Parallel
סוכה 33:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
with the Egyptian myrtle which has seven [leaves] in each nest, and [therefore] when four fall off, there are still three left. Abaye said, [From this] we can deduce that the Egyptian myrtle is valid for the hoshanna But is not this obvious? — I might have said that since it has a distinctive name, it cannot be considered valid, therefore he informs us [that it is valid]. But perhaps it is indeed so? -The Divine Law says, ‘boughs of a thick tree’ i.e., of any kind. Our Rabbis taught, If the larger part of its leaves were withered, and only three twigs with green leaves remained, it is valid. And R. Hisda added, [Provided] that they are at the top of each [twig]. IF ITS TIP WAS BROKEN OFF. ‘Ulla bar Hinena taught, If its tip was broken off, and a berry grew on it, it is valid. R. Jeremiah asked, If the tip was broken off before the Festival, and the berry grew on it on the Festival, what [is the law]? Do we apply the law of disability to [all] commandments or not? — Can he not decide this point from that which we have learnt: If he covered it and it became uncovered, he need not cover it again; if the wind covered it, he must cover it again. And Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan, They taught this only where it subsequently became uncovered, but if it did not subsequently become uncovered, he is free from [the duty of] covering it. And when we asked concerning this, ‘Even if it subsequently became uncovered, why must he cover it? Once it has suffered the disability is it not permanently disabled?’ R. Papa said, This implies that the law of disability does not apply to [all] commandments? — The question [of R. Jeremiah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa: Is he certain that the law of disability does not apply to [all] commandments, irrespective of whether it is in the direction of stringency or leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it in the direction of stringency, but not in the direction of leniency? It remains unanswered. Can we say that these are according to the dispute of Tannas? [For we have learnt], If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid. These are the words of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, while the Sages declare it valid. Now they were of the opinion that according to all the lulab does not need binding, and that, even if some reason could be found for ruling that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulab from those of Sukkah of which it is written, ‘Thou shalt make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made. Surely then they disagree on the following principle viz., that he who declares it invalid is of the opinion that we apply the law of disability to [all] commandments, while he who declares it to be valid is of the opinion that we do not apply the law of disability to [all] commandments? — No! All agree that we do not apply the law of disability to [all] commandments, but they disagree here in whether we deduce [the laws of] lulab from [those of] Sukkah. One Master is of the opinion that we do so deduce them, while the other Master is of the opinion that we do not make such a deduction. And if you wish you may say that if it were held that the lulab needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulab from [those of] Sukkah; but they disagree here on whether the lulab needs binding, as is the case in the dispute of these Tannas of whom it has been taught: A lulab, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says, If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid. What is the reason of R. Judah? — He deduces it from the word ‘take’ [which occurs here and with] the bundle of hyssop. It is written here, And ye shall take on the first day, and there it is written And ye shall take a bundle of hyssop. Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle. And the Rabbis? - They make no deduction from the mention of the word ‘take’ in the two passages. Who is it that learned that which our Rabbis have taught: It is a pious deed to bind the lulab, but [even] if he did not bind it, it is valid? Now who is it? If R. Judah be suggested, why is it valid if he did not bind it? If the Rabbis are suggested, what pious deed does he perform? — It is in fact the Rabbis, and the pious deed spoken of is due to ‘This is my God and I will glorify Him’. OR IF ITS BERRIES WERE MORE NUMEROUS THAN ITS LEAVES. R. Hisda said, The following statement was made by our great Master, and may the Omnipresent be his help! They taught it only [if all the berries were] in one place, but if in two or three places, it is valid. Said Raba,
—