Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 17, 2021 | 讟壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讗

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).

A month of shiurim are sponsored by Terri Krivosha for a refuah shleima for her beloved husband Rabbi Hayim Herring.

And for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sukkah 41

Rav Ashi limits the debate between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan regarding how one can transfer the sanctity of shmita fruits. At first, he says they are only debating the case of the fruits themselves but all would agree that money or an item that had kedusha sanctified by the fruits would be able to transfer sanctity to another item either by sale or by redemption, chilul. However, after a question is raised, he switches his opinion and says the debate is about items sanctified by the fruits, but all would agree regarding the fruits themselves that they can only transfer sanctity through a sale. In the days when the temple stood, they would take the lulav for seven days in the temple and outside the temple only one day. After the destruction of the temple, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai established that lulav be taken all seven days to remember what was done in the days the temple stood. He also instituted that the new wheat would be forbidden on the 16th of Nisan until the end of the day. Why was it forbidden all day? When the first day of Yom Tov falls on Shabbat in the times of the temple, everyone (even outside the temple) would take a lulav. They would all bring it to the synagogue. How would they ensure that they would have their own lulav? Rabban Gamliel came on a boat with some other rabbis and only he had a lulav that he bought for 1,000 zuz. After he took the lulav, he gave it to others as a gift so that they could use it and then give it back to him. Why did the story tell us that he bought it for so much money? To show how much he loved performing the mitzva. Ameimar would hold the lulav during prayers (the whole time). The gemara raises a question on this. How is it resolved? It is told about the people of Jerusalem that they held their lulavs all day, other than the times that it was not manageable, such as when they learned Torah.

讘讝讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘谞拽讘讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注诇 砖讞讜讟讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讞讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛谉 注讚专讬诐

is specifically with regard to male animals, which do not bear offspring. However, with regard to female animals, everyone agrees that upon slaughtered animals, produce is deconsecrated, but upon animals that are alive, produce is not deconsecrated. The reason is that a decree was issued lest one raise flocks from the females, as typically they bear offspring. The Sages extended the decree to include males as well. From the fact that the baraita uses the term deconsecrated, and not the term purchased, apparently the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘驻专讬 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘驻专讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇拽讞 诇拽讞 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诇拽讞 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诇拽讞

Rav Ashi said: This dispute whether the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption or only by means of purchase is with regard to the original Sabbatical-Year produce itself. However, with regard to secondary produce purchased in exchange for Sabbatical-Year produce, everyone agrees that its sanctity takes effect both by means of purchase and by means of redemption. And the fact that the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar teaches: Purchased, purchased, employing that term even with regard to secondary produce, and not the terms deconsecrated or redeemed, does not prove that sanctity takes effect only by means of purchase. Rather, since the tanna of the baraita taught the first clause of the halakha employing the term purchased, he taught the latter clause employing the term purchased, even though sanctity takes effect even by means of redemption.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 住诇注 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讞诇讜拽 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讛专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讘住诇注 驻讬专讜转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讜讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 驻讬专讜转 讛诇诇讜 谞转讜谞讬诐 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讗 诇讱 住诇注 讝讜 讘诪转谞讛 讜讛诇讛 诇讜拽讞 讘讛谉 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻专讬 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 诇讗

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who has a sela coin that has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and seeks to purchase a garment with it, how should he do so? He should go to the storekeeper whose store he typically patronizes and say to him: Give me fruits in exchange for this sela, and the storekeeper gives him fruits. And then he says to the storekeeper: These fruits that you sold me and that assumed the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year are given to you as a gift. The storekeeper may then eat them as one eats Sabbatical-Year produce. And the storekeeper says to him: Here is a sela for you as a gift, and that person purchases with it whatever he wants, as the sela was deconsecrated. Ravina asks: But here, isn鈥檛 it secondary produce, as the sela had previously been exchanged for the original Sabbatical-Year produce, and nevertheless the baraita teaches: By means of purchase, yes, it is effective; by means of redemption, no, it is not?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘驻专讬 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 讘驻专讬 专讗砖讜谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 诇讗 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讚诪讬 砖讘讬注讬转

