Sukkah 37a — the Talmud in English

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

he did not find four

the

species

with which to make his sukka—

he should sit idle

from the mitzva of sukka, since it is valid with other species,

and the Torah said: “In sukkot you shall dwell seven days”

and it implies—

a sukka of every material.

And likewise Ezra says [Nehemiah 8:15]:

“Go out to the mountain, and bring olive leaves and oil-tree leaves and myrtle leaves and palm leaves and leafy-tree leaves, to make sukkot as it is written.”

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

And Rabbi Judah held: these

olive leaves and oil-tree leaves were not brought for the sake of the roofing, but

for

the

walls,

whereas

myrtle leaves and palm leaves and leafy-tree leaves

they would bring

for the roofing.

And

a source for Rabbi Judah’s statement that fiber and the core of the date palm are considered of the species of the lulav is from that which

we learned: They roof with boards, the words of Rabbi Judah.

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

therefore, it follows: fiber and the core of the date palm are of the species of the lulav.

And we conclude:

infer from it.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And did Rabbi Judah say

that the roofing of the sukka must be from

the four species, yes. But

from

something else—

no

do we make it?

But it was taught in a beraita: If he roofed it with cedar boards that have four handbreadths, everyone agrees that it is invalid,

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

If they do not have four handbreadths, Rabbi Meir declares it invalid, and Rabbi Judah declares it valid.

And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between one board and another the width of a board—

that he places invalid roofing

valid roofing]

between them, and it is valid. [See there concerning the reason for the matter.]

See there for the reason.]

And in any event, it is explicit that Rabbi Judah declares valid cedar boards, and does not require that the roofing be specifically from the four species?!

The Gemara answers:

What is “cedar”

that we learned in this Mishna?

Myrtle.

And

in accordance with [the statement of] Rabba bar Rav Huna.

For Rabba bar Rav Huna said: They said in the school of Rav: There are ten species of cedars, as it is stated [Isaiah 41:19]:

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

for all of these are species of cedars.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says [this bond one can make]

even with a cord:

it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Meir said: An incident [occurred] with the distinguished men

of

Jerusalem, who would bind their lulavs with golden cords,

and it is demonstrated that the bond need not specifically be from the species of the lulav.

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

Rabba said to those who bound the hoshanot

of

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

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

so that there will not be an interposition

between the hand and the lulav, which is a deficiency in taking.

And the reason for the matter is that Rabba held that a lulav does not require a bond, and since the bond is not part of the mitzva, it constitutes an interposition.

Rava said:

Although a lulav does not require a bond, the bond does not constitute an interposition with the lulav, and it is not necessary to leave a handhold in it, because

anything

that is made in order

to beautify it does not constitute an interposition.

And Rabba said: A person should not take a hoshanah

a lulav and its species

with a cloth, for we require complete taking,

complete,

and there is none.

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

And

whereas

Rava said: Taking by means of another object is considered taking.

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

Rava said: From where do I say that taking by means of another object is considered taking?

For we learned

concerning the water of purification, which they would bring from city to city in long reed tubes and conceal for the purpose of purifying the impure, and the koen would dip the hyssop into them and sprinkle.

And if the

hyssop was short,

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

he supplies it

lengthening it to the extent needed

with a thread and a spindle

a distaff,

and immerses

it in the water,

and

afterward he

raises

it,

and holds the hyssop and sprinkles.

It emerges that at the time of immersing the hyssop in the water, the hyssop was not in the koen’s hand, but the thread tied to it was; and if it were said that taking by means of another object is not considered taking,

why

is it effective in such a case? For

“And he shall take

hyssop

and immerse” the Merciful One said,

and it implies that at the time of immersion we require taking—that the hyssop be in the koen’s hand?

Rather, is it not to be inferred from it: Taking by means of 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 moves back and forth, and he does not direct it toward the person, and it is likely that he will sprinkle on the vessel and not on the person being purified.

The Gemara rejects this:

From where [is this proof]? Perhaps there it is different, since he attached it

to the thread,

it is considered like its body,

and it is not considered taking by means of another object. But this is not so when he holds it with a cloth, which is not attached to it; it is possible that in such a case it would be considered taking by means of another object, and it would not be effective.

Rather, from here

he proves it: The procedure for preparing the water of purification was as follows: They would bring the ashes of the cow in a tube; at the same time, they would sanctify the water in a stone trough, and afterward they would place the ashes into it. For so the Sages learned from the verse [Numbers 19:17], “And he shall put living water upon it into a vessel”: First they place the water in the vessel, and only afterward add the ashes, so that the ashes should not interrupt between the water and the vessel.

And likewise, if the

ashes fell

from the

tube

into the

trough

unintentionally—

it is invalid

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