point out that the other early commentators understand this teaching differently. They explain that it goes back to the first part of the Mishnah. The first part of the Mishnah discusses a hole that causes the citron to be lacking. If a hole removes some of the citron’s substance, the citron is disqualified. The teaching explains that this applies only when the hole passes completely through the citron.
However, if the hole does not pass completely through, the measurement of the missing substance is an issar. This produces a significant leniency: a piece of the citron may be missing, so long as the hole does not pass all the way through and the missing portion is no larger than an issar.
To review the second opinion of the early commentators: The beginning of the Mishnah states that if a hole causes the citron to be missing a piece, it is disqualified. The teaching clarifies that this applies only when the hole passes all the way through. If it does not pass all the way through, the citron is disqualified only when the missing portion reaches the size of an issar.
These two measurements should be noted. Both are cited in the Shulchan Aruch: Rashi’s measurement and the measurement presented by the other early commentators. These measurements are also brought by the Avad and the Ritba.
We now continue with the Gemara: Rava asks, “What is the law if the citron develops a defect that would render an animal unfit?” Let us review the laws of animals. After an animal is slaughtered, its internal organs must be examined to ensure that they are unblemished. Tractate Hullin discusses the various defects that render an animal unfit.
An animal is obviously unrelated to a citron. Nevertheless, the Gemara asks whether defects that are defined as rendering an animal unfit would likewise disqualify a citron.
The Gemara gives a first example: Perhaps Rava is referring to the law of being peeled. But we already learned that in the Mishnah. What is the law of being peeled in the case of an animal? If the animal’s skin is completely stripped away, so that only the thin layer of flesh remains visible, the animal is unfit. Picture 178 shows the outer skin of an animal removed, leaving the reddish layer closer to the inside.
The law is that if the entire flesh is skinned, the animal is unfit. If even a small amount remains, the animal is valid, because the remaining flesh can regenerate and grow back.
Similarly, one might say that if the entire flesh of the citron is peeled, it is disqualified, while if part of it remains, it is valid. But that would be true only according to the early commentators who explained the Mishnah in that manner. According to Rashi, the Gemara above taught the opposite: a completely peeled citron is valid, while a partially peeled citron is disqualified because it is considered spotted.
Therefore, according to Rashi, the case of an animal whose skin has been stripped away cannot be compared to the case of a citron. In an animal, complete stripping renders it unfit, whereas according to Rashi, a completely peeled citron remains valid. This makes Rashi’s opinion somewhat difficult to understand, because we are comparing the defects that render an animal unfit with defects in a citron, yet here the outcomes are exactly opposite.
In any event, the Gemara says that Rava could not have been referring to the case of a peeled citron, because that is simply the law already stated in the Mishnah. Rava must have been introducing a new point not found in the Mishnah.
Perhaps he was referring to the case of a citron that split. What is the corresponding defect in an animal? Rashi says that the reference is to the animal’s windpipe. If the windpipe splits down the center, the animal is unfit. One might therefore say that the same law applies to a citron: if it splits down the middle, almost as though it has been cut in half, it too is disqualified.
But the Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: We already learned this in the Mishnah. If a citron splits, it is disqualified. Therefore, Rava could not have been referring to that case either.
According to the law of an animal, if the windpipe splits but part of it remains attached, the animal is not unfit. For an animal to be unfit, the entire windpipe must be split from top to bottom. Some therefore suggest that the same applies to a citron: for the citron to be disqualified, the split must extend from top to bottom. Others argue that in the case of a citron, even if most of it has split, it is disqualified. In any event, Rava cannot have been referring to the law of a split citron.
The Gemara then asks: Perhaps he was referring to the law of a hole. In the case of an unfit animal, if the membrane covering the animal’s brain is pierced, the animal becomes unfit. In the picture books, you can see the animal’s brain, with a membrane above it, near the eye; if that membrane is pierced, the animal is unfit.
