Sukkah 34a (לד.) — the Talmud in English

Abba Shaul says:

What is the meaning of what the verse says,

“willows”

of the brook, in the plural? It is not to include the willows of the בעל and the willows of the mountains; rather, it is to tell you that

there are two

—that is, there are two mitzvot involving the willow:

one for the

mitzva of

lulav, and one for the Temple,

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

And the Rabbis,

who interpret “willows” as including those of the בעל and those of the mountains—where do they derive the requirement of 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.]

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

As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

The law of

“ten saplings”

is as follows: Ten saplings evenly distributed within a beit se'a, which is fifty cubits by fifty cubits, with the distance between each sapling equal throughout, may be plowed throughout that beit se'a on the eve of the Sabbatical Year until Rosh HaShana.

Although there is a Torah mitzva to add from the profane to the sacred on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, as the Sages learned from the verse, “You shall desist from plowing and harvesting,” which refers to plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical Year that extends into the Sabbatical Year, and which may not be plowed thirty days before the Sabbatical Year, nevertheless, with regard to saplings, which would dry out and be ruined if one did not plow beneath them, it was stated to Moses at Sinai that it is permitted to plow beneath them until Rosh HaShana.

And if there are ten saplings evenly distributed 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 merely beneath them, since they draw nourishment from the entire beit se'a. But if there are fewer than ten, or if they are not distributed throughout the entire beit se'a, one plows beneath each one to the extent of its nourishment, calculated according to the ratio of ten to a beit se'a. [This is the law of ten saplings that was stated to Moses at Sinai.]

And likewise, the law of encircling the altar with

a willow, and

the law of

the water libation

in the Temple during the festival of Sukkot [as explained below, on page 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, excluding the צפצפה that grows among the mountains.

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse?

That is, from where did you learn that the צפצפה is inferior to the willow, so that it is so obvious to you to interpret the verse as excluding rather than including it? For you could interpret “willows of the brook,” in the plural, as including the צפצפה, which would also be fit for the mitzva of the willow? As it is written [Ezekiel 17:5]:

“He took of the seed of the land and planted it in a fertile field; he placed it beside abundant waters; he set it as a צפצפה.”

The verse there is intended as a rebuke of Zedekiah: God appointed him king over Jerusalem, but he served the king of Babylonia. That is, the “root planted in a seed field” was transformed and became a צפצפה, indicating that צפצפה is an expression of inferiority.

Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is merely an explanation,

and this is the meaning of the verse:

“He placed it beside abundant waters”—

the Holy One, blessed be He, granted Zedekiah authority and made him king over all those around him;

and what is it,

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

and according to this interpretation צפצפה is an expression of distinction.

The Gemara rejects this:

If so, what is

the significance of what is written,

“he set it,”

since the verse has already stated that he made him king, as it is written: “He took of the seed of the land and planted it beside abundant waters”?

Rabbi Abbahu said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before Me like “one placed beside abundant waters”—and what is it?

A willow

that grows by the water;

but they [Israel]

Israel

made themselves like the צפצפה among the mountains.

There are those who teach this verse [the one stated in Ezekiel]

that is stated in Ezekiel

with regard to the beraita.

That is, it was not Rabbi Zeira who interpreted the verse as referring to inferiority; rather, it is an explicit beraita that צפצפה is an expression of inferiority, and they taught Abaye’s objection in the name of Rabbi Zeira.

And this is what they taught:

“He placed it beside abundant waters; he set it as a צפצפה,”

which indicates an expression of inferiority.

Rabbi Zeira strongly objected to it: Perhaps it is merely an explanation: “He placed it beside abundant waters”—what is it? A צפצפה.

And the Gemara answers as above:

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

Rabbi Abbahu said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before Me like “one placed beside abundant waters”—and what is it? A willow; but they made themselves like the צפצפה among the mountains.

The Sages taught: What is a willow, and what is a צפצפה?

A willow has a branch

[the branch]

whose color is red, and its leaf is elongated

[oblong],

and its edge

the tip of the leaves

is smooth

and is not made of a series of serrations.

Whereas

a צפצפה has a white branch, a round leaf, and an edge resembling a sickle

whose entire edge is serrated.

The Gemara asks: How can you say that a willow has a smooth edge?

But it was taught

in a beraita: A willow that

resembles a sickle,

whose serrations all incline toward one side, is

fit. But

one that

resembles a saw,

whose serrations point inward and do not incline to one side is

disqualified.

It is thus explicit that a willow resembling a sickle is fit, whereas you say that this is one of the signs of the צפצפה?!

Abaye said: When that was taught, it was with regard to the חילפא גילא,

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

Abaye said: Learn from this

beraita that

this חילפא גילא is fit for the hoshanah.

And the Gemara expresses surprise:

It is obvious

that it is fit, since it is a willow, is it not?

The Gemara explains:

Lest you say: Since it has an accompanying name,

as it is not called simply a willow, but חילפא גילא,

it is not rendered fit,

since this is not the willow mentioned in the Torah,

it teaches us otherwise.

But say that this is indeed so:

should we disqualify this willow for that reason?

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

and this indicates

in any event.

That is, it includes all species of willow, even the חילפא גילא.

Rav Hisda said: These three matters changed their names

[their names changed]

when the Temple was destroyed:

[צפצפה] changed its name to

whereas

[an ordinary willow] had its name changed to

What practical difference does

this change of name make?

For

the mitzva of

lulav.

The species now called ערבתא is disqualified for the mitzva of lulav, whereas the species now called חלפתא is fit.

Likewise,

the shofar

of a ram, which is bent, is now called

a trumpet,

whereas

the trumpet

that is straight and not made from a ram is now called

a shofar.

What practical difference does this make? For

the mitzva of sounding

the shofar of Rosh HaShana.

The shofar now called shofar is disqualified for sounding.

Likewise, a large table and a small table—one of them had been called a patora and the other a patortha, but now their names have changed, and they call

the patortha a patora,

and

the patora a patortha.

For what practical difference?

With regard

to

buying and selling.

If the seller and buyer agreed regarding a patortha, he must give him the item that is now called by that name.

Abaye said: I too say

that there is another matter whose name changed:

the bei kasei,

a place in the animal’s stomach called the omasum, which is shaped like a hat and a cup and whose wall is as thick as two walls; formerly it was customarily called

the hublila,

whereas what we now call

the hublila,

which is the reticulum, was customarily called

the bei kasei.

For what practical difference?

With regard to a needle found in the thickness of the omasum.

As we learned in tractate Hullin [page 50b]: With regard to a needle found in the thickness—that is, in the wall—of the omasum, if it was embedded from one side, meaning that it was embedded in its thickness but did not perforate the omasum all the way through, the animal is fit, since the perforation is sealed. But if it perforated it all the way through, the animal is a tereifa. This distinction applies only to the omasum, whose walls are thick. But in the reticulum, whose wall is thin, any perforation renders the animal a tereifa.

Rava bar Yosef said: I too say

that there is another matter whose name changed:

Babylonia

is now called

Borsif,

whereas the place formerly called

Borsif

is now called

Babylonia.