Parallel
סוכה 33:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[If the berries are in] two or three places it is regarded as speckled, and [therefore] invalid. Rather if it was at all stated, thus was it stated: OR IF ITS BERRIES WERE MORE NUMEROUS THAN ITS LEAVES, IT IS INVALID. R. Hisda said, The following statement was made by our great Master, and may the Omnipresent be his help! They taught this only if the berries were black, but if they were green they are merely a species of myrtle and valid. R. Papa said, Red [berries] are like black, since R. Hanina said, Black blood is [in reality] red blood except that it deteriorated. IF HE DIMINISHED THEIR NUMBER, IT IS VALID. When did he diminish them? If you say, before he bound them, is not this obvious? Consequently it must be said, after he bound them? This then is a disability from the very outset. Why then may it not be deduced therefrom that a disability from the outset Is no [permanent] disability? — Indeed it refers to [a diminution that took place] after he bound them, but he is of the opinion that the binding is merely a designation [for its purpose], and a mere designation is of no consequence. THE DIMINUTION, HOWEVER, MAY NOT TAKE PLACE ON THE FESTIVAL. But if he transgressed and did pluck them, how is it? Is it valid? But then, when did it become black? If you will say that it became black from the previous day, then it is a disability from the very outset. Why then may it not be deduced therefrom that a disability from the very outset is no disability? Consequently it must be conceded, must it not, that it became black on the Festival. It is thus a case of being fit and then disabled. May it then be deduced therefrom that if anything was fit and then suffered a disability it may become fit again? — No! Indeed it refers to where it became black before the Festival; and that a disability from the very outset is no disability you may well deduce therefrom; but that where it was fit and then suffered a disability it becomes fit again you may not deduce therefrom. Our Rabbis taught, The diminution may not take place on the Festival. In the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon they said that it may be diminished. But is he not improving an object on the Festival? — R. Ashi said, This is a case where he plucked them for food, and R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon maintains the same opinion as his father who said that a work which is done without intention is permitted. But do not both Abaye and Raba say that R. Simeon admits in the case of ‘cut off his head, but let him not die’ [that it is forbidden]? — Here we are dealing with a case where he has another hoshanna. Our Rabbis taught, If the binding became loosened on the Festival, he may bind it as one binds vegetables. But why [should this be necessary]? Why should not one make a proper loop? — [This statement is] according to R. Judah who says that a loop is to be considered a proper knot. But if it is according to R. Judah, should not a proper binding be required? The Tanna [of the Baraitha] agrees with R. Judah on one point and disagrees with him on the other. MISHNAH. A STOLEN OR WITHERED WILLOW-BRANCH IS INVALID. ONE FROM AN ASHERAH OR FROM A CONDEMNED CITY IS INVALID. ONE WHOSE TIP WAS BROKEN OFF OR WHOSE LEAVES WERE SEVERED, OR A MOUNTAIN WILLOW IS INVALID. ONE THAT WAS SHRIVELLED OR HAD LOST SOME OF ITS LEAVES, OR ONE GROWN IN A NATURALLY WATERED SOIL, IS VALID. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught, Willows of the brook means those which grow by a brook. Another interpretation of ‘willows of the brook’ is one whose leaf is elongated as a brook. Another Baraitha taught: ‘Willows of the brook’, [might mean] willows of the brook only. Whence do we know that those grown on naturally watered soil and mountain willows [are also valid]? Scripture expressly states, ‘willows of the brook’, i.e., from any place.
—