Rather, Rav Ashi said, contrary to the suggestion above, that the dispute is specifically with regard to secondary produce; however, with regard to original produce, everyone agrees: By means of purchase, yes, it is deconsecrated; by means of redemption, no, it is not deconsecrated. And with regard to that which is taught in the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon cattle, undomesticated animals, and fowl, indicating that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect through both purchase and redemption. What is the meaning of Sabbatical-Year produce? It is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce but not to the produce itself.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪诪砖 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 诪注砖专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讬注讬转

And the same must be said with regard to the second tithe mentioned in this baraita, as, if you do not say so but say instead that the second tithe referred to in the baraita is actual second-tithe produce, isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the second tithe: 鈥淭hen shall you turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand鈥and you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25鈥26), indicating that second-tithe produce can be redeemed only with money, with which other food items may be purchased? Rather, the baraita must be referring to money exchanged for second-tithe produce and not to the produce itself. Here, too, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, the baraita is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce and not to the produce itself.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘注讛 讜讘诪讚讬谞讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪讚讬谞讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

MISHNA: Originally, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven days, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple it was taken for one day. Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country for seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专

And for similar reasons, he instituted an ordinance that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, it should be prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. It is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop until the omer offering is brought and waved in the Temple on the sixteenth of Nisan. The offering was sacrificed in the morning; however, after taking potential delays into consideration, the new crop remained prohibited until it was clear that the offering had been sacrificed. Practically speaking, it was prohibited to eat the new grain until the sixteenth of Nisan was over; it was permitted only on the seventeenth. Once the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer an omer offering sacrificed, it was permitted to eat the new crop on the sixteenth. However, Rabban Yo岣nan instituted an ordinance that eating the new grain would remain prohibited until the seventeenth to commemorate the Temple.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讗注诇讛 讗专讜讻讛 诇讱 讜诪诪讻讜转讬讱 讗专驻讗讱 谞讗诐 讛壮 讻讬 谞讚讞讛 拽专讗讜 诇讱 爪讬讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讜专砖 讗讬谉 诇讛 讚讜专砖 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘注讬讗 讚专讬砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that we institute ordinances in commemoration of the Temple? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that it is as the verse states: 鈥淔or I will restore health unto you and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; because they have called you an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that seeks her鈥 (Jeremiah 30:17). From the fact that the verse states: 鈥淭here is none that seeks her,鈥 it can be learned by inference that it requires seeking, i.e., people should think of and remember the Temple. That is the reason for Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 ordinance.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 讘讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇 讜讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛转讬专 讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 注讜诪专 诪转讬专

搂 The mishna continues: Rabban Yo岣nan instituted that for the entire day of waving the Omer offering, it is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn鈥檛 we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately with the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time. And they do not know that although last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, now that there is a Temple, the omer offering permits one to eat the new grain. Until the omer offering is sacrificed, the new grain is not permitted.

讚讗讬讘谞讬 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘砖讬转住专 讛专讬 讛转讬专 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘讞诪讬住专 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 转砖转专讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬诐 讘讜

The Gemara asks: When is it that the Temple will be rebuilt in this scenario? If we say that it will be rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, since in the morning the Temple was not yet built, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain, as the omer offering could not yet be brought. Rather, say that it will be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illuminating of the eastern sky. In that case, from midday and onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as we learned in a mishna in tractate Mena岣t: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday and onward because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer and would not postpone bringing the offering after midday.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 (讗诪专) 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara says: No, it is necessary to institute the ordinance only in the case where the Temple will be rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. Alternatively, it was necessary to institute the ordinance in the case where the Temple was built adjacent to sunset on the fifteenth because there would not be sufficient time to complete all the preparations and sacrifice the offering by noon the next day. Therefore, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain is prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is not the reason; rather, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: It is prohibited by Torah law to eat the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is written:

