meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Moed/Sukkah/English/Daf Shevui.txt"}
text: Sukkah
  סוכה
  Daf Shevui
  
  
  Sukkah
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it.
  One which is not ten handbreadths high, or which does not have three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid. 
  GEMARA. We have learned elsewhere : [The crossbeam] of an alley [whose entrance] is more than twenty cubits high should be lowered. Rabbi Judah says: this is unnecessary.
  Now why is it different that when it comes to the Sukkah it is declared invalid, while with when it comes to [the cross-beam over] the alley, a remedy is indicated?
  With regard to the Sukkah, since it is a toraitic mitzvah, it taught that it was invalid; with regard to [the cross-beam over] an alley, since it is only derabanan, a remedy is given. 
  And, if you wish, you may say that even with a toraitic mitzvah a remedy may be given, but with regard to the sukkah, since there are many rules about it, it was briefly stated, invalid. [While in the case of a cross-beam over] an alley, since it has only one rule, it taught a remedy. 
  From where do we know this?
  Rabbah answered: Scripture says,  "That your generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in sukkot" (Leviticus 23:43). Up to twenty cubits [high] one knows that he is dwelling in a sukkah, but with one higher than twenty cubits he does not ‘know’ that he is dwelling in a sukkah, since his eye does not catch sight of it.
  Rabbi Zera said: From the following verse,  "And there shall be a sukkah for shade in the daytime from the heat" (Isaiah 4:6). Up to twenty cubits [high] one sits in the shade of the sukkah; but with one higher than twenty cubits he sits, not in the shade of the sukkah but in the shade of its walls. 
  Abaye said to him: If so, if a man made his sukkah in Ashteroth Karnayim would it also not be a valid sukkah? 
  He answered him: In that case, remove the Ashteroth Karnayim and there will remain the shade of the sukkah, but here, remove the walls, and youn have no shade of a sukkah.
  Rava replied: From the following verse,  "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days" (Leviticus 23:42) the Torah declared: For seven days leave your permanent dwelling place and dwell in a temporary dwelling place.  Up to twenty cubits [high] one makes his home a temporary one; higher than twenty cubits, one does not make his home temporary, but permanent.
  Abaye said to him: If so, if he made walls of iron and placed the [proper] skhakh over them, would it also not be a valid Sukkah.
  He answered him: This is what I mean to tell you: Up to twenty cubits, which a man makes his temporary home, even if he makes it permanent,he has fulfilled his mitzvah;  [but in one] higher than twenty cubits, such as a man makes his permanent home, even if he makes it temporary, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
  
  Daf 2b
  
  Everybody did not say like Rabbah, [because]  that is knowledge through the generations.
  Also, they did not say like Rabbi Zeira,  [because] it was writing about the days of <i>Mashiah</i>.
  And Rabi Zeira? If that were true, let it say "and a canopy will be for shade in the daytime." And what [does it say]? "And a Sukkah will be for shade in the daytime." We learn both things from this.
  Also, they did not say like Rava because of Abaye's question.
  Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Yoshia in the name of Rav that the difference of opinion is where the walls do not reach the covering, but where the walls do reach the covering the sukkah is valid, even if it is higher than twenty <i>amos</i>? Whose ruling is followed? Like Rabbah's, whose reason is that:
  The eye does not detect it, but where the walls reach the covering, the eye does detect it.
  Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Huna in the name of Rav? That the difference of opinion is where the area of the Sukkah was only four <i>amos</i> square but where it was more than four <i>amos</i> square [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty <i>amos</i> it is kosher. Whose ruling is followed? Like Rabi Zeira, Who says:
  The [character of the] shade, and, since it is spacious- there is the shade of a Sukkah.
  Whose ruling is followed in the statement made by R. Chanan b. Rabbah in the name of Rav that the difference of opinion is only where [the Sukkah] can contain [only] a person's head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but where it is larger than this [both agree] that even if it is higher than twenty <i>amos</i> it is Kosher. Whose ruling is followed? No one's.  
  It is understandable that R. Yoshia disagrees with R. Huna and with R. Chanan b. Rabbah, since they lay down a [minimum] measurement in the extent [of the Sukkah] while he does not lay down a minimum measurement as to the extent [thereof];
  but [as regards] R. Huna and R. Chanan b. Rabbah,can we say that they differ on [what minimum of extent constitutes] the <i>kashrus</i> of the Sukkah the former, holding the opinion that the <i>kashrus</i> of the Sukkah [depends upon its being a minimum of] four <i>amos</i> [square] while the latter holds that The <i>kashrus</i> of the Sukkah [depends, upon its capacity of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table?
  No! Both agree that the <i>kashrus</i> of the Sukkah [depends upon its ability of] containing his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but here they differ on the following principle: the former, holding the opinion that They differ where the Sukkah [can] contain [only] his head, the greater part of his body, and his table, but if it is larger than this both agree that it is <i>kosher</i>,
  And the other, holding the opinion that holds the opinion that they differ [about a Sukkah whose size is] between [one capable of] containing his head, the greater part of his body and his table, and one four <i>amos</i> square, but if it is more than four <i>amos</i> square, both agree that it is <i>kosher</i>
  It was objected: A Sukkah which is higher than twenty <i>amos</i> is <i>pasul</i> And Rabi Yehudah [says] it is <i>kosher</i> up to forty or fifty <i>amos</i>
  Rabi Yehudah says: ‘It happened with Queen Heloni in Lud that her Sukkah was higher than twenty <i>amos</i>, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and spoke not a word to her [in disagreement]’. They [the <i>Chachamim</i>] said to him: Is this proof? She was a women, and therefor free from the [<i>mitzvah</i>] of Sukkah  He answered them: ‘Did she not have seven sons?  And besides, ... she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the <i>Chachamim</i>’.
  Why does he have to add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the <i>Chachamim</i>’?
  Thus he said to them: If you will answer [with regard to her seven sons] that her sons were minors, and minors are free from [the <i>mitzvah</i> of] the sukkah, since [however] she had seven, there must have been at least one who was [old enough] not to be dependent on his mother;
  And If you will answer [the duty of educating] a child who is not dependent on his mother is merely a Rabbinical decree, and she took no heed of a Rabbinical decree, I add ‘and besides, she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Sages’.
  Now this [Baraisa] is well according to the authority who says that their difference of opinion was in the case where the walls did not reach the covering; Since it is the custom of a queen to sit in a sukkah whose walls do not reach the roof,
  
  Daf 3a
  
  because of ventilation;  but according to the ruling who states that they differed only in the case of a small’ Sukkah, is it then customary for a queen to sit in a small Sukkah?  Rabbah bar Ada answered: The ruling was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah constructed with many recesses. 
  Is it then customary for a queen to sit in a sukkah with many recesses? ... Rav Ashi answered: [The ruling] was necessary only in the case of the recesses in it.
  The Rabbis hold the opinion that: her sons sat in the proper Sukkah, while she sat in one of the recesses for reasons of modesty, and hence they made no remark,    [While,]R. Judah was of the opinion that her sons sat with her, and still they made no remark.
  Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: The Halachah is that [the Sukkah] must be able to contain his head, the greater part of his body, and his table.  R. Abba said to him: [In] agreement with whom [is this ruling?] Like Bais Shammai? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: According to whom else? (I. E. Who else would it be?)
  Another version: R. Abba said to him: Who holds this opinion? He [Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak] said to him: ‘Beth Shammai, and do not change from it’. (I.E. to Bais Hillel)
  Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak objected: How do we know that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel are disputing about a small Sukkah? Perhaps their dispute concerns a large Sukkah, as for instance, where a man sat at the entrance of the Sukkah with his table inside the house, [with]Bais Shammai holding the opinion that we prohibit it lest he be drawn after the table,while Bais Hillel holds that  we do not prohibit it? 
  This, furthermore, may be deduced also [from the wording], for it was stated,  ‘If his head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah but his table was within the house, Bais Shammai [says] it's <i>pasul</i>, and Bais Hillel [says] it's <i>Kosher</i>;' but if it is [as you say] it should read, [If the Sukkah can] contain, or cannot contain [his head, etc.]. 
  But do they not dispute concerning a small Sukkah? Has it not in fact been taught: [If a Sukkah can] contain his head, the greater part of his body and his table, it is <i>kosher</i>. Rabi says: It must be four <i>amos</i>. 
  While in another [Baraitha] it has been taught: Rabbi says:  Any Sukkah which is not four <i>amos</i> square is invalid, while the Sages say: Even if it can contain only his head, and the greater part of his body it is <i>kosher</i>. Whereas of ‘his table’ there is no mention.  Does a contradiction not arise between the two [Baraisas]?  We must consequently infer therefrom  that: One is from Bais Shammai, and one is from Bais Hillel.
  Mar Zutra said: The wording of this Mishnah also proves it, since is says: ‘Bais Shammai declare it <i>pasul</i>, and Bais Hillel says it's <i>Kosher</i>’, and if it were [as you say] it should read Bais Shammai say’, He has not fulfilled his obligation while Bais Hillel say that he has.
  But do not the words, ‘He [whose head, etc.] were’ present a difficulty? 
  The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this:  ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says:  He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's <i>pasul</i> and Bais Hillel says it's <i>Kosher</i>.’ 
  Who is the authority for that which our Rabbis taught: ‘A house which is not four cubits square is free from the <i>mitzvos</i> of <i>Mezuzah</i> and <i>parapet</i>, does not contract uncleanliness from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the dwelling houses of a walled city,
  nor does one return on its account from the array of war, nor does and <i>Eruv</i> be prepared for it, nor <i>Shittuf</i>, nor does one place therein an <i>Eruv</i>
  
  Daf 3b
  
  nor make of it an extension between two cities, nor can brothers or partners divide it?
  Must we say that it agrees with Rabi, and not with the Rabbis? No! One can even say that it agrees with the Rabbis. The Rabbis say it only with regard to a Sukkah which is a temporary dwelling,  but with regard to a house which is a permanent dwelling, even the Rabbis admit that if it has an area of four <i>amos</i>, people live in it, otherwise, they do not dwell within.
  Master says: ‘It is free from the obligations of Mezuzah, and parapet, does not become <i>tamay</i> from leprosy, is not irredeemable among the houses of a walled city, nor does one return on  account [of it just being built] from the war’ What is the reason?  Because the term ‘house’ occurs in all [these commandments].
  ‘Nor does an <i>Eruv</i> be prepared for it, nor Shittuf, nor does one place within an <i>Eruv</i>’. What is the reason? Because it is unsuitable as a dwelling. Now the <i>Eruv</i> of courtyards is not placed within, but a Shittuf may be placed within. 
  What is the reason?  Since it is no worse than a courtyard within an alleyway, The <i>Tana</i> says:  ‘The <i>Eruv</i> of courtyards [are placed] in a courtyard, and the shittuf of an alley in the alley’.
  And the point was raised, [How can it be said that],  The <i>Eruv</i> of courtyards [are placed] in a courtyard?  And the <i>Tana</i> says: If a man placed his <i>Eruv</i> in a gatehouse or in an exedra (a semicircular recess), or in a ballcony, it is <i>asur</i> and he who dwells within it cannot be a cause of prohibition?
  We should say rather,  <i>Eruv</i>'s of courtyards [are placed] in a house of the courtyard, and the Shittufs of alleys in a courtyard of the alley; and this is no worse than a courtyard in an alley.  
  (Now going back to the Barissa)‘Nor make of it an extension between two cities’. Since it is not regarded even as an outpost. What is the reason?  Outposts are suitable for their purpose, but this [the four <i>amah</i> house] is unsuitable for anything.
  ‘Nor can brothers or partners divide it’.  Because it is not four <i>amos</i> by four <i>amos</i>, but if it were larger than four <i>amos</i>, [presumably] they could divide it.
  But have we not learnt,  A courtyard should not be divided unless there is four <i>amos</i> to each [of the parties]?
  Say rather, The law of division does not apply to it, as [it does in the case of] a courtyard.  For R' Huna ruled, ‘A courtyard is divided according to the number of its doors.’ (and) R' Chisda said,  ‘Four <i>amos</i> are given for each door and the remainder is divided equally’.
  This applies only to a house which is intended to stand, [and therefore] we allow it a [share in the] courtyard;  but as to this [a hovel] which is intended to be demolished, we do not allow it [a share in the] courtyard.
  [A sukkah where the shach] was taller than 20 amah, and [someone] came to lower it by putting pillows and blankets on the floor: It is not considered to have been lowered.
  
  Daf 4a
  
  And not even if he nullified them [completely], because his intention is nullified against other people's.
  Straw, and he nullified it: it is considered to be lowered, and all the more so earth that he nullified.
  Straw that he intends not to remove, and earth without thought to removal: It is an argument between Rabbi Yose and the Rabbis, as we learn in a Mishnah: A house that he filled with straw or stones, and he nullified them: they are nullified.
  If he nullified them, yes. If he did not nullify them, no! And we learn in a baraita, on this Rabbi Yose says: Straw that he intends not to remove: this is like earth without thought to intention, and it is nullified. Earth that he intends to remove: this is like straw without thought to intention, and it is not nullified.
  [A sukkah] was taller than 20 amah, and  palm leaves descend within 20 amah. If the shade is greater than the sun, then it is valid. If not, then it is invalid.
  [A sukkah] was ten tefah tall, and palm leaves descend fall within ten. Abaye thought to say: If the sun is greater than the shade, then it is valid.
  Rava said to him: This would be a foul dwelling, and a person cannot live in a foul dwelling!
  [A sukkah] was taller than 20 amah, and he built a platform inside of it against the middle wall, along its entire length, and it contains [the minimum area of] a valid sukkah: It is valid.
  And [if the platform is attached] from the side [wall]? If the distance from the edge of the platform to the opposite wall is four amah, it is invalid. If it is less than for amah, it is valid.
  What does this teach me? That we can say that the wall bends? We already learned this in a Mishnah: A house [where some of the roof] is removed, and sekhakh is placed above it. If the distance from the wall to the sekhakh is four amah, then it is invalid. See, less than [four amah] is valid!
  [If not for the previous teaching,] you would have said the following: There, it is a suitable wall. But here, where it is not a suitable wall, you would have said that it is not [valid]. You can learn from this.
  If [a sukkah] was higher than twenty <i>amos</i> and one built a platform in the middle of it, if there are four <i>amos</i> on every side between the edge of the platform and the wall, it is <i>pasul</i>; but if the distance is less than four <i>amos</i>, it is <i>kosher</i>.
  What principle does this teach us? That we apply the rule of the ‘curved wall’?
  But is not this principle identical with the former one? One might have thought that we apply the rule of the ‘curved wall’ on one side only, but not on every side, therefore we were taught [that we apply it to all sides also].
  If [a Sukkah] was less than ten handbreadths in height and one hollowed out [a hole] in order to bring it to [ten handbreadths], — if there was a distance of three handbreadths from the brim of the hollow to the wall, it is <i>pasul</i>;
  
  Daf 4b
  
  if the distance was less than three handbreadths it is valid.
  Why do we say there ‘less than four cubits’, and here ‘less than three handbreadths’?
  There where there is a wall, it is sufficient [if the distance is] less than four cubits; here, however, where a wall has to be made, [if the distance is] ‘less than three handbreadths’ it is[valid]; otherwise it is not.
  If [a sukkah] was more than twenty cubits high and one built in it a pillar ten handbreadths high, and [the pillar] was large enough for a valid sukkah,[in this case] Abaye intended to draw the partitions upward,
  [But] Rava said to him: we require recognizable partitions and there are not.
  Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and put skhakh on top of them: R. Jacob declares it valid and the sages declare it invalid.
  R. Huna stated: The dispute relates only [to poles erected] on the edge of a roof: R. Jacob holds that we apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’ while the sages hold that  we do not apply the rule of ‘draw the partition upward’. But [if they were] in the middle of the roof, all agree that [the sukkah is] invalid. R. Nahman said: there is a dispute if [the poles are] in the middle of the roof. 
  They asked: [Does he mean that] the dispute concerns only [poles that were erected] in the middle of the roof,  but if such were erected on the edge of the roof all agree that it is valid,  or is it possible [that he means that] the dispute concerns both cases? The question remains undecided.
  An objection was raised: If one drove poles in the ground and placed the Sukkah-covering over them, R. Jacob declares [such a sukkah] valid, and the sages declare it invalid.
  Now the ground is like the middle of a roof and still R. Jacob validates [the sukkah]. Is this not, then, a refutation of R. Huna? It is indeed a refutation.
  Moreover, they dispute concerning the middle of the roof only but if he put [poles up] on the edge of the roof they all agree that it is valid. Shall we say then that this will refute R. Huna on two points?
  R. Huna could answer you: They disagree about poles in the middle of the roof, and likewise also about those on the edge.  And the reason why the dispute concerns the middle of the roof is in order to show you how far R. Jacob's view extends that even where the poles were in the middle of the roof he holds [the Sukkah] to be valid.
  Our rabbis taught: If he drove four poles into the ground and covered them with the skhakh, R. Jacob says:  found that on being planed and smoothed there would remain the width of a handbreadth on this side and on this side, they are treated as a two-sided pillar, but if not, they cannot be treated as two-sided pillars for R. Jacob used to say, the prescribed minimum width of a two-sided pillar of a sukkah is a handbreadth. But the sages say: only if two [of the adjacent walls] are proper [walls], may the width of the third be only a handbreadth.
  ONE WHICH IS NOT TEN HANDBREADTHS HIGH. How do we know this?
  It was stated: Rav, R. Hanina, R. Yohanan and R. Haviva taught: 
  (throughout all Seder Mo'ed when these pairs are mentioned together [some] substitute the name of R. Yonatan for that of R. Yohanan),
  the ark [of the covenant] was nine handbreadths high, and the ark cover one handbreadth, making a total of ten handbreadths, and it is written, "And there I will meet with you, and I will speak with you from above the arkcover" (Exodus 25:22)
  
  Daf 5a
  
  and it has been taught, R. Yose stated: The Shechinah never descended to earth, nor did Moses or Elijah ever ascend to Heaven, as it is said,  ‘The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth He has given to humanity" (Psalm 115:16). 
  But did the Shechinah not descend to earth? Isn't it written, "And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai?" (Exodus 19:20)? That was above ten handbreadths [from the summit].  But is it not written, "And His feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives?" (Zechariah 14:4)? Above ten handbreadths. 
  But did not Moses and Elijah ascend to Heaven? Is it not in fact written,  "And Moses went up unto God?" (Exodus 19:3). [That was] to a level lower than ten [handbreadths from heaven].  But is it not written, "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven?"(II Kings 2:11) [That was] to a level lower than ten handbreadths But is it not written,  "He seizes hold of the face of His throne, and He spreads His cloud upon him," (Job 26:9)  and R. Tanhum said: This teaches that the Almighty spread some of the radiance of his Shechinah and his cloud upon him? That was at a level lower than ten handbreadths. 
  But in any case is it not written, "He seizes hold of the face of His throne"? The throne was well lowered for his sake until [it reached a level] lower than ten handbreadths [from Heaven] and then he seized hold of it.
  One can understand that the ark was nine [handbreadths high]  since it is written,  "And they shall make an ark of acacia wood: two cubits and a half shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth, and a cubit and a half its height"(Exodus 25:10).  But how do we know that the ark-cover was a handbreadth [high]?  From that which R. Hanina taught: For all the vessels which Moses made, the Torah gave the measurements of their length and breadth and height,  [except in the case of] the ark-cover, its length and its breadth are given, but not its height.
  Go and deduce it from the smallest of the vessels, concerning which it is said, ... "And you shall make for it a border of a handbreadth around" (Exodus 25:25) Just as there the height was a handbreadth so was it here also a handbreadth  But why should our deduction not be made from the vessels themselves? If you seized a large amount, you have notseized anything; but if you seized the lesser amount you have seized.
  But why should we not derive it from the golden headplate (ציץ), as it was taught: The tzitz was in the shape of a plate of gold two finger-breadths broad and stretching from ear toear,  and upon it were engraved two lines,  Yod and Heh above, and Kodesh [followed by a] Lamed below, and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose said, I saw it in Rome and it had Kodesh Ladonai on one line. 
  We deduce [the measurements of a] vessel from another vessel, but we do not deduce [the measurements of a] vessel from an ornament.
  Why then should we not deduce from the crown, of which a master stated: The crown was on the smallest possible size? We deduce the size of a vessel from that of another vessel, but not from an accessory to a vessel. If so, [it may be objected] was not the border also an appurtenance of a vessel? The border was below [the top of] the table.
  This is correct according to the authority who holds that the border was below, but according to the authority who holds that it was above what can one say?  It is only an accessory
  to a vessel! Rather one adduces the size of a thing some of whose measurements are given by the Torah from another thing whose measurements are given by the Torah, but no deduction can be made from the headplate or the crown of which the Torah gave no measurements at all
  R. Huna said: [The height of the ark-cover may be deduced] from here,  "Upon the face of the ark-cover" (Leviticus 16:14) on the east, and a 'face’ is not smaller than a handbreadth.
  But perhaps it means a face like 
  
  Daf 5b
  
  that of the Bar-Yokani?  If you seized a large amount, you have not seized anything; but if you seized the lesser amount you have seized But perhaps it means a face like that of a tziparta which is very small?  R. Aha b. Jacob said: R. Huna draws an analogy between two expressions of ‘face’.  It is written here,  ‘[Upon the face of the ark-cover", and it is written elsewhere, "From the face of Isaac his father" (Genesis 27:30).
  But why should we not learn from the ‘face’ above concerning which it is written, "As one sees the face of God, and You were pleased with me?" (Genesis 33:10). If you seized a large amount, you have not seized anything; but if you seized the lesser amount you have seized.
  Let us learn from the cherub concerning which it is written, "Toward the face of the ark-cover shall the faces of the cherubim be?" (Exodus 25:20). 
  R. Aha b. Jacob answered: We have a tradition that the face of the cherubim were not less than a handbreadth and R. Huna too made his deduction from this verse. 
  What is a "cherub"? R. Abahu said,  ‘Like a child’, for in Babylon they call a child Ravia.
  Abaye said to him:  If so, how will you explain that which is written,   "The first face was the face of the cherub and the second face the face of a man," (Ezekiel 10:14) seeing that the face of a cherub is the same as that of a man?  [One has] a large face and the other a small face
  But how do we know that the height of the interior space exclusive of the skhakh, must be ten [handbreadths]. Say that it might include the skhakh!
  Rather he learned this from the Temple  as it is written,  "And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits," (I Kings 6:2) and it is written,  "The height of the one cherub was ten cubits and so was it of the other cherub," (I Kings 6:26) and it was taught: Just as we find in the Temple that the cherubim reached to a third of its height so also in the Tabernacle they reached to a third of its height. 
  Now what was the height of the Tabernacle? Ten cubits, as it is written,   "Ten cubits shall be the length of a board" (Exodus 26:16).  How much is this? Sixty handbreadths.  How much is a third? Twenty handbreadths.  Deduct the ten of the ark and the ark-cover, and ten handbreadths remain; and it is written, "And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the ark-cover with their wings" (Exodus 25:20).  [From which we see that] that the Merciful One calls [the wings that were stretched] above a height of ten handbreadths a ‘covering."
  But how do we know that their wings were above their heads? Is it not possible that they were on a level with their heads. R. Aha b. Jacob answered, It is written ‘On high’.  But perhaps this means that the wings were raised very high? Is it then written, ‘On high, on high’?
  This explanation is satisfactory according to R. Meir, who says that all the cubits [in the Sanctuary] were normal cubits,  but according to R. Judah who says that the cubits of the building were six handbreadths, but of the vessels were five, what can be said? 
  For how much [then] were the ark and cover? Eight and a half, so that eleven and a half handbreadths are left. Shall we [therefore] say that a Sukkah must be [at least] eleven and a half [handbreadths high]?
  Rather for R. Judah the law was learned as a tradition, for R.Hiyya b. Ashi in the name Rav: The laws concerning [minimal measures], interpositions and partitions are [a part of the] halakhah that was given to Moses on Sinai.
  But are not the laws relating to minimum measures  from the Torah  since it is written,  "A land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates, a land of olive-trees and honey, (Deuteronomy 8:8) And R. Hanin stated that all this verse was said in allusion to the prescribed minimum measures. 
  ‘Wheat’ is an allusion to the house afflicted with scale disease as we have learned:  If a person entered a house afflicted with a nega, carrying his clothes upon his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands, both he and they become unclean immediately. 
  
  Daf 6a
  
  If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment. 
  ‘Barley’— As we have learned:  A barleycorn's bulk of a [human] bone defiles by contact and by carrying, but not by ‘overshadowing’.
  ‘Vines’ [are an allusion to] the quarter of a log of wine [which is the minimum prohibited] to a Nazirite.
  ‘Fig-trees’ allude to the size of a dry fig [which is the minimum measurement for transgressing the law against] carrying out [food] on Shabbat.
  ‘Pomegranates’? As we have learned: All vessels belonging to householders [become clean if the holes in them] are as large as pomegranates. 
  "A land of olive-oil" [is an allusion to the] land all of whose [minimum] standards [for mandated and forbidden things] is the bulk of an olive. How can it possibly mean all minimum measures? But aren't there those which we have just mentioned?  Say rather, ‘The majority of whose [minimum] measures are the bulk of an olive....
  ‘Honey’ alludes to the size of a large date, [which is the minimum size forbidden] on Yom Kippur.
  Therefor [the minimum measures] are clearly from the Torah. Do you then imagine that measures were actually written in the Torah? Rather, they are traditions and the verse is merely a support. 
  But are not [the laws of] interposition from the Torah, as it is written, "And he shall wash his body in water" (Leviticus 14:9) [which implies] that nothing should interpose between him and the water? 
  The traditional law comes [to teach] concerning one's hair, in agreement with a statement of Rabbah b. Bar Hana, or Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated:   One knotted hair constitutes an interposition, three hairs do not, but I do not know [the law in the case of] two.
  But is not the law relating to one's hair also from the Torah,  since it was written, "And he shall wash [et] his body in water" and [the word] et includes that which is joined to his body. And what is that? His hair.
  The tradition comes to teach as did R. Yitzchak; for R. Yitzchak said:
  
  Daf 6b
  
  From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.
  Let us also decree concerning a case where it is not a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is not a majority and he does mind, or on account of a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind. 
  This ruling itself is only a rabbinic decree; we come and institute a decree lest someone transgress another thing which is only a decree?
  [As for the laws of] partitions, these are those referred to above.  That works according to R. Judah, but according to R. Meir what can one say?
  The tradition refers to [the legal fictions] of extension, lavud, and the curved wall.
  Or a sukkah which does not have three walls.
  Our rabbis taught:  Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon says:  Three walls must be of the prescribed dimensions, and the fourth [may be] even one handbreadth
  What principle are they arguing about?... The rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, while R. Shimon holds  that the traditional reading is authoritative.
  ‘The rabbis hold that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative’, and the word Sukkoth occurs twice defectively and once with the full spelling, making four references.   Deduct one for the law itself, and three remain;
  two [walls at least] must be of the prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished [the prescribed minimum of] the third, reducing it to only one handbreadth.
  R. Shimon holds that  the traditional reading is authoritative’.  The word Sukkoth is read three times, which equals six [references]. Deduct one Scriptural reference for the law itself and four remain;  three walls at least of prescribed dimensions, and tradition came and diminished the [prescribed minimum of the] fourth and reduced it to a handbreadth.
  And if you wish you can say that they all agree that the traditional reading is authoritative but they differ on this;  .one Master holds that. the skhakh needs a Scriptural reference, while the other Master holds that it does not.
  And if you wish you can say hat they are unanimous that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, but they differ on this principle;  one Master holds that the tradition comes to diminish while the other holds  that tradition comes and adds to it. 
  And if you wish you can say that both agree that tradition comes to diminish and that the traditional Scriptural text is authoritative, but they differ as to whether one uses first [references] for exegesis:  one Master holds that we do expound upon first references, and the other Master holds  that we do not.
  R. Matanah said: The reason of R. Shimon is a derivationfrom the following verse: "And there shall be a Sukkah for shade during the day from the heat, and for a refuge and for a cover from storm and from rain" (Isaiah 4:6). 
  .This handbreadth [of a wall] where does he place it?  Rav said: He places it opposite the departing wall. 
  R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rav:
  
  Daf 7a
  
  Why not place it opposite the head of the diagonal wall?  Rav remained silent.
   Shmuel said in the name of Levi: He places it opposite the departing wall. And so they rule in the Bet Midrash:  He places it opposite the departing wall.
  R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) ruled: One makes [the additional wall of the width of] a loose handbreadth and places it within three handbreaths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.
  Rav Judah said:  A sukkah made like an [open] alley-way is valid,  and this handbreadth [wall] is placed in whatever side one pleases.
  R. Simon (or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi) says, He makes a strip of slightly more than four [handbreadths] and places it within three handbreadths of the wall, since whatever is less than three handbreadths from the wall is regarded as joined to the wall.
  But why did you say in the previous case that one loose handbreadth suffices while here you say that there must be a strip of four handbreadths? There where there are two valid walls, a loose handbreadth suffices, but here where there are not two valid walls, if there is a strip of four handbreadths it is valid, otherwise, it is not [valid].
  Rava ruled: It is only permitted if it has the form of a doorway.
  There are others that say: Rava said: And it is also valid if it has the form of a doorway.
  There are others that say: Rava said:  And it also requires the form of a doorway.
  R. Ashi found R. Kahana making [the third wall of aSukkah] a loose handbreadth wide and constructing also the form of a doorway.  He said to him:  Does not the Master hold the opinion of Rava  who said that it is also valid with the form of a doorway? He answered: I hold like the other reading of [the statement of] Rava that in addition [to a board of the size of a handbreadth] the form of a doorway is also necessary.
  ‘Two walls must be of the prescribed dimensions etc.’  Rava said: And similarly with regard to the Shabbat. Since [the handbreadth] is regarded as a valid wall of the Sukkah it is also regarded as a valid wall in respect of the Sabbath.
  Abaye raised an objection against him: Do we then apply the rule of ‘since’? Was it not in fact taught:  ‘[The rules relating to] a wall of a Sukkah are the same as those relating to a wall for Shabbat, as long as there is no gap of three handbreadths between any two reeds. 
  And the [law relating to] Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah’
  And the [law relating to]  Shabbat is more [stringent] than that of Sukkah, in that a [wall for purposes of] the Sabbath is valid only if its standing portion is greater than its gaps, which is not the case with the Sukkah’
  No, [it means that the law relating to] an ordinary Shabbat is more [stringent] than [the law relating to] the Sabbath of the Sukkah.
  But if this is so, let it also be stated:  [The law relating to] the ordinary Sukkah is more [stringent] than [that of] the Sukkah of Shabbat since [the validity of] an ordinary Sukkah demands a width of a loose handbreadth [for the third wall] while [the validity of] the Sukkah of Sabbath does not require the width of a loose handbreadth [for a wall] but a side-post alone is sufficient, 
  for it is you who ruled  that if one placed skhakh over an alleyway which has a side-post it is valid?
  There was no need to mention this, [since it is obvious that] if we apply [the rule of ‘since’] from the less stringent to the more stringent, all the more so apply it from the more stringent to the less stringent
  [Reverting to] the main subject: Rav said:
  
  Daf 7b
  
  If one placed skhakh over an alley-way which has a side-post it is valid.
  And Rava further said: If one placed skhakh over the [upright] boards around wells it is valid [as a sukkah].
  And [all the three laws were] necessary. For if he had mentioned only [the law relating to] the alleyway one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because it had two proper walls, but that in the case of partitions of wells, which do not have not two proper walls, the sukkah is not valid.
  And if we had been informed of the boards around wells only, one would have assumed [that there the sukkah is valid] because there are four walls, but that if one placed skhakh over an alleyway, where there are not four walls, it is not [valid].
  And if we had been informed of both those laws [but not of the third,] one would have assumed that from the more stringent to the less stringent [we apply the rule of ‘since’] but not from the less stringent to the more. [Therefore all the three rules were] necessary.
  OR WHICH HAS MORE SUN THAN SHADE IS NOT VALID. 
  Our rabbis taught: Sunshine due to the [lack] of skhakh, not sunshine due to [the gaps in] the wall. R. Yoshayah says: Even where it is due to [the gaps in] the walls. 
  Rav Yemar b. Shelemiah said in the name of Abaye:  What is the reason of R. Yoshayah? As it is written: "And you shall cover the ark with the veil" (Exodus 40:3). Now since the ‘veil’ was a partition and the Torah called it a ‘covering’  it is evident  that a partition [for the sukkah] must be as [close] as the covering.
  And as for the rabbis? — It means that the veil should bend over a little [at the top] so that it might look like a covering. 
  Abaye said: Rabbi, R. Josiah, R. Judah, R. Shimon, R. Gamaliel, Beth Shammai, R. Eliezer and ‘others’ -all hold the opinion that   the Sukkah must be constructed like a permanent abode. 
  ‘Rabbi’? — As it has been taught: Rabbi said: A sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid.
  ‘R. Yoshayah? — As we have [just] stated.
  ‘R. Judah’? — As we have learned:...  A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid, R. Judah declares it valid.
  ‘R. Shimon? — As it has been taught: Two [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the third [may be] even one handbreadth. ‘R. Shimon said: Three [walls] must be of the prescribed dimensions and the fourth [may be] even one handbreadth.
  ‘R. Gamaliel’? — As it has been taught: One who builds his sukkah on the top of a wagon or on the deck of a ship. R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiba declares it valid.
  ‘Beth Shammai’? As we have learned:  If his head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table was within the house, Beth Shammai declare it invalid, and Beth Hillel declare it valid
  ‘R. Eliezer? As we have learned: One who builds his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or if he propped it up against a wall, R. Eliezer declares it invalid, since it has no roof’, and the sages declare it valid.
  The ‘others’? As it has been taught: Others say:  A sukkah made like a dovecote is invalid, since it has no corners.
  R. Yohanan said: A sukkah which was [round shaped] like a furnace: If twenty-four men can sit around its circumference, it is valid, and if not it is invalid
  According to whom [is this statement]? According to Rabbi who says that a sukkah which is not four cubits square is invalid.
  Since a man occupies the space of a cubit, and where the circumference [of a circle] is three handbreadths its diameter is one handbreadth, it would therefore be enough of only twelve men [can sit around it]?
  
