(יד) וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אַבְרָ֔ם כִּ֥י נִשְׁבָּ֖ה אָחִ֑יו וַיָּ֨רֶק אֶת־חֲנִיכָ֜יו יְלִידֵ֣י בֵית֗וֹ שְׁמֹנָ֤ה עָשָׂר֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֔וֹת וַיִּרְדֹּ֖ף עַד־דָּֽן׃
(14) When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he mustered his retainers, born into his household, numbering three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
(א) וירק. כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ וְזָרִיז, וְכֵן וַהֲרִיקֹתִי אַחֲרֵיכֶם חָרֶב (ויקרא כ"ו) – אֶזְדַּיֵּן בְּחַרְבִּי עֲלֵיכֶם, וְכֵן אָרִיק חַרְבִּי (שמות ט"ו), וְכֵן וְהָרֵק חֲנִית וּסְגֹר (תה' ל"ה): (ב) חניכיו. חנכו כְּתִיב (ס"אֲ קְרֵי), זֶה אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁחִנְּכוֹ לְמִצְוֹת וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן הַתְחָלַת כְּנִיסַת הָאָדָם אוֹ כְלִי לָאֻמָּנוּת שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לַעֲמֹד בָּהּ, וְכֵן חֲנֹךְ לַנַּעַר (משלי כ"ב), חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ (במד' ז'), חֲנֻכַּת הַבַּיִת (תה' ל') ובלע"ז קוֹרִין לוֹ אינצ"נייר: (ג) שמנה עשר וגו'. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְבַדּוֹ הָיָה (נדרים ל"ב), וְהוּא מִנְיַן גִּימַטְרִיָּא שֶׁל שְׁמוֹ: (ד) עד דן. שָׁם תָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחוֹ, שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁעֲתִידִין בָּנָיו לְהַעֲמִיד שָׁם עֵגֶל (סנה' צ"ו):
(1) וירק Its meaning is as the Targum takes it: “he girded”. Similar are (Leviticus 24:33) “And I will gird myself (והריקותי) with the sword against you", and (Exodus 15:9) “I will gird on (אריק) my sword”, and (Psalms 35:3) “Gird thyself (הרק) with the spear and battle axe”. (2) חניכיו HIS TRAINED SERVANTS — The word is written without a י (after the כ) so it may be read חניכו “his trained one”, referring to Eliezer whom he had trained to the observance of religious duties. The word חנך signifies introducing a person or a thing, for the first time, to some particular occupation in which it is intended that he should remain (i. e. to dedicate or devote to some particular purpose). It has a similar sense in (Proverbs 22:6) “Train up (חנוך) a child”, and in (Numbers 7:84) חנוכת המזבח “the dedication of the altar”, and (Psalms 30:1) “The dedication (חנוכת) of the house” In old French enseigner; English: to teach, instruct. (3) 'שמנה עשר וגו THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN — Our Rabbis said, “It was Eliezer alone whom he armed and it (318) is the numerical value of his name” (Nedarim 32a). (4) עד רן AS FAR AS DAN — There his strength failed him for he saw prophetically that at some future time his descendants would there erect a calf (Sanhedrin 96a).
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְנִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בָּנָיו לְמִצְרַיִם מָאתַיִם וְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָשָׂה אַנְגַּרְיָיא בְּתַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ
Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Elazar said: For what reason was Abraham our Patriarch punished and his children enslaved to Egypt for 210 years? Because he made a draft [angarya] of Torah scholars, as it is stated: “He led forth his trained men, born in his house” (Genesis 14:14). These trained men that he took to war were actually his disciples, who were Torah scholars.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִפְרִיז עַל מִדּוֹתָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּמָּה אֵדַע כִּי אִירָשֶׁנָּה וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ בְּנֵי אָדָם מִלְּהִכָּנֵס תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וְהָרְכֻשׁ קַח לָךְ
And Shmuel said: Because he greatly examined [hifriz] the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He was punished because he distanced people from entering under the wings of the Divine Presence, as it is stated that the king of Sodom said to him: “Give me the people and take the goods to yourself” (Genesis 14:21), but Abraham refused to take any goods either. If he had not listened to the king of Sodom and had allowed the people to remain with him, he would have brought the prisoners under the wings of the Divine Presence.
