Sukkah 34a — the Talmud in English

Abba Shaul says:

what the Scripture said

“willows”

of the brook” in the plural is not to include willows of the cultivated land and of the mountains, but rather to tell you:

there are two

that is, there are two mitzvot involving the willow,

one for the

mitzva of

lulav, and one for the Temple,

for the Scripture commanded that the altar be encircled with willows [as explained below, on page 45a].

The Gemara raises an objection:

And the Rabbis,

who expound “willows” to include those of the cultivated land and of the mountains, from where do they derive that we require a willow

for the Temple?

The Gemara answers:

They received it as a halakha. [

That is, it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai].

As Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

the law of

“the ten saplings,”

namely, ten saplings distributed equally within a beit se’a, which is fifty cubits by fifty cubits, so that the distance between one sapling and another is equal in all of them: it is permitted to plow that beit se’a on the eve of the Sabbatical year until Rosh Hashanah.

And although it is a mitzva from the Torah to add from the non-sacred to the sacred on the eve of the Sabbatical year, as the Sages learned from the verse, “In plowing and in harvest you shall desist,” that this refers to plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical year that enters into the Sabbatical year, which one may not plow thirty days before the Sabbatical year, nevertheless, with regard to saplings, which, if one does not plow beneath them, will dry up and be ruined, it was stated to Moses at Sinai that it is permitted to plow beneath them until Rosh Hashanah.

And if there were ten saplings distributed equally throughout the entire beit se’a, it was stated to Moses at Sinai that it is permitted to plow the entire beit se’a for their sake, and not only beneath them, since they draw nourishment from the entire beit se’a. But if there were not ten but fewer, or if they were not distributed throughout the entire beit se’a, one plows beneath each and every one of them according to the measure of its nourishment, calculated according to ten per beit se’a. [This is the law of the ten saplings that was stated to Moses at Sinai].

And likewise the law of encircling the altar with

the willow, and

the law of

the pouring of the water

in the Temple during the festival of Sukkot [as explained below, on 48a]—all these laws are

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

The Sages taught: “Willows of the brook,” those that grow by the brook, to the exclusion of the poplar that grows among the mountains.

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse?

That is, from where did you learn that the poplar is inferior to the willow, so that it is obvious to you to expound the verse to exclude it and not to include it? For you could expound “willows of the brook,” in the plural, to include the poplar, since it too is fit for the mitzva of the willow? As it is written [Ezekiel 17:5]:

“He took of the seed of the land and placed it in a fruitful field; he set it as a willow.”

The intention of the verse there is to come with a rebuke against Zedekiah: God appointed him king over Jerusalem, and he served the king of Babylon. That is, that “root grasping a field of seed” changed and became a poplar, and it follows that “poplar” is an expression of inferiority.

Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is explaining,

and this is the intention of the verse:

“He took of the seed of the land”—

the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Zedekiah authority and appointed him king over all those surrounding him;

and what is it,

that is, what sort of distinguished kingship was it? It was like a

poplar,

and according to this interpretation, “poplar” is an expression of distinction.

The Gemara rejects this:

If so, what is

the meaning of this

“he set it,”

for the verse had already said that he appointed him king, as it is written: “He took of the seed of the land”?

Rabbi Abbahu said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before Me like “he took of the seed of the land,” and what is it?

A willow

that grows by the water;

but they

Israel

made themselves like the poplar among the mountains.

There are those who teach this verse

that is stated in Ezekiel

with regard to the beraita.

That is, it was not Rabbi Zeira who expounded the verse as referring to inferiority; rather, it is an explicit beraita that “poplar” is an expression of inferiority, and Abaye’s question was taught in the name of Rabbi Zeira.

And this is how they taught:

“He took of the seed of the land and set it as a poplar,”

and it follows that it is an expression of inferiority.

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to it: Perhaps it is explaining: “He took of the seed of the land”—what is it? A poplar.

And the Gemara answers as above:

If so, what is the meaning of “he set it”?

Rabbi Abbahu said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before Me like “he took of the seed of the land,” and what is it? A willow; but they made themselves like the poplar among the mountains.

The Sages taught: Which is a willow and which is a poplar?

A willow: its branch

the branch

is red, and its leaf is elongated

oblong,

and its edge

the tip of the leaves

is smooth

and is not made with notch after notch.

But

a poplar: its branch is white, its leaf is round, and its edge resembles a sickle

which is entirely notches.

And the Gemara raises an objection: How can you say that the edge of a willow is smooth?

But it was taught

we learned in a beraita: A willow that

resembles a sickle

whose notches all incline toward one of the sides

is fit. But

one that

resembles a saw

whose notches point inward and do not incline to the side —

is unfit.

And it is explained that a willow resembling a sickle is fit; so how can you say that this is one of the signs of a poplar?!

Abaye said: When that was taught, it was with regard to the hilfa gila,

which is one of the species of willow, and this species alone resembles a sickle. But an ordinary willow has a smooth edge.

Abaye said: Infer from this

beraita that

this hilfa gila is fit for the hoshana.

And we are astonished:

Is it obvious

that it is fit, since it is a willow?

And the Gemara explains:

What might you have said: Since it has an accompanying name,

since it is not called simply “willow,” but rather hilfa gila,

it was not declared fit,

since this is not the willow mentioned in the Torah;

it teaches us this.

And say that this is indeed so,

that we should invalidate this willow for this reason?

“Willows of the brook,” the Merciful One said,

and it follows

in any event.

That is, to include all species of willow, even hilfa gila.

Rav Hisda said: These three things had their names changed

their names changed

from the time the Temple was destroyed:

Halfta

poplar; its name changed to

aravta,

whereas

aravta

an ordinary willow; its name was exchanged for

halfta.

What practical difference does it make

that these names changed?

For the

mitzva of

lulav.

The one now called “aravta” is unfit for the mitzva of lulav, whereas the one called “halfta” is fit.

And likewise,

shofara,

the ram’s horn, which is bent, is now called

hatzotzreta,

whereas

hatzotzreta,

which is straight and is not a ram’s horn, is now called

shofara.

What practical difference does it make? For the

mitzva of sounding the

shofar of Rosh Hashanah.

That shofar now called shofara is unfit for sounding.

And likewise, a large table and a small table: one of them was called patورا and the other patورتא, and now their names changed, and they call

the patorta a patورا,

and

the patورا a patorta.

For what practical difference?

For

the matter of

purchase and sale.

If the seller and the buyer agreed on a patorta, he gives him what is now called by that name.

Abaye said: I too say

another thing whose name was exchanged:

bei kasei

a place in the animal’s stomach, called the “house of the cups,” which is made like a hat and like a cup, and whose wall is thick as two walls; formerly they were accustomed to call it

hublila,

whereas what we now call

hublila,

which is the omasum, they were accustomed to call

bei kasei.

For what practical difference?

Regarding a needle found in the thickness of the house of the cups.

For we learned in tractate Hullin [page 50b]: A needle found in the thickness—that is, in the wall—of the house of the cups: if it was embedded from one side, meaning that it was embedded in its thickness but the house of the cups was not pierced with a perforation passing through, it is fit, since it is sealed. But if it was pierced with a perforation passing through, it is a tereifa. This distinction applies only to the house of the cups, whose walls are thick. But in the hublila, whose wall is thin, every perforation renders it a tereifa.

Rava bar Yosef said: I too say

another thing whose name was exchanged:

Babylonia

is now called

Borsif,

whereas the place that was called

Borsif

is now called

Babylonia.