סוכה 30 — parallel

30:1

because it would be a precept fulfilled through a transgression [which is forbidden], as it is said, And ye have brought that which is stolen, and the lame and the sick, ‘The stolen’ is thus compared with the lame; just as the lame can never be rectified, so that which is stolen can never be rectified, [that is] irrespective of whether the stolen is used before abandonment [of hope of recovery by the owner] or after abandonment. Now this is right before abandonment, since the Divine Law said, When any man of you bringeth an offering unto the Lord and this is not his, but [why should the law apply] after abandonment [of right by the owner], seeing [that the robber] has acquired it by [virtue of that] abandonment? The reason must then be that it is a precept fulfilled through a transgression. R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai further said, What is the purport of that which is written, For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery with iniquity? This may be compared to a human king who passed through his custom-house and said to his attendants, ‘pay the tax to the tax-collectors’. They said to him, ‘But the whole tax, surely, belongs to thee!’ He answered them, ‘All travellers would learn from me not to evade their payments of tax’. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I the Lord hate robbery in burnt-offerings; let My children learn from Me and keep away from robbery’. So it was also stated: R. Ammi said, A withered [palm-branch] is invalid because it is not ‘goodly’, a stolen one is invalid because it constitutes a precept fulfilled through a transgression. And this disagrees with R. Isaac, since R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in the name of Samuel, This was taught only with regard to the first day of the Festival, but on the second day, since a man fulfils his obligation with a borrowed [palm-branch]. he fulfils it also with a stolen one. R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: A STOLEN OR WITHERED PALM-BRANCH IS INVALID, from which it follows that a borrowed one is valid? Now when? If you say, On the first day of the Festival, is it not written [it may be objected] ‘to you’ implying that it should be your own, and this one is not his! Consequently the reference must be to the second day of the Festival, and yet it teaches that a stolen one is invalid? — Raba replied: Indeed it refers to the first day of the Festival but he implies the form of ‘It is not required’: It is not required to state that a borrowed one is invalid since it is not his; but in the case of a stolen one, of which I might say that normally a robbery [implies immediate] abandonment by its owner and that it is, therefore, like his own, therefore he informs us [that even a stolen one is invalid]. R. Huna said to some traders, When you purchase myrtles from heathens, do not cut them yourselves, but let them cut them and give them to you. What is the reason? — Heathens as a rule acquire their land by robbery27

—

30:2

and there is no [title to] land by robbery; therefore let them cut it down, so that there may be abandonment [of right] by the owner while it is in their possession, and change of domain in your hands. But in any case, even when the traders cut the myrtles, let abandonment [of right] by the owner take place when these are in their hands, and change of domain when they are in the hands of the purchasers? — It is necessary [to state this law] only with regard to the hoshanna of the traders themselves. But why could they not acquire possession of them by the change they make in it? — [R. Huna] is of the opinion that the palm-branch [wreath] does not need binding; and [even] if you were to find some ground for saying that the palm-branch wreath does need binding, [still] the change would be one that can be removed by restoring the object to its original condition which is not regarded as a valid change. But why should they not acquire possession by virtue of the change of name, since previously it was called asa [myrtle] and now

—