וַיָּרֶק אֶת חֲנִיכָיו יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ רַב אָמַר שֶׁהוֹרִיקָן בַּתּוֹרָה וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר שֶׁהוֹרִיקָן בְּזָהָב
The Gemara returns to discuss one of the verses cited previously: “He led forth [vayyarek] his trained men, born in his house” (Genesis 14:14). Rav said: He showered them [horikan] with Torah like someone who pours from one vessel into another, and Shmuel said: He showered them [horikan] with gold and gave them an abundance of money so that they would go to war with him.
שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר וּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי בַּר אַבָּא אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּנֶגֶד כּוּלָּם אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הוּא דְּחוּשְׁבָּנֵיהּ הָכִי הָוֵי
The Torah states that he took “eighteen and three hundred” (Genesis 14:14) men to war. Rabbi Ami bar Abba said: Eliezer was equivalent to all of them. There are those who say: Only Eliezer is referred to here, as the numerical value of the letters of his name is this amount, i.e., 318.
(א) וישמע אברם כי נשבה אחיו. התלבש גבורה כששמע הענין, ומיד וירק את חניכיו ילידי ביתו. ולמדך הכתוב כי אנשיו בני ביתו הסמוכים על שלחנו היו שמנה עשר ושלש מאות. (ב) ובמדרש י"ח ושלש מאות זה אליעזר שעולה בגימטריא שי"ח. ויש לשאול כי לפי המדרש הזה שמנה עשר ושלש מאות אינו כפשוטו אלא חידה על אליעזר לבדו, ואין לנו להוציא המקרא מידי פשוטו, שהרי הכתוב מעיד על ילידי ביתו שהם שי"ח. (ג) אבל הענין היה כי כל המספר הזה היו ילידי ביתו של אברהם אוכלי שלחנו, ואחר שנזדרז לצאת למלחמה מיעט אותן וריקנן, לפי שהזכות הוא המנצח לא רבוי עם, ולכך צוה שיחזרו כל החוטאים כדין תורה ביוצאי מלחמה שאמר הכתוב (דברים כח) מי האיש הירא וגו'. וזהו לשון וירק שכולל לשון זיין ולשון מיעוט מלשון רק. וכיון שנתמעטו מצא אברהם את עצמו עם אליעזר לבדו, ואע"פ שכתוב חניכיו ביו"ד יש בכלל מאתים מנה ויש בכלל חניכיו חניכו, ולומר כי כל חניכיו עמדו עם חניכו, הוא אליעזר לבדו.....
(1) וישמע אברם כי נשבה אחיו, “when Avram heard that his brother had been taken captive, etc.” Avram girded himself for battle as soon as he heard about this. He immediately mobilized the three hundred and eighteen men who derived their immediate sustenance from him. (2) Bereshit Rabbah 43,2 claims that the number 318 is really only the numerical value of the letters in the name of his trusted servant אליעזר. How do we reconcile this Midrash with the principle of אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, that “we must not completely divorce a verse of Scripture from its literal meaning?” After all, the Torah expressly states that the three hundred people concerned were ילידי ביתו “members of Avram’s household?” (3) Actually, the meaning of the Midrash is that all the three hundred and eighteen men mentioned were members of Avram’s household, were being fed at his table. Having mobilized all of them, Avram discounted most of them realizing that the credit for the victory went only to Eliezer who was the most G’d-fearing one amongst them. Victory in battle is not determined by the size of the armies- as we know from Gideon- but is due to the merit of the individual soldiers. The Torah told us in Deut 20,8 that if someone has reason to fear for his life (due to sins he has committed) he should go home instead of joining the ranks of the soldiers. The author of the Midrash noticed that the word וירק, he “mobilized,” is composed of the word רק, “only.” It means that Avram reduced the men whose merit could ensure victory to those that possessed sufficient merit which left him with his trusted servant Eliezer, whose merit was equivalent to that of the other 317 men in his household. While it is true that the word חניכיו is spelled with the letter י indicating that there were more than one person, the fact is that “200 includes 100,” i.e. that the word חניכו, “the one whom he had trained,” is included in the word חניכיו, “the ones whom he had trained.” We may interpret the word to mean that all the people whom Avram had trained (in matters spiritual) were loyal to the most illustrious of them all, to Eliezer.
