סוכה 37 — parallel

37:1

For suppose he could not find all the Four Species, he would be sitting and doing nothing while the Torah said, ‘Ye shall dwell in booths for seven days.’ implying a Sukkah of whatever material. And so with Ezra it says, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees to make Sukkoth, as it is written. And [what does] R. Judah [answer to this verse?] — He is of the opinion that the other [species] were for the walls, while the ‘myrtle branches and palm-branches and branches of thick trees’ were for Sukkah — covering. And [nevertheless] we have learnt, Planks may be used as a Sukkah-covering, these are the words of R. Judah. Thus it clearly follows that bast and roots of date-palms are a species of palm-tree. This is conclusive. But did R. Judah rule that the Four Species alone [are valid] and not anything else? — Was it not in fact taught, ‘If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, it is invalid according to all. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, but R. Meir admits that, if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place laths between them and the Sukkah is valid’? — What is meant by ‘cedar’? Myrtle. This is in agreement with Rabbah son of R. Huna, since Rabbah son of R. Huna stated, In the school of Rab they said that there were ten species of cedar, as it is said, I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, and the myrtle etc. R. MEIR SAYS EVEN WITH A CORD. It has been taught: R. Meir said, It occurred with the nobility of Jerusalem that they bound their lulabs with [strands of] gold. They said to him, Is that evidence? They bound it in fact with strands of its own species underneath. Rabbah said to those who bind the hoshanna at the house of the Exilarch, ‘When you bind the hoshannas at the house of the Exilarch, [be careful to] leave a handle so that there should be no interposition’. Raba [however] ruled, Whatever is used to beautify it constitutes no interposition. Rabbah further stated, A man shall not hold the hoshanna with a scarf, because it is required that the ‘taking’ shall be complete, and in this case it is not. Raba, however, ruled, Taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’. Whence, said Raba, do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learnt: If the hyssop is too short, it may be made to suffice with a thread or with a reed and so it is dipped and brought up, but one must hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Now why [is this permitted]? Did not the Divine Law say, And he shall take hyssop and dip? May we not then deduce therefrom that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’? — But whence the proof? That case perhaps is different; since [the thread or reed] was joined on [to the hyssop], it is regarded as part of it? — In fact [the deduction is made] from the following: [If the ashes of the Red Heifer] fell [of their own accord] from their tube into the trough they are invalid.30

—

37:2

From this it follows that if the man himself threw them into the water they are [presumably] valid. Now why [should that be so]? Did not the Divine Law say, And they shall take of the ashes . . . and he shall put? May we not then deduce that taking by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’. Rabbah further stated, One should not thrust the palm-branch through the bound willow and myrtle lest some leaves are detached and thus form an interposition. Raba, however, ruled, A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition. Rabbah further stated, One should not shear the palm-branch while it is in the wreath, since loose leaves might remain and form an interposition, Raba however ruled, A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition. Rabbah further stated, it is forbidden to smell a myrtle branch [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment, but it is permitted to smell an ethrog [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment. What is the reason? — The myrtle — since it is used as perfume, when it is set apart [for ritual purposes] is set apart from [use as a] perfume: the ethrog, however, since it is used as food, when it is set apart [for ritual purposes] it is set apart [only] from [use as] food. Rabbah further stated, If a myrtle is attached to the ground, it may be smelt; if an ethrog is attached to the ground, it may not be smelt. What is the reason? — The myrtle, since it is used as a perfume, [even] if you permit it [to be smelt], the man would not be tempted to cut it; the ethrog, however, since it is used for food, if you permit it [to be smelt] the man might be tempted to cut it. Rabbah further stated, The lulab [must be held] in the right hand and the ethrog in the left. What is the reason? The former constitutes three commandments and the latter only one. R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zerika, Why in the blessing do we say only ‘To take the palm-branch’? — Because it towers above the others. Then why should not one lift up the ethrog and recite the blessing over it? — The reason is, the other answered him, that as a species it naturally towers above all of them. MISHNAH. AND WHERE IS [THE LULAB] WAVED? AT THE COMMENCEMENT AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE PSALM, O GIVE THANKS UNTO THE LORD AND AT SAVE NOW, WE BESEECH THEE, O LORD. THESE ARE THE WORDS OF BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI SAY, ALSO AT O LORD WE BESEECH THEE, SEND NOW PROSPERITY. R. AKIBA STATED, I WATCHED R. GAMALIEL AND R. JOSHUA, AND WHILE ALL THE PEOPLE WERE WAVING THEIR LULABS [AT OTHER VERSES], THEY WAVED THEM ONLY AT SAVE NOW, WE BESEECH THEE, O LORD. GEMARA. Who has ever mentioned the name of waving [of the lulab]? — It was mentioned previously: A lulab which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and in reference to this the Mishnah says, AND WHERE IS THE LULAB WAVED? We have learnt elsewhere, As to the Two Loaves and the Two Lambs of Pentecost, how does one proceed? [The priest] places the two loaves upon the two lambs and places his hands beneath them and waves them forwards and backwards, upwards and downwards, as it is said, Which is waved and which is heaved up. R. Johanan explained, [One waves them] to and fro [in honour of] Him to Whom the four directions belong, and up and down [in acknowledgment of] Him to Whom are Heaven and Earth. In Palestine they taught us thus: R. Hama b. ‘Ukba stated in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina, He waves them to and fro in order to restrain harmful winds; up and down, in order to restrain harmful dews. R. Jose b. Abin, or, as some say, R. Jose b. Zebila, observed, This implies

—