Sukka 34 a, b

The rabis discuss the arvei, the willow branches of the Sukkot.   The word arvei is plural, argues Aba Shaul, so what are the roles of the willow branches?  The willow branch is referenced a number of times: that placed together with with the lulav, of course; that which is brought separately from the lulav to the Temple on Sukkot; that which of the halacha of the ten saplings (which are protected on the days leading up to the Sabbatical year to save those young plants); and that used with the water libation on the Altar on each day of Sukkot.

The rabbis wonder if the willow plant is the same tree that is "placed by great waters".  They debate the edging of the leaves and attempt to determine which willow leaves are fit.  The rabbis also debate whether or not a willow and a tzaftzafa are the same plant.  And did the tzaftzafa become known as the chalfata?  

The rabbis are intrigued by this possible change of name.   For example, Babylonia was also known as Bursif in different generations.  What are the halachic implications of such a change?  They examine this question in a number of other contexts.  They note that it is of particular importance that we do not change the name of places.  Why?  Because a woman's get, or divorce contract,  requires the name of the bride's town.  And if her get is invalid because the town's name has changed, she cannot legally remarry.  

A new Mishna in amud (b) tells that Rabbi Yishmael said: the mitzvah of the four species is to combine three myrtle brances, two willow branches, one lulav and one etrog.  The myrtle branches are fit whether or nto the top of one is severed.  Rabbi Tarfon teaches that even if the tops of all three are severed, it is fit.  Rabbi Akiva siad that there is one lulav and one etrog; one myrtle branch and one willow branch. 

The Gemara tries to make sense of these different opinions.  The rabbis argue about whether or not we can assume that we know how to deal with one of the species just because we have instruction about how to manage another.  They argue about the number of branches required and the state of those branches. They even argue about who's argument is more lenient and whether the community requires education - particularly in the marketplace, where sellers could take advantage of people's ignorance.

In his commentary, Steinsaltz notes that there is some debate regarding whether or not additional branches can be added to the lulav to enhance its beauty.  Certainly we are prohibited from adding a fifth species, for that would be adding to the mitzvot.  But to create larger bundles could also ensure that more people participate in a proper mitzvah (including the blessing, which can be recited only if the branches are fit -- more branches would lead to a greater likelihood of fit branches).  

Our daf ends with a final new Mishna.  An etrog is unfit if it is completely dry (using a needle to measure moisture) or if it had been stolen; if it was from an asheira (tree used for idolatry) or an idol-worshipping city.  An etrog is unfit if it is picked within the first three years of its tree's growth and if it is of impure terumah - or otherwise questionable status.  In this last case, though, Beit Hillel deem it fit. In Jerusalem, one cannot take such an etrog ab initio - but it is fit, regardless.

The Mishna gives us more detail.  The etrog is unfit if the majority of it is blemished.  It is unfit if the pitom is missing, if it is peeled, split, pierced or is missing anything (but what about that needle-test??).  Blemishes on the minority of the fruit; missing stems; pierced without anything missing from the fruit (ahhh...) - these are fit.  But Kutim etrogim, leek green etrogim, those that are smaller than an egg bulk - these are unfit.  No etrog is too large to be fit.

What detail!  What rigour!  How happy am I that I count on somebody else to ensure that my lulav is fit!