注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注讚 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讜拽住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14), indicating until the essence [itzumo] of the day, and not the night before. And he holds that when the verse states: 鈥淯ntil,鈥 the word until is inclusive, meaning that the grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 诪驻诇讬讙 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 (讚转谞讬讗) 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注讚 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn鈥檛 he disagree with him, as it is taught in a baraita: Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, it should be prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Isn鈥檛 it prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil this selfsame day,鈥 which means: Until the essence of the day? Apparently, they have two divergentopinions.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 讛转拽讬谉 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讛转拽讬谉 讚专砖 讜讛转拽讬谉

The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehuda who is mistaken. He thought that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is saying it is prohibited by rabbinic law. And that is not so; he is saying it is prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the mishna say: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted, indicating that it is a rabbinic ordinance? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of instituted? It means that he interpreted the verses in the Torah and instituted public notice for the multitudes to conduct themselves accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讻诇 讛注诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇诪讞专转 诪砖讻讬诪讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪讻讬专 讗转 砖诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讜诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛讞讙 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诇讜诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘专砖讜转

MISHNA: If the first day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, all of the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue on Shabbat eve, as it is prohibited to carry in a public domain on Shabbat. The next day, on Shabbat, everyone rises early and comes to the synagogue. Each and every one recognizes his lulav and takes it. This emphasis that each and every one recognizes his own lulav and takes it is because the Sages said: A person does not fulfill his obligation to take the lulav on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another, and on the rest of the days of the Festival a person fulfills his obligation even with the lulav of another. Rabbi Yosei says: If the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression because he carried it out with permission, i.e., he was preoccupied with the performance of the mitzva and carried it out.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诇拽讞转诐 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讘讬讚 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛砖讗讜诇 讜讗转 讛讙讝讜诇 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讘诇讜诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛

GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that one does not fulfill his obligation with the lulav of another on the first day of the Festival? It is as the Sages taught that it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). The use of second person plural in the phrase: 鈥淎nd you shall take,鈥 indicates that there should be taking in the hand of each and every person. The word yourselves in the phrase 鈥渢ake for yourselves鈥 means: From your own, to exclude a borrowed or stolen lulav. From here the Sages stated: A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another unless the other gave it to him as a full-fledged gift, as in that case it belongs to him.

讜诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜诇讘 讗诇讗 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诇讘讚 砖诇拽讞讜 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 谞讟诇讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘诪转谞讛 谞讟诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 谞讟诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞讟诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and Rabbi Akiva, who were all traveling on a ship during the festival of Sukkot and only Rabban Gamliel had a lulav, which he had bought for one thousand zuz. Rabban Gamliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and then gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua as a gift. Rabbi Yehoshua took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya as a gift. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it to Rabbi Akiva as a gift. Rabbi Akiva took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and returned it to Rabban Gamliel.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞讝讬专讜 诪诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转谞讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 砖诪讛 诪转谞讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say that Rabbi Akiva returned the lulav to Rabban Gamliel? The crux of the story is that each of the Sages fulfilled his obligation with the same lulav after receiving it as a gift. The Gemara answers: By including that detail, the tanna teaches us another matter in passing, namely that a gift given on the condition that it be returned is considered a full-fledged gift. Even if the owner stipulates from the outset that the gift would be returned, since he gives it as a gift in the interim, its halakhic status is that of a full-fledged gift.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诇讱 讗转专讜讙 讝讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讞讝讬专讛讜 诇讬 谞讟诇讜 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 讬爪讗 诇讗 讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