  Daf 8a
  
  That applies only to a circle, but in the case of a square, a greater perimeter is required.
  But consider: By how much is a square greater than its [inscribed] circle? By a quarter. Should it then not suffice if only sixteen [men can be seated around it]?
  That is so in the case of a circle inscribed within a square, but if a square is to be inscribed within a circle a greater circumference is required on account of the projection of the corners....
  But consider: If the side of a square is a cubit, its diagonal is approximately one and two fifths cubits.  Should not then [a circumference equivalent to] sixteen and four fifths [cubits] suffice? [R. Johanan] gave only an approximate figure.
  Say that we say that [where the discrepancy is] small he might approximate, but could such an assumption be made [where the discrepancy is] big?
  Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda said to R. Ashi: Do you think that a man occupies one cubit? . [The fact is that] three men occupy two cubits.. How much then does this [amount to for twenty-four men]?. Sixteen cubits; and we [really] demand here sixteen and four fifths. [Because, as has been said, R. Yohanan] gave only an approximate figure...
  Say that we give approximate figures in order to create a where this makes the law lenient?
  R. Assi said to R. Ashi:  In truth, a man occupies a cubitspace, but R. Yohanan does not include the space occupied by the men.
  How many [cubits] does this[amount to]? Eighteen; while sixteen and four-fifths would be enough. That is [then] what was meant [when it was stated] that he only gave an approximate figure; and in this case it is in the direction of stringency.
  The rabbis of Caesarea (and some say, the judges of Caesarea) say: The circumference of a circle inscribed in a square is a quarter;
  
  Daf 8b
  
  but the square inscribed within that circle is a half. But this is not correct, for we see that these are not so much bigger.
  R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.
  But why should this be so? Why shouldn't the outer one be regarded as the gate-house of the inner one, and therefore be obliged to have a mezuzah?  Because neither [booth] is of a permanent nature.
  Our rabbis taught: <i>ganbak (a mnemonic): </i>  a sukkah of gentiles, women, cattle or Samaritans and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule. 
  What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? R. Hisda answered:   Provided that [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah.
  What does "any sukkah whatsoever" come to include? It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic is] <i>rakbash,</i> as our rabbis taught: Sukkot [whose mnemonic is] <i>rakbash,</i> The sukkah of shepherds, the sukkah of figwatchers the sukkah of city guards, and the sukkah of orchard-watcher, and any sukkah whatsoever is valid, provided that it is covered according to the rule.
  What is meant by ‘according to the rule’? R. Hisda answered: provided [the covering] was made [with the intention of providing] the shade for the sukkah.
  What does ‘any sukkah whatsoever’ include?  It includes the sukkot [whose mnemonic] is <i>ganbak.</i>
  The tanna of <i>ganbak</i> regards these sukkot as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include <i>rakbash</i> which are not permanent.
  While the tanna of <i>rakbash</i> regards the <i>rakbash</i> sukkot possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include the <i>ganbak</i> sukkot which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of sukkah].
  
  Daf 9a
  
  Mishnah: An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it.  What is an “old sukkah”? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.
  Gemara. What is Beth Shammai's reasoning?... Scripture says, "The festival of Sukkot, for seven days unto the Lord" (Leviticus 23:34) we require a Sukkah made expressly for the sake of the festival.
  And Beth Hillel? They need that [verse] for the statement of R. Shesheth,  R. Shesheth said in the name of R. Akiba,  How do we know that the wood of the Sukkah is forbidden all the seven [days f the Festival]? From Scripture which states, "The festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord."
  And it was taught, R. Judah b. Batera says:  Just as the name of Heaven rests upon the festival sacrifice, so does it rest upon the Sukkah, since it is said, ‘The Festival of Sukkoth, seven days to the Lord’: just as the Festival [offering] is ‘to the Lord’, so is the sukkah also ‘to the Lord’.
  And Beth Shammai also, do not they need the verse for this deduction? Yes, indeed.
  What then is Bet Shammai's reason? -There is another Scriptural verse  "You shall make the festival of Sukkoth for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13). This implies that we require a sukkah made expressly for the sake of the Festival.
  And Bet Hillel? They need this verse to teach that a sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.
  And Bet Shammai? — They hold the same opinion as R. Eliezer,  who said that no sukkah may be made in the intermediate days of the Festival.
  But doesn't Bet Hillel agree with the statement of Rav Judah in the name of Rav  for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If a man made [tzitzit] from the hanging web or woof, or sewing threads, they are invalid; but if he made them from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are valid. 
  When I repeated this in the presence of Shmuel he said to me:  Even if from a tuft [sewn to a garment] they are also not valid, because it is necessary that the weaving shall be done specifically for its purpose. Here too then we should require a sukkah be made specifically for its purpose?
  [Tzitzit are] different, since Scripture says, "You shalt make for yourself twisted cords" (Deuteronomy 22:12): "for yourself" [means] for the specific purpose of your obligation But here also [Scripture says], "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself," "for yourself" for the specific purpose of your obligation
  That [phrase] is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukkah].  But in the other case too it is needed to exclude stolen [tzitzit]?
  In that case there is another verse,   "And they shall make for themselves" (Numbers 15:38) of their own.
  
  Daf 9b
  
  Mishnah. One who makes his sukkah under a tree, it is as if he made it within the house.  One [who makes] a sukkah on top of another sukkah, the upper one is valid but the lower is invalid. Rabbi Judah says: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.
  Gemara. Rava said:  [Our mishnah] was taught only in respect of’ a tree whose shade is greater than the sun [shining through its branches] but if the sun is more than its shade, it is valid.
  How [do we know this]? Since it states, "it is as if he made it within the house."Now why did it teach, it is as if he made it within the house?  Let it simply state ‘it is invalid’?  Rather this is what it teaches us: the tree [referred to is] like a house, just as in a house the shade is more than the sunshine, so the tree has more shade than sunshine.
  But even where the sun is more than the shade, so what?  Behold he joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh? R. Papa answered: [This is a case] where he interwove [the branches of the tree].
  If the branches were interwoven, why mention the case at all? One might have thought that it should be prohibited where it is interwoven lest he regard it as valid even where it was not interwoven, [therefore the mishnah] informs us that we don't decree against it.
  Have we not learned this also:  If a man trained upon it [a sukkah] vine, or a gourd, or ivy, and he covered [it with a valid covering], it is invalid But if the valid covering exceeded these in quantity, or if one cut them, it is valid. 
  Now to what case does this refer? Now to what case does this refer? If I say where he did not interweave them, then behold he joins the invalid covering to the valid one? Rather it refers to a case where one did interweave them; and we learn from here that we don't decree against this?What might you have thought?  That [this is permissible] only ex post facto but not ab initio, hence we were informed 
  One sukkah above another sukkah…  Our Rabbis taught, "You shall dwell in Sukkoth" (Leviticus 23:42), but not in a sukkah under another sukkah, nor in a Sukkah under a tree, nor in a Sukkah within the house. On the contrary! The word "in sukkot" implies two?
  R. Nahman b. Isaac answered:  The word is written defectively
  R. Jeremiah said: Sometimes both are valid, sometimes both invalid; sometimes the lower one is valid and the upper invalid, and sometimes the lower one is invalid and the upper one valid.
  ‘Sometimes both are valid:' In what circumstances? When in the lower one the sun is more than the shade, and in the upper the shade is more than the sun, and the upper one is within twenty [cubits from the ground].
  ‘Sometimes both are invalid’.  In what circumstances? When in both of them the shade is more than the sun, and the upper one is more than twenty cubits [high]. 
  Sometimes the bottom one is valid and the upper one is invalid?
  
  Daf 10a
  
  In what circumstances? When the lower one has more shade than sun, and the upper one more sun than shade, and both are within twenty cubits [from the ground]. 
  ‘And sometimes the upper one is valid and the lower one is invalid’. In what circumstances? When in both of them the shade is more than the sun, and the upper one is within twenty cubits.
  This is obvious! The statement: "the lower one is valid and the upper one is invalid" was necessary.  For what might you have said: we should invalidate [the lower sukkah] as a preventive measure lest one also joins invalid skhakh with valid skhakh, therefore it teaches us [that it is valid]. 
  How much [space] should there be between [the roof of] one sukkah and that of the other to invalidate the lower one? 
  R. Huna replied:  A handbreadth since we find a handbreadth [prescribed as the minimum size] with regard to overshadowing in cases of uncleanliness, as we have learned: [A space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth high acts as a carrier of uncleanliness and as an interposition to it, but if it is less than one handbreadth high it neither conveys nor interposes.
  R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna say: Four [handbreadths], since we do not find a place of any [legal] importance to be less than four [handbreadths]. And Shmuel says,
   Ten [handbreadths].  What is the reason of Shmuel? As its validity, so is its invalidity.  Just as its validity [is effected by a height of] ten handbreadths, so is its invalidity [effected by] ten handbreadths
  We have learned: R. Judah said: if there are no occupants in the upper one, the lower one is valid.
  What does it mean ‘there are no occupants’? If we say, actual occupants, are then occupants [it could be objected] a determining factor?  Rather we must say that ‘there are no occupants' means that the Sukkah is unsuitable for occupation? How so? Because it is less than ten handbreadths high. We could therefore infer that the first opinion [in the Mishnah] holds that even if it is unsuitable for occupation it is still invalid?
  When R. Dimi came he said: In the West they say if the lower one cannot bear the weight of the bolsters and the cushions of the upper one, the lower one is valid.
  This implies [does it not] that the first opinion holds that even if the lower one is not able to bear their weight, it is still invalid? 
  The difference between them is where it can bear the weight with difficulty.
  Mishnah. If he spread a sheet over it because of the sun or beneath it because of falling [leaves]; Or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid. But he may spread it over the frame of a two-post bed.
  Gemara. R. Hisda stated:  [Our mishnah] speaks only [of a sheet spread] because of falling [leaves], but if [it was spread] in order to beautify [the sukkah], it is valid But is not this obvious! For did we not learn in the mishnah, "because of falling [leaves]? One might have said that the law is the same even [where the sheet was intended] to beautify [the sukkah] and that the reason why it was stated, because of falling [leaves], is that he mentions what is the common practice, therefore he [R. Hisda] teaches us this.
  Can we say that the following supports [R. Hisda's view]:  If he covered it according to the rule, and adorned it with embroidered hangings and sheets, and hung in it nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, bunches of grapes, wreaths of ears of corn, [vials of] wine, oil or fine flour, it is forbidden to make use of them
  
  Daf 10b
  
  until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot],  but if he expressed a condition about them, all depends on [the terms of] his condition? No! It is possible [that the statement was made with reference to sheets] at the side [of the Sukkah].
  It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah do not diminish [the height of] the Sukkah. R. Ashi said: But at the side, they do diminish [the size of a Sukkah].
  Minyamin, the servant of R. Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah.  R. Ashi said to him,  ‘Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as a covering something which is susceptible to impurity. ‘But can they not see that it is wet?’ ‘I mean [the first answered] when it is dry.'
  It was stated: The decorations of a Sukkah which are removed four [handbreadths from the skhakh] R. Nahman declares them valid,   valid, And R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declare them  invalid.
  R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna once came to the house of the exilarch, And R. Nahman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose decorations were separated four handbreadths [from the skhakh]. They were silent and they didn't say a word to him.  He said to them, ‘Have our rabbis retracted their teaching’?  They answered him: We are messengers performing a mitzvah, and [therefore] we are free from the obligation of the Sukkah.
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel, It is permissible to sleep in a canopied bed in a Sukkah, even though it has a flat roof, provided it is not ten [handbreadths] high.
  Come and hear:  He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? Here we are dealing with a case of one that was ten [handbreadths] high.
  It was objected: He who sleeps under the bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? But, surely, Samuel has explained that [this refers to] a bed ten [handbreadths] high.
  Come and hear: or if he spread [a sheet] over the frame of a four-post bed, [the sukkah] is invalid? There also it is a case where they are ten [handbreadths] high
  But surely, it was not taught in this way, for it has been taught: Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles], and kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles];  If one spread a sheet over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, if over naklitin, it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed.  This implies that kinofot [are invalid] even if they are less than ten [handbreadths high]?
  Kinofoth are different, since they are permanent. But, behold the case of one Sukkah above another, which is also permanent; and Shmuel nevertheless said, ‘As its validity so is its invalidity’? They said:  In the latter case, [when it is a question] of invalidating a Sukkah, [the upper one must be ten [handbreadths] high, but here, [where it is a question] of making a tent, even less than ten [handbreadths suffices] also to constitute a tent.
  R. Tahlifa b. Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: He who sleeps naked in a canopied bed, may put his head out of the canopied bed and read the Shema.
  It was objected:  He who sleeps in a canopied bed naked may not put his head out of it and read the Shema? The latter refers to a case where [the canopy] was ten [handbreadths] high. 
  This stands to reason also, since it was stated in the final clause To what can it be compared? To a man standing naked in a house, in which case he may not put his head out of the window and read the Shema’. Learn from this.
  
  Daf 11a
  
  But as to a house, even though it is not ten [handbreadths] high, since it is permanent it constitutes a valid tent, for it is no worse than the frame of a four-post bed. 
  Another version: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted to sleep in a bridal-bed in a Sukkah, since it has no roof, even though it is ten [handbreadths] high
  It was objected: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligations? Here we are dealing with the case of one which has a roof.
  Come and hear:  Naklitin [means a frame with] two [poles]; kinofot [means a frame with] four [poles],  if he spread a canopy over the frame of kinofot it is invalid, over that of naklitin it is valid, provided that the naklitin are not ten [handbreadths] high above the bed.  But if they are ten [handbreadths] high above the bed, it is invalid, [is it not] even though it has no roof?
  Naklitin are different, since they are permanent.  If they are permanent, why are they not [subject to the same law as] kinofoth? As compared to kinofot they are not [considered] permanent, but compared to the bridal-bed they are [considered] permanent.
  Rabbah bar R. Huna expounded, It is permitted to sleep in a canopied bed [in a Sukkah] even though it has a roof and even though it is ten [handbreadths] high According to whom [does he hold]? According to R. Judah who said  that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent, tent as we have learned: R. Judah said,  We were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders.
  Why then does he not say,  "the halachah is according to R. Judah?
  If he had said, "the halachah is according to R. Judah," I might have presumed that this applies only to a bed which is made [to be slept] upon, but not to a canopied bed which, is made [to be slept] within, hence he teaches us that the reason of R. Judah is that a temporary tent cannot nullify a permanent one, no matter whether it be an ordinary bed or a canopied bed.
  If he trained a vine or a gourd or ivy over [the sukkah] and put skhakh on top of it, it is not valid But if the skhakh is more than them, or if he cut them, it is valid. 
  This is the general rule:  whatever is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does not grow from the ground may not be used for skhakh, but whatever is not susceptible to [ritual] impurity and does grow from ground soil may be used for skhakh.
  GEMARA. R. Joseph sat before R. Huna, and he sat and he stated:  "Or if he cut them it is valid. And Rav said: He must shake them. 
  R. Huna said to him: That has been said by Shmuel!  R. Joseph turned away his face [in annoyance] and retorted, Did I say to you that Shmuel did not say it? Rav said it and Shmuel also said it. R. Huna said back to him: This is what I meant to say to you: that, Shmuel said it, and not Rav, for Rav declares it valid [without shaking], As in the case of R. Amram the Pious who attached fringes to the aprons of the women of his house. He hung them but he did not cut off the ends of the threads. 
  When he came before R. Hiyya b. Ashi the latter said to him: Thus said Rav, [In such a case the threads] may be cut and they are valid.  Thus it is obvious that their cutting is considered their making, so too here, their cutting is considered their making.
  But does Shmuel hold that we do not say that their cutting is their making? But didn't Shmuel in fact teach in the name of R. Hiyya,   If one attached [tzitzit] to two corners at one time and then cut the ends of these threads, the tzitzit are valid Does not this ,mean that he first knotted them and then cut them? No, he cut them first and afterwards knotted them. 
  If he cut them first and then knotted them, why mention it? 
  
  Daf 11b
  
  One might have thought that it was necessary to insert the threads in one corner at a time, which he did not do this, therefore he taught us [that this is not so].
  It was objected: If he hung them and did not cut their ends, they are invalid. Does not this mean invalid for ever,and is thus a refutation of Rav? [No!] Rav can answer: What is the meaning of ‘invalid’?  Invalid until they are cut. Shmuel, however, says:  They are invalid forever.  And so said Levi: They are invalid forever. And so said R. Matanah in the name of Smuel: They are invalid forever
  Another version: R. Matanah said: Such an incident happened to me, and when I came before Shmuel he told me: They are invalid forever.
  They objected:  If he inserted them and then cut their ends, they are invalid. And it was also taught concerning a Sukkah: (Deuteronomy 15:13) "You shall make" but not from that which is already made. From here they said:  If one trained a vine or a gourd or ivy [over the walls of a sukkah] and then covered them with skhakh it is invalid.
  How so? If you say that it is a case where one did not cut them, why did he give the reason ‘"You shall make" but not from that which is already made’? Let him rather give the reason that they are joined to the ground?  Consequently it must be a case where he cut them, and yet it is taught that they are invalid. Learn from this that we do not say that their cutting is their making. And this is a refutation of Rav?
  Rav could answer that here we are dealing with a case where he pulled them [from the trunk] so that their ‘making’ is not apparent. In any case, [the baraita] "he inserted them and then cut their ends" is a difficulty against Rav? It is a difficulty.
  Can we say that [their dispute matches the dispute of] the following tannaim?:  If one transgressed and plucked them, [the hadas is] invalid, the words of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak. But the Sages declare it valid. 
  They thought  that everyone agrees that a lulav must be tied together, and that we deduce [the law of] lulav from that of Sukkah, for it is written concerning the sukkah "You shall make" -- but not from what which is already made. 
  Do they [then] not dispute this principle? That the one who declared it valid is of the opinion that  with regard to the Sukkah we say that ‘their cutting is their making', and[therefore] with regard to lulav we also say that their plucking is their making;  while the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that ‘their cutting is their making, and [therefore] with regard to lulav also we do not say that their plucking is their making?
  No! Everyone agrees that with regard to the Sukkah we do not say that their cutting is their making, but here they differ on the principle whether we deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah.  The one who declares it valid is of the opinion that we do not deduce lulav from Sukkah, while the one who declares it invalid says  that we do deduce lulav from sukkah.
  And if you wish you may say hat if we were of the opinion that the [components of the] lulav must be tied together, [we must admit that] all agree that we do deduce the law of lulav from that of Sukkah.  But here they dispute on the following: One Master holds the opinion that it must be tied together while the other holds that it need not be tied together;  and their dispute is the same as that of the following tannaim as it has been taught:  A lulav, whether [its components] be tied together or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If tied together it is valid, if not, it is invalid.
  What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces the word ‘take’ from the word ‘take’ mentioned in connection with the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, "And you shall take abundle of hyssop," (Exodus 12:22) and it is written here, "And you shall take you on the first day" (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there it was taken in a ‘bundle, so here also it must be taken in a bundle.  And the rabbis? They do not deduce ‘take’ from ‘take’.
  According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid?  If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them. and if it is according to the Sages, why is it ‘mitzvah'? It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.
  This is the general rule: whatever is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness etc How do we know this?  Resh Lakish said: Scripture says, "And there went up a mist from the earth" (Genesis 2:6) just as a mist is a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and originates from the soil, so must [the covering of] the Sukkah [consist of] a thing that is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, and grow from the soil.
  That is satisfactory according to the one who says that [the sukkot of the wilderness were] clouds of glory, but according to the one who says [the Israelites] made for themselves real sukkot, what can one say? For it has been taught: "For I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43): These were clouds of glory, the words of R. Eliezer.  R. Akiva says: They made for themselves real sukkot. Now this is satisfactory according to R. Eliezer, but according to R. Akiva, what can one say? 
  When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Yohanan, Scripture says, "The Festival [hag] of Sukkoth you shall make for yourselves. The Sukkah is thus compared to the Festival [offering]. Just as the Festival offering is a thing which is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grows from the soil, so the Sukkah must be unsusceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and grow from the soil. 
  
  Daf 12a
  
  But just as the festival offering is a live animal so the Sukkah must be [of something which is] alive.
  When Ravin came, he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Scripture says, "When you gather in from your threshingfloor and your winepress" (Deuteronomy 16:13). The verse thus speaks of the waste from the threshing-floor and the waste from the wine-press. But perhaps it means the actual threshing-floor product and the actual wine-press product?
  R. Zera answered:  It is written winepress and it is impossible to cover the Sukkah with this!
  R. Yirmiyah objected:  But perhaps it means the solidified wine that comes from Senir, which resembles fig-cakes? R. Zera said: We had something in our hands, and R. Yirmiyah came and cast an axe at it
  R. Ashi replied,  ‘From your threshing-floor’, but not the threshing-floor produce itself, "from your wine-press’, but not the wine-press produce itself. 
  R. Hisda said: [The law is learned] from here: "Go out to the mountain and fetch olive-branches, and branches of the oily tree, and myrtle-branches and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees" (Nehemiah 8:15).
  Are not myrtle-branches, the same as branches of thick trees?  R. Hisda said: The wild myrtle [were to be fetched] for the Sukkah, while the branches of thick trees, for the lulav.
  Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood—one may not use them as skhakh. But all of them, if he untied them, are valid. And they are all valid for the walls.
  GEMARA. R. Yaakov said: I heard from R. Yohanan [the explanation of] two things, this one, and the following: If one hollows out a haystack to make of it a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah. 
  The reason for one of them is a decree lest one make his sukkah into a storehouse, and the reason for the other is, "'You shall make’, [implying] but not from that which is made;" but I do not remember which of them is on account of a ‘store-house’, and which on account of "'you shalt make' but not from that which is made."
  R. Yirmiyah said: Let us see: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: Why did they say that bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of brushwood may not serve as skhakh? Because it may happen that a man returns in the evening from the field with his bundle on his shoulder, and he raises it up and places it on his sukkah to dry it, and then he might decide to leave it there as a skhakh, but the Torah said, "You shall make," [which implies], but not from that which is made. Now since this is a decree lest one use his store-house [as a Sukkah] the other must have been forbidden on the ground of ‘you shall make’ [which implies], but not from that which is made.
  And R. Yaakov? He had not heard that [statement] of R. Hiyya b. Abba.
  R. Ashi said: Are then bundles of straw, bundles of wood and bundles of brushwood forbidden only because of the possible use of a store-house and not because of, "You shall make [which implies], but not from that which is made," and is the hollowing out of a haystack forbidden only because of the "You shall make which implies but not from that which is made," and not because of the possible use of a store-house?
  And R. Yohanan could say to you that here where it states, "One may not use them as skhakh" it means that only at the outset it is invalid, 
  
  Daf 12b
  
  it is invalid, because of the possible use of a storehouse, but according to Toraitic law it is valid; While in the other case where it is stated "it is not a sukkah," it implies that even when he has made it, it is not a sukkah, even from the Torah. 
  Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: If one covered a Sukkah with male arrow-shafts, it is valid; with female arrow shafts, it is invalid.
  ‘With male arrow-shafts it is valid’; but is not this obvious?  I might have said that these should be forbidden on account of female ones,  therefore he teaches us [that they are not forbidden].
  ‘With female shafts, it is invalid’, is not this obvious? — I might have said that a receptacle which is made to be [permanently] filled up is not regarded as a receptacle, therefore he informs us [that it is].
  Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: ‘If one covered a Sukkah with flax-stalks that had been soaked and baked, it is invalid; with flax stalks in their natural state it is valid; with flax-stalks in an intermediate stage of preparation, I do not know [whether it is valid or not]’. 
  But as to what constitutes an intermediate stage, I do not know whether if it has been pounded and not combed it is regarded as in an intermediate stage, but if it has been soaked and not pounded it is regarded as being in its natural state, or perhaps,  even if it has been soaked but not pounded, it is also regarded as being in an intermediate stage.
  Rav Judah ruled: One may use fern or wormwood as skhakh.  Abaye ruled:  One may use fern as skhakh, but not wormwood.  What is the reason? 
  
  Daf 13a
  
  Since they give an unpleasant odor, one might leave [the Sukkah] and depart.
  R. Hanan b. Rava said: Izma and hegeh (two types of prickly shrubs) may be used as skhakh. Abaye said: Izma may be used, but not hegeh.  What is the reason? Since their leaves fall off, one might leave the Sukkah and depart. 
  R. Gidal said in the name of Rav:  The forked portion of a palm tree may be used as skhakh, even though [the branches] are joined together, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even if one later joined them [the skhakh is valid, since] joining of one thing [to itself] is not considered a joining.
  R. Hisda said in the name of Ravina b. Shila: Forked reeds may be used as skhakh even though they are joined, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even though one later joins them, the joining of one thing [to itself] not considered as a proper joining.
  It was also taught in a baraita: Reeds and forked reeds may be used as skhakh. As to reeds, this is obvious? —  Say: Forked reeds may be used as a Sukkah-covering.
  R. Hisda [further] stated in the name of Ravina b. Shila: These "bitter herbs of the marsh" one can fulfill one's obligation with them on Pesah.
  It was objected: Hyssop but not Greek hyssop, or blue hyssop, or wild hyssop, or Roman hyssop or any kind of hyssop which has an accompanying name?
  Abaye said: Whatever had different names prior to the giving of the Torah, and yet the Torah made specific mention of the general name [the intention is to exclude such of the species which] have special names. But these did not have different names before the giving of the Torah at all.
  Rava answered: Their ordinary name is really ‘marror", but they are called ‘marror of the marsh’, because they are found in marshes.
  R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis,   as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Yose says:  the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.
  Now we should assume that since its remnants [are valid] with two, at the outset also two are valid, and that the reason he teaches three is to indicate what is the most proper observance of the commandment And since R. Yose requires three only for the most proper observance of the commandment according to the rabbis three are indispensable.
  But has it not been taught: R. Yose says: If at the outset a bunch of hyssop has only two stalks or if its remnants consist of one, it is invalid, since a bunch is not valid unless at the outset it contains three and its remnants are no less than two? Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Yose three are indispensable, according to the rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment.
  So it has also been taught:  If a bunch of hyssop contains two stalks at the outset or if its remnant consists of one it is valid; it is not invalid unless at the outset or when it is a remnant it consists of one. 
  But is a remnant of one invalid? Have you not [just] said that a remnant of one is valid?
  
  
  Daf 13b
  
  Say rather:  Unless at the outset, [it contains] no more than the number permitted for its remnant, one.
  Meremar expounded: The bundles of [twigs] made in Sura are valid as skhakh. Although [the seller] binds them together he does so merely to facilitate their counting.
  R. Abba said: These cone-shaped bundles of willows, as soon as the top-knots are untied they are valid [as skhakh]. But are they not still tied at the bottom? R. Papa answered,  [This is a case] where he loosens them. 
  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: one can even say that [it is valid even if] he does not loosen them, since a binding which is not made to be carried is not considered a binding.
  R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there
  R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests grapes for the vat, does not render their "handles" [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness; 
  While R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna: He who harvests [ears of grain] for skhakh does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness. 
  The one that said this with regard to harvesting [grain] certainly holds it with regard to harvesting grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine;  But the one that said this with regard to harvesting grapes, that he does not render their stalks susceptible to uncleanliness, holds that the harvesting [ears of grain] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the skhakh in order that [the grains] be not scattered.
  Shall we say that the [ruling of] R. Menashya b. Gada is a dispute between tannas? For it has been taught: Boughs of fig-trees on which there are figs, branches of vines on which there are grapes, or straws on which there are ears of grain, palm-branches on which there are dates, all these, if the inedible part is greater than the edible are valid [for skhakh], otherwise, they are invalid.   ‘Others’ say, [they are not valid]  unless the straw is more than both the ‘handle’ and the food. 
  Isn't it this that they argue about:  that one master holds the opinion they render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness, while the other master holds the opinion that they do not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness?
  To R. Abba this is certainly a tannaitic dispute. But shall we say that it is also a tannaitic dispute according to R. Menashye bar Gada?  All agree that he who harvests grain for skhakh does not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness, but here we are dealing with a particular case where he harvests them for food, and then changed his mind [and used them] for skhakh.
  But if he cut them for food, what is the reason [for the view] of the rabbis? And if you will answer that the rabbis are of the opinion that since he changed his mind about them [to use them] for skhakh, his original intention becomes annulled, [it may be objected], does then one's intention become annulled in such a case? Have we not learned:  All vessels
  
  Daf 14a
  
  can be rendered susceptible to uncleanliness by intention, but cannot be rendered insusceptible except by an act of change, since an act can annul a [prior] act or intention, while an intention cannot annul either a [previous] act or a [previous] intention.
  And if you will say that this refers only to vessels which are of importance but that ‘handles’ which are needed only as aids for the eating of the food, are made [susceptible to uncleanness] by intention and are also unmade by intention [it may be objected],  But have we not learned: The handles of all foodstuffs that are threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to ritual uncleanliness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible?
  It goes well according to the authority who says that ‘threshing’ here means loosening [the sheaves], but according to the authority who says that ‘threshing’ here really means ‘threshing’, what can one answer?
  That in the previous case also, he actually threshed them. If so, what is the reason of the ‘others’? They hold the same opinion as R. Yose, as we have learned, R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanness.
  What is this [comparison]?  One can understand there the reason of R. Yose, that [the stalks] have a use according to R. Shimon ben Lakish, as R. Shimon b. Lakish said,  Since one can [the more easily] turn them with the pitchfork. But in this case, what use do they have?
  It is usable to hold them by their stalks when he takes it apart.
  [Reverting to] the main text: ‘The handles of all foodstuffs that have been threshed in the threshing-floor are insusceptible to uncleanness, and R. Yose declares them susceptible’. What does it mean ‘threshed’? R. Yohanan says: Actual threshing. R. Elazar says: Untying the bundle. 
  One can understand R. Elazar, who says that ‘threshing’ means untying the bundle, that this is the reason why R. Yose declares them susceptible to uncleanliness, But according to R. Yohanan who says that ‘threshing’ means actual threshing, why does R. Yose declare them susceptible to uncleanliness? R. Shimon b. Lakish answered: Since he can [more easily] turn them with a pitch fork.
  R. Elazar said, Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a pitchfork? To teach thee that just as the pitchfork turns the grain from place to place in the threshing floor, so the prayers of the righteous turn the mind of the Holy One, blessed be He, from the attribute of harshness to that of mercy.
  Mishnah: They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids.  If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.
  Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid.  Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.
  If they are ‘less than four’ and even less than three? But [in this case] are they not mere sticks?
  R. Papa answered: This is what he (Shmuel) means: If they are four [handbreadths wide] the sukkah is invalid according to all; If they are less than three, it is valid according to all. What is the reason? Since they are mere sticks. Over what do they dispute? [Planks that are] from three to four [handbreadths wide].   One master holds that since there is not in them the minimum measure of a ‘place’ we do not decree against their use, and the other master holds the opinion that since the law of lavud can no longer apply to them we do decree against their use. 
  We learned:  If one places over it a plank which is four handbreadths wide, it is valid, provided that he does not sleep under it. Now it is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths] but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid; for this reason he must not sleep under it. But according to Rav who says that the dispute is where there are four [handbreadths] but where there are less than four all agree that it is valid, why, according to R. Judah, may he not sleep under it?
  Do you then think that this statement is according to all? The concluding statement agrees in fact with R. Meir [only].
  Come and hear: Two sheets combine,
  
  Daf 14b
  
  two boards do not combine.  R. Meir says: Boards also are like sheets.
  It is well according to Samuel who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four handbreadths all agree that it is invalid,  [since it may be explained;] What does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make four [handbreadths].
  But according to Rav, who says that their dispute is where there are four [handbreadths], but where there are not four handbreadths all agree that it is valid,  how is it to be explained? If there are four [handbreadths] why do they need to combine;  if there are not, why [is it invalid]?  Are they not mere sticks?
  Indeed [it is a case] where there are four handbreadths, and what [is meant by] "combine" they combine to form four cubits at the side
  Another version:  goes well according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where there are not four [handbreadths], but where there are four, all agree that it is invalid. What is meant by ‘combine’? That they combine to form four cubits at the side. 
  But according to Rav it goes well according to R. Meir, since what is meant by ‘combine’ may be that they combine to form four cubits at the side, but according to R. Judah, who says that even if there are four [handbreadths] the Sukkah is valid, what could be the meaning of ‘they do not combine’?  Are they not like mere sticks? Since R. Meir said ‘they do combine’, R. Judah said ‘they do not combine’. 
  It has been taught in agreement with Rav, and it has been taught in agreement with Samuel. 
  It has been taught in agreement with Rav: If he covered the sukkah with planks of cedar which are not four [handbreadths wide], it is valid according to all. If they have four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. 
  R. Judah said: It happened in a time of danger that we brought planks which were four [handbreadths wide] and we laid them over a balcony and sat under them. They said to him, They said to him A time of danger is no proof. 
  It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation
  It was stated: If he placed the planks on their sides: R. Huna declared it invalid, and R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna declared it valid.
  R. Nahman once came to Sura. R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna came in to him and asked:  If he placed them on their sides, what is the law?  He said to them: It is invalid, since they are regarded as metal spits. 
  R. Huna said to them: Did I not tell you, say like me? They answered him: Did then the Master give us a reason and we did not accept it from him?  He said to them: Did you ask me for a reason and I would not give you?
  Can we say that the following provides support for his view:  If [the sukkah] cannot contain his head, the major part of his body and his table, or if a breach has been made in it large enough for a kid to jump in headlong, or if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, even if he puts in three handbreadths, it is invalid.
   How so? Surely that he placed them on their sides? No! Here we are dealing with a case where he placed it above the entrance of the sukkah, with three [of the four handbreadths] within and one protruding outside, in which case it is considered as a waste (skhakh) protruding from the Sukkah, and every waste (skhakh) protruding from a Sukkah is regarded as [part of the] Sukkah.
  
  Daf 15a
  
  Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says,  he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].
  GEMARA. It is well according to Bet Hillel; their reason is that ‘You shall make’, but not from that which is [already] made. If he loosens [the planks] he performs an action, and if he removes one from between two he performs an action. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If it is ‘You shall make’ but not from that which is [already] made, one act only should be sufficient; if it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, it should suffice if he removes one from between two?
  Indeed it is because of a decree lest one use ordinary roofing, and this is what they say: Even although he loosens them, if he removes one from between two, it is [valid], otherwise it is not.
  If so, read the concluding [part:]  R. Meir ruled, he should remove one from between two, but not loosen. Is not R. Meir's view thus identical with that of Beth Shammai?
  This is what he (R. Meir) means: Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute on this point.
  What [then] does [the Mishnah] teach us? That R. Meir holds that there is decree lest the sukkah look like ordinary roofing, while R. Judah holds that there is no such decree?  But have they not already disputed this,   as we have learned:  Planks may be used for skhakh, the words of R. Judah; R. Meir forbids them.
  R. Hiyya b. Abba answered in the name of R. Yohanan, The former mishnah deals with planed boards and they forbade them as a decree lest he comes to use vessels
  But according to Rav Judah who said in the name of Rav:   ‘If he covered the sukkah with plain arrowshafts, it is valid; with bored arrow-shafts, it is invalid’, and he does not decree against plain shafts on account of [the possible use of] bored ones; here also we should not restrict planed boards on account of [the possible use of] vessels?
  Rather to say that the dispute in the former [mishnah] is on the question whether a we decree against something [that might lead to] the possible use of an ordinary roofing and that the dispute in the latter mishnah is also on the same question; but why should they dispute the same question twice? 
  The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks].  To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.
  This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don't decree lest one use ordinary roofing But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]? 
  They dispute on [the question of] the annulment of a roof. One master holds the opinion that  by this means it becomes annulled, while the other master holds the opinion that by this means it does not become annulled. 
  Mishnah One who roofs his sukkah with iron spits or with bedposts, if the space between them equals them, it is valid. One who hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is not a valid sukkah.
  Gemara: Can we say that this is a refutation of R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua,  since it was stated: If the breach is equal to that which is standing, R. Papa says  it is permitted, and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua says it is forbidden?
  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua can answer, ‘What is meant by equals them? That it can easily pass through them.
  
