Parallel
סוכה 33
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,
—
[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.
—