As to the word אחיו, “his brother,” when in fact Lot was Avram’s nephew and not his brother, the Torah wrote it in this way in order to show us the virtue of brotherliness which Avram extended even to a nephew who had chosen to live as a neighbour of the wicked people of Sodom. He had not allowed considerations of the strife which had occurred between them previously to influence his judgment concerning his nephew, the son of his brother. He risked his life on his behalf as if he were a biological brother. (4) וירדף עד דן, “he pursued as far as Dan.” This is a reference to the מדת הדין, “the attribute of Justice.” Once the attribute of Justice caught up with these kings there was no need for Avram to pursue any further. We find a similar expression in Isaiah 41,3 ירדפם יעבור שלום, “He pursues them, he goes unharmed.” (5) According to Bereshit Rabbah 43,7 Avram threw earth at these people and the earth turned into swords. When he threw straws at them they turned into arrows. Another explanation offered by the Midrash (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 13) on these words is that when Avram approached Dan, a place where in later years the Israelites would commit idolatry, his strength suddenly evaporated in view of this prospect. (The Midrash referred to the golden calves erected by Jerobam King of Israel shortly after the division of Solomon’s kingdom compare Kings I 12,29).
As to the word אחיו, “his brother,” when in fact Lot was Avram’s nephew and not his brother, the Torah wrote it in this way in order to show us the virtue of brotherliness which Avram extended even to a nephew who had chosen to live as a neighbour of the wicked people of Sodom. He had not allowed considerations of the strife which had occurred between them previously to influence his judgment concerning his nephew, the son of his brother. He risked his life on his behalf as if he were a biological brother. (4) וירדף עד דן, “he pursued as far as Dan.” This is a reference to the מדת הדין, “the attribute of Justice.” Once the attribute of Justice caught up with these kings there was no need for Avram to pursue any further. We find a similar expression in Isaiah 41,3 ירדפם יעבור שלום, “He pursues them, he goes unharmed.” (5) According to Bereshit Rabbah 43,7 Avram threw earth at these people and the earth turned into swords. When he threw straws at them they turned into arrows. Another explanation offered by the Midrash (Tanchuma Lech Lecha 13) on these words is that when Avram approached Dan, a place where in later years the Israelites would commit idolatry, his strength suddenly evaporated in view of this prospect. (The Midrash referred to the golden calves erected by Jerobam King of Israel shortly after the division of Solomon’s kingdom compare Kings I 12,29).
(א) וירק את חניכיו וגו'. שאמר להם אברהם למלחמה אנו יוצאין מי האיש הירא מעבירות שבידו ילך וישוב לביתו כיון ששמעו כך הלכו וחזרו להן ולא נשאר עם אברהם כי אם אליעזר עבדו אמר לו הקב"ה לאברהם הניחו אותך כולן חייך אני נותן כח לאליעזר כנגד כולן ומנין אותיות של אליעזר יעלו למנין י"ח ושלש מאות וכן מסיק בפ"ד דנדרים ועוד מסיק וירק את חניכיו רב אמר שהוריקן בתורה ושמואל אמר שהוריקן בזהב פי' כדי שלא יהא לבם נוטה אלא להצלות נפשות:
(1) וירק את חניכיו, “he mobilised all those whom he had trained;” Avraham told all these men that they were about to go to war and if someone was afraid for his life due to sins he had committed, he was free to go back home. (Compare Deuteronomy 20,8) When they heard this, they all decided to return to their homes, with the exception of his loyal servant Eliezer. G–d told Avraham not to worry and to let them go home, as He would empower Eliezer to possesss as much power as all these men had possessed combined. The numerical value of the letters in the name אליעזר total 318, and that is why the Torah described his ”army” as consisting of 318 men. (Compare Talmud, tractate Nedarim, folio 31) In addition, we have two interpretations of the Talmud scholars Rav and Sh’muel, respectively, the former saying that the word וירק in our verse refers to “pouring words of Torah into these potential soldiers, whereas Sh’muel says that he overcame their fears by giving them large quantities of gold. (same folio in the Talmud) His objective was to instill in these men the will to save as many lives as possible, not to fight for the sake of the loot they might capture by killing fellow human beings. [This editor has some difficulty with the explanations offered, as in verse 24 of our chapter Avraham insists that the men who had fought with him receive their share of the loot. Ed.]
