The Babylonian Talmud (abridged)

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE BUILDING OF A LEGAL BOOTH FOR THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, ITS WALLS, AND ROOFING.

MISHNA: A booth which is higher than twenty ells is not valid. R. Jehudah, however, says it is. One which is not ten spans high, one which has not three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid.

GEMARA: Whence do we deduce this? Said Rabha: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 43]: "In order that your generations may know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in booths." Up to twenty ells a man knows that he is living in a booth, but higher than twenty ells he does not know, because his eyes do not frequently perceive the roof. R. Zera said: From the following passage [Isa. iv. 6]: "And a tabernacle shall it be for a shade in the daytime from the heat." Up to twenty ells a man sits in the shade of the roof, but if it is higher than twenty ells a man sits in the shade of the walls (but not of the roof). Said Abayi to him: According to your theory, if one has made a booth between two hills, it is also not legal (because there is no shadow from the roof at all)? And he answered: What comparison is this? if the hills were removed, he would sit in the shadow of the roof; but here, if the walls would be taken away, there would be no shade at all. Rabha said: From the following passage [Lev. xxiii. 42]: "In booths shall ye dwell seven days." The Law commands that for seven days one shall remove from his permanent dwelling into a temporary dwelling. Up to twenty ells, ordinarily a man makes a temporary dwelling; but higher than this it is not usual to make a temporary dwelling. Said Abayi to him: According to you, if one has made iron walls, and covered them with a legal roof, would it also be unlawful for a booth? Rabha answered: I mean to say this: Up to twenty ells, which is an ordinary height for a temporary dwelling, even if one makes it a permanent dwelling, he can fulfil his duty; but over twenty ells, which is the ordinary height only of a permanent dwelling, even if one has made it a temporary dwelling, it is also unlawful? According to whom is the following saying of R. Joshia in the name of Rabh: The sages and R. Jehudah differ only when the walls do not reach the roof; but if the walls do reach the roof, all agree that the booth is valid though the walls be higher than twenty ells? It is in accordance with Rabha, who says that the sages make it invalid because the eye cannot reach the roof; but when the walls are attached to the roof, the eye is able to do so.

According to whom would the following saying of R. Hannan in the name of Rabh be: that they differ only about a booth less than four ells square, but when it is four ells square all agree that it is valid? This is in accordance with R. Zera, who says: The rabbis make it unlawful because of the lack of shadow, and in a booth four ells square there is a shadow. And according to whom is the following saying of R. Harman b. Rabha in the name of Rabha: They (the sages and R. Jehudah) differ when the booth is only of a size to accommodate a man's head and greater part of body, and his table; but if it is of a larger size, then if it is higher than twenty ells, is it also valid? It is not, according to any one. An objection was raised: We have learned in a Boraitha: A booth which is higher than twenty ells is not valid. R. Jehudah, however, makes it valid, even if its height is forty or fifty ells; and he said: It happened that the Queen Helen, in the city of Lud, was sitting in a booth which was higher than twenty ells, and the older sages were entering and going out of it, and they did not object. And the sages answered him: This is not proof. She was a woman, and it is not obligatory for a woman to sit in a booth at all. And he rejoined: Everybody knows that she had seven male children; and besides this, all her acts were only in accordance with the will of the sages.

Now, it is right according to him who said that they differ in a case where the walls of the booth do not reach the roof, because usually a queen is sitting in a booth whereof the walls reach not the roof, that air may come in; but according to him who said that even in case of a small booth they differ, is it customary that a queen should sit in a small booth? Said Rabba bar R. Adda: The case was of a booth separated into chambers. But is it customary that a queen should sit in a booth separated into chambers? Said R. Ashi: Yea, the case was that of a large booth with chambers, and the sages differ about the chambers. They hold that she sat in a separate chamber, but her children were sitting in a lawful booth, and therefore the elders did not object; but R. Jehudah said, her children sat with her, and nevertheless they did not object.

R. Samuel bar Itz'hak said: The Halakha prevails that the booth must be large enough to accommodate the head, the greater part of the body, and a table. Said R. Abha to him: According to whose opinion is this? And he answered: It is according to Beth Shammai, and nevertheless one shall not deviate from this law. R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak opposed this: Where do you find that Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel differ about a small booth? Perhaps they differ about a large booth, and the case was that the man was sitting at the entrance of the booth, and the table was in the house. Beth Shammai prohibit this as a precautionary measure, lest he incline himself toward the table, and then he will not be sitting in the Succah at all, and Beth Hillel does not call for such a precautionary measure. And a support to this I can bring from the following Boraitha: If one whose head and greater part of body was in the booth, and his table was in the house, Beth Shammai say it is not lawful, and according to Beth Hillel it is. Now, if they differed about the size of the booth, it should be said: if one sat in a booth which cannot contain more than the head and greater part of the body. And another Boraitha stated that Rabbi says if a booth does not contain four ells square it is invalid; but the sages say, if it contains the space for the head and the greater part of the body it is valid? Nay, they differ in both cases, and the Boraitha is not complete, and must be read thus: if one was sitting with his head and greater part of his body in the booth, and the table was in the house, he did not fulfil his duty, according to Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel say he did, and a booth which cannot contain more than the greater part of the body and the head is unlawful, according to Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel say it is.

Who is the Tana of the following teaching of the rabbis: In a house which is not four ells square, it is not obligatory to have a Mezuzah (a battlement), and it is not subject to being defiled by plagues, and it is retained at the jubilee year in a fortified town [Lev. xxv. 29], and a man possessing such a new house must not be kept from going to war, and an Erub must not be made in it, and it is not counted as a house to combine with the houses of the alley, and an Erub (from the courts) must not be deposited in it, and it must not be regarded as a house on the border between two towns, and brothers and partners do not divide it? Shall we assume it is according to Rabbi, not the sages? Nay, we can say that it is in accordance even with the sages. Do the sages allow a dwelling of less than this size? Only when it is a Succah which is temporary; but a house which is a permanent dwelling even the sages agree must be at least four ells square. Then men can live in it; but if less, it is not called a house at all.

If the booth was higher than twenty ells, and one put in pillows and feather-beds, it is not considered as made lower thereby; even when he renounces their use for any other purposes, because we ignore his resolve, as people in general do not do it. But if one puts there straw, and renounces it, it is considered as made lower; and so much the more, loose earth. But if one puts there straw which he does not renounce, although he does not purpose to remove it, and also sand, which he does not renounce--in that case Jose and the sages differ (Tract Ahaloth, Chap. xv. 6). If the booth was higher than twenty ells, and from the roofing hung down small twigs, then if they are so numerous that there is more shadow than sunshine, they are considered to make it lower; but if less than that, they do not make it lower. If it was high only ten spans, and small twigs hung down from the roof, Abayi thought that if there was more sun than shadow between the twigs, it m-as valid. Said Rabha to him: It is an unendurable dwelling, and nobody would live in it. (Therefore it is not valid.)

If it was higher than twenty ells, and one constructed in it a bench along the whole middle wall, if the bench is as large as the legal size of a booth (seven spans and a trifle), then the booth is valid (the whole booth because of a crooked wall); but if he constructed a bench along a side-wall, if from the edge of the bench to the opposite wall it is four ells, it is not valid; but if less than this, it is valid (because the bench legalizes two walls, the third being without the legal limit). If he constructed a bench in the midst of the booth, if from the edge of the bench to each of the walls it is four ells, it is not valid; but if less, it is valid, because of a crooked wall on all sides. If, however, he put the bench on one side, then if it is less than four ells of the wall, it is valid (because of a crooked wall on one side); but if it is four ells, it is not. If the booth was less than ten spans in height, and he dug in it a pit to make it ten spans high, if from the edge of this pit to the wall is three spans, it is invalid; but less than that, it is valid. Why, then, in the case when it is twenty ells high, are less than four ells needed to make it valid, while here, when it is ten spans high, less than three spans are needed? Because there a wall is in existence, and to make it invalid one must have four ells; but in the case of ten spans, the wall is not considered a wall at all, and to make it a wall less than three spans are wanted (because then it is Lavud, i.e., considered as attached to the ground of the pit when it would be ten spans high). (See Sabbath, p. 12, note §.)

The rabbis taught: If one has placed four poles and roofed them, according to R. Jacob, it is valid in cases when the poles admit of partition, as will be explained further, for a booth, but according to the sages it is invalid. Said R. Huna: They differ only about the edge of the roof. R. Jacob holds the theory of Gud Assik (see Erubin, note, p. 6) applies here, and the sages hold that it does not. But about the middle of the roof they all agree it is invalid. R. Na'hman, however, said: They differ even about the middle of the roof. The schoolmen propounded a question: Does R. Na'hman mean to say they differ about the middle, but about the sides all agree that it is valid? Or does he mean to say, they differ even about the middle? This question is not decided.

The rabbis taught: If one drove into the ground four poles and roofed them, R. Jacob said, it should be seen whether each of the poles is so thick that if it would be divided it would reach a span on each side (see illustration of enclosures, Erubin, p. 18), then they must be considered as enclosures and the booth is valid; but if they have not such a thickness, it is not valid. And this is according to his theory elsewhere, that the enclosures of a booth must be not less than a span at each side. But the sages said, the booth is not valid unless there are two walls as usually; and the third wall is sufficient, even if it is one span.

"If less than ten spans." Whence is this deduced? It was taught: Rabh and Mar Hanina, R. Johanan and R. Habiba, taught

[in the whole section of Moed, whenever these names are mentioned, they put R. Jonathan in the place of R. Johanan], the ark was nine spans, and the cover to it one span, together it is ten. As it is written [Ex. xxv. 22]: "And I will meet with thee there, and I will speak with thee from above the cover." And we have learned in another Boraitha: R. Jose said that the Shekhina never descended, and Moses and Elijah never ascended the heaven. As it is written [Psalms, cxv. 16]: "The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth hath he given to the children of man"; but is it not written [Ex. xix. 20]: "And the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai"? And the answer is, that He did not come down lower than ten spans from the ground. (Now, when He says, "I will speak to thee from above the cover," that means ten spans higher. From this we see that ten spans are counted as separate premises; hence ten spans is the minimum height of a dwelling.)

It is true, the ark is nine spans, because it is written [Ex. xxv. 10]: "And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two ells and a half shall be its length, and one ell and a half its breadth, and an ell and a half its height" (and as an ell is six spans, the height of one and a half is nine spans). But where do we find that the cover is one span? From the teaching of R. Hanina as follows: Of all the utensils that Moses made, the Law had prescribed before the length, the breadth, and the height. In case of the cover, however, the length and the breadth are written, but not the height; and we must go and draw this lesson from the meanest of the utensils, as it is written [ibid., ibid. 25]: "And thou shalt make unto it a rim of a hand's breadth round about." As the height of the rim is a span, we infer that the height of the cover is also a span. But why from the meanest of the utensils--why not from the utensils themselves? Because there is a rule, when much is grasped at, nothing is grasped; but when little is grasped, it is retained. R. Huna said: We infer it from this passage [Lev. xvi. 14]: "On the face of the cover, eastward"; if less than a span, it would not be called face. But where do we find that the distance between the roof and ground should be ten spans? Perhaps the roof itself should be included? Therefore we say this theory they draw from the Temple; as it is written [in I Kings, vi. 2]: "And the house which King Solomon built unto the Lord was sixty ells in length, and twenty in breadth, and thirty ells in height"; and [ibid., ibid. 26]: "The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was the other"; and a Boraitha states, as we have found in the Temple, that the cherubim were a third of the height of the house, so also in the tabernacle in the desert they were one-third. Now, the height of the tabernacle was ten ells, as it is written [Ex. xxvi. 16]: "Ten ells shall be the length of each board." How many spans are in ten ells? Sixty. A third thereof is twenty: take off ten, which was the height of the ark with the cover, ten is left. And it is written [ibid. xxv. 20]: "And the cherubim shall spread forth their wings on high, overshadowing the cover." Hence we see that the Torah calls "overshadowing" when above ten spans. Therefore we infer that the roofing overshadowing the booth must be above the ten spans.

This would be right according to R. Meir, who said that all the ells mentioned in the Torah measure six spans; but according to R. Jehudah, who says that the ells of a building measured six spans, but other ells only five spans, what can be said? If so, the ark with its cover would be only eight and a half: then remain for the cherubim eleven and a half. Shall we say that the booth must be high at least eleven and a half? According to R. Jehudah the size of a booth is (Sinaic). (As it is said in Tract Erubin, p. 5)

"One which has not three walls." The rabbis taught: Two walls must be as usually, but the third one may be even one span. R. Simeon, however, said: Three must be as usually, and the fourth one may be a span. In what point do they differ? The rabbis hold, the bases are the Massorah (i.e., if we came to draw something from Scripture the basis must be the Massorah) and as [in Lev. xxiii.] "in booths" is mentioned three times, and the Hebrew term for this is ‏בסכת‎, ‏בסכת‎, ‏בסוכות‎; that is, two of them are written in the singular and one in plural, and from each term in the singular we infer the necessity of one wall, and from the term in the plural two, which make four: take off one expression intended as a commandment to make booths in general, we infer from the two which are superfluous the necessity of three walls; that is, two as usually, and the third one the tradition reduces to a span in case it is valid. But according to R. Simeon the basis must be the biblical words as they read; and as all three read in the plural, we infer the necessity of six walls: take off one term as a general commandment, we have left four; hence three must be as usually, and the fourth tradition reduces to one span. And if you wish, we will say: that all agree that the basis must be the Massorah, but the point whereon they differ is, one holds that the first verse, where the commandment is written, we also take into consideration to infer the necessity of a wall--consequently it is four walls; and one holds that the first must not be taken into consideration, and it is only three. R. Mathua said: R. Simeon infers his theory from the following passage [Isa. iv. 6]: "And a tabernacle shall it be for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a refuge, for a covert from tempest and from rain" (i.e., if it is not three walls, it cannot be a protection from wind, etc.).

Where shall be placed the wall which is one span wide? Said Rabh: One may place it where one wall ends, no matter which; it was taught that the same was said by Samuel in the name of Levi, and so also it was decided in the college. R. Simon, and according to others R. Joshuah b. Levi, said: The wall which is a span shall be wide as a span made by the palm when extended, and one shall place it at a distance of less than three spans from another wall, so that the theory of Lavud should apply.

R. Jehudah said: A booth that was made as an entry is valid (the two walls need not be adjacent, but may be opposite, while the wall of one span can be placed at any side one likes). R. Simeon, and according to others R. Joshuah b. Levi, said: Such a booth is lawful only when one places an enclosure four spans and a trifle wide, and at a distance of less than three spans from the wall, so that the theory of Lavud can apply: then it will be counted together seven spans and a trifle, which is the lawful width for a booth. Why is it said there that it is sufficient when it is wide as an extended span, and here that an enclosure of four spans is needed? There, where there were two walls, as usually, a span is enough; but here, in which case they are opposite, an enclosure of at least four spans is required. Said Rabha: And to it must be added an appearance of a door (on the other side). R. Ashi found R. Kahna, who made a third wall extended a span wide, and on the other side an appearance of a door; and he said to him: Does not the Master hold with Rabha, who said that an appearance of a door is sufficient for a third wall? And he answered: I hold with the saying of Rabha, as it is interpreted above, that an appearance of a door must be added too.

Again: "Two walls as usually," etc. Said Rabha: This booth is considered private ground in reference to a Sabbath falling in the Feast of Tabernacles, so that things may be carried from another private ground into this booth, and vice versa (although for a legal private ground three walls are needed), because as the two walls are considered a Succah, it is considered also private ground for this Sabbath. Rabha said again: If one has made a roof above an entry which has a side-beam, it is valid for a booth. And the same said again: If one has roofed the enclosure of a w ell (see illustration in Erubin, p. 18), it may be used as a booth.

"If there is more sun than shadow, it is not valid." The rabbis taught: If there is more sunshine than shadow from the roof, but not from the walls. R. Joshiah, however, said: Even if it is more sunshine from the walls, it is also invalid. Said R. Yemar bar Shlomiah in the name of Abayi: What is the reason of R. Joshiah's decree? Because it is written [ Ex. xl. 3]: "Thou shalt cover the ark with a vail"; now the vail was a partition, and the Torah says: "Thou shalt cover with it"; we may infer from this, the partition shall be equal in law to the cover (or roof). And what will the rabbis say to the query of R. Joshiah? The rabbis explained the expression, "Thou shalt cover it," that it means he shall fold the vail a little towards the ark, so that it shall seem as a cover.

Abayi said: Rabbi, R. Joshiah, R. Jehudah, R. Simeon, and Rabban Gamaliel, the school of Shammai, R. Eliezer, and the anonymous teachers all hold that a booth must be considered not as a temporary but as a permanent dwelling. (Rashi explains that it means that it should be possible to turn it into a permanent dwelling.) Rabbi, as we have learned above, that a Succah that was not four ells square is invalid; R. Joshiah, from the statement just mentioned; R. Jehudah, as he declares valid a booth which is higher than twenty ells; R. Simeon, as he requires four walls (three as usually, and one, one span wide); Rabban Gamaliel, as he declares invalid (farther on) a booth constructed on board a vessel or on a wagon; Beth Shammai, as they declare in a Mishna, farther on, that it is invalid if it can contain a man's head and greater part of body, while his table is in a house; R. Eliezer, as he declared a Succah constructed in the shape of a pyramid is invalid; and the anonymous teachers, who declare invalid a circular Succah.

R. Johanan said: A booth which is made like a lime-kiln (i.e., round), if its circumference is large enough that twenty-four persons may sit at the walls, it is valid; but if not, it is; invalid. And this teaching is according to Rabbi, who said that a booth which is not four ells square is not considered a booth at all.

R. Levi in the name of R. Meir said: Of two booths of potters which are one within the other, the innermost is not valid-for a legal booth, and is liable to have a Mezuzah, but the outermost may be used as a legal booth, and needs not a Mezuzah. Why so? Let the outer one be considered as a passage to the innermost, and a passage is not exempt from a Mezuzah? Because of both booths the outer one is only temporary, and it is exempt from a Mezuzah.

The rabbis taught: The booths of strangers, made only for the summer, booths for women (to make the toilet), booths made for animals, or booths made by Samaritans for the feast, and everything whatever called a booth is valid as a religious tabernacle, provided that it is roofed according to the Law. What is meant, "according to the Law"? Said R. Hisda: If it was roofed for this end, what is meant by the saying: "Anything whatever that is called a booth is valid"? To include the booths of shepherds, of those who watch dried figs, watchmen outside of the towns, and of those who watch fruit (all these are booths if they are roofed according to the Law, and are valid for religious purposes).

MISHNA: An old Succah, Beth Shammai hold, is not valid, but Beth Hillel hold it is valid. What is called an old. Succah? One which was constructed thirty days before the festival; but if it has been constructed on purpose for the festival, even though it be one year old, it is valid.

GEMARA: What is the reason of Beth Shammai's opinion? It is written [Lev. xxiii. 34]: "The feast of the booths shall be seven days unto the Lord." From this we infer that the booths must be made for the purpose of the feast. And what would Beth Hillel say to this passage? They infer from it another theory in accordance with R. Shesheth, who says in the name of R. Aqiba: Whence do we know that the wood that was used for the booths, must not be used for another purpose all the seven days? Because it is written: "The feast of the booths shall be seven days unto the Lord." And we have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah b. Bethyra said: In the same manner that the name of the Lord rests on the feast-offering (and this prohibits the eating of the feast-offering till the pieces are offered on the altar), so does the name of the Lord rest on the booth, to prohibit the use of the material of which it is constructed during the seven days. But did not Beth Shammai also infer this prohibition from the same passage? Yea, we must therefore say that the reason of Beth Shammai is another passage [Deut. xvi. 13]: "A feast of tabernacle... seven days." Infer from this that the booth must be made for this purpose. And what do Beth Hillel infer from the above passage? They infer from it that a Succah may be made during the intermediate days also, while Beth Shammai do not allow it.

MISHNA: If one constructs his Succah under a tree, it is the same as if he made it in his house (under the roof). Should he construct one Succah above another, the upper one is valid, but the lower one is not. R. Jehudah says: Should the upper one not be inhabited, the lower one is valid.

GEMARA: Rabha said: The Mishna refers only to a tree under which there is more shadow than sunshine; but if the sunshine is more than the shadow, it is valid. And I infer this, because the Mishna teaches that a booth which was made under a tree is as if made in a house, why does it express it thus? Let it say, it is invalid? We must therefore assume that it means: As in a roofed house there is more shadow than sunshine, so is it also under a tree, under which the same is the case. But if there is more sunshine than shadow, what is the use, since the branches of the tree, which are invalid, will combine with the roofing of the: booth to shut out the sunshine, and thus make the Succah invalid? Said R. Papa: The case is when one has cut off the branches. If they have been cut off, is it not self-evident that the booth is valid? One might say, we shall take a precautionary measure (lest any make it under a tree which has its branches) and he comes to teach us that such precautionary measures are not to be taken.

"One Succah. above another," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 22]: "Ye shall sit in booths." We may infer, in booths, but not in a booth which is under a booth, or under a tree, or in a house. On the contrary, it is written in the "booths" in the plural (that can mean, in this and in that)? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: It reads plural, but it is written in the singular.

What distance must be between the upper and the lower Succah, that the second should be invalid? Said R. Huna: One span, as we find this measure in the law of defilement (Ahaloth, Chap. III. 7): R. Hisda and Rabba bar R. Huna both said: Four spans. The reason is, that we do not find any distance considered to be of any significance if it is less than four spans. Samuel, however, said:-Ten; and his reason is, that as to make it valid it must be no less than ten spans, so as make it invalid there must be ten spans. When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he said that in the west they so interpret: If the roof of the lower one could not bear the pillows and feather-beds of the upper one, then the lower is valid. From this we may infer that the first Tana holds that, although the lower one cannot bear the pillows in the upper one, it is nevertheless invalid? We may say that the difference between the first Tana and the sages is in a case in which the roof of the lower one could bear it, but not easily (according to him it is invalid, according to them it is valid).

MISHNA: If a cloth be spread over the (roof of the Succah as a screen) against the sun, or below (the roof, inside) to catch the falling leaves, or if one spread a cloth over a (four-post) bed-tester, the Succah is not valid, but one may spread a cloth over two bed-posts.

