(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sukah 36

SUKA 36-56 (End of Maseches) have been dedicated by the wife and daughters of the late Dr. Simcha Bekelnitzky (Simcha Gedalya ben Shraga Feibush) of Queens N.Y. Well known in the community for his Chesed and Tzedakah, he will long be remembered.


1) Ula bar Chinena quotes a Beraisa that qualifies 'Nikav ve'Lo Chaser Kol Shehu, Kasher' of our Mishnah. An Esrog is Pasul even if nothing is missing ...

1. ... if it goes right through the Esrog (or to the center of the Esrog, according to some), however small the size of the hole.
2. ... if it is the size of an Isar (a coin).
(a) An Esrog that is peeled, split or that has a hole, which our Mishnah has already declared Pasul, are all similar to one of the Tereifos of an animal. When Rava asks whether a sign of Tereifus invalidates an Esrog - he is referring to an Esrog whose inside has melted, though the seed chambers are still intact (which is similar to a lung whose inside has disintegrated, but whose blood-vessels are still intact).

(b) An animal whose lung has disintegrated is Tereifah only if the blood vessels have disintegrated, too.

(c) Rava's She'eilah by Esrog applies when the seed chambers *are* intact, in which case the Esrog may well be Pasul, even though the animal in the equivalent case is *not* a Tereifah - because, whereas by an animal, the lung is covered, an Esrog is open to the air, and is therefore liable to go bad quicker.

(a) Esrogim that are swollen or smelly, pickled or well-cooked, black, white or dotted - are all Pasul.

(b) An Esrog is Pasul if it is ...

  1. ... round;
  2. ... a twin;
  3. ... grown inside a form to change its shape.
(c) We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah (regarding an Esrog whose inside has melted) from the first two cases in the Beraisa ('an Esrog that is swollen or smelly') - by establishing 'swollen' on the *outside*, and 'smelly', on the *inside* (Rava's She'eilah).

(d) But we conclude that the Beraisa may well *validate* an Esrog that is only bad *inside* (as in Rava's She'eilah), and that both 'swollen' and 'smelly' refer to an Esrog that has even turned bad on the *outside* too; it is either - 'swollen' but not smelly, or 'smelly' (i.e. rotten) but not swollen; alternatively, 'swollen' means rotten, and 'smelly', from the worms that have eaten it.

(a) The Beraisa validates an Esrog ha'Kushi, but invalidates one that is 'Domeh le'Kushi'.
An Esrog ...
  1. ... ha'Kushi - is one that grew in Ethiopia.
  2. ... ha'Domeh le'Kushi - that grew elsewhere, but is black like an Ethiopian Esrog.
(b) Abaye establishes our Mishnah (which invalidates an Esrog ha'Kushi), by a Domeh le'Kushi. Rava establishes it by a Kushi, which is Kasher for Jews living in Ethiopia, but Pasul for Jews living elsewhere, because they may go on to permit even a black Esrog that grew in their own country (see Rashash).
(a) The Chachamim validate a small Esrog the size of a white bean - because it is not a fruit (and the Torah writes "P'ri Eitz Hadar").

(b) Rabah equates Rebbi Akiva opinion with that of his disciple, Rebbi Shimon, who says - that a small Esrog of that size is Patur from Ma'asros.

(c) Abaye disagrees. In his opinion ...

1. ... Rebbi Akiva might well declare such a small Esrog, Pasul - because it is not Hadar (but agree with the Rabbanan of Rebbi Shimon that it is Chayav be'Ma'asros).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon might well exempt such a small Esrog from Ma'asros - because of the Pasuk in Re'ei "Aser Te'aser es Kol Tevu'as *Zar'echa*" (implying that they are fit to sow), and such a small Esrog will not grow, if sown.
(d) Abaye concludes his contention with the words 've'Su Lo Midi' - meaning that this is conclusive (Rebbi Akiva's reason is because of Hadar, and Rebbi Shimon's, because regarding Ma'asros, it must be fit to sow - and neither one holds of the other).



(a) Rava permits an Esrog that grew in a form in the shape of an Esrog. But is this obvious, asks the Gemara, since the Beraisa explicitly establishes our Mishnah by a shape that is *different than an Esrog*?

(b) Rava's Chidush, answers the Gemara, is when he grows it in the shape of slightly rounded planks resembling a water-wheel, which is somewhat irregular, but still resembles an Esrog.

(a) Rav (in the first Lashon) disqualifies an Esrog which has been mouse- eaten and contains holes - because it is not 'Hadar'.

(b) 'Hadar' is Pasul on all seven days.

(c) Rebbi Chanina used to eat part of his Esrog and then continue to use it - on the *second* day. Our Mishnah, which disqualifies an Esrog with a hole if some of the Esrog is missing - refers to the *first* day only (in Rebbi Chanina's opinion).

(d) Rav may well agree with Rav Chanina, that an Esrog that has been eaten is Kasher on the second day. Nevertheless, *he* disqualified the mouse-eaten Esrog - because a mouse-eaten Esrog is disgusting, and is therefore not 'Hadar').

8) In the second Lashon - Rav makes no distinction between an Esrog that was eaten by humans or by mice. Consequently, he proves from Rebbi Chanina that an Esrog that has been partially eaten is still 'Hadar', and is therefore Kasher from the second day and onwards.


(a) Rebbi Meir validates an Esrog the size of a nut; whereas Rebbi Yehudah requires a minimum size of an egg. They have the same dispute with regard to the three sharp stones which Chazal permitted to take (less than four Amos) into a bathroom in a field on Shabbos (even though they would normally be Muktzah) because of 'Kavod ha'Beri'os' - Rebbi Meir permits stones the size of a nut (but not larger), whereas Rebbi Yehudah permits even stones the size of an egg (see Aruch la'Ner).

(b) Rebbi Yossi supports his ruling (permitting an Esrog so large that it must be held in both hands) with a story concerning Rebbi Akiva - who once came into Shul with a hugh Esrog on his shoulders.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah refutes Rebbi Yossi's proof - because, according to him, the Rabbanan actually said to Rebbi Akiva that his Esrog was not 'Hadar'.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because it is not 'Hadar' - but because the Esrog may fall and break (as we explained above). He only quoted the Rabbanan of Rebbi Akiva in order to counter Rebbi Yossi. This is strange however, because in that case, how can Rebbi Yehudah invalidate the Esrog only because it might fall (a Pesul de'Rabbanan), when the very Rabbanan from whom he is proving his point, invalidate it because of Hadar (d'Oraysa).

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the three species of the Lulav must be bound with the same kind. Rebbi Meir permits even a piece of string.

(b) Rebbi Meir proves his point from the men of Yerushalayim, who used to tie their Lulav with gold threads. According to Rebbi Yehudah, they first bound it underneath with the same kind.

(c) Rava permits tying the Lulav even with the creeper or with thin strips of bark cut from a palm-tree (according to Rebbi Yehudah) - not to beautify the Lulav, but because, in his opinion, the Lulav must be bound. Consequently, it is necessary to use the same kind, in order to avoid 'Bal Tosif'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,