Parallel
סוכה 32
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
, thorny, split or curved like a sickle is invalid. If it has become hardened, it is invalid. If it only appears as though it is hardened, it is valid? — R. Papa answered, It refers to where it is like a prong. ‘If it is curved like a sickle’, Raba said, refers only to its front, but towards its back, it is its nature [to be curved]. R. Nahman said, At the sides is the same as at the front, and some say, The same as at its back. Raba further said, A palm-branch of which all the foliage grows on one side is a blemished plant and is invalid. IF ITS LEAVES WERE BROKEN OFF etc. R. Papa said. ‘DETACHED’ means like a broom, ‘SPREAD APART means that they were parted from one another. R. Papa asked, How if the central leaf is split? — Come and hear what R. Johanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid. No doubt if it is split the same law would apply? No, if it is removed the law is different, since it is entirely lacking. Another version is that R. Johanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is split, it is as though it is removed, and [the lulab] is invalid. R. JUDAH SAYS. It has been taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon, ‘Branches of palm-trees’, [means that palm-branches must be] tied up, and if they were separated, one must tie them up. Rabina said to R. Ashi, How do we know that ‘Branches of palm-trees’ refers to the [green sprouts of the] palm-branches? Perhaps it means [branches of] the hardened palm? — It must be [a branch the leaves of which can be] bound up, and this one cannot. But perhaps it means the stalk [itself]? — [Since the word] ‘bound’ is used, it must refer to something which can be separated, but this is permanently bound. But perhaps it means the inflorescence of palms? — Abaye answered, It is written, Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. Raba Tosfa'ah said to Rabina, But perhaps it means two branches of palms? — The word is written kappath. Then perhaps it means one? — That would be called kaf. THE THORN-PALMS OF THE IRON MOUNTAIN ARE VALID. Abaye said, They taught it only where the top of one [leaf] reaches the junction of the next, but if the top of the one does not reach the junction of the next, it is invalid. So it has also been taught: The thorn-palms of the iron mountain are invalid. But have we not learnt that they are valid? It may be deduced, therefore, [that the ruling is] in agreement with Abaye. This is conclusive.
—
Some put it in the form of mutual contradiction: We have learnt: THE THORN-PALMS OF THE IRON MOUNTAIN ARE VALID. But has it not been taught that they are invalid? Abaye answered, There is no difficulty: The one refers to where the top of the one leaf reaches the junction of the next; the other to where the top of the one does not reach the junction of the other. R. Marion said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, while others say that Rabbah b. Mari taught in the name of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, There are two palms in the valley of Hinnom, between which there ascends smoke, and it is in that connection that we have learnt, THE THORN-PALMS OF THE IRON MOUNTAIN ARE VALID, and it is the entrance to Gehenna. A PALM-BRANCH WHICH IS THREE HANDBREADTHS IN LENGTH. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, The [minimum] length of the myrtle and the willow is three [handbreadths], and that of the palm-branch four, so that the palm-branch should extend one handbreadth beyond the myrtle. And R. Parnak said in the name of R. Johanan, The stem of the palm-branch should extend a handbreadth beyond the myrtle. Have we not learnt, A PALM-BRANCH WHICH IS THREE HANDBREADTHS IN LENGTH, LONG ENOUGH TO WAVE, IS VALID? — Read AND LONG ENOUGH TO WAVE; and each one explains it according to his own view. Come and hear: [We have learnt.] The [minimum] length of the myrtle and the willow is three [handbreadths], and that of the palm-branch four. Surely [this means, does it not,] inclusive of the leaves? — No, exclusive of the leaves. [To turn to] the main text: The [minimum] length of the myrtle and the willow is three [handbreadths], and that of the palm-branch four. R. Tarfon says, A cubit consisting of five handbreadths. Raba said, May R. Tarfon's Master forgive him [for this absurd statement]! We cannot find a valid myrtle three [handbreadths] long, would one of five handbreadths be required? When R. Dimi came he explained. [R. Tarfon meant thus]: Make a cubit which has [normally] six handbreadths, into five. Deduct from these the three for the myrtle and the remainder is for the palm-branch. How much then is it? Three and three fifths? Do not then two statements of Samuel contradict one another, for here Rab Judah says in the name of Samuel, The [minimum] length of the myrtle and the willow is three [normal handbreadths], and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Samuel that the halachah is as R. Tarfon? — [Samuel] was not precise. But do we not say that one is not precise only when [this results in] a restriction [of the law] but not when [it results in] a relaxation of it? When Rabin came, he explained: [R. Tarfon meant thus]: Make a cubit of five normal handbreadths into one of six handbreadths. Deduct of these three for the myrtle, and the remainder is for the palm-branch. But how much is it? Two and a half. Is there not ‘then a discrepancy between [the two statements of] Samuel? — [The answer is that] he was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a restriction [of the law], since R. Huna said in the name of Samuel that the halachah is as R. Tarfon. MISHNAH. A STOLEN OR WITHERED MYRTLE IS NOT VALID, ONE OF AN ASHERAH OR OF A CONDEMNED CITY IS INVALID. IF ITS TIP WAS BROKEN OFF, OR ITS LEAVES WERE SEVERED, OR IF ITS BERRIES WERE MORE NUMEROUS THAN ITS LEAVES, IT IS INVALID, BUT IF HE DIMINISHED THEIR NUMBER IT IS VALID. ONE MAY NOT, HOWEVER, DIMINISH THEM ON THE FESTIVAL. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught, ‘Boughs of a thick tree’ [means] [that kind of tree] whose branches completely cover its trunk. Now what [tree] is this? Obviously you must say that it is the myrtle. But perhaps it is the olive? — It must be wreathed, which [the olive] is not. But perhaps it is the plane tree? — It is required that the branches shall cover its trunk, which is not the case [with the plane tree]. But perhaps it is the oleander? Abaye said, ‘Its ways are the ways of pleasantness’, and [with the oleander] this is not the case. Raba expressed [the same idea] from the following verse, Therefore love ye truth and peace. Our Rabbis taught, [That plant whose leaves are] shaped like a plait, and resemble a chain, is the myrtle. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said ‘The boughs of a thick tree’ [means] a tree the taste of whose wood and whose fruit is similar: Say, then, it is the myrtle. A Tanna taught, A tree which is ‘aboth is valid, and which is not ‘aboth is not valid. What constitutes ‘aboth? — Rab Judah said, When three leaves grow out of one nest. R. Kahana said, Even [if they only grow in] twos and ones. R. Aha the son of Raba sought to obtain one [whose leaves grew] in twos and ones, since R. Kahana said [that such are valid]. Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi, ‘My father used to call that the wild myrtle’. Our Rabbis taught, If the larger part of its leaves fell off and the lesser part remained, it is valid, provided that its wreath-work remains. But is not this self-contradictory? You said that if the larger part of its leaves fell off it is valid and then it is stated, ‘provided that its wreath-work remains’. But since two [of the three leaves] have fallen off, how is it possible to have a wreathwork? — Abaye said, It is possible
—