GEMARA: Said R. Hisda: The case is if one spread a cloth to catch leaves; but if he did it only for ornament, it is allowed. Is not this self-evident? Did not the Mishna say plainly "to catch leaves"? One might say the same is the case when it is an ornament also, but the Mishna mentioned a thing, it is usually so done; he comes to teach it is not so. It was taught: That such ornaments do not make it lower (if it was more than twenty ells high, it is not lowered thereby, or if it was ten spans they do not make it invalid). Said R. Ashi: But if the cloth was hung before a side-wall, it makes it smaller. It happened once that the shirt of Menymin, the servant of R. Ashi, was soaked in water, and he spread it on the roof of the booth to dry. Said R. Ashi to him: Take it off, for one might say, we cover the roof with a thing which is subject to defilement. But everybody will see that it is wet? I mean to say, that when it will be dry, you shall take it off.

It was taught: If the ornaments of the Succah are four spans under the roof, R. Na'hman said the Succah is valid, but R. Hisda and Rabha bar R. Huna both say it is invalid. But sages were once the guests of the exilarch, and R. Na'hman made them sleep in a booth where the ornaments were four spans beneath the roof; and they kept silent, and said nothing. Then he asked them: Did the Masters retract their decision? And they answered: We are delegates for a religious purpose, and therefore we are free from the duty of a Succah.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: One may sleep in a nuptial bed, because its canopy is not considered as a roof (being slanting) even when it is ten spans high. An objection was raised: We have learned, who sleeps under a canopy in a booth does not fulfil his duty? There is the case when the canopy is not of a nuptial bed, but different, like a roof. Rabha bar R. Huna lectured: One may sleep under a canopy, although it is like the roof, and high ten spans; and it is according to R. Jehudah, who said that a temporary tent cannot make a permanent one be ignored, as we have learned in a Mishna. R. Jehudah said: Our custom was to sleep in the booth under the bed in the presence of the elders. But let him say: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah? If he would say so, one might say it is only the case with a bed because it is made to be slept on, but not underneath it (and therefore cannot make the permanent tent ignored); but in the case of a bed with a canopy, which was made for sleeping in, it may be thought different. Therefore he teaches us there is no difference.

MISHNA: If one has trained a vine, or gourd, or ivy over the booth, and covered it, it is not valid; but should the covering be the greater part of the roof (and they the smaller part), or if they had been cut off, it is valid. This is the rule: Everything subject to defilement, and not growing from the ground, must not be used as a roof to the booth; but everything not subject to defilement, and growing from the ground, may be used.

GEMARA: R. Joseph was sitting in the presence of R. Huna, and said: To the Mishna which says, if they are cut off, the Succah is valid. Said Rabh: They (the remainder of the roof) must nevertheless be shaken (after having been cut off). Said R. Huna to him: This said Samuel. R. Joseph turned away his face from him and said: Did I say to you Samuel did not say it? I told You Rabh said, and Samuel may have said it also. Rejoined R. Huna: But I tell you that only Samuel said it, and not Rabh, because, according to the latter, it is valid without shaking, as it happened once that R. Amram the Pious made fringes [Num. xv. 38] on the garment of his wife, but he did not cut asunder the heads of the thread; and later, when he came to ask about it, R. Hiya b. Ashi said to him: So said Rabh: The cutting asunder of the thread, this makes the fringes lawful. From this we see that according to Rabh the cutting off makes it valid, though nothing but this was done. And the same is the case here also. Cutting off makes valid. Shall we assume that the point of difference between the Tanaim of the following Boraitha is the same as that of Rabh and Samuel? Namely, we have learned in an addition to the Mishna: If a myrtle bough has more berries than leaves, it is invalid till the latter are made fewer; but it is not allowed to do so on a festival (Succah, Chap. III.). If, however, one transgressed, and cut off the berries on a festival, the myrtle bough is invalid according to R. Simeon b. R.

Jehozodok, but is valid according to the sages. Now, the schoolmen thought the point on which R. Simeon and the sages differ is whether the cutting is a final preparation, for they thought all agree that the Lulab should be tied together n the beginning with the other branches, drawing a lesson from the Succah, about which it is said: "Ye shall make," i.e., you shall commence to make, but not use what is made already. And R. Simeon says it is invalid, because he does not regard the cutting as a final preparation, and the Lulab, being tied with an invalid myrtle, is invalid; but the sages hold the cutting is a final preparation, and therefore the Lulab is valid. Hence the point whereon they differ is the same as that whereon Rabh and Samuel differ: whether the cutting off is a final preparation (and then shaking is not needed) or not. Nay, all agree that the cutting off is not considered a final preparation, but R. Simeon and the sages differ whether the Lulab has to be tied together at all, or not; R. Simeon maintains that it must, and the sages say, it must not; as we find in a Boraitha that the sages make no difference whether it was tied or not, and only R. Jehudah maintained that if untied it is invalid. But according to whom would be the following teaching: There is a merit in tying the Lulab; it is, however, valid if it is untied? This is in accordance with the rabbis, and the merit is because it is nicer when tied, as it is explained elsewhere that the word [Ex. xv. 2] ‏ואנוהו‎ means, "beautify your religious performances for the Lord's sake."

"This is the rule: everything subject to defilement," etc. Whence is all this deduced? Said Resh Lakish: It is written [Gen. ii. 6]: "But there went up a mist from the earth." As a mist is not subject to defilement, and ascends from the earth, so also must the Succah be a thing not subject to defilement, and growing from the earth. This would be right according to those who said that the booths in the desert were of clouds of glory; but according to those who say that they were ordinary booths, what can be said? Namely, as we learn in the following Boraitha: It is written [Lev. xxxiii. 43]: "I caused the children of Israel to dwell in booths": these were clouds of glory, R. Eliezer said. But R. Aqiba said: They were ordinary booths. Said R. Ashi: It is written [Deut. xxi. 13]: "Of thy threshing-floor and wine-press." Of thy threshing-floor, but not the threshing-floor itself; from thy wine-press, but not the wine-press itself. R. Hisda said: From the following passage [Nehem. viii. 15]: "Go forth unto the mountain and fetch olive leaves, and oleaster leaves, and myrtle leaves, and palm leaves, and leaves of the three-leaved myrtle, to make booths, as it is written." Are not the leaves of the myrtle and those of the three-leaved myrtle the same? Said R. Hisda: The myrtle leaves for the Succah, and the three-leaved myrtle for a Lulab.

MISHNA: Bundles of straw, of wood, and of twigs must not be used to cover the Succah; all of these are become valid, however, if the bundles are loosed. As side-walls, however, all of these may be used.

GEMARA: R. Jacob said: I have heard from R. Johanan two things which he explained to me, namely: the above Mishna, and the Mishna farther on, "Should one hollow out a space in a stack (of sheaves) to use it as a Succah, it is not considered such." Of one of them he says the reason is that it is only a precautionary measure, lest one make his storehouse for a Succah, which biblically is allowed; and of the other he said the reason is, because it is written: "Ye shall make," from which we infer, it must not be ready-made (and this is biblical). But I don't know for which Mishna the reasons are respectively given. Said R. Jeremiah: Let us see. R. Hiya bar Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: Why is it prohibited to cover with bundles of straw, wood, or twigs? Because it may happen a man comes from the field in the evening with his bundle on the shoulder and puts it on the roof for the purpose of drying, and later he resolves to leave it there as a roof to the booth, and it is said, "Ye shall make it," but not have ready-made. Now, as we see that the reason for this is biblical, that for our Mishna must be a precautionary measure, Then why was R. Jacob doubtful? Because he had not heard the saying of R. Hiya in R. Johanan's name. Said R. Ashi: What is the difference? Does, then, the law, "shall make," apply only to our Mishna, and not to the other Mishna farther on, or does the precautionary measure apply only to the other Mishna, and not to ours? Both are alike (and why, then, does he make a difference between them?). R. Johanan can say that his teaching is correct, because our Mishna states, they must not cover it; that means, to commence it, and it is a precautionary measure, but if he has covered, it is valid. But there it is said, It is not a Succah, even after it has been covered; it is even biblically not a Succah.

Said Rabha bar bar Hana: I have heard in the name of R. Johanan three things: If he has roofed it with bundles of flax it is invalid, but if with unsoaked flax, it is valid; and as for Hushne [meaning uncertain] flax, I am in doubt about it. Rabha bar bar Hana added to this: What he meant by Hushne flax, I don't understand. Does he mean, flax soaked and dried, but not brushed; or brushed already, but not made into bundles?

R. Hanan bar Abba said: With thorns and weeds a Succah may be covered. Abayi, however, said, if they have no leaves, one may; but if they have leaves, one must not. Why so? Because, when the leaves fall down, this will trouble him, and he will leave the booth and go out. R. Gidl said in the name of Rabh: The roots of a tree may be used to cover with, although they are intertwined, because a bundle made by nature is not called a bundle. And even if he tied together the extremities, he may nevertheless use them, because as at the base they intertwine naturally, the bundle at the top is not considered such.

R. Hisda in the name of Rabbina b. Shila said: Branches (stalks) of διχρα may be used for covering, though they are intertwined, because a bundle made by nature is not considered as a bundle. And although one ties them together himself, he may nevertheless use them, because as at the base they intertwine naturally, the bundle at the top is not considered such. So also we have learned in a Boraitha: The stalks of διχρα may be used as covering.

Maremar lectured: The bundles they sell out in the market in Syria may be used to cover, although they are tied together, because they tied them only to know the number. Huts of reeds, used by fowlers, if they are untied at the top, may be used as a covering for a booth although they are yet tied together below? Said R. Papa: One loosens them at the bottom also. R. Huna the son of R. Joshuah, however, said: Even if they were not untied at the base, they also may be used, because a bundle that cannot hold together is not called a bundle.

R. Abba said in the name of Samuel: If of herbs by which the sages said a man can fulfil his duty to eat bitter herbs on Passover was made a tent, they bring defilement, when a corpse or part of a corpse was in it, to all vessels that are in the tent; but if a partition was made of them they do not prevent the defilement to spread further, and if they are used to cover a Succah, they make it invalid, because when they become dry they crumble and fall. Therefore, even if they are wet, they are considered not to exist at all, and in place of a roof an empty piece of space.

MISHNA: One may cover with thin boards, according to R. Jehudah, but R. Meir prohibits it. If one has put a deal board four spans wide over the booth, it is valid, provided that one sleep not under it (the board).

GEMARA: Said Rabh: They differ only about boards that are four spans wide. R. Meir prohibits it as a precautionary measure, lest he come to make a ceiling, and R. Jehudah does not take this measure; but if they were less than four spans, all agree that it may be used. Samuel, however, says, on the contrary: They differ only if it is less than four spans; but if more, all agree it is prohibited. If it is less than four spans and even less than three (they differ), how can it be? Is it not considered a stick? Said R. Papa: Samuel meant to say thus: If it is four spans, all agree it is not valid; less than three, all agree it is valid. They differ only from three to four; one holds because it is not of the prescribed size (four spans), it is valid, because they are considered as sticks; and another holds, as it is more than three, to which the theory of Lavud cannot apply, we take the precautionary measure. Come and hear: Two sheets, if put in the middle of the roof, each of which is less than four, but whose combined width is four spans or more, make the booth invalid; but two boards of the same sizes do not combine to make it invalid. R. Meir, however, said: The same is the case with both. It would be right according to Samuel, who said that they differ when it is less than four spans; but if it is four spans, all agree it is invalid, because then it would be explained that the combined width makes the Succah invalid if it is on the side of the roof (attached to a wall), and their combined width is four ells, not four spans (for otherwise, if the roof is by the wall, it is valid up to four ells because it is considered as a crooked wall continued). But according to Rabh's opinion, this can be only according to R. Meir;. but according to R. Jehudah, what can be meant by the expression "combined width," since according to him, if they are less than four spans, they are considered sticks? R. Jehudah does not mean combined width, but only uses the same expression as R. Meir (without a particular meaning).

We have learned in a Boraitha according to Rabh, and in another Boraitha according to Samuel: according to Rabh, if one has covered the Succah with boards of cedar that are less than four spans wide, all agree they are valid; but if they are four spans, R. Meir makes it invalid, and R. Jehudah makes it valid. Said R. Jehudah: It happened once, in a time of danger, we brought boards four spans wide, and roofed a balcony and used it as a Succah, and the sages answered him: A dangerous time does not prove. According to Samuel: If one has roofed the booth with cedar boards four spans wide, all agree it is invalid; if less, according to R. Meir, it is invalid; according to R. Jehudah, valid. R. Meir agrees, however, that if there was between one board and the other the width of a board, one may lay between anything fit, and the Succah is valid. And R. Jehudah agrees, that if one board was wide four spans, it is valid, but one must not sleep under it, and who does so does not fulfil the duty of a Succah.

It was taught: If one placed the boards on their edges on the Succah, R. Huna said the booth is invalid, but R. Hisda and Rabba bar R. Huna both said it is valid. It happened once R. Na'hman came to Sura: R. Hisda and Rabba bar R. Huna visited him and asked him the law about the boards in question, and he said: They are considered as iron spits, and certainly invalid. Said R. Huna to them: Did I not tell you that R. Na'hman agrees with me? And they answered him: Did the Master explain to us the reason of this, and we did not accept it? Rejoined R. Huna: Did you ask me for the reason, and I did not tell it to you?

MISHNA: If small rafters, over which is no ceiling, are to be used for a booth, R. Jehudah says: Beth Shammai hold, the rafters must be loosened, and the middle one out of every three removed. But Beth Hillel hold: One must either loosen them, or else remove one of every three. R. Meir says: One must remove one out of three, but one need not loosen.

GEMARA: It is right according to Beth Hillel, as their reason is because it is written: "Ye shall make," and not have ready-made. Hence either of the two is sufficient. But what is the reason of Beth Shammai? If the reason is the same, why must he do both? Is not one sufficient? It is as a precautionary measure, and Beth Shammai meant to say thus: Although one has loosened, it is not valid until he removes one of every three. If it is so, then Beth Shammai said the same as R. Meir. R. Meir meant to say, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel did not differ, if one has removed same, though they were not loosened.

MISHNA: If one roofs his booth with iron spits, or with boards of a bedstead, if there is as wide a space between them (covered with anything fit) as one of them, it is valid. If one should hollow out a space in a stack (of sheaves) to use it as a Succah (although of the prescribed size), it is not considered as a Succah at all.

GEMARA: Shall we assume that the decision of R. Huna the son of R. Joshuah, who says, that if the open spaces of a fence equal the fence proper it is not valid (Erubin, p. 35), contradicts this Mishna? R. Huna can explain the Mishna, that it means an interspace a trifle wider than the spit or board itself, so as to allow it to be taken out and replaced without difficulty. But can it not be made precisely to fit? (Rashi explains this question thus: At the first glance the answer of R. Huna is that, whenever the thing is mentioned to be of the same width, it is meant to be a trifle less wide, so as to be removed without difficulty: and to this comes the question, why should it be so made? can it not be made to fit precisely? And to this question the answer of R. Ammi will be farther on. But Tospheth oppose to this another explanation, which is still more complicated, and we have therefore translated the text literally.) Said R. Ammi: Yea, but this Mishna means, it is only valid then, when it is a trifle more. Rabba, however, said: The Mishna can be explained even if it was precisely; but if it was laid lengthwise, it should be placed crosswise, and vice versa (and above them the lawful roofing, so that the fit must be more than the unfit roofing, and thus the fit portion above neutralizes the unfit portion below).

"With boards of a bedstead." Shall we assume that this is a support to R. Ammi bar Tibiumi, who said that if one covered the Succah with broken utensils it is invalid? Nay, the Mishna can be explained as R. Hanan said in the name of Rabbi. If the side-board of the bedstead was laid with two short boards, or two short boards with the side-board, which is subject to defilement (as will be explained, Kelim, Chap. XIX. 9). What is meant by broken utensils? Said Abayi: Remnants of silken togas, that measure less than three fingers square, and are of no value to either rich or poor (Sabbath, p. 272). We have learned in a Boraitha in accordance with R. Ammi bar Tibiumi: The remainders of a mat of bark or reeds, although they are less than of the prescribed size to be subject to defilement, must not be used to cover a Succah. A mat of sticks, if it is large, may be used to cover it (because a large one is only made for a covering, and is not a utensil subject to defilement); but if small, it may not. R. Eliezer, however, said, that even a large one is subject to defilement, and may not be used.

"If one should hollow," etc. R. Huna said: The case is, when there is no hole of the size of one span in length by seven in width; but if there was, it is a Succah. We have learned so also in a Boraitha: If one hollows out a space in a stack to use it as a Succah, it is a Succah. And this Boraitha must be explained as the decree of R. Huna to prevent the contradiction to our Mishna.

MISHNA: If one suspends textile walls from the roof downwards, if they do not reach the ground within three spans, it is invalid. If they stand on the ground and are high ten spans, it is valid. R. Jose, however, said: Even when the walls do not reach the ground by more than three spans the law of ten spans applies to both cases (and in either case it is valid).

GEMARA: On what point do they differ? One holds that a hanging partition makes the Succah valid, and the other that it does not. We have learned in the Mishna in Erubin, Chap. VIII. p. 206, concerning a wall that was between two courts and a partition was made, and R. Jehudah said there: The partition is not more effectual than the wall which is between them. Said Rabba bar bar Hana, in the name of R. Johanan: R. Jehudah's decree there is of the same system as R. Jose's in our Mishna, who says that a hanging partition makes valid. In reality, however, it is not so. R. Jehudah does not agree with R. Jose, and vice versa. Because R. Jehudah, who allows it there, does so because Erubin of the courts are rabbinical; but here, in the case of the Succah, which is biblical, he would not allow it. And, on the contrary, R. Jose, who allows it here, does it because the Succah is only a positive commandment; but concerning Sabbath, where there is a capital punishment, he would not allow it. And if it be asked, What happened in Ziporeth (which will be related farther on), according to whose opinion was it? Not according to R. Jose, nor in accordance with R. Jehudah, but according to R. Ishmael bar Jose. Namely: When R. Dimi came from Palestine, he told that it happened once (in Ziporeth) that they had forgotten to bring the holy scrolls on the eve of Sabbath, and on the morrow they put sheets on the pillars and brought the holy scrolls, and read them (and these hanging partitions were made at the command of R. Ishmael).

R. Hisda in the name of Abimi said: A mat which is large four spans and a trifle can be used as a side-wall to the Succah. How shall it be placed? It shall be hung in the middle, less than three spans from the ground, and less than three spans from the roof, because we apply the law of Lavud to both places. Is not this self-evident? One may say that two Lavuds in one case do not apply, he comes to teach us that we may.

MISHNA: If the roof is three spans distant from the walls, the Succah is invalid. If the roof of a house was broken, and it was covered, then if there are four ells between the wall and the covering, it is invalid; but if less it is valid. The same is the case with a court surrounded by balconies. If the top of a large Succah was covered with something unfit, if it is distant four ells it is not valid.

GEMARA: Rabha said: I once found the rabbis of the college sitting and declaring: Air makes the Succah invalid with three spans, but unfit covering makes it invalid only with no less than four ells; and I said to them: Where do you find that air makes invalid with three spans? In our Mishna, which teaches if the roof was at a distance of three spans it is invalid? Then, learn also from it that unfit covering should not make the Succah invalid if it is less than four ells? as it teaches farther on, that a house whose roof was broken, and it was covered in the middle, if there is from the covering to the wall four ells, then it is invalid? And they answered: Leave alone this teaching, because Rabh and Samuel both said that this teaching is only because we consider it as a crooked wall. And I rejoined: If it is so, what would be according to your opinion? If there would be air less than three spans, and unfit covering less than four ells., in the same place, it certainly would be valid; but if one covered the vacant space with iron spits, it would make it invalid. Now, the air, which is so rigorous that it makes invalid by three spans, will not be equal to an invalid covering which is so lenient that it makes invalid only by four ells? And they said to me: And according to your theory, that unfit covering makes invalid only when it is four ells, how would the case be if empty air less than three spans were added to it? Would it not be valid?

But if one puts iron spits over the empty place, would it not make it invalid? Now, then, does not the same question apply to your theory also? And I rejoined again: What comparison is this? In my opinion, unfit covering makes invalid with four ells, because that is the prescribed quantity, and the same is with air; and as both quantities are not equal, they do not combine together to make the Succah invalid. But according to your opinion, that the reason is not because it is a prescribed quantity, but because the roof is separated from the wall, then the question is, what is the difference whether it be separated from the wall by air less than three spans and unfit covering, or by iron spits and unfit covering? Said Abayi to him: And even according to the Master's opinion, that because the quantities are not equal they do not combine, this can be said only of a large Succah, where unfit covering makes not invalid unless it is four ells; but in a small Succah, where unfit covering makes it invalid with three spans, are not the quantities then equal? Consequently they must combine, even in a large Succah. Answered Rabha: In a small Succah it is not because the prescribed quantities are equal, but because the prescribed size for a Succah does not remain.

Abayi said: If there was air three spans wide in a large Succah, and one diminished it by sticks or iron spits, it is considered as diminished; but if it was a small Succah, if with sticks it is lawful, but with iron spits it is not. But this is the case only when it is near the wall. If in the middle of the roof, however, R. A'ha and Rabina differed: According to one, the law of Lavud applies also in the middle, and according to the other it can only be applied when they are at the side.

R. Jehudah bar Ilai lectured: If the roof of a house was broken, and one covered it with fit covering, it is valid for a Succah. Said R. Ishmael bar Jose to him: Rabbi, explain your decision, because my father had explained thus: If it is less than four ells from the wall, then it is valid; but if four or more, it is invalid. Again lectured the same: An abruma (a small fish not distinguishable from prohibited reptiles) is permitted. Said R. Ishmael to him: Rabbi, explain the decision, for so said my father: From one place it is permitted, from another it is not. Accordingly, Abayi said: The small fish called Tza'hntha (smelt), of the river Bab, are permitted (and from another not).

It was taught: If one has covered a balcony which has small pillars (less than three spans one from the other), it is valid for a Succah: but if it has no pillars, Abayi said it is valid, because the edge of the roof downward may be considered as making (forming) a wall; but Rabha said it is invalid, because he does not hold this theory. Said Rabha to Abayi: According to thee, who holdest this theory, even if the middle wall of the Succah was broken, let it also be valid, as the edge of the roof is considered to descend and make a wall. Said Abayi: I yield to thee in this point, because it looks like an open entry. An objection was raised from our Mishna: If a court is surrounded by balconies, etc., why? Let it also be considered that the edge of the roof makes it a wall? Rabha explained, in accordance with Abayi's opinion, that the case is that the edge projected not over the wall, but was even with it.