But the law of a hole is already discussed in the Mishnah, which sets out the parameters of when a hole disqualifies a citron. The question remains: When Rava compared the laws of defects in an animal with the laws of a citron, to which case was he referring?
The Gemara answers that he was referring to the lungs of an animal whose inner flesh has become liquefied and fallen into the cavity of the lung. In picture 164, you can see the lungs of an animal. Within the cavity of the lungs there is flesh. Sometimes a defect causes this flesh to decompose and become liquid, like water, inside the lungs. The law is that if the flesh decomposes but the animal’s bronchial tubes remain intact, the animal is still valid.
The Gemara wants to compare this to a citron. The citron has an outer yellow layer, a second greenish layer, and then a thick white, fleshy layer inside. That white layer is considered the flesh of the citron. The liquid pulp inside it would correspond to the bronchial tubes.
The proposed case is one in which the white, fleshy part of the citron becomes decayed and liquefied, while the pulp remains. Perhaps, just as an animal remains valid when the flesh in its lungs becomes liquefied as long as the bronchial tubes remain intact, a citron whose white fleshy layer has liquefied would also remain valid as long as its pulp remains intact.
To clarify: In the case of the lungs, the animal remains valid as long as the bronchial tubes remain. In picture 164, you can see the bronchial tubes extending through the lung. Even if some of the flesh around them decomposes, the lung remains valid. However, if the bronchial tubes themselves also decompose, the animal is unfit.
The Gemara therefore asks: What is the law in the case of a citron? If the white fleshy part of the citron decomposes, but the pulp remains, is the citron valid? Do we compare it to an animal, where the flesh may decompose as long as the bronchial tubes remain, or do we distinguish between the cases?
The Gemara explains why this is a question. In the case of lungs, the animal remains valid because the inside of the lungs is not exposed to air. Since the decomposed flesh is not exposed to air, it can regenerate and the animal can become healthy. In the case of a citron, however, the air that affects the outer part of the citron may affect its inside as well. The citron appears to be porous, so the air outside may cause the inner flesh to decompose and spoil. Even though the white layer is inside the citron and does not come into direct contact with the air, the outside air may still affect it. This would distinguish the citron from the lungs of an animal.
That was Rava’s question. He was discussing a citron whose white fleshy layer had decomposed while the pulp remained. Is the citron valid or disqualified? In the case of an animal, if the flesh of the lung becomes watery but the bronchial tubes remain, the animal is valid; if the bronchial tubes also decompose, the animal is unfit. The question is whether the same comparison can be made with a citron, or whether the fact that air can affect the citron means that it becomes disqualified.
The Gemara says: Come and hear a proof from a teaching. “A swollen citron, a decayed citron, a pickled citron, a boiled citron, a black citron, a white citron, and a spotted citron are all disqualified.”
Let us wait for the Gemara to explain the first two terms, “swollen” and “decayed.” A pickled citron is one that was pickled in vinegar or mustard, and the law is that it is disqualified. A boiled citron is one that was boiled in water for a long time. A black citron is one that comes from Ethiopia. A white citron is a white citron, and a spotted citron is a citron with spots. All these types of citron are disqualified.
The teaching continues: If the citron is shaped like a ball, it is disqualified, because that is not the normal shape of a citron. Some say that a citron joined to another citron is also disqualified. In the picture books, picture 101 shows two citrons that grew together, sharing one stem or base. This is also disqualified. The point is that they are connected.
The picture in the ArtScroll edition appears somewhat different: it shows two citrons joined together with one stem. There is evidently a disagreement about how the illustration should represent the case. In any event, the next case is a citron that is in an early stage of development.
What is a citron in an early stage of development? Rashi explains that it is a tiny citron, the size of a bean. The law is the subject of a disagreement: Rabbi Akiva disqualifies it, while the Sages declare it valid.