This is like that which Rava said, that in the case of one who says to another: Here is an etrog for you on condition that you return it to me, and the recipient took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned the etrog, he fulfilled his obligation of taking the etrog. However, if he did not return the etrog, he did not fulfill his obligation. Since he did not fulfill the condition, retroactively he never acquired the gift at all.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖诇拽讞讜 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻诪讛 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬讘讜转 注诇讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say that Rabban Gamliel bought this lulav for one thousand zuz? The Gemara answers: It is to inform you how beloved mitzvot were to them to the extent that he was willing to pay an exorbitant sum to purchase a lulav.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 爪诇讜讬讬 拽讗 诪爪诇讬 讘讬讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讗讞讝 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞讬拽讜 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜诇讗 讬砖转讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛谉 诇讗 砖讬谞转 拽讘注 讜诇讗 砖讬谞转 注专讗讬

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: My father would pray with the four species in his hand in an expression of his love for the mitzva. The Gemara raises an objection: A person should not hold phylacteries in his hand or a Torah scroll in his lap and pray while doing so; neither should he urinate with them in his hand; nor should he sleep with them in his hand, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讻讬谉 讜拽注专讛 讻讻专 讜诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讟专讬讚 讘讛讜 讛讻讗 诪爪讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛讜

And Shmuel said: With regard to a knife, a bowl full of food, a loaf of bread, or money, these items are similar to those mentioned above; since he is concerned lest these items fall from his hand, he is distracted and he unable to concentrate on his prayers. Why, then, is that not the case with regard to lulav? It should be prohibited to hold the lulav during prayer for the same reason. The Gemara answers: There, in the cases listed above, they are not related to performance of a mitzva, and he is preoccupied with them. Therefore, that preoccupation distracts his focus from his prayers. Here, in the case of the four species, they are related to performance of a mitzva, so he is not preoccupied with them in a manner that will distract him from his prayers.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙谉 砖诇 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转讜 讜诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讜诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪转驻诇诇 讜诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 拽讜专讗 讘转讜专讛 讜谞讜砖讗 讗转 讻驻讬讜 诪谞讬讞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讛讜诇讱 诇讘拽专 讞讜诇讬诐 讜诇谞讞诐 讗讘诇讬诐 诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诪砖讙专 诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚 讘谞讜 讜讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讜讘讬讚 砖诇讜讞讜

The Gemara cites support for the custom mentioned above, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: This was the custom of the people of Jerusalem during the festival of Sukkot. A person leaves his house, and his lulav is in his hand; he goes to the synagogue, and his lulav is in his hand; he recites Shema and prays, and his lulav is in his hand; he reads the Torah and a priest lifts his hands to recite the priestly benediction, and he places it on the ground because he cannot perform those tasks while holding the lulav. He goes to visit the ill or to console mourners, and his lulav is in his hand; he enters the study hall to study Torah, and he sends his lulav home in the hands of his son, in the hands of his slave, or in the hands of his agent.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻诪讛 讛讬讜 讝专讬讝讬谉 讘诪爪讜转

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us by relating all these details that appear to establish the same practice? The Gemara explains: It is to inform you how vigilant they were in the performance of mitzvot and how much they cherished them.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬

搂 The mishna continues: Rabbi Yosei says that if the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and one forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering. Abaye said:

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Sukkah 35 – 41 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the 4th species, the Etrog and what makes it valid or invalid. We will...
lulav replica shalom al yisrael

Who Knows Four?

Ask a Jew today what is THE symbol of the Jewish people and chances are she will say the Magen...

Sukkah 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 41

讘讝讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 讘谞拽讘讜转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 注诇 砖讞讜讟讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 注诇 讞讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诪转讞诇诇讬谉 讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讙讚诇 诪讛谉 注讚专讬诐

is specifically with regard to male animals, which do not bear offspring. However, with regard to female animals, everyone agrees that upon slaughtered animals, produce is deconsecrated, but upon animals that are alive, produce is not deconsecrated. The reason is that a decree was issued lest one raise flocks from the females, as typically they bear offspring. The Sages extended the decree to include males as well. From the fact that the baraita uses the term deconsecrated, and not the term purchased, apparently the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption as well.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘驻专讬 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 讘驻专讬 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘讬谉 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讘讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 诇拽讞 诇拽讞 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诇拽讞 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 诇拽讞