R. Ashi found R. Kahna, who had roofed a balcony that had no small pillars, and he asked him: Does not the Master hold what Rabha said, that when there are no pillars the Succah is invalid? And he took him outside and showed him that there were pillars not visible inside, but only outside; and it was taught in Erubin (p. 17), if it was seen from outside, and not from inside, it is regarded as a side-beam, and a side-beam is the same as a small pillar.

A Boraitha taught: A vestibule, outside of the booth, is considered as the booth itself. What is meant by this? Said Ullah: A vestibule formed by sticks projecting beyond the Succah. Are not three walls needed? When there are. But is it not needed that there be more shadow than sunshine? If there was. But is not a prescribed size needed? If it was. If so, what comes he to teach us? Lest one say, that because the Succah was made for sitting inside, shall the outside not be considered a Succah at all, he comes to teach us it is not.

MISHNA: If one makes a Succah in the form of a cone, or leans the roof against a wall, R. Eliezer says it is not valid, because it has no roof; but the sages declare it is valid.

GEMARA: A Boraitha taught: R. Eliezer admits, if one placed it one span over the ground, or separated it one span from the wall, the Succah is valid. What is the reason of the sages?

for the theory of Lavud applies to them, and they are regarded as upright. They hold that the slanting parts of a tent are considered as the tent itself. Abayi found R. Joseph sleeping in a nuptial bed in a Succah. Said Abayi to him: According to whom do you do so? According to R. Eliezer? Then you left the majority of rabbis, and followed an individual. Answered he: The Boraitha teaches the contrary: That R. Eliezer makes it valid, but the sages say it is invalid. Rejoined Abayi: Then you leave a Mishna, and act according to a Boraitha. And he answered: The Mishna is written according to an individual's opinion, as we have learned in a Boraitha: if one makes a booth in the form of a cave, or leans the roof on a wall, R. Nathan said that R. Eliezer makes it invalid, because it has no roof, but the sages permit this.

MISHNA: A large reed mat made for sleeping on is subject to defilement, and a Succah must not be covered with it; but if it was made to cover a booth, it may be used, and is not subject to defilement. R. Eleazar said: There is no difference whether it is large or small, but only the use for which it was made is considered; if for sleeping, then it is subject to defilement, and must not be used; but in the other case, if for covering, it is not subject to defilement, and may be used.

GEMARA: Did not the Mishna contradict itself? In the first part it says, if it was made for sleeping, then it is subject to defilement, etc., but if the purpose for which it was made was not expressed, it must be considered as for a covering. And the second part says, "If it was made for a cover"; from this we may infer, if the purpose was not expressed we consider it for sleeping? Said R. Papa: In case of a small one, if the purpose was not expressed, all agree it may be considered as for sleeping; but in case of a large one, the first Tana holds that where no purpose was expressed it is considered to have been made for covering. But R. Eliezer holds, that even a large one is also usually made for sleeping, and the expression in the Mishna, "if it was made for sleeping," is to be explained so: if it was made, say it is for the purpose of sleeping, unless he expressed another purpose.

The rabbis taught: A mat made of bark or papyrus, if large, may be used for a cover; but if small, it may not. If it is of reeds, or hilath, a large one may be used for covering; but if they are woven together, it may not. R. Ishmael bar Jose said in the name of his father: Both may be used to cover, and the same said R. Dosa.

We have learned (Edioth, III. 4): "All hutzlahs are liable to become unclean from a corpse, so is the decree of R. Dosa; but the sages said: They are liable to become unclean only by pressing." What are hutzlahs? Said R. Simeon bar Lakish: It means ordinary mats, and the same is according to his theory elsewhere, where he said: I would sacrifice myself to bring back to life R. Hiya and his children, because in the ancient time, when the Torah was forgotten by Israel, Ezra came from Babylon, and reëstablished it again; when afterwards it was again forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came up from Babylon and restored it again; and when it was again forgotten, came R. Hiya and his children and restored it again. And they said to this: That R. Dosa and the sages did not differ about the mats of the city of Usha, that they are subject to defilement, and that the mats of Tiberia are not; what they do differ about is the mats of other places: one holds that because nobody sits on them, they are equal to those of Tiberia; and the others hold that because it can happen that somebody should sit upon them, they are equal to the mats of Usha.

We learned in a Boraitha: R. Hananiah said: When I came into the exile, I found an old man who said to me that to cover a Succah with a mat is lawful; afterwards, when I came to R. Joshuah my father's brother, he admitted this theory. Said R. Hisda: This is only when it is not seamed. Said Ullah: The mats from the city of Mehuzah, but for their scams, would be lawful to be used for covering. So also we have learned in a Boraitha: Mats may be used for covering, provided they have no seams.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE SITUATIONS IN WHICH A BOOTH MAY BE PLACED, WHAT MUST BE DONE IN IT, ETC.

MISHNA: He who sleeps under a bed in the booth has not fulfilled his duty (of sleeping there). Said R. Jehudah: We were in the habit of sleeping under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they never said anything to us. Said R. Simeon: It happened that Tabbi, the slave of R. Gamaliel, used to sleep under a bed. But R. Gamaliel said to the elders: Do you see my slave Tabbi? He is a scholar (Talmud Hakham), and knows that slaves are exempt from the duty of Succah. Therefore he sleeps under a bedstead. From this we infer that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his duty.

GEMARA: Why? The bed is usually not ten spans high? Samuel explained this, that the case is when the bed is high ten spans. (But if so,) what is the reason of R. Jehudah's decree? This is according to his theory elsewhere, that the Succah must be a permanent dwelling, and the bed is only a temporary dwelling, and a temporary dwelling cannot make ignored a permanent one. But did not R. Simeon held the same theory, that a Succah must be a permanent dwelling (because his decree is that it must have four walls), and nevertheless he does not allow to sleep under the bed? This is the point of their difference: according to R. Simeon a temporary dwelling makes ignored, and according to R. Jehudah it does not.

"It happened once that Tabbi the slave," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Simeon said: From R. Gamaliel's remarks we have learned two things: That slaves are free from the duty of a Succah, and that one who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled the duty of Succah. Let him say, "from R. Gamaliel's decree," he comes to teach us by the way that R. A'ha bar Adda, according to others the same in the name of R. Hamnuna, quoting Rabh, said: Whence do we know that even a remark of a scholar must be studied? Because it is written [Ps. i.] "And the leaf does not wither," even a slight thing as a leaf is not valueless.

MISHNA: If one supports his Succah with a bedstead, it is valid. R. Jehudah said: A Succah that cannot stand by itself is invalid.

GEMARA: What is the reason of R. Jehudah's decree? R. Zera and R. Abba bar Mamel differed: One says: Because so it is not made a permanent dwelling; and one says: Because he supports it with a thing subject to defilement. What is the difference? If one put iron spits and covered it, according to them who say because it is not permanent, the iron spits are permanent; but according to those who say because he supports with a thing subject to defilement, the iron spits are subject to defilement, and are invalid. Said Abayi: They differ only if he supports the booth with the bedstead; but if he has roofed the bed itself, all agree it is valid. Why so? Because to them who say, because it is not permanent, it can be said the bed is permanent; and to them who say because he supports with a thing subject to defilement, it can be said the roof is not subject to defilement.

MISHNA: A Succah covered thinly, if there is more shadow than sun, is valid; if the covering is close, like the roof of a house, though the stars are not visible through it, it is nevertheless valid.

GEMARA: What is meant by thin covering? Said Rabh: Scanty covering (too much empty space between one stick and the other). And Samuel said: Irregular covering--one twig down, one twig up, that is. Rabh interpreted that the Mishna teaches only one case, a poor Succah, in which there is more shadow than sun, is valid; and according to Samuel, the Mishna teaches two things: first, that a Succah with an irregular covering is valid; and secondly, that all Succahs where the shadow is more than the sunshine are valid. Said Abayi: The Mishna refers to a case where there is not three spans distance from one twig to the other; but if there is, it is invalid. Rabha, however, said: Even if there were three spans between, provided the twig was not wide at the top a span, it is invalid; but if it was, it is valid, because we say: Havit rami, and it is valid.

"If there is more shadow than sun." From this we may infer, that if they were equal, it is not valid; but in the first chapter the Mishna teaches, if the sunshine was more than the shadow it is invalid, from which we may infer that if they were equal it is valid? It presents no difficulty. If on the top the empty place was equal to the covering, because on the ground the sunshine would appear larger; but if on the ground the sunshine and the shadow are equal, it is valid, because then on the top there must be more covering than empty space. Said R. Papa: This is according to what people say: If on the top it is of the size of a Zuz, it appears on the ground the size of a Sela.

"If close like the roof of a house." The rabbis taught: If it was close as a roof of a house, although the stars cannot be seen through it, it is valid; but if the rays of the sun do not penetrate, Beth Shammai hold it is not valid, and Beth Hillel hold it is.

MISHNA: If one constructs a Succah on the top of a wagon, or on board a vessel, it is valid, and he may ascend thereto on the festival. If he has constructed the Succah on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid; but he must not ascend thereto on the festival days. If two walls are formed by a tree, and one by human hands, or two by human hands and one by a tree, the Succah is valid, but one must not ascend thereto on the festival. This is the rule: Whenever the Succah can stand by itself, even should the tree be removed, the Succah is valid, and it is lawful to ascend thereto on the festival.

GEMARA: This Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba only, as we have learned in a Boraitha: If a Succah was made on a ship, Rabban Gamaliel makes it invalid, and R. Aqiba makes it valid. It happened once that Rabban Gamaliel and R. Aqiba were on a ship, and R. Aqiba constructed a Succah on the ship. On the morrow a wind blew it off, and Rabban Gamaliel said to him: Aqiba, where is thy Succah? Said Abayi: If the Succah cannot withstand an ordinary wind from land, all agree that it is not a Succah at all; if it can hold out a storm on land, all agree it must be regarded as a Succah; but if it can hold out an ordinary wind from land, but not an ordinary wind from the sea, there is the point of their difference: R. Gamaliel holds it must be a permanent dwelling, and as it cannot withstand an ordinary wind from the sea, it is not considered as anything; but R. Aqiba holds that only a temporary dwelling is needed, and so soon as it is proof against an ordinary wind from land, it is called a temporary dwelling.

"Or on the back of a camel." The Mishna is in accordance with R. Meir. as we learn in the following Boraitha: If one has made his Succah on the back of an animal, it is valid, according to R. Meir; but not according to R. Jehudah. What is the reason of R. Jehudah? Because it is written [Deut. xvi. 13]: "The feast of tabernacles shalt thou hold seven days." From this we infer that a booth fit for all seven days may be called a Succah, but not otherwise (and as the sages prohibited to mount an animal on the festival, it is not fit for the first day of the festival). But what would R. Meir answer to this? Biblically it is fit, but only the rabbis prohibited as a precautionary measure to mount an animal (and if biblically fit, it is called a Succah).

If the animal was used as a wall to the Succah? R. Meir makes it invalid, and R. Jehudah makes it valid. Because R. Meir used to say: All things which have life must not be made a wall to the Succah, nor a side-beam to an entry, nor an enclosure to a well, nor a covering of a grave; and in the name of R. Jose the Galilean it was said: Also, a letter of divorce must not be written on it. What is the reason of R. Meir? Abayi said: Because it may die. R. Zera said: Because it can run away. If an elephant were tied to a wall and used as a wall, all agree it is valid, because, even if it should die, its carcass measures more than ten spans. In what they differ is, when the elephant is not tied: according to them who fear its death, it is valid; but according to those who fear its flight, it is not valid. But did Abayi say that R. Meir feared its death, and R. Jehudah did not? Have we not heard the contrary from him in Gittin, that R. Meir feared it, and R. Jehudah did not? Read these conversely: Abayi said R. Meir feared its death, and R. Jehudah did not. But did we not learn in Tract Yomah, R. Jehudah declares: To the high-priest another wife must be prepared for the Day of Atonement, lest his wife die? (So he apprehends death.) Is it not taught, in addition to the same Mishna: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, that for forgiving the sins an exceptional rule was made?

Let us see: According to both sages--who apprehend death or flight--biblically it is valid as a wall; and only as a rabbinical precautionary measure is it forbidden. Why is it not subject to defilement when it covers a grave, according to R. Meir? Said R. A'ha bar Jacob: R. Meir holds that all partitions not made by human hands are not called partitions at all.

MISHNA: If one makes a booth between trees which form side-walls, it is valid.

GEMARA: A'ha bar Jacob said: All partitions that are not proof against an ordinary wind are not partitions at all. An objection was raised from our Mishna, which teaches that if the trees were used as walls, it is valid; but did not the trees shake by an ordinary wind? The case is, when they are old trees. But even if old trees, are there not branches? If one weaves the branches into the walls. If it is so, what does he come to teach us? Is it not self-evident? One might say that perhaps it shall be prohibited as a precautionary measure, lest on the festival he climb the tree, he comes to teach us that such a measure is not taken.

MISHNA: Delegates for a religious purpose are free from the duty of Succah; also sick persons, and those who nurse them. One may occasionally eat or drink something outside of the booth.

GEMARA: Whence do we deduce this? From what the rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. vi. 7]: "When thou sittest in thy house": that means, except when thou art occupied by a religious observance; [ibid.] "When thou walkest by the way" means, except when thou goest to marry. From this is said, that he who marries a virgin is exempt, but he who marries a: widow is not. But how can this be inferred? Said R. Huna: From the expression "on the way," as one goes on the way, means as a voluntary act, and this is to exclude one occupied by a religious duty. R. Abba bar Zabda said in the name of Rabh: A mourner is not exempt from the duty of the Succah. Is not this self-evident? One might say, because the same authority says elsewhere that one who is afflicted by something is exempt from the duty of Succah, and a mourner is certainly afflicted, one might say that he is exempt, he comes to teach us that it is when the affliction is caused by the Succah; but here, when he afflicts himself, he must divert his attention, and fulfil the duty of Succah. The same says again in the name of Rabh: A bridegroom and his attendants and all who belong to the wedding-party are exempt from the Succah all the seven days. Why so? Because they must enjoy themselves. But let them enjoy themselves in the Succah? No enjoyment can be had outside of the house where the wedding is. But let them eat in the Succah and enjoy themselves in the house. There is no enjoyment except where the banquet is. But let the house where the wedding takes place be made in the Succah? Abayi said, it cannot be made, because the bride must not be left with strangers; and Rabha said, because the bridegroom will find it inconvenient. What is the difference? when even in the house, where men come in and go out, they are not in privacy, but it is inconvenient. According to Abayi, it may be made in the Succah, and according to Rabha it may not. R. Zera said: When I was a bridegroom, I ate in the Succah, and enjoyed myself in the bride's house, and I enjoyed myself the more because I fulfilled two religious duties.

The rabbis taught: A bridegroom and his attendants and all the wedding-party are exempt from prayers, from phylacteries, but they must read Shema. In the name of R. Shila it was said: Only the bridegroom is exempt, but all the others are not. A Boraitha states, R. Hanania b. Akabia said: Writers of the holy scrolls, or tefilin, or mezuzoth, they and the wholesale sellers and the retail sellers, and all men engaged in work for Heaven, including also the sellers of blue threads for tzitzith, are exempt from the reading of Shema, from praying, from tefilin, and all the religious duties commanded in the Torah. He said so to confirm the words of R. Jose the Galilean, who said: Who is engaged in one religious work, is free from another one.

The rabbis taught: Those who are on the road in the day are exempt from the duty of Succah during the day, but not during the night; and if they travel by night, it is conversely. If they travel during both, they are exempt wholly. But who goes on a religious mission, is exempt from the duty of Succah both by day and by night. As it happened, R. Hisda and Rabha bar R. Huna coming on a Sabbath falling on one of the intermediate days, to the exilarch to hear his lecture, they slept on the bank of a river of Sura. They said, we are delegates for a religious purpose, and exempt from the duty of Succah.

The rabbis taught: The watchmen of a tower who watch by day are exempt from the Succah by day, but not by night; and those who watch by night are exempt for the night, and those who watch during both are entirely exempt. Those who watch gardens and vineyards are exempt from the Succah by day and by night. But let them make the booths there, and sit in them? Said Abayi: It is written: "Ye shall dwell in booths." It must be where the dwellings are. And Rabha said: The hole brings the thief (i.e., he will not be able to watch carefully). What is the difference? When the whole of the fruit would be visible from his position in the Succah (he should sit in one).

"Sick persons and their nurses." The rabbis taught: Not only those who are dangerously sick, but if there is no danger, if one has sore eyes or a headache, he is also exempt. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel told: It once happened I had sore eyes when I was in Cæsarea (Kisrin), and R. Jose the Great allowed me and my servants to sleep outside of the Succah. Rabh, however, allowed R. A'ha of Bardla to sleep under a canopy in a booth (though ten spans high), to prevent mosquitoes. Rabha allowed R. A'ha bar Ada to sleep outside of the Succah, because it was freshly whitewashed. And Rabha acted according to his theory elsewhere, that whoever suffers is exempt. But have we not learned in our Mishna that only sick persons are exempt, and we may infer, not those who are in sorrow? Nay, in case of a sick person, he and his nurses are exempt, but he who is in sorrow may only himself stay out, not his servants.

"Men may occasionally eat," etc. What is meant by something? Said R. Joseph: Two or three eggs. Said Abayi to him: But many times a man finds three eggs sufficient for a meal? Therefore said Abayi: As much as a young scholar partakes before he goes to hear the lecture.

The rabbis taught: One may eat a hasty meal outside of the Succah, but one must not take a nap outside. Why so? Said R. Ashi: As a precautionary measure, lest he fall profoundly asleep for the whole night. Said Abayi to him: If it is so, why does a Boraitha allow a man to take a nap with his tefilin on, but not to sleep long? Let it be apprehended lest he fall asleep? Said R. Joseph bar Ilai: This is the case when he has engaged a man to wake him up. Rabha, however, said: There is no appointed time for sleeping; concerning the tefilin, it is for a different reason (as will be explained in Tract Benedictions). Rabh said: One must not sleep by day longer than a horse sleeps. How long is it? So as to be able to make sixty respirations. Said Abayi: My Master used to sleep by day as long as Rabh, and Rabh as Rabbi, and Rabbi as King David, and David slept as long as a horse. And how long is the sleep of a horse? Sixty respirations. Abayi himself sleeps as long as it would take to walk from Pompeditha to Be Kubi. Exclaimed R. Joseph about him the verse in Proverbs [vi. 9]: "How long, O sluggard, wilt thou lie down? When wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?"

MISHNA: It happened that a dish was brought to R. Johanan b. Zakai to taste, and two dates and a jar of water to Rabban Gamaliel. Each of them said: Bring it to the booth. But when food less than an egg was brought to R. Zadok, he took it in the napkin, and ate it outside of the booth, but did not pronounce the benediction after meals for it.

GEMARA: Is it customary to adduce an act as a contradiction to the former teaching of the Mishna above (which says a hasty meal may be eaten outside of the Succah)? The above Mishna is not completed, and must read so: If one wants to make it more rigorous for himself, he may do so, without it being said he is vain; and it also happened with R. Johanan b. Zakai and Rabban Gamaliel that a dish and dates were brought to them, and they said they should be carried to the Succah.

"And when food less than the size of an egg," etc. But if the size of a whole egg? Then the Succah is needed? Shall we assume that this will be an objection to the teaching of R. Joseph and Abayi (which states above, three eggs, or as much as a young scholar, which is at any rate not less than an egg)? Nay, it may be explained that if it would be of the size of an egg, the legal washing of hands before and benediction after the meal would be needed (but Succah would not be needed).

MISHNA: Fourteen meals must be eaten in the Succah, one in the morning and one at night (of each day of the festival), according to R. Eleazar; but the sages say it is not fixed by law, except that one must eat in the Succah on the first night. R. Eleazar said again: He who has not eaten on the first night can make amends for it by eating in the booth on the last night of the festival; but according to the sages no amends can be made, and they apply it to the verse [Eccl. i. 15]: "What is crooked cannot be made straight, and that which is defective cannot be numbered."

GEMARA: What is the reason of R. Eleazar? Because it is written: "Ye shall dwell." And as in a dwelling it is usually eaten in the morning and in the evening, so must it be done also in the Succah; but according to the sages, it is as a dwelling, where one eats or not, at his pleasure. If it is so, why is he bound to eat the first evening of the festival? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozodok: It is written here in the fifteenth, and about the Passover the word fifteen is written: there is an analogy of expression, as on Passover the first night must Matzah be eaten, and later it is optional, so on the first night of the Feast of Tabernacles it must be eaten in the Succah, and henceforth it is optional. But whence is it known that on Passover it is obligatory? Because it is written [Ex. xii. 18]: "At evening shall ye eat unleavened bread." This verse makes it obligatory.

"R. Eliezer said again," etc. But did not R. Eliezer say that it is obligatory to eat fourteen meals in the Succah: every day one meal in the morning and in the evening? Said Bira in the name of R. Ami: R. Eliezer retracted what he had said. But with what shall he make amends? Shall he eat another meal? A man cannot eat more than he needs. With extra dishes for dessert. We have also learned in a Boraitha, if one makes amends with extra dishes, he has done his duty. The manager of the house of Agrippa the king (επιτροπος) asked R. Eliezer: I, for instance, who eat only one meal in twenty-four hours, may I do so in the Succah--eat one meal and fulfil my duty? And he answered him: Did you not make every day many dishes of delicacies for the sake of yourself, and can you not add one dish for the sake of your Creator? He asked him again: I, for example, who have two wives, one in Tiberia and one in Ziporeth, and have also two booths, one in Tiberia and one in Ziporeth, may I go from one Succah to the other, and my duty shall be fulfilled? And he answered: Nay, because I say who goes from one booth to another abolishes the religious duty he has done in the first.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: One must not go out from one Succah to another (to eat in one and sleep in another), and a Succah must not be made in the intermediate days. The sages, however, say: Both may be done. All agree that if the Succah has fallen, he may rebuild it on the intermediate days. What is the reason of R. Eliezer? Because it is written [Deut. xvi. 13]: "Seven days shall ye hold the feast of tabernacles." From this we infer the Succah shall be made to be fit for seven days. The rabbis, however, explained this passage so: On the Feast of the Tabernacles ye shall make a booth (during the whole feast). They all agree that if the Succah falls, it may be rebuilt. Is not this self-evident? We might assume that the second Succah cannot be made for seven days, and therefore shall not be made at all. He comes to teach us that it is not so.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: As a man cannot fulful his duty with a Lulab belonging to his neighbor on the first day, as it is written [Lev. xxiii. 40]: "And ye shall take unto yourselves on the first day the fruit of the tree hadar, branches of palm trees," etc.--"unto yourselves," that means, your own, but not those belonging to your neighbor; so also a man cannot fulfil his duty in a Succah belonging to his neighbor, because it is written: "Seven days shalt thou make unto thee the feast of the tabernacles," and we infer from "for thee" it shall be thy own. The sages, however, said: Although it was said that a man cannot fulfil his duty with the Lulab of his neighbor, he may nevertheless do his duty of Succah in the neighbor's Succah, because it is written [ibid.]: "All that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths." From this we learn that all Israelites may sit in one Succah. But how will the sages account for the expression "unto thee"? They say it is to exclude a robbed Succah, but a borrowed Succah may be used.

