Sukkah

But why the extra two?1 - R. Isaac answered, They were a reward for the closing of the doors.2 But [why should not the outgoing course] say to the other, ‘Less for less’?3 — Abaye replied, ‘A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full-grown one [in the field]’.4 Rab Judah stated, In the same manner5 they6 divided the additional offerings.7 An objection was raised: ‘The outgoing course offered the Daily Morning Sacrifice and the additional offerings, and the incoming course offered the Evening Daily Sacrifice and the censers’;8 but it does not state, [does it,] that they divided the additional offerings? — That Tanna9 does not deal with the question of division. Rab objected, But the Tanna cited at the school of Samuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, for at the school of Samuel it was taught: The outgoing course offered the Daily Morning Sacrifice and the additional offerings; the incoming course offered the Daily Evening Sacrifice and the censers; four priests entered there,10 two from one course and two from the other and they divided the shewbread. But it does not mention that they divided the additional offerings. Is not this a refutation of Rab Judah? It is indeed a refutation. THE INCOMING COURSE DIVIDED IT IN THE NORTH. Our Rabbis taught, The incoming priests divided their shares in the north in order that it should be seen that they were the incoming course, and the outgoing priests divided theirs in the south, so that it should be seen that they were the outgoing course.11 [THE COURSE OF] BILGAH ALWAYS DIVIDED IT IN THE SOUTH. Our Rabbis taught, It happened that Miriam the daughter of Bilgah12 apostatized and married an officer of the Greek13 kings. When the Greeks14 entered the Sanctuary,15 she stamped with her sandal upon the altar, crying out, ‘Lukos! Lukos!16 How long wilt thou consume Israel's money! And yet thou dost not stand by them in the time of oppression!’ And when17 the Sages heard of the incident, they made her ring18 immovable and blocked up her alcove.19 Some however, say that the course [of Bilgah] was dilatory in coming20 and [that of] Jeshebeab his brother21 , entered with him and served in their stead. Although the neighbours of the wicked have no profit [from their proximity]22 the neighbours of Bilgah23 did have profit, since [after the imposition of the penalty, the course of] Bilgah always24 divided their shares in the south, while that of his brother Jeshebeab did it25 in the north.26 It is well according to him who stated27 that his28 course was dilatory in coming, since for this reason the whole course might well be penalized; but according to him who stated29 that it was Miriam the daughter of Bilgah who apostatized, do we [it may be objected] penalize [even a] father on account of his daughter? Yes, replied Abaye, as the proverb has it, ‘The talk of the child in the market-place, is either that of his father or of his mother’.30 May we then penalize the whole course on account of her father or mother? — ‘Woe’, replied Abaye ,’to the wicked, woe to his neighbour;31 it is well with the righteous and well with his neighbour; as it is said, Say ye of the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings’.32 outgoing one? in its turn be one less. [Buchler, Priester, p. 76, n. 3 places this incident during the Roman wars, the terms Greek and Roman being frequently interchangeable in the Talmud]. situation rather than to its voraciousness, v. Gen. R. XCIX and Brull, Jahrbucher I, p. 63]. have been quoted merely in order to conclude the Tractate with a happy Scriptural verse.