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