The rabbis taught: It happened once to R. Ilai that he came to see R. Eliezer his Master in the city of Lud on the festival; and the latter said to him: Ilai, thou art not of those who rest on the festival, because R. Eliezer used to say: I praise the sluggards, who do not go out on the festival from the house, because it is written [Deut. xiv. 26]: "Thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household." This is not so: did not R. Itz'hak say: Whence do we know that a man must visit his teacher on the festival? Because it is written [II Kings, iv. 23]: "Wherefore art thou going to him to-day? It is neither new moon nor Sabbath?" From this we may infer that on a new moon and a Sabbath it is obligatory to visit one's Master? It presents no difficulty: If one's Master is in the same city, where one can go and return the same day, he must; but not otherwise.

The rabbis taught: It happened once that R. Eliezer took his rest in the booth of Johanan bar Ilai in the city of Kisri, of Upper Galilea, according to others in Kisrion, and the sun reached the Succah. And the host asked R. Eliezer: Shall I spread a sheet on it? And he answered: There was not one tribe of Israel from which a judge did not descend. The sun reached the middle of the Succah, and he asked again: How if I should spread a sheet on it? And he answered: There was not one tribe of Israel from which prophets have not descended, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin chose kings at the command of the prophets. Finally the sun reached R. Eliezer's feet, and Johanan took a sheet and spread it over the Succah; and R. Eliezer took his garments and shouldered them, and left the booth. This was not because he did not want to teach him the law, but because R. Eliezer never decided a thing which he had not heard from his Master. But how could R. Eliezer do this? Did he not himself declare that a man must not go out from one Succah to another? They answered: That was not on the Feast of Tabernacles at all; it was another festival, and they sat in the Succah only for fresh air. But did not R. Eliezer declare: I praise the sluggards who do not leave on a festival their houses? It was not on a festival; it was an ordinary Sabbath.

The rabbis taught: It happened with R. Eliezer that he took rest in Upper Galilea, and he was asked thirty Halakhoth about the law of Succah. To twelve he answered: So I have heard; and to eighteen he answered: I did not hear them. R. Jose b. R. Jehudah says: On the contrary, to eighteen he answered: I have heard; and to twelve: I have not heard. And they asked him: Are all your decisions only from what you have heard? He answered: You compelled me to tell you one thing which I had not heard from my Masters. That is, never in my life came a man to the house of learning before me and I never slept in the house of learning a long or a short time; I never left a man in the house of learning when I went away, and I never talk about worldly affairs, and I never decided a thing which I had not heard from my Masters.

It was said of R. Johanan b. Zakai: Never in his life did he talk of worldly affairs; he never walked four ells without studying the Law and without tefilin; he was never anticipated by another in turning to the house of learning, and did not sleep in the house of learning even a short time; he did not teach about the Law in dirty alleys; he did not leave a man in the house of learning when he went away; he was never to be found silent, but always studying aloud, and never anybody opened the door for his disciples but himself; he never decided a thing he had not heard from his Master, and he never said it was time to go out of the house of learning except on the eves of Passover and on the eves of the Days of Atonement. And R. Eliezer his disciple conducted himself similarly.

The rabbis taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty disciples: thirty of them were worthy that the Shekhina should rest on them as on Moses our Master; thirty of them were worthy the sun should be stopped for their sake, as it did before Joshua the son of Nun, and twenty were mediocre. The greatest of all the disciples was Jonathan b. Uziel, the least of all was R. Johanan b. Zakai. It was said of the latter, that he did not leave out the Bible, the Mishna, the Gemara, Halakhoth, and Agadoth (legends), the observations of the Bible, observations of the Scribes, lenient ones and vigorous ones, the analogies of expression, equinoxes, geometries, the language of the angels and the language of the evil spirits and the language of the trees, the fables, the great things, the heavenly chariots and small things, the discussions of Abayi and Rabha, to confirm what is written [Prov. viii. 21]: "That I may cause those that love me to inherit a lasting possession and their treasures will I fill." And when the least of all was so, how much the more was the greatest of all. It was said of Jonathan b. Uziel, that when he studied the Law every bird that flew over him was burned.

MISHNA: If the head and greater part of a man's body is in the booth, and his table in the house, Beth Shammai say he has not fulfilled the duty of Succah, but Beth Hillel say he has. Said Beth Hillel to Beth Shammai: Did it not happen that the elders of Beth Shammai and those of Beth Hillel visited R. Johanan b. Hahoronith, and found him sitting with his head and greater part of his body in the booth, and his table was in the house? and they said to him nothing. Beth Shammai replied: Do you adduce this as a proof? They said to him: If such has always been your custom, you have never in your life properly fulfilled the duty of Succah.

Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the Succah. A boy that needs no longer the nursing of his mother must obey the command of Succah. It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth to a son on the festival, so he caused the roof to be taken off, and covered it as a Succah for the sake of the infant.

GEMARA: Whence is all this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: The verse could say Ezrah ("an Israelite born"). That would include the women. But it is written Ha'ezrah, "the Israelites born," which means the certain Israelites, and to exclude women. And by the word "all" it is meant to include minors. Shall we assume that the expression "Israelites born" includes women also? Did not we learn in a Boraitha (concerning the Day of Atonement), where it is written, "the Israelite born," which means to include women, for whom it is as obligatory to fast as for males? From this we see that when it is written, "Israelites born," only males are meant? Said Rabha: That is not deduced from the passages, but it is all Sinaic, and the passages were taken as a support. But which passage, and which Sinaic law? And, again, to what purpose was a verse or a Sinaic law needed at all? Is not the Succah a commandment dependent on a certain season, and from all commands depending on certain seasons women are free? This is concerning Succah; and concerning the Day of Atonement this is deduced from what R. Jehudah says in the name of Rabh; and so also taught the disciples of R. Ishmael. It is written [Num. v. 6]: "If any man or woman commit a sin." From this we see that the verse made the man and the woman equal in all penalties of the Torah.

Said Abayi: That a woman is exempt from the Succah is a Sinaic law, and nevertheless this support of a verse was needed, because one might say it is written, "Ye shall dwell"; and as in a dwelling are usually a man and wife, we might think that in the Succah there should also be a man and wife, it comes to teach us that it is not so. Rabha said: It is needed lest one say, by an analogy of expression, it is written about Passover on the fifteenth, and here, as on Passover, it is obligatory for women, so it is also on the Feast of Tabernacles, it comes to teach us that it is not so. Now, when you say there is a Sinaic law, why is the passage needed? It comes to include the proselytes; one might say the Israelites born, but not a proselyte, we are taught that they also are included. But the Day of Atonement, that is inferred from the above saying of R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh. Why is the Sinaic law here needed? This is needed for the addition to the Day of Atonement from the preceding day, which is biblical, but has no capital punishment. One might say that because the addition has no punishment, the women are exempt; the Sinaic law comes to say it is not so.

The Master says: All, to include the minors. But have we not learned in our Mishna, that women, slaves, minors, are free from Succah? This presents no difficulty: The Mishna means a case in which the minor is not yet old enough to be trained in a religious duty, and the Boraitha means a case of a minor old enough for that. But in case of a minor who has reached such an age, the duty is only rabbinical? Yea, the passage is taken only as a support.

"A minor that needs not the nursing of his mother." What is meant by this? A minor who can obey the call of nature without the aid of his mother. So said the disciples of R. Yanai. But Resh Lakish said: A child that on awakening does not cry: Mother! mother!

"It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai," etc. Is not this act a contradiction to the former teaching? The Mishna is not completed. It must be read so: "And Shammai the Elder is more rigorous, and it happened also that his daughter-in-law gave birth to a son, so he caused the roof to be removed, and covered it as a Succah for the sake of the infant."

MISHNA: During the seven days of the festival one must use the booth as the regular domicile, and the house only as an occasional abode. If it rains, when is he permitted to remove from the Succah? When a mess of porridge has been spoiled. The elders illustrate this by a comparison: What does such a circumstance resemble? As if a servant presented a goblet to his master, who throws a bowl full in his face.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: All the seven days one must use the booth as one's regular domicile. How so? If he has fine utensils, he shall place them in the Succah; if he has fine bedding, he should transfer it to the Succah; and he should eat, and drink, and walk only in the Succah. Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: It is written: "Ye shall dwell"; it means, it shall be as a regular dwelling, and from this was deduced that all the seven days one shall make the Succah his regular dwelling, and his house a temporary one. He shall eat, drink, and study in the Succah. Is it so? Did not Rabha say that only to read the Bible and to learn a Mishna one may in the Succah, but study one may not? This presents no difficulty. The Boraitha means to repeat what he had studied already, and Rabha--to study something new, as Rabha and Rami, while studying under R. Hisda, used to repeat his lecture among themselves first, and afterwards tried to find out the reasons of it. Rabha said: The vessels for drinking shall be kept in the Succah; but the vessels for eating, outside. A pitcher of clay, outside of the Succah, a candlestick of clay in the Succah, and according to others, outside, and they do not differ; it means, in a large Succah it may; in a small one, it may not, because it is dangerous.

"If it rains." We have learned in a Boraitha: When a mess of gris is spoiled (which is spoiled easily).

Abayi was sitting in the presence of R. Joseph in the Succah, and a wind blew the chips from the covering into the dish, and R. Joseph said: Take off the dishes, and we will go out. Said Abayi to him: Have we not learned in the Mishna: Till the porridge is spoiled? And he answered: As I am delicate, the chips do me as great harm.

The rabbis taught: If one ate in the Succah and rain fell, and he went away and took his meal in the house, when it clears again we do not trouble him to interrupt his meal, and to go back to the Succah. If he was sleeping in the Succah and it rained, and he went away to sleep in the house, he is not aroused when it clears again, till the next morning.

"What does such a circumstance resemble?" The schoolmen asked: What is meant by this? Come and hear. We have learned in a Boraitha: As if the master threw the pitcher into the servant's face, and said to him: I do not want your service more.

The rabbis taught: An eclipse of the sun is an ill omen to the whole world. What does this resemble? A human king making a banquet for his servants, and placing a great lantern before them, when he gets angry he says to his servant: Take away the light, let them sit in the dark.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Meir said: When the sun and the moon are eclipsed, it is a bad sign to the enemies of the Israelites (meaning, the Israelites themselves), because they are used to troubles: it is equal to the teacher's coming to the school with his whip in his hand. Who is more afraid? The child used to being beaten. This is the case when Israel do not do the will of the Creator; but when they do, they need not fear anything, as it is written [Jeremiah, x. 82]: "Thus hath said the Lord: Do not habituate yourselves in the way of the nations, and at the signs of the heavens be ye not dismayed; although the nations should be dismayed at them."

The rabbis taught: On account of the following four things the sun becomes eclipsed: When a chief judge dies, and is not lamented becomingly; when a betrothed virgin calls for help in the town, and is not aided; unnatural vice; when two brothers are killed on the same day; and on account of the following four things both the sun and the moon are eclipsed: Forgery, false witness, when fruit-bearing trees are cut out, and when sheep and goats are kept in Palestine. On account of four things the property of householders is transferred (confiscated) to the government: When paid notes are kept; usury; and when men had the power to prevent, but would not; and when charity was promised to the people, and was not given. Rabh said: For four things the property of householders becomes annihilated: When they keep workers, and do not pay them in time; for robbing them; when the strangers free themselves from the yokes on their necks and put them on their neighbors' necks; and for arrogance. And arrogance is the worst of all. But of those who are modest is written [Ps. xxxvii. 11]: "But the meek shall inherit the land, and shall delight themselves because of the abundance of peace."

REGULATIONS CONCERNING PALM BRANCHES, MYRTLES, WILLOWS, AND CITRONS USED ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES.

MISHNA: A palm branch which has been acquired by theft, or which is dried, is not valid. One which comes from a grove (devoted to idolatry) or from a rejected town is not valid; if the point has been broken off, or the leaves torn off, it is not valid; if they are only dissevered, it is valid. R. Jehudah says: It must be tied together at the top. A palm branch from the Iron Mount is valid. A palm branch that is three spans long, sufficient to shake it by, is valid.

GEMARA: The Mishna does not mention on which day it is valid, and on which not; and from this we can infer that it is invalid even for the second day. This would be right only in case of a dried one, because it is written hadar, which means "beauty," which a dried one has not; but a robbed one--that is prohibited only because it must be his own, as stated above (p. 34)--but on the second day, which is wholly rabbinical, why should it be invalid? Said R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jochi: Because it is a religious duty that is performed by a sin. R. Johanan said again in the name of the same authority: It is written [Is. lxi. 8]: "For I, the Lord, love justice: I hate robbery with burnt-offering." It resembles a human king who passed the custom-house and said to his servants: "Pay the duty to the officers"; and the servants said to him: "Why shall we give duties? All the duties are thine"; and he said: "All passengers shall learn it from me, and shall not shirk to pay their duty." So the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "I, the Lord, hate robbery with a burnt-offering of me shall my children learn, and avoid robbery."

It was taught also in the name of R. Ami: A withered one is invalid, because it has no beauty; and a robbed one is invalid, because it is a religious duty done by a sin.

R. Huna said to the sellers of the myrtles: If you buy myrtles from the heathen, do not cut them off yourselves, but let themselves cut off, and give them to you. Why so? Because most heathen have robbed the ground from the Israelites, and the robber is not considered the owner of the ground, even when the original owner has despaired of it (but the law is different about movable property). And therefore, if you will cut off yourselves, that will be as taking a robbed thing; but when they cut off, and as the original owners have despaired, the cut-off myrtle boughs become theirs, and you may buy them.

The rabbis taught: A robbed Succah or a roof made in a public street, R. Eliezer makes invalid, but the sages make it valid. Said R. Na'hman: They differ only when the ground on which the Succah is built belongs to his neighbor, and he put out the neighbor and took the Succah to himself. This is according to R. Eliezer's theory, who said that one cannot fulfil his duty in his neighbor's Succah. It is invalid in any case. According to those who say that the robber of ground is considered the owner of it, after the original owner has despaired, it is a robbed Succah; and even according to those who say that he can never become the owner of the ground, it is nevertheless a borrowed Succah (because it is not a robbed one). But the sages hold to their theory that one can fulfil his duty in a borrowed Succah, and also that ground cannot be robbed; therefore it is valid, because it is considered as a borrowed Succah. But if one has robbed wood, and made a roof, according to all, the owner of the wood has only to claim his money, but the wood becomes the property of the robber, and the Succah is valid. And he infers this from the expression of the Mishna, "a robbed Succah or a roof made in public ground," as in the latter case the ground was certainly not his, so also the robbed Succah means, that the ground was also not his and he has robbed it.

It happened once that an old woman came to R. Na'hman and said: The exilarch, and all the sages of the house of the exilarch, are sitting in a robbed Succah. She complained, but he did not answer her. Said she again: A woman whose father had three hundred and eighteen slaves complains before you, and you do not pay attention. R. Na'hman said to the sages: The woman is only a prattler: she has to claim only the money for the wood that has been taken for the use of the Succah.

Rabhina said: If a beam of the roof of a Succah has been robbed, the sages have arranged that only money for it should be returned to the owner, and not the beam itself. Is this not self-evident? What is the difference between a beam and wood, as just mentioned above? One might say wood can be found in any place, and one can buy it for the money; but a beam, which is not so common, should be returned. They come to teach us that during the seven days of the festival, one can lay claim only to money, but after the festival it must be returned, provided one has not attached it with clay; but if one has, even after the seven days only the money shall be given.

We have learned in a Boraitha: A withered palm branch is invalid, but R. Jehudah makes it valid. Said Rabha: They differ only about a Lulab that is rabbinical. The sages hold that we compare a Lulab to a citron: as the citron must be beautiful, because it is written hadar (beauty), so the Lulab must be beautiful; and R. Jehudah does not hold this theory, and says that a Lulab need not be beautiful, but a withered citron, according to all, is invalid. Does R. Jehudah require that a citron shall be beautiful? Did we not learn in a Boraitha: The four kinds that are with the Lulab, as there must not be less, so nothing shall be added to them? If one did not find a citron, he cannot replace it with a lemon or a pomegranate, or anything else; and if they are withered they are valid, but if dried, then invalid. R. Jehudah, however, said: Even when dry, they are valid. And he says again: The inhabitants of great cities used to transmit their Lulabs to their grandchildren. And they answered him: This cannot prove, because the places where such things are rarities do not prove. Hence we see that R. Jehudah said that even dry ones are valid, and this includes also citrons? Nay, R. Jehudah meant only the Lulab when he said dry ones are valid.

The text says: "If he cannot find a citron, he shall not replace it with a lemon," etc. Is not this self-evident? One might say, he shall replace it with something, lest the command. of a citron should be forgotten: it comes to teach us that if it would be done so, the later generations might use such things forever. Come and hear: An old citron is invalid, but R. Jehudah says it is valid. Is this not a contradiction to the saying of Rabha above, that R. Jehudah meant only the Lulab, and not a citron? Yea, it is a contradiction. But how can R. Jehudah say that an old one is valid? is it not written hadar (beautiful)? R. Jehudah explains the word hadar not to mean "beauty," but "dwelling"; that means, a fruit which dwells on its tree the whole year.

"If the point was broken off." Said R. Huna: If it is broken off; but if it is only split, it is valid. But have we not learned in a Boraitha: A bristly Lulab or one crooked like a scythe, a split one, a hardened one, is invalid. But if it seems hardened, and in reality is not, it is valid. Hence we see that a split one is also invalid? Said R. Papa: By "split" is here meant one growing as a fork, into two different directions. "Crooked like a scythe," said Rabha; "that is only if it is bent forward, but if backward it is natural, and it is valid." Said R. Na'hman: If bent sideways, it is as if forward. According to others, R. Na'hman says it is as if bent backward. Rabha said again: A Lulab that has all the leaves on one side, and on the other side none at all, is blemished and is invalid.

"If the leaves were torn off." Said R. Papa: By torn off is meant that it is made like a broom. What is meant by dissevered? When the leaves grow as branches of a tree, in different directions.

R. Papa put a question: If the "twins" of the Lulab are divided, how is the law (the double leaves on a palm branch are called "twins")? Come and hear: R. Mathun in the name of R. Joshuah b. Levi said: If the "twins" are divided, it is as if the leaves were torn off, and it is invalid.

"R. Jehudah says," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Tarphon: The expression "branches of palm trees" is Kapoth Tmarim. As the word kapoth signifies in Aramaic "bound," "tied," if the Lulab was separated, it must be tied together. Said Rabhina to R. Ashi: How is it known that by Kapoth Tmarim is meant a young Lulab that has been the first year on the tree? Perhaps the branches are meant when they are two or three years old, when the leaves spread on all sides? We require that they shall be tied together, and in that case they cannot be tied at all.

"A Lulab from the Iron Mount." Said Abayi The case is only when the top of one reaches the lower part of the one that grows over it; but if not, they are invalid.

"A Lulab three spans long." Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The prescribed size for a myrtle bough and willow is three spans, and of the Lulab four, so that the Lulab shall be one span higher than the myrtle bough and willow when they are tied, R. Parnach in the name of R. Johanan said: (Not the leaves, but) the back of the Lulab, should be one span higher. Come and hear: The prescribed size of a myrtle bough and willow is three spans, of a Lulab four spans: is it not meant with the leaves? Nay, it is meant, besides the leaves. The Boraitha says farther on: R. Tarphon says: It shall be measured with an ell of five spans. Said Rabha: May the Lord forgive R. Tarphon for such teaching: A myrtle bough of three spans is not to be found, and he calls for a myrtle bough of the length of five spans. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said that R. Tarphon meant to say so: An ell which was five spans, consider it as if it was six spans, and three spans of this take off for the myrtle bough, and the remainder, which is about two and a half, for the Lulab. If it is so, then it is a contradiction to Samuel, for according to R. Tarphon the myrtle bough would be only two and a half spans, and Samuel said it must be three spans? Samuel was not particular in his decision, and said more rigorously, three. But, nevertheless, R. Huna says in his name that the Halakha prevails according to R. Tarphon.

MISHNA: A myrtle bough which has been acquired by theft, or which is dry, is not valid. One which comes from a grove or from a rejected town is invalid. If the tip has been broken off, or the leaves torn off, or if one has on it more berries than leaves, it is invalid; if the berries are diminished in number it becomes valid, but this must not be done on the festival. A willow of the brook, which has been acquired by theft, or which is dry, is invalid. One which comes from a grove, or a rejected town, is not valid. If the point has been broken off, or the leaves torn off, or if it be a Tzaphtzapha, it is invalid. One which is faded, or from which some leaves have dropped off, or which has grown on dry ground (not near a bank), is valid.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It is written: "Boughs of the myrtle tree"; that is, a tree whose branches cover the whole tree, and this is only a myrtle tree. Rabha said: We take a myrtle bough because it is written [Zechariah, viii. 19]: "Only love ye the truth and peace" (as a myrtle is an emblem of peace and love, therefore we take it on the festival).

