Parallel
סוכה 24:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
it is valid, since it is made by the hands of man. The Master said: ‘In the name of R. Jose the Galilean they said, Nor may a bill of divorcement be written upon it’. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — As it has been taught: [Scripture says], A bill [hence] I know only [that] a bill [is valid], how do we know to include any other material? Scripture expressly states, Thus he writeth her implying, on whatever material it may be. If so, why does Scripture state, ‘bill’? To teach you that just as a bill is a thing which has no breath of life, and cannot eat, so is everything valid which has not the breath of life and does not eat. And the Rabbis? — If Scripture had written ‘in a bill’, [it would be] as you say, but now that it is written ‘a bill’ the expression refers merely to the recital of the words. And how do the Rabbis expound the words, ‘That he writeth’? — They need that [text for the exposition that] with the writing she becomes divorced, but she does not become divorced with money. As I might have said that, since her exit [from the married state] is compared to her entry into it just as her entry is with money, so is her exit, therefore it teaches us [this]. And whence does R. Jose the Galilean deduce this? -He deduces it from [the words], ‘a bill of divorcement’; the bill divorces and nothing else. And the others? — They need [this terminology to teach that the bill of divorcement must be] one which severs them [completely], as it has been taught. [If a man say,] Herewith is your get [to take effect] on condition that you do not drink wine, or go to your father's house ever, it is no severance. [If he say, The condition shall apply] for thirty days, it is a severance. And the other? — He deduces it from [the use of the form] kerithuth [instead of that of] kareth. And the others? — They do not expound [the difference between] kerithuth and kareth. MISHNAH. IF HE MAKES HIS SUKKAH BETWEEN TREES, SO THAT THE TREES FORM ITS WALLS, IT IS VALID. GEMARA. R. Aha b. Jacob said, A partition which is unable to withstand a normal wind is no valid partition. We have learnt, IF HE MAKES HIS SUKKAH BETWEEN TREES, SO THAT THE TREES FORM ITS WALLS, IT IS VALID. But do they not sway to and fro? — We are dealing here with solid [trees]. But are there not the swaying branches? — [It refers to] where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees. If so, why [need he] mention it? — One would have thought that it should be forbidden as a preventive measure lest he come to make use of the tree, therefore he informs us [that it is valid]. Come and hear: If there was there a tree, or a fence, or a partition of reeds, it is regarded as a valid corner-piece! — This also refers to where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees. Come and hear: If a tree throws a shadow on the ground, it is permitted to move objects under it if the ends of its branches are not three handbreadths high above the ground. But why? Does not the tree sway to and fro? — Here also it is a case where one plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees. But if so, it should be permitted to carry objects over its whole area whatever its size; why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua say, One may not carry any objects there
—