Parallel
סוכה 34
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Abba Saul says, Willows [in the plural means] two, one for the lulab and one for the Sanctuary. And whence do the Rabbis deduce [the law of the willow] for the Sanctuary? — They had this as an accepted tradition; for R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan, The laws of ten plants, the willow-branch and the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai. Our Rabbis taught, ‘Willows of the brook’ means those that grow by the brook excluding the zafzafah which is a willow that grows on the mountains. R. Zera said, Where is its Scriptural support? — He placed it beside many waters, he set it as a zafzafah. Abaye said to him, Is it not possible that [the latter part] is merely an explanation: ‘He placed it beside many waters’, and what was it? A zafzafah? — If so, what was the need for ‘he set it’? R. Abbahu explained it: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, I intended that Israel should be before Me as something placed beside many waters, that is, a willow, but they have made themselves as a zafzafah of the mountains. Some teach this verse in connection with the Baraitha: ‘He placed it beside many waters, he set it as a zafzafah’. To this R. Zera demurred, Is it not possible that [the latter part] is merely an explanation: ‘He placed it beside many waters’ and what was it? A zafzafah? — If so, what could be the meaning of ‘he set it’? R. Abbahu explained it: The Holy One, blessed be He, said, I intended that Israel should be before Me as something placed beside many waters, that is, a willow, and they have made themselves as a zafzafah of the mountains. Our Rabbis taught, What is a willow and what a zafzafah?--The willow has a red stem, an elongated leaf and a smooth edge; the zafzafah has a white stem, a round leaf and an edge serrated like a sickle. But has it not been taught, If it is like a sickle it is valid, if like a saw it is invalid? — Abaye said. That was taught only with regard to the rounded willow. Abaye said, Deduce therefrom that a rounded willow is valid for the hoshanna. But is not this obvious? — I would have said that since it has a distinctive name it would be thereby invalid, therefore he informs us [that it is not so]. But perhaps it is indeed so? — ‘Willows of the brook’, says the Divine Law, implying from any place. R. Hisda said, Since the destruction of the temple the following three things have had their names interchanged. [What was formerly called] hilpetha [is now called] ‘arabta, and what was called ‘arabta, is now called hilpetha. What does that legally matter?-With regard to the lulab. [What was before called] shifora [is now called] hazozerah, and what was hazozerah is now shifora. In what respect does this legally matter? — In respect of the shofar for the New Year. [What was formerly called] pathora [is now called] pathorta, and what was pathorta is now pathora. In what respect does this matter legally? — In respect of business transactions. Abaye said, l also add [that what was formerly called] be kase [is now called] hublila, and the former hublila is now be kase. In what respect does this legally matter? — In respect of a needle found in the fleshy part of the second stomach. Raba b. Joseph said, I also add that [what was formerly called] Babylon [is now called] Borsif and the former Borsif is now Babylon. In what legal respect
—
does this matter? — In respect of bills of divorcement? MISHNAH. R. ISHMAEL SAYS, [ONE MUST HAVE] THREE MYRTLE-BRANCHES, TWO WILLOW-BRANCHES, ONE PALM-BRANCH AND ONE ETHROG. EVEN IF TWO [OF THE MYRTLE-BRANCHES] HAVE THEIR TIPS BROKEN OFF AND [ONLY] ONE IS WHOLE [THE WREATH IS VALID]. R. TARFON SAYS, EVEN IF ALL THREE HAVE THEIR TIPS BROKEN OFF. R. AKIBA SAID, JUST AS [IT IS NEEDED TO HAVE BUT] ONE PALM-BRANCH AND ONE ETHROG, SO [IT IS NEEDED TO HAVE BUT] ONE MYRTLE-BRANCH AND ONE WILLOW-BRANCH. GEMARA. It has been taught, R. Ishmael said, ‘The fruit of a goodly tree’ implies one; ‘Branches of palm-trees’ implies one; ‘boughs of thick trees’ implies three; ‘willows of the brook’ implies two, and even if two [of the myrtle-branches] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the wreath is valid]. R. Tarfon said, [There must be] three, [and they are valid] even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiba said. Just as [it is necessary to have but] one palm-branch and one ethrog, so [it is necessary to have but] one myrtle-branch and one willow-branch. R. Eliezer said to him, If one should say that the ethrog should be bound with them in one bundle you can answer, Is it then written, ‘The fruit of a goodly tree and branches of palm-trees’? It says only, ‘The fruit of a goodly tree, branches of palm-trees’. And whence do we know that they are a hindrance to one another? Scripture teaches, ‘And ye shall take’. [implying] that the taking must be complete. As to R. Ishmael, whichever view he takes [he is inconsistent]. For if he demands that the myrtle-branches] be whole, why should he not demand that they all be whole, and if he does not demand it, why should even one [have to be whole]? — Said Bira'ah in the name of R. Ammi, R. Ishmael recanted from this view. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel, The halachah is in agreement with R. Tarfon. And Samuel is consistent; for in his view [expressed elsewhere] Samuel said to those who sold myrtle. ‘Sell at the normal price, for if not, I will expound to you as R. Tarfon’. What is his reason? If you will say that he wished to take a lenient view, why did he not expound to them as R. Akiba who is still more lenient? — Three with broken tips are common, one with an unbroken tip is uncommon. MISHNAH. AN ETHROG WHICH IS STOLEN OR WITHERED IS INVALID. ONE FROM AN ASHERAH OR A CONDEMNED CITY IS INVALID. IF IT WAS OF ‘ORLAH OR OF UNCLEAN TERUMAH IT IS INVALID. IF IT WAS OF CLEAN TERUMAH HE SHOULD NOT TAKE IT, BUT IF HE DID TAKE IT, IT IS VALID. IF IT WAS DEMAI, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE IT INVALID, AND BETH HILLEL DECLARE IT VALID. IF IT WAS OF SECOND TITHE, IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN [EVEN] IN JERUSALEM, BUT IF HE TOOK IT, IT IS VALID. IF THE LARGER PART OF IT IS COVERED WITH SCARS, OR IF ITS NIPPLE IS REMOVED, IF IT IS PEELED, SPLIT, PERFORATED, SO THAT ANY PART IS MISSING, IT IS INVALID. IF ITS LESSER PART ONLY IS COVERED WITH SCARS, IF ITS STALK WAS MISSING, OR IF IT IS PERFORATED BUT NAUGHT OF IT IS MISSING, IT IS VALID. AN ETHIOPIAN ETHROG IS INVALID. IF IT IS GREEN AS A LEEK, R. MEIR DECLARES IT VALID AND R. JUDAH DECLARES IT INVALID. THE MINIMUM SIZE OF AN ETHROG, R. MEIR SAYS, IS THAT OF A NUT. R. JUDAH SAYS THAT OF AN EGG. THE MAXIMUM [SIZE] IS SUCH THAT TWO CAN BE HELD IN ONE HAND. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. JOSE SAID, EVEN ONE [THAT HE CAN HOLD ONLY] IN BOTH HIS HANDS.
—