The rabbis taught: A branch that is twined like a chain, that is the myrtle. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: It is written: "The branch of a twined tree." That means, a tree whose trunk and fruit have the same taste, and that is a myrtle. In a Boraitha we have learned: A branch that is twined, is valid; if not, it is invalid. What is meant by twined? Said R. Jehudah: On each stem are three leaves. R. Kahna however, says: Even if on one stem are two, and on the other one, it is also reckoned three. R. A'ha the son of Rabha was looking for a myrtle bough which had two and one and two and one because this has been announced by R. Kahna. Said Mar bar Amemar to R. Ashi: My father calls such a myrtle a wild myrtle.

The rabbis taught: If the greater number of leaves have dropped, and on three stems they remained, it is valid. The rabbis taught: If the greater part of the leaves on the bough have dried up and only three twigs, each containing three leaves, remained, it is valid. Said R. Hisda, provided that the remainder are on the top of each.

"If the tip has been broken off." Ulla bar Hinna taught: If the tip has been broken off, and in its place is a green fruit like a date (Rashi explains this, that on the top of a myrtle there happen to be green fruits, with which women paint their vails), it is valid. R. Jeremiah put a question: If the tip had been broken off on the eve of the festival, and this green fruit grew up on the festival, how is the law? Shall it be said that, because it was not fit on the eve, it has been rejected, and cannot be used any more; or, the law of rejecting does not apply to religious duties? This question is not decided. Shall we assume that this is a point of difference between the following Tanaim: We have learned: If one has transgressed, and cut off the berries on the festival, it is invalid, according to R. Elazer b. R. Zodok; but according to the sages it is valid? Must we not assume that he who says it is invalid does it because he holds the law of rejecting applies to religious duties, and as this branch with the berries was rejected on the eve of the festival, it was rejected for the whole festival, and he who says it is valid does so because he holds that the law of rejecting does not apply to religious duties? Nay, all agree that the law of rejecting applies to the positive commandments of religious duties, but in this case they differ whether a Lulab must be tied or not, as on this point differ the Tanaim of the following Boraitha: A Lulab, whether tied or not, is valid. R. Jehudah, however, said: A tied one is valid; if not, it is invalid. What is the reason of R. Jehudah? He infers it from an analogy of expression. It is written here [Lev. xxiii. 40]: "Ye shall take unto yourselves on the first day," and [in Ex. xii. 22] "and ye shall take a bunch of hyssop"; as there it is plainly written a bunch, so also here it must be tied as a bunch, and the sages do not take into consideration this analogy of expression.

"If one has more berries on it than leaves." R. Hisda said: The following thing said our great rabbi (i.e., Rabh), and the Lord come to his help: The case is only if it was in one place, but if the berries were in two or three places, then it is valid. Said Rabha to him: If it was in two or three places, it seems spotted, and it is invalid? Therefore if such a thing was taught, it was taught thus, said R. Hisda: The following thing our great rabbi said, and may God come to his help: The case is only when the berries were black; but if they were green, they are the same as the myrtle bough, and it is valid.

"If they have been diminished in number," etc. They have been diminished in number when? If before it was tied, it is self-evident, and if after it was tied, then it was rejected for the festival, and how made good? Infer from this that the law of rejecting does not apply to religious duties! Nay, we can say that the case is even after it had been tied, but the Tana of the Mishna holds that the tying is not considered a construction, but only a preparation, and does not therefore count it.

The rabbis taught: They must not be diminished in number on the festival. In the name of R. Eliezer bar Simeon, however, it was said: It maybe done. But is not this like repairing a utensil on the festival? Said R. Ashi: R. Eliezer means to say, that if he took off the berries for the purpose of eating, and he holds as his father, that a thing which was done unintentionally is allowed.

The rabbis taught: If the binding of the Lulab was loosened on the festival, one shall tie it as he usually ties a bundle of herbs. Why? Let him tie it into a loop (not a knot). That is according to R. Jehudah, who said in Sabbath (p. 233), that tying into a loop is like a knot, for either is culpable. But according to R. Jehudah the Lulab must be tied not as a bundle of herbs, but in a good knot? This Tana holds as R. Jehudah in one thing, and differs from him in the other.

"A willow of the brook," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written "A willow of the brook." That means, they usually grow near every brook. According to others, the willow of the brook means that it has leaves smooth as a brook. In another Boraitha we have learned: The willows of the brook! Whence do we deduce that willows from dry ground and mountains are valid? It is written "willows," in the plural: all are included. Abba Shaul, however, said: The plural signifies that two are needed: one for the Lulab and one for the Temple. And whence do the rabbis deduce that One for the Temple? They hold it is Sinaic (as will be explained farther on).

The rabbis taught: Willows of the brook, that grow only at brooks; but the Tzaphtzapha, which grows only between mountains, is excepted.

The rabbis taught: How can we recognize what is a willow and what is a Tzaphtzapha? The willow's stem is red, with the leaves elongated and their edges smooth. But a Tzaphtzapha has the stem white, and the leaves round, and their edges like a scythe. But have we not learned, if it is like a scythe, it is valid, and when like a saw it is invalid? Said Abayi: This we learned of the willows of Hilpha Gila: they are valid. Abayi said again: We may infer from this that the same willows may be used for the seventh day when Hosha'noth are used. Is not this self-evident? One would say that because the willows of Hilpha Gila have an additional name, they are not valid, he comes to teach that it is not so. But perhaps it is so? Because it is written in the plural, all are included.

MISHNA: R. Ishmael says: Three myrtle boughs, two willows, one palm branch, and one citron are needed. If two out of the three myrtle boughs had the tips broken off, they may be used. R. Tarphon says: Even if all three should have the tips broken off. R. Aqiba says-: As one Lulab and one citron are needed, so are only one myrtle bough and one willow needed.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha,: It is written: The fruit of the tree hadar," in the singular. one fruit; "a branch of a palm tree," in the singular, one branch; "boughs of the myrtle tree, "in the plural, three; and "willows of the brook," also in the plural, two. And even if two had the tips broken off, it is valid. R. Tarphon, however, said: Three are needed; and if all the tips are broken off, it does not matter. R. Aqiba said: As the Lulab and the citron are only one, so of the myrtle boughs and the willows is needed only one. Said R. Eliezer to him: According to thee, the citron must be tied together with the Lulab? And he answered: Did the verse say: "The fruit of the tree hadar and a branch of a palm tree"? It mentions them separately. If so, whence do we know that one depends upon the other? Because it is written: "Ye shall take." That means, you shall take all things that are enumerated, and not one without the other. How shall we imagine the case, according to R. Ishmael? If all kinds have to be entire, why are the myrtle boughs allowed if they are broken? And if it is not required that they should be entire, let even the other kinds, if broken, be used? Said Birah in the name of R. Ammi: R. Ishmael retracted this decision. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: The Halakha prevails according to R. Tarphon, and Samuel said this according to his theory, because he said to the sellers of the myrtles: Make the price lower, and if you will not do so, I will lecture that the Halakha prevails according to R. Tarphon. Let him then lecture according to R. Aqiba, who is more lenient, and says only one is needed? Three with the tips broken are more easily procurable than one uninjured.

MISHNA: A citron which has been robbed, or is withered, is invalid. One coming from a grove or a rejected town is invalid. One taken off a tree less than three years old is not valid. Nor one taken from heave-offering that is unclean. From clean heave-offering a man is not to take a citron; but if he has taken, he has fulfilled his duty. One taken from Demai (fruit from which it is doubtful whether the legal dues have been paid) Beth Shammai hold invalid, but Beth Hillel hold it valid. A man is not to take a citron from second tithe in Jerusalem; but if he has taken one, he has done his duty. If a stain spread over the greater portion of the citron, if it has lost its crown, or the fine rind has been peeled off, or if it is split, or perforated, if ever so little thereof is wanting, it is not valid. If, however, the stain is spread over the smaller portion of the citron, if it has lost its stalk, or if that be perforated (but the citron itself is entire) so that no part, however small, be wanting, it is valid. A dark-colored one is invalid, a leek-green one R. Meir pronounces valid, but R. Jehudah invalid.

The minimum size of a small citron, R. Meir says, is like a nut; R. Jehudah says, like an egg; and of a large citron, that one can hold two in one hand. So is the decree of R. Jehudah; but R. Jose says, even one must be taken with both hands.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The fruit of the tree hadar; that is, a tree whose wood and fruit have the same taste, and that is a citron. Perhaps it is pepper, as we learn in the following Boraitha: R. Meir used to say: Because it is written [Lev. xix. 23]: "Plant any kind of tree, bearing edible fruit." Why was it needed to say, a tree bearing edible fruit? Is it not self-evident that if it is bearing fruit it is edible? From this we infer that to pepper, whose wood and fruit have the same taste, the law of Arlah applies. And in the land of Israel nothing is lacking (even pepper), as it is written [Deut. viii. 9]: "A land... wherein thou shalt not lack anything"? Because it is impossible: how shall we do? Shall we take one pepper-grain, that will not be noticed at all, many of them; the law says one, not two or three; and therefore it cannot be. R. Abahu says: Do not read hadar, but ha-dar; that is, a thing that dwells on its tree the whole year. Ben Azzai said: Do not read hadar, but adur, because in Greek they call water ὕδωρ, and that means a tree which can grow in all waters, and that is only a citron.

"One that comes from a grove," etc. Because it must be burned, and therefore it is considered to have no size.

"From a tree less than three years," etc. Why so? R. Hiya bar Abbin and R. Assi differed: one says, because it is not allowed to eat it, it must not be used either; and one says, because at that time it is worth nothing (because it must not be used for any purpose).

R. Assi said: With a citron of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a man cannot fulfil his duty; but according to the sages, he can. The same is the case with Matzah of second tithe. And dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from Halah, and according to the sages, is not.

"From unclean heave-offering." Because it is not allowed to eat it. And from clean heave-offering? "One shall not take," etc. R. Ami and R. Assi differ: one says, because he makes it subject to defilement, and one says, because he spoils it (because, when he holds it in the hand, it gets black, and is spoiled).

"But if he has taken, it is valid." According to those who say that it must not be taken, because it is not allowed to be eaten, this law is according to all; and according to those who say because it has no value, this Mishna is only in accordance with the rabbis.

"From Demai." What is the reason of Beth Hillel? Because if one wishes, he can relinquish his estates, and then he would be poor, and he would be allowed to eat it; therefore now also we consider it proper.

"If a stain," etc. Said R. Hisda: The following thing our great rabbi said, may the Lord come to his help: The case is only when it is in one place (of the citron), but if it is in two or more places, it is like a spotted one, and is invalid. Said Rabha: On its top, even if it is but trifling, it is invalid.

"Its crown," etc. R. Itz'hak b. Elazar taught: The crown, but not the stalk at the bottom.

"Peeled off," etc. Said Rabha: If a citron has been peeled, and gets the color of a red date, it is valid. But did we not learn in our Mishna that if peeled, it is invalid? It presents no difficulty. If it was in part peeled off, it is like a spotted one, and invalid; but if entirely peeled, it is valid.

"Split or perforated," etc. Ulla bar Hanina taught: When it is perforated through and through, even if it is trifling, it is invalid; but otherwise, then if the hole is of the size of an Isar (a coin), it is also invalid, but if less it is valid.

A citron that is swollen, ill-smelling, soaked, boiled, black or white, or spotted, is invalid. A citron round as a sphere (not elliptical) is invalid. According to some, twins (two growing together) are also invalid. An unripe citron R. Aqiba makes invalid, and the sages do not. If it was made to grow in a mould, and it came out of an irregular shape, it is invalid.

It was taught: "A citron that mice have perforated," said Rabh, "cannot be called beautiful."

"And of a large citron," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jose said it once happened to R. Aqiba that he came to a prayer-house with his citron, and it was so large that he brought it on his shoulder. Said R. Jehudah to him: It proves nothing, because the sages told him then: This cannot be considered beautiful,

MISHNA: The Lulab must only be tied with its own kind (threads of palm branches). So says R. Jehudah. But R. Meir says: It may be tied even with twine. R. Meir also said: It happened that the inhabitants of Jerusalem tied a Lulab with gold lace. But the sages answered: Yes, they did so, but beneath the gold lace they tied it with its own kind.

GEMARA: Said Rabha: With the bark or the root of the same tree it may be tied. And he says again: What is, the reason of R. Jehudah's decree? Because according to him the Lulab must not be used unless it is tied, and if it be tied with another kind, it should be five kinds, and not four. He says again: Whence do I deduce that the bark and the root of the palm tree are considered of the same kind as the Lulab itself? From the following Boraitha: It is written: "Ye shall dwell in booths." That signifies, a booth of any materials: so is the decree of R. Meir. R. Jehudah, however, said: A booth must be made only of the four kinds used for the Lulab. And it seems to me that such is right, because if a Lulab which is used only in the day, and not in the night, must have the four kinds only, for a Succah which is used both by day and by night, so much the more are the four kinds needed. Replied the sages to him: Every law which is at the beginning more rigorous, and is finally more lenient, is no law at all. And our case, according to your opinion, if one did not find the four kinds, he should sit in his house, doing nothing; and the Torah says: "Seven days ye shall dwell in booths." Therefore we say a Succah should be made of any materials. And so it is written in Nehemiah, viii. 15: "Go forth unto the mountain and fetch olive leaves, and oleaster leaves, and myrtle leaves, and palm leaves, and leaves of the three-leaved myrtle to make booths." R. Jehudah, however, explains this verse thus: That olive leaves and oleaster leaves are for the walls of the Succah, and myrtle leaves, etc., are for the covering. And we have learned in a previous Mishna: It may be roofed with boards, so is the decree of R. Jehudah. Hence we see that, although R. Jehudah requires only the four kinds for the covering, nevertheless, if one has covered it with boards, it is valid, because the boards of the bark and of the roots of the same tree are considered by him of the same kind. But have we not learned in a Boraitha that if one has covered it with boards of cedar, it is valid according to R. Jehudah? By cedar is also Meant myrtle, as Rabha bar R. Huna says elsewhere: There are ten kinds of cedar, and the myrtle is among them, as it is written [Is. xli. 19]: "I will place in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, the myrtle."

Said Rabba to the men who tied the Hosha'noth for the exilarch When you tie them, leave the breadth of a hand at the bottom there shall be no intervention between the hand and the Hosha'na. Said Rabha: All that was made to beautify it, does not intervene. Rabba says again: A man shall not hold the Hosha'na through a cloth, because it is written: "Ye shall take," with your own hands. Rabha, however, said: Even if one takes it through another thing, it is still called taking. Rabba says again: After the Hosha'na and the myrtle bough have been tied, one shall not insert the Lulab, lest some leaves be torn off from them, and they will be an intervention between the Lulab and them. Rabba, however, said: A thing of the same kind makes no intervention.

Rabba says again: A myrtle bough used for the religious purpose may not be smelled, but a citron may. Why so? Because the myrtle is only used because of its odor, and as it has been designated for a religious purpose, it must not be smelled; but a citron, which is made for eating, has been designated only for eating, and may be smelled. The same authority says again: A myrtle attached to the ground may be smelled on the festival, but a citron must not. Why so? Because a myrtle, which is used only for smelling, if one will be allowed to smell it, when yet attached to the ground, he will not cut off; but a citron, which is for eating, if he will be allowed to smell, he will cut off, and eat. He says again: The Lulab must be held in the right hand, and the citron in the left hand. Why so? Because by the Lulab three duties are performed, and by the citron only one.

Said R. Jeremiah to R.. Zrika: Why do we pronounce the benediction over the Lulab only? Because it is higher than the other kinds. But let one raise the citron, and pronounce the benediction over it? And he answered: Because by nature it grows higher than the other kinds..

MISHNA: When must the Lulab be shaken? At the verse: "Praise ye the Lord" (in the prayer), at the beginning and ending (of that part of the prayer), and at the verse: "O Lord, we beseech thee, save us": so is the decree of Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai hold, also at the verse: "O Lord, we beseech thee, prosper us." R. Aqiba said: I watched Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshuah (in the time of prayer), and I saw while all men shook the Lulabs at both the above-mentioned verses, they shook theirs only at: "O Lord," etc., "save us."

GEMARA: Where is it mentioned that it should be shaken? In the first Mishna of this chapter: it teaches, a Lulab which is three spans long "sufficient to shake it by"; and now it is asked, When shall it be shaken? Said R. Johanan: The shaking shall be towards all four sides--to the Creator, that all the sides are His; and it shall be raised and lowered to Him to whom the heaven and the earth belong. In the West they taught so: R. Hama bar Uqba in the name of R. Jose bar Hanina said: He shall shake towards all sides, to prevent bad winds; and up and down, to prevent bad dews.

MISHNA: If one is on the road, and has no Lulab, he must, when he gets home, shake it before his meal. If he has not done it in the morning, he must do it toward evening, as the duty may be done during the whole day.

If a slave, woman, or minor reads hallel (see Pesachim, Chap. X., pp. 242-46) to a man, he should repeat after them word for word, but it is a disgrace to him (not to have learned to read). If a grown man reads to him, he only responds "Hallelujah." At the places where certain verses are said twice, he is to do so. Where they are recited once, he must do so. Where a benediction is said after the Lulab, he must say it. In every case he must do as is the custom of the country.

GEMARA: Rabha said: Great Halakhoth can be inferred from the custom of saying Hallel: From the custom of our time, when almost all men can read the Hallel themselves, nevertheless they repeat the beginnings of the chapters after the reader, we may infer what are the essential portions of Hallel, and how it was done in the ancient times, when the people could not read themselves, and a man was wanted to read it, for them to repeat after him. The Mishna says: He responds "Hallelujah." From this we see that Hallelujah is of the essential portions which must be responded. We see also in our time, when the reader begins: "Praise, O ye servants of the Lord," and the people respond, "Hallelujah," we may infer that if a grown man is the reader of the Hallel, it is sufficient for the hearer to respond "Hallelujah," and not to repeat the whole chapter (part of the prayer). From what we see, that when the reader says, "Praise ye the Lord," they also repeat, "Praise ye the Lord," we infer that it is a merit to repeat the first verses of the chapter.

[It was also taught: R. Hanan bar Rabha said: It is a merit to repeat the first verses of the chapter.] When the reader says: "O Lord, save us," they should repeat it. If the reader is a minor, however, one must repeat after him word for word. When he says: "O Lord, prosper us," they repeat it, and from this we see that if one wishes to say it twice, he may do so. When he says, "Blessed be he that cometh," they respond, "in the name of the Lord." From this we see that he who listens to the prayer is equal to him who himself repeats it.

R. Hiya bar Abba was asked: If one has listened to the prayer, and not responded, how is the law? And he answered: The sages, the scribes, the heads of the people, the preachers, all have decided that he who has listened, and not answered, has fulfilled his duty.

"At the places where verses are said twice," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: Rabbi used to say twice in the Hallel same parts. R. Elazar b. Parta has added parts to the same prayer. What is meant by "added"? Said Abayi: He added the manner of saying twice every verse from the 21st verse of Psalm cxviii. to the end of that psalm.

"When it is the custom to say a benediction," etc. Said Abayi, that is only at the end of the Hallel; but before, it is not a custom, but obligatory. As R. Jehudah said in the name of Samuel: All the religious duties must have a benediction pronounced before they are performed.

MISHNA: If one buys a Lulab from a man of the common people in a Sabbatical year, he shall ask of him that the citron shall be given to him as a gift, because it is not allowed to buy a citron in the Sabbatical year.

GEMARA: But how is the law if the seller does not want to give him this as a gift? Said R. Huna: He shall include the price of the citron in the price for the Lulab. Why? Let him give it to him publicly? Because one must not give money for fruits forbidden to be sold on the Sabbatical year to a man of the common people. As we have learned in a Boraitha: One must not give money for fruit on the Sabbatical year to a man of the common people more than is sufficient for three meals; and if one has done it, he shall say: This money that I give to this man shall be exchanged for the fruit which I have in my house, and after that he uses the fruit which he has had in the house only for purposes for which fruit of the Sabbatical year may be used. When is that the case? When he saw that the man sold to him fruit from a field left to the public, which had no owner; but if he sold it from his own field, one must not buy even for half an isar. If it is so, why only the citron? What is the case with the palm branch? The Lulab cannot be of the Sabbatical year, because it had been ripe on the sixth year. But the same is the case with the citron? In case of a citron, it is not counted from the time of its ripeness, but its removal from the tree (as is explained in Tract Rosh Hashana, p. 19). But we know that according to both R. Gamaliel and R. Eliezer, in reference to the Sabbatical year, in case of the citron it is counted from the time of its budding.

As we have learned in the following Mishna: The citron is equal to a tree in three respects, and to herbs in one respect--to a tree in three respects, to wit: Of arla (the first three years), rebai (the fourth year) [Lev. xix. 22-24], and of the Sabbatical year, in reference to which it is counted from the time of its budding; and to a herb in one respect, that it must be tithed when it is gathered (i.e., the tithe must be used for the purpose of that year). So is the decree of Rabban Gamaliel. R. Eliezer, however, said: A citron is equal to a tree in all respects (hence we see that all agree that in reference to the Sabbatical year it is counted in case of the citron from the time of its ripeness, not of its budding). The Tana of our Mishna holds as the Tana of the following Boraitha: R. Jose said: Abtulmus testified in the name of five elders, thus: The citron must be counted from the time when it is gathered for tithe. Our Masters, however, have voted and decided in the city of Usha that in reference both to tithe and Sabbatical year it is to be counted from the time of its gathering. But where is here mentioned the Sabbatical year? The Boraitha is not completed, and must read thus: The citron is counted when gathered in reference to tithe, and from budding in reference to the Sabbatical Year. Our Masters in Usha, however, have decided that in both cases it is counted from the time of the gathering.

R. Elazar said: The fruit of the Sabbatical year does not become exchanged, unless it is done in the manner of buying and selling. R. Johanan, however, said: It becomes exchanged even through exchanging. What is the reason of R. Elazar? Because it is written [Lev. xxv. 13]: "In this year of the jubilee," and the next verse says, "shall he sell," from this we infer, only through buying and selling. What is the reason of R. Johanan? Because it is written [ibid., ibid. 12]: "For it is the jubilee, holy shall it be unto you"; and as in case of all holiness there is no difference between selling and exchanging, the same is the case with the fruit of the Sabbatical year. We have learned in one Boraitha in accordance with R. Elazar, and in another Boraitha we have learned in accordance with R. Johanan.

A Boraitha according to R. Elazar: The Sabbatical year holds the money exchanged for its fruit, because it is written: "It is a jubilee year and shall be holy." As the holy things hold the money exchanged for it, and makes it holy, so also do the fruit of the Sabbatical year. But should we assume, as the holy things become ordinary, when exchanged, the same shall be with the Sabbatical year, therefore it is written: "It shall be"--which means, so shall it stay. How so? I.e., if one bought for its fruit meat, both must be destroyed; if, however, he bought fish for the meat, the fish becomes its substitute, and the meat is free; the fish, again, exchanged for wine, the latter becomes the substitute. The same is the case when the latter is exchanged for wine: the very last always becomes the substitute of the preceding one, except the original fruit, which remains as it was. Now, then, when the Boraitha mentions at every exchange the word "lokah," which means bought, we may infer from it that it was done only by purchase, but not by exchange (hence R. Elazar's opinion).

A Boraitha according to R. Johanan: Both the fruit of the Sabbatical year and of the second tithe may be exchanged for wild game, cattle, and fowl when they are either alive or slaughtered. So is the decree of R. Meir. But the sages say that only for slaughtered ones, but when alive they must not be taken in exchange, lest he shall raise a herd from them. Said Rabba: They differ only as to males, but females, all agree that only slaughtered ones may be exchanged, but not living ones, for the precautionary measure stated above.

Said R. Ashi: They differ only about the fruit exchanged already for the Sabbatical fruit, but about the Sabbatical fruit itself all agree, only through selling and not through exchanging. But have we not learned in a Boraitha: The fruit of the Sabbatical year and second tithe may be exchanged for animals, wild beasts, and fowls? By this is meant, not the fruit but the money obtained for it. And this must be so, because it is mentioned together with second tithe, and by second tithe could not be meant the fruit itself, because it is written [Deut. xiv. 25]: "Bind up the money in thy hand."

MISHNA: Formerly the Lulab was used in the Temple all the seven days of the festival; in the country, however, only one day. When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained: In the country it shall also be used all the seven days, in memory of the Temple. He ordained also at the same time that on the sixteenth day of Nissan, called the day of Noph (the day of waving the omer: Lev. xxiii. 11), it should not be allowed to eat new grain.

GEMARA: Whence do we infer that it must be done in memory of the Temple? Said R. Johanan: Because it is written [Jeremiah, xxx. 17]: "This is Zion, whom no one seeketh after." From this we infer that it must be sought after.

"The day of Noph," etc. What is the reason? Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: R. Johanan b. Zakkai said this in accordance with the system of R. Jehudah, who said that it is biblically prohibited to eat the whole day, because it is written [Lev. xxiii. 14], "until the self-same day"; and the self-same day means this day shall be included. Does R. Johanan b. Zakkai indeed hold with R. Jehudah, did he not differ from him? As we learn in the following Mishna: When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained that the whole day of Noph it shall be prohibited. And R. Jehudah said to him: Why such an ordinance? Is it not biblically prohibited, as it is written, "on the self-same day," which means to include the whole day? R. Jehudah erred, because he thought R. Johanan b. Zakkai intended to make his ordinance rabbinical, and it was not so; R. Johanan b. Zakkai ordained this biblically. If biblically, what is meant by the expression "ordained"? Read: He lectured that this is biblical and so ordained.

MISHNA: If the first day of the festival falls on a Sabbath, the people bring their Lulabs to the synagogue on the eve of Sabbath and leave them there, and on the next morning they come early to synagogue, and each seeks out his own Lulab, and performs with it his duty, because the sages bold that the duty cannot be fulfilled on the first day by means of a Lulab belonging to his neighbor; but it can be fulfilled on the subsequent days of the festival.

R. Jose says: If the first day of the festival falls on the Sabbath, and one carries out the Lulab into public ground through forgetfulness, he is not culpable, because he carried it out with the intention to do a religious duty.

GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? From what the rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xxiii. 40]: "Ye shall take," that means, it shall be taken with the hand; "unto yourselves," it shall be your own, but not a borrowed one or robbed one; and from this the sages said that one cannot fulfil his duty with the Lulab of his neighbor on the first day, unless he has made of it a present to him. And it happened to Rabban Gamaliel, R. Joshuah, R. Elazar b. Azariah, and R. Aqiba, when they were on board a ship, that they had but one Lulab, which was the property of Rabban Gamaliel, who had bought it for a thousand Zuz; and R. Gamaliel performed with it his duty, and then made of it a present to R. Joshuah; R. Joshuah did the same, and gave it away to R. Elazar, who did the same, and gave it as a present to R. Aqiba; and R. Aqiba, after having fulfilled his duty, returned it to Rabban Gamaliel. To what purpose do they tell us that R. Aqiba returned it to Rabban Gamaliel? It is to teach us by the way, that a present with the condition that it shall be returned after, is called a present. As Rabha said elsewhere: "If one say: I present to you this citron to fulfil your duty with it, and afterwards you shall return it to me," if the man returned it afterwards, he had fulfilled his duty, but if he failed to return it, it is not counted as anything. And to what purpose do they tell us that he bought it for a thousand Zuz? To let us know how dear to them were religious duties. Said Mar bar Amemar to R. Ashi: My father used to pray, holding the Lulab in his hand. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Elazar bar Zadok says: So was the custom of the men of Jerusalem: when one was going out of his house, the Lulab was in his hand; when he went to the house of prayer, the Lulab was in his hand; when he read the Shema and prayed, the Lulab was in his hand; when he read in the Torah and raised his hands (when a priest) to bless Israel, he laid it away, on the floor, and afterwards took it up. If he went to visit the sick, or console mourners, the Lulab was in his hand. When he went, however, to the house of learning, he sent it away through his son, or servant, or messenger. To what purpose is all this told? To let us know how mindful they were of religious duties.

"R. Jose said," etc. Said Abayi: He is not culpable so long as he has not fulfilled his duty with it; but if he has, he is. But has not the duty been performed as soon as he has taken it into his hand and raised it? Said Abayi: It means, if he carried it out inverted (because the duty is not fulfilled so long as he does not hold it as it grows). Rabha said: Even if he has not inverted it, but carried it out in a vessel. But did not Rabha himself say that taking through any other thing is called taking? That is, if he took it thus to honor it; but if in a vessel not appropriate to a Lulab, it is not called taking.

MISHNA: A woman may receive a Lulab out of the hand of her son or of her husband, and put it back into water on the Sabbath. R. Jehudah says: On the Sabbath it may be put back, on the festival they may add fresh water, and on the intermediate days they may change the water. A minor who understands how to shake the Lulab is bound to perform that duty.

GEMARA: Is this not self-evident? Lest one say, that because the Lulab is not obligatory for a woman, she must not handle it, it comes to teach us that she may.

"A minor," etc. The rabbis taught: A minor who knows how to shake the Lulab is bound to perform this duty. If he knows how to wrap himself in a cloth, he is bound to perform the duty of Tzitzith; if he is able to take care of Tefilin, his father may buy for him Tefilin. As soon as he can talk, his father shall teach him the Torah, and to read Shema. [What is meant by Torah? Said R. Hamnuna: The verse of Deuteronomy, xxxiii. 4: "The law which Moses commanded us is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." What is meant by Shema? The first verse.] (The Boraitha says farther on): If he knows how to slaughter animals, it may be eaten of his slaughtering. Said R. Huna: Only if an adult was standing by. If he is capable to eat bread the size of an olive, one must remove from him to the distance of four ells (if one has to pray or to study), on certain occasions. Says R. Hisda: This is only if he can eat the piece of bread in the same length of time that a grown person can eat bread of the size of three eggs, or more. Said R. Hiya the son of R. Yeba: In the case of a grown man who is sick and unable to eat as much, in the above-mentioned length of time, one must nevertheless remove four ells. Because it is written [Eccl. i. 18]: "Where there is much wisdom, there is much vexation." If the minor is able to eat roasted meat of the size of an olive, the Paschal offering may be slaughtered for him, as it is written [Ex. xii. 4]: "Every man according to what he eateth." R. Jehudah, however, said: It must not be given to him until he is able to distinguish. How? If he is given a chip, he drops it; but a nut, he accepts it.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE FOUR KINDS TIED WITH THE LULAB, CONCERNING HALLEL, POURING THE WATER ON THE ALTAR.

MISHNA: The Lulab and willow to surround the altar were sometimes used on six days, and sometimes on seven days of the festival. The Hallel and the eating of peace-offerings took place on eight days. The dwelling in the Succah and the pouring out of water lasted seven days, and the pipes were played on sometimes five, sometimes six days. In which case was the Lulab used seven days? When the first holy day of the festival fell on a Sabbath, the Lulab was used on seven days; but when the first day of the festival fell on any other day of the week, the Lulab was only used six days. In which case was the willow used on seven days? When the seventh day of the willow happened to fall on a Sabbath, the willow was used seven days; but when the seventh day fell on any other day of the week, the willow was only used six days. How was the command to take the Lulab fulfilled when the first holy day of the festival fell on a Sabbath? It was the custom that every man brought his Lulab to the Temple mount, where it was received by inspectors, who deposited it in a gallery. The elders placed theirs in a separate chamber, and the people were taught to say: Whoever gets hold of my Lulab, be it his as a gift. On the next morning the people came early; the inspectors threw all the Lulabs down before them; every man seized on one, and it often happened that they hurt each other. When the Beth Din saw that the people were thus exposed to danger, they ordained that every man was to use his Lulab in his own house.

GEMARA: Why? It is only handling it, and as the commandment of this is biblical, that it shall be taken in the Temple all the seven days, why shall it not be preferred to Sabbath? Said Rabba: As a precautionary measure, lest one take it into his hand to go with it to an expert to learn the performance, and at the same time one will carry it four ells in public ground. And the same reason is with the cornet, and the same reason is with the Book of Esther, when Purim falls on Sabbath. If it is so, let it be forbidden even on the first day of the festival? On the first day of the festival, was it not ordained that it shall be used in the house, as mentioned above? Yea, that was after it was ordained; but what was the case before it was ordained? Therefore we must say, that the reason is because for the first day, which is biblical even in the country, the rabbis did not take the precautionary measure; but the other days, which for the country is only rabbinical, the rabbis took it. If it is so, why shall we not take it now on the first day, when it falls on Sabbath? If one may say, because we do not know exactly the calendar, why do the Palestinians, who know exactly the calendar, not carry it on Sabbath? Yea, they did so, even after the Temple was destroyed, as we have learned in the Mishna above that the people brought their Lulabs to the Temple mount; and another Mishna said, they brought it to the prayer-house, from which we may infer that in the time of the Temple they took it to the Temple mount, and after its destruction they took it into the house of prayer.

But whence do we deduce that in the country it is biblically obligatory on the first day? From the following Boraitha: It is written: "Ye shall take." That signifies, it shall be taken with the hand. "Unto yourselves," it shall be your own, excluding a borrowed or a robbed one; "on the day," even on Sabbath; "the first," even in the country. "The first," from this we infer that only when the first day falls on Sabbath it must be taken, but not on the other days. The text says, "the day," to include Sabbath. Let us see. This is only handling. Do we need a biblical verse to allow handling? Said Rabba: It is meant to allow the preparing of the Lulab, and this is in accordance with the Tana of the following Boraitha: The Lulab and all its preparations violate the Sabbath. So is the decree of R. Eliezer. And the reason of R. Eliezer is, because it is written, "the day," it is meant the Sabbath.

The rabbis taught: It is written: "In booths shall Ye dwell seven days." "Days" signifies the nights also; but perhaps only the days are meant, and not the nights? And it would be an analogy of expression: it is written here "the days," and about the Lulab "the days"; as of the Lulab only days are meant, and not the nights, so also it may be with the Succah? Or take another way, the analogy of expression of "the seven days of Aaron's consecration" [Lev. ix.]; as there the nights are included, so shall here also the nights be included. Now let us see what it resembles more: We may draw a lesson about a thing the duty of which is the whole day, from another thing of which the duty is also the whole day, and not draw the same from a thing the duty of which is only one hour. Or in another way: We shall draw a lesson about a thing of which the duty is forever from a thing of which the duty is also forever, and not about a thing of which the duty is forever from Aaron's consecration, of which the duty was only for that time. Therefore another analogy of expression is found: It is written here: "Ye shall dwell," and about the seven days of Aaron's consecration it is also written [Lev. viii. 35]: "ye shall dwell"; as there it is plainly written days and nights, so is here also meant days and nights.

"In which case is the willow used seven days?" Why shall the willow violate the Sabbath? Said R. Johanan: To let the public know that the willow is biblical. If it is so, let the Lulab also violate the Sabbath, to make it public that the Lulab is biblical? The precautionary measure, which Rabbi mentioned above, is taken in reference to the Lulab. But why not in reference to the willow? Because usually the messengers of the Beth Din were sent to take the willow for the performance, but the Lulab was taken by private persons. Said Rabha to R. Itz'hak the son of Rabba bar bar Hana: Son of a scholar, come and I will tell you a good thing that your father said: What we learn in a Mishna farther on, that every day they went round the altar once, and on that day seven times, said your father in the name of R. Elazar: That is meant with the Lulab (not with the willow). R. Itz'hak objected: We have learned in a Tosephta: The Lulab violates the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. It happened once that the seventh day of the willow fell on Sabbath and the branches of the willow were brought on the eve, and were laid in the court of the Temple; and when the Baithusees got wind of it, they took the branches of the willows, and hid them under the stones of the court. On the morrow the common people pulled them out from beneath the stones, and the priests erected them around the altar, because the Baithusees do not agree that the performance of the duty of willows violates the Sabbath. Hence we see that they performed the religious ceremony with the willows, and not with the Lulab? The question remains: But why did they bring them on the eve of Sabbath, why not on Sabbath (let the bringing of the willows violate the Sabbath as the handling while the duty is performed)? Because as we, who are in exile and are not certain of the calendar, do not violate the Sabbath for the willow, they in Palestine also do not violate the Sabbath for the bringing. But we see that on the first day we do not violate the Sabbath for the Lulab, and they do? It was told, that now they also do not violate even with the Lulab.

Abayi said to Rabha: Why do we use the Lulab all the seven days in memory of the Temple, and not the willow? Rabha answered: We use the willow tied with the Lulab together all the seven days. Rejoined Abayi: But we use it not for the sake of the willow, but for the sake of the Lulab; and if you would say that we raise it again for the sake of the willow, we see proofs every day that we do not do so. Said R. Zbhid in the name of Rabha: The Lulab, which is biblical, we use in memory of the Temple all the seven days, but the willow, which is rabbinical, we do not use so.

It was taught: R. Johanan and R. Joshuah b. Levi differ: One says that the basis of the willow is a tradition from the prophets, and one says that the willow is only a custom of the prophets. From the following saying of R. Abahu we may assume that R. Johanan is the one who said that the basis is a tradition of the prophets, because he said in his name that so said R. Johanan. Said R. Zera to R. Abahu: Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say in the name of R. Nehumia, the man of the valley of Beth Hursa, that the ten plants concerning Kilaim, the willow, and the pouring of water are Sinaic laws? He was astounded for a little while, and said: They were forgotten once, and then reëstablished. But how could R. Johanan say so? Did he not say to the sages of Palestine: Do not say that the ordinances derived from the Torah are yours: they are the Babylonians', because we have received all our learning from them. (R. Johanan said this when he saw R. Kahna, one of the disciples of Rabh, come to Palestine and explain many questions which R. Johanan could not decide.) Hence we see that R. Johanan did not think that in Babylon the Torah was forgotten, and how can it be said it was forgotten? It presents no difficulty: In the Temple it was Sinaic, but in the country it had for a basis the tradition of the prophets.

R. Ami said: The willow has to be of the prescribed size, and must be taken separately, and a man does not fulfil his duty with the willow which is tied with the Lulab. R. Hisda in the name of R. Itz'hak, however, said that a man can fulfil his duty with the willow which is tied with the Lulab. What is the prescribed size? Said R. Na'hman: Three moist twigs with leaves. R. Shesheth, however, said: Even if there was one leaf on one twig. Said Aibu: I was standing in the presence of R. Elazar bar Zadok, and a man brought a willow before him; and he took the willow into his hand, and knocked off the leaves, but without any benediction, because he held that the willow was only a custom of the prophets. Aibu and Hezekiah, the grandsons of Rabh by his daughter, brought a willow to Rabh, and he also took it and knocked it, without benediction, because he also held it was only a custom of the prophets.

Aibu said again: I was standing before R. Elazar bar R. Zadok, and a man came to him and said: I possess some villages, and the inhabitants of the villages weeded the orchards in the Sabbatical year, and for their labor they ate the olives: did they right, or not? R. Elazar answered: It is not right. And the man went away. Said R. Elazar: I am living in this country forty years, and I have not seen a man walk in the right path as this man. Afterwards the man came again, and asked R. Elazar what he should do in this matter, and R. Elazar told him he should abandon the olives to the poor, and the laborers he should pay from his purse.

Aibu says again in the name of R. Elazar: A man must not walk on the eve of Sabbath more than three Parsaoth. Said R. Kahna: The case is when he goes home, and his family does not know that he will come, and do not prepare anything for him for Sabbath; but if he is going to an inn, he may walk more, because he has prepared everything that is necessary for Sabbath. According to others, R. Kahna said that even to his house he shall not go, so much the less to an inn. And he added to this: It once happened to me that I was coming home late on the eve of Sabbath, and my family did not expect me: I did not find even small fish prepared for Sabbath.

"How was the commandment to take the Lulab fulfilled?" One Tana taught in the presence of R. Na'hman: He deposited it on the roof of the gallery. And R. Na'hman said to him: Why on the roof, did he intend to dry it? Read, "on the galleries."

MISHNA: How was the command to take the willow fulfilled? There was a place below Jerusalem called Motza. Thither the people descended, and gathered drooping willow branches. These they brought and erected at the side of the altar, the tips inclining over it. While this was doing, a blast, a long note, and again a blast were blown. Every day they made one circuit round the altar, and recited the verse: "O Lord, help us; O Lord, prosper us." R. Jehudah said the words: "I and he, help us," were also said. On the particular day for using the willows (the seventh of the festival) they made seven circuits round the altar. When they withdrew, what did they say? "Beauty is thine, O altar! Beauty is thine, O altar!" R. Elazar said, they also said: "To God and to thee, O altar! To God and to thee, O altar!" As they did on week-days, so did they likewise on the Sabbath; excepting only that they gathered the willow branches on the Sabbath-eve and put them into golden casks (filled with water), that they might not fade. R. Johanan b, Beroka said: They fetched branches of palms and threshed them to pieces on the sides of the altar. Thence the day was called "the branch-threshing day." Directly afterwards the children threw down their Lulabs and ate the citrons.

GEMARA: In a Boraitha it was taught: that the place where they were taken was free from taxes, and one Tana of the Mishna calls it Motza, because this word signifies exempt from taxes.

"They brought and erected at the side of the altar." In a Boraitha was taught: They were soft and eleven ells high, so that they could cover the altar one ell. Said R. Abahu: From what biblical passage is this inferred? From Psalm cxviii. 27: "Bind the festive sacrifice with cords," etc. He said again in the name of R. Elazar: One who takes the Lulab with its binding, and the myrtle bough with its braiding, the verse makes him equal to one who would build an altar and offer a sacrifice on it, and he infers it from the end of the passage just quoted. Hezekiah said in the name of R. Jeremiah, quoting R. Simeon b. Jochai, and R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon the Mehuzi, quoting R. Johanan the Mekuthi: One who added a day to the festival for eating and drinking, the verse makes him equal to one who built an altar and offered a sacrifice on it, as it is written: "Bind the festive sacrifice with cords (leading it) up to the horns of the altar."

Hezekiah said again in the name of R. Jeremiah, quoting R. Simeon b. Jochai: All the prescribed plants for religious duties must be taken as they grow, as it is written [Ex. xxvi. 15]: "Shittim wood, standing up." Hezekiah said again in the name of the same authority: I could exempt the whole world from the Day of Judgment since I was born till now; and if Eliezer my son would be with me, I could do it for all men since the world was created till now. And if King Jotham ben Uzziah would be with us, we could do it for all men from the creation of the world till its end. The same says again in the name of the same: I see the greatest men in the world are very few. If they are a thousand, I and my son are included; if they are a hundred, I and my son are included, and if they are only two, they are I and my son. Said Abayi: There are no less than thirty-six upright men in the world who receive appearance of the Shekhina every day, as it is written [Is. xxx. 18]: "Happy are all those that wait for him," and him is expressed by ‏לו‎, which counts thirty-six.

"To God and to thee." How did they do so? Did they not combine the name of the Lord with another thing, and we have learned in a Boraitha: Who combines the name of the Lord with another thing, will be destroyed from the world? As it is written [Ex. xxii, 19]: "Save unto the Lord only." The Mishna meant it was said so: "To God we bow, and Thee we praise."

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: The benediction over the Lulab must be pronounced all the seven days, but in the Succah the benediction must be made only the first day. Why so? Because the nights intervene between the days, and every day it is a separate commandment; but in case of the Succah, which is a duty during the nights also, all the seven days are considered as one long day, and one benediction is enough. Rabba bar bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan, however, said: The benediction over the Succah must be pronounced all the seven days, but over the Lulab only the first day. Why so? Because the Succah is biblical, the benediction is to be made every time; but the Lulab being rabbinical, it is sufficient on the first day. When Rabbin came from Palestine, he said in the name of R. Johanan, that over both it is to be pronounced every day all the seven days. Said R. Joseph: Keep what Rabba bar bar Hana said in your mind, because all the Amoraim hold with him concerning Succah. Other Tanaim, however, differ also on the same point. As we have learned in the following Boraitha: Over the Tefilin, every time one lays them, one must pronounce a benediction. So is the decree of Rabbi. The sages, however, said: In the morning only. And it was taught Abayi said the Halakha prevails according to Rabbi, and Rabba said the Halakha prevails according to the sages. Said R. Mari the son of the daughter of Samuel: I have seen Rabba did not follow his own decision, and we also all are doing according to Rabbi, and pronounce the benediction on every one of the seven days.

R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: The commandment of the Lulab is all the seven days; but R. Joshuah b. Levi said: The biblical commandment is only for the first day, and from this day further on it is the commandment of the Elders; and so said also R. Itz'hak. Rabh, however, holds that the commandment is for all seven days, and R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak taught plainly that Rabh said so.

The rabbis taught: If one made a Succah for himself, he must pronounce the benediction of the time. When he comes to dwell in it, he must pronounce the benediction: "Blessed be He, etc., who has commanded us to dwell in a Succah"; but if the Succah had been prepared, if he is able to fix there something new, he may pronounce the benediction of the time; if not, when he comes to dwell in it, he should pronounce both benedictions. Said R. Ashi: I have seen R. Kahna, who used to pronounce all the benedictions over the goblet, together with the benediction of the day.

The rabbis taught: If one have before himself many religious duties, he can say: "Blessed be He who has sanctified us with His commandments, and commanded to us many duties." R. Jehudah, however, said: He must pronounce the benediction before each one separately. Said R. Zera, according to others R. Hanina bar Papa: The Halakha prevails according to R. Jehudah. And he (either of the two mentioned) says again: What is the reason of R. Jehudah? Because it is written [Ps. lxviii. 20]: "Blessed be the Lord, day by day." Do we only bless Him by day, and not by night? We may learn from this that every day we should bless Him for the duties of that day (if Sabbath, we must bless Him for the Sabbath; if a festival, for the duties belonging to each festival). The same authority says again: Come and see. The usages of the Holy One, blessed be He, are not as the usages of human beings: A human being can put only something into an empty vessel, but if the vessel is full, he can put in nothing; but the Holy One, blessed be He, can add to a full vessel, but can put nothing into an empty one, as it is written [Deut. xxviii. 1]: "If thou wilt hearken diligently"; i.e., if you have heard diligently, you can receive more knowledge, but if not diligently, you can hear nothing. Another interpretation for this verse is this: If you have given your attention to what you have learned before, you can learn from it new things; but if you have turned away your heart from the old teaching, you cannot learn anything new.

"The children threw down," etc. Said R. Johanan: The citron on the seventh day is prohibited to be eaten, but on the eighth day it is allowed; but the wood of the Succah, even on the eighth day, is not allowed to be used. Resh Lakish, however, said: Even on the seventh day the citron is allowed. R. Johanan made an objection to Resh Lakish from our Mishna: The children throw down their Lulabs and eat their citrons. From this we may infer that only the children may do so, but not adults. Answered Resh Lakish: Nay, adults may also do so, but the Mishna mentions children because it was usually done so. R. Papa asked Abayi: What is the reason that R. Johanan makes a difference between the Succah and the citron? And he answered: The Succah is fit for twilight, so that if one had to eat at twilight, he must sit in the Succah and eat there; and because it was designated for twilight, it is designated for the whole eighth day; but the citron, which is not to be used at twilight, and was not designated for the twilight, is not designated for the whole eighth day. Levi, however, said: The citron is prohibited even on the eighth day. And the father of Samuel said: On the seventh day it is not allowed, but on the eighth day it is allowed. The father of Samuel afterwards retracted his teaching, and remained in accordance with the system of Levi. R. Zera, however, remains in accordance with the old teaching of the father of Samuel, and taught in the house of learning that a citron which becomes invalid must not be eaten all the seven days. R. Zera said again: One must not give as a present to a child a Lulab on the first day of the festival. Why so? Because a child may receive a present, but cannot make a present to another; and afterwards if the man uses the Lulab for the religious purpose, he has used a thing which is not his (by which he cannot fulfil his duty). He says again: A man shall not promise a child something, and afterwards not keep his word, for the child can learn from it to tell a lie.

We in exile, who keep two days of the festival, how shall we do? Said Abayi: On the eighth day, which it is doubtful perhaps it is the seventh, it is prohibited; but the ninth day, which it is doubtful perhaps it is the eighth, it is allowed. Meremar, however, said: Even on the eighth day, which it is doubtful perhaps it is the seventh, it is also allowed. In Sura they acted according to Meremar; but R. Shesheth the son of R. Iddi acted according to Abayi, and the Halakha prevails according to Abayi.

R. Jehudah the son of Samuel bar Shilath said in the name of Rabh: The eighth day, which it is doubtful whether it is not the seventh, may be considered as the seventh day in reference to the Succah, but is considered the eighth day in reference to the benediction. R. Johanan, however, said: It may be considered the eighth day for both purposes. (The Gemara explains it so): In reference to the benediction, all agree that the benediction may not be said. What they differ about is only the citron. According to Rabh, on the eighth day one must sit in the Succah, and according to R. Johanan, even sitting is not necessary either. Said R. Joseph: Keep in your mind what R. Johanan said, because the Master of this Halakha, R. Jehudah bar Samuel, who declared it in the name of Rabh, did not act according to his teaching, and we have seen him on the eighth day sitting outside of the Succah. The Halakha prevails: That we do sit in the Succah, but do not pronounce the benediction over it.

R. Johanan said: The benediction of the time must be pronounced on the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles, but not on the seventh day of Passover. Said R. Levi bar Hama, according to others R. Hama bar Hanina: This may be approved, because the eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is different in three things from the preceding days: It needs not Succah, it needs not Lulab, nor the pouring of water. If it is so, the seventh day of Passover is also different, because it is not a duty to eat Matzah thereon, as the Master said (p. 33) that only the first night it is a duty to eat Matzah? What comparison is this? There it is different only from the first night, but not from the first day; but here it is different from the day also. Rabhina said: The eighth day of the Feast of Tabernacles is different from the preceding day; but the seventh day of Passover differs only from the first day, but not from the one preceding it. How shall we act? Said R. Na'hman: The benediction of the time maybe said on the eighth day, and R. Shesheth said it must not, and the Halakha prevails that it may be said. We have learned in a Boraitha in support to R. Na'hman: The eighth day is a holy day by itself, has lots cast for itself (which priest should perform the service of the sacrifice, as is explained in Shekalim), the benediction of time for itself, offerings for itself, a separate song for itself (all seven days one song was sung by the Levites at the sacrifice), and also a blessing for itself ("the eighth day of assembly" was pronounced in the benediction).

MISHNA: The Hallel and the enjoying of peace-offerings were eight days. How so? We infer from this, that a man is bound to recite the Hallel and enjoy the peace-offerings the last day of the festival the same as the preceding days.

GEMARA: Where is this deduced from? The rabbis taught: It is written [Deut. xvi. 15]: "Thou shalt only rejoice"; it comes to add the night of the last day of the festival, and to exclude the night of the first day. But perhaps it is meant only for the first day? The word (ach) "only" separates it. But why do you include the last day, and exclude the first day? I include the last night, before which there was enjoyment; but I exclude the first night, before which was no enjoyment.

MISHNA: The Succah is dwelt in seven days. How so? When a man has taken his last meal therein, he is not directly to pull down his Succah; but, after noon, he may move the furniture back into the house, in honor of the last day of the festival.

How was the pouring out of the water? A golden pitcher that held three lugs was filled with water from the brook Siloah. When they came with it to the water-gate, they blew a blast, a long note, and again a blast. The priest then ascended the stair of the altar, and turned to the left. Two silver basins stood there. R. Jehudah says: They were of gypsum, but had a dark appearance from the wine. Each was perforated with a small hole, like a nostril (at the bottom), the one for the wine somewhat wider, the other for the water narrower, that both might get empty at once. The one, to the west, was used for water; the other, to the east, for the wine. But if the water was poured into the wine basin, or the wine into the water basin, one's duty was reckoned to be fulfilled. R. Jehudah says: They poured out one lug on each of the eight days. To him who poured out the water the people called: "Raise thy hand"; for once it happened that one priest charged with this duty poured the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their citrons, As they did on the week-days, so they did likewise on the Sabbath, except that they fetched the water from the Siloah on the Sabbath eve in a golden cask that had not been consecrated, and placed it in a chamber; if it was upset or uncovered, they filled again from the laver. For it was not lawful to bring on the altar water or wine which had been uncovered.

GEMARA: Whence is it deduced? Said R. Eina: It is written [Is. xii. 3]: "Ye shall draw water with gladness."

"Ascended the stair," etc. The rabbis taught: All who ascended the altar ascended on the right, went round, and descended on the left; except that those who ascended for the following three purposes (duties) ascended on the left, and went back on the same side: to pour water, to pour wine, and to offer a burnt-offering of a fowl when it was too much on the east side of the altar.

"Each was perforated," etc. Shall we assume that the Mishna is according to R. Jehudah and not according to the sages, as it teaches farther on: "R. Jehudah said with a lug," etc.; because if the Mishna would be according to the sages, the quantity of the wine and water was equal? (And why was one wider, and the other narrower?) Nay, we may say the Mishna is according to the sages; but wine is thick, and water is thinner, and this is the reason for the unequal sizes of the holes. It seems to us it is so, for according to R. Jehudah one must be wide and the other narrow, as we learn in the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: Two urns were there, one for water and one for wine: that for wine had its mouth wide, and that for water narrow, that they should be emptied at the same time.

Rabha lectured: It is written [Song of Songs, Vii. 2]: "How beautiful are thy steps in sandals, O prince's daughter! How beautiful were the steps of Israel, when they pilgrimaged for the festival! "Prince's daughter" means, daughter of Abraham our father, who was called prince; as it is written [Ps. xlvii. 10]: "The nobles of the people are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham." The God of Abraham, and not the God of Isaac and Jacob? It means, the God of Abraham, who was the first of the proselytes.

The disciples of R. Anan taught: It is written [Song of Songs, ibid.]: "The roundings of thy thighs." As the thighs are in a hidden place, so the words of the Law must all be hidden, and this is similar to what R. Elazar said, as follows: It is written [Micah, vi. 8]: "He hath told thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord doth require of thee: nothing but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God." To do justice, i.e., judgment; to love kindness, i.e., the bestowing of favors; and to walk humbly with thy God, that means, to bear a dead body, and to conduct a bride under the canopy. Is this not an a fortiori conclusion? If things usually done publicly are to be done surreptitiously, so much the more things usually done privately?

R. Elazar said: The doing of charity is greater than all the sacrifices; as it is written [Prov. xxi. 3]: "To exercise righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." The same says again: The bestowing of favors is greater than charity; as it is written [Hosea, x. 12]: "Sow then for yourselves righteousness, that you may reap the fruit of kindness." If a man sows, it is doubtful whether he will eat from his sowing, or not; but if a man reaps, he is sure to eat of it (and so it is with charity, sometimes it is useful, sometimes not, but kindness is always so).

R. Elazar says again: Charity is rewarded only according to the kindness with which it is done; as it is written: "Sow for yourselves righteousness, that you may reap kindness."

The rabbis taught: In three things is the bestowing of favors greater than charity: Charity is only with money, but the bestowing of favors is either with one's money or with one's person; charity is only to poor men, but the bestowing of favors is to poor and rich; charity is only for the living, but the bestowing of favors is both for the living and the dead. The same says again: One who does charity and judgment is as if he filled the whole world with kindness; as it is written [Ps. xxxiii. 5]: "He loveth righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the kindness of the Lord." But if you mean that every one who wants to do charity is given the opportunity to do real charity, it is therefore written [ibid. xxxvi. 8]: "How precious is thy kindness! "It is different, however, with a man fearing Heaven; as it is written [ibid. ciii. 17]: "But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting over those that fear him." R. Hama bar Papa said: A man who finds favor everywhere, it is certain that he fears God; as it is written: "The kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting over those that fear him."

He says again: It is written [Prov. xxxi. 26] She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and the law of kindness is on her tongue." Are there two laws, one of kindness, and one not of kindness? That means, if one studies the law in honor of the Lord, it is a law of kindness; but if one studies the law for his own interest, it is a law not of kindness. According to others, if he studies the law to teach it, it is a law of kindness; but if he studies it for himself, it is not.

"If it was upset or uncovered," etc. Why so? He can strain the water? Shall we assume that our Mishna is not according to R. Nehemiah from the following Boraitha: Even if the water was strained, the law of uncovered water does still apply to it. R. Nehemiah, however, said: This is only when the lower vessel was uncovered, but when the lower vessel was covered, though the upper one was uncovered, the law of uncovered water does not apply to it, because the venom of a snake, like a sponge, rises to the top. The Mishna can apply also to R. Nehemiah, but he spoke of preparing for an ordinary man, but in honor of the Lord could he say so? Did not R. Nehemiah consider the verse in Malachi [i. 8]: "Do but present it unto thy governor, will he be pleased with thee, or receive thee with favor? says the Lord of hosts."

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE ENJOYMENTS AND THE SONGS IN THE TEMPLE DURING THE TIME OF THE SACRIFICES, AND THEIR ORDER.

MISHNA: The pipes were played sometimes on five days, and sometimes six. This means, the pipes played on during the time of water-drawing, which does not supersede either the Sabbath or the festival.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: The playing of pipes supersedes the Sabbath, so is the decree of R. Jose bar Jehudah; but the sages said, even the festival it does not supersede. Said R. Joseph: They differ only about the music of the sacrifices. R. Jose holds that the music of the sacrifices is instrumental, consequently it is a service, and supersedes the Sabbath; but the sages hold it is vocal, and therefore not a service, and does not supersede the Sabbath; but the music of the drawing of the water all agree is only an enjoyment, and does not supersede the Sabbath. But R. Jeremiah bar Abba said: They differ only about the music of the drawing of water. R. Jose bar R. Jehudah holds that this enjoyment also supersedes the Sabbath, and the sages hold it does not; but about the music of the sacrifice all agree it is a service, and does supersede the Sabbath.

What is the reason of those who say that the main music must be instrumental? Because it is written [II Chron. xxix. 27]: "And Hezekiah ordered to offer the burnt-offering on the altar. And when the burnt-offering began, the song of the Lord began with the trumpets, and with the instruments of David the King of Israel." And what is the reason of those who said the main music is vocal? Because it is written [ibid. v. 13]: "And it came thus to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound." But what will they do with the former passage? Hezekiah meant, the voices accompanied the instruments. And those who hold it was only instrumental, what will they say to the last-quoted passage? They explain it thus: The singers were as the trumpeters, i.e., used instruments also.

MISHNA: He who has not witnessed the rejoicings at the water-drawing has, throughout the whole of his life, witnessed no real rejoicing. At the expiration of the first holiday of the festival they descended into the women's court, where a great transformation was made. Golden candelabra were placed there, with four golden basins at the top of each; and four ladders were put to each candelabrum, on which stood four lads from the rising youth of the priesthood, holding jars of oil containing 120 jugs, with which they replenished each basin.

The cast-off breeches and belts of the priests were torn into shreds for wicks, which they lighted. There was not a court in Jerusalem that was not illuminated by the lights of the water-drawing. Pious and distinguished men danced before the people with lighted flambeaux in their hands, and sang hymns and lauds before them; and the Levites accompanied them with harps, psalteries, cymbals, and numberless musical instruments. On the fifteen steps which led into the women's court, corresponding with the fifteen songs of degrees, stood the Levites, with their musical instruments, and sang. At the upper gate which leads down from the court of the Israelites to the court of the women stood two priests, with trumpets in their hands. When the cock first crowed they blew a blast, a long note, and a blast. This they repeated when they reached the tenth step, and again (the third time) when they got into the court. They went on, blowing their trumpets as they went, until they reached the gate that leads out to the east. When they reached that gate they turned westward, with their faces towards the Temple, and said: Our ancestors, who were in this place, turned their backs on the Temple of the Lord, and their faces towards the east; for they worshipped the sun towards the east; but we lift our eyes to God. R. Jehudah says: They repeated again and again: "We belong to God, and raise our eyes to God."

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: Who has not seen the rejoicing at the drawing of water, has not seen a real rejoicing in his life. He who has not seen Jerusalem in its beauty, has not seen a beautiful great city in his whole life; and who has not seen the building of the Second Temple, has not seen a handsome building in his life. What is meant by this? Said Abayi, according to others R. Hisda: It means the building of Herod. Of what materials was it built? Said Rabba: Of black and white marble; and according to others, of other colors also. He made one tier of stones projecting outward, and one tier of stones remaining inside. He wished to overlay it with gold, but the sages said to him: Leave it so, because it is more beautiful, having the appearance of waves of the sea.

We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: Who has not seen the διπλο στοα (diuplustin, double portico) of Alexandria in Egypt, has not seen the glory of Israel. It was said it was a great) βασιλιχη (a palace with colonnades), and the palace could contain twice the number of men who went out from Egypt (the Israelites), and there were seventy-one golden cathedras (armchairs with footstools) for the seventy-one sages of the Great Sanhedrin, and each cathedra was no less than twenty-one myriads of talents of gold; and a wooden βημα (pulpit) was in the middle of the palace, where the sexton of the congregation stood, with a flag in his hand, and when the time came in the prayer to respond "Amen," he raised the flag, and the whole people said "Amen." And they did not sit promiscuously, but separately; the golden chairs were separate, the silver chairs were separate, smiths sat separately, carpenters separately, and all of the different trades sat separately, and when a poor man went in, he recognized who his fellow-tradesmen were, and went to them, and thus got there work for the support of himself and his family. Said Abayi: And all these were killed by Alexander of Macedon. Why were they so punished? Because they had transgressed the passage [Deut. xvii. 16]: "The Lord had said unto you, Ye shall henceforth not return on that way any more." And they returned, and resided in Egypt. When Alexander came, he found them reading the passage [ibid. xxviii. 49]: "The Lord will bring up against thee a nation from afar," etc., and he said: "I had to go ten days on board the ship, and the winds blew and brought me here in five days (certainly I was meant by the quoted passage)"; and he killed them.

"At the expiration of the first holy day," etc. What was the transformation? Said R. Eleazar: Similar to what we have learned in the following Boraitha: The court of the women was formerly without a balcony, but they surrounded it with a balcony, and ordained that the women should sit above and the men below.

The rabbis taught: Formerly the women sat in inward chambers and the men in outer ones; but thereby was produced some levity, and therefore it was ordained the men should sit inwardly and the women outwardly; but still levity arose, and therefore it was ordained that the women sit above and the men below. How could they do so? Does not the passage say [in I Chron. xxviii. 19]: "All was put in writing from the hand of the Lord, who gave me instruction respecting all the works of the pattern"? Said Rabh: They found another passage and lectured about it, namely [Zech., xii. 12]: "And the land will mourn, every family apart by itself, the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart." And they said: Is this not an a fortiori conclusion? At the time of mourning, when the passions are powerless, it is said the women and the men should be separate; so much the more in the Temple, where they were occupied in rejoicing, and the passions can have power over them.

What was the mourning for? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ: One holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph, who was killed; and one holds that it was for the evil angel, who was killed. It would be right according to one who holds that it was for the Messiah the son of Joseph, because he explains as supporting him the passage [Zech. xii. 10]: "And they will look up toward me (for every one) whom they have thrust through, and they will lament for him, as one lamenteth for an only son, and weep bitterly for him, as one weepeth bitterly for the firstborn"; but according to one who says that it was for the death of the evil angel, why mourning? must it not be, on the contrary, an enjoyment? Why then weeping? This can be explained as R. Jehudah lectured: In the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the evil angel and slaughter him in the presence of both the upright and the wicked. To the former he will look like a high mountain, and to the latter he will look like a thin hair. Both, however, will cry. The upright will cry, saying: How could we overpower such a high mountain? and the wicked will cry, saying: How could we not subdue such a thin hair? And also the Holy One, blessed be He, will join them in wondering, as it is written [Zech. viii. 6]: "Thus hath said the Lord of hosts: If it should be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvellous in my eyes.

R. Assi said: In the beginning the evil angel appears as insignificant and thin as a cobweb, and finally he becomes as thick as a wagon-rope, as it is written [Is. v. 18]: "Wo unto those that draw iniquity with the cords of falsehood, and as with a wagon-rope, sinfulness.

The rabbis taught: The Messiah b. David, who (as we hope) will appear in the near future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ask something of me and I will give it to thee, as it is written [Ps. ii. 7-8]: "I will announce the decree... Ask it of me, and I will give," etc. But as the Messiah b. David will have seen that the Messiah b. Joseph who preceded him was killed, he will say before the Lord: Lord of the Universe, I will ask nothing of Thee but life. And the Lord will answer: This was prophesied already for thee by thy father David [Ps. xxi. 5]: "Life hath he asked of thee, thou gavest it to him."

R. Awira, according to others R. Joshuah b. Levi, lectured: There are seven names for the evil angel (tempting man). The Holy One, blessed be He, names him "evil," as it is written [Gen. Viii. 21]: "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth"; Moses calls him "obduracy," as it is written [Deut. x. 16]: "Remove the obduracy of your heart"; David calls him "unclean," as it is written [Ps. li. 12]: "Create unto me a clean heart"; and when he says "a clean heart," it must be an unclean one. Solomon calls him "enemy," as it is written [Prov. xxv. 21]: "If thy enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink; for though thou gatherest coals of fire upon his head, yet will the Lord repay it unto thee." Do not read ‏שלם‎ (repay it), but ‏שלים‎ (he will make him peaceful toward thee). Isaiah calls him "stumbling-block," as it is written [Is. lvii. 14]: "And he will say, Cast ye up, cast ye up, clear out of the way, lift up every stumbling-block out of the way of my people." Ezekiel names him "stone," as it is written [Ezek. xxxvi. 26]: "I will remove the heart of stone out of your body." Joel calls him "host of the north," as it is written [Joel, ii. 20]: "And the host of the north will I remove." (The expression in Hebrew is Tzephoni, which also signifies the "hidden one," and they interpret it as the evil spirit which is hidden in the heart of man.)

The rabbis taught: And I will drive it into a land barren and desolate: the evil angel hidden in a man's heart I will drive into the desert, i.e., where men do not live, that he might tempt them; "with its advance towards the eastern sea," i.e., he set his eyes on the First Temple, and destroyed it, and killed the scholars that were there; "and its rearward toward the western sea," i.e., he set his eyes on the Second Temple, and destroyed it, and killed the scholars that were there; "and its stench shall ascend, and its ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things," i.e., he leaves out the other nation, and comes to tempt only the Israelites.

"He hath done great things." Said Abayi: Scholars he tempts more than any one else. As it once happened, Abayi heard a man say to a woman: "Let us rise early, and we will go on the road"; and Abayi thought: "I will follow them, and prevent them from a sin." He went after them about three miles through reeds, and he heard them saying: "Our conversation has been very agreeable, and now we must take separate roads." Said Abayi: "My enemy (meaning himself) would not have contained himself thus." He leaned against the bolt of the door, and was very sorry that he would have been worse than a common man. And an old man came to him and taught him: "The greater a man is, the more is he tempted by the evil angel." R. Itz'hak said: The evil passions of man try to get the better of him all the day long, as it is written [Gen. vi. 5]: "Was only evil all day long." R. Simeon b. Lakish said: They try to get the better of him, and to slay him, as it is written [Ps. xxxvii. 32]: "The wicked looketh out for the righteous, and seeketh to slay him"; and were not the Holy One, blessed be He, to aid him, man could not resist, as it is written further: "The Lord will not leave him in his hand, and will not condemn him when he is judged."

