Sukkah 32b — the Talmud in English

And there is one who raises a contradiction between them -

there are those who would raise a contradiction between the words of the Mishna here, which validates iron-mountain palms, and the beraita, which invalidates them; and in connection with this contradiction it teaches us Abaye’s distinction.

It was taught

in our Mishna:

Iron-mountain palms are valid. But was it not taught

in a beraita: Iron-mountain palms are

invalid?!

Abaye said: It is not difficult: here

in our Mishna it is speaking

of when the top of this one reaches the side of the base of that one,

and therefore it validated it, whereas

here

in the beraita it is speaking

of when the top of this one does not reach the side of the base of that one,

and therefore it is invalid.

Rabbi Maryon said that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, and some say that Rabba bar Mari taught it in the name of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai: There are two date palms

two palm trees

in

a place whose name is

Gei ben Hinnom

adjacent to Jerusalem,

and smoke rises between them, and this is what we learned: Iron-mountain palms are valid, and this is the opening of Gehinnom.

We learned in the Mishna:

A lulav that has three handbreadths

so that one can shake it is valid:

Rav Judah said that Samuel said: The measure of myrtle and willow -

three

handbreadths,

and

the measure of a

lulav is four, so that the lulav protrudes from the myrtle

by the measure of

a handbreadth.

And the reason for this is that, within its species, it is taller than all of them, and the four species must be taken in the manner of their growth.

And Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yohanan

added to his words: The essential requirement applies to

the spine of the lulav,

which

must protrude from the myrtle by a handbreadth,

and it is not sufficient that the leaves of the lulav extending from the top of the spine are a handbreadth higher than the myrtle.

The Gemara asks: For

we learned

in our Mishna:

A lulav that has three handbreadths, so that one can shake it, is valid,

and it is explicitly evident that four handbreadths are not required as the measure of the lulav?!

The Gemara answers:

Say

this [that is, this is how the words of the Mishna are to be understood]: A lulav that has three handbreadths

and so that one can shake it,

that is, and in addition it has another handbreadth with which one can shake it,

is valid. And that handbreadth is

according to one master as he holds, and according to the other master as he holds.

That is, Samuel will explain that the upper leaves of the lulav protrude from the myrtle by a handbreadth, whereas Rabbi Yohanan will explain that this handbreadth is from the spine.

The Gemara now discusses whether the halakha follows Samuel, that this handbreadth is from the leaves, or Rabbi Yohanan, that it is from the spine:

Come and hear: The measure of myrtle and willow is three

handbreadths,

and a lulav -

four.

And the Gemara infers:

What, is it not

that this measure of four handbreadths is

together with

the

leaves,

and not according to Rabbi Yohanan!

The Gemara rejects this:

No, apart from the leaves.

That is, the spine itself must protrude from the myrtle by a handbreadth.

As for the matter itself, the measure of myrtle and willow -

three, and a lulav -

four:

Rabbi Tarfon says: With a cubit of five handbreadths.

The Gemara now understood that Rabbi Tarfon intended to say that the measure of myrtle and willow is a cubit of five handbreadths.

Rava said: May its Master forgive him

may his Master pardon him

—Rabbi Tarfon!

That is, he ought to ask forgiveness for his words, for they are astonishing words!

For

now

even a myrtle that is

thick

that is, whose leaves are arranged in nests, with three leaves emerging from each one, so that it looks like a chain made of successive plaits

, of

three

handbreadths,

we do not readily find

that is, we do not easily find it, for most of the long myrtles are wild myrtles, whose leaves do not emerge at an equal height in each nest

; a

five-handbreadth

one is certainly a question?

According to his words, no person would fulfill his obligation on the festival!

When Rav Dimi arrived

he explained that statement of Rabbi Tarfon and

said

that indeed Rabbi Tarfon also agrees that the measure of myrtle and willow is three handbreadths; rather, he intended to say that those three handbreadths must be large, as will be explained.

And so he said: A

cubit

that is ordinarily

of six handbreadths, make it of five

handbreadths; that is, each handbreadth shall be the measure of a handbreadth and a fifth, and with these handbreadths you shall measure the three handbreadths.

Remove from them

from those handbreadths,

three for the myrtle, and the remainder for the lulav.

That is, that fourth handbreadth which you added for the lulav shall also be of such handbreadths.

How much do they become

those three large handbreadths—that is, how many ordinary handbreadths are they

? -

Three

ordinary handbreadths

and three fifths.

The Gemara asks:

It is difficult: Samuel contradicts Samuel! For

here Rav Judah said that Samuel said: The measure of myrtle and willow -

three.

And it implies that three ordinary handbreadths suffice.

But

there

in another place

there [

Rav Huna said that Samuel said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Tarfon,

who says that their measure is in large handbreadths?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

Samuel was not precise

in his words here, when he said that their measure is three ordinary handbreadths; and the main point is as he ruled, that the halakha is according to Rabbi Tarfon, that these handbreadths are to be measured as large handbreadths.

The Gemara asks:

We may say that we say “he was not precise”

when the matter will result

in

stringency.

But

here, since Samuel was not precise in his words, the matter will result

in

leniency: people will think that the measure of three ordinary handbreadths suffices and will take myrtles that are less than the measure; and in such a case,

do we say, “he was not precise”?!

When Ravin arrived

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said: This is what Samuel meant:

A cubit of five handbreadths

ordinary ones,

make it

like one of

six

handbreadths. That is, divide this cubit into six handbreadths, and each one is found to be smaller than an ordinary handbreadth. And these handbreadths,

remove from them three for the myrtle

and willow,

and the remainder for the lulav.