(א) וירק את חניכיו וגו'. רש״י פי' אליעזר לבדו היה שם כי שלש מאות ושמנה עשר הוא מנין שם אליעזר וכי דרך המקרא לומר מספר המורה על איש אחד. ומהו שאמר וחלק האנשים אשר הלכו אתי. והלא לא הלך עמו כי אם אליעזר לבדו. והקרוב אלי לומר בזה שגם רש״י מודה שלקח עמו שי״ח אנשים ממש כי חייב כל אדם לעשות בדרך הטבע כל אשר ימצא בכחו לעשות ומה שיחסר הטבע ישלים הנס. אך שקשה למה לקח אברם דווקא מספר שי״ח ומה הגיד לנו בזה הכתוב. אלא להורות שהיתה המלחמה כ״כ חזקה עליו עד שלא היה שום אפשרי בדרך הטבע לנצחם ומ״מ הלך אברהם למלחמה כי סמך שאלהיו יהיה בעזרו, וסימנא מילתא היא כי לקח עמו אנשים כמספר אליעז״ר להורות כי אליעזר לבדו היה שם כי לא נעשה הנצחון ההוא בשום פעולה אנושית כ״א בעזר אלהי לבד, לפיכך לא רדף כ״א עד דן ושם נסתלקה השכינה בעבור העגל שעתידין להעמיד בדן, לפיכך תשש כחו שם בהסתלקות העזר האלהי וזהו שנאמר ויחלק עליהם לילה. שחציו השני נשאר לו לחצות לילה של מצרים כי אז יצא ה' בעצמו בתוך מצרים, כך במלחמה זו לא היה כי אם עזר של אל עליון אשר מגן צריו בידו.
(ב) ד״א שלקח שי״ח אנשים כמספר אליעזר, להורות שאליעזר שקול כנגד כולם כי זכותו של אברם דבק בו, כי יפה שיחתן של עבדי אבות מתורתן של בנים כו' וי״א וירק שהוריק מהם כל כלי זיין והלכו בלא כלי זיין וסמכו על תשועת ה' מלשון אריק חרבי תורשימו ידי כי אמר פרעה אפילו אם אריק חרבי לסלקו מכל וכל מכל מקום תורישמו ידי לבד בלא חרב.
(1) Three hundred and eighteen. See Rashi. Yet in verse 24 Avraham refers to the “men” who went with him. Undoubtedly he took with him actual soldiers but the number 318 hinted that victory was impossible without Divine assistance. Eli-ezer means “My God helps”.
. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סוּכָּה גְּזוּלָה, וְהַמְסַכֵּךְ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין.....הָהִיא סָבְתָּא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא וְכוּלְּהוּ רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא בְּסוּכָּה גְּזוּלָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. צָוְוחָה וְלָא אַשְׁגַּח בָּהּ רַב נַחְמָן. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהָא תְּלָת מְאָה וְתַמְנֵי סְרֵי עַבְדֵי צָוְוחָא קַמַּיְיכוּ וְלָא אַשְׁגְּחִיתוּ בַּהּ?! אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב נַחְמָן: פָּעִיתָא הִיא דָּא, וְאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי עֵצִים בִּלְבַד.