  Daf 15b
  
  But is it not possible to measure them exactly’? R. Ammi answered: This is a case where he makes it larger. 
  Rava said:  one can even say that he does not make it larger, but if they were placed as the web, he places [the valid covering] as the woof; if as the woof, he places them as the web.
  Or the long boards of a bed. Can we say that this supports [a statement of] R. Ammi b. Tavyomi,  for R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered the Sukkah with worn out vessels it is invalid? 
  [No,] as R. Hanan said in the name of Rabbi, ‘With the long board and two legs, or with the short board and two legs’,  so here also it may refer to the long board and two legs, or the short board and two legs
  it may refer to the long board and two legs, or the short board and two legs
  
  Daf 16a
  
  A bed can become unclean [only] when it is assembled and be rendered clean only when it is assembled, the words of R. Eliezer,   but the sages say it can become unclean when it is in parts and become clean when in parts.  What are [these parts]?  — R. Hanan said in the name of Rabbi,  The long board and two legs or the short board and two legs. 
  For what is it fit? For placing against a wall and sitting upon it, and for tying it with ropes.
  [Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’.  What are discarded vessels? Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor.
  It has been taught in agreement with R. Ammi b. Tavyomi:  Matting of rushes or straw, its remnants, even if diminished from the minimum measure, may not be used for skhakh.
  A mat of reeds, a large one may be used for skhakh, a small one may not be used for skhakh. R. Eliezer said: It too is susceptible to impurity and may not be used as skhakh.
  If he hollows out a haystack: R. Huna said: This was taught only where there is not a hollow of one handbreadth [in height] extending to seven [handbreadths square], but if there is a hollow of one handbreadth extending to seven, it is a [valid] sukkah. 
  It has also been taught in a baraita: If he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a Sukkah, it is a [valid] Sukkah.  But have we not learned, it is not a sukkah? Deduce, from it [that the explanation is] according to R. Huna. Deduce from it. 
  Some put it in the form of a contradiction.  We have learned: if he hollows out a haystack to make for himself a sukkah, it is no sukkah. But has it not been taught that it is [a valid] Sukkah? R. Huna answered: There is no difficulty, the latter refers to where there is a hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths] while the former refers to where there is no hollow of a handbreadth extending to seven [handbreadths].
  If he hangs walls down from above to below, if they are higher than three handbreadths from the ground, it is invalid.  If he raises them from the bottom to the top, if they are ten handbreadths high, it is valid Rabbi Yose says: just as from the bottom to the top ten handbreadths [suffices] so from the top to the bottom ten handbreadths [suffice
  Gemara. What do they argue about? One master holds the opinion that a hanging partition renders [the Sukkah] valid, and the other Master holds the opinion that a hanging partition does not render it valid.
  We learned there A cistern between two courtyards—they do not fill up from it on Shabbat, unless they made for it a partition ten handbreadths high, whether above, below or from its rim.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: 
  
  Daf 16b
  
  Bet Shammai say:  below, And Bet Hillel say:  above.  Rabbi Judah said: the partition could not be more effective than the wall between the two courtyards.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: R. Judah spoke according to the view of R. Yose who said that a hanging partition validates.
  But in fact it is not so! Neither does R. Judah hold the opinion of R. Yose, nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah. 
  ‘R. Judah does not hold the opinion of R. Yose’, for R.
  Judah speaks only there with regard to the eruv of courtyards, which is of rabbinical origin, but here, with regard to the sukkah which is from the Torah, he does not [say so]. ‘Nor does R. Yose hold the opinion of R. Judah,’ for R. Yose speaks only here with regard to the Sukkah which is merely a positive commandment but with regard to Shabbat, which is a prohibition punishable by stoning, he does not say so.
  And if you will says with regard to the incident which occurred at Tzippori, on whose authority was it done? Not on the authority of R. Yose, but rather on that of R. Ishmael son of R. Yose.
  What was this incident  — That when R. Dimi came he said:  It once happened that that they forgot to bring a Torah scroll before Shabbat. The next day, they spread out sheets over the pillars and brought the Torah scroll and read from it
  Can it mean that they [really] spread them out? Where did they bring them from on Shabbat? Rather they found sheets [already] spread over the pillars, and therefore they brought the Torah scroll and read from it.
  R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: A matting slightly more than four handbreadths [wide] is permitted as a sukkah wall.  How does one place it? — One suspends it in the middle less than three [handbreadths] from the ground and less than three from the top, and whatever [space] is less than three handbreadths is treated as lavud. 
  But is not this obvious? — One might have said that we apply the law of lavud once, but we do not apply lavud twice [to the same wall], therefore he informed us of this.
  It was objected: A matting slightly more than seven [handbreadths] is permitted as a Sukkah wall! That was taught with reference to a large Sukkah; and what does it inform us? That walls may be suspended from above downwards in agreement with R. Yose.
  R. Ammi said: A board which is slightly more than four [handbreadths] wide is permitted for a sukkah wall when he places it less than three [handbreadths] from the adjacent wall,  since a space less than three [handbreadths] is treated as lavud
  What does he inform us? — He informs us this: That the minimum extent of a small sukkah is seven [handbreadths].
  
  Daf 17a
  
  Mishnah. If one removed the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. 
  [A roof of] a house which was opened, and he placed skhakh over it: if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the covering, it is invalid. 
  Similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns.  A large sukkah which was surrounded with material which is invalid for skhakh, if there is a space of four cubits beneath it, it is invalid.
  Gemara. Why are all these [rulings] needed? It is necessary [to state them all]. For if he had only informed us of [the roof of] a house which had been opened, [one would have said that the validity applied to this case only] because the partitions are made for the house, but in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded by columns, where the partitions are not made for the walls are not made for the columns it does not apply.
  And if he had informed us of those two, [one would have said that the validity applied to these cases only] because their skhakh is valid, but in the case of a large sukkah which is surrounded with a material which is invalid for a sukkah covering, since the skhakh itself is invalid, it does not apply [therefore it is] necessary [to mention all].
  Rabbah stated: I found the rabbis of the house of Rav sitting and saying, ‘an open air space invalidates if it is three [handbreadths wide]; an invalid covering invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]’, 
  And I said to them: from where do you know that an air space of three [handbreadths] invalidates? From that which we learned: if he distanced the skhakh three handbreadths from the walls, it is invalid. [But if so,] invalid skhakh too should not invalidate unless it extends to four cubits, since we have learned: if [the roof of] a house is opened and he placed skhakh over it, if there is a distance of four cubits from the wall to the skhakh, it is invalid. 
  And they said to me, this is no evidence since Rav and Shmuel both say that the reason it is valid is because [the roof is regarded as the continuation] of a ‘curved wall
  And I said to them: what [would the law be] if the invalid skhakh were less than four [handbreadths], with an air space of less than three [handbreadths]? It would be valid.  And what if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now should not an air-space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be treated like invalid skhakh which only invalidates with four?
  And they answered me, If so, then even according to you, who says that invalid skhakh invalidates only if there are four cubits, how [would it be] if there was invalid skhakh of less than four cubits, and [next to it] an air space of less than three handbreadths? It would be valid. And if he filled in this space with metal spits? It would be invalid. Now [can it not similarly be argued] should not an air space which invalidates with three [handbreadths] be like the skhakh which invalidates [only] if there are four cubits?’
  And I answered them,  how so? It is well according to me who says four cubits,
  
  Daf 17b
  
  because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine; 
  because [in this case the validity of the sukkah depends on] whether there is the standard size or not, and there is not the standard size, for since their standard sizes are unequal, they do not combine; 
  Abaye said to him: But also according to the master, while we can admit that their measures are unequal in a large sukkah, but in a small sukkah are they not equal?
  He answered, he reason there is not because the measures are equal, but because there is not the [minimum] size of a sukkah remaining. 
  And in any case where the minimum measures are not equal they don't join together? Have we not in fact learned: a garment that is three [handbreadths] square, sacking four handbreadths square, leather five handbreadths square and matting six handbreadths square[are susceptible to uncleanness]. 
  And it has been taught concerning this: garments and sacking, sacking and leather, leather and matting combine with one another?
  In that case the reason has been given, as Rabbi Shimon said: "What is the reason? Since they are susceptible to uncleanliness if [a zav] sits on them, as we have learned: if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’. 
  if he cuts from any one of them a piece one handbreadth square, it is susceptible to uncleanliness’.  Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of R. Yannai said, it can be used as a patch for [the saddle of] a donkey.
  In Sura they taught this passage in the above words;  In Nehardea they taught [as follows]: Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel:  invalid skhakh in the middle [of the sukkah] invalidates if it is four [handbreadths wide]; at the side only if it is four cubits wide;  While Rav says,  whether in the middle or at the sides, [it invalidates] only if it is four cubits wide. 
  We have learned: if he placed over it a plank four hand breadths wide, it is valid.  It is well according to Rav who says that whether in the middle or at the sides [the invalid covering must be no less than] four cubits [to invalidate it]; for this reason it is [here] valid; but according to Shmuel who says that at the middle a width of four [handbreadths invalidates], why is it here valid? Here what are we dealing with? When [the plank was placed at] the side.
  Come and hear:  two sheets combine, two boards do not combine. R. Meir says, boards are like sheets.
  It is well according to that version which says that Rav says that ‘whether in the middle or at the sides [it invalidates only] if it is four cubits wide;’ What does it mean by ‘combine'? They combine to make four cubits. But, according to the version which says that Rav says that, in the middle [even] four handbreadths [width of invalid skhakh] invalidates, what kind of boards are we to imagine? If they are each four handbreadths wide, why do they need to combine? And if they are each less than four handbreadths wide, they are mere sticks! 
  This is indeed a case where they are each four handbreadths wide; and what does ‘combine’ mean? That they combine to make up four cubits at the side. 
  Come and hear: if he covered the sukkah with planks of cedarwood which are four [handbreadths wide], according to all it is invalid;  If they are not four handbreadths: R. Meir disqualifies and R. Judah validates. 
  
  Daf 18a
  
  R. Meir admits that if there is the space of one plank between every two planks that one may place valid skhakh between them and it is valid.
  It is well according to him who says that whether in the middle or at the sides it needs four cubits [of invalid covering to invalidate a sukkah], for this reason it is here valid;  but according to him who says that in the middle four [handbreadths of invalid skhakh invalidate] why is it valid?
  R. Huna the son of R. Joshua answered: Here we are dealing with a sukkah which measures no more than a bare eight [cubits], and he places [alternately] plank and valid skhakh plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on one side and [similarly] plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh, plank and valid skhakh on the other side,
  so that there are two sections of valid skhakh in the middle, and thus a valid sukkah is formed in the middle.
  Abaye ruled: An air space of three handbreadths in a large sukkah which is diminished with either sticks or spits is a [valid] diminution; in a small Sukkah, with sticks it is a [valid] diminution, with spits an invalid one. 
  This applies only to the side,  but as regards the middle, R. Aha and Ravina differ.  One says: the rule of lavud applies in the middle, while the other says,  the rule of lavud does not apply in the middle.
  What is the reason of him who says that the rule of lavud applies in the middle?  — Because it has been taught: If a beam protrudes from one wall but does not touch the opposite wall, and similarly in the case of two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other and not touching each other, if [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to provide another beam; if it is three [handbreadths] it is necessary to provide another beam. And [what does] the other [answer to this]?
  — Beams are different [from a sukkah] since [they are only] a  measure.
  What is the reason of the one who says that the rule of lavud is not applied in the middle? — Because we learned:   If a skylight in [the roof of] a house was of one handbreadth square, and there was an object of uncleanliness in the house, all the house is unclean, but what is directly below the skylight is clean.  If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.
  If the skylight was less than a handbreadth square, and there was an unclean object in the house, what is directly below the skylight is clean. If the unclean object is directly below the skylight, the whole house is clean.
  And [what does] the other [say]? The laws of uncleanliness differ [from those of sukkah] since they have a tradition about them.
  R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded: If [the roof of] a house is breached, and he placed skhakh over it, it is valid.  R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said to him Master, explain [your words].  Thus my father explained it:  If there are four cubits it is invalid, if less than four cubits, it is valid.
  R. Judah b. Ila'i expounded:  abruma is permitted R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said to him,   Master, explain [your words]. Thus said my father, Those from such and such a place are forbidden, and from such and such a place are permitted. 
  This is like that which Abaye said; the tzahanta of Bab Nahara are permitted.  What is the reason? and an unclean fish, since it has no spinal cord, cannot exist therein, [it could be retorted that] we see that they do exist [in rivers with rapid currents]. 
  Will you then say that it is because it has salt water, and ‘an unclean fish, since it has no scales, cannot exist [in salt water, it could be retorted that] we see that they do exist?  The reason in fact is that the muddy nature of this river does not allow unclean fish to breed in it.  Ravina said: But at the present time that the Etan river and the Gamda river flow into it and they are forbidden.
  It was stated: If one placed skhakh over an exedra which has pillars, it is valid If it has no pillars: Abaye declares  it valid and Rava declares it invalid.  Abaye declares it valid [since]
  
  Daf 18b
  
   we say that  the edge of the roof [of the exedra is regarded as though it] descends and fills up [the space]. While Raba says it is invalid, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills up [the space]. 
  Rava said to Abaye: according to you who say that the edge of the roof [is regarded as though it] descends and fills in [the space, is a sukkah valid] even if the middle wall is missing? .He answered him,  In that case I agree with you [that the Sukkah is invalid] since it would be like an alley-way that is open on two opposite sides.
  Shall we say that Abaye and Rava disagree on the same principle as that on which Rav and Shmuel differed for it was stated: If an exedra was in a field: Rav declares that it is permitted to carry [on Shabbat] over the whole extent of it, since we say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in the space; While Samuel said that  it is forbidden to carry in it except within four cubits, since we do not say that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?
  No!] With regard to the opinion of Shmuel neither of them disagrees
  
  Daf 19a
  
  They only differ with regard to the opinion of Rav.  Abaye agrees with Rav, while Rava can say that Rav ruled then only in that case, since the partitions are made for the exedra, but in the case here, since they are not made for this purpose [he would] not [rule thus].
  We have learned: similarly in the case of a courtyard which is surrounded with an exedra. But why? Should it not rather be assumed that the edge of the roof descends and fills in [the space]?
  Rava explained according to Abaye that this is a case where one made the beams level.
  In Sura they taught these statements in the above form. In Pumbedita they taught [it as follows]: If a man placed skhakh over an exedra which has no pillars, it is invalid according to all.  If it has pillars: Abaye declares it  valid, while Rava declares  it invalid.  Abaye declares it valid, since we apply the law of lavud. Rava declares it invalid, since we do not apply the law of lavud. And the law is according to the former version.
  R. Ashi found R. Kahana placing skhakh over an exedra which had no pillars He said to him: Does not the master hold the opinion which Rava stated, that if it has pillars it is valid, but if it has no pillars it is invalid?  He showed him [that a pillars] was visible within though level on the outside
  or visible from without, though level from within,
  for it has been stated, ‘If it is visible from without and level from within, it is regarded as a valid sidepost’, and a side-post is in this respect like pillars
  A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah.  What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’?  ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.
  But do we not need three walls? [This refers to a case] where there were [three walls].  But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need the size prescribed as a minimum for the validity of a Sukkah? But do we not need that the shade should exceed the sun? [This refers to] where there was [more shade than sun]. 
  If so, what does it teach us?  One might have said that since they were made for the inside but not for the outside it is not [valid]  therefore he informs us [that it is valid].
  Rabbah and R. Joseph both stated: This refers to sticks projecting in front of a Sukkah, one wall of which continues with them.  What might one have said? That it does not contain the prescribed minimum for the validity of a Sukkah, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].
  Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: it was necessary only in the case of a Sukkah, most of which has more shade than sun, while a minor part of it has more sun than shade.  What might one have said? That this small portion invalidates it, therefore he informs us [that it does not].  What then is meant by ‘going out’? [It means] going out from the validity of a Sukkah.
  R. Oshaia said: This is necessary only in the case of a small sukkah which has invalid skhakh to an extent of less than three [handbreadths]. And what is meant by ‘going out’? Going out from the laws governing a Sukkah.
  R. Hoshiah raised a difficulty: Let it be regarded as no better than air space, does then air space of less than three [handbreadths] invalidate a small sukkah?
  R. Abba answered him, [The difference is that] in the former case it combines [with the rest of the Sukkah] and it is permitted to sleep under it; in the latter case it does not combine and it is forbidden to sleep under it.
  But is there anything which itself is invalid and yet combines [with another thing to become valid]?  R. Isaac b. Elyashiv answered,  Yes!
  
  Daf 19b
  
  Fluid clay proves it;  it combines to make up forty seah, yet he who immerses in it has not undergone a proper immersion.
  Mishnah: One who makes his sukkah like a cone-shaped hut or leans it against a wall: Rabbi Eliezer invalidates it since it has no roof, But the sages declare it valid.
  GEMARA. It has been taught: R. Eliezer agrees that if he raised it one handbreadth from the ground, or if he separated it one handbreadth from the wall, it is valid.
  What is the reason of the rabbis? That the incline of a tent is like the tent itself.
  Abaye found R. Joseph sleeping on a bridal bed in a Sukkah He said to him ‘According to whom [do you act]? According to R. Eliezer? Do you then forsake the Rabbis and act according to R. Eliezer?’
  He answered him, ‘In the baraita this is taught in the reverse, R. Eliezer declares it valid and the Sages declare it invalid.’  [Abaye then asked], ‘Do you forsake a Mishnah and act according to a baraita?’ 
  — He answered him, ‘The Mishnah represents an individual opinion,  as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah like a cone-shaped hut, or leaned it against a wall R. Natan says that R. Eliezer invalidates it because it has no roof while the Sages declare it valid.'
  Mishnah: A large reed mat: if made for lying upon it is susceptible to [ritual] impurity and is invalid as skhakh. If made for skhakh, it may be used for skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.  Rabbi Eliezer says: whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh; If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness.
  GEMARA. [Is not our Mishnah] self-contradictory? It says, if made for reclining upon is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh The reason then is because it was made specifically for reclining upon, but if it was made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for skhakh. 
  And then it is taught: if made for a covering it is valid as skhakh and is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.  The reason then is because it was made specifically for a covering, but if it was made without specific purpose [it would be assumed that it was] made for reclining upon?
  This is no difficulty. The former case refers to a large [mat], the latter to a small one. 
  But read the latter portion [of the Mishnah]. R Rabbi Eliezer says:  whether small or large: If it was made for reclining upon, it is susceptible to uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that he made it for reclining, but if made without a specific purpose it can be used as skhakh
  But [again] read the later portion [of the Mishnah] If made for a covering, it is valid as a skhakh and is not susceptible to uncleanliness. The reason then is that it was made specifically for covering, but if made without specific purpose, [it would be assumed that it was] for reclining upon?
  Rather Rava said: In the case of a large [mat] all agree that if made without specific purpose [it is assumed to be intended] for a covering. They only differ in the case of a small [mat]. The first Tanna holds that ordinarily a small one is for reclining upon, and R. Eliezer holds that ordinarily a small one is for a covering as well.
  
  Daf 20a
  
  And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh.  The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh.  A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.
  Abaye said to him, If so, [instead of] R. Eliezer says, whether it is small or large,  it ought to read, Whether it is large or small?
  Furthermore, is it not in fact with regard to a large mat that they are in dispute, and it is R. Eliezer who takes the stricter view,  for it was taught: A large mat of reeds is valid for skhakh. R. Eliezer says: If it is not susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, it is valid for skhakh.
  Rather R. Papa said:  With regard to a small [mat], all agree that ordinarily it is intended for reclining upon.  About what do they disagree? About a large one.  The first Tanna is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended for a covering, while R. Eliezer is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended also for reclining.
  And what is meant by ‘if it was made for reclining'? It is this that was meant:  Ordinarily also its manufacture is assumed to be for the purpose of reclining upon unless one made it specifically for a covering.
  Our rabbis taught:  A mat of wicker or of straw: if large, is valid for skhakh, if small it is invalid for skhakh. One of reeds or of helat, if plaited, is valid for a skhakh, if woven, it is invalid. 
  R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said in the name of his father: Both the one and the other, are valid for skhakh; and R. Dosa also ruled according to his view.
  We have learned elsewhere: All [hotzlot] mats are [liable to become] impure by corpse impurity, the words of Rabbi Dosa. But the Sages say:  [Also by] midras impurity. 
  [Can it mean] to the uncleanliness of midras but not to that of a corpse! But haven't we learned: Whatever is susceptible to uncleanliness of midras is also susceptible to uncleanliness from a corpse? Say rather also to the uncleanliness of midras.
  What is meant by "hotzlot"? R. Abdimi b. Hamduri said marzublei. What is marzublei?  R. Abba said, Bags filled with foliage. R. Shimon b. Lakish said: Real mats
  And Resh Lakish is consistent with his own view, since Resh Lakish said, May I be atonement for R. Hiyya and his sons. For in ancient times when the Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came up and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten, and R. Hiyya and his sons came up and established it And thus said R. Hiyya and his sons: R. Dosa and the Sages did not dispute about reed-mats of Usha, 
  
  Daf 20b
  
  that they are susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, or of Tiberias that they are not susceptible. About what do they dispute? About those of other places.  One Master is of the opinion that  since they are not [as a rule] used for sitting upon, they are like those of Tiberias, and the Masters are of the opinion that  since it sometimes happens that they are used for sitting upon, they are like those of ‘Usha
  The Master said:  ‘All reed mats are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness. These are the words of R. Dosa’.  But was it not taught:  ‘And R. Dosa also said according to his words’?
  #NAME?
  It was objected: Mats of bamboo, of reed grass, of sackcloth or of goat's-hair are susceptible to corpse uncleanliness, the words of R. Dosa,  But the sages say: they are also susceptible to midras uncleanliness. It goes well according to him who says [that hozlot means] ‘bags filled with foliage’, since those of bamboo and of reed-grass can be used for a basket fruit, while those of sackcloth and goat's-hair can be used for sacks or baskets,
  but according to him who says that it means ‘real mats, it is well with regard to those of sackcloth and goat's-hair, since they can be used for curtains or for sieves but to what use can those of bamboo and reed-grass be put? They can be used for [covering] brewing vats. 
  Some read [as follows]: It is well according to him who says [that hozlot means] ‘real matting’, since those of bamboo and reed-grass may be used for [covering] brewing vats while those of sackcloth and goat's hair can be used for curtains or for sieves, but according to him who says that it means ‘bags filled with foliage, it is well with regard to those of sackcloth and goat's hair which may be used for haversacks or baskets, but to what use can those of bamboo and reed-grass be put? They may be used for baskets of fruit.
  It was taught: R. Hanina stated: When I went down to the Diaspora I came across an old man who said to me,  A reed mat may be used as skhakh.” And when I came before R. Joshua, my father’s brother, he agreed with his words. R. Hisda said only if it has no rim.
  Ulla said: Those mats of the people of Mahoza, were it not for their rim, would be valid as skhakh. So it has also been taught:  Reed mats are valid as skhakh, but if they have rims they are invalid as skhakh. 
  May we return to you chapter “Sukkah.”
  He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us.
  Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed.   And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders,  “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.
  GEMARA. But there are not ten [handbreadths in the height of the bed]? Shmuel interpreted,  [that it refers to] a bed which is ten [handbreadths high].
  We have learned elsewhere, Both a hole which has been hollowed out by water or by insects or eaten through by saline corrosion, and similarly a row of stones, or a pile of beams, overshadow uncleanliness. 
  R. Judah said,  Any ‘tent’ which is not made by the hands of man is not considered a tent. What is the reason of R. Judah?
  
  Daf 21a
  
  He deduces it from the word ‘tent’ [common to this and to] the Tabernacle.  It is written here (Numbers 19:14), "This is the law, when a man dies in a tent," and it is written there (Exodus 40:19), "And he spread the tent over the Tabernacle" Just as there [‘tent’ means one] made by the hands of man, so here [it means one made] by the hands of man.  And the rabbis? The word ‘tent’ occurs many times, to include [all tents].
  וסבר רבי יהודה כל אהל שאינו עשוי בידי אדם אינו אהל? But we contrast this with the following: Courtyards were built in Jerusalem over rock, and beneath them was a hollow [made] because of [the fear of] a grave in the depths, and they used to bring there pregnant women, and there they gave birth to their children and there they raised them for [the service of the Red] Heifer. 
  And they brought oxen, upon whose back were placed doors, and the children sat upon them with stone cups in their hands. ... When they reached the Shiloah they went down into the water and filled them, then ascended and at again [on the doors].  R. Yose said,  [Each child] used to let [his cup] down and fill it from his place because of [the fear of] a grave in the depths.
  And it has been taught, R. Judah said, They did not bring doors, but oxen.  Now oxen, surely, are a ‘tent’ which is not made by the hands of man, and does it not nevertheless teach, R. Judah said: ... They did not bring doors, but oxen?
  When R. Dimi came he said in the name of R. Elazar,  R. Judah agrees in, the case [of a ‘tent’ that is as large as] a fistful.  So it has also been taught: R. Judah admits in the case of overhanging crags and clefts of rocks.
  But a door has many fistfuls and yet R. Judah teaches,  ‘They did not bring doors but oxen’? Abaye replied,  [It means that] they did not need to bring doors. 
  Rava said,  [It means that] they did not bring doors at all because the child, feeling confident might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanliness
  
  Daf 21b
  
  on account of a grave in the depths.
  It has been taught in agreement with Rava: R. Judah said, They did not bring doors at all, because the child, feeling confident, might put out his head or one of his limbs and thus contract uncleanness on account of a grave in the depths... but they brought Egyptian oxen with wide bellies, and the children sat on their backs with stone cups in their hands. When they came to Shiloah they descended, filled them, and ascended and sat again on their backs. 
  But has not a bed a breadth of many fistfuls and yet we have learned: Rabbi Judah said,  we were accustomed to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders? A bed is different, since it is made [to be slept] upon. But are not oxen also made [to be sat] upon? When Rabin came he explained in the name of R. Elazar: 
  Oxen are different, since they provide shelter for shepherds in summer from the sun, and in the rainy season from the rain. If so, should not a bed [also be so regarded] since it provides shelter to the shoes and sandals under it?
  The fact is, said Rava, that oxen are different since they naturally shelter their entrails, as it is written (Job 10), "You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and covered me with bones and sinews."
  And if you like[you may say that] R. Judah follows his own view that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode; and since a bed is but a temporary abode, while a Sukkah is a permanent ‘tent’, a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent one.
  But does not R. Shimon also say that a Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and yet [he holds that] a temporary tent does annul a permanent tent? It is in this that they differ One Master holds that a temporary tent can come and annul a permanent tent, while the other Master holds that a temporary tent cannot annul a permanent tent.
  R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things.  We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation. 
  But why does he not say, From the words of R. Gamaliel"?  He informs us of something [else] by the way, like that which R Aha b. Ada, and others say, R. Aha b. Ada in the name of R. Hamnuna said in the name of Rav: From where do we know that even the casual conversation of disciples of the sages demands study? As it says, "And whose leaf does not wither" (Psalms 1:3). 
  Mishnah: One who supports his sukkah with the posts of a bed, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says:  if it cannot stand on its own, it is invalid.
  GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Judah? R. Zera and R. Abba b. Mamal disagree.  One says,  It is because the Sukkah has no permanence, and the other says, It is because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. 
  What [case] differentiates between them? If, for instance, he fixed iron stakes [in the ground] and covered them with skhakh According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, he is here also setting it up with something which is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness. 
  Abaye said: They taught this only if he supported it, but if he placed skhkah above a bed, it is valid. What is the reason? According to him who says, because it has no permanence, here there is permanence; according to him who says, because he props it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness, here he does not prop it up with something susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness.
  
  Daf 22a
  
  Mishnah. A disarranged sukkah and one whose shade is more than its sun is valid. If [the skhakh] is thick like that of a house, it is valid, even though the stars cannot be seen through it. 
  Gemara. What is meant by "disarranged? Ravs said: a poor sukkah; And Shmuel said, one whose reeds are not all on the same level.
  Rav taught the [first part of the mishnah as] one [statement], while Shmuel taught it as two.  Rav taught it as one:  a sukkah which is meduvlelet, (what is meduvlelet? Poor, meduldelet) whose shade is more than its sun, is valid;  While Shmuel taught it as two: what is meduvlelet? Disarranged; and [the mishnah] teaches two [laws,]  hat a disarranged sukkah is valid and that a sukkah whose shade is more than its sun is valid
  Abaye stated, this applies only where there are not three handbreadths of distance between one reed and another, but if there are three handbreadths between one and another, it is invalid. Rava says, even if there are three handbreadths between one and another we also do not say [that it is invalid] unless the upper reed is not a handbreadth wide but if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide, it is valid, since we apply to it the law of "beat and cast it down."
  Rava said: From where do I say that if the upper reed is a handbreadth wide we apply to it the law of ‘beat and throw it down,’ and if it is not so wide we do not apply it? From what we have learned:  1) [With regard to] the roof beams of a house and of the upper story which have no plaster ceiling upon them and are in a line, [the upper ones exactly above the lower]: a) If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, all beneath that one becomes unclean. 
  If it is between a lower and an upper [beam] what is between them becomes unclean. If it is above the upper [roof beams], what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean.  [In the case] where the upper [roof beams] were [over the gaps] between the lower [roof beams]: a) If there is uncleanness beneath one of them, what is beneath all of them becomes unclean; b) If above them, what is directly above to the sky becomes unclean.
  And on this it was taught, when do these apply? When the beams are each a handbreadth [wide] and there is [a gap] of a handbreadth between them,  but if there is not [a gap] of a handbreadth between them, if there is uncleanliness under one of them, whatever is under that beam is unclean while the space between them and above them is clean.  Thus it clearly follows that if there is a handbreadth we apply the law of ‘beat and throw it down’, but if there is not a handbreadth we do not apply this law. Conclude from this. 
  R. Kahana was sitting and he recited this statement.  Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana,  do we then not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ where an object is not a handbreadth wide?
  1) Has it not in fact been taught: if a beam was protruding from one wall, but was not touching the opposite wall, and similarly if two beams, one protruding from one wall and one from the other, were not touching each other, and [the space between them is] less than three [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to supply another beam, but if it was three [handbreadths] it is necessary to supply another beam. 
  a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel ruled,
  
  Daf 22b
  
  if the space was less than four [handbreadths] it is unnecessary to bring another beam, if not, it is necessary to bring another beam.
  2) And so in the case of two parallel beams neither of which can support a half-brick, if they can support a half-brick on their joint width of a handbreadth, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam. 
  a) Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said, if they can support a half-brick in its length of three handbreadths, it is not necessary to bring another beam; if not, it is necessary to bring another beam. 
  3) If one was above and the other below: Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah said,  we regard the upper one as though it were lower down or the lower one as though it were higher, provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground] nor the lower one less than ten [handbreadths from the ground].  From which it follows that if both of them were within twenty [cubits] we do apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’ even though none of them is a handbreadth [wide]?
  He replied,  solve it and say it this way: 1) Provided that the upper one is not more than twenty [cubits from the ground], but within the twenty [cubits], and the lower one is near it within less than three [handbreadths],  2) Alternatively  provided that the lower one is not less than ten [cubits from the ground] but more than ten, and the upper one is near it within less than three [handbreadths],  3) But if they were three [handbreadths apart] since [the upper beam] is not a handbreadth [wide], we do not apply the law of ‘beat and throw down’.
  Whose shade is more than its sun is valid.  But if they are equal it is invalid? But have we not learnt in the other chapter, ‘or whose sun is more than its shade, is invalid’, from which it follows that if they are equal it is valid? 
  There is no difficulty, since the former refers to above and the latter to below.  R. Papa said,  this is like what people say, ‘the size of a zuz above becomes the size of an issar below’.
  If thick like a house.  Our rabbis have taught, if it is thick like a house, even though the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid.  If the rays of the sun cannot be seen through it: Bet Shammai invalidates it, and Bet Hillel declares it valid.
  Mishnah 1) One who makes his sukkah on the top of a wagon, or on the deck of a ship, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.  2) If he made it on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival. 
  3) If the tree [formed] two [walls] and one was made by the hands of man, or if two were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid, but one may not go up into it on the festival.  4) If three walls were made by the hands of man and one was formed by the tree, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival.
  
  Daf 23a
  
  This is the general rule:  in any case in which if the tree was removed the [sukkah] could stand on its own, it is valid and one may go up into it on the festival. 
  GEMARA. According to whom is our Mishnah? According to R. Akiva,  as it has been taught,  He who builds his Sukkah on the deck of a ship, R. Gamaliel declares it invalid and R. Akiva 
  valid. It happened with R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba when they were journeying on a ship that R. Akiva got up and built a sukkah on the deck of the ship. The next day the wind blew and tore it away.  R. Gamaliel said to him,  Akiva, where is your Sukkah?
  Abaye said: All agree that where it is unable to withstand a normal land breeze it is nothing; If it can withstand an unusually [strong] land breeze, all agree that it is valid.  Where do they dispute? Where it can withstand a normal land breeze, but not a normal sea breeze;  R. Gamaliel holds that the Sukkah must be a permanent abode, and since it cannot withstand a normal sea breeze, it is nothing, While R. Akiva is of the opinion that the sukkah must be a temporary abode, and since it can withstand a normal land breeze, it is valid.
  Or on the back of a camel etc.  According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir,  as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.
  And R. Meir?  According to Torah law this [Sukkah] is also suitable [for seven days], and it is only the rabbis who decreed against it
  If he used an animal as a wall of the Sukkah: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, for R. Meir used to say,  Whatever contains the breath of life cannot be used as a wall for a Sukkah, nor a side-post for an alley nor boards around wells, nor a covering stone for a grave n the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said, Nor may a get be written upon it. 
  What is the reason of R. Meir?  Abaye said: Lest it die.  R. Zera said: Lest it escape. Concerning an elephant securely bound, all agree [that the Sukkah is valid], since even ifs it die, there is still ten [handbreadths height] in its carcass. Regarding what then do they dispute? Regarding an elephant which is not tied up.  According to the one who says: Lest it die, we are not concerned; According to him who says, We fear lest it escape, we are concerned.
  But according to him who says, Lest it die, let us be concerned lest it escape?  Rather regarding an elephant which is not tied up, all agree [that the Sukkah is invalid];  Regarding what do they dispute? Regarding an [ordinary] animal which is tied up: According to him who says, Lest it die, we are concerned. According to him who says, Lest it escape, we are not concerned. But according to him who says: Lest it escape, let us be concerned lest it die? 
  —Death is not a frequent occurrence. But is there not an open space between [the animal's legs]? [It refers to] where he filled it in with branches of palms and bay-tree
  But might it not lie down? [It refers to] where it was tied with cords from above.  And according to him who says, Lest it die, is it not tied with cords from above?  It might happen that it is made to stand within three [handbreadths] of the skhakh but when it dies,
  
  Daf 23b
  
  it shrinks, and he might not notice.
  But did Abaye say that R. Meir is concerned because of the possibility of death while R. Judah is not concerned? But haven't we learned:  If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, she may eat of terumah on the presumption that he is still alive
  And when we pointed to the following contradiction: [If a priest said to his wife,] ‘Here is your get [to take effect] one hour before my death’, she is forbidden to eat of terumah immediately.
  Abaye answered that  there is no difficulty, ... since the former [statement] is according to R. Meir who is not concerned with the possibility of death, while the latter is according to R. Judah who is concerned the possibility of death
  As it has been taught, If a man buys wine from Samaritans he may say,  ‘Two log which I intend to set aside are terumah, ten are the first tithe, and nine the second tithe’, and then he redeems it and may drink it at once, the words of R. Meir.
  