That is, the fourth handbreadth of the lulav shall also be of these small handbreadths.

It follows according to this that Rabbi Tarfon came to be lenient, and this is what he said: Those three handbreadths by which the myrtle and willow are measured shall be small, so that they will be only half a cubit of a cubit of five handbreadths [whereas three ordinary handbreadths are half of a cubit of six handbreadths

].

And consequently,

how much do they become

those three small handbreadths [that is, how many ordinary handbreadths are they

],

two and a half.

The Gemara asks:

Ultimately, Samuel contradicts Samuel!

For here he said that the measure of myrtle and willow is three handbreadths, implying ordinary ones, whereas there he ruled according to Rabbi Tarfon, that three small handbreadths suffice?!

The Gemara answers:

Samuel was not precise

in his words, and here it is appropriate to say this, for

this is

that

for stringency he was not precise,

for because he was not precise in his words and said that three ordinary handbreadths are required, the matter will result in stringency; for as a matter of law, two and a half handbreadths suffice, which are three small handbreadths, for this is the halakha,

as Rav Huna said that Samuel said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Tarfon.

Mishna: A stolen myrtle and a dry one -

as Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Tarfon.

are invalid. [The stolen one because of “for you,” and the dry one because of “splendor.”]

One belonging to an asherah and one belonging to an apostate city - are invalid. [For its measure is crushed and reduced.] Its top was severed

is unfit. [

The stolen one is unfit because of the requirement “for yourselves,” and the dry one because of the requirement “splendid.”]

[of the spine

], or

its leaves were torn away,

its leaves having fallen,

or its berries were [like small green or red fruits that grow from the spine

]

more numerous than its leaves -

it is invalid,

for it does not have “splendor.”

But if he reduced them

those berries until they were fewer than its leaves -

it is valid.

And one does not reduce

them

on the Festival day

itself, but on the eve of the Festival, because of the prohibition of “repairing an object.” It is forbidden to repair something on a Festival and on Shabbat in order to make it fit for its purpose.

Gemara: The Sages taught: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 23:40]: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the branch of a thick-leaved tree,” and the meaning of the verse is that

on the Festival day

itself; rather, this must be done on the day before the Festival, because of the prohibition against “improving an object,” since one may not repair an object on a Festival or on Shabbat in order to make it fit for its purpose.

its

branches cover

[cover

]

its wood.

That is, the spine is entirely covered by the leaves, which are made like a plait and lie one upon the other.

And what is it

that has this wood whose branches cover it? -

You must say: This is the myrtle.

its wood.

That is, the spine must be completely covered by the leaves, which are arranged like a braid and lie one upon another.

And what is

this tree whose branches cover it?

The Gemara asks:

But say that this wood is an olive tree [an olive ], whose branches are all full of leaves; and because they are numerous, they cover most of the branch? The Gemara rejects this:

We require it to be thick,

that is, like the work of a plaited chain, with them arranged one upon another,

and

in an olive tree

there is not

this matter.

But say

that it is

a chestnut tree

[a chestnut tree

], whose leaves are plaited like a chain?

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

we require

that its

branches cover its wood, and this does not exist

in a chestnut tree, for its leaves are not close together and most of its spine is exposed.

The Gemara asks:

But say

that a thick-leaved tree means

oleander

[a thorny shrub whose leaves are made like a plait

]?

Abaye said: It is written:

“Its ways are ways of pleasantness”

[Proverbs 3:17],

and there is not

this matter in oleander, for the tips of its leaves are sharp like a needle and wound the hands.

Rava said: From here

we expound this law: As it is stated [Zechariah 8:19]:

“Love truth and peace,”

and this is neither truth nor peace, for it is made into a deadly poison.

The Sages taught: Plaited like a plait and resembling a chain—this is the myrtle.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

This is how the Sages expounded the verse:

“A branch of a thick-leaved tree”

is the myrtle, for it implies,

a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste—you must say: This is the myrtle.

A tanna taught: A thick-leaved tree - valid, and one that is not thick-leaved - invalid. What are the circumstances of a thick-leaved tree?

“A branch of a leafy tree”

is a myrtle, as it implies:

“A tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste”—you must say that this is a myrtle.

Rav Judah said: And it is when three and three

three

leaves

are positioned in

one

cluster,

meaning that all three emerge from one stem.

Rav Kahana said: Even if

there were

two

emerging from one stem,

and one

rose from below and rode upon them - it is valid.

Rav Aha, son of Rava

was

seeking

specifically

a

myrtle in which there was

two and one,

although if all three emerged from one stem, it would certainly be valid,

since it emerged

in this manner

from the mouth of Rav Kahana.

And it came to teach us that one should rely on this ruling ab initio.

Mar bar Amemar said to Rav Ashi: Father, that

myrtle whose leaves emerge two and one,

he calls it a wild myrtle,

so how do you take it?

The Sages taught: Most of its leaves fell

from each and every cluster,

and a minority remained on it -

it is valid, provided that its thickness remains.

so how can you take it?

The Sages taught: If most of its leaves fell

from each and every cluster,

and a minority remained—

it is fit, provided that its leafy growth remains intact.

And the Gemara is astonished:

This itself is difficult! You said: “If most of its leaves fell, it is fit,” and then you teach: “provided that its dense covering remains,”

but behold,

since two of them fall

from each nest, which are the majority of its leaves—

how can its dense covering

still remain?!