Rav Ashi said: This dispute whether the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption or only by means of purchase is with regard to the original Sabbatical-Year produce itself. However, with regard to secondary produce purchased in exchange for Sabbatical-Year produce, everyone agrees that its sanctity takes effect both by means of purchase and by means of redemption. And the fact that the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar teaches: Purchased, purchased, employing that term even with regard to secondary produce, and not the terms deconsecrated or redeemed, does not prove that sanctity takes effect only by means of purchase. Rather, since the tanna of the baraita taught the first clause of the halakha employing the term purchased, he taught the latter clause employing the term purchased, even though sanctity takes effect even by means of redemption.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 砖讬砖 诇讜 住诇注 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讬拽讞 讘讜 讞诇讜拽 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬诇讱 讗爪诇 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讛专讙讬诇 讗爪诇讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 转谉 诇讬 讘住诇注 驻讬专讜转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 讜讞讜讝专 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛专讬 驻讬专讜转 讛诇诇讜 谞转讜谞讬诐 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讛讗 诇讱 住诇注 讝讜 讘诪转谞讛 讜讛诇讛 诇讜拽讞 讘讛谉 诪讛 砖讬专爪讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚驻专讬 砖谞讬 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 诇讗

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who has a sela coin that has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and seeks to purchase a garment with it, how should he do so? He should go to the storekeeper whose store he typically patronizes and say to him: Give me fruits in exchange for this sela, and the storekeeper gives him fruits. And then he says to the storekeeper: These fruits that you sold me and that assumed the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year are given to you as a gift. The storekeeper may then eat them as one eats Sabbatical-Year produce. And the storekeeper says to him: Here is a sela for you as a gift, and that person purchases with it whatever he wants, as the sela was deconsecrated. Ravina asks: But here, isn鈥檛 it secondary produce, as the sela had previously been exchanged for the original Sabbatical-Year produce, and nevertheless the baraita teaches: By means of purchase, yes, it is effective; by means of redemption, no, it is not?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘驻专讬 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 讘驻专讬 专讗砖讜谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讚专讱 诪拽讞 讗讬谉 讚专讱 讞讬诇讜诇 诇讗 讜讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 讗讞讚 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讗讞讚 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 讚诪讬 砖讘讬注讬转

Rather, Rav Ashi said, contrary to the suggestion above, that the dispute is specifically with regard to secondary produce; however, with regard to original produce, everyone agrees: By means of purchase, yes, it is deconsecrated; by means of redemption, no, it is not deconsecrated. And with regard to that which is taught in the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon cattle, undomesticated animals, and fowl, indicating that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect through both purchase and redemption. What is the meaning of Sabbatical-Year produce? It is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce but not to the produce itself.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诪注砖专 诪注砖专 诪诪砖 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜爪专转 讛讻住祝 讘讬讚讱 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 诪注砖专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讬注讬转

And the same must be said with regard to the second tithe mentioned in this baraita, as, if you do not say so but say instead that the second tithe referred to in the baraita is actual second-tithe produce, isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the second tithe: 鈥淭hen shall you turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand鈥and you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:25鈥26), indicating that second-tithe produce can be redeemed only with money, with which other food items may be purchased? Rather, the baraita must be referring to money exchanged for second-tithe produce and not to the produce itself. Here, too, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, the baraita is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce and not to the produce itself.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪拽讚砖 砖讘注讛 讜讘诪讚讬谞讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讜诇讘 谞讬讟诇 讘诪讚讬谞讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

MISHNA: Originally, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven days, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple it was taken for one day. Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country for seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专