  Daf 24a
  
  R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Shimon forbid it
  Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir is concerned for death, while R. Judah disregards is not concerned for death, as it was taught, If he used an animal as a wall for a Sukkah, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.
  [But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Meir? R. Meir can answer you  Death is of frequent occurrence, but the splitting of a wineskin is infrequent, since one might give it in charge of a guardian.
  [But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Judah?
  The reason of R. Judah is not lest the wineskin split, but because he does not accept the principle of retroactivity (bererah).
  But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?  Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir,  ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them,  ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?
  [No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir,  "As for myself I do not accept the principle of bererah, but according to you who do accept the principle of bererah, do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split?’ And the latter answered, ‘When the wineskin splits’.
  But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of death?  Haven't we learned: R. Judah says, Even another wife was prepared for him, lest his wife die?  About this it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: They adopted a higher standard with regard to atonement.
  Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it.  But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering tone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness?
  Rather R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition.  There are others who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said  that R. Meir holds that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition.
  What [practical difference] is there between [the two versions]?  The practical difference between them is where he set up a Sukkah wall with an inflated skin.  According to the one who which says a partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition, [this one is invalid] since it is upheld by wind; According to the version which says ‘not made by the hands of man’ it is valid,
  
  Daf 24b
  
   since it is made by the hands of man
  The Master said: ‘In the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said: Nor may a get be written upon it’ What is the reason for R. Yose the Galilean? As it has been taught: [Scripture says], A scroll. I know only [that] a scroll [is valid], how do I know to include any other material? Scripture says, "And he wrote to her" 
  implying, on whatever material it may be If so, why does Scripture state, "scroll"? To teach you that just as a scroll is a thing which has no breath of life, and does not eat, so is everything valid which does not have the breath of life and does not eat.
  And the Rabbis? If Scripture had written "In a scroll", [it would be] as you say, but now that it is written "a scroll" it refers to the recital of the words. 
  And how do the rabbis expound the words, "And he writes"?  They need that [text for to teach that]  with writing she becomes divorced, but she does not become divorced with money Lest I would have said, since her going out [from the married state] is compared to her entry into it just as her entry is with money, so is her exit, therefore it teaches us [this].
  And from where does R. Yose the Galilean derive this?  From [the words], ‘a scroll of divorce’; the scroll divorces and nothing else. And the others?
  They need [this terminology to teach that the get must be] one which severs them [completely], as it has been taught.  [If a man say,] Here is your get on condition that you do not drink wine, or go to your father's house ever, it is not a proper severance. For thirty days, it is a severance. 
  And the other?  He deduces it from [the use of the form] kerituth [instead of that of] karet. And the others? They do not expound [the difference between] keritut and karet.
  Mishnah. If he makes his sukkah between trees, and the trees form its walls, it is valid.
  Gemara. R. Aha b. Jacob said,  a partition which is unable to withstand a normal wind is not a valid partition. 
  We have learned, if he makes his sukkah between trees, so that the trees form its walls, it is valid.  But do they not sway to and fro? We are dealing here with solid [trees]. 
  But are there not the swaying branches? [It refers to] where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees.  If so, what does it come to teach us?  One might have thought that we should decree against this lest he come to make use of the tree, therefore he informs us [that it is valid].
  Come and hear: If there was there a tree, or a fence, or a partition of reeds, it is regarded as a valid corner-piece! This also refers to where he plaited it with shrubbery and bay-trees.
  Come and hear: If a tree casts a shadow on the ground, it if the ends of its branches are not three handbreadths high above the ground it is permitted to carry underneath it. But why? Does not the tree sway to and fro? Here also it is a case where one plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.
  But if so, it should be permitted to carry objects over its whole area;  why then did R. Huna the son of R. Joshua say: One may not carry any objects there
  
  Daf 25a
  
  except where its area was not bigger than two bet se'ah?
  The reason is that it is an abode made to serve the open air and in every abode that is made to serve the open air objects may be moved in it only if its area is no more than two beth se'ah.
  Come and hear:  If one made his Shabbat resting place on a mound which is ten [handbreadths] high and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a cavity in the ground which is ten [handbreadths] deep, and [whose extent] is from four cubits to two bet se'ah and so also with a harvested spot of grain that was surrounded by ears of grain, he may walk throughout its whole extent and two thousand cubits outside it [on the Sabbath]. [Now is not this permitted] even although it sways to and fro? There also it refers to where he plaited it with shrubs and bay-trees.
  Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.
  Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.
  What is the implication? Rav Huna said: Like "road." Just as "road" implies a non-obligatory activity, so too for all non-obligatory activities, excluding this one who is involved in a mitzvah.
  Are we not discussing one who is traveling to perform a mizvah, and the Merciful One said that he should read it? If so, then let the verse say "in sitting and in going". What is [the reason for] "in your sitting and in your going?" One who is going for himself is obligated. This one traveling to perform a mitzvah is exempt.
  If so, then even one who brings in a widow also [should be exempt]! One who brings in a maiden is preoccupied. One who brings in a widow is not preoccupied.
  And all who are preoccupied, they too should be exempt? But from that, one who is preoccupied from losing his ship at sea, he should also be exempt. And would you say here also? But Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah, except for tefillin, as behold, they are spoken of as splendor.
  Here, the preoccupation is preoccupation in a mitzvah. There, the preoccupation is non-obligatory preoccupation.
  And one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah comes out from here? It comes from there, as it is taught in a Baraita: (Numbers 9:6) "There were people that were impure by the flesh of man..." Those people, who were they? They were the carriers of Yosef's body, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili.
  
  Daf 25b
  
  R. Akiva said: They were Mishael and Elzaphan who were occupied with [the remains of] Nadav and Avihu.  R. Yitzchak said, If they were those who bore the coffin of Joseph, they had time to cleanse themselves [before Pesah] and if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could [also] have cleansed themselves [before Pesah].
  Rather they had been occupied with a dead body that one is commanded to bury, whose the seventh day [of purification] fell on the eve of Pesah, as it is said, "They could not keep the Passover on that day," on ‘that’ day they could not keep the Passover, but the next day they could.
  [Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the pesah sacrifice had not yet come, but here where the time of the reading of the Shema had come, I would have said that he is obligated, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the later]. And if he had informed us of the case here only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve karet, but there where it involves karet, I would have said no. [Therefore the other was] necessary. 
  [Going back to] the main text: R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav:  A mourner is obligated in all the commandments of the Torah with the exception of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’.  Since the God said to Ezekiel, "Bind your beauty upon yourself," (Ezekiel 24:17) you are obligated in this, but all other people are exempt.’
  This, however, applies only to the first day, since of that day it is written, "And the end of it is as a bitter day" (Amos 8:10). 
  R. Abba b. Zavda also said in the name of Rav,  A mourner is obligated in the Sukkah Is not this obvious?  What might I have said? Since R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav that he who is in discomfort is exempt from the obligation of Sukkah, this [one] is also in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort that comes on its own, but [the mourner] since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, he must settle his mind
  And R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav:  A bridegroom and the groomsmen and all the wedding guests are exempt from the Sukkah all the seven days. What is the reason?  Because they have to rejoice. But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the Sukkah? There is no rejoicing but in the huppah. But let them eat in the Sukkah and rejoice in the Sukkah? There is no rejoicing but in the huppah.
  But let them do the huppah in the Sukkah? Abaye says:  [They cannot] because of seclusion. And Rava said, Because of the discomfort of the bridegroom. What practical difference is there between them? The practical difference between them  is a case where people are going in and out of there.  According to the one who said "because of seclusion", the restriction does not apply; according to the one who said because of discomfort to the groom, it does. 
  R. Zera said, I ate in the Sukkah and rejoiced in the huppah and my heart rejoiced all the more since I was fulfilling two [commandments].
  Our rabbis taught: The bridegroom, and the groomsmen and all the wedding guests are exempt from prayer and tefllin, but are obligated to read the Shema.
  
  Daf 26a
  
  In the name of R. Shila they said: The bridegroom is exempt, but the groomsmen and the wedding guests are liable.
  It has been taught: R. Hanania b. Akavya said:  Scribes writing [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, their agents and their agents’ agents, and all who are engaged in holy work including sellers of blue [for tzitzit] are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah, to confirm the words of R. Yose the Galilean,  for R. Yose the Galilean used to say:  He who is occupied with the performance of a mitzvah is [at that time] exempt from other mitzvot
  Our rabbis taught:  Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night.  Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura,  saying,  ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’
  Our rabbis taught:  The day watchmen of a town are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated at night; night watchmen are exempt by night and obligated by day; day and night watchmen are exempt both by day and at night. 
  Watchmen of gardens and orchards are exempt both by day and by night. But let them make a Sukkah there and dwell in it? Abaye said,  "You shall dwell" as you normally dwell
  Rava said: The breach calls out to the thief. What practical difference is there between them? The practical difference is when they are guarding a pile of fruit.
  Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah].  Our Rabbis taught,  The sick one spoken of here is not [only] one who sick and is in danger, but also one who is sick but not in danger, even one who has a pain in his eye or a pain in his head. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: On one occasion I had a pain in my eye in Caesarea and R. Yose Berebi permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside the Sukkah.
  Rav allowed R. Aha Bardela to sleep in a canopy bed in a Sukkah in order [to keep out] the gnats.  Rava allowed R. Aha b. Adda to sleep outside the Sukkah on account of the stink of the plaster.
  Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah.  But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort?  I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.
  Casual eating and drinking are permitted outside the sukkah. How much is considered casual eating?  R. Joseph said,  [The volume of] two or three eggs.  Abaye said to him: But sometimes this suffices for [a whole meal for] a man, and then it would be a set meal? ... Rather Abaye said:  as much as a student and then goes into the learning session.
  Our Rabbis taught: Casual eating is permitted outside the Sukkah, but not casual sleeping. What is the reason? R. Ashi said: It is a decree lest he fall fast asleep.
  Abaye said to him But what about that which has been taught, "A man may sleep casually while wearing his , but not set regular, let us be concerned lest he fall fast asleep?  R. Joseph b. R. Ila'i said:  his refers to a person who entrusts his sleep to others.
  R. Mesharsheya raised a difficulty: Does not ‘Your guarantor need a guarantor ? Rather Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan,  This refers to where the person puts his head between his knees.  Rava said: There is no set amount for sleep.
  One [baraita] teaches, One may sleep casually in tefillin but not regular sleep, and another [baraita] teachers, Both casual sleep and regular sleep [are permitted] while a third baraita teaches: Neither a casual sleep nor a regular sleep [is allowed]! There is no difficulty: One refers to where he holds them in his hand, one to where they rest on his head, and one refers to where he spreads a cloth over them.
  How long is casual sleep?  Rami b. Ezekiel taught: The time it takes to walk one hundred cubits. It has also been taught in a baraita: He who sleeps in tefillin and [on waking] observes a seminal emission, should [remove the tefillin by taking] hold of the strap
  
  Daf 26b
  
  but he should not hold the box, the words of R. Yaakov. The sages say: one may sleep casual sleep in his tefillin but not a regular sleep.  And what constitutes a casual sleep? The time it takes to walk one hundred cubits.
  Rav said, It is forbidden to sleep by day more than the sleep of a horse.  And what is the sleep of a horse? Sixty breaths. 
  Abaye said, The sleep of the Master is as that of Rav, and that of Rav as that of Rabbi and that of Rabbi as of David, and that of David as of a horse, and that of a horse is sixty breaths. 
  Abaye slept [by day] as long as it takes to go up from Pumbeditha to Be Kube. R. Joseph applied to him the verse, "How long will you sleep, O sluggard, when will you arise out of your sleep" (Proverbs 6:9).
  Our Rabbis taught: One who wishes to go to sleep by day, if he wants he may remove [his tefillin] and if he wants he may leave them on. At night, he must remove them and he may not leave them on, the words of R. Natan.  R. Yose said Youth must always remove them and never leave them on, for they are regular in uncleanness. 
  Shall we say that R. Yose is of the opinion that a man who has seminal emmission may not wear his tefillin? Abaye answered: We are dealing here with the case of young men in the company of their wives, lest they grow accustomed to the practice. 
  Our Rabbis taught:  If he forgot and had sexual intercourse while wearing his tefillin he should not [remove them] by holding either the strap or the capsule until he wash his hands to take them off, since hands are busy.
  It once happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel and they said,  “Bring them up to the sukkah.”
  And when they gave Rabbi Zadok food less than the bulk of an egg, he took it in a napkin, ate it outside the sukkah and did not say a blessing after it. 
  GEMARA. Does the case come to serve as a contradiction! Rather, there is something missing in the mishnah, and it should be taught thus: But if he wishes to be strict with himself, he may do so, and it does not constitute presumption and so it also happened that they brought a dish to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai to taste, and two dates and a pail of water to Rabban Gamaliel 
  
  
  Daf 27a
  
  and they said,  “Bring them up to the sukkah.” And when they gave Rabbi Zadok food less than the bulk of an egg, he took it in a napkin, ate it outside the sukkah and did not say a blessing after it. 
  But if it was the bulk of an egg, he must [eat it in] the Sukkah. Should we say that this is a refutation of R. Joseph and Abaye? Perhaps [it means that] less than the bulk of an egg does not necessitate washing of the hands and the benediction, but if it was the bulk of an egg, it necessitates washing of the hands and the benediction.
  Rabbi Eliezer says:  a man is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one on each day and one on each night. But the sages say: there is no fixed number, except on the first night of the festival alone. 
  Furthermore Rabbi Eliezer said: if one did not eat in the sukkah on the first night of the festival, he may make up for it on the last night of the festival.  But the sages say: there is no compensation for this, and of this was it said: “That which is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is lacking cannot be counted” (Ecclesiastes 1:15). 
  GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Eliezer? You shall dwell [in Sukkot for seven days]"--this implies just as you normally dwell. Just as in a [normal] dwelling, [one has] one [meal] by day and one by night, so too in the Sukkah [he must have] one meal by day and one by night.
  And what about the rabbis?  Like a normal dwelling place. Just as in a normal if he wants to eat he eats, and if he doesn't want to eat he doesn't eat, so too with the Sukkah; if he wants he eats, and if he does not want he does not eat.
  But if so, even the first night of the Festival [he should not be obligated to eat there]?
  R. Yohanan answered in the name of R. Shimon b. Yehozadak: It was stated with regard to Sukkot, "The fifteenth," and it was stated with regard to the Festival of Matzot, "The fifteenth." Just as there the first night only is obligatory but from then on it is optional, so too here the first night is obligatory, but from then on it is optional. And from where do we know [that the first night of Pesah it is obligatory to eat matzah]? 
  The verse says, "At evening you shall eat matzah" (Exodus 12:18) Scripture sets it as an obligation.
  R. Eliezer further said….  But didn't R. Eliezer say that a man is obliged to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one on each day and one on each night? Bira said in the name of R. Ammi: R. Eliezer changed his mind.
  How does one make up for it?  If you say with bread, he's just eating the [obligatory] meal of the festival day? Rather how does he make up for it? By eating various kinds of desert.  So it has also been taught: If he made up [for a meal he has missed] with various kinds of desert he fulfilled his obligation.
   The assistant of King Agrippa asked R. Eliezer,  [A man] such as I, who eats only one meal a day, may I eat one meal [in the Sukkah] and be free [of my obligation]? He answered him, Every day you draw out [the meal] with all kinds of appetizers for your own honor, and now you cannot add one appetizer for the honor of your Creator? 
  He also asked him: [A man] such as I who has two wives, one in Tiberias and one in Tzippori, and two sukkahs, one in Tiberias and one in Tzippori, may I go from one Sukkah to the other and thus be free from my obligation?  He answered him,  No! For I say that he who goes from one Sukkah to another annuls the mitzvah of the first.
  It was taught in a baraita: It was taught in a baraita:
  
  Daf 27b
  
  "We don't leave from one Sukkah to another Sukkah, and we do not make Sukkot in the normal days of the festival." And the Sages say, "We do leave from one Sukkah to another Sukkah, and we do make Sukot in the normal days of the festival." And they are in agreement that if it fell, he can return and build it in the normal days of the festival.
  What is the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer? Scripture says: "You shall keep the Festival of Sukkot for seven days," make a Sukkah which shall be fit for seven days And the rabbis?. - This is what the Torah means: Make a Sukkah for the Festival. "But both of them agree that if it falls down one may rebuild it during Hol Hamoed."
  But is not this obvious? But is not this obvious? This is [considered to be] another [Sukkah] and is not one for seven days, therefore he teaches us [that this is not so].
  It has been taught: R. Eliezer said: Just as one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, since it is written, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Leviticus 23:40) i.e., from your own possessions, so too one cannot fulfill his obligation with a Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "The festival of Sukkot you shalt keep for yourself for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13) i.e. from your own possession.
   The sages say: Although they said that one cannot fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, he may nevertheless fulfill his obligation with the Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "All that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:42) this teaches that all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah
  And how do the rabbis interpret the words "for yourself"? It is needed to exclude a stolen [Sukkah]; but as to a borrowed one, It is written, "All that are homeborn."
  And what does R. Eliezer do with  "All that are homeborn"? It is needed [to include] a convert who had converted in the meantime or a minor who had reached majority age in the meantime.  And the Rabbis [how do they derive this]? Since they said that one may make a Sukkah during the Intermediate Days of the Festival no [special] verse is needed.
  Our rabbis have taught: It once happened that R. Ila'i went to greet R. Eliezer his master in Lod on a Festival.  He said to him, Ila'i, aren't you one of those that stay in place on the Festival, for R. Eliezer used to say, I praise the lazy who do not go out of their houses on the Festival since it is written, "And you shall rejoice, you and your household" (Deuteronomy 14:26).
  But is it so? But didn't R. Yitzchak say, From where do we know that a man is obliged to greet his master on the Festival? As it says, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither Rosh Hodesh nor Shabbat" (II Kings 4:23) from which it follows that on Rosh Hodesh and Shabbat one is obligated greet his master?’ There is no difficulty. The latter refers to where he can go and return [to his house] on the one day; the former to where he cannot go and return on the same day.
  Our rabbis have taught: It happened that R. Eliezer spent Shabbat in the Upper Galilee in the sukkah of R. Yohanan son of R. Ila'i in Caesarea or, as some say, in Caesarion and when the sun reached the Sukkah  he said to him: Can I spread a cloth over it?’  He said to him, "There was no tribe in Israel which did not produce a judge." 
  When the sun reached the middle of the Sukkah, he said to him "Can I spread a cloth over it?" He answered him,   "There was no tribe in Israel which did not produce a prophet, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin appointed their kings based on the words of the prophets." When the sun reached the feet of R. Eliezer, R. Yohanan took a cloth and spread it over [the Sukkah].  R. Eliezer tied up his cloak, threw it over his back, and went out.  It was not in order to evade an answer [that he answered as he did] but because he never said anything which he had not heard from his master. 
  How did R. Eliezer do this?  Did not R. Eliezer say,  "One may not go from one Sukkah to another?" It was on another Festival. 
  But did not R. Eliezer say, "I praise the lazy who do not leave their houses on the Festival? It was a Shabbat.
  But could he not deduce [the answer] from his own statement, for we have learned: A window-shutter: R. Eliezer says  if it is fastened or hung [on the window-frame] one may shut a window with it [on Shabbat], but if not, one may not shut a window with it;  but the Sages say: in either case one may shut the window with it? 
  
  Daf 28a
  
  [No.] In the latter case it is [forbidden] since he annuls it, but in the former where he does not annul it, no.
  Our Rabbis taught: It once happened to Rabbi Eliezer, that he rested in the upper Galilee, and they asked him about thirty laws of the laws of Sukkah. For twelve, he said to them "I know (lit. I have heard)," and for eighteen, he said to them "I do not know." Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Yehudah says, "The matters are switched; for eighteen, he said to them "I know," and for twelve, he said to them "I do not know."
  They said to him, "All of your words are nothing except from rumors." He said to them, "You have bound me to say something that I did not hear from my teachers [by asking me these questions.] In all my days, a person never came before me to the House of Study, And neither did I sleep in the House of Study, neither a permanent sleep nor a temporary sleep, and never did I leave a man in the House of Study and exit, and never did I converse in everyday conversation, and I never said anything which I did not hear from my teacher at any time."
  It was said about Rabbi Yochanan the son of Zakai: In all his days, he never conversed in everyday conversation,  and he never walked four cubits without Torah and without phylacteries, and person never came before him to the House of Study, and neither did he sleep in the House of Study, neither a permanent sleep nor a temporary sleep, and neither did he think in dirty entrances, and he never left a person in the House of Study and exited, and a person never found him sitting still, but rather he would sit and learn, and a person never opened the door for his students, but rather he himself [opened it for them], and he never said anything which he did not hear from his teachers at any time, and he never said, 'The time has come to stand [and exit] from the House of Study,' except for the eve of Passover and the eve of the Day of Atonement. And so would Rabbi Eliezer, his student, act after him.
  Our Rabbis taught: Hillel had eighty disciples. Thirty of them were worthy to have the Divine Spirit resting upon them, as it did upon Moses our Master. Thirty of whom were worthy that the sun should stand still for them as it did for Joshua the son of Nun. And the remaining twenty were ordinary.	 The greatest of them was Yonatan ben Uziel, the lowest of them was Yochanan ben Zakkai.	
  It is said of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai that he was not ignorant of anything: Scripture, Mishna, Talmud, Halacha, Aggadah, Biblical grammar, scribal traditions, deductive logic, linguistic connections, astronomical calculations, gematriot, incantations for angels, incantations for demons, incantations to palm trees, proverbs of washwomen, proverbs of foxes, a “Great thing,” and a “Small thing.”	  		 		 	 	 	
  A “Great Thing,” is the workings of the Chariot.  A “Small thing,” is the legal discourses of Abaye and Rava.   All of this in order to fulfill what is said, “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.” (Prov. 8:21) And since this was true of the lowest of them, how much more so was the greatest?  It is said when Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel was studying Torah, any bird that flew overhead was immediately burned.
  Mishnah: 1) One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: i) Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid.  2) Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai:  Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yohanan ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? i) Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof?  Indeed they said to him,  “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.
  1) Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. 2) A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. 3) It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor. 
  Gemara. From where do we know this? For our Rabbis taught: [If Scripture had said] "Homeborn" [it would have included] every homeborn [Jew], [but since it says] "the homeborn" it excludes women.  "Every" includes minors. 
  The Master has said: ‘The homeborn’ excludes women.  That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women?  But has it not been taught:  "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]? Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.
  Which is based on a Scriptural verse and which on a tradition?  And, moreover, what is the necessity for a Scriptural verse or for a traditional law?  Is not a Sukkah a positive time-bound commandment and women are exempt from all positive commandments which have a set time?
  As to Yom Kippur [also] it is derived from [the statement] of Rav Judah made in the name of Rav, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav and so the school of R. Ishmael taught:  Scripture says, "Man or woman" (Numbers 5:6)
  
  Daf 28b
  
  the verse [thereby] makes man and woman equal as regards all punishable acts in the Torah? Abaye answered: Indeed Sukkah is a tradition, but [the midrash] is still necessary, Lest I would have said, since "You shall dwell" implies that you should dwell in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell; just as one's permanent home is for husband and wife, so too the Sukkah must be for husband and wife, therefore he informs us that it is not so.
  Rava said: It is necessary, since I might have said, derive [the law from a similar case] of the fifteenth, from the fifteenth of the Festival of Matzot: just as there women are obligated, so too here women are bound. Therefore he taught that [women are exempt].
  And now that you say that Sukkah is a traditional law, what is the verse for? To include converts.  Lest I would have said  "the homeborn in Israel," the Torah said, but not converts, therefore it informs us that it is not so.
  [That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].
  The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.
  A minor who is not dependent on his mother etc. What is meant by a minor who is not dependent on his mother? The school of R. Yannai said, Any child who when he relieves himself, his mother does not need to clean him.  Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish said: He who wakes up and does not call his mother. But do not older ones also call their mother?  Rather he who awakes from his sleep and does not call "Mother! Mother." 
  It once happened that the daughter-in-law of [Shammai gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof and put skhakh above the child].  Did the mishnah cite the incident in order to contradict [the previous halakhah]?  There is something missing, and thus it should be taught: But Shammai is strict, and [indeed] it once happened that the daughter-inlaw of Shammai the elder gave birth to a child and he opened up the plaster of the roof, and put skhakh over the bed for the child.
  All seven days [of the festival] a man must make the sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. If rain fell, when is one permitted to leave it? When the porridge becomes spoiled. They made a parable.  To what can this be compared? To a slave who comes to fill the cup for his master, and he poured a pitcher over his face. 
  GEMARA. Our rabbis taught,  All seven days, one should make the Sukkah his permanent residence and his house his temporary residence. How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah.  He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah. From where do we know this? As our rabbis have taught:  You shall dwell" in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell.  From here they said, "All seven days one should make his Sukkah his permanent dwelling, and his house his temporary dwelling." How so? If he had beautiful vessels, he brings them up into the Sukkah, beautiful coverings, he brings them up into the Sukkah. He eats and drinks and spends his leisure time in the Sukkah.; he should study in the Sukkah.
  But is this so?  But did not Rava say, Scripture and Mishnah [should be studied] in the Sukkah, but reciting outside the Sukkah?  There is no difficulty, One refers to reciting, one refers to examination.
  
  Daf 29a
  
  As was the case of Rava and Rami b. Hama when they were standing before R. Hisda, [first] they ran through the gemara together, and then they investigated the reasons. 
  Raba said: drinking vessels may be kept in the Sukkah, eating vessels outside the Sukkah Earthenware pitchers and wooden pails [must be kept] outside the Sukkah.  A lamp [may be kept] within the Sukkah, while some say [that it must be kept] outside the Sukkah;  but they do not disagree,  here refers to a large Sukkah and here refers to a small one.
  If rain fell.  It was taught: Once a porridge of beans become spoiled
  Abaye was sitting before R. Joseph in a Sukkah. The wind blew and it brought down twigs [into the food]. R. Joseph said to them:  Clear my vessels out of here. Abaye said to him, ‘But have we not taught, "once the porridge is spoiled." He answered him: For me, since I am delicate, this is like the porridge becoming spoiled for me.
  Our rabbis taught, If he was eating in the sukkah, and rain fell, and he went down from [the sukkah], they do not trouble him to return there until he has finished his meal.  If he was sleeping in the sukkah and rain fell and he went +down, they do need not trouble to return him until dawn
  They asked them: Does it say שיעור (until he wakes up) or שיאור (until dawn)? Come and hear:   Until it gets light (שיאור) and the dawn appears. Both?  Rather say until he wakes up (שיעור) and the dawn appears.
  They made a parable:  It was asked of them:  who spilled on whom? Come and hear: For it has been taught:  The master poured the pitcher over his face and said,  "I don't want your service."
  Our Rabbis taught: When the sun is in eclipse it is a bad omen for the whole world.  To what can this be compared? To a flesh and blood king who made a banquet for his servants and put a lamp in front of them. When he got angry with them he said to his servant, "Take the lamp away from them, and let them sit in the dark."
  It was taught: R. Meir said, Whenever the heavenly lights are in eclipse, it is a bad omen for [the enemies of] Israel for they are accustomed to their blows. A parable to a school teacher who comes to school with a strap in his hand. Who starts to worry? The one who is accustomed to being beaten every day.
  Our Rabbis taught, When the sun is in eclipse it is a bad omen for idolaters; when the moon is in eclipse, it is a bad omen for Israel, since Israel reckons by the moon and idolaters by the sun. If it is in eclipse in the east, it is a bad omen for those who live in the east; if in the west, it is a bad omen for those who live in the west; if in the midst of heaven it is bad omen for the whole world.
  If its face is red as blood, [it is a sign that] the sword is coming to the world; if it is like sack-cloth, the arrows of famine are coming to the world; if it resembles both, the sword and the arrows of famine are coming to the world. If the eclipse is at sunset calamity will be delayed; if at dawn, it will come quickly:  but some say the order is to be reversed
  And there is no nation which is struck that its gods are not smitten together with it, as it is said, "And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgements" (Exodus 12:12).  But when Israel performs the will of God, they need have no fear of all these omens as it is said, "Thus says the Lord, 'Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven, for the nations are dismayed at them" (Jeremiah 10:2) the nations will be dismayed, but Israel will not be dismayed. 
  Our rabbis taught: on account of four things is the sun in eclipse:   On account of an Av Bet Din who died and was not eulogized properly; on account of a betrothed young girl who cried out in the city and there was none to save her; on account of sodomy, and on account of two brothers whose blood was shed at the same time.
  And on account of four things are the luminaries in eclipse: On account of those who write forgeries, on account of those who bear false witness; on account of those who rear small herd animals in the land of Israel; and on account of those who cut down good trees.
  And on account of four things the property of householders is turned over to the government: On account of those who retain in their possession bills which have been paid; on account of those who lend money with interest; 
  
  Daf 29b
  
  on account of those who had the power to protest [against wrongdoing] and did not protest; and on account of those who publicly declare their intention to give to charity and do not give. 
  Rav said: On account of four things the property of householders is confiscated by the state treasury: On account of those who hold back the wages of a laborer; on account of those who completely keep the wages of a laborer; on account of those who remove the yoke from off their necks and place it on [the necks] of others and on account of arrogance.  And the sin of arrogance is equivalent to all [the others]. Whereas the humble it is written, "But the humble shall inherit the land, and delight themselves in the abundance of peace" (Psalms 37:11). 
  We will return to you, "one who sleeps."
  Mishnah: A Lulav that is stolen or dried is invalid;  [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or a wayward city is invalid; [If a Lulav's] top was cut off, or its leaves were detaching, it is invalid; If it's leave were separating [from one another], it is valid; Rabbi Yehudah says One should tie it [additionally] from the top. The fronds of the Iron Mountain are valid. A Lulav that has three hand-breadths, so that one can shake it, is valid.
  Gemara: The mishnah states the law clearly. It does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the first day of the holiday, and it does not make a difference [if the case arises] on the second day of the holiday.
  It makes sense for the dry [Lulav]; we need a beautiful one, and it is not. However, with a stolen [Lulav]- it makes sense on the first day of the holiday, as it is written, "For you (Leviticus 23:40)"- meaning from that which is yours. Rather, on the second day of the holiday, why not?
  Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai,
  
  Daf 30a
  
  For the reason that it is for him a commandment that is fulfilled through a transgression. As it says, "And you have brought the stolen [animal], the lame [animal], and the ill [animal as offerings] (Malachi 1:13)." [Therefore, we see] a stolen offering is similar to a lame one. Just like a lame animal has no way to fix it, so too a stolen animal has no way to fix it [to render it permissible]. It does not matter whether it is before the owner despaired of finding the animal, or after he despaired.
  It makes sense, to say before the owner's despair: "A person, when he brings from his," said the Merciful one, and it (the stolen animal) is not his. But after the owner's despair- hasn't he taken ownership when the owner despaired? Rather, it is for the reason that it is for him a commandment that is fulfilled through a transgression.
  And Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of Yochai, "What does the verse, 'For I am G-d, loving of justice, hating of thievery greatly (Isaiah 61:8)' mean? It is compared to an allegory of a flesh-and-blood king, who was passing by a tollbooth and said to his servants, 'Give the tax to the collectors.' They said to him, 'And is not the whole tax yours?' He said to them, 'From me should all the travelers learn, and not distance themselves from the tax.' So too the Holy One, Blessed be he, says, 'I am G-d, hater of thievery in elevation-offerings- from Me should all my children learn and distance themselves from thievery.'"
  It was also said: Rabbi Ami said, "A dry [Lulav] is invalid because it is not beautiful, [and] a stolen [Lulav] is invalid because it is for him (the user) a commandment fulfilled through a transgression."
  And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].
  Questioned Rabbi Nachman the son of Yitzchak, "A Lulav that is stolen or dry is invalid; doesn't [it exempt] a borrowed [Lulav as] valid? When [is it exempted as valid]? If you would say on the first day of the holiday, isn't it written, 'For you'- [meaning] from that which is yours? And isn't [a borrowed Lulav] not belonging to him? Rather, [it means] on the second day of the holiday, and as  [the mishnah] taught, a stolen [Lulav] is invalid.
  (Rava said), Really, [the Mishnah applies] on the first day of the holiday, and we do not need to state [the other case of a borrowed Lulav]. We do not need to state [the law about a] borrowed Lulav [being ivalid], for it is not his. However, [with a] stolen [Lulav], I say that outright robbery includes the despair of the [original] owners, and so it resembles being his. We can learn from this [the halakha].
  Said Rav Huna to some merchants, "When you buy Hadasim from Non-Jews, do not cut them yourselves, but rather make them cut it, and they shall give it to you. What is the reasoning? Normal worshipers of stars are thieves of land,
  
  Daf 30b
  
  And land cannot be stolen. Therefore, make them cut [the Hadasim], so that there will be the despair of owners in their hands, and the change of ownership in your hands.
  After all, if the merchants cut it, there would be the despair of owners in their hands, and the change of ownership in the buyer's (lit. our ) hands [and therefore it seems that], We do not need [this solution]! [Rather, Rav Huna was trying to validate] the Hadasim of the merchants themselves. [But are they not able] to acquire it through a change [which takes place through] action [by tying it in the Lulav bundle]?
  He must have thought, A Lulav does not require a tie [to bundle the four species].
  And even if you find [that we need] to say that a Lulav requires a tie, a change that does not affect the actual object (lit. goes back to its original form) it is, and a change that goes back to its original form is not called a change [for halakhic purposes]. 
  [But are they not able] to acquire it through a change of name? For earlier, they were "Asa", and now,
  
