Parallel
סוכה 36
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
since the former refers to where all of it [was peeled], the latter to where only a part was peeled. SPLIT, PERFORATED. ‘Ulla b. Hanina learned, If it is completely perforated [it is invalid even if the hole is] of the minutest size; if it is not completely perforated [the hole must be of the minimum size] of an issar. Raba enquired: If there developed in an ethrog the symptoms [which render an animal] terefah, what is the law? — But concerning what does he inquire? If concerning [an ethrog which is] peeled, have we not [already] learnt it? If concerning one that is split have we not learnt it also? If concerning one that is perforated. have we not learnt it also? — The enquiry he raised was concerning [the law] ‘Ulla cited in the name of R. Johanan [who taught], If the [contents of the] lung pour out as from a ladle [the animal] is fit to be eaten, and Raba explained that this applies only when the arteries are still whole, but if the arteries are rotted [the animal is] terefah. Now what is the ruling here? Is it possible that this applies to the former case only, where, since the air cannot affect it, it could become healthy again, but not in the latter case where, since the air can affect it, it inevitably decays, or is it possible that there is no difference? — Come and hear: An ethrog which is swollen, decayed, pickled, boiled, and Ethiopian, white or speckled, is invalid. An ethrog which is round as a ball is invalid. And some add if two are grown together. If an ethrog is half-ripe, R. Akiba declares it invalid, and the Sages valid. If it was grown In a mould, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid. At any rate it teaches ‘swollen or decayed’, which implies, does it not, swollen from without or decayed from within? No! Both refer to the exterior, and yet there is no discrepancy. The one refers to a case where the ethrog is swollen even although it is not decayed; the other to a case where it was decayed without being swollen. The Master has said, An Ethiopian ethrog is invalid. But has it not been taught, If it is Ethiopian it is valid, if it is like an Ethiopian, it is invalid? — Abaye answered, In our Mishnah also we learned of one that is like an Ethiopian. Raba answered, There is no difficulty. The former refers to us, the latter to them. A half-ripe ethrog, R. Akiba declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid. Rabbah observed, Both R. Akiba and R. Simeon say the same thing. As to R. Akiba there is the statement just quoted. But what is the ruling of R. Simeon? — That which we have learnt: R. Simeon declares ethrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small. Said Abaye to him, But perhaps it is not so! R. Akiba may uphold his view only here, since the ethrog must be ‘goodly’, which [an unripe ethrog] is not, but there he may hold the opinion of the Rabbis; or else, R. Simeon may have maintained his view only here, since it is written, Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed, [which confines liability to tithe to such fruit only] as men bring forth for sowing, but in the present instance he might agree with the Rabbis,
—
and there is nothing more [to say about it]. ‘If it was grown in a mould, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid.’ Raba stated, They taught this Only in the case where ‘it has the appearance of another species’, but if it has its natural shape it is valid. But is not this obvious, seeing that it was taught, ‘the appearance of another species’? — It was necessary only in a case where it was moulded in the shape of planks joined together. It was stated: An ethrog which has been gnawed by mice, Rab ruled, is no longer ‘goodly’. But it is not so? Did not R. Hanina in fact, taste a part of it, and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]? — Does not then our Mishnah present a contradiction against R. Hanina? — One might well explain that our Mishnah presents no contradiction against R. Hanina since the former might refer to the first day of the Festival, while the latter might refer to the second day; but [does not R. Hanina's ruling present] a contradiction against Rab? — Rab can answer you: [The gnawing by] mice is different, since they are repulsive. Others says, Rab ruled that it is ‘goodly’ since R. Hanina tasted a part [of an ethrog] and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]. But does not our Mishnah present a contradiction against R. Hanina? — There is really no contradiction, since the former refers to the first day of the Festival, while the latter refers to the second day. THE MINIMUM SIZE OF AN ETHROG etc. Rafram b. Papa observed: As is the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to rounded pebbles. For it has been taught, It is permitted on the Sabbath to carry three rounded smooth pebbles into [a field] lavatory. And what must be their size? R. Meir ruled, The size of a nut, R. Judah ruled, That of an egg. THE MAXIMUM SIZE etc. It was taught: R. Jose related, It happened with R. Akiba that he came to Synagogue with his ethrog on his shoulder. R. Judah answered him, Is this a proof? They in fact said to him, This ethrog is not ‘goodly’. MISHNAH. THE LULAB MAY BE BOUND ONLY WITH [STRANDS OF] ITS OWN SPECIES; SO R. JUDAH. R. MEIR SAYS IT MAY BE BOUND EVEN WITH A CORD. R. MEIR OBSERVED, IT ACTUALLY OCCURRED THAT THE MEN OF JERUSALEM USED TO BIND THEIR LULABS WITH STRANDS OF GOLD. THEY ANSWERED HIM, BUT THEY BOUND IT WITH [STRANDS OF] ITS OWN SPECIES UNDERNEATH [THE STRANDS OF GOLD]. GEMARA. Raba stated, A lulab may be bound even with bast, or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Raba further stated, What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species. Raba further stated, Whence do I deduce that bast and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written,] Ye shall dwell in Sukkoth [booths], which implies a Sukkah made of any material; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled, The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulab. And logic demands it: If the lulab which does not obtain by night as by day, is valid only with the Four Species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which obtains both by night and by day, shall be valid only with the Four Species? They answered him, Any a fortiori argument which begins with a restriction [of the law] and concludes with a relaxation [of it] is no valid argument.32
—