The Tosafot do not accept Rashi’s explanation. Earlier, we learned of a disagreement regarding the minimum size of a citron: one opinion requires the size of an egg, while another requires the size of a nut. Tosafot asks: If this passage introduces a third opinion, that the citron may be the size of a bean, why did the Mishnah not mention that opinion?
For this reason, Tosafot disagrees with Rashi and explains that “a citron in an early stage of development” refers to a citron that is the size of an egg. The issue is not its size but its ripeness. An undeveloped grape is called an early-stage grape. Thus, the teaching is discussing a citron that has reached the proper size but has not fully matured. This is why there is a disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Akiva.
To review: According to Rashi, a citron in an early stage of development is a citron the size of a bean or a small grape. Tosafot rejects this because we never find an opinion that the minimum size is a small grape; the earlier disagreement was between the size of an egg and the size of a nut. Tosafot therefore explains that the citron is of the normal size but has not ripened and is still in an undeveloped state.
The next case is a citron that grew in a mold. Suppose a mold of a particular shape was placed around the citron while it was still growing on the tree. The citron then grows into that shape. If the mold creates an abnormal shape that does not resemble a citron, the citron is disqualified.
In one illustration, a bottle was placed around the citron while it was growing on the tree. As the citron continued to grow, it filled the bottle and developed a cylindrical shape. Such a citron is disqualified because it does not look like a normal citron.
As long as it still looks like a citron, however, it is valid. The teaching is discussing a mold that gives it a different shape.
Now that we have seen this teaching, let us return to the partial quotation: “a swollen citron and a decayed citron.” The Gemara asks whether “swollen” means that the citron became decayed on the outside and “decayed” means that it became decayed on the inside. If so, the teaching would disqualify both conditions and would answer Rava’s question: a citron whose white inner flesh became liquefied would be disqualified.
The Gemara rejects this proof. Who told you to interpret “swollen” and “decayed” in that manner? Perhaps both terms refer to abnormalities on the outside of the citron.
There may be a case of swelling without decay and a case of decay without swelling, but both concern the outer part of the citron and have nothing to do with its inside.
Let us define the terms according to Rashi. “Swollen” means that water fell on the outside of the citron after it had been picked from the tree. As a result, the citron became bloated or swollen. “Decayed” means that it became spoiled. Therefore, either a citron that became swollen, even though it had not yet decayed, or one that became decayed, even though it had not become swollen, is disqualified.
According to Rashi, neither case concerns the inside of the citron. It is possible that if the white inner flesh of the citron falls apart, the citron would still remain valid. The terms “swollen” and “decayed” refer only to conditions on the outside.
Rashi offers a second explanation. “Swollen” means that the citron deteriorated, while “decayed” means that it became malodorous because worms had eaten through it. According to either of Rashi’s explanations, however, the terms refer to the outside of the citron, not its interior.
The Gemara continues: We said that a black citron from Ethiopia is disqualified. But a teaching states that an actual Ethiopian citron is valid, while a citron that merely resembles an Ethiopian citron is disqualified. The Gemara asks: Make up your mind. In one place you say that an Ethiopian citron is disqualified, and in another place you say that it is valid.
Abaye answers that when the Mishnah says that an Ethiopian citron is disqualified, it is not referring to a genuine Ethiopian citron. It is referring to one that resembles an Ethiopian citron. The actual Ethiopian citron is valid, while the imitation is disqualified.
The Gemara challenges this answer: What do you mean? We have a teaching that explicitly states that an Ethiopian citron is disqualified. Thus, there remains a contradiction concerning Ethiopian citrons themselves.
Rava offers a different answer. There is no difficulty. For the people of Babylonia, an Ethiopian citron is valid; for the people of the Land of Israel, an Ethiopian citron is disqualified.
Why should the law differ? Babylonia was closer to Ethiopia, and its people were accustomed to black citrons. For them, such a citron was considered normal. In the Land of Israel, where people were not accustomed to these citrons and Ethiopia was far away, a black citron appeared abnormal and unattractive. Therefore, for them, it was disqualified.
