we require that it must be a single corner at the time of threading the strand through the hole. And there is not a single corner in this case, as although he ties the fringes separately, he threads the two corners simultaneously. Therefore, Shmuel teaches us that with regard to threading it is not a concern.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and did not first cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. What, is it not saying that the ritual fringes are unfit forever with no way to remedy the situation, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav? The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: What is the meaning of unfit? It means they are unfit until they will be cut; not that they are unfit forever. And Shmuel said that it means they are unfit forever. And Levi also said: They are unfit forever. And likewise, Rav Mattana said that Shmuel said: They are unfit forever.

Some say that Rav Mattana said: There was an incident that happened to me involving this uncertainty with regard to ritual fringes, and I came before Master Shmuel and he said to me: They are unfit forever.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a different baraita: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut the ends of their strands, they are unfit. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita with regard to a sukka: The verse states: “Prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13), and from the language of this verse the Sages derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared. From here the Sages said: If one trellised a grapevine, a gourd plant, or ivy over a sukka while still attached to the ground, and then he added roofing atop the vines, the sukka is unfit.

What are the circumstances? If we say that the baraita is referring to a case where he did not subsequently cut the vines, why does the tanna particularly teach that it is unfit due to the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared? Let him derive that the climbing plants are unfit for roofing due to the fact that they are attached to the ground, unrelated to the manner in which they were placed. Rather, it must be referring to a case where he cut them and nevertheless, the baraita is teaching that the vines are unfit, and learn from it that we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation; and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav.

Rav could have said to you: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he pulled the branches until they broke off the tree. Since, in that case, their active preparation is not conspicuous, it does not render the climbing plants fit roofing. The Gemara asks: In any case, does that which was taught with regard to ritual fringes: If one attached the ritual fringes and only afterward cut their strands, etc., pose a difficulty to the opinion of Rav? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it remains difficult according to Rav.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. If black berries grew on a myrtle branch, one of the four species taken on Sukkot, and its berries were more numerous than its leaves, the myrtle branch is unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva of taking the four species on Sukkot. However, if one picked enough berries so that the leaves were more numerous, it is fit, although one may not pick the berries on the Festival itself. If he transgressed and picked them on the Festival, it is unfit; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak. And the Rabbis deem it fit in that case.

The Gemara proceeds to explain the basis for the comparison between the dispute with regard to the roofing of the sukka and the dispute with regard to the myrtle branch. The Sages initially thought that everyone, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak and the Rabbis, agrees that in fulfilling the mitzva of the four species, the three species, i.e., the lulav, the myrtle branch, and the willow branch, require a binding by Torah law. Therefore, it is relevant to discuss preparation with regard to this binding. And the Sages also initially thought that everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, as it is written with regard to sukka: Prepare, from which is derived the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, and the same applies to the halakhot of lulav as well.

What, is it not that the tanna’im disagree with regard to the following? That the one who deems the myrtle branch whose berries were picked on the Festival fit, holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to berries on the myrtle branch as one of the species bound with the lulav as well, we say: Their picking is their preparation, and no further action is required. And the one who deems it unfit holds that with regard to the branches on a sukka we do not say: Their cutting is their preparation, and therefore, with regard to lulav as well, we do not say: Their picking is their preparation. Therefore, since the myrtle branch was not prepared for use prior to the Festival, and it was bound together with the other species, it is considered already prepared and picking the fruit off the branch is not active preparation sufficient to render it fit.

The Gemara rejects that explanation of the dispute. No, the fact is that everyone agrees that we do not say with regard to sukka: Their cutting is their preparation, and here in the case of the myrtle branch, it is with regard to deriving the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka that they disagree. The one who deems the myrtle branch fit holds that we do not derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka, and therefore the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, does not apply to lulav. And the one who deems the myrtle branch unfit holds that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka.

And if you wish, say instead: If we hold that lulav requires a binding, everyone agrees that we derive the halakhot of lulav from the halakhot of sukka and the principle: Prepare it, and not from that which has already been prepared, applies to the halakhot of the four species as well. And here it is with regard to the following that they disagree: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak, holds that the lulav requires a binding, and therefore the myrtle branch is unfit; and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that the lulav does not require a binding, and therefore, preparation is not relevant with regard to lulav and it makes no difference whether the berries were picked before or after the myrtle branch was bound together with the lulav and the willow branch. And they disagree with regard to the same topic as in the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow and whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound it is fit; if it is not bound it is unfit.

The Gemara asks: What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? From where does he derive this requirement by Torah law? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, in the context of the four species: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, and boughs of a dense-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Leviticus 23:40). Just as there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. And the Rabbis hold: We do not derive the term taking from the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in this baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow with the lulav. And if he did not bind it, it is fit. If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, why is there a mitzva to bind it at all? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the reason that there is a mitzva to bind it is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [ve’anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2), which they interpreted to mean: Beautify yourself [hitna’e] before Him in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

§ We learned in the mishna: This is the principle with regard to the roofing of a sukka: One may not roof the sukka with anything that is susceptible to ritual impurity or whose growth is not from the ground. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters with regard to the roofing of a sukka derived? Reish Lakish said that the verse states: “And there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the entire face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6); just as mist, i.e., a cloud, is a substance not capable of contracting ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, i.e., arises from the ground, so too, the roofing of the sukka must consist of a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground. Since the mitzva of sukka evokes the clouds of glory with which God enveloped the Israelites in the desert, the legal status of roofing should be like that of a cloud.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that the sukkot mentioned in the verse: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot” (Leviticus 23:43), were clouds of glory, as it is reasonable that the roofing of the sukka is modeled after clouds. However, according to the one who said that the children of Israel established for themselves actual sukkot in the desert, and the sukkot of today commemorate those, what can be said? According to that opinion, there is no connection between a sukka and a cloud. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “I made the children of Israel to reside in sukkot”; these booths were clouds of glory, this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Akiva says: They established for themselves actual sukkot. This works out well according to Rabbi Eliezer; however, according to Rabbi Akiva what can be said?

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that the verse states: “You shall prepare for you the festival of Sukkot” (Deuteronomy 16:13). The expression “festival of Sukkot” likens sukka to the Festival peace-offering [ḥagiga]. Just as the Festival peace-offering is an item not susceptible to ritual impurity, and its growth is from the ground, as animals draw nourishment from vegetation, so too, the roofing of the sukka must be a substance that is not susceptible to ritual impurity and its growth is from the ground.