And for similar reasons, he instituted an ordinance that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, it should be prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. It is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop until the omer offering is brought and waved in the Temple on the sixteenth of Nisan. The offering was sacrificed in the morning; however, after taking potential delays into consideration, the new crop remained prohibited until it was clear that the offering had been sacrificed. Practically speaking, it was prohibited to eat the new grain until the sixteenth of Nisan was over; it was permitted only on the seventeenth. Once the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer an omer offering sacrificed, it was permitted to eat the new crop on the sixteenth. However, Rabban Yo岣nan instituted an ordinance that eating the new grain would remain prohibited until the seventeenth to commemorate the Temple.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讗注诇讛 讗专讜讻讛 诇讱 讜诪诪讻讜转讬讱 讗专驻讗讱 谞讗诐 讛壮 讻讬 谞讚讞讛 拽专讗讜 诇讱 爪讬讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讜专砖 讗讬谉 诇讛 讚讜专砖 讗讬谉 诇讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘注讬讗 讚专讬砖讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that we institute ordinances in commemoration of the Temple? Rabbi Yo岣nan said that it is as the verse states: 鈥淔or I will restore health unto you and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; because they have called you an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that seeks her鈥 (Jeremiah 30:17). From the fact that the verse states: 鈥淭here is none that seeks her,鈥 it can be learned by inference that it requires seeking, i.e., people should think of and remember the Temple. That is the reason for Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai鈥檚 ordinance.

讜砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 讘讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇 讜讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛转讬专 讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 注讜诪专 诪转讬专

搂 The mishna continues: Rabban Yo岣nan instituted that for the entire day of waving the Omer offering, it is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn鈥檛 we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately with the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time. And they do not know that although last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, now that there is a Temple, the omer offering permits one to eat the new grain. Until the omer offering is sacrificed, the new grain is not permitted.

讚讗讬讘谞讬 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘砖讬转住专 讛专讬 讛转讬专 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘讞诪讬住专 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 转砖转专讬 讚讛讗 转谞谉 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬诐 讘讜

The Gemara asks: When is it that the Temple will be rebuilt in this scenario? If we say that it will be rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, since in the morning the Temple was not yet built, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain, as the omer offering could not yet be brought. Rather, say that it will be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illuminating of the eastern sky. In that case, from midday and onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as we learned in a mishna in tractate Mena岣t: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday and onward because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer and would not postpone bringing the offering after midday.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬讘谞讬 讘诇讬诇讬讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 (讗诪专) 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara says: No, it is necessary to institute the ordinance only in the case where the Temple will be rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. Alternatively, it was necessary to institute the ordinance in the case where the Temple was built adjacent to sunset on the fifteenth because there would not be sufficient time to complete all the preparations and sacrifice the offering by noon the next day. Therefore, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain is prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: That is not the reason; rather, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: It is prohibited by Torah law to eat the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is written:

注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注讚 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讜拽住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14), indicating until the essence [itzumo] of the day, and not the night before. And he holds that when the verse states: 鈥淯ntil,鈥 the word until is inclusive, meaning that the grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 诪驻诇讬讙 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 (讚转谞讬讗) 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 注讚 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But doesn鈥檛 he disagree with him, as it is taught in a baraita: Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, it should be prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Isn鈥檛 it prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil this selfsame day,鈥 which means: Until the essence of the day? Apparently, they have two divergentopinions.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 讛转拽讬谉 拽讗诪专 诪讗讬 讛转拽讬谉 讚专砖 讜讛转拽讬谉

The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yehuda who is mistaken. He thought that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is saying it is prohibited by rabbinic law. And that is not so; he is saying it is prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the mishna say: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted, indicating that it is a rabbinic ordinance? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of instituted? It means that he interpreted the verses in the Torah and instituted public notice for the multitudes to conduct themselves accordingly.