Thus, the Gemara provides two answers to the contradiction. Abaye explains that the Mishnah is referring to a citron that merely resembles an Ethiopian citron, while the teaching is referring to a genuine Ethiopian citron. Rava explains that both sources refer to a genuine Ethiopian citron, but their rulings apply in different places: in the Land of Israel it is disqualified because it is unfamiliar and abnormal, whereas in Babylonia it is valid because the people were accustomed to it.
Rashi explains that the Mishnah is discussing an ordinary Ethiopian citron in a place far from the land of Ethiopia, where people were unfamiliar with it and unaccustomed to it. Babylonia, by contrast, was close to Ethiopia, and its people were familiar with such citrons. Everyone agrees that a citron grown outside Ethiopia that merely resembles an Ethiopian citron is disqualified, because it is not truly an Ethiopian citron.
We now return to the case of the underdeveloped citron: Rabbi Akiva disqualifies it, while the Sages declare it valid. Abba says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon express the same opinion.
According to Rashi, Rabbi Akiva disqualifies a citron the size of a small bean. We have now said that an underdeveloped citron is disqualified because it has not reached the status of a fruit. It is not considered a fruit until it reaches a certain size or maturity, and the Torah requires the citron to be a fruit that is beautiful.
The Gemara seeks to demonstrate that Rabbi Shimon holds the same view. We learned in a Mishnah in tractate Maaserot that fruit is subject to the obligation of tithing. Rabbi Shimon says that a very small citron, meaning one that has not yet fully developed, is exempt from tithing. Since it is not yet considered a fruit, it is exempt.
Abba therefore wants to connect the opinions of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Akiva discusses the obligation to use a citron for Sukkot, while Rabbi Shimon discusses the obligation to tithe a citron. Nevertheless, the Gemara suggests that their reasoning is the same: a small citron is not yet considered a fruit.
Abaye rejects this connection. Who told you that the two opinions must be linked? Perhaps Rabbi Akiva disqualifies a small citron not because it is not considered a fruit, but because it is not beautiful. When it comes to tithing, however, perhaps even a small citron is considered a fruit.
Abaye offers the reverse possibility concerning Rabbi Shimon. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon exempts a small citron from tithing for a different reason. The Torah requires tithing from the produce of one’s field, and the verse refers to produce that can produce more produce. It may be that a very small citron is exempt because its seeds have not developed enough to grow additional citrons. In the case of Sukkot, however, perhaps that small citron would still be valid.
Therefore, simply because Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon each state a law concerning a small citron, we cannot assume that their rulings are based on the same principle.
Let us read the bottom of Rashi. Rashi explains that the discussion concerns fruit whose seeds can be planted and produce more fruit. That is found only in fruit that has fully developed and ripened.
Rashi asks a side question: Why did the Mishnah in Maaserot discuss only small citrons? If the disagreement concerns fruit whose seeds cannot yet produce more fruit, the Mishnah could have discussed any fruit. Why did it specifically mention citrons?
Rashi explains that the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Shimon argue only in the cases of citrons and apples. The reason they discuss a small citron is that a small citron is edible and is therefore considered food. Once it is developed, it is certainly considered food. Small apples are likewise considered food according to the Sages and are therefore subject to tithing.
Rashi continues that a peach, whose fruit is connected to the tree and continues to develop, is subject to tithing whether it is large or small, provided that it begins as food and ends as food. But if it does not begin as food and only later becomes food, it is not subject to tithing until it becomes edible.
Regarding citrons and apples, however, both large and small ones are subject to tithing according to the Sages. A small citron is considered food, and a small apple is considered food.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees concerning citrons. Although one might call a small citron a fruit, its seeds cannot produce additional citrons. Therefore, he exempts it from tithing. He agrees concerning apples because even a small apple can produce additional apples. Thus, the disagreement between Rabbi Shimon and the Sages is specifically about citrons.
To summarize the principle in the laws of tithing: According to Rabbi Shimon, fruit is subject to tithing only if it is capable of reproducing. The fruit reproduces when its seeds can be removed, replanted, and used to produce more fruit. If its seeds cannot yet reproduce, the fruit is exempt.
The Sages say that as long as the fruit is edible, it is subject to tithing. They do not care whether it is small or whether it can reproduce. The main disagreement is concerning citrons, because small citrons cannot reproduce, according to Rabbi Shimon, while the Sages consider them fruit and therefore subject to tithing.
Even Rabbi Shimon would agree that a very small apple whose seeds cannot produce additional apples is exempt from tithing. It follows that the basic disagreement is whether the fruit must be capable of reproduction or whether edibility alone is sufficient.
The Gemara concludes that the two disagreements should not be connected. The discussion concerning tithing and the discussion concerning the citron used for Sukkot may rest on different principles.
The Gemara returns to the case of a citron grown in a mold. If the citron grew in a mold and took on an image unlike that of a citron, it is disqualified. But if a citron-shaped mold was placed around the citron and it grew in the shape of a citron, it is valid. The teaching is clearly referring to a mold that gives the citron a different shape. If it still has the shape of a citron, there is no problem.
One example is a mold that causes the citron to resemble a water mill. A water mill has a wheel with spokes or slats crossing it. If a mold placed around the citron causes lines and indentations to appear across it, as in picture 87, the citron is still valid. The novelty is that even though it has these indentations and lines, it is nevertheless considered to resemble a citron.
We continue upward in the Gemara. If mice nibbled at the citron, Rabbi says that it is disqualified because it is no longer beautiful.
The Gemara raises a contradiction from a story concerning Rav Hanina. Rav Hanina used to dip his citron into gravy or another condiment, take a bite from it, and then use it for the mitzvah. How can Rabbi say that a citron nibbled by mice is disqualified if Rav Hanina himself used a citron from which he had bitten?
It must be explained that Rav Hanina bit from the citron before designating it as his citron for the mitzvah. Once the citron is designated for the mitzvah, one may not eat from it. The story must therefore concern someone who took a bite before the holiday, before the citron was designated for the mitzvah, and then used it during the holiday.
The Gemara asks again: How can Rav Hanina’s practice be reconciled with our Mishnah, which states that if a citron is missing even a small amount, it is disqualified?
The Gemara answers that the Mishnah is discussing the first day of the holiday. Why must the citron be complete on the first day? The Torah says, “You shall take for yourselves,” teaching that the taking must be complete. A citron that is missing a piece or has a hole is not considered a complete taking.
When does the Torah state this requirement? It says, “You shall take for yourselves on the first day.” Therefore, on the first day, the citron must be beautiful and complete. Rav Hanina, however, used his bitten citron on the second day. On the second day, the requirement that it be a complete taking does not apply, and Rav Hanina’s practice can therefore be reconciled with the Mishnah.
The Gemara challenges this answer. The Mishnah is a difficulty for Rabbi, because Rabbi did not say that a citron bitten by mice is disqualified because it is incomplete. He said that it is disqualified because it is no longer beautiful.
Rashi explains that the requirement of beauty applies all seven days, whereas the requirement of a complete taking applies only on the first day. The verse says, “You shall take for yourselves on the first day,” but the requirement that the citron be beautiful applies throughout the seven days.
According to Rabbi, then, how could Rav Hanina use a citron from which he had bitten on the second day? If the issue is merely that the citron is incomplete, one can understand that it is disqualified only on the first day. But Rabbi says that the bite is a problem of beauty. If it is no longer beautiful, it should be disqualified throughout all seven days.
The Gemara answers: Mice are different. When mice eat from a citron, the citron becomes repulsive, and therefore it is no longer considered beautiful. That is why it is disqualified all seven days. When a human being bites from the citron, however, it is still considered beautiful. Therefore, a human bite disqualifies it on the first day, when a complete taking is required, but it is valid on the subsequent days.