  Daf 31a
  
  [They are called] "Hoshanah"? Originally, also to "Asa", "Hoshanah" they called [and thus we cannot rely on the change of name].
  Our rabbis taught [in a Baraita], [Regarding] a Sukkah that is stolen, or someone who covers his Sukkah [with Schach] from public property, Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid, and the Chachamim validate it.
  Rav Nachman said, "The argument is about someone who takes his fellow and removes him from his sukkah, And Rabbi Eliezer [rules] according to his opinion, as he says, 'A person does not fulfill his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah. If land can be [truly] stolen, it is a stolen Sukkah; and if land cannot be stolen, it is a borrowed Sukkah [but either way, it is forbidden].'
  And the Sages [rule] according to their opinion, as they say, 'A person fulfills his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah, And land cannot be stolen, and so it is a borrowed Sukkah [which is allowed].'
  However, if he stole the wood and built a Sukkah with it, everyone agrees that he does not have [to return anything but] the value of the wood alone.
  From where [do we know that 'a stolen Sukkah' means R' Nachman's interpretation]?
  For the teaching compares it to public property. Just like [regarding] public property, the land is not his, so too 'a [stolen] Sukkah', the land is not his.
  There was an old woman who came up to Rabbi Nachman. She said to him, "The exilarch and all of the Rabbis of the house of the exilarch- in a stolen Sukkah they were sitting [meaning, its wood was stolen from her]." She shouted, and Rabbi Nachman paid no attention to her.  She said to him,  "A woman whose father had 318 servants [meaning, a descendant of Abraham] is shouting before you, and you pay no attention to her?" Rabbi Nachman said to [his students], "She is a chatterbox, and she only has [a claim to] the value of the wood alone.
  Ravina said, "This is like a beam of a Sukkah, and the Sages make a fix for it because of the Statute of the Beam [that stolen beams built into houses do not need to be removed, but should rather have their value paid]."
  This is obvious! How is it different than [normal] wood? You might have said, "Wood is commonly found, but these [i.e. beams] are not common, I would say not [a valid argument], and we can learn from this [i.e. Ravina's statement].
  These words apply during the seven days [of Sukkot], but after the seven[-day period], he should return the beam itself. But if he connected it in plaster, and even if it is after the seven[-day period], he should also return the value [instead of the beam].
  It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."
  And regarding the Lulav, Rabbi Yehudah does not require beauty? And isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yehudah says [about a Lulav whose leaves are splitting], 'He should tie it on top' [presumably to add beauty]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?
  No. As it is taught is his reasoning: "Rabbi Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon, 'Palm fronds (Kapot)'- if they were splitting, he should tie them (Yikhtephenu, from root K.p.t)."
  And he doesn't require beauty? And isn't it taught, "We only bind the Lulav with its species; the words of Rabbi Yehudah [presumably because it looks nice]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?
  No. For didn't Rava say [about Rabbi Yehudah's use of the phrase 'with its own species'], "[One can bind the Lulav] even with the vines, and even with the bark, of the palm [which are not beautiful]. Rather, what is the reasoning for Rabbi Yehudah's [statement] there? He had thought, "A Lulav needs binding, and if he brings another species [as  binding material], it would be for him five species."
  But regarding a Etrog, does Rabbi Yehudah really require beauty? And isn't it taught, "[Regarding] the four species in the Lulav [bundle], just as we may not take away from them, so too we may not add. If he could not find a Etrog, he should not bring: not a quince, not a pomegranate, and not any other thing. Wilted ones are valid, but dried ones are invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says,  "Even dried [plants are valid].
  And Rabbi Yehudah said, 'It once happened,
  
  Daf 31b
  
  Regarding the city-dwellers who would bequeath their Lulavs to their grandchildren [for lack of fresh Lulavs, this source supporting the use of dry Lulavs].' They said to him, 'From there is your proof? A time of distress is not a [valid] proof.'"
  Still, as it taught, Rabbi Yehudah says [that] Even dried ones are valid. Does [this] not [refer] to the Etrog? No. [This refers] to the Lulav.
  A Master said, "Just like we do not take away from the [four species], so too we do not add to them." This is obvious [seeing as we are not allowed to add to commandments]! You might have said, Seeing as Rabbi Yehudah said that a Lulav [bundle] needs binding, if you bring another species [outside of the bundle], than [you might think that] this [i.e. the Lulav bundle] is one group, and this [i.e. the new species] is one group. We learn from the [above statement that you cannot add to the four species].
  A Master said, "If he did not find an Etrog, he should not bring: not a pomegranate, not a quince, and not any other thing." This is obvious[! Why would any other fruit be acceptable?]! You might have said, "We should bring it so that the instruction regarding the Etrog will not be forgotten." We learn from the [above statement], that sometimes destruction comes from this [as people will forget the Etrog and bring this new fruit instead].
  Come and hear: "An old Etrog is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah validates it." This is a rejection of Rava, and [his opinion that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates a dry Lulav] is rejected.
  But do we not teach, "[An Etrog] green as turquoise, Rabbi Meir validates, and Rabbi Yehudah invalidates?" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it has not ripened yet [and is not a complete Etrog].
  Come and hear, "The minimum size of an Etrog: Rabbi Meir says, 'Like a walnut;' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Like an egg.'" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it is not fully ripened [and is not considered a complete Etrog].
  Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says,  'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].
  And rather, for Rabbi Yehuda, does it not say [in reference to the Etrog] "Beautiful ['Hadar']"?
  That means [according to Rabbi Yehudah, a fruit] that dwells ['HaDar'] on its tree from year to year.
  (Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"
  Here [ie. in the Mishnah], we are dealing with a worshipped tree [from the days] of Moses, for [it must be burnt, and therefore it is treated as ashes, and so] its size is crushed [to below the minimum size of a Lulav. The worshipped tree of Rava is a tree worshipped after the days of Moses, which does not need to be burnt].
  We can also infer this [from the Mishnah], for like it is taught, it is similar to a wayward city [which must be destroyed].
  (Mishnah:) [If] its top was severed [ it is invalid]. Rav Huna said, They only taught [that the Lulav is invalid in the case of its top being] severed, but [if the Lulav was] slit, it is valid.
  And [a] slit [Lulav] is valid? But isn't it taught, "A bent Lulav,
  
  Daf 32a
  
  A thorny [Lulav], a slit [Lulav], [and] a bent [Lulav] that is similar to a scythe are invalid. A naturally hardened [Lulav] is invalid. [A Lulav] similar to [one that was] naturally hardened [but was not actually naturally hardened] is valid. Rabbi Papa said [concerning the slit Lulav], "[This refers to a  Lulav] that is made like a Himnak (A writing tool that looks like this: ץ)."
  [Regarding a Lulav that is] bent, like a scythe, Rava said, "They only said [that it is invalid if it was bent] forward, but [if it were bent] backward, that is its natural state."
  R. Nahman said: At the sides is the same as at the front, and some say,  the same as at its back.
  Rava further said: A lulav all of which grows on one side is a blemished plant and is invalid.
  If its leaves were detached etc. R. Papa said. “Detached” means like a broom. “Spread apart” means that they were parted from one another.
  R. Papa asked:  What is the rule if the central leaf is split? Come and hear what R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: If the central leaf is removed, it is invalid. Is this also true if it is split? No, if it is removed the law is different,
  since it is entirely lacking There are those that say: R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: 
  If the central leaf is split, it is as though it is removed, and [the lulav] is invalid. R. Judah says It has been taught: R. Judah said in the name of R. Tarfon, “Branches (<i>kapot</i>) of palm-trees,” <i>kapot</i> [means that if palm-branches must be] were separated, he must tie them up (<i>yikhtefenu</i>).
  Ravina said to R. Ashi:  How do we know that “branches of palm-trees” refers to the lulav? ... Perhaps it means [branches of] the hardened palm? It must be [a branch the leaves of which can be] bound up, and this one cannot.  
  But perhaps it means the stalk [itself]? Since the word] “bound” is used, it must refer to something which can be separated, and this is permanently bound.
  But perhaps it means the spiky part of the palms? Abaye answered, It is written, “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.” 
  Raba Tosfa’ah said to Ravina: But perhaps it means two bunches of dates? The word is written <i>kappat</i> (in the singular).   Then perhaps it means one? That would be called <i>kaf</i>.
  "The thorny palms of the Iron Mountain are valid."  Abaye said: They taught this only when the top of one [leaf] reaches the junction of the next, but if the top of the one does not reach the junction of the next, it is invalid. 
  It was also taught: The thorny palms of the Iron Mountain are invalid.  But have we not learned that they are valid? Rather deduce from this like the teaching of Abaye. Deduce from this.
  
  Daf 32b
  
  There are those who cast one [source] against the other:  We have learnt:  he thorn-palms of the Iron Mountain are valid. But has it not been taught that  they are invalid? Abaye answered, There is no difficulty: The one refers to where the top of the one leaf reaches the junction of the next; the other to where the top of the one does not reach the junction of the other. 
  R. Marion said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, and others say that Rabbah b. Mari taught in the name of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai: here are two palms in the valley of Hinnom, and smoke goes up between them, and it is in that connection that we have learned the thorn-palms of the Iron Mountain are valid, and it is the entrance to Gehenna.
  A lulav which is three handbreadths in length.  Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel:  The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four, so that the lulav should extend one handbreadth beyond the hadas. 
  And R. Parnakh said in the name of R. Yohanan,  The spine of the lulav should extend a handbreadth beyond the hadas. 
  Have we not learned, a lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid? Say " and long enough to wave";  and each one explains it according to his own view. 
  Come and hear:  [We have learned: the [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four Is this not including the leaves? No, excluding the leaves. 
  The main text: The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [handbreadths], and that of the lulav four.   R. Tarfon says.  A cubit consisting of five handbreadths.
  Rava said: May the master forgive R. Tarfon!  Now that we cannot find a valid hadas three [handbreadths] long, would one of five handbreadths be required?
  When R. Dimi came he said. [R. Tarfon meant]:  Take a cubit which has [normally] six handbreadths, into five. Deduct from these the three for the myrtle and the remainder is for the palm-branch. How much then is it? Three and three fifths?
  Do not then two statements of Shmuel contradict one another, for here Rav Judah says in the name of Shmuel,  The [minimum] length of the hadas and the aravah is three [normal handbreadths],  and elsewhere R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that  the halakhah is in accordance with R. Tarfon? [Shmuel] was not precise.  Say that we can say that one is not precise when [this results in] a stringency but not when [it results in] a leniency? 
  When Rabin came he said:  [R. Tarfon meant]: Take a cubit of five normal handbreadths and make it into one of six handbreadths. Deduct of these three for the hadas, and the remainder is for the lulav How much is it? Two and a half. 
  Is there not still a difficulty between [the two statements of] Shmuel?  He was not precise, and in this case his lack of precision results in a stringency since R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel that  the halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.
  Mishna: A stolen or withered hadas is invalid One [that came from] an asherah or a condemned city is invalid.  If its tip was broken off, or its leaves were detached, or its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid.  But if he diminished them it is valid.  But one may not diminish them on the festival.
  Gemara. Our Rabbis taught, "Branches of a thick tree" [means] [the kind of tree] whose branches completely cover its trunk Now what [tree] is this? You must say that it is the myrtle (hadas).  But perhaps it is the olive? It must be wreathed, but [the olive] is not. 
  But perhaps it is the plane tree? The branches must cover its trunk, which is not the case [with the plane tree]. 
  But perhaps it is the oleander?  Abaye said, "Its ways are the ways of pleasantness" and [with the oleander] this is not the case.  Raba said [the same] from the following verse,  "Therefore love truth and peace." 
  Our Rabbis taught: Plaited like a plait and similar to a chain—that is the myrtle.  R. Eliezer b. Yaakov said "The branches of a thick tree" [means] a tree the taste of whose wood and whose fruit is similar: Say, then, it is the myrtle.
  A Tanna taught: A tree which is "avot" is valid, and which is not "avot" is not valid.
  What constitutes "avot"? Rav Judah said: When three leaves grow out of one spot. R. Kahana said: Even two and then one.  R. Aha the son of Raba tried to find one [whose leaves grew] two and then one, since that was what R. Kahana said.   Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi: "My father used to call that a wayward hadas."
  Our Rabbis taught: If most of its leaves fell off and the lesser part remained, it is valid, provided that its plaited quality remains. 
  But is not this self-contradictory?  You said that if the majority of its leaves fell off it is valid and then it is stated, "provided that its plaited quality remains." But since two [of the three leaves] have fallen off, how is it possible to have it "avot"?
  Abaye said:  It is possible
  
  Daf 33a
  
  with the Egyptian hadas which has seven [leaves] in each nest, and [therefore] when four fall off, there are still three left Abaye said: [From this] we can deduce that the Egyptian myrtle is valid for the hoshanna.
  But is not this obvious? I might have said  that since it has an accompanying name, it is not valid, therefore he teaches us [that it is valid].  But perhaps it is indeed so? The Torah says, "branches of a thick tree," of any kind.
  Our Rabbis taught: If the larger part of its leaves were withered, and only three bunches of green leaves remained, it is valid. And R. Hisda added: Provided] that they are at the top of each [twig].
  If its tip was broken off.  Ulla bar Hinena taught,  If its tip was broken off, and a berry grew on it, it is valid.
  R. Yirmiyah asked:  If the tip was broken off before the Festival, and the berry grew on it on the Festival, what [is the law]?  Do we apply the law of "set aside" to commandments or not?
  Let him derive this question from that which we have learned:  If he covered it and it became uncovered, he need not cover it again. If the wind covered it, he must cover it again.  And Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: They taught this only where it subsequently became uncovered, but if it did not subsequently become uncovered, he is exempt from [the duty of] covering it. 
  And we asked concerning this:  Even if it subsequently became uncovered, why must he cover it? Once it has been set aside is it not permanently set aside?
  And R. Papa said: This implies that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments?
  The question [of R. Yirmiyah] is concerning that very statement of R. Papa:  Is he certain that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments,  irrespective of whether it creates a stringency or a leniency, or perhaps he is doubtful, and therefore we apply it to create a stringency, but not to create a leniency?  The question stands.
  Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid. They thought to explain his in the following way:  According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made.
  Do they not disagree on the following principle: that the one who declares it invalid is of the opinion  that we apply the law of "set aside" to commandments, while the one who declares it to be valid is of the opinion  that we do not apply the law of "set aside" to commandments?
  No! All agree that we do not apply the law of "set aside" to commandments, but they disagree here in whether we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah.  One Master holds that  we do so deduce them, while the other Master holds that  we do not deduce the laws of lulav from sukkah.
  And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah; But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: Our Rabbis have taught:  A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says:  If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.
  What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces it from the word "take" [which occurs here (Leviticus 23:40) and with] the "taking" with regard to the bundle of hyssop (Exodus 12:22).  It is written here, "And you shall take on the first day" and there it is written, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop." Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle.  And the Rabbis? They do not deduce from the mention of the word "take" in the two passages.
  Who is it that taught that which our Rabbis have taught: It is a mitzvah to bind the lulav, but [even] if he did not bind it, it is valid? Now who is it? ? If it is R. Judah, why is it valid if he did not bind it? If it is the rabbis, then what mitzvah did he perform? It is in fact the rabbis, and it is a mitzvah because of "This is my God and I will glorify Him."
  Or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves. R. Hisda said: This matter was stated by our great master, and may God be his help! They taught it only [if all the berries were] in one place, but if in two or three places, it is valid. 
  Rava said:
  
  Daf 33b
  
  If the berries are in two or three places it is regarded as striped and [therefore] invalid. 
  Rather if it was at stated, it was stated in this way: or if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid.  R. Hisda said: This matter was stated by our great master, and may God be his help!! They taught this only if the berries were black, but if they were green they are merely a species of hadas and valid.
  R. Papa said:  Red [berries] are like black ones,  since R. Hanina said, black blood is [in reality] red blood except that it has deteriorated.
  If he reduced their number, it is valid.  When did he reduce them? If you say, before he bound them, this is obvious? Rather after he bound them? This then is a case of "set aside" from the very outset!  Deduce from here that if something is "set aside" from the outset it is not [permanently] "set aside"? 
  Indeed it refers to a case where [he reduced them] after he bound them, but he holds that the binding is merely a designation, and a mere designation is of no consequence.
  But one may not reduce them [the berries] on Yom Tov. But if he transgressed and did pluck them it is valid. But then, when did it become black?  If you will say that it became black from the previous day, then it is a case of "set aside" from the very outset. Deduce from here that something that is "set aside" from the very outset is not [permanently] set aside?
  Rather it became black on the Festival. It is thus a case of being fit and then "set aside". Deduce from here that if something was fit and then was "set aside" it may become fit again?
  No! Indeed it refers to a case where it became black from the outset; and you can deduce from here that something "set aside" from the outset is not permanently "set aside"; But a case in which it was fit and then was "set aside" you cannot deduce from here.
  Our Rabbis taught:  One may not reduce [the number of berries] on the Festival. In the name of R. Eliezer son of R. Shimon they said  that one may reduce.  But is he not fixing an object on the Festival?
  R. Ashi said: This is a case where he plucked them for food, and R. Eliezer son of R. Shimon holds the same opinion as his father who  said that a work which is done without intention is permitted. But do not both Abaye and Raba say that 
  R. Shimon admits in the case of "If his head is cut off will he not die" [that it is forbidden]? 
  Here we are dealing with a case where he has another hoshanna.
  Our Rabbis taught: If it binding became undone on the Festival, he may bind it as one binds vegetables.  But why [should this be necessary]?   Let him make a proper loop? [This statement is] according to R. Judah  who says  that a loop is to be considered a proper knot.
  But if it is according to R. Judah, it requires proper binding be required? This Tanna [of the baraita] agrees with R. Judah on one point and disagrees with him on the other. 
  Mishnah. A stolen or withered aravah is invalid. One from an asherah or from a condemned city is invalid. One whose tip was broken off  or whose leaves were detached, or a tzaftzefah is invalid. One that was shriveled or had lost some of its leaves, or one grown in rain-watered soil, is valid.
  Gemara. Our Rabbis taught: "willows of the brook" means those which grow by a brook.  Another interpretation: "willows of the brook" one whose  leaf is elongated as a brook. 
  Another baraita taught: "willows of the brook," I only know that willows of the brook are valid. From where do we know that those grown on rain-watered soil and mountain willows [are also valid]? Scripture says, "willows of the brook," from any place.
  
  Daf 34a
  
  Abba Shaul says: "willows" [in the plural means] two, one for the lulav and one for the Temple. 
  And the rabbis from where to they derive [the law of the willow] for the Temple? They learned a received tradition; for R. Asi said in the name of R. Yohanan, the laws of ten plants, the aravah and the water libation—are all a halakhah from Moses from Sinai.
  Our rabbis taught: "willows of the brook" those that grow by the brook excluding the tzafzefah which grows on the mountains.  R. Zera said:  What is the verse [that proves this]? "He planted and set it beside the waters, he set it as a tzaftzefah" (Ezekiel 17:5). 
  Abaye said to him: Is it not possible that [the latter part] is merely an explanation:  "He placed it beside many waters," and what was it? A tzaftzefah? If so, what does "he set it" mean?  R. Abbahu said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before me as something placed beside many waters that is, a willow, but they have made themselves as a tzaftzefah of the mountains
  Some teach this verse in connection with the baraitha: "He placed it beside many waters, he set it as a tzaftzefah." R. Zera raised a difficulty: Is it not possible that [the latter part] is merely an explanation: "He placed it beside many waters" and what was it? A tzaftzefah?  If so, what is meaning of ‘he set it’? R. Abbahu said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said that Israel should be before me as something placed beside many waters, that is, a willow, but they have made themselves as a tzaftzefah of the mountains.
  Our rabbis taught: What is an aravah and what is a tzaftzefah? A willow its stem is red, its leaf is elongated and its edge is smooth; the tzaftzefah its stem is white, its leaf is round and its edge is like a sickle But has it not been taught: If it is like a sickle it is valid, if like a saw it is invalid? Abaye said: That was taught only with regard to the rounded aravah. 
  Abaye said: deduce from here that a rounded aravah is valid for the hoshanna But is this not obvious?  What might you have said? Since it has an accompanying name it would not be valid, therefore he informs us [that it is not so].
  But perhaps it is indeed so? "Willows of the brook," the Torah says, implying from any place.
  R. Hisda said: Since the destruction of the Temple the following three things have had their names interchanged: [What was called] halafta [is now called] aravta, and what was called aravta, is now called halafta.  What is the practical significance of this? With regard to the lulav. 
  [What was called] shifora [is now called] hatzotzratah, and what was hatzotzratah is now shifora. What is the practical significance of this? With regard to the shofar for Rosh Hashanah. 
  [What was called] patorta [is now called] patora, and what was patora is now patorta. What is the practical significance of this? With regard to business transactions. 
  Abaye said: I also add [that what was formerly called] bei kasei [is now called] huvlila, and huvlila is now called bei kasei.
  What is the practical significance of this? With regard to a needle found in the fleshy part of the second stomach. 
  Raba b. Joseph said:  I also add that [what was formerly called] Babylon [is now called] Borsif and Borsif is now Babylon.
  
  Daf 34b
  
  With regard to a women's divorce bills.
  Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says:  three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says:  even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.
  Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off,  and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off.  R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.
  R. Eliezer said to him: It is possible that the etrog should be bound with them in one bundle,  [to this] you can say,  is it written, "the fruit of a goodly tree and branches of palmtrees"? It says only, "branches of palm-trees."  And from where do we know that lack of fulfillment of one prevents fulfillment of the others? Scripture says, "And you shall take" [implying] that the taking must be complete.
  As for R. Ishmael, what does he hold? If he requires that the hadasim be whole, why should he not demand that they all be whole,  and if he does not require that they be whole why should even one [have to be whole]? Bira'ah said in the name of R. Ammi: R. Ishmael changed his mind.
  R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel:  The halakhah is according to R. Tarfon.  And Shmuel is consistent with his own opinion, or Shmuel said to those who sold hadasim, "Sell at the normal price, for if not, I will expound to you as R. Tarfon." 
  What is his reason?  If you say that it is because he is lenient, why did he not expound to them as R. Akiva who is even more lenient?  Three with broken tips are common, one with an unbroken tip is uncommon.
  1) An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid.  2) One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid.  3) Of orlah or of unclean terumah—it is invalid.  4) Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid.  5) Of demai (doubtfully-tithed): a) Bet Shammai says it invalid, b) And Bet Hillel says it valid.  6) Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.
  7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid.  8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid.  9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid.  10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says:  the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says:  the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah.  a) Rabbi Yose says,  even one that can only be held with his two hands.
  
  Daf 35a
  
  The rabbis taught:  "The fruit of a goodly  tree" (Leviticus 23:40) a tree the taste of whose ‘fruit’ and ‘wood’ is the same. Say then that it is the etrog.
  Say that it is pepper, as it has been taught: R. Meir used to say,  From that which it says, "And you have planted all manner of trees," (Leviticus 19:23) do I not know that the reference is to a tree for food? What then does Scripture teach by "for food"? A tree whose fruit and wood taste the same. Say then that it is pepper. This is to teach you that the pepper tree is subject to the law of orlah  and that the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said, "You shall not lack anything in it"?
  There [one cannot use peppers] since it is impossible. For what should he do? If he takes one [peppercorn], it is unrecognizable; if he takes two or three, the Torah said, one "fruit" and not two or three fruits. Therefore it is impossible.
  Rabbi said: Read not hadar but ha-dir; just as the stable contains large and small [animals], perfect and blemished ones, so also [the fruit spoken of must have] large and small, perfect and blemished.  But don't other fruits have large and small, perfect and blemished? Rather this is what you should say: Before the small ones come, the large are still existent [on the tree]. 
  R. Abbahu said: Read not hadar, but ha-dar, a fruit which lives upon its tree from year to year.  Ben Azzai said: Read not hadar, but hudor for in Greek water is called hudor. Now what fruit is it that grows by every water? Say it is the etrog.
  If from an asherah or from a condemned city, it is invalid. What is the reason? Since it is condemned to be burned, [it is considered as though] its minimum size is destroyed. If from orlah, it is invalid.
  What is the reason? R. Hiyya b. Avin and R. Assi disagree on this point. One explains because there is no permission to eat it, and the other explains because it has no monetary value.
  Now you should think that  the one who insists on permission to eat it [in order for it to be valid] does not insist upon [its having] monetary value, and that the one who insists upon monetary value does not insist upon permission to eat it It was taught: [An etrog] of unclean terumah, is invalid.  This goes well according to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, but according to him who explains [that it can't be used] because it has no monetary value, why not? Behold he can kindle it under his cooking!
  Rather [with regard to] permission to eat it, all agree that it is necessary. They disagree only on the question whether monetary value [is also necessary]: One Master holds that  permission to eat it is necessary but monetary value is not necessary,  while the other Master holds that monetary value is also necessary. What is the practical difference between them?
  The difference is ... the case of second tithe in Jerusalem according to R. Meir According to the one who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, [second tithe is valid, since] there is permission to eat it. 
  It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved
  The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival.  Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah.  Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.
  R. Papa raised a difficulty: his is well with regard to dough, since it is written, "The first of your dough" (Numbers 15:20). And with regard to the etrog also it is written, "To you" it must be yours.  But with regard to matzah, does Scripture say, "your matzah"? Rabbah bar Shmuel, or as some say, R. Yemar bar Shelemia said: It can be deduced from the word "bread" which is common to both passages. It is written here, "The bread of affliction" (Deuteronomy 16:3) and there it is written,
  
  Daf 35b
  
  "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land" (Numbers 15:19); just as in the latter case it must be yours and not of tithe, so in the former case, [it must be] yours and not of tithe.
  Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir,  while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!
  Rather [the question was whether we can say that] since they dispute in this instance, they also dispute in the others or perhaps dough is exceptional because Scripture says the words "your dough."
  Or of unclean terumah, it is invalid;  because there is no permission to eat it.
  If it was of clean terumah, he should not take it. R. Ammi and R. Assi disagree: One explains:  Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], while the other explains because he diminishes it
  What is the practical difference between them? For instance in a case where he called it terumah except for its outer peel. According to the one who explains: Because he renders it susceptible [to ritual uncleanness], the prohibition does apply. According to the one who explains, because he diminishes it, the prohibition does not apply.
  But if he did take it, it is valid. According to him who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, this is permitted to be eaten, and according to him who explains, because it has no monetary value, this has monetary value.
  If it was demai. What is the reason of Beth Hillel?  Because, if he wishes, he may declare his property to be ownerless and thereby become a poor person and he could benefit [from demai]-- now also we apply to it the expression "of yours." For we have learned:  Poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.
  And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai  and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.
  If it was of second tithe in Jerusalem. According to him who explained: Because he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness], behold he renders it susceptible [to uncleanliness]; according to him who explained because he diminishes it, behold he diminishes it
  But if he took it, it is valid. According to him who explains: Because there is no permission to eat it, [the ruling] is according to all. According to him who explains: Because it has no monetary value, according to whom [is the ruling]? It is according to the rabbis. 
  If a rash spread out on the majority of it [it is invalid].  R. Hisda said:  The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [where they were] in one place, but if they were in two or three places, [the etrog] is valid.  Rava said: On the contrary! If they were in two or three places the etrog is as though it is striped and it is invalid.
  Rather if the statement was at all made, it was made in connection with the latter part [of the mishnah]: if on its lesser part it is valid. R. Hisda said, The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [if they were] in one place, but if in two or three places the etrog is as speckled and invalid. Rava said: And if it is on its nose, even the smallest rash, the etrog is invalid.
  If its pitom is removed.  R. Yitzhak b. Elazar taught,:  If its upper stem was removed.
  If it is peeled. Raba ruled:   An etrog which was peeled so as to resemble a red date is valid.  But have we not learned,  if it is peeled . . . It is invalid? There is no difficulty:
  
  Daf 36a
  
  this refers to where all of it [was peeled], this to where only a part was peeled.
  Split, pierced: Ulla b. Hanina taught: If it is completely perforated [it is invalid even if the hole is] of the smallest size; if it is not completely perforated [the hole must be of the minimum size] of an issar.
  Rava asked: If there developed in an etrog the symptoms [which render an animal] terefah, what is the law? What is he asking about? If it is peeled, have we not [already] learned it? If it is split have we not learned it also? If it was pierced have we not learned it also? 
  He asked in accordance with the statement of Ulla in the name of R. Yohanan who said: If the [contents of the] lung pour out as from a ladle [the animal] is fit to be eaten, and Raba explained that this applies only when the arteries are still whole, but if the arteries are rotted [the animal is] terefah.  What is the ruling here? Is it possible that in that case where the air does not affect it, it could become healthy again, but in this case where the air does affect it, it decays, or is it possible that there is no difference?
  Come and hear: An etrog which is swollen, decayed, pickled, boiled, Ethiopian (black), white or speckled, is invalid. An etrog which is round as a ball is invalid.  And some say: also if two are grown together. An etrog which is half-ripe, R. Akiva declares it invalid, and the sages valid.  If it was grown in a cast, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid.
  At any rate it teaches "swollen or decayed."  Is it not, swollen from without and decayed from within? No! Both refer to the outside, and yet there is no difficulty.  One refers to a case where the etrog is swollen even although it is not decayed; the other to a case where it was decayed without being swollen.
  The Master has said: An Ethiopian etrog is invalid. But has it not been taught: If it is Ethiopian it is valid, if it is like an Ethiopian, it is invalid?  Abaye answered, In our Mishnah also we learned of one that is like an Ethiopian. Raba answered,  There is no difficulty. The former refers to us, the latter to them.
  A half-ripe etrog: R. Akiva declares invalid, and the Sages declare it valid.  Rabbah said: Both R. Akiva and R. Shimon said the same thing. R. Akiva [refers to] that which we just said. R. Shimon—to what does that refer? To that which we have taught: R. Shimon declares etrogs to be exempt [from tithes] when they are small.
  Abaye said to him:  But perhaps it is not so. R. Akiva may have stated his view only here, since the etrog must be "goodly," while [an unripe etrog] is not, but there he may agree with the sages
  Alternatively, R. Shimon may have stated his view only there, since it is written, "You shall surely tithe all the increase of your seed" (Deuteronomy 14:22) that which people bring out for seed, but here he might agree with the Rabbis.
  
  Daf 36b
  
  And there is nothing more [to say about it].
  If it was grown in a cast, so that it has the appearance of another species, it is invalid Rava said: They taught this only in the case where it has the appearance of another species but if it has its natural shape it is valid.  But is this not obvious, seeing that it was taught: the appearance of another species! It was necessary only in a case where it was cast in the shape of planks joined together.
  It was stated: An etrog which has been gnawed by mice: Rav said: It is not "goodly." Is this so? Did not R. Hanina taste a part of it, and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]? But isn't our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina?
  It is well that our Mishnah is not a difficulty against R. Hanina since the former might refer to the first day of the Festival, while the latter might refer to the second day; but it is still a difficulty against Rav? Rav could answer you: Mice are different, since they are repulsive
  There are those who say: Rav ruled that "goodly" since R. Hanina tasted a part [of an etrog] and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder].  But is not our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina? There is no contradiction since the former refers to the first day of the Festival, while the latter refers to the second day.
  The minimum size of an etrog: Rafram b. Papa said: As is the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to rounded pebbles. For it has been taught, It is permitted on Shabbat to carry three rounded smooth pebbles into [a field] lavatory. And what must be their size?  R. Meir ruled,  The size of a nut, R. Judah ruled, That of an egg. 
  The maximum size etc. It was taught: R. Yose said: It happened with R. Akiva that he came to synagogue with his etrog on his shoulder.  R. Judah said to him:  Is this a proof? They in fact said to him,  That etrog is not goodly
  They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah.  Rabbi Meir says:  It may be bound even with a cord.  Rabbi Meir said: It happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold.  They answered him: But they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].
  Gemara. Rava stated:  A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.
  Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught:  [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot"—a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir.  R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav.  And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species? 
  They answered him: Any a fortiori argument which begins with a stringency and concludes with a leniency is not a valid argument.
  
  Daf 37a
  
  If he doesn't find the four species, he would be sitting and doing nothing while the Torah said, "You shall dwell in sukkot for seven days"-- implying a Sukkah of whatever material. And so with Ezra it says, "Go forth to the mountain, and bring olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches and palm-branches, and branches of thick trees to make Sukkoth, as it is written" (Nehemiah 8:15).
  And R. Judah holds that the other [species] were for the walls, while the ‘myrtle branches and palm-branches and branches of thick trees’ were for skhakh.  And we have learned: Planks may be used as a skhakh, the words of R. Judah.  Therefore sinews and roots of date-palms are a species of palm-tree. This is conclusive.
  But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else? Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.  And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.
  What is meant by ‘cedar’? Myrtle. Like Rabbah son of R. Huna, since Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: In the school of Rav they said that there were ten species of cedar, as it is said, "I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree, and the myrtle" etc. (Isaiah 41:19). 
  R. Meir says even with a cord.  It has been taught: R. Meir said: It happened with the nobility of Jerusalem that they bound their lulavs with [strands of] gold. They said to him: Is that evidence? They bound it in fact with strands of its own species underneath.
  said to those who bind the hoshanna at the house of the Exilarch:  When you bind the hoshannas at the house of the Exilarch, [be careful to] leave a handle so that there should be no interposition.
  Rava said:  Whatever is used to beautify it is not an interposition.  Rabbah further stated:  One should not hold the hoshanna with a scarf, for a whole "taking" is required, and in this case it is not.  Rava said: Taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid "taking."
  Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking?  From what we have learned:  If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Why? Didn't the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18). Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’?
  But why? Perhaps that case is different; since [the thread or reed] was joined on [to the hyssop], it is regarded as part of it? Rather [deduce] from here: [If the ashes of the red heifer] fell from their tube into the trough they are invalid.
  
  Daf 37b
  
  From this it follows that if he threw them into the water they are valid. Now why [should that be so]?   Did not the Torah say, "And they shall take of the ashes . . . and he shall put" (Numbers 19:18)?  Rather learn from here that taking by means of something else is also regarded as a valid "taking."
  Rabbah further stated: One should not thrust the lulav through the bound hoshanna lest some leaves are detached and form an interposition.  But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.
  Rabbah further stated: One should not shear the lulav while it is in the hoshanna, since loose leaves might remain  and form an interposition. But Rava said:  A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition. 
  Rabbah further stated: It is forbidden to smell a hadas [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment, but it is permitted to smell an etrog [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment.  What is the reason? — The hadas since it is used for its smell, when he sets it aside [for the mitzvah] it is set aside from use for its fragrance. The etrog, however, since it is used as food, when he sets it aside [for the mitzvah] it is set aside [only] from [use as] food.
  Rabbah further stated: A hadas attached to the ground, it is permitted to smell it; an etrog attached to the ground, it is forbidden to smell it. What is the reason? — The hadas, since it is used for its smell, if you permit it [to be smelled], he would not come to cut it down. The etrog which is used for food, if you permit it [to be smelled] he might be tempted to cut it.
  Rabbah further stated, The lulav [must be held] in the right hand and the etrog in the left. What is the reason? This one is three commandments and this is only one. R. Yirmiyah asked of R. Zerika: Why do we bless only "To take the lulav"? Since it is higher than the others.  Let him lift up the etrog and recite the blessing over it?  He said to him: Since as a species it naturally is higher than the others.
  And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel.  Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.”  Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”
  GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says,  And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?
  We have learned elsewhere: The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot. How does he perform [the waving]? He places the two loaves upon the two lambs and puts his two hands beneath them and waves them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, “which is waved and which is lifted up” (Exodus 29:27).
  R. Yohanan said: He brings them to and fro to Him to whom the four directions belong, and up and down to Him to whom Heaven and Earth belong.  In the west (Eretz Yisrael) they taught us thus: R. Hama b. Ukba said in the name of R. Yose son of R. Hanina: He waves them to and fro in order to stop harmful winds; up and down, in order to stop harmful dews.  R. Yose b. Abin and some say R. Yose b. Zevila said: This implies that
  
  Daf 38a
  
  even the ancillary parts of a commandment prevent calamities; for the waving is obviously a ancillary part of the commandment, and yet it stops harmful winds and harmful dews. And Rava said: And so too with the lulav. R. Aha b. Yaakov used to wave it to and fro, saying: This is an arrow in the eye of Satan This, however, is not a proper thing [to do] since it might cause him to incite him.
  One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.
  GEMARA. You said that  he should take it [even if he is] at his table. That is to say that he must interrupt [his meal].  But there is a contraction: If they have begun they need not interrupt [it]? R. Safra replied: There is no contradiction: here is refers to where there is still time [to perform the commandment] during the day, while the former refers to where there is [otherwise] no time.
  Rava said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps one is a Torah commandment and one is a rabbinical obligation? Rather Rava said: If there is a difficulty, it is this: He should take it when he comes home [even if he is] at his table therefore he must interrupt [his meal].  And then it teaches: If he did not take it during the morning he should take it at any time before dusk—therefore  he need not interrupt [his meal].
  [To this] R. Safra said: There is no difficulty: The latter refers to where there is still time during the day, the former where there is [otherwise] no time. 
  R. Zera said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps it is a mitzvah to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulav] but if he did not interrupt it he should take [the lulav] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulav? Rather said R. Zera: [The difficulty] is indeed as we said previously; and with regard to your difficulty one is from the Torah and one is from the rabbis, here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when [the obligation of taking the lulav on] which is only Rabbinical. 
  And this can also be learned from a precise reading of the mishnah which teaches: One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take. If you thought this referred to the first day of the Festival, is it permitted [to travel on that day]?
  One who has a slave, a woman, or a minor read [the Hallel] to him, he must repeat after them what they say,  and a curse be upon him. If an adult recited to him, he repeats after him [only] Halleluyah. In a place where the custom is to repeat [verses], he should repeat; Where the custom is] to say them only once, he should say them once. [Where the custom is] to recite a blessing afterwards, he should recite the blessing afterwards. Everything is dependent on local custom.
  GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught: They truly stated that a [minor] son may recite [Birkat Hamazon] for his father, a slave may recite it for his master, and a wife for her husband; but the Sages said, May a curse come upon that man whose wife and [minor] sons have to recite the benediction for him. 
  Rava said:
  
  Daf 38b
  
  One can deduce important halakhot from the custom of [reciting the] Hallel.  1) Since he says Halleluyah and they respond Halleluyah it may be inferred that it is a mitzvah to answer Halleluyah
  2) Since he says: "Praise Him, servants of the Lord" (Psalms 113:1) and they respond Halleluyah, it may be deduced that if an adult recites [the Hallel] for one the latter responds Halleluyah. 3) Since he says: "Give thanks to the Lord" (Psalms 118), and they respond, "Give thanks unto the Lord," it may be inferred that it is a mitzvah to respond with the beginning of sections. (So it was also stated; R. Hanan b. Raba ruled:  It is a mitzvah to respond with the beginning of the sections.)
  He says, "Please O Lord, save us, " (Psalms 118:25) and they answer, "Please Lord, save us:" from here it may be inferred that if a minor was reciting it for him, the latter answers after him what he says.
  Since he says, "Please O Lord, send now prosperity," and they respond " Please O Lord, send now prosperity,"from here it may be inferred that if he wants to double [the verses] he may. Since he says, "Blessed be he that comes" and they answer, "In the name of the Lord" from here it may be inferred that he who hears is like one who responded
  They asked of R. Hiyya b. Abba:  If one listened but did not respond — what is the law? He answered them: The sages, the scribes, the leaders of the people and those who expound laid down that if one heard but did not respond he has fulfilled his obligation.
  It was also stated: R. Shimon bar Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who said in the name of Bar Kappara: From where do we know that one who listens is as though he responds? From what is written: "Even all the words of the book which the King of Judah has read" (II Kings 22:16). But was it Josiah that read them? Was it not, in fact Shaphan who read them, as it is written, "And Shaphan read it before the king" (II Kings 22:10). Rather from here [we learn] that one who listens is as though he responds.
  But perhaps Josiah read it after Shaphan had read it?  R. Aha b. Yaakov replied: Do not even think this, since it is written, "Because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before the Lord, when thou heard what I said" (II Kings 22:19). "When you heard," not "when you read."
  Rava said: One should not say "Blessed be he that comes" and then [pause and] say "In the name of the Lord. Rather he should say ‘Blessed be he that comes in the name of the Lord’ together.  R. Safra said to him
  
  Daf 39a
  
  ‘Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter. Rava said: One should not say: "Let His great name" and then say "be blessed." Rather he should say, "Let His great name be blessed"  R. Safra said to him: Moses! Do you speak right? The fact is that both here and there, it is the conclusion of the clause and the pause does not matter.
  Where the custom obtains to repeat. It was taught: Rabbi used to repeat [certain] words in it; R. Elazar b. Perata used to add [certain] words in it. What does it mean to add? Abaye explained: He added the doubling beginning with "I will give thanks" to the end of the Psalm.
  [Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran <i>(vayaavor)</i> the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23).  Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (<i>avar</i>) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (<i>vayaavor</i>), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13). 
  One who purchases a lulav from his fellow in the sabbatical year, [the latter] should give him the etrog as a gift, since one is not permitted to purchase it in the sabbatical year. 
  GEMARA. What happens if he doesn't want to give it to him as a gift? R. Huna said: He should include the price of the etrog in that of the lulav.  But why should he not pay him directly?
  Because one must not give money for Sabbatical Year produce to an am haaretz.  As it has been taught: One must not give money to an am haaretz for Sabbatical Year produce, more than he needs for three meals.  And if he handed [him] over [more] he should say,  "This money shall be redeemed for [the ordinary] fruit which I have in my house"
  
  Daf 39b
  
  and [the purchaser] eats the produce [as though it has] the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.
  This however, applies only where one buys from what is ownerless but if one buys from protected produce it is forbidden [to buy] even for as little as half an issar.
  R. Sheshet objected: And [if one buys] from what is ownerless, [may he buy] three meals and no more? But there is a contradiction: Rue, asparagus, fenugreek, coriander of the mountains, water-parsley and meadow-eruca are always exempt from tithe and may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical Year, since the like of these is not guarded.
  He raised the objection and he himself solved to it: They taught [that only as much as is] sufficient for one's food (<i>mano</i>) [may be bought].  And so said Rabbah b. bar Hana in the name of R. Yohanan. They taught [that only as much as is] sufficient for food (<i>mano</i>) [may be bought].  How do we know that "<i>man</i>" means food? Since it is written: "And the king appointed (<i>vayaman</i>) for them a daily portion of the king's food" (Daniel 1:5).
  But if so, the lulav also [should not be bought]? The lulav is a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh.  But if so, might not the etrog also a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh?  In the case of the etrog we compute from the time of its gathering.
  But behold both R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer agree that as regards the Sabbatical Year the etrog's status is determined by the time of its blossoming, as we have learned,  The etrog is like a tree in three respects, and like a vegetable in one.
   It is like a tree in three respects, as regards the laws of orlah, of the Fourth Year, and of the Seventh Year; and like a vegetable in one respect
  
  Daf 40a
  
  in that its tithing is determined by the time of its picking, the words of Rabban Gamaliel.  R. Eliezer ruled: The etrog is like a tree in all respects.
  He holds the opinion as this (the following) Tanna,  as it has been taught: R. Yose stated:  Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that the tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said  [that this applies] both to tithing and the Sabbatical Year. 
  But who mentioned the Sabbatical Year?  There is something missing in the text, and so it should be read: The tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking, and its subjection to the laws of the Sabbatical Year depends on [the time of its] blossoming. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said that ... the etrog is dependent on the time of its picking as regards both tithing and the Sabbatical Year.
  The reason then for the [permission to purchase a] lulav is that it is [the product of] the sixth year which entered the seventh, but if it were of the Sabbatical Year it would have been sacred? But why? ... Is it not just wood, and wood does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it has been taught: ... Leaves of reeds and leaves of the vine which have been heaped up to store them upon a field: if they were gathered for [animal] food, they possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, but if they were gathered for firewood, they do have not the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.
  There the case is different, since Scripture says, “For you for food” (Leviticus 25:6) thus comparing ‘for you’ to ‘for food’, [anything] whose benefit comes at the time of its consumption [has the sanctity of sabbatical produce]; this excludes firewood since the benefit from it comes after its consumption.
  But is there not the wood of the oily tree, the benefit from which is derived at the same time as its consumption?  Rava said:  Wood in general is used for heating.
  And the question of whether [the restrictions of the Sabbatical Year apply to] wood that is used for heating is a dispute between Tannas,  as it has been taught: The produce of the Sabbatical Year may not be used either for steeping or for washing.R. Yose say: they may be so used.
  What is the reason of the first Tanna? Because Scripture says “for food,”[implying] but not for steeping or for washing. What is the reason of R. Yose? — Because Scripture says, “for you”   [implying], for all your needs, even for steeping and for washing. But, according to the first Tanna, is it not written, “for you? That “for you” is to compare it with “for food:” Such that its benefit comes at the same time as its consumption, thus excluding [produce used for] steeping and washing the benefit from which comes after their consumption.
  But according to R. Yose, is it not written “for food”? He needs that phrase to deduce, “for food”, but not for a salve,  as it has been taught, “for food”, but not for a salve.  You say “for food” but not for a salve; why not say, “[for food”] but not for washing? When it says, “for you” washing is included. So how then do I understand, “for food”? “For food”, but not for a salve. But what reason did you see for including washing and excluding a salve?
  
  Daf 40b
  
  I include washing since it is a requirement common to all men and exclude a salve since it is not common to all men.
  Who is the author of that [statement] which our Rabbis taught: “for food” but not for a salve, “for food”, but not for perfume, “for food” but not for an emetic. Who does this agree with? With R. Yose, for if it were the Rabbis, they also exclude steeping and washing.
  R. Elazar said: Sabbatical year produce is redeemed only by way of sale. But R. Yohanan said: Either by way of sale or by way of exchange. What is the reason of R. Elazar? As it is written, "In this year of Jubilee" (Leviticus 25:13)  and then comes the following verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor" [implying,] only by way of sale, but not by way of exchange.
  And what is the reason of R. Yohanan? — Since it is written, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12); just as sacred objects can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange, so the produce of the Sabbatical Year can be redeemed either by way of sale or by way of exchange.
  But what does R. Yohanan do with the verse, "And if you sell something to your neighbor"? He requires it in accordance with the statement of R. Yose b. Hanina,  as it has been taught, R. Yose b. Hanina said: Come and see how serious is [even] the dust of the Sabbatical Year.  A man merely trades with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, in the end he sells his movable property and his clothes, as it is said, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, each man to his possessions" and then comes immediately, "And if you sell something to your neighbor etc."
  And R. Eleazar, what does he do with the verse of R. Yohanan? He needs it in accordance with what has been taught, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy" (Leviticus 25:12) just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is sold] assumes the same sanctity.
  It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar, and it has also been taught in agreement with R. Yohanan. It has been taught in agreement with R. Elazar: [In the case of produce of] the Sabbatical Year the money [for which it is exchanged] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce itself], for it is said, "For it is a Jubilee, it shall be holy to you" just as with holy objects the money [for which it is redeemed assumes] the sanctity [of the holy object], and becomes forbidden, so with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes the same sanctity [as the produce] and becomes forbidden.
  [But] in case [you would say] that just as, with holy objects, the money [for which it is redeemed] assumes its sanctity and [the holy object itself] becomes desacralized, so also with the produce of the Sabbatical Year, the money for which it is redeemed assumes its sanctity and the [produce itself] becomes desacralized, Scripture explicitly says, "It shall be"—it remains in its original [holy] state. 
  How so? If with the produce of the Sabbatical Year he purchased meat, both the meat and the produce must be removed during the Sabbatical Year. If, however, he purchased with the meat fish, the meat loses [the sanctity of the produce of the Sabbatical Year], and the fish assumes it. If he purchased with the fish wine, the fish loses [its sanctity], and the wine assumes it. If he purchased with the wine oil, the wine loses [its sanctity] and the oil assumes it. 
  How so? The last object [purchased] assumes [the sanctity] of the Sabbatical Year, but the produce itself always remains prohibited.  Now since the term "purchased" is repeatedly used,  it is evident that only by way of sale [does it become redeemed], but not by way of exchange.
  It was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan: Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered, the words of R. Meir. But the sages say: With slaughtered [animals and birds] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks from them.
  Rava said: The dispute
  
  Daf 41a
  
  applies only to male [animals and birds], but with regard to female ones, all agree that they may be redeemed with slaughtered animals, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks with them.
  R. Ashi said: The dispute concerns only the original produce itself, but with regard to secondary produce, both agree that [it can be redeemed] either by way of sale or by way of exchange. And the reason that the term ‘purchased’ was repeated is that since in the first clause the term ‘purchased’ was used it was used in the latter clause also.
  Ravina raised an objection against R. Ashi: [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela [gained through selling the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase with it a shirt, what should he do? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, ‘Give me a sela worth of fruit’ and give it to him. Then he tells him,  ‘Behold this fruit is given [back]] to you as a gift’, and [the shopkeeper] answers him, ‘And here is a gift for you of a sela.'  And then he may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange?
  Rather R. Ashi said: The dispute [of R. Elazar and R. Yohanan] is over secondary produce, but with regard to the original produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange. "Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]"— his refers to the money for which the produce is exchanged. 
  For if you do not say so, then "tithe" also must mean actual tithe.  But surely it is written, "You shall bind the money in your hand? (Deuteronomy 14:21). Rather it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged].
  In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for even days in memory of the Temple,
  [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce]. 
  From where do we know that we must perform [ceremonies] in memory of the Temple? R. Yohanan said:  Since Scripture says, "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord, Because they have called you an outcast. She is Zion, there is none that seek for her" (Jeremiah 30:17). ‘There is none that see for her,' implies that she should be sought.
  And that the whole day of waving should be prohibited. What is the reason?  The Temple may be rebuilt speedily, and people would say,  "Did we not eat [new grain] last year from the time that light appeared in the east? Let us now also eat it [from the same time]" and they would not know that in the previous year, when there was no Temple, once day dawned in the east it,was permitted [to eat of the new grain], but now that the Temple is rebuilt, it is only the [waving of the] omer which [begins] the permission to eat new grain.
  But when [is this assume the Temple to be] rebuilt? If you will say that it is rebuilt on the sixteenth [of Nissan], then obviously it is permitted to eat from the time that day dawned in the East? If, however, it is rebuilt on the fifteenth why should it not be permitted after midday, for we have learned,  Those that lived at a distance were permitted [to eat of the new grain] from midday onward, because [they knew that] the court would not be negligent in the matter?
  This was necessary [only in case] it is rebuilt at night, or [on the fifteenth] close to sunset. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: R. Yohanan b. Zakkai instituted this in accordance with a principle of R. Judah  who holds that from the Torah the whole day is forbidden, since it is written,
  
  Daf 41b
  
  "Until this very day" (Leviticus 23:14) [which means] until the very day itself,  and he is of the opinion that  the expression ‘until’ is meant to include.
  But does he hold like him? Does he not in fact disagree with him, as we have learnt When the Temple was destroyed, R. Yohanan b. Zakkai enacted that on the whole of the Day of the Waving it should be forbidden [to eat of the new grain].  R. Judah said to him, But is it not forbidden from the Torah, since it is written, ‘Until the very day’ [which means] until the very day itself?
  It is R. Judah who was mistaken. He thought that He thought that [R. Yohanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Torah prohibition. But does it not say, "He instituted"? What is meant by "He instituted" is that he expounded (the Torah) and instituted the law accordingly. 
  1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it,  since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow.  4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].
  From where do we know this? From what our Rabbis have taught, "And you shall take" [implying] that there should be a "taking" in the hand of each individual. For yourself" implies that it should be yours, excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav].  From this verse the Sages deduced that  one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of his fellow, unless the latter gave it to him as a gift. 
  And it once happened that R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were travelling on a ship and only R. Gamaliel had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz. R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who and gave it as a gift to R. Elazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.
  Why does it need mention that he returned it? It teaches us something incidentally-- -a gift made on condition that it be returned constitutes a valid gift;
  like that which Rava said:  [If one say to his fellow], "Here is an etrog [as a gift] on condition that you return it to me," and the latter took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned it, he has fulfilled his obligation, , but if he did not return it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. 
  Why did he need to mention that [R. Gamaliel] had bought it for one thousand zuz? In order to let you know how precious to them was the opportunity of fulfilling a mitzvah.
  Mar bar Amemar said to R. Ashi:  My father used to recite his prayers [while holding the lulav].  They objected: One should not hold his tefillin in his hand or a Torah scroll in his bosom and pray, nor should he urinate [while wearing them], or doze or sleep. 
  And Shmuel said about this:  The same applies to a knife, a dish, a loaf of bread and money? In the latter cases he is not performing a mitzvah and, therefore, would worry over them but in the former one he is fulfilling a mitzvah and therefore he would not worry over it. 
  It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger. 
  What does this teach us? It informs you how zealous they were in the performance of mitzvot.
  R. Yose says: If the first day of the festival [fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence of a religious act]. Abaye said:
  
  Daf 42a
  
  They taught [that he is not liable] only when he had not yet fulfilled his obligation, but if he had fulfilled his obligation, he is liable. But once he lifts it up, he has fulfilled his obligation!    Abaye answered: This is a case] where he held it upside down.
  Rava said: You may even say that he did not hold it upside down, but here we are dealing with a case where he carried it out in a vessel. But was it not Rava who said that taking by means of something else counts as a valid taking? That applies only [where the taking with something else is done] as a mark of respect, but not [if it is done] in a disrespectful manner.
  R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?
  What might you have thought?  There [in the mishnah] he is not liable when he errs in connection with a mitzvah, because he performs a mitzvah, but here where he erred in connection with a mitzvah but he does not perform another mitzvah, I might have said that he is liable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is exempt].
  They objected: R. Yose says: One who slaughters a daily offering which has not been properly examined on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering and another daily offering must be offered.
  The other answered him: That case is different,  for it has been said concerning it: R. Shmuel bar Hattai said in the name of R. Hamnuna Saba who said in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who said in the name of  R. Huna who said in the name of Rav: For instance they brought it from a chamber that contained animals which had not been examined. 
  1) A woman may receive [a lulav] from her son or from her husband and put it back in water on Shabbat. 2) Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat they may be put it back [into the water in which they were previously kept], on a festival day [water] may be added, and on the intermediate days [of the festival the water] may also be changed. 
  3) A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav.
  GEMARA. Is not this obvious? I might have said that, since a woman does not come under the obligation [of lulab] she may not take it, therefore he informs us [that she may].
  A minor who knows how to shake the [lulav]. Our Rabbis taught, A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is subject to the obligation of the lulav; [if he knows how] to wrap himself [with a tallit] he is subject to the obligation of tzitzit; [if he knows how] to look after tefillin, his father must buy tefillin for him;  if he is able to speak, his father must teach him Torah and the reading of the Shema.
  What [in this context] could be meant by Torah? R. Hamnuna said: Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. What [in this context] is meant by the Shema?  The first verse.
  If [the minor] knows how to take care of his body we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity though his body [touched it]; If he knows how to take care of hands, we may eat food that has been prepared in ritual purity even though his hands [touched it].  If he knows how to answer [questions on whether he touched any ritual uncleanliness], a doubtful case on his part that occurs in a private domain is regarded as unclean, but if in a public domain as clean. [If he knows how] to spread out his hands [in priestly benediction] they may give him terumah on the threshingfloors.
  
  Daf 42b
  
  If he knows how to slaughter [animals ritually] we may eat from [the meat of animals] which he has slaughtered.  R. Huna explained:  This applies only where an adult was standing by his side [when he slaughtered the animal].
  If [a child] is able to eat an olive size of grain, one must remove oneself a distance of at least four cubits from his excrement or water.  R. Hisda explained: This applies only where the child is able to consume it in the time [which it takes an ordinary adult] to eat half a loaf. R. Hiyya the son of R. Yeva said: But in the case of an adult [the law applies] even if he cannot eat it in the time [which it takes a normal person] to eat half a loaf, since it is written, He that increases knowledge increases sorrow.
  If [a child] can eat an olive of roast meat, they slaughter the pesah sacrifice on his behalf, as it is said, "According to the eating of every man" (Exodus 12:4).  Rabbi Judah said: Until he is able to pick out food. How so? If they give him a splinter, he throws it away; if they give him a nut, he eats it. 
  May we return to you, chapter "A Stolen Lulav." 
  1) [The rituals of] the lulav and the aravah are for six or seven [days]; 2) The Hallel and the rejoicing are for eight [days]; 3) The sukkah and the water libation are for seven [days];  4) The flute is for five or six [days].
  5) “The lulav for seven.” How so?  a) If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, the lulav [is taken for] seven days; on any other day, [it is taken] for six. 
  6) “The aravah—seven days.” How is this?  a) If the seventh day of [the ritual of] the aravah fell on Shabbat, [it lasts] seven days; if it fell on any other day, [it lasts only] six.
  7) The mitzvah of the lulav—how was it carried out?  8) If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, and the attendants would receive them and arrange them on top of the portico, and the elders laid theirs in the chamber. And they would teach the people to say,  “Whoever gets my lulav in his hand, let it be his as a gift.”
  9) The next day they got up early, and came [to the Temple Mount] and the attendants threw down [their lulavim] before them, and they snatched at them, and so they used to come to blows with one another.  10) When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home.
  GEMARA. But why [should it be forbidden to take the lulav on Shabbat]? It involves only a mere movement, why then should it not override the Shabbat? Rabbah said: It is a restrictive decree, lest one take [the lulav] in his hand and go to an expert in order to learn [how to wave it]
  
  Daf 43a
  
  and thereby he will be carrying it for four cubits through a public domain.  And the same reason applies to the shofar, and the same reason applies to the megillah.
  But if so, the same should be true of the first day?  The first day! The Rabbis enacted that he should take it at home [on the first day that falls on Shabbat]. That is true after the enactment, but what can you say about before the enactment?
  Rather the first day, since the obligation to take the lulav is from the Torah even in the provinces the rabbis did not decree, but with regard to the other days for which there is no obligation from the Torah to take the lulav in the provinces, the Rabbis did decree.
  But if so, the same should be true now! We do not know how to fix the New Moon.  But they, who know how to fix the New Moon, let it override [the Shabbat]? 
  This is indeed so;  for in our Mishnah we have learned: If the first day of the festival, fell on Shabbat, all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, while in another Mishnah we have learned [that they brought them]  to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive.
  From where do we derive that [the taking of the lulav] is Torah obligation in the Provinces?  As it has been taught: "And you shall take" that the lulav must be taken in the hand by everyone of you; "for yourself" that it must be yours, thus excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav];
  On the day" even on Shabbat;  "First" even in the Provinces; "The first" this teaches that it overrides only the first day of the Festival.
  The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying?  Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?
  Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day,  [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that  we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.
  And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]?  From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights.  You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights. 
  Or take it another way: The word “days” is mentioned here, and also in connection with the [seven days of the] preparation, (Leviticus 8:35) just as there it means days and also nights, so here also it must mean days and also the nights.
  Let us then see to what it is more comparable. We should deduce a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day from a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day, and let no proof be adduced from something whose performance is only for one moment. Or take it another way: We might deduce a thing which is a mitzvah for future generations from something whose mitzvah is for future generations, but we will not deduce a proof from the preparations which were not for future generations.
  So it was taught.
  
  Daf 43b
  
  Scripture says “You shall dwell” “You shall dwell” in order to point an analogy (gezerah shavah).  It is stated here, “You shall dwell,” and with regard to the [seven days of] preparation it is also stated, “You shall dwell,” so that just as in that case the word “days” includes also the nights, so here also “days” includes the nights.
  The aravah for seven days. How so? Why does the [ritual of the] aravah on the seventh day override Shabbat? R. Yohanan said: In order to publicize the fact that it is a [commandment] of the Torah. But if so, let the lulav also override Shabbat in order to publicize the fact that it is a from the Torah? 
  In the case of lulav there is a restrictive enactment on account of the reason of Rabbah. But if so, let us make the same restrictive enactment with regard to the aravah also? In the case of the aravah the agents of the Bet Din would bring it but the lulav is entrusted to everyone.
  But if so, ought it not override [the Shabbat] on any day?  [If that were done] people would come to hold the lulav in light esteem. Let it [the aravah] override [Shabbat] on the first day of the Festival?  It will not be clear [that it is the aravah that overrides Shabbat, for] people might say that  it is the lulav which overrides it.
  Let it override one of the other days?  Since [the permission to override Shabbat] was removed from the first day, it was transferred to the seventh.
  But if so, let it override Shabbat at the present time also?  We do not know when New Moon was set.
  But in their case since they know when the New Moon was fixed, why should it not override [Shabbat]?  When Bar Hadya came, he explained that  this never happened. When, however, Ravin came and all the company that used to go down [from Palestine to Babylon] they stated  that it did happen, and that it did not override [the Sabbath].
  Does not then the original difficulty arise?  R. Joseph answered: Who says that [the ritual of] the aravah is [performed] by the taking of it? Perhaps it is done by its being stood up next [to the sides of the altar].
  Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.
  Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times.  Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah?  He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar]  with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha:  with the aravah....
  Rava said to R. Yitzchak the son of Rabbah b. bar Hana: O Son of the Torah, come and I will tell you an excellent statement which your father made. With reference to what we have learned: Every day they circled the altar once, and on that day they circled it seven times, thus said your father in the name of R. Eleazar:  with the lulav.
  He raised an objection against him: The lulav overrides Shabbat on the first day, and the aravah on the last day. On time the seventh day of the [ritual of the] aravah fell on Shabbat, and they brought saplings of aravot on the eve of Shabbat and placed them in the courtyard of the Temple.  The Boethusians discovered them and took them and hid them under some stones.
  The next day the ammei ha’aretz discovered them and removed them from under the stones, and the priests brought them in and stood them up on the sides of the altar.  For the Boethusians do not admit that the beating of the aravah overrides Shabbat.
  Thus we see clearly that [the aravah ritual] is in the taking of it?  This is a refutation.
  Then why should it not override [Shabbat]?  Since for us it does not override [Shabbat] it does not override it for them either. But is there not the first day of the Festival which for us does not override [Shabbat], but it does for them? 
  
  Daf 44a
  
  I can answer: For them also it does not override [Shabbat]. Does not then a contradiction arise between those two mishnayot, since one teaches  “all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount,” and the other mishnah teaches... that they brought them] to the synagogue, and we answered,  that the one referred to Temple times and the other to the time after the destruction of the Temple? No; both refer to Temple times, but there is nevertheless no contradiction 
  since the one refers to the Temple and the other to the provinces.
  Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?
  R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav which is a Torah commandment we perform the ceremony for seven days in memory of the Temple in the case of the aravah which is only a rabbinic commandment, we do not perform the ceremony for seven days in memory of the Temple.
  According to whom? If you will say, According to Abba Shaul,did he not say: It is written, “willows of the brook” implying two, one referring to the [aravah in the] lulav and the other to [the aravah for use in] the Temple? If you will say it is according to the rabbis, did they not have it as an accepted tradition, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.
  Rather, R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav, which has its Torah origin when performed in the provinces, we perform it for seven days in memory of the Temple; in the case of the rite of the aravah, which has no Torah origin for its performance in the Provinces, we do not perform it for seven days in commemoration of the Temple. Resh Lakish said:
  Kohanim with physical blemishes enter between the Sanctuary and the altar in order to fulfil the mitzvah of the aravah. Rabbi Yohanan to him: ... Who said so? ‘Who said so?’ id he not himself say so, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai?
  He rather meant this:   Who said that [the mitzvah is fulfilled] by taking, perhaps it is fulfilled by standing [the aravah] up [next to the altar]? Who said that it may be done by priests with a blemish, perhaps it [may be done] only by unblemished priests?
  It was stated: R. Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi disagree: One holds that the aravah is an institution of the prophets,  the other holds that the aravah is a custom of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Yohanan who said: It is an institution of the prophets since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yohanan: The rite of the aravah is an institution of the prophets. This is conclusive.
  R. Zera sad to R. Abbahu, Did R. Yohanan really say that? Did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the aravah ... and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai? He was silent for a while (Daniel 4:16), and then he answered:  They were forgotten and the prophets re-instituted them.
  But did R. Yohanan really say this? Did not R. Yohanan in fact state What I said was yours was in fact theirs?  Rather: This is no difficulty–
  
  Daf 44b
  
  one statement refers to the Temple and the other to the Provinces.
  R. Ami said: The aravah must have a minimum size, it must be taken separately only, and one does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav. Since the Master said: It must be taken separately only is it not obvious that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav? 
  What might I have said? That that applies only where one does not lift [the lulav] a second time, but not where one does lift it a second time [he would fulfill his obligation], therefore he teaches us that it is not so. R. Hisda said in the name of R. Yitzchak:  One may fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav.
  What is its minimum measure? R. Nahman said: Three fresh twigs with leaves. But R. Sheshet said: Even one leaf and one twig. One leaf and one twig! Could you really think such a thing?  Rather say:  Even one leaf on one twig.
  Aibu said: I was once standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok when a man brought an aravah before him, and he took it and shook it over and over again without reciting any blessing,  or he was of the opinion that it was merely a custom of the prophets.  Aibu and Hezekiah, the sons of the daughters of Rav, brought an aravah before Rav, and he shook it over and over again without reciting a blessing, for he was of the opinion that  it was merely a custom of the prophets.
  Aibu stated: I was standing in the presence of R. Elazar b. Zadok. A certain man came before him and  said to him: I have cities, vineyards and olive trees, and the inhabitants of the cities come and hoe the vineyards and eat the olives [on the Sabbatical year]. Is this proper or improper? [R. Yohanan] rules that  indeed it is improper As the man was about to leave him and depart,  [R. Elazar] said I have now lived in the land for forty years, and I have never seen a man walking in the paths of righteousness as this man.  The man went back and said to him: ‘What should be done?’  He answered him: Abandon the olives to the poor and pay the workers for hoeing the vineyards
  But is hoeing permitted [during the Sabbatical year]?  Has it not in fact been taught: “But the seventh year let it rest and lie still” (Exodus 23:11), Let it rest” from hoeing and “lie still” from the removal of stones?  R. Ukba b. Hama said: There are two kinds of hoeing; one consists in closing up the fissures and the other in aerating the soil. Aerating the soil is forbidden but closing up the fissures is permitted.
  Aibu said in the name of R. Elazar b. Zadok: One should not walk more than three parasangs on erev Shabbat.  R. Kahana said: They made this statement only [in reference to a man who was going to] his home, but if he was going to his inn he relies upon [the food] which he has with him.
  There are those that say that R. Kahana said: The statement was necessary even in the case of a man [who was going] to his home.  R. Kahana said: It actually happened with me, and I did not find even small fried fish.
  The mitzvah of the lulav. How so? A tanna recited in front of R. Nahman: They arranged them upon the roof of the portico. He said to him:
  
  Daf 45a
  
  What, does he really want to dry them out? Rather say  on top of the portico. Rehava said in the name of R. Judah: The Temple Mount had a double colonnade, one colonnade being within the other.
  The mitzvah of the aravah—how was it [performed]? 1) There was a place below Jerusalem called Moza. They went down there and gathered tall branches of aravot and then they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the altar. They then sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [staccato blast] and again a teki’ah. 2) Every day they went round the altar once, saying, “O Lord, save us, O Lord, make us prosper” (Psalms 118: 25). 3) Rabbi Judah says:  “Ani vaho, save us.” 4) On that day they went round the altar seven times. 5) When they departed, what did they say? “O altar, beauty is to you! O altar, beauty is to you!” 6) Rabbi Eliezer said: [they would say,] “To the Lord and to you, O altar, to the Lord and to you, O altar.”
  1) As was its performance on a weekday, so was its performance on Shabbat,  except that they would gather them on the eve of Shabbat and place them in golden basins so that they would not become wilted.  2) Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka says: they used to bring palm branches and they would beat them on the ground at the sides of the altar, and that day was called “[the day of] the beating of the palm branches.” 3) Immediately after beating the willows (or palm branches) the children undo their lulavs and eat their etrogim.
  GEMARA. It was taught,  It was the place called Kolonia. Then why does our Tanna call it Moza? Since it was exempt from the king’s tax, he calls it Moza
  And they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar… A tanna taught: they were large and long and eleven cubits high, so that they might bend over the altar one cubit.
  Maremar said in the name of Mar Zutra: Deduce from this that they were laid upon the base [of the altar]. or if you were to assume that they were placed on the ground [then you have the following problem]: It (the altar) rose up one cubit and drew in one cubit, and this formed the base. It then rose up five cubits and drew in one cubit, and this formed the circuit; it [then] rose up three cubits, and this was the place of the horns. Now how could they bend over the altar?  Consequently learn from this that they were placed on the base. This is conclusive.
  R. Abbahu said:  What is its Scriptural proof? As it is said, “Order the festival procession with boughs, up to the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). R. Abbahu said  n the name of R. Elazar: Whoever takes the lulav with its binding and the hadas in its thickness is regarded by Scripture as though he had built an altar and offered on it a sacrifice. For it is said,
  
