סוכה 12 — parallel

12:1

And if [you will suggest]: Just as the Festival offering was a live animal so the Sukkah must be [of something which is] alive, [it may be replied that] when Rabin came, he said in the name of R. Johanan, Scripture says, After that thou hast gathered in from thy threshing-floor and thy winepress. The verse thus speaks of the leavings of the threshing-floor and the leas of the wine-press. But perhaps it means the actual threshing-floor and the actual wine-press? - Zera answered, It is written winepress’, and it is impossible to cover the Sukkah with this! R. Jeremiah demurred: But perhaps it means the solidified wine that comes from Senir, which resembles fig-cakes? R. Zera observed, We had something in our hands, and R. Jeremiah came and cast an axe at it. R. Ashi replied, ‘From thy threshing-floor’, [implies] but not the threshing-floor itself, from thy wine-press’, [implies] but not the wine-press itself. R. Hisda replied, The deduction is made from this verse, Go forth unto the mount and fetch olive-branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle-branches and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees. Are not myrtle-branches, the same as branches of thick trees? — R. Hisda answered: The wild myrtle [were to be fetched] for the Sukkah, while the branches of thick trees, for the lulab. MISHNAH. BUNDLES OF STRAW, BUNDLES OF WOOD, AND BUNDLES OF BRUSHWOOD MAY NOT SERVE AS SUKKAH-COVERING, BUT ALL OF THEM, IF THEY ARE UNTIED, ARE VALID. ALL MATERIALS, HOWEVER, ARE VALID FOR THE WALLS. GEMARA. R. Jacob said, I heard from R. Johanan [the explanation of] two things, this one, and the following: If one hollows out a haystack to make of it a Sukkah, [the hollow] is no [valid] Sukkah. The reason for one of them he attributed to a Rabbinical enactment lest [a man use his] store-house as a Sukkah, and as a reason for the other he gave, because ‘thou shalt make’, [implies] but not from that which is made; but I do not remember which of them is on account of a ‘store-house’, and which on account of ‘"thou shalt make" but not from that which is made’. R. Jeremiah said, Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as sukkah-covering? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and raising it up he places it on his hut to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a sukkah-covering, but the Torah said, ‘Thou shalt make’, [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is forbidden as a restrictive measure against the possibility of the use of a store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘thou shalt make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made. And R. Jacob? -He had not heard that [statement] of R. Hiyya b. Abba. R. Ashi said: Are then bundles of straw, bundles of wood and bundles of brushwood forbidden only because of the possible use of a store-house and not because of the injunction ‘thou shalt make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made, and is the hollowing out of a haystack forbidden only because of the injunction ‘thou shalt make’ which implies but not from that which is made, and not because of the possible use of a store-house? And R. Johanan? — He can answer you that here where it states, MAY NOT SERVE AS A SUKKAH-COVERING, it means that only at the outset

—

12:2

it is invalid, because of the possible use of a store-house; according to the Biblical law, however, it is valid; while in the other case where it is stated categorically that it is no Sukkah, implying even when he has made it, it is no Sukkah even Pentateuchally. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, If one covered a Sukkah with plain arrow-shafts, it is valid; with bored shafts, it is invalid. ‘With plain arrow-shafts it is valid’; but is not this obvious? I might have said that these should be forbidden on account of bored ones,therefore he informs us [that they are not forbidden]. ‘With bored shafts, it is invalid’, is not this obvious? — I might have thought that a receptacle which is made to be [permanently] filled up is not regarded as a receptacle, therefore he informs us [that it is]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’. But as to what constitutes an intermediate stage, I do not know whether if it has been pounded and not corded it is regarded as in an intermediate stage, but if it has been soaked and not pounded it is regarded as being in its natural state, or perhaps, even if it has been soaked but not pounded, it is also regarded as being in an intermediate stage. Rab Judah ruled, One may use licorice-wood or wormwood as a Sukkah-covering. Abaye ruled, Licorice-wood may be employed, but not wormwood. What is the reason?- Since

—