According to this answer, if a mouse bites the citron, the citron is disqualified for the entire holiday because it is no longer beautiful. If a human being bites it, it is disqualified on the first day, but it is valid on the remaining days because the requirement of a complete taking no longer applies, and the citron is still considered beautiful.
The Gemara offers another interpretation: Rabbi was saying that a citron nibbled by mice is still beautiful and therefore remains valid. Rabbi brings a proof from his own practice, since he used to bite from his citron and then use it for the mitzvah. According to this version, there is no distinction between a bite taken by a mouse and a bite taken by a human being. In both cases, the citron remains beautiful, and from the second day onward it is valid.
Thus, according to the first explanation, a mouse bite disqualifies the citron for the entire holiday because it makes the citron repulsive, while a human bite is permitted from the second day onward. According to the second explanation, there is no distinction between a mouse bite and a human bite, and from the second day onward the citron is valid in either case.
We now proceed to the next case: a small citron. We previously learned a disagreement concerning the smallest citron that may be used. One rabbi says that it must be the size of an egg, while another says that it may be the size of a nut.
Rav Papa says that just as there is a disagreement concerning the size of a citron, there is a similar disagreement in tractate Shabbat concerning sharp stones.
In earlier times, people would relieve themselves in the fields and did not have toilet paper. They used stones to clean themselves. These stones would ordinarily be considered set aside and unavailable for use on Shabbat. Nevertheless, because of human dignity, the Sages permitted a person to take stones with him to the bathroom. This may refer to an enclosed area where there is no concern that he will carry, or to a public intermediate domain where he carries them less than four cubits, so that he does not violate the prohibition of carrying.
The Sages discuss how many stones a person may take to the bathroom and how large each stone may be. One opinion says that he may take three stones, each of a certain size. The disagreement concerns the size of each stone: how large must the stone be to be sufficient, so that a person is not permitted to take a larger one? One opinion allows a stone the size of a nut, while another allows one the size of an egg.
The disagreement is about the size of the stone needed for cleaning. The Sages did not permit a person to take more than he needed. Rav Papa is not suggesting that this disagreement has any connection to the disagreement about the size of a citron. The only connection is that the same measurements are used.
The Gemara then discusses the largest citron that may be used. One rabbi says that it is valid as long as a person can hold two citrons in one hand. The other rabbi says that even if one citron requires two hands, it remains valid.
A teaching was transmitted in the name of Rabbi Yosef, who follows the opinion that one may use a very large citron, even one that requires two hands. Rabbi Yosef says that there was once an incident involving Rabbi Akiva. He entered the synagogue with his citron resting on his shoulder because it was so large.
Rabbi Yosef is attempting to prove that a citron may be extremely large. But the Gemara rejects the proof: The Sages rebuked Rabbi Akiva. They told him that such a large citron was not beautiful and therefore was not valid. Rabbi Yosef had forgotten the end of the story. Since the Sages rebuked Rabbi Akiva for bringing such a large citron, the incident cannot serve as proof that an enormous citron is valid.
We now move to the next Mishnah. Earlier, we learned that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that the palm branch must be tied. In this Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that one may tie the palm branch only with a material that is itself one of the four species. In other words, one may use a piece of myrtle, palm, or willow.
Why? If one may use another species, it would be considered adding to the mitzvot. Instead of taking four species, one would effectively be taking five, because the material used for the binding would become an additional species. Since the binding is itself part of the mitzvah, Rabbi Yehuda says that it must be made from one of the species.
Rabbi Meir says that one may even use linen string. The Gemara will explain why Rabbi Meir permits this.
The Mishnah then relates that the people of Jerusalem used to tie their palm branches with golden strings. They had a gold-colored lace or string with which they would bind the branches. Rabbi Meir is attempting to prove that the binding does not have to be made from one of the four species. What is his proof? The people of Jerusalem used gold.