  Daf 45b
  
  “Bind the festival with myrtle branches up to the horns of the altar.” and R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon of Mahoz who said in the name of R. Yohanan of Makkut: Whoever makes an addition to the Festival by eating and drinking is regarded by Scripture as though he had built an altar and offered on it a sacrifice. For it is said, Make an addition to the Festival with fat cattle, even to the horns of the altar.
  Hezekiah said in the name of R. Yirmiyah in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai:  For all of the commandments, one does not fulfil one’s obligation unless [the objects involved] are in the same condition as when they grow, for it is said, “Acacia wood standing up” (Exodus 26:15).
  So it was also taught, “Acacia wood standing up”: that they should stand in the manner of their growth. Another interpretation: “Standing up” implies that they held their [gold] overlaying. Another interpretation:   “Standing up.” Lest you may say, ‘Their hope is lost, their chances have disappeared” Scripture states, “Acacia wood standing up” implying that they will stand for ever and to all eternity.
  Hezekiah further stated in the name of R. Yirmiyah who said it in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: I am able to exempt the whole world from judgement from the day that I was born until now, and Eliezer, my son, were to be with me [we could exempt it] from the day of the creation of the world to the present time, and were Yotam the son of Uzziah with us, [we could exempt it] from the creation of the world to its final end.
  Hezekiah further stated in the name of R. Yirmiyah who said it in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: I have seen the sons of heaven and they are but few. If there be a thousand, I and my son are among them; if a hundred, I and my son are among them; and if only two, they are I and my son. Are they then so few? Did not Rava say, There is a row of 18,000 righteous men before the Holy One, blessed be He, for it is said, “It shall be eighteen thousand round about [and the name of the city from that day on shall be ‘The Lord Is There'” (Ezekiel 48:35)? This is no difficulty:  The former number refers to those who see Him through a bright speculum, the latter to those who do not see him through a bright speculum.
  But are those who see Him through a bright speculum so few? Did not Abaye in fact state:  The world never has less than thirty-six righteous people who see the Shekhinah every day, for it is said, “Happy are they that wait lo [for Him]” (Isaiah 30:18) and the numerical value of lo is thirty-six? There is no difficulty:  The latter number refers to those who may enter [the Divine Presence] with permission, the former to those who may enter without permission.
  When they departed, what did they say?  But doesn’t he associate the name of God with something else and it has been taught:  hoever associates the name of God with something else is uprooted from the world, as it is said, Save to the Lord alone (Exodus 22:19)?”  This is what he meant: To the Lord we give thanks, and to You we praise; to the Lord we give thanks and You we admire.
  As was its performance on a weekday.  R. Huna said: What is the reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka? As it is written, “Branches” which implies two, one for the lulav and one for the altar.  But the Rabbis say: The word “branches” is written defectively (כפת). 
  R. Levi said: [The reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka is that Israel is] compared to the date-palm; as the date-palm has but one heart also Israel has but one heart for their Father in Heaven.
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The blessing is recited over] the lulav for seven [days] and over the Sukkah for only on one day.  What is the reason?  In the case of the lulav where the nights interrupt the days, each day is a separate commandment; in the case of the Sukkah where the nights do not interrupt the days, all seven days are regarded as one long day.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan:  [The blessing is recited over] the Sukkah for seven days and over the lulav for one day.  What is the reason?  For the Sukkah which is a Toraitic commandment [the blessing must be recited all] seven [days]; in the case of the lulav which is only a rabbinical commandment [a blessing on] one day suffices.
  When Rabin came he said in the name of R. Yohanan: Both this one and that one for seven days. R. Yoseph said: Hold fast to the decision of Rabbah b. Bar Hana, since with regard to Sukkah, all the amoraim adopt the same position as he.
  They objected: 
  
  Daf 46a
  
  He who makes a lulav for his own use says, “Blessed [are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe] who has kept us in life, and has preserved us, and enabled us to reach this season.”  When he takes it to fulfill his obligation, he says, “Blessed [are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe] who hast sanctified us by His commandments, and commanded us concerning the taking of the lulav”  And even though he has recited the blessing on the first day, he must again recite it on all seven days.  He who makes a Sukkah for his own use says, “Blessed [are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe] who has kept us in life, and sustained us etc.” When he enters the Sukkah to dwell in it he says, ‘. . . Who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to dwell in the Sukkah.”  And once he has recited the blessing on the first day, he does not bless again.
  There is contradiction between the one statement concerning the lulav and the other, and between the one concerning Sukkah and the other.
  The difficulty between the one statement concerning the lulav and the other is resolvable,  since one refers to Temple times and the other to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence;  But there is a contradiction between the two statements concerning the sukkah.
  The question is one in dispute between Tannas, as it has been taught,  Whenever a man puts on his tefillin he must recite the blessing, the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say,  He recites the blessing in the morning only.
  It was stated: Abaye said he law is in agreement with Rabbi. But Rava said:  The law is in agreement with the sages.  R. Mari the son of Shmuel’s daughter, I noticed that Rava himself did not act in accordance with his own ruling but rising early, he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing,  and when he had to go a second time he would go to the toilet, come out and wash his hands, put on his tefillin and recite the blessing again.  We too act in accordance with the ruling of Rabbi and recite the blessing all seven days. 
  Mar Zutra said:  I noticed that R. Papi recited the blessing whenever he put on his tefillin.  The sages of the school of R. Ashi recited the blessing whenever they touched their tefillin.
  Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel:  The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”
  Rav also holds that the mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days, f or R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav:  One who lights the Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing. R. Yirmiyah said: One who sees the Hanukkah lamp must recite the blessing. What blessing does one recite? Rav Judah said: On the first day the one who lights must recite three blessings and the one who sees it must recite two.  From that day on the one who lights recites two blessings and the one who sees them only one.
  What is the blessing? — ‘Blessed [are You, O Lord our God, King of the Universe] who has sanctified us by Your commandments, and commanded us to kindle the light of Hanukkah’. But where did He command us?  “Do not turn aside” (Deuteronomy 17:11). R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: “Ask your father, and he will tell you” (Deuteronomy 32:7)
  Which [blessing] does one omit? — The blessing on the time. Say that one omits the blessing of the miracle? The miracle occurred every day. R. Nahman b. Yitzchak taught this explicitly: Rav said: The commandment of the lulav applies to all seven days.
  Our rabbis taught: He who makes a Sukkah for his own use recites the blessing, “Blessed are You. . . who has kept us in life” etc. When he enters it to dwell in it, he says, “Blessed are You . . . who has sanctified us” etc. If it was already made and standing: if he can make some renovation in it he blesses; and if not, when he enters it to dwell in it he recites both blessing. R. Ashi said: I saw that R. Kahana recited all of them over the cup of Kiddush.
  Our rabbis taught: One who has to perform many commandments [simultaneously] shall say,  “Blessed . . . who has sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us concerning the commandments.”  R. Judah said: One must recite a blessing over each one separately. R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa said: The halakhah is according to R. Judah.  R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated:  What is the reason of R. Judah? Because it is written, “Blessed be the Lord day by day” (Psalms 68:20). Now do we bless Him by day and not by night?  Rather this comes to teach you:  Give Him every day His appropriate blessings. So too here: Give Him for every single thing, its appropriate blessings.
  R. Zera or, as some say, R. Hanina b. Papa further stated:  Come and see that the ways of a human being are not like the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He. According to the ways of a human being, an empty vessel 
  
  
  Daf 46b
  
  is able to contain [what is put into it], and a full vessel cannot contain it but according to the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, a full vessel is able to contain it while an empty one cannot; as it is said, “And it shall come to pass, if listening you shall listen” (Deuteronomy 28:8): if you listen, you will continue to listen, but if not, you will not listen.  Another interpretation: If you will listen to the old, you will be able to listen to the new,” but if you turn your heart away, you will no longer listen” (Deuteronomy 30:17).
  Immediately the children [throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs]. R. Yohanan said: The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, and permitted on the eighth; the Sukkah is forbidden even on the eighth And Resh Lakish said: The etrog is permitted even on the seventh day. 
  What do they disagree about? One Master holds that it is set aside only for the performance of its commandment, while the other Master holds  that that it is set aside for the whole day.
  Resh Lakish raised an objection against R. Yohanan:  Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs. Does not this equally apply to adults also?  No; specifically to children.
  There are others who say that R. Yohanan raised the objection against Resh Lakish: Immediately the children throw down their lulavs and eat their etrogs.  Children only, not adults! No; the same law applies to adults as well, and the reason that it mentions children is that it states what was customary.
  R. Papa said to Abaye:  To R. Yohanan what is the difference between the Sukkah and the etrog?
  He said to him: The Sukkah is fit to be used at twilight [after the seventh day], for if he by chance has a meal at that time he would have to sit in it and eat therein, therefore it is set aside for its ritual purpose during twilight, and since it is set aside during twilight, it is also set aside for the whole of the eighth day. The etrog, however, which is not suitable during twilight, is not set aside for its ritual purpose during twilight, hence it is not set aside for the whole day.
  But Levi said: The etrog is forbidden even on the eighth day; And the father of Shmuel said The etrog is forbidden on the seventh day, but permitted on the eighth. The father of Shmuel subsequently adopted the view of Levi. R. Zera adopted the [earlier] view of the father of Samuel,  for R. Zera ruled:... It is forbidden to eat an etrog [even one] that has become invalid, all the seven days.
  R. Zera said: One should not transfer possession of the hoshana to a child on the first day of the Festival. What is the reason? — Because a child is able to acquire possession but not to transfer possession, and it will turn out that he will fulfil his duty with a lulav which is not his.
  R. Zera further said: One should not promise a child to give him something and then not give it to him, because he will thereby teach him lying, as it is said, “They have taught their tongues to speak lies” (Jeremiah 9:4).
  The following dispute is based on the same principles] as the one between R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. For it was stated: If one set apart seven etrogs for the seven days: Rav said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it immediately. R. Assi said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it the next day.  What do they argue about? One Master holds that it is set apart for its mitzvah while the other holds that it is set apart for the whole day.
  And as for us who have two days [of the Festival] what are we to do?  Abaye said: On the eighth day which may be the seventh it is forbidden; on the ninth day which may be the eighth, it is permitted.  Meremar said:  Even on the eighth day, which may be the seventh, it is permitted. 
  In Sura they acted in accordance with the ruling of Meremar. R. Shisha the son of R. Idi acted in accordance with the ruling of Abaye.  And the law is in agreement with Abaye.
  R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat said in the name of Rav:  The eighth day which may be the seventh is regarded as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah and as the eighth in respect of the blessing. R. Yohanan said It is regarded as the eighth for this and that. Dwelling [in the Sukkah on the eighth day] all agree that one does dwell, they only disagree over
  
  Daf 47a
  
  the blessing.  According to him who regards the day as the seventh in respect of the Sukkah, we also recite the blessing [of the Sukkah], while according to him who holds that it is regarded as the eighth in respect of both, we do not recite the blessing [of the Sukkah]. R. Yoseph said: Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yohanan, since R. Huna b. Bizna and all the greats of his generation were in a Sukkah on the eighth day which may have been the seventh, they sat there, but they did not recite the blessing. 
  But is it not possible that they were of the same opinion as the one who said that once a man has recited the blessing on the first day, he has no more need to recite it?  There was a tradition that they had just come from the fields.
  There are those who say that all agree that one does not recite the blessing [on the Sukkah], and that they only disagree over whether one must sit [in the Sukkah] according to the one who ruled that it is regarded as the seventh day in respect of the Sukkah, we must indeed sit in it, while according to the one who ruled that it is regarded as the eighth day in respect of both, we do not even sit in it. R. Yoseph said:... Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yohanan. For who is the authority of the statement? R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilath, and he himself sat outside the Sukkah on the eighth day which might be the seventh.  And the law is that  we must indeed sit in the Sukkah but may not recite the blessing.
  R. Yohanan said: We recite the blessing of the season (shehiyanu) on the Eighth Day of the Festival [of Sukkot], but we do not recite the blessing of the season on the seventh day of Pesah.
  And R. Levi b. Hama or, as some say, R. Hama b. Hanina said:  Know [that this is so], since [the Eighth Day] is different [from the preceding days] in three things: ... In the Sukkah, lulav and water libation,  And according to R. Judah who holds that with one log of water that they performed the water libation for eight days, it is different in two respects.
  If so, is not the seventh day of Pesah also different in respect of the commandment to eat matzah, since the Master said,  On the first night it is an obligation [to eat matzah], from that point onward it is voluntary? How now!  here it is different from the first night, but not from the day whereas in the case of the Eighth Day, it is different even from the preceding day.
  Ravina said:  This one is different from the day immediately preceding it, whereas that one is different from the day that is prior [to the period] which precedes it. 
  R. Papa said:  In one case it is written “bullock”, in the other “bullocks”. 
  R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said:  In this case it is written, “on the day”, in the other, “and on the day”. 
  R. Ashi said: In this case it is written, “According to the ordinance” while in the case of the seventh day it is written, “according to their ordinance”
  Can we say that [the following statement] supports [the view of R. Yohanan]: The bullocks, the rams and the lambs each prevent the fulfillment of the other. But R. Judah says, The bullocks do not prevent the fulfillment of the other, since they diminish in number progressively. 
  They said to him:  But are not all of them diminished in number on the Eighth Day?  He answered them: The Eighth Day is a separate festival, for, just as the seven days of the Festival must have [their own] sacrifices, song, blessing and staying overnight, so the Eighth Day must have its own sacrifices, song, blessing and staying overnight. 
  
  Daf 47b
  
  Now is this not the blessing of the season? No, it refers to Birkat Hamazon and to Tefillah. 
  This is also reasonable, for if you were to think that it refers to [the blessing of] the season, is there a blessing over the season all seven days? This is really not a difficulty, for if he did not recite the blessing [of the season] during the first day, he has to recite it the next day, or on any subsequent day.
  But, in any case must not the blessing [of the season] be recited over a cup [of wine]? Shall we then say that this supports the view of R. Nahman, for R. Nahman said [that the blessing of the] season may be recited even in the market-place?  For if you will say that the cup [of wine] is essential, has one then a cup [of wine] every day?  This might apply to a case where one chanced to have a cup [of wine].
  Does R. Judah hold that the Eighth Day requires staying overnight? Has it not been taught: R. Judah says: From where do we know that Pesah Sheni does not require staying overnight? As it is said, "And you shall turn in the morning and go to you tents" (Deuteronomy 16:7) and [immediately afterwards] it is written, "Six days you shall eat matzot" thus implying that that which has six days [of observance] requires staying overnight, but that which does not have six days [of observance] does not require  staying overnight. What does this exclude? Does this not exclude also the Eighth Day of the festival?
  No, to exclude only the Second Passover which is similar to it. This is also reasonable, for we have learned, The bikkurim require a sacrifice, a psalm, waving and staying overnight.  Now who is it that you heard saying that waving is required? R. Judah, and it states that it requires staying overnight. 
  For it has been taught: R. Judah said  "And you shall set it down" (Deuteronomy 26:8)— this refers to waving.  You say that it refers to waving but perhaps it means literally "setting it down"?  When it says, "And set it down," (26:4) setting down is mentioned. How then do I fulfill, "And you shall set it down"? That refers to waving
  But perhaps it follows R. Eliezer b. Yaakov, for it has been taught, “And the priest shall take the basket out of your hand” (Deuteronomy 26:4) this teaches that bikkurim require waving, the words of R. Eliezer b. Jacob. 
  What is the reason of R. Eliezer b. Jacob?  He deduces it from the word “hand” occurring here and in the case of the shelamim-offering. Here it is written, “And the priest shall take the basket out of your hand,” and there it is written, “His own hands shall bring the offering to the Lord,” (Leviticus 7:3)– just as here the priest [takes it and waves it] so there the priest [takes it and waves it], 
  and just as there the owner [brings and waves it] so here also the owner [brings and waves it].  How is this possible? The priest places his hand under the hand of the owner and waves it.
  What is the decision? R. Nahman said: We say [the blessing of the] season on the Eighth Day of the Festival But R. Shesheth said: We do not say [the blessing of the] season on the Eighth Day of the Festival.  And the law is that we say [the blessing of the] season on the Eighth Day of the Festival.
  It has been taught in agreement with R. Nahman,  The Eighth Day
  
  Daf 48a
  
  is a separate festival with regard to  P’Z’R’ K’SH’B': with regard to drawing (p) it is a separate festival, with regard to the blessing of the season it is a separate festival (z), with regard to the nature of the festival it is a separate festival (r), with regard to its sacrifice it is a separate festival (k), with regard to its psalm it is a separate festival (sh), and with regard to its blessing it is a separate festival (b).
  The Hallel and rejoicing are on all eight days: How is this so? This teaches that one is obligated for the Hallel, for rejoicing and for honoring the festival on the last day, just as he is on all the other days of the festival.
  GEMARA. How do we know this? As our Rabbis taught, The verse], “And you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:15) includes the night of the last day of the Festival.  But perhaps it only refers to [the night of] the first day of the Festival? When it says, “akh” it divides.
  But why have you seen fit to include the last night of the Festival and to exclude the first night? I include the last night since it is preceded by rejoicing and exclude the first night which is not preceded by rejoicing.
  Mishnah: The sukkah is for seven days. How so? Once he finished eating [his meal on the seventh day], he should not untie his sukkah, but he removes its contents from the time of minhah and onward in honor of the last day of the festival.
  GEMARA. If he has no vessels to remove, what should he do?  If he has no vessels!  What then did he use when he was in [his Sukkah]?  Rather say: If he had no place to put his vessels what shall he do?  R. Hiyya b. Ashi said, He removes four handbreadths [of the roof],  And R. Joshua b. Levi said, he should kindle a lamp in it. 
  In fact, however, they do not disagree, the latter referring to us [Babylonians], and the former to them [the Palestinians].
  This is good for a small sukkah but what can be said with regard to a large Sukkah? One might bring into it eating utensils, since Rava said: Eating utensils must be kept outside the Sukkah; drinking vessels in the Sukkah.
  How was the water libation [performed]?  A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [a staccato note] and again a teki’ah.  [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says:  they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine They had each a hole
  
  Daf 48b
  
  like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time.  The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. 
  Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs.
  As it was performed on weekdays, so was it was performed on Shabbat, save that on the eve of Shabbat he would fill a non-sanctified golden barrel from the Shiloah, and place it in the chamber.  If it was poured away or uncovered, he would refill it from the laver, f... or wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.
  GEMARA. From where do we know this?  R. Ena said, As the verse says, “You shall draw water with rejoicing” (Isaiah 12:3).
  There were once two minim one was called Sason and the other Simha. Sason said to Simha: ‘I am better than you, since it is written, “They shall obtain Sason and Simha” (Isaiah 35:10).  Simha said to Sason, “I am better than you, since it is written, “The Jews had Simha and Sason.” Sason said to Simha: One day they will take you out and make you a messenger, since it is written, “For with Simha shall they go forth.” Simha said to Sason: One day they will take you out and draw with you water, for it is written, “Therefore with Sason shall you draw water.”
  A certain min whose name was Sason once said to R. Abbahu: You are destined to draw water for me in the world to come, for it is written, “Therefore be-Sason shall you draw water.” He said back to him: If it had been written, “le-sason” it would be as you say, but as it is written “be-sason” the meaning must be that a water-skin will be made of your skin, and water will be drawn with it’.
  [The priest] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left etc. Our Rabbis taught: All who ascend the altar turned to the right, proceeded round and descended by the left, except for those ascending for the following three purposes, who ascended by the left, turned on their heel and returned [the same way].  These are the three: the water-libation and wine-libation, and the burnt-offering of a fowl when the altar was full on [its south] east side.
  [But they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened.  It is well [as regards the flagon of the wine] since wine darkens, but how was that of the water darkened? Since the Master has said, if one poured the flagon of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation, the [flagon] of water may also become darkened.
  They had each a hole like a slender snout [one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time].  Shall we say that our Mishnah agrees with R. Judah and not with the Rabbis as we have learned R. Judah stated, with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days; for if it agrees with the Rabbis, could they not both pour together?
  [No,] You may say that it agrees even with the Rabbis, [the reason for the different sizes of the holes being that] wine is viscous and water is fluid. 
  This is also reasonable to say for if [our Mishnah went according to] R. Judah, [it should have used the terms] “wide” and “short” which he used; as it has been taught, R. Judah stated:  There were two vessels there, one of water and one of wine, the mouth of the wine [vessel] was broad, and that of the water was strait, so that both should empty themselves together. This is conclusive.
  The one on the west was for water.  Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a certain Sadducee who poured the water libation over his feet and all the people pelted him with their etrogs. On that day the horn of the altar became damaged, and they brought a handful of salt and stopped it up, not because the altar was thereby rendered valid for the service, but merely in order that it should not appear damaged.
  
  Daf 49a
  
  For any altar which does not have the ascent, the horn, the base and a square shape is invalid for the service.  R. Jose b. Judah adds,  Also the circuit
  Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: The pits were created during the six days of creation, for it is said, “The roundings of your thighs are like the links of a chain the work of the hands of a skilled workman” (Song of Songs 7:2):  “The rounding of your thighs” refers to the pits; “like the links of a chain (חלאים)” implies that they are carved out (מחוללים) and descend to the abyss; “the work of the hands of a skilled workman” means that they are the skillful handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Bereshit; read not bereshit but bara shit.
  It has been taught, R. Yose says The cavity of the pits descends to the abyss, for it is said, “Let me sing of my beloved, a song of my lover for his vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a very fruitful hill.  And he dug it, and cleared it of stones, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a vat therein” (Isaiah 5:1).  “And planted it with the choicest vine” refers to the Temple; “and built a tower in the midst of it” refers to the altar; ‘and also hewed out a vat therein’, refers to the pits.
  It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok said: There was a small empty space between the ascent and the altar, on the west side of the ascent, and once in seventy years the young of the priesthood used to descend there and gather up from there the congealed wine which looked like round cakes of pressed figs, and they would come and burn it in a state of sanctity as it is said, “In the holy place you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord” (Numbers 28:7)
  
  Daf 49b
  
  just as its libation was done in sanctity, so too was its burning be done in sanctity. But what does [this midrash] mean? Ravina said: An analogy is made between two appearances of the word holy.” It is written here, ‘In the holy place your shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord’, and it is written elsewhere, “Then you shall burn the remainder with fire, it shall not be eaten, because it is holy” (Exodus 29:34).
  Whose view is followed in what we learned, The law of sacrilege applies to drink-offerings at the beginning, but after they have descended into the pits, the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.” Must we say that it is that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of the rabbis–the pits descended to the abyss? 
  You may even say that it is that of the rabbis, [but it refers to] where it was collected.
  There are some who say: Shall we say that it is that of the Rabbis, and not that of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, for if it were that of R. Elazar b. Zadok, [the objection would arise:] Are they not still in their state of holiness?... You may even say that it is that of R. Elazar, for sacrilege cannot apply to anything whose commandment has already been fulfilled. Resh Lakish said: When they pour the wine-libation on the altar, they would stop up the pits, in order to fulfill what is said, “In holiness you shall pour out a drink-offering of strong drink to the Lord.”
  But how does this mean that? R. Papa answered, Shekhar—the language of drink, satiation and drunkenness. R. Papa said: Learn from that when a man is satiated with wine, it is due to his filling of his throat. Rava said: A young scholar who does not have much wine should swallow it in gulps.  Rava used to gulp down the cup of blessing.
  Rava made the following exposition What is it that is written, “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O prince’s daughter?” (Song of Songs 7:2): How beautiful are the steps of Israel when they go up [to Jerusalem] to celebrate a festival. “O prince’s daughter”: Daughter of our father Abraham, who is called prince, as it is said, “The princes of the peoples are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham” (Psalms 47:10).  The God of Abraham! And not the God of Isaac and Jacob? But the meaning is, The God of Abraham who was the first of the converts.
  The School of R. Anan taught: It is written, “The roundings of your thighs” (Song of Songs 7:2). Why are the words of the Torah compared to the thigh? To teach you that just as the thigh is hidden, so should the words of the Torah be hidden.
  And this is what R. Elazar said: What is the implication of the text, “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8):  ‘To do justly’ means [to act in accordance with] justice; ‘to love mercy’ refers to acts of loving kindness’, ‘and to walk humbly with your God’ refers to attending to funerals and providing a bride with a dowry for her wedding.  Now can we not make an a fortiori deduction:  If in matters which are normally performed publicly the Torah says ‘to walk humbly’, how much more so in matters that are normally done privately?
  R. Elazar stated: Greater is he who performs charity than [he who offers] all the sacrifices, for it is said, “To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice” (Proverbs 21:3). R. Elazar further stated: Acts of loving kindness (gemilut hasadim) are greater than charity (tzedakah), for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to your charity (tzedakah), but reap according to your hesed” (Hosea 10: 12); when one sows, it is doubtful whether he will eat [the harvest] or not, but when one reaps, he will certainly eat.
  R. Elazar further stated: The reward of charity depends entirely upon the extent of the kindness in it, for it is said, “Sow to yourselves according to charity, but reap according to the kindness.”
  Our rabbis taught: In three respects gemilut hasadim is superior to charity: charity can be done only with one’s money, but gemilut hasadim can be done with one’s person and one’s money.  Charity can be given only to the poor, but gemilut hasadim both to the rich and the poor. Charity can be given to the living only, gemilut hasadim can be done both to the living and to the dead.
  R. Elazar further stated: He who performs acts of charity and justice is regarded as though he had filled all the world with kindness, for it is said, “He who loves charity and justice, he has filled the earth with the loving kindness of God” (Psalms 33:5).  But lest you say that whoever wishes to do good succeeds without difficulty, Scripture says, “How precious is Your loving kindness, O God” (Psalms 36:8).  One might say that this applies also one who fears God, Scripture says, “But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time on those that fear Him” (Psalms 103:17).
  R. Hama b. Papa stated: Any man who is endowed with grace is known to be a God-fearing man, for it is said, ‘But the loving kindness of the Lord is from everlasting time to everlasting time to them that fear Him.” R. Elazar further stated: What is it that is written, “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the Torah of loving kindness is on her tongue?” (Proverbs 31:26): Is there then a Torah of loving kindness and a Torah which is not of loving kindness? Rather Torah [which is studied] for its own sake is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, whereas Torah [which is studied] for an ulterior motive is a Torah which is not of loving kindness. There are those who say, Torah [which is studied] in order to teach it is a ‘Torah of loving kindness’, but Torah [which is] not [studied] in order to teach it is a Torah which is not of loving kindness.
  As it was performed on weekdays, so was it was performed on Shabbat, [save that on the eve of Shabbat he would fill a non-sanctified golden barrel from the Shiloah, and place it in the chamber.]  But why [bring the water in a non-sanctified vessel]?  Let him bring it in a sanctified one?  Zeiri said: [The author of our Mishnah] is of the opinion that no fixed amount has been prescribed for the water [of libation] and that the ministering vessels sanctify their contents even if there was no intention
  
  Daf 50a
  
  If he were to bring it in a sanctified vessel it would have been rendered invalid by remaining in there overnight. Hezekiah said: Ministering vessels do not sanctify their contents where there was no intention, but [the use of a sanctified vessel was here forbidden] as a preventive measure lest it be assumed that there was intention that the contents should be sanctified.
  R. Yannai said in the name of R. Zera: You may even say that there is a fixed amount for the water [of libation] and that ministering vessels of ministry do not sanctify their contents unless there was intention, [but the use of a sanctified vessel was nevertheless forbidden] as a preventive measure lest people will think that it was filled with the water for the purpose of using it for the washing of the hands and the feet [of the High Priest].
  If it was poured away or uncovered, [he would refill it from the laver, for wine or water which has become uncovered is invalid for the altar.] But why?  Let him filter it through a strainer? Shall we say that our Mishnah does not agree with R. Nehemiah, for it has been taught, [Liquid that has passed through] a strainer is forbidden under the law of uncovering. R. Nehemiah said: When does this apply? Only when the receptacle underneath was uncovered, but when the receptacle underneath is covered, even although the upper one was uncovered, the law of uncovering does not apply,  since the venom of a serpent is like a fungus which floats on the surface and remains where it is
  You may even say that it agrees with R. Nehemiah. Say that R. Nehemiah’s ruling referred to ordinary use, but for divine use, did he really say this? Does not R. Nehemiah uphold [the lesson of the verse,] “Just offer it to your governor: Will he accept you? Will he show you favor?—said the Lord of hosts” (Malakhi 1:8).
  May we return to you Chapter: Lulav and Aravah
  Mishnah: The flute was for five or six days. This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah [the place of the water-drawing] which does not override Shabbat or the festival day.
  
  Daf 50b
  
  Gemara: It was stated: Rav Judah and R. Ina: One of them taught  Shoevah and the other taught Hashuvah Mar Zutra said: He who teaches, Shoevah is not in error, and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error. He who teaches Shoevah is not in error, since it is written, “And you shall draw water in joy” (Isaiah 12:3)  and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error, since R. Nahman stated: It is an important mitzvah, dating from the very creation.
  Our Rabbis taught: The [playing of the] flute overrides the Shabbat, the words of R. Yose bar Judah.  But the Sages say: It does not override even the Festival. R. Yoseph said: The dispute concerns only the song that accompanied the sacrifices, since R. Yose holds that  the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, so it is considered Temple service and it overrides the Shabbat, whereas the Rabbis hold that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the singing by voice, so the [playing of the instruments] is not considered Temple service and does not, therefore, override Shabbat But with regard to the singing at the Festival of Water-Drawing, all agree that it is a just an expression of rejoicing and does not, therefore, override the Sabbath.
  R. Yoseph said: From where do I derive that the dispute concerns only [the flute that accompanies the sacrifices]? From that which has been taught:  Ministering vessels made of wood: Rabbi declares them invalid and R. Yose b. Judah declares them valid. Now do they not differ on this: the one who declares them valid is of the opinion that  the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument and [its validity may, therefore,] be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses. While he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that  the essential feature of the Temple music is the vocal singing and its validity, therefore, cannot be deduced from that of the reed-flute of Moses?
  No; both of them may agree that  the essential feature of the [Temple] music is with an instrument, but in this case they differ over whether we may deduce what it is possible [to manufacture from another material] from that which it is impossible [to manufacture from another material].  He who declares them valid is of the opinion that  we do deduce that which it is possible [to manufacture from another material], from that which is impossible [to manufacture from another material], whereas he who holds them to be invalid is of the opinion that we do not deduce the possible from the impossible.
  And if you want you may say that all are in agreement that the essential feature of the [Temple] music is the vocal singing, and that we do not deduce the possible from the impossible, but in this case they differ on the question whether, in making the deduction concerning the candlestick, we apply the principle of “the general and the particular” or the rule of “inclusion and exclusion.” Rabbi applies the principle of “the general and the particular” while R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of “exclusion and inclusion.”
  Rabbi applies the principle of the “general and particular:” “And you shall make a candlestick” is a general statement, “of pure gold” is a particular,  “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again a general statement;  [the instruction thus consists of] two general [statements] with a particular [statement between], in which case it includes only such things as are similar to the particular [statement], so that as the particular is specified to be of metal, so must all [vessels] be of metal.
  R. Yose b. Judah applies the principle of ‘inclusion and exclusion [thus:]  “And you shall make a candlestick” is an inclusion, “of pure gold” is an exclusion, “of beaten work shall the candlestick be made” is again an inclusion.  It includes, then excludes, then includes, in which case it includes everything. What does it include? All materials, and what does it exclude? [Only] earthenware.
  R. Papa said: 
  
  Daf 51a
  
  This dispute is like the one between the following Tannas as we have learned: [The flute players in the Temple] were the slaves of the priests, the words of R. Meir.  R. Yose says: They were the families of Beth Ha-Pegarim, and Beth Zipporia who hailed from Emmaus and were married into the priestly stock.
  R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: They were Levites. Now do they not differ on the following principles: He who says that they were slaves is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the vocal singing, while he who says that they were Levites holds the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the instrument?
  But do you really think this? What then does R. Yose really hold? If he is of the opinion that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the singing, then even slaves [should be allowed to play the instruments], and if he is of the opinion that the essential feature was the instrument, then only Levites should [be allowed to play] but not Israelites?
  Rather all agree that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the vocal singing, but it is on this that they differ: One Master holds this was how it was done while the other Master holds that this was how it was done.
  So then what does this matter? To elevate a man who had sung on the platform for matters of genealogy and tithes. 
  they were slaves holds that  we don’t elevate from the platform to genealogy; he who says that they were Israelites [from good families] holds that we that we do elevate from the platform for matters of genealogy, but not for tithes; while he who says that they were Levites holds that  we do elevate from the platform for matters of genealogy and tithes.
  R. Yirmiyah b. Abba said that the dispute concerns only the music at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, since R. Yose b. Judah holds that even an added expression of rejoicing overrides the Shabbat, while the Rabbis hold that  an added expression of rejoicing does not override [either] the Shabbat [or the Festival], but as regards the music which accompanied the sacrifices, all agree that it is [an integral part of] the worship and it overrides the Shabbat.
  They raised an objection: [It was taught:] The music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides Shabbat,  the words of R. Yose b. Judah. The sages, however,  rule that it does not override even the Festival. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? It is indeed a refutation. 
  Can we also say that they dispute only concerning the music which accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, but that with regard to the music that accompanied the sacrifices all agree that it overrides Shabbat, and this would, therefore, constitute a double refutation of R. Joseph?
  R. Joseph could answer you: They dispute concerning the music that accompanied the Simchat Bet Hashoevah and the same applies also to [that which accompanied] the sacrifices, and the reason that they disagree with regard to the Simchat Bet Hashoevah was in order to inform you of the extent of the view of R. Yose b. Judah, that even the music of the Simchat Bet Hashoevah overrides [the Shabbat].
  But didn’t we teach: This refers to the flute at the Bet Hashoevah, which overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival day. This [playing] does not override the Shabbat, but the playing which accompanied the sacrifices does override [the Shabbat]? Now whose view is it? If you were to say that it is that of R. Yose b. Judah, did he not state that the playing which accompanies the Simchat Bet Hashoevah also overrides Shabbat? Consequently it must be, the view of the Rabbis, and thus there is a double refutation of R. Joseph?  It is indeed a refutation.
  What is the reason of the one who stated that the essential feature of the [Temple] music was the instrument? Because it is written, “And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt-offering upon the altar. And when the burnt-offering began, the song of the Lord began also, and the trumpets together with the instruments of David, King of Israel” (II Chronicles 29:27).
  What is the reason of him who stated that the essential feature of the Temple music was the vocal singing? Because it is written, “It came even to pass, when the trumpeters and the singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” (II Chronicles 5:13).
  As to the other also, is it not written, “And Hezekiah commanded etc.”? This is what he meant: “The song of the Lord began” vocally “together with the instruments of David, King of Israel,” which were but to sweeten the voice.
  And as to the other one too, is it not written, “It came even to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one”?  This is what he meant: The singers’ performed in the same manner as the trumpeters. Just as the trumpeters [performed] with instruments, so did the singers [perform] with instruments.
  Mishnah: They said: he who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life 1) At the conclusion of the first festival day of Sukkot they descended to the Women’s Court (Ezrat Nashim) and they would make there a great enactment.  2) And golden candlesticks were there, and four golden bowls on the top of each of them and four ladders to each, and four youths drawn from the young priests, and in their hands there were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty logs which they poured into the bowls. 1) From the worn-out pants and belts of the priests they made wicks and with them they kindled the lamps. 2) And there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.
  1) Men of piety and good deeds used to dance before them
  
