Sukkah 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

And what is the leniency that you cite concerning him in this halakha: that if

he did not find four

the

species

with which to make his sukkah,

he should sit idle

from the mitzva of sukkah, since it is valid when made from other species,

as the Torah states: “You shall sit in sukkot for seven days,”

which implies

a sukkah made of anything.

And likewise Ezra says [Nehemiah 8:15]:

“Go out to the mountain and bring olive branches, branches of oil trees, branches of myrtles, branches of date palms, and branches of leafy trees, to make sukkot as it is written.”

And it is explicit that sukkot may also be made from other species and not only from the four species, since the olive tree is not one of the four species.

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that these

olive branches and branches of oil trees were brought not for the roofing but

for

the purpose of the

walls,

whereas

the branches of myrtles, date palms, and leafy trees

were brought

for roofing.

And

the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that the fiber and the core of the date palm are also considered of the species of the lulav is from the following, as

we learned: “One may roof with boards, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.”

But according to Rabbi Yehuda, the roofing must specifically be made from the four species, and it is impossible for boards to be made from the four species, apart from the core of the date palm;

apparently, the fiber and the core of the date palm are of the species of the lulav.

And we conclude:

Conclude from it.

The Gemara objects:

And did Rabbi Yehuda say

that the roofing of the sukkah must be from

the four species, yes, but

from

something else

not

may one make it?

But was it not taught in a beraita: If one roofed it with cedar boards that are four handbreadths wide, everyone agrees that it is invalid,

because of the decree concerning boards, as explained above, on 14b.

If they are not four handbreadths wide, Rabbi Meir deems it invalid, and Rabbi Yehuda deems it valid.

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is a space between one board and another equal to the width of a board,

one places valid roofing

[valid roofing]

between them, and it is valid.

[See there for the reason.]

In any event, it is clear that Rabbi Yehuda deems cedar boards valid, and does not require the roofing to be specifically from the four species?!

The Gemara answers:

What is “cedar”

that we learned in this Mishna?

Myrtle.

And this is

in accordance with the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna.

For Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and they said it in the academy: There are ten species of cedar, as it is stated [Isaiah 41:19]:

“I shall place in the wilderness cedar, acacia, and myrtle, etc.,”

and all of these are species of cedar.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says

[This binding can be made]

even with a cord: It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the distinguished men of

[the honored men of]

Jerusalem, who would bind their lulavim with golden chains,

which demonstrates that the binding need not specifically be of the species of the lulav.

They said to him: Is that proof? They would bind it with its own species below.

Rabba said to those who bound the hoshanot

[the lulavim]

of the house of the Exilarch: When you bind the hoshanot of the house of the Exilarch, leave a handgrip in it

beneath the binding, so that that place will not be covered by the material with which it is bound,

so that there will not be a separation

between the hand and the lulav, which would constitute a deficiency in taking it.

And the reason for this is that Rabba maintains that a lulav does not require binding, and since the binding is not part of the mitzva, it constitutes a separation.

Rava said:

Although a lulav does not require binding, the binding does not constitute a separation with regard to the lulav, and it is unnecessary to leave a handgrip in it, because

anything

that is done for

its beautification does not constitute a separation.

And Rabba said: A person should not take the hoshanah

[the lulav and its species]

with a cloth, for we require a complete taking,

complete,

and there is none.

For if there is an interruption between his hand and the lulav, this is not considered taking it.

Whereas

if

Rava said: Taking through another object is considered taking.

That is, although he takes the lulav through a cloth, this is not a deficiency in the taking.

Rava said: From where do I say that taking through another object is considered taking?

As we learned

with regard to the water of the Parah Adumah: They would bring it from city to city in long tubes made of reeds and store it for the purification of those who were impure, and the koen would dip the hyssop into it and sprinkle.

And if the

hyssop was short

and did not reach the water at the bottom of the tube,

he would extend it

[lengthen it sufficiently]

with a thread and a spindle

[a distaff],

and immerse

it in the water,

and

afterward he would

raise

it

and hold the hyssop and sprinkle.

It follows that at the time the hyssop was immersed in the water, the hyssop was not in the koen’s hand; rather, he held the thread attached to it. And if taking through another object is not considered taking,

why

is it effective in such a case? After all,

“And he shall take

hyssop

and immerse it,” the Merciful One states,

implying that at the time of immersion, taking is required—that the hyssop be in the koen’s hand?

Rather, is it not evident from this that taking through another object is considered taking?

Nevertheless, when he sprinkles, he must hold the hyssop and not the thread. For if he holds it by the thread, it will sway back and forth and will not be directed toward the person, and it is likely that he will sprinkle onto the vessel rather than onto the person being purified.

The Gemara rejects this:

From where? Perhaps there it is different, since he attached it

to the thread,

it is considered like its body,

and it is not considered taking through another object. By contrast, if he holds it with a cloth, which is not attached to it, perhaps in such a case it would be considered taking through another object and would not be effective.

Rather, from here

is this proven: The procedure for preparing the water of the Parah Adumah was as follows: They brought the ashes of the cow in a tube; simultaneously, they consecrated the water in a stone trough, and afterward placed the ashes into it. For the Sages learned from the verse [Numbers 19:17], “And he shall place upon it living water into a vessel,” that the water must first be placed in the vessel, and only afterward may the ashes be added, so that the ashes would not intervene between the water and the vessel.

And likewise, if

the ashes fell

from

the

the

tube into the trough

unintentionally, they are

invalid

for the consecration of the water. For it is written [ibid.]: “And they shall take of the ashes of the burnt sin-offering and place it, etc.,” which implies that he must take the ashes in his hand and place them into the water, and not that they fall in on their own.