The Gemara answers that the main binding at the bottom was made from one of the species, and they added gold above it. Therefore, the practice of the people of Jerusalem does not prove that the binding may be made entirely from another material. The binding of the species was already present at the bottom, and the gold was merely added afterward.
Rava says that according to Rabbi Yehuda, when the Mishnah requires the binding to be made from one of the species, this includes even the ivy that grows around the palm tree. It also includes strips of bark taken from the palm tree itself.
In other words, one might have thought that “one of its species” means that the binding must be made only from the actual branches used for the mitzvah. Rava teaches that materials that grow around the palm tree, such as the ivy, or materials that come from the palm tree itself, such as its bark, are also considered part of its species.
The reason Rabbi Yehuda requires the binding to be made from one of the species is that he considers the binding to be an integral part of the mitzvah. Therefore, if another species is used for the binding, it becomes a fifth species and constitutes an addition to the mitzvah. Since the binding is significant, it must be made from one of the four species.
The Gemara then asks how Rava knows that the ivy and bark of the palm tree are considered part of its species.
A teaching states that one may make the roofing of a sukkah from any material that grows from the ground, provided that it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. This is the opinion of the Sages: the roofing of a sukkah may be made from anything that grows from the ground and does not become ritually impure.
Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that the roofing of a sukkah is valid only when it is made from the four species of the palm branch. He derives this through an a fortiori argument. The palm branch is used only during the day, not at night, and yet only the four species may be used for that mitzvah. How much more so should the roofing of a sukkah, whose mitzvah applies both during the day and at night, be made only from the four species?
The Gemara challenges this a fortiori argument. Whenever an a fortiori argument begins with a stringency but ultimately produces a leniency, it is not a valid a fortiori argument. Here, Rabbi Yehuda’s argument initially creates a stringency, because it says that sukkah roofing may be made only from the four species. But it ultimately produces a leniency.
For example, if a person cannot find the four species, would Rabbi Yehuda say that he may not sit in a sukkah? That would mean that a person who cannot obtain the four species should not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah. This is a significant leniency that emerges from the argument, and therefore the argument cannot be accepted.
The Torah says, “You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days.” The Gemara explains this to mean that one may dwell in a sukkah made from any material. How, then, can Rabbi Yehuda use an a fortiori argument to say that the roofing must be made only from the four species?
That is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: the roofing of a sukkah must be made from the four species.
The Gemara continues with a verse in the Book of Ezra. Ezra the Scribe told the Jewish people on Sukkot to go to the mountains and bring branches of olive trees, branches of oil-producing trees, myrtle branches, palm branches, and other leafy branches in order to make sukkot.
What do we see from this verse? It appears that a person may use many different types of branches for sukkah roofing, including balsam branches and olive branches. The Gemara therefore asks Rabbi Yehuda: You are of the opinion that sukkah roofing may be made only from the four species. What do you do with this verse in Ezra, which tells the people to gather all these different branches in order to make sukkot?
Rabbi Yehuda answers that the verse is referring to the walls of the sukkah. The materials that are not suitable for roofing were used for the walls, while the myrtle and palm branches were used for the roofing. There is therefore no difficulty with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. The materials unsuitable for roofing were used for the walls, and the materials suitable for roofing were used for the roofing.
Rabbi Yehuda further permits wooden boards to be used as sukkah roofing. The Gemara asks: Where would these boards come from, if Rabbi Yehuda says that only the four species may be used?
We are therefore forced to conclude that materials growing around the palm tree are considered part of its species. Rabbi Yehuda says that the roofing must be made from the four species, yet he permits wooden boards. Those boards must come from the trunk of the palm tree itself. This proves that the tree and its wood are considered part of the species.
Once the tree itself is considered part of the species, anything that grows around it is also included, such as the ivy growing around the palm tree. This confirms Rava’s statement that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, one may use the ivy and the bark of the palm tree for the binding.
May the One who gives blessing bless us with success.