  Daf 51b
  
  with lighted torches in their hands, and they would sing songs and praises. 2) And Levites with innumerable harps, lyres, cymbals and trumpets and other musical instruments stood upon the fifteen steps leading down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, corresponding to the fifteen songs of ascents in the Psalms,  and it was on these [steps] that the Levites stood with their musical instruments and sang their songs. 
  3) Two priests stood by the upper gate which leads down from the Court of the Israelites to the Court of the Women, with two trumpets in their hands. When the cock crowed they sounded a teki’ah [drawn-out blast], a teru’ah [staccato note] and again a teki’ah.  When they reached the tenth step they sounded a teki’ah, a teru’ah and again a teki’ah. ... When they reached the Court [of the Women] they sounded a teki’ah, a teru’ah and again a teki’ah. 
  When they reached the Court [of the Women] they sounded a teki’ah, a teru’ah and again a teki’ah.  They would sound their trumpets and proceed until they reached the gate which leads out to the east.  4) When they reached the gate which leads out to the east, they turned their faces from east to west and said, “Our fathers who were in this place ‘their backs were toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east’, but as for us, our eyes are turned to the Lord.” Rabbi Judah said: they used to repeat [the last words] and say “We are the Lord’s and our eyes are turned to the Lord.”
  GEMARA. Our rabbis taught: He who has not seen the Simchat Bet Hashoevah has never seen rejoicing in his life.  He who has not seen Jerusalem in its splendor, has never seen a beautiful city in his life. He who has not seen the Temple in its full construction has never seen a glorious building in his life. Which Temple?  Abaye, or if you want, R. Hisda said: This refers to the building of Herod. 
  What did he build it from? Rabbah said: Of yellow and white marble. There are those who say: With yellow, blue and white marble. The building rose in tiers in order to provide a hold for the plaster. He intended at first to overlay it with gold, but the Rabbis told him,  Leave it alone for it is more beautiful as it is, since it has the appearance of the waves of the sea.
  It has been taught: R. Judah stated: He who has not seen the double colonnade of Alexandria in Egypt has never seen the glory of Israel. It was said that. it was like a huge basilica, one colonnade within the other, and it sometimes held twice the number of people that went forth from Egypt.  There were in it seventy-one chairs of gold, corresponding to the seventy-one members of the Great Sanhedrin, not one of them containing less than twenty-one talents of gold. And a wooden platform was in the middle on which the attendant of the Synagogue stood with a scarf in his hand.  When the time came to answer Amen, he waved his scarf and all the congregation would respond “Amen.” 
  They did not sit all mixed up, but goldsmiths sat separately, silversmiths separately, blacksmiths separately, metalworkers separately and weavers separately, so that when a poor man entered the place he would recognize the members of his craft and he would turn there, and receive a livelihood for himself and for the members of his family.
  Abaye stated: Alexander of Macedonia slew them all. Why were they so punished? Because they transgressed this verse: “You shall not return and come back on this way” (Deuteronomy 17:16) and they did return. 
  When he came he found them reading from the Torah, “The Lord will bring a nation against your from afar” (Deuteronomy 28:49) he said, “It should have taken my ships ten days” journey, but to arrive but a strong wind arose and they arrived in five days! He fell upon them and slew them.
  At the conclusion of the first festival day etc.  What was the great enactment?  R. Elazar said: Like that of which we have learned: Originally [the walls of the Court of the Women] were smooth, but [later the Court] was surrounded with a gallery, and it was enacted that the women should sit above and the men below.
  Our rabbis have taught: Originally the women used to sit within [the Court of the Women] while the men were outside, but this would cause levity, it was instituted that the women should sit outside and the men inside. But they would still come to levity. It was instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.
  But how could they do so? Is it not written, “All this [do I give you] in writing as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me?” (I Chronicles 28:19).
  Rav said:  They found a verse and expounded it:
  
  
  Daf 52a
  
  “And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart” (Zechariah 12:12).  They said: Is there not an a fortiori (kal vehomer) argument? If in the future when they will be engaged in mourning and the evil inclination will have no power over them, the Torah nevertheless says, men separately and women separately, how much more so now when they are engaged in rejoicing and the evil inclination has sway over them.
  What is the cause of the mourning [mentioned in the last cited verse]? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ on this point. One said: Over the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, over the slaying of the Evil Inclination.
  It goes well according to him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, as it is written, “And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for his only son,”  but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, was this an occasion for mourning?  Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep?
  As R. Judah expounded: In the time to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous it will have the appearance of a towering hill, and to the wicked it will have the appearance of a hair thread. Both the former and the latter will weep; the righteous will weep saying, “How were we able to overcome such a towering hill!” The wicked also will weep saying, “How is it that we were unable to conquer this hair thread!” And the Holy One, blessed be He, will also marvel together with them, as it is said, “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, If it be marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it shall also be marvelous in My eyes” (Zechariah 8:6).
  R. Assi stated: The Evil Inclination is at first like the thread of a spider, but ultimately becomes like cart ropes, as it is said, “Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart-rope” (Isaiah 8:18).
  Our Rabbis taught: The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the Messiah, the son of David (May he reveal himself speedily in our days!): Ask of me anything, and I will give it to you, as it is said, “I will tell of the decree etc. This day have I given birth to you. Ask of me and I will give the nations as your inheritance” (Psalms 2:7) But when he will see that the Messiah the son of Joseph is slain, he will say to Him,... ‘Lord of the Universe, I ask from You only the gift of life.” He will answer him: By your life, before you even asked, your father David has already prophesied this concerning you’, as it is said, “He asked life of You, You gave it him, [even length of days for ever and ever]” (Psalms 21:5).
  R. Avira or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi, expounded: The Evil Inclination has seven names.  1) The Holy One, blessed be He, called it Evil, as it is said, “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). 2) Moses called it a foreskin, as it is said, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16).  3) David called it unclean, as it is said, “Create me a clean heart, O Lord,” (Psalms 51:12), which implies that there is an unclean one. 
  4) Solomon called it the enemy, as it is said, “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat and if he is thirsty give him water to drink. For you will heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord will reward you” (Proverbs 25:21); do not read, “will reward you” but “will cause it to be at peace with you.” 
  5) Isaiah called it the stumbling block, as it is said, “Build up, build up! Clear the way, Take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people” (Isaiah 57:14).  6) Ezekiel called it a stone, as it is said, “And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). 7) Joel called it the Hidden One, as it is said, “But I will remove far off from you the hidden one” (Joel 2:20). Our Rabbis taught: “But I will distance from you the northern one (tz’foni)” (Joel 2:20): This refers to the Evil Inclination which is constantly hidden (tzafun) in the heart of man;
  “And will drive him into a land barren and desolate” to a place where there are no men for him to attack; “With his face toward the eastern sea (hadkomoni)”: that he set his eyes against the First Temple and destroyed it and slew the scholars who were in it; “And his back part toward the western sea”: that he set his eyes against the Second Temple and destroyed it and slew the scholars who were in it. “And the stench of it shall go up and the foul smell rise”: that he leaves the other nations in peace and attacks only Israel. “Because he has done great things”: Abaye explained: Against scholars more than against anyone else;
  as was the case when Abaye heard a certain man saying to a woman,  “Let’s get up early and go on our way.” Abaye said: I will follow them in order to keep them away from transgression” and he followed them for three parasangs across the meadows.  When they parted company he heard them say, “Our company is pleasant, the way is long.”
  Abaye said: If that had been I could not have restrained myself. He went and leaned in deep anguish against a doorpost, when a certain old man came up to him and taught him: The greater the man, the greater his Evil Inclination.
  R. Isaac stated: The [Evil] Inclination of a person grows stronger within him from day to day, as it is said, “Only
  
  Daf 52b
  
  evil all the day” (Genesis 6:5).  R. Shimon b. Lakish stated:  The Evil Inclination of a person grows in strength from day to day and seeks to kill him, as it is said, “The wicked watches the righteous and seeks to slay him” (Psalms 37:32); and were it not that the Holy One, blessed be He, is his help he would not be able to withstand it, as it is said, “The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor suffer him to be condemned when he is judged” (Psalms 37:33).
  The school of R. Ishmael taught: If this repulsive wretch meets you, drag him to the Bet Hamidrash. If he is of stone, he will dissolve, if he is of iron he will burst into fragments. “If he is of stone he will dissolve,” for it is written, “Hoy, every one that is thirsty come to the water” (Isaiah 55:1) and it is written, “The waters wear the stones” (Job 14:19).  “If he is of iron, he will burst into fragments,” for it is written, “Is not my word like fire? Says the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29).
  R. Shmuel ben Nahmani said in the name of R. Yohanan:  The Evil Inclination entices man in this world and testifies against him in the world to come, as it is said, “He that delicately brings up his servant from a child shall have him become a ruler (manon) at the end” (Proverbs 29:21), and according to the Atbah of R. Hiyya a witness is called manon.
  R. Huna pointed out a discrepancy between verses: It is written, “For the spirit of harlotry has led them astray” (Hosea 4:12) but is it not also written, [For the spirit of harlotry] is within them” (Hosea 5:4)? First it only causes them to err, but ultimately it enters into them.
  Rava said: First he is called a passer-by, then he is called a guest, and finally he is called a man, for it is said, “And there came a passer-by to the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to prepare a meal for the guest and then it is written, “And he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man that came to him.” (II Samuel 12:4).
  R. Yohanan said: There is a small organ in man. When he starves it, it is satisfied, when he satisfies it, it is starving, as it is said, “When they were starved they became full…” (Hosea 13:6).
  R. Hana b. Abba stated: It was said at the house of the Rav: There are four things that the Holy One, blessed be He, regrets having created, and they are the following: Exile, the Chaldeans, the Ishmaelites and the Evil Inclination. “Exile”: as it is written, “Now, therefore, what am I doing here, says the Lord, seeing that My people is taken away in vain” (Isaiah 52:5). “The Chaldeans” as it is written, “Behold the land of the Chaldeans — this is the people that was not” (Isaiah 23:13). 
  “The Ishmaelites,” as it is written, “The tents of the robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure since God brought them with His hand” (Job 12:6).  “The Evil Inclination”, since it is written, “And her that I have afflicted” (Micah 4:6).
  R. Yohanan said, Were it not for following three Scriptural verses, the feet of the enemies of Israel would have sunk. One is the verse, “And her that I have afflicted”; the other is the verse, “Behold, as the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O House of Israel” (Jeremiah 18:6); and the third, “And I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). 
  R. Papa observed: The following verse as well, “And I will put My spirit into you” (Ezekiel 36:27)....
  “And the Lord showed me four craftsmen” (Zechariah 2:3). Who are these ‘four craftsmen’?  R. Hana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Shimon Hasida: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest. R. Sheshet objected: If so, was it correct to write, “These are the horns which scattered Judah,” whereas these come to restore them. 
  He said to him: ] Go to the end of the verse: “These have come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horns against the Land of Judah, to scatter it. He said to him: Why should I argue with Hana in Aggada?
  And this shall be peace: when the Assyrian shall come into our land, and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise up against him seven shepherds and eight princes among men” (Micah 5:4).  Who are the “seven shepherds”? — David in the middle, Adam, Seth and Methuselah on his right, and Abraham, Jacob and Moses on his left.  And who are the “eight princes among men”? — Yishai, Shaul, Shmuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah, the Messiah, and Elijah.
  And four ladders etc: It was taught: The height of each lamp was fifty cubits. And four youth from the priesthood in whose hands were jars of oil containing one hundred and twenty log.  It was asked: Were there one hundred and twenty log for all of them or one hundred and twenty log for each? Come and hear: With jars of oil in their hands, each of thirty log making a total of one hundred and twenty log.
  It was taught: And they were superior to the son of Martha bat Baytos It was said of the son of Martha the daughter of Boethus, that he could take two sides of a huge ox which cost one thousand zuz and walk with them, heel to toe, but the Sages would not permit him to do so because in the multitude of the people is the King’s glory.
  In what respect, ... however, were they superior? If you will say because of the weight, these are heavier! Rather, in that case there was an ascent and it wasn’t straight up, whereas here it perpendicular.
  And there was no courtyard in Jerusalem… It was taught:
  
  Daf 53a
  
  A woman could sift wheat by the light of the Bet Hashoevah.
  Men of piety and men of good deeds, etc. Our  Rabbis have taught: Some of them, used to say: “Happy is our youth that has not disgraced our old age.” These were the men of piety and good deeds.  Others used to say, “Happy is our old age which has atoned for our youth.” These were the penitents.  Both said: “Happy is he who has not sinned, but let him who has sinned return and He will pardon him.”
  It was taught: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to say: If I am here, everyone is here; but if I am not here, who is here?’ He also used to say: “To the place that I love, there my feet take me. If you will come into my House, I will come into your house. If you will not come to my House, I will not come to your house, as it is said, “In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21). 
  He once saw a skull floating upon the face of the water. He said to it: Because you drowned others, they have drowned you, and they that drowned you shall be drowned too R. Yohanan stated: A man’s feet are his guarantors; they lead him to the place where he is wanted.
  There were once two Cushites who attended on Solomon, and these were Elihoreph and Ahyah, the sons of Shisha, scribes, of Solomon (I Kings 4:3).  One day Solomon observed that the Angel of Death was distressed. He asked him: Why are you distressed? He responded:  They have demanded from me the two Cushites who sit here.  [Solomon] gave them over to the demons and sent them to the district of Luz.  When they reached the district of Luz they died. 
  On the following day he observed that the Angel of Death was smiling He said to him: Why are you smiling?  He responded: To the place where they expected them from me, there did you send them!’  Solomon immediately began to say:  A man’s feet are his guarantors; they lead him to the place where he is wanted.
  It was taught: They said of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel that when he rejoiced at the Simchat Bet Hashoevah, he used to take eight fire torches and throw them in the air and catch one and throw one and they did not touch one another; and when he prostrated himself, he used to dig his two thumbs in the ground, bend down, kiss the ground, and stand himself up again, a feat which no other man could do, and this is what is meant by Kidah.
  Levi showed a Kidah in the presence of Rabbi and he became lame. But was this the cause? Did not R. Elazar state: One should never cast reproach against Heaven, for a great man cast reproach against Heaven and was as a result rendered lame. And who was he? Levi?  Both this and that were the cause [of his lameness].
  Levi used to juggle in the presence of Rabbi with eight knives, Shmuel before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine,  and Abaye before Rabbah with eight eggs or, as some say, with four eggs.
  It was taught: R. Joshua b. Hanania stated: When we used to rejoice at the Simchat Bet Hashoeavh our eyes saw no sleep. How so? The first hour [was occupied with] the daily morning sacrifice; from there [we proceeded] to prayers; from there [we proceeded] to the additional sacrifice, then the additional prayers, then to the Bet Midrash, then to eating and drinking, then to Minhah, then to the daily evening sacrifice, and after that the Simchat Bet Hashoevah.
  But is that so! For did not R. Yohanan say: [He who says], “I take an oath not to sleep for three days” is to be lashed and he may sleep immediately?  Rather, this is what he meant: We did not enjoy the taste of sleep’, for they dozed on one another’s shoulder.
  Fifteen steps. R. Hisda said to a certain rabbi who was arranging his aggadot before him. Have you heard concerning these fifteen Songs of Ascent, what did David compose them to correspond to? — He said to him: Thus said R. Yohanan:  When David dug the Pits the Deep (tehom) rose up and threatened to submerge the world. David recited the fifteen Songs of Ascent and caused it to subside.” But if so Songs of Ascent, it should be of Descent?
  He said to him:  Since you have reminded me, this is how it was stated: When David dug the Pits, the Deep arose and threatened to submerge the world. David asked,  “Is there anyone who knows whether it is permitted to inscribe the [Divine] Name upon a sherd,
  
  Daf 53b
  
  and cast it into the Deep so that it should subside?” No one said a word. David said, “Whoever knows the answer and does not speak, may he be suffocated”. Ahitophel adduced an a fortiori argument to himself: “If, for the purpose of establishing harmony between man and wife, the Torah said, Let My name that was written in sanctity be blotted out by the water,how much more so may it be done in order to establish peace in the world!” He [Ahitophel] said to him, “It is permitted!”
  [David] wrote the [Divine] Name upon a sherd, cast it into the Deep and it subsided sixteen thousand cubits. When he saw that it had subsided to such a great extent, he said “The nearer it is to the earth, the better the earth can be kept watered” and he uttered the fifteen Songs of Ascent and the Deep ascended fifteen thousand cubits and remained one thousand cubits [below the surface]. Ulla remarked: Learn from that: the thickness of the earth’s surface is one thousand cubits. But don’t we see that we dig a little and the waters emerge? R. Mesharsheya said: That is due to the high level [of the source] of the Euphrates.
  Two priests stood by the upper gate which leads down etc.  R. Jeremiah asked: [What is meant by] “the tenth step”? Does it mean that they descended five [of the fifteen] and stood upon the remaining ten, or rather that they descended ten and stood upon the five? The question stands.
  Our Rabbis taught: Since it is said, “And their faces toward the east,” (Ezekiel 8:16) is it not obvious that “their backs were toward the Temple of the Lord”?
  Why then does Scripture state “their backs were toward the Temple of the Lord”? It teaches that they uncovered themselves and defecated toward God.
  We are the Lord’s and our eyes are turned to the Lord etc But can it be so? Did not R. Zera say, One who says Shema, Shema is as though he said Modim, Modim [and he is silenced]?  Rather this is what they used to say, “They worshipped toward the east” but as for us we give thanks to the Lord, and to the Lord do our eyes hope.”
  1) They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight.  2) Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates, nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice. 3) At the musafim (additional sacrifices) they would add another nine.
  4) And on the eve of Shabbat they would add another six, three as a sign to the people to stop working and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.
  5) On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts: three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate, three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane.
  GEMARA. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Judah, for it has been taught: R. Judah ruled, The minimum number of blasts is seven, and the maximum sixteen. What is the basis of their dispute? R. Judah holds that tekiah, teruah and tekia are counted as one, whereas the Rabbis hold that the tekiah and the teruah are separate and distinct notes.
  What is the reason of R. Judah? —  Scripture says, “And you shall sound (utekatem) a teruah,” (Numbers 10:5) showing that the How is this so? tekiah and the teruah are regarded as one. What then is the reason of the Rabbis?  — That verse is required to teach that the Teru'ah must be preceded and followed by a sustained blast. (From Where does R. Judah deduce the necessity for a sustained blast preceding and following the Teru'ah? —  He deduces it from the expression, a second time (Numbers 6:6).
  What then is the reason of the Rabbis?  Because it is written, “And when the congregation is to be gathered together, you shall sound a tekiah, but not a teruah” (Numbers 10:7). Now if you should think that the tekiah and the teruah form one note, would the Torah say, ‘Perform one half of the commandment, but not the other half’? And R. Judah? —  That sounding was a mere signal.
  And the rabbis? —  It was indeed a signal, but the Torah made it into a commandment. Whose view does the following statement by R. Kahana go according to: There must be no interval between the tekiah and the teruah? In agreement with whose view [you ask]?  In agreement with that of R. Judah. But is not this obvious? 
  
  Daf 54a
  
  What might you have thought? That it is also in agreement with the view of the rabbis, and that it excludes the view of R. Yohanan who said that   if a man heard the nine tekiahs in nine hours during the day he has still fulfilled his obligation.
  Might it not be suggested that it is indeed so? If it were so, what was meant by “no interval whatever”?
  On the eve of Shabbat during the intermediate days of the festival etc.  But [the sounding of the shofar] on the tenth step is not mentioned. Who is in agreement with our Mishnah? It is in agreement with that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob,  for it has been taught:  Three blasts on the tenth step. R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled,  Three at the altar.
  He who says three on the tenth step omits the three at the altar; and he who says three at the altar omits the three on the tenth step.
  What is the reasoning of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? Since one sounded the shofar for the opening of the gates, why should one sound it on the tenth step?  Is it not a gate! Therefore on the altar is preferable. The rabbis hold that since one sounded the shofar for the Water-Drawing, why should one sound it at the altar? Therefore, it is preferable on the tenth step.
  When R. Aha b. Hanina came from the south, he brought a baraita with him: “And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with trumpets” (Numbers 10:8). For Scripture would not have needed to state explicitly “shall blow” since it is also written, “You shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt-offering sand over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings” (Numbers 10:10). Why then was it stated, “shall blow”? [To teach you that]  the sounding of the trumpets is in accordance with the number of the additional offerings. He taught this [baraitha] and he also explained it to mean that the trumpet is to be sounded for every single additional offering.
  We have learned “On the eve of Shabbat during the intermediate days of the festival there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts.”  Now if it were so, why was it not stated that on Shabbat during the festival it was possible to have fifty-one blasts? R. Zera answered,   Because the trumpet was not sounded at the opening of the gates on the Shabbat.
  Rava said: Who is not concerned about the flour [he grinds out]?  First, because we have learned every day;  And secondly, even if there were the same number, it should still have been stated “on the Shabbat of the Festival they blew forty-eight blasts” since from this statement you could make two deductions,  that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob and that of R. Aha b. Hanina.
  Rather Rava explained: Because the trumpet was not sounded for the Water-Drawing on the Sabbath, so that the number was far less. But let it also teach Rosh Hashanah that fell on Shabbat for on it there are three additional sacrifices:  The additional offering of Rosh Hashanah, the additional offering of Rosh Hodesh, and the additional offering of Shabbat?
  It was necessary to teach the instance of the eve Shabbat during Hol Hamoed in order to teach us that the law is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Did he say let it teach one case instead of the other?  [The question in fact was] let this one and that one be taught? [The Tanna of our Mishnah] might mentioned some  and omitted others. But what else did he omit to justify this omission also?
  He omitted the instance of the eve of Pesah.
  
  Daf 54b
  
  If [the omission is to be justified] on account of the omission of the eve of the Pesah, this is not really an omission, for this statement is made according to R. Judah who stated: Never did the third group reach the verse, “I love the Lord, for He hears my voice” (Psalms 116:1) for they were few in number.
  But did you not say that the earlier part of our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah? Is it not possible that our Tanna agrees with R. Judah on one point though he disagrees with him on another point?
  Rather, What else then was omitted that we might say that this also was similarly omitted? The other omission was the eve of Pesah which fell on the eve of Shabbat, when six blasts are to be subtracted and six are to be added.
  And never more than forty-eight. No?  But is there not the eve of Pesah which falls on Shabbat, on which according to R. Judah, there were fifty-one blasts, and according to the Rabbis there were fifty-seven?
  [Our Mishnah] mentioned only those which recur every year, but the eve of the Pesah which falls on the Sabbath, since it does not occur every year, it did not teach. Does then erev Shabbat during the Festival of Sukkot occur every year? Sometimes it does not happen at all, and when is this so, for instance, the first day of the Festival coincides with the eve of Shabbat?
  When the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] would coincide with the eve of Shabbat, they postpone it. What is the reason? Because if the first day of the Festival of Sukkot were to fall on the eve of Shabbat, when would Yom Kippur be?  On the [previous] Sunday. Therefore it is postponed.
  But do we postpone it? Have we not in fact learned: The fats [of offerings performed on] Shabbat may be offered on Yom Kippur; And R. Zera stated:
  When I was in the school of Rav in Babylon I used to say that which has been taught, "If Yom Kippur fell on the eve of Shabbat, they did not sound the trumpet, and if it fell at the conclusion of Shabbat they did not recite the Havdalah" is agreed to by all,  but when I came up to Palestine I found R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi sitting and teaching that it was in agreement with R. Akiba only?
  This is no difficulty since the one statement is according to the Rabbis and the other according to "the Others’,
  for it has been taught, "Others say:  There cannot be more than four weekdays difference between Shavuot of one year and the next, and between Rosh Hashanah and the next" and if the year was prolonged, there would be five days. 
  An objection was raised:  If Rosh Hodesh fell on Shabbat, the Psalm of Rosh Hodesh supersedes the Psalm of Shabbat.  Now if the law were [as R. Aha stated], why should not one say both that of the Rosh Hodesh and that of Shabbat?
  R. Safra replied: What is meant by “supersedes”? It supersedes it to be recited first. But why? That which is frequent takes precedence over that which is not frequent? 
  R. Yohanan said: To let people know that the New Moon has been fixed at its proper time. Do we then use this as a distinguishing sign? Do we not in fact use another distinguishing sign, as we have learned:  “The fats of the Morning Tamid offering were placed on the lower half of the Ascent [of the altar] on its east side, while those of the additional offerings were placed on the lower half of the Ascent on its west side; while those of the New Moon were placed beneath the rim of the altar below,”
  
  Daf 55a
  
  and in connection with this R. Yohanan stated that  [the reason for this was] that to let people know that the New Moon has been fixed at its proper time?  Two distinguishing signs were made, so that some might see the one while others might see the other.
  An objection was raised: Rava b. Samuel taught: It might have been that that just as they sound a blast for Shabbat on its own and for Rosh Hodesh on its own, so too they sound a blast for each additional offering (musaf) separately. cripture says, “And on your New Moons” (Numbers 10:10). This is a refutation of R. Aha. It is indeed a refutation.
  But how is this learning made? Abaye said: The verse says, “And on your New Moons,” whereby all the months are compared with one another. R. Ashi answered: It is written, “Your month” and it is written “On the beginnings of.” What month is it that has two beginnings? It is, you must say, Rosh Hashanah, and the Torah nevertheless says, “your month” — it is to be regarded as one.
  Moreover it has been taught: On Hol Hamoed: What did they recite on the first day?”Ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings” (Psalms 29:1). On the second day what did they recite? “But to the wicked God says” (Psalms 50:16).  On the third day what did they recite? “Who will rise up for me against the evil-doers” (Psalms 94:16)? On the fourth day what did they recite? “Take heed, you most brutish people” (Psalms 94:8). On the fifth day what did they recite? “I relieved his shoulder of the burden” (Psalms 81:7). On the sixth day what did they recite? “All the foundations of the earth are moved” (Psalms 82:8);
  And if Shabbat occurred on any of these days”are moved” is to be superseded.
  R. Safra assigned to them the mnemonic   Humbahi. R. Papa assigned to them the mnemonic Humhabi; And the mnemonic for you is “the escort (ambuha) of the scribes (sofrim).”
  Now is not this a refutation of R. Aha b. Hanina?   It is indeed a refutation. But did not R. Aha b. Hanina quote both a verse and a baraita [in support of his view]?
  Ravina answered:  It means that the trumpet blasts are lengthened. The Rabbis of Caesarea in the name of R. Aha stated: It means that the number of the trumpeters is to be increased.
  And we who keep two days [of the Festival], how do we proceed? Abaye ruled: The [paragraph for the] second day is to be omitted. Raba ruled,
  [That of] the seventh day is omitted. It was taught in agreement with Raba: If the Sabbath falls on one of them “are moved” is omitted.
  Amemar instituted in Nehardea to go back and repeat the previous portions.
  
  Daf 55b
  
  Mishnah. On the first festival day of Sukkot there were thirteen bulls, two rams and one goat. Fourteen lambs remained for the other eight priestly watches. 1) On the first day, six [watches] offered two each and the remaining [two] one each.
  2) On the second day five offered two each and the remaining [four] one each. 3)     On the third day four offered two each and the remaining [six] one each.
  4) On the fourth day three offered two each and the remaining [eight] one each. 5)  On the fifth day two offered two each and the remaining [ten] one each. 6)  On the sixth day one offered two and the remaining [twelve] one each.
  7) On the seventh day all were equal. 8) On the eighth day they again cast lots as on the other festivals. 9) They said: the [watch] that offered bulls on one day should not offer them on the next, but that they should take their turns in rotation.
  Gemara. Shall we say that our mishnah represents the view of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi], and not that of the other rabbis, since it has been taught: For the bull which is offered on the Eighth Day lots are cast as at first,the words of Rabbi. But the sages say: One of the two watches which did not have a third turn in the bulls offered it.
  You may even say that it represents the view of the Rabbis, for do not two watches still require the casting of lots?
  Whose view is followed in that which has been taught: All the watches repeated a second and a third time, except for two who repeated a second time but not a third one?  Must we say that it follows that of Rabbi, and not that of the Rabbis? You could even say that this follows the view of the rabbis. And what does "they did not participate a third time" mean? In [offering] the bulls for the festival. 
  What then does this teach us? It is this that it teaches us: He who offered bulls on one day shall not offer them the next, but they must all take their turns in rotation.
  R. Elazar stated: These seventy bulls [that were offered during the seven days of the Festival], to what do they correspond? To the seventy nations. To what does the single bull [of the Eighth Day] correspond?
  To the unique nation.This may be compared to a flesh and blood king who said to his servants, “Prepare for me a great banquet”; but on the last day he said to his beloved friend,  “Prepare for me a simple meal that I may have the pleasure of being with you.”
  R. Yohanan said: Woe to the idolaters, for they had a loss and do not know what they have lost.When the Temple was in existence the altar atoned for them, but now who shall atone for them?
  1) At three periods in the year all the priestly watches shared equally  in the festival sacrifices and in the division of the showbread.
  2) On Shavuot they used to say to the priest, “Here is matzah for you, here is chametz for you 3) A watch whose period of service was fixed [for that festival week] offered the tamid, vow-offerings and freewill-offerings and all other public offerings; and it offered them all.
  GEMARA. But are not the emurim the Most High's? R. Hisda said: [The meaning is], that which is said [amur], that which is said [amur]
  Our Rabbis taught: From where do we know that all the watches share equally in the sacrifices of the Festival? Scripture says, "And he comes with all the desire of his soul ... and he serves" (Deuteronomy 18:6). It might have been that the same applies to all the days of the year, Scripture says "From one of your gates" [meaning this:] I have said so, [says the Lord], Only when all Israel enters by one gate.
  And in the division of the showbread. Our Rabbis taught: From where do we know that all the watches share equally in the division of the showbread?
  
  Daf 56a
  
  Scripture says, "They shall receive equal portions to eat," (Deuteronomy 18:8) meaning, as the division of the service [is equal for all], so is the division of the food. Now what food [could this mean]?  If you will say that it means the sacrifices, do we not deduce that from a different verse, "It shall be the priest's that offers it?" (Leviticus 7:9). Rather this must refer to the showbread.
  It might have been that the same applies also to obligatory offerings that are offered on the Festival, though not on account of the Festival, Scripture says, "Except for that which is sold according to the fathers’ houses" (Deuteronomy 18:8). Now what is it that the fathers have sold to each other? "I shall be in charge in my week and you in your week."
  On Shavuot they used to say to the priest etc. It was stated, Rav said: [The blessing of] the Sukkah[comes first] and then that of the season. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said:  [The blessing of] the season [is first] and then that of the Sukkah.
  Rav ruled, [The blessing of] the Sukkah [comes first] and then that of the season, since the obligation of the day is more important. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said: [The blessing of] the season [is first], since that which is frequent precedes that which is infrequent.
  Shall we say that Rav and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah differ on the same principles as those on which Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel differed? For our rabbis have taught, These are the points of difference between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel with regard to [the ritual at] a meal: Beth Shammai says that  one recites the blessing of the day   and then the blessing over the wine, whereas Beth Hillel says that  one recites the blessing over the wine and then the blessing of the day.
  Beth Shammai says that one recites the blessing of the day and then the blessing over the wine since it is the day which causes the wine to be brought and the day has been sanctified before the wine was brought. Whereas Bet Hillel says that one recites the blessing over the wine first and then the blessing of the day, since the wine is the cause of the sanctification being recited. Another reason: The blessing over wine is frequent,and the blessing of the day is infrequent,and that which is frequent takes precedence over that which is infrequent.
  Shall we say that Rav is in agreement with Beth Shammai and Rabbah b. Bar Hannah with Beth Hillel?
  [No,] Rav could say to you: I can state my view even according to Bet Hillel, for Bet Hillel stated their ruling only in that case, since the wine is the cause of the sanctification being recited, but not in this case, since even if there were no blessing of the season, would we not still say [the blessing of] the Sukkah?
  And Rabbah b. Bar Hannah could say to you: I could state my view even according to Beth Shammai, for Beth Shammai stated their ruling only in that case, since it is the day which causes the wine to be brought, but in this case, if it were not for the Sukkah, would we not still recite [the blessing of] the season?
  We have learned: On Shavuot they used to say to the priest, “Here is matzah for you, here is leavened bread.” Now here, surely, the leavened bread is the essential feature [of the Festival] and the matzah a secondary one, and yet it teaches, “Here is matzah for you, here is leavened bread.” Is this not then a refutation of Rav?
  Rav could say to you: This is a tannaitic dispute; for it has been taught, “Here is matzah for you, here is leavened bread for you.” Abba Shaul says:  [They said,] “Here is leavened bread for you, here is matzah.
  R. Nahman b. R. Hisda expounded: The law is not according to Rav who said, [First the blessing over] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season, rather first [is the blessing of] the season and then [that of] the Sukkah. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: First [the blessing of] the Sukkah and then [that of] the season. And the halakhah is that the blessing of the Sukkah is first and then that of the season.
  The watch of priests whose period of service was fixed etc., and all other congregational sacrifices. What does [this] come to include? It includes the bull brought as a result of a transgression caused by the forgetfulness of the congregation and the he-goats brought as atonement for idolatry.
  And it offered them all. What does this include? It includes the sacrifices offered when the altar was not otherwise occupied.
  Mishanh. 1) A festival which fell next to Shabbat, either before or after it, all the watches shared equally in the distribution of the showbread. 2) If one day intervened between them [Shabbat and Yom Tov], the watch whose time of service was fixed [for that week] took ten [of the] loaves, while they that were detained took two.  3) On all other days of the year the incoming watch took six  loaves and the outgoing watch six. a) Rabbi Judah said, the incoming watch took seven and the outgoing five. 
  4) The incoming watch divided it in the north, and the outgoing in the watch in the south.  5) [The watch of] Bilgah always divided it in the south; their ring was fixed and their alcove was blocked up
  Gemara. What is meant by before and what by after? If you say that before refers to the first day of the Festival and after to the last day of the festival, isn't this then the Shabbat of Hol Hamoed? 
  Rather, before refers to the last day of the festival and after refers to the first day of the festival. What is the reason?  Since the one watch had to arrive early and the other had to leave late, the Rabbis made an enactment in order that they might eat together
  If there was one day…. .
  
  Daf 56b
  
  But why the extra two? R. Yitzchak said: As a reward for the closing of the doors. But [why should not the outgoing watch] say to the other, "Take less for less"? Abaye said: A young pumpkin [in hand] is better than a full grown one [in the field].
  Rav Judah said:  [And so too] do they divide the musaf offerings.  They objected:  "The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings,  and the incoming watch offered the evening Tamud and the incense dishes" and it does not state, that they divided the musaf offerings? — This Tanna does not deal with the question of division.
  Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel:  The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread. But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings. This is a refutation of Rav Judah?  It is indeed a refutation.
  The incoming watch divided it in the north. Our Rabbis taught: The incoming priests divided their shares in the north in order that it should be seen that they were incoming, and the outgoing priests divided theirs in the south, so that it should be seen that they were the outgoing watch.
  [The course of] Bilgah always divided it in the south. Our Rabbis taught: It happened that Miriam the daughter of Bilgah became an apostate and married an officer of the Greek kings. When the Greeks entered the  Sanctuary, she stamped with her sandal upon the altar, crying out, ‘Lukos! Lukos! How long will you consume Israel’s money and not stand by them in the time of oppression! And when the Sages heard of the incident, they made her ring   immovable and blocked up her alcove.
  Some however, say that the course [of Bilgah] was late in coming and [that of] Yeshbav its fellow entered in its place and served in their stead. Although the neighbors of the wicked are not rewarded the neighbors of were rewarded, since [after the imposition of the penalty, the course of] Bilgah always divided their shares in the south, while that of his brother Yeshbav did so in the north.
  It goes well according to the one who stated that this watch was late in arriving, since for this reason the whole course might be penalized; but according to the one who stated that it was because of Miriam the daughter of Bilgah who apostatized, do we penalize [even a] father on account of his daughter? Abaye said: Indeed, as people say,  “The talk of a child in the market-place, is either that of his father or of his mother.” May we then penalize the whole watch on account of her father or mother?
  Abaye said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor;   it is good for the righteous and good for his neighbor; as it is said, “Say you of the righteous, that it shall be well with him, for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.”.
  We have now completed the chapter “the flute” and all of Masekhet Sukkah.