Sukkah 33B

שנים ושלשה מקומות הוי מנומר, ופסול.

If the berries are distributed in two or 3 places, the myrtle branch is speckled with different colors in different places. It lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.

אלא, אי אתמר הכי אתמר: או שהיו ענביו מרובין מעליו ⁠— פסול. אמר רב חסדא: דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו, והמקום יהיה בעזרו: לא שנו אלא ענביו שחורות. אבל ענביו ירוקות ⁠— מיני דהדס הוא, וכשר.

Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated as follows: Or, if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may God come to his assistance: A baraita states this halakha only with regard to ripe, black berries, since they stand in stark contrast to the green leaves of the branch, which then appears speckled. However, if its berries are green, they are considered of the same type as the myrtle branch, as they are the same color. Consequently, the branch does not appear speckled, and therefore it is fit.

אמר רב פפא: אדומות כשחורות דמיין, דאמר רבי חנינא: האי דם שחור ⁠— אדום הוא, אלא שלקה.

Rav Pappa said: The legal status of red berries is like that of black ones, as R' Ḥanina said: In the case of menstrual blood, this black blood is actually red blood, except that it deteriorated. Red and black are considered two shades of the same color.

אם מיעטן ⁠— כשר. דמעטינהו אימת? אילימא מקמיה דלאגדיה ⁠— פשיטא! אלא לבתר דלאגדיה ⁠— דחוי מעיקרא הוא! תפשוט מינה: דחוי מעיקרא ⁠— לא הוי דחוי!

§ The Mishnah continues: If he diminished their number, it is fit. The Talmud asks: This is a case where he diminished their number when? If you say that he did so before he bound the lulav, it is obvious that it is fit. When he performs the mitzva with it, the leaves outnumber the berries. Rather, it must be that he diminished their number after he bound the lulav with the other species. If so, it is a case of disqualification from the outset, as it was unfit at the time that it was bound. Resolve from here the dilemma that was raised and conclude that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification.