Friday, October 06, 2006

Rif Succah 15a {Succah 31b continues; 32a - 32b}


{Succah 31b continues}
in the instance in which the top is broken off, but where it {the top} was split, it is valid.

{Succah 32a}
And if it is split such that it forms like a hemnek {a scribe's tool} -- and this is a vessel that has two heads, and this is its form: ץ

They learnt {in a brayta}: kavutz {=a lulav with prickly points along its spine}, qavutz {=one that is shriveled to the extent that it is wrinkled}, kafuf {=the top it is bent over}, {saduk} split, crooked similar to a scythe, it is invalid. If it has hardened into wood, it is invalid. If it {only} seems hardened, it is valid.

"crooked similar to a scythe, it is invalid":
Rava said: They only said this if it is bent forward, but if backward it is natural, and it is valid.

And Rav Papa said: Sideways is like forwards.
And some say {that Rav Papa said}: it is like backwards.

Therefore, we act stringently, reckon it like forwards, and it is invalid.

Rava said: A lulav that has all the leaves on one side, and on the other side none at all, is blemished and is invalid.

"if its leaves were spread out it is valid":
Rav said: "If its leaves were spread out {nifredu}" -- that it spread out in different directions. "if its leaves were separated {nifretzu}" -- that is was shaped like a broom. To explain "its leaves are nifretzu" -- such that they are detached from the spine and are hanging from it, and this is what is meant by "shaped like a broom," for the foliage, when cut off from the spine, are called chufya {broom}. Just as we learn in haGozel Kamma {Bava Kamma 96a}: {if one stole a lulav and tore it into} leaves and leaves, and made a chufya {broom}, and this is like a breaking.
"spread out" -- that its foliage was spread out in the form of the opening of twigs, and one is not broken off from its fellow, and therefore it is valid.

Rav Papa inquired: If the tiyomet is split, what {is the law}?
Come and hear, for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If the tiyomet is split, it becomes as if the tiyomet was taken away, and it is invalid.
The explanation of tiyomet is the back of the foliage which "twins" itself to two sides of the leaf and form one. For each and every one {leaf} is doubled to two and is "twinned" {connected} in the back. And if the foliage spreads out, and each one stands as it is to two, while the "twinning" {conection} is maintained, it is valid. And if the tiyomet is split, it is like the leaves have detached and it is invalid.

"Palm branches that grow on the Iron Mountain ... are valid":
Abaye said: They only learned this where the top of this one {leaf} reaches the side of the base of that one {leaf}. But, if the top of this one {leaf} does not reach the side of the base of that one, they are invalid.

{Succah 32b}
A lulav which had three handbreadths...":
Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel: The measure of the myrtle and willow are three and that of the lulav is four, so that the lulav pokes out of the myrtle one handbreadth.
Rabbi Parnach cited Rabbi Yochanan: Such that the spine of the lulav pokes out from the myrtle one handbreadth.

And we ask: but we have stated in the Mishna "a lulav which has three handbreadths with which to shake it is valid!?" Say {instead}: "and enough to shake it" {thus adding one handbreadth}.

And this measure that we have stated is that it should not be less than this measure, but {certainly} if it is more than this measure it is valid. For we have established: a lulav has no upper measure but it does have a lower measure.

No comments: