Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 7, scan section 49

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." CHAPTER III. 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 vaHd. One which comes from a grove (devoted to idolatry) or from a rejected town f 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 f 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. Ixi. 8] : '' For I, the Lord, love justice : I hate rob- bery 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 pas- sengers 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 *Lev. xxiii. 40. f Deut. xiii. I2. X A mountain near Jerusalem, southward, the palm branches of which were very short. TRACT SUCCAH. 43 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 myr- tles 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 your- selves, 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 sage, 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 v.'ood that has been taken for the use of the Succah. 44 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. 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, be- cause it is written hadar (beauty), so the Lulab must be beauti- ful ; 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