The disciples of R. Ishmael taught: If this hideousness has attacked thee, take it to the house of learning; if it is a stone it will be ground to powder, and if it is iron it will be split to pieces. "If a stone, it will be ground," as it is written [Is. lv. 1]: "Ho, every one of ye that thirsteth, come ye to the water" (i.e., the Law); and it is written [Job, xiv. 19]: "The water weareth out stones." "And of iron, it will be split into pieces," as it is written [Jeremiah, xxiii. 29] Is not thus my word like the fire?

saith the Lord, and like a hammer that shivereth the rock?" Said R. Samuel bar Na'hmani in the name of Jehonathan: The evil angel tempts man in this world, and bears testimony in the world to come, as it is written [Prov. xxix. 21]: "If one rear his slave delicately from his youth, then will he at length become Manon"; and in the Alpha Betha of R. Hiya, which was called Atbach, a witness was called Manon.

Rabh Huna pointed out a contradiction: It is written [Hosea, iv. 12]: "For the spirit of lewdness has caused them to err," and [ibid. v. 4]: "The spirit of lewdness is in their bosom." At first it causes to err, and afterwards it remains in the bosom. Rabha said: In the beginning he is called "traveller," and then "guest," and then "man," as it is written [II Sam. xii. 4]: "And there came a traveller unto the rich man; and he felt compunction to take from his own flocks and from his own herds to dress for the guest that was come to him; but he took the ewe of the poor man, and dressed it for the man that was come to him" (Rabha assumes the whole verse to refer to the evil angel).

R. Johanan said: If it were not for the following three passages, the enemies of Israel (meaning Israel) could not withstand: First [Micah, iv. 6]: "And her to whom I have done evil"; and the second [Jeremiah, xviii. 6]: "As the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel"; and the third is [Ezek. xxxvi. 26]: "I will remove the heart of stone out of your body, and I will give you a heart of flesh." R. Papa says: Also from the following verse [ibid., ibid. 27]: "And my spirit I will put within you."

It is written [Zech. ii. 3]: "And the Lord showed me four carpenters." Who are the four carpenters? Said R. Hanah bar Bizna in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: Messiah b. David, and Messiah b. Joseph, Elijah, and Cohen Zedek.

It is written [Micah, v. 4]: "And in this (manner) shall there be peace: If Asshur should come into our land; and if he should tread in our palaces, then will we raise up against him seven shepherds, and eight anointed men. Who are the seven shepherds? David in the centre; Adam, Sheth, Methushelach, at his right; Abraham, Jacob, and Moses at his left. And who are the eight anointed men? Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah, Messiah, and Elijah.

"And four ladders," etc. It was taught in a Boraitha, that the height of every candelabrum was fifty ells.

"And four lads," etc. The schoolmen propounded a question: Is it meant that each of them held a pitcher that contained 120 lugs, or the 120 lugs was the joint capacity of all the four? Come and hear: And in their hands were pitchers of oil containing each 30 lugs, which altogether amounted to 120. And a Boraitha states that they were praised more than the son of Martha the daughter of Baithus. It was said of the latter that he used to take two legs from the large ox which was bought for a thousand Zuz, in his hands, and went with them slowly, step by step. And his fellow-priests did not let him do so, because it is written [Prov. xiv. 28]: "In the multitude of the people is the king's glory" (i.e., if more men carried, God's glory were greater). What is meant by, "They were praised more than the son of," etc.? Shall we assume the 30 lugs were heavy--the legs were heavier? Yea, but there was only one step, and it was square; but here was a ladder, and standing upright (and it was more difficult for children to carry the burden).

"There was not a court in Jerusalem that was not illuminated." A Boraitha taught: A woman could pick wheat by this light.

"Pious and distinguished men," etc. The rabbis taught: Among were such as said thus: "Well be to our youth which does not disgrace our age." They were pious and distinguished men, and there were among them people who said: "Well be to our age that has atoned for our youth." And these are the penitents. Both used to say: "Well be to those who have not sinned at all; but who has sinned shall repent, and he will be forgiven." We have learned in a Boraitha: It was said of Hillel the Elder (the Prince): When he rejoiced at the drawing of the water, he used to say thus: If I am here, all are here; but if I am not here, who is here? He used also to say: To the places which I am fond of, my feet bring me; if thou wilt visit my house, I will visit thy house; but if thou wilt not visit my house, I shall never visit thine. As it is written [Ex. xx. 21]: "In every place where I shall permit my name to be mentioned, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." R. Johanan said: The feet of the man are securities for him: where he is needed, they bring him thither. Two Ethiopians were in the service of King Solomon, named Elihoreph and Achiyah the son of Shisha, and were his scribes. One day Solomon saw the Angel of Death was sad, and he asked him for the reason, and he said: Because the two men are required from me. And Solomon took the two men and gave them away to devils, who should carry them away to the city of Luz, which the Angel of Death cannot enter. On the morrow he saw the Angel of Death was very cheerful, and when he asked him the reason, he told him: To the place where I was commanded to take the lives of these two men, thou hast sent them, for they died at the gate of Luz. Then said Solomon: The feet of a man are his securities; where he is needed, to that place they bring him.

We have learned in a Boraitha: It was said that Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, when he rejoiced at the drawing of water, would take eight flambeaux in his hands, and throw them into the air, and catch, and one would not touch another. When he used to prostrate himself, he fixed his thumbs on the ground, and bowed, and kissed the floor, and then raised himself, and no creature can do so. And this is what is called Qidah. Levi tried to make such a Qidah in the presence of Rabhi, and became lame on one leg. Levi also tried in the presence of Rabhi to throw and catch eight knives. Samuel tried to do so in the presence of Sha'bur the king with eight goblets full of wine; and Abayi in the presence of Rabha with eight eggs, according to others with four eggs. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Joshua b. R. Hananiah said: When we were engaged in rejoicing at the drawing of water, our eyes saw no sleep. How so? The first hour for the morning daily sacrifice; afterwards for praying, and from that to the additional sacrifice; after that the additional prayer; afterwards we went to the house of learning; from there we went to eat and drink at home, and afterwards the Min'ha prayer; and from the Min'ha prayer to the daily evening sacrifices, and from that time we rejoiced at the drawing of the water till the morning. But this is not so? Did not R. Johanan say: If one says: I swear I will not sleep three days, he shall get stripes for a false oath, and shall go to sleep immediately? He meant to say: We have not tasted any sleep, for we slept each on the other's shoulders.

"Fifteen songs of degrees," etc. Said R. Hisda to one of the rabbis who read the Agada (legends) before him: Have you heard of the fifteen songs of the degrees, for what purpose David composed them? He answered: So said R. Johanan: When David was mining under the altar to get water, water burst out ready to overflow the world; there he composed the fifteen songs of degrees, and therewith checked it.

"We belong to God and we raise our eyes to God." This is not so? Did not R. Zera say: One who said twice, "Shema, Shema," is the same as if he had said, "Modim, Modim," of which a Mishna says, that he must be silenced? The Mishna meant thus: Our ancestors bowed toward the east to the sun, but only to God we bow, and our eyes we raise in hope to God.

MISHNA: In the Temple they never blew the trumpet less than twenty-one times a day, nor oftener than forty-eight times. They daily blew the trumpet twenty-one times: thrice at opening the gates, nine times at the daily morning offering, and nine times at the daily evening offering. When additional offerings were brought, they blew nine times more. On the eve of the Sabbath, they blew six times more: thrice to interdict the people from doing work, and thrice to separate the holy day from the work day. But on the eve of the Sabbath, during the festival (of Tabernacles) they blew forty-eight times: thrice at the opening of the gates, thrice at the upper gate, thrice at the lower gate, thrice at the drawing of water, thrice over the altar, nine times at the daily morning offering, nine times at the daily evening offering, nine times at the additional offerings, thrice to interdict the people from doing work, and thrice to separate the holy day from the work day.

GEMARA: Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Jehudah of the following Boraitha: According to those who say they were few, they were not less than seven; and according to those who say that they were many, they were not more than sixteen.

What is the point on which they differ? R. Jehudah holds that blowing and alarming are one and the same thing, while the sages hold that they are two separate things. But what is the reason of R. Jehudah? Because it is written [Num. x. 5]: "And when ye blow an alarm." The rabbis, however, maintain that the passage means to say, that before and after the alarming a common blowing must be used. What is the reason of the rabbis' decree? Because it is written [ibid. 7]: "But at the assembling of the assembly, ye shall blow, but he shall not sound an alarm"; hence blowing and alarming are two separate things, for if they were not, how could the Merciful One command to do only half of the merit.

According to whom would be the saying of R. Kahana that there is no difference between a Tekiah (a blowing) and a Teruah (an alarming) whatever? This is certainly in accordance with R. Jehudah.

"But on the eve of Sabbath, during the festival." The Mishna does not count the times that they blew when they ascended the tenth step, and therefore we must assume the Mishna is in accordance with R. Eliezer b. Jacob from the following Boraitha: Three times they blew, when they ascended the tenth step. R. Eliezer b. Jacob, however, said: These three times they blew over the altar. From this we see that those who said it was blown over the altar, do not hold it was blown on the tenth step; and he who says it was blown on the tenth step, does not mean to say it was blown over the altar. What is the reason of Eliezer b. Jacob? He meant, when it was blown at the opening of the gates, it was not necessary to blow again on the tenth step. And what is the reason of the rabbis? They hold that when it was blown at the drawing of the water, it was unnecessary to blow over the altar. And therefore they gave preference to the ascending of the tenth step. When R. A'ha bar Hanina came from the South, he brought a Boraitha with him, thus: It is written [Num. x. 8]: "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall blow with the trumpets." This verse is superfluous, because there it is already written [ibid. 10]: "Shall ye blow with the trumpets over your burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings." And why is the first-cited verse needed? To signify that they have to blow when there are additional sacrifices. He taught the Boraitha, and he explained it that it meant to say, that it was a duty to blow at every additional sacrifice.

An objection was raised based upon our Mishna: But on the eve of Sabbath during the festival they blew forty-eight times. Now, if it was so (to blow at each additional sacrifice) let the Mishna state that if the Sabbath falls during the festival there were fifty-one (because there was one additional sacrifice)? Said R. Zera: Because they did not blow at the opening of the gates on Sabbath. Said Rabha: Who is that who is not careful in his statements? The saying of R. Zera cannot hold good at all events. First, the Mishna states that there was blowing every day, which certainly includes Sabbath, and, secondly, even if the Sabbath, falling during the festival, were equal to the eve of Sabbath (in regard to blowing), the Mishna would not mention the eve of Sabbath, instead of the Sabbath itself, of which we could learn two things: that of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, that the blowing was not on the tenth step, but over the altar, and, secondly, what R. A'ha b. Hanina stated above, that they blew at each additional sacrifice.

Therefore said Rabha that the reason (for not mentioning Sabbath in our Mishna) is because they did not draw water on Sabbath, but on the eve of Sabbath, as stated supra; and then there were many blowings less (namely, the blowing when they reached the upper and the lower gate, the water-gate, and over the altar).

But let the Mishna state, when New Year falls on a Sabbath, when there are three additional sacrifices, namely, the New Year, the new moon, and the Sabbath sacrifice. The Mishna, in reality, left this out, as well as it left out the case when the eve of Passover falls on a Sabbath, when there were many additional blowings at the slaughtering of the Paschal lamb.

"Nor oftener than forty-eight times." Is that so? Did they not blow, when the eve of Passover fell on Sabbath, according to R. Jehudah fifty-one, and according to the rabbis fifty-seven, times? When the Passover offering was brought, it is explained in Tract Pesachim (Chap. V., Mishna 5, p. 119) that it was blown many times during the time when the three divisions brought their offerings. This, which was done every year, is counted in the Mishna; but the eve of a Passover that fell on Sabbath, which Is not every year, but only seldom, is not reckoned. But does the eve of Sabbath fall every year on the festival; it may happen that the first day of the festival falls on Friday, and then there is no eve of Sabbath during the whole festival? If this happens, then we prolong the festival for another day, because if the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles would be on Friday, the Day of Atonement would fall on Sunday, and no Day of Atonement must fall on Friday or on Sunday. An objection was raised: We have learned that if the first day of the month falls on Sabbath, the song of the first of the month supersedes the song of the Sabbath. Now, if it would be as R. A'ha interpreted the Boraitha before, that they blew at every additional sacrifice, why does it supersede? Let the song of the first of the month be sung, and that of Sabbath also? Said R. Saphra: The Boraitha which says "supersedes the Sabbath" means, it is said before the song of the Sabbath. Why so? Is there not a rule as to that which is frequent and that which is rare, that the frequent has the preference? Said R. Johanan: This was an exception to the rule, that the people should know that this month is consecrated by Beth Din in its time.

Another objection was raised: Rabha bar Samuel taught: One may say, as we must blow every Sabbath separately, and every first month separately, so shall we blow at every additional sacrifice? Therefore it is written [Num. x. 10]: "On the beginnings of your months" (on the beginnings of the months only, but not at additional sacrifices). This objection to R. A'ha's teaching remains. How is it inferred from this passage? Said Abayi: Because it is written, "on the beginnings of the months," in the plural, all the months shall be equal (and if a first day of the month falls on Sabbath, and it would be blown for every additional sacrifice, the months would not be equal). R. Ashi says: We may infer it from the following: It is written "your months," and the "beginnings," in the plural. Which month can happen to have two beginnings? That is New Year, which is the beginning of the year and of the month, and it is nevertheless written, "your months." From this we infer, all the first days of the months must be equal. We have learned in another Boraitha: On the intermediate days the songs were as follows: On the first day they used to say from Psalm xxix.: "Ascribe unto the Lord, O ye sons of the mighty"; on the second, from Ps. 1. 16; on the third, Ps. xciv. 16; on the fourth, ibid. 8; on the fifth day, Ps. lxxxi. 7. On the sixth day they used to say lxxxii. 5: "All the foundations of the earth are moved"; and if Sabbath fall on one of these days, "All the foundations of the earth are moved" should be superseded. (Now, from what is said, that when Sabbath falls it is superseded, we see that it was not blown for additional offerings.) The objection of R. A'ha remains. But did not R. A'ha bar Hanina cite both a verse and a Boraitha? Said Rabbina: The Boraitha which says it was blown at additional offerings, meant to say it was blown a little longer, but not a greater number of times. The rabbis of Cæsarea in the name of R. A'ha said: It was added to the number of trumpets.

And we in exile, who keep two days of festival, how shall we say in the additional prayer the passages [Num. xxix. 17-32] about the sacrifices? Amemar ordained in Nehardai: The second day we should leave out verse 17, but on the third day we should say (17-20) "both on the second and third"; on the fourth day (20-23) "the third and the fourth," etc., because in exile it was doubtful when the first of the month was consecrated.

MISHNA: On the first holy day of the festival there were thirteen bullocks, two rams, and one goat to be offered. There then remained fourteen lambs for eight orders of priests. On the first day of the festival six of these orders offered two lambs each, and the other two orders one lamb each. On the second day five of the orders offered two lambs each, and the remaining four orders one lamb each. On the third day four orders offered two lambs each, and the remaining six orders one lamb each. On the fourth day three orders offered two lambs each, and the remaining eight orders one lamb each. On the fifth day two orders offered two lambs each, and the remaining ten orders one lamb each. On the sixth day one order offered two lambs, and the remaining twelve orders one lamb each. On the seventh day they were all equal. On the eighth day they cast lots, as on other festivals. It was so regulated that the order which offered bullocks one day were not permitted to offer bullocks the next day, but it went in rotation.

GEMARA: These seventy bullocks, for what purpose were they offered? Said R. Elazar: For the sake of the seventy nations which existed then. And to what purpose was offered the one bullock [Num. xxix. 36]? For the sake of the single nation (Israel). It can be compared to a human king who says to his slaves: Make for me a great meal for several days. On the last day he says to his friend: You make for me a little meal, that I should have a benefit from yourself only. Said R. Johanan: Woe be to the nations, they have lost, and they do not know even what they have lost! When the Temple was in existence, the altar atoned for their sins, but now who shall atone for their sins?

MISHNA: Three times in the year all the twenty-four orders of priests were alike entitled to share the pieces of offerings of the festival, and in the shewbread; and on the Feast of Pentecost the distributors say to each priest: "Here is leavened bread for thee, and here is unleavened bread for thee." The order of priests whose regular time of service occurs in the festivals offer the continual daily offerings, vows, and voluntary offerings, and all congregational offerings, and every sacrifice.

GEMARA: The pieces of the offerings? They were brought to the altar? Said R. Hisda: Do not read "pieces of the offering," but "the offerings that were said to be sacrificed on the festivals." The rabbis taught: Whence do we deduce that all the orders of the priests had equal shares of the offerings of the festival? Because it is written [Deut. xviii. 6]: "And come with all the longing of his soul... he shall minister." Lest one say, on any day of the year it should be also so, therefore it is written, "from any one of thy gates," to signify, this is only when all Israel comes through one gate.

"And in the shewbread." The rabbis taught: Whence do we deduce that all the orders of the priests have equal shares of the shewbread? From what is written [Deut. xviii. 8]: "They shall have like portions to eat." That means, according to his share in the service shall be his share in eating. But what is meant by eating? Shall we assume, that means to eat his share of the sacrifice? This is already deduced from Leviticus, vii. 9: "Shall belong to the priest that offereth it alone." Hence it means only the eating of the shewbread. But lest one say, they shall have a share also in the duty-offerings which are not dependent on the festival, therefore it is written [Deut. xviii. 8]: "Beside that which cometh of the sale of his patrimony." What is meant by selling the patrimony? That they have divided the weeks: I and my children shall take this week, and you shall have the other week.

"And on Pentecost," etc. It was taught: (If one has to pronounce two benedictions, of the Succah and the time,) Rabh said, he shall pronounce first the benediction of the Succah, and after this that of the time; and Rabha bar bar Hana said, that of the time first. The reason of Rabh is because the duty of the day must be given preference; and Rabha bar bar Hana's, the frequent thing has the preference over the rarer thing (and the benediction of the time is said many times in the year, and that of the Succah only once a year). An objection was raised from our Mishna: On Pentecost it is said: "Here is leavened bread, and here is unleavened bread." Now, on the Pentecost, the duty of the day is with leavened bread, and nevertheless it mentions unleavened bread first, and this would be an objection to Rabh, who says that the duty of the day must be given preference? Rabh might say. On this differ the Tanaim, as we learn in the following Boraitha: Here is unleavened bread, here is leavened bread. R. Saul, however, said: Here is leavened bread, here is unleavened bread. R. Na'hman b. R. Hisda lectured: It shall be done not according to Rabh to pronounce the benediction of Succah before that of time, but that of time should be said before that of Succah. R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi says: The Succah before the time. And so the Halakha prevails.

"The order of priests, whose regular time," etc. What is meant by "all congregational sacrifices"? It means to add the bullock, which the congregation has to offer for ignorance [Lev. iv. 13, 14] and the goat for idolatry.

"And every sacrifice." What is meant by every sacrifice? It means, to supply the deficit on the altar. (See Tract Shekalim, Chap. IV., Mishna D.)

MISHNA: If a festival falls before or after a Sabbath, all the twenty-four orders share alike in the shewbread. But if a day intervenes between the Sabbath and the festival, the order whose regular turn it was, received ten of the shewbread, and the loiterers received two shewbread. At other times of the year the order which entered on their duty received six, and that which went off duty received also six. R. Jehudah says: That order which enters on duty received seven, and that which goes off receives five. Those who entered shared them on the north side, and those who went out, on the south side (of the Temple court). The order Bilgah always divided their share on the south side; their slaughter ring was fastened down, and the window of their chamber blocked up.

GEMARA: What is meant by "before or after"? Shall we assume that "before" means the first day of the festival, and after a Sabbath? The last day of the festival, is it not the same as a Sabbath during the festival? Therefore we must say that "before" means, the last day was before a Sabbath, and "after" means, the first day was after Sabbath. Why, then, shall the shares be equal? The Sabbath does not belong to the festival at all? Because those who have to work on the succeeding week must come before the Sabbath, and those whose duty was out could not go away on the festival, and they all stayed in the Temple. Therefore the sages ordained they should have an equal share.

"If a day intervene," etc. And according to R. Jehudah, what is the reason that those who enter received two more? Said R. Itz'hak: That was the reward for opening the gates. But why did they not say, let it be equal for ever, for in the other week those who take seven this week will have five the next? Said Abayi: It is better to take a ripe small orange than to wait for an unripe large melon.

"Those who entered shared them on the north," etc. The rabbis taught: Those that entered took their shares on the north side, that it should be seen they were entering; and those who took them on the south side did it that everybody should see they were going out.

"The order Bilgah," etc. The rabbis taught: It happened to Miriam the daughter of Bilgah that she became an apostate, and was married to an officer of the Greek kingdom. When the Greeks entered the Temple, she took her sandal and knocked on the altar, and said: Lucus, Lucus, how long will you destroy the money of Israel, if you cannot help them in their trouble? When the sages heard this, they fastened down their ring and blocked up the window. But according to others, the order of Bilgah was always late to come, and the order of Jeshebab his brother substituted them; and although always the neighbors of the wicked are not benefited, the neighbors of Bilgah have benefited, because they took their share always in the south, and those of Jeshebab his brother always in the north. It is right according to those who say that the whole order was late, therefore it was punished; but according to those who say that only Miriam, Bilgah's daughter, became apostate, can it be that the Bilgah should be punished for his daughter? Said Abayi: Yea, because people say, what a child speaks in the street, it has heard either from its father or from its mother. But must the whole order be punished for the sin of her father and mother? Said Abayi: Woe be to the wicked, and woe be to his neighbor; well be to the righteous, and well be to his neighbor, as it is written [Is. iii. 10]: "Say ye to the righteous, that he hath done well; for the fruit of their doings shall they eat."

END OF TRACT SUCCAH.