it is called hoshana, which is a term used to describe the four species. The Gemara answers: This is not a full-fledged change of name, as occasionally it also happens that they initially refer to a myrtle branch as a hoshana while it is attached to the tree. § The Sages taught: With regard to a stolen sukka and with regard to one who roofs a sukka in the public domain, which is tantamount to robbing land from the public, Rabbi Eliezer deems these sukkot unfit for use in fulfillment of the mitzva, and the Rabbis deem them fit. Rav Naḥman said: This dispute is limited to a case where one assaults another and forcibly evicts him from his sukka, and takes his place in the sukka. In that case, Rabbi Eliezer deems the sukka unfit. And Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his own reasoning, as he said: A person does not fulfill his obligation with the sukka of another. Therefore, in any event, he does not fulfill his obligation with it. If land can be stolen and acquired by the robber, the sukka from which he evicted the owner is a stolen sukka. And if indeed land cannot be stolen, nevertheless, the robber does not fulfill his obligation according to Rabbi Eliezer, as it is a borrowed sukka. And the Rabbis conform to their reasoning, as they said: A person fulfills his obligation with the sukka of another. And since land cannot be stolen and the sukka is merely a borrowed sukka and not a stolen one, the robber fulfills his obligation, despite the fact that he committed a reprehensible act. However, if one stole wood and roofed a sukka with it, everyone agrees, as Rabbi Eliezer concedes, that the original owner of the wood has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. The wood itself belongs to the robber, so it is not a stolen sukka. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Naḥman draw the conclusion that the dispute is with regard to a stolen sukka and not with regard to a sukka established with stolen building materials? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the halakha of a stolen sukka is juxtaposed in the baraita to the halakha of a sukka established in the public domain, the baraita teaches that the legal status of the stolen sukka is similar to the legal status of a sukka established in the public domain. Just as one does not fulfill his obligation with a sukka in the public domain because the land is not his, with regard to the stolen sukka too, one does not fulfill his obligation because the land is not his, not because the building materials were stolen. The Gemara relates: There was a certain old woman who came before Rav Naḥman. She said to him: The Exilarch and all the Sages in his house have been sitting in a stolen sukka. She claimed that the Exilarch’s servants stole her wood and used it to build the sukka. She screamed, but Rav Naḥman did not pay attention to her. She said to him: A woman whose father, Abraham, our forefather, had three hundred and eighteen slaves screams before you, and you do not pay attention to her? She claimed that she should be treated with deference due to her lineage as a Jew. Rav Naḥman said to the Sages: This woman is a screamer, and she has rights only to the monetary value of the wood. However, the sukka itself was already acquired by the Exilarch. Ravina said: With regard to the stolen large beam of a sukka, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the robber need not return it intact, due to the general ordinance of a beam. By the letter of the law, one who stole a beam and incorporated it in the construction of a new house is required to dismantle the house and return the beam. The Sages instituted an ordinance requiring the robber to repay the monetary value of the beam instead. They instituted this ordinance to facilitate the repentance of the robber, who would be less likely to repent if doing so entailed destruction of the house. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. In what way is the beam different from other wood used in establishing the sukka? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Wood is common, and therefore the owners are more likely to despair of recovering the wood and will suffice with receiving monetary restitution and replacing the wood, but, with regard to this large beam, which is not common, say that there is no despair, and the robber is required to return the actual beam, therefore, Ravina teaches us that the ordinance applies even to this beam, and the robber is required to return only its monetary value. The Gemara notes: This halakha that the robber need not dismantle the sukka and return the beam applies only within the seven days of the Festival. However, after the seven days, the beam returns to the owner intact. And if the robber attached it with mortar and it is affixed permanently to the sukka, then even after the seven days of the Festival, the ordinance remains in effect, and the robber gives the original owner the monetary value of the beam. § It was taught in the Tosefta: A dry lulav is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. Rava said: The dispute is specifically with regard to a lulav, as the Rabbis hold: We liken the lulav to the etrog, based on their juxtaposition in the verse. Just as the etrog requires beauty, so too, the lulav requires beauty. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: We do not liken the lulav to the etrog. However, with regard to an etrog, everyone agrees that we require beauty [hadar] as the verse states: “Fruit of a beautiful tree” (Leviticus 23:40) and a dry etrog does not meet that criterion. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a lulav, does Rabbi Yehuda really not require beauty? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a lulav whose leaves have spread out, one should bind the lulav from the top. What is the reason to do so? Is it not because he requires beauty in the case of lulav? The Gemara rejects this: No, as the reason is taught: Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon that the same verse states: “Branches [kappot] of a date palm.” The Sages interpret the term to mean bound [kafut], indicating that if the leaves of the lulav were spread, one should bind it. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty with regard to the lulav? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: One binds the lulav only with its own species, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda requires the binding to be from its own species? Is it not due to the fact that he requires beauty with regard to the lulav? The Gemara answers: No, that is not the reason, as Rava said: According to Rabbi Yehuda, one may bind the lulav even with fiber that grows around the trunk of the date palm and even with the root of the date palm, even though these do not meet the criterion of beauty. The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that a lulav must be bound with its own species? The Gemara answers: It is because he holds that a lulav requires binding, and if one brought another species to bind it, they are five species instead of four, violating the prohibition against adding to the mitzvot of the Torah. The Gemara asks: And with regard to an etrog, does Rabbi Yehuda require beauty? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. If one did not find an etrog, he should not bring a quince, a pomegranate, or any other item instead. If the species are slightly dried, they are fit. If they are completely dry, they are unfit. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry etrogim are fit. And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving city dwellers who lived in an area distant from the region where the four species grow, who would bequeath their lulavim to their grandchildren, even though they were completely dry. The Sages said to him: Is there proof from there that species that are dry remain fit for use? Actions taken in exigent circumstances are not proof. In typical circumstances, it would be prohibited to use those species. In any event, the Tosefta teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even dry species are fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. What, is it not referring to an etrog as well, indicating that in his opinion an etrog does not require beauty? No, he was stating only that a dry lulav is fit for use. The Master stated in the baraita cited above: Just as one may not diminish from their number, so too, one may not add to their number. The Gemara asks: That is obvious. Why would it be permitted to add an additional species? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Since Rabbi Yehuda said that a lulav requires a binding, and that requirement is a fundamental component of the mitzva, and if you bring another additional species, this species stands alone and that species stands alone, i.e., because the additional species is not bound with the others, its presence is insignificant, and causes no problem, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that this is not the case. In fact, one may not bring an additional species. The Master stated in the baraita cited above: If one cannot find an etrog, he may not bring a pomegranate, a quince, or anything else instead. The Gemara wonders: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say: He should bring these fruits so that the halakhic category of the etrog will not be forgotten, therefore, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that it is in fact prohibited because on occasion, damage will result from this practice. Some may come to be drawn to this practice and use these species even when etrogim are available. The Gemara proposes: Come and hear another proof that, with regard to an etrog, Rabbi Yehuda does not require beauty: An old etrog is unfit. Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, who holds that everyone agrees that an etrog requires beauty. The Gemara concludes: It is, indeed, a conclusive refutation of Rava’s opinion. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda not require beauty in an etrog? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to an etrog that is leek green, Rabbi Meir deems it fit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it unfit? The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in the case of a green etrog the fruit did not ripen, and it is inappropriate to fulfill the mitzva with an unripe fruit. The Gemara cites an additional proof. Come and hear: 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. The Gemara asks: Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, it is due to the fact that in that case of an etrog smaller than an egg-bulk, the fruit did not ripen. Come and hear an additional proof: 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. The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Is it not due to the fact that Rabbi Yehuda requires beauty in an etrog? The Gemara answers: No, the rationale is as Rabba said: One holds the lulav in the right hand and the etrog in the left. Sometimes, when one is handed the four species, they will exchange them for him, placing the three species in his left hand and the etrog in his right, and then he will come to switch them and place each in the appropriate hand. However, if the etrog is too large, he will be unable to hold the etrog and the lulav together, and he will come to render the etrog unfit, as it is apt to fall. The Gemara asks: However, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, isn’t it written: The fruit of a beautiful [hadar] tree? How, then, can he rule that an etrog does not require beauty? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda holds: That verse means that one should take a fruit that dwells [hadar] in its tree from year to year. It remains on the tree and does not wither and fall at the end of the season as do most fruits. That is characteristic of the etrog. § The mishna continues: The lulav of a tree worshipped as idolatry [asheira] and a lulav from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, which must be burned along with all the city’s property, are unfit. And is a lulav of an asheira unfit? But didn’t Rava say with regard to a lulav of idolatry: One should not take it to fulfill the mitzva ab initio; however, if he took it, it is fit and he fulfills his obligation after the fact? Apparently, a lulav from an asheira is fit. The Gemara explains: Here, in the mishna, we are dealing with the asheira of Moses, depicted in the Torah. The mishna is not referring to a tree planted in deference to idolatry, but rather to a tree that was itself worshipped as an idol. There is an obligation to burn idolatry and destroy it. Therefore, legally, the latter tree is considered as if it were already burned. The requisite measure of the lulav was crushed, and it is therefore unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. Rava’s ruling does not apply to an asheira of that kind. The Gemara notes: The formulation of the mishna is also precise and indicates that the reference is to an asheira of Moses, as the juxtaposition of the halakha of an asheira to the halakha of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry teaches that the legal status of the asheira is similar to that of a city whose residents were incited to idolatry, in which all the property must be burned. In both cases, the lulav is considered already burned and lacking the requisite measure. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is the reason that the lulav is unfit. The mishna continues: If the top of the lulav was severed it is unfit. Rav Huna said: They taught that it is unfit only when it was completely severed; however, if the top merely split, the lulav is fit. The Gemara asks: And is a split lulav fit? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: A lulav that is bent at the top,