诪转谞讬壮 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讻诇 讛注诐 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 诇讜诇讘讬讛谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇诪讞专转 诪砖讻讬诪讬谉 讜讘讗讬谉 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诪讻讬专 讗转 砖诇讜 讜谞讜讟诇讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讜诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛讞讙 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘诇讜诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜砖讻讞 讜讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜爪讬讗讜 讘专砖讜转

MISHNA: If the first day of the festival of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, all of the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue on Shabbat eve, as it is prohibited to carry in a public domain on Shabbat. The next day, on Shabbat, everyone rises early and comes to the synagogue. Each and every one recognizes his lulav and takes it. This emphasis that each and every one recognizes his own lulav and takes it is because the Sages said: A person does not fulfill his obligation to take the lulav on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another, and on the rest of the days of the Festival a person fulfills his obligation even with the lulav of another. Rabbi Yosei says: If the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering for this unwitting transgression because he carried it out with permission, i.e., he was preoccupied with the performance of the mitzva and carried it out.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诇拽讞转诐 砖转讛讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讘讬讚 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 诇讻诐 诪砖诇讻诐 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛砖讗讜诇 讜讗转 讛讙讝讜诇 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 讘诇讜诇讘讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞转谞讜 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛

GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that one does not fulfill his obligation with the lulav of another on the first day of the Festival? It is as the Sages taught that it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). The use of second person plural in the phrase: 鈥淎nd you shall take,鈥 indicates that there should be taking in the hand of each and every person. The word yourselves in the phrase 鈥渢ake for yourselves鈥 means: From your own, to exclude a borrowed or stolen lulav. From here the Sages stated: A person does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of another unless the other gave it to him as a full-fledged gift, as in that case it belongs to him.

讜诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讜诇讘 讗诇讗 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诇讘讚 砖诇拽讞讜 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 谞讟诇讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘诪转谞讛 谞讟诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜谞转谞讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讘诪转谞讛 谞讟诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜谞转谞讜 讘诪转谞讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞讟诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讜 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and Rabbi Akiva, who were all traveling on a ship during the festival of Sukkot and only Rabban Gamliel had a lulav, which he had bought for one thousand zuz. Rabban Gamliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and then gave it to Rabbi Yehoshua as a gift. Rabbi Yehoshua took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya as a gift. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it to Rabbi Akiva as a gift. Rabbi Akiva took it and fulfilled his obligation with it and returned it to Rabban Gamliel.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛讞讝讬专讜 诪诇转讗 讗讙讘 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转谞讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 砖诪讛 诪转谞讛

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say that Rabbi Akiva returned the lulav to Rabban Gamliel? The crux of the story is that each of the Sages fulfilled his obligation with the same lulav after receiving it as a gift. The Gemara answers: By including that detail, the tanna teaches us another matter in passing, namely that a gift given on the condition that it be returned is considered a full-fledged gift. Even if the owner stipulates from the outset that the gift would be returned, since he gives it as a gift in the interim, its halakhic status is that of a full-fledged gift.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 诇讱 讗转专讜讙 讝讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讞讝讬专讛讜 诇讬 谞讟诇讜 讜讬爪讗 讘讜 讛讞讝讬专讜 讬爪讗 诇讗 讛讞讝讬专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

This is like that which Rava said, that in the case of one who says to another: Here is an etrog for you on condition that you return it to me, and the recipient took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned the etrog, he fulfilled his obligation of taking the etrog. However, if he did not return the etrog, he did not fulfill his obligation. Since he did not fulfill the condition, retroactively he never acquired the gift at all.

诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖诇拽讞讜 讘讗诇祝 讝讜讝 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻诪讛 诪爪讜转 讞讘讬讘讜转 注诇讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: Why do I need to say that Rabban Gamliel bought this lulav for one thousand zuz? The Gemara answers: It is to inform you how beloved mitzvot were to them to the extent that he was willing to pay an exorbitant sum to purchase a lulav.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗讘讗 爪诇讜讬讬 拽讗 诪爪诇讬 讘讬讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讗 讬讗讞讝 讗讚诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘讬讚讜 讜住驻专 转讜专讛 讘讞讬拽讜 讜讬转驻诇诇 讜诇讗 讬砖转讬谉 讘讛谉 诪讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讬砖谉 讘讛谉 诇讗 砖讬谞转 拽讘注 讜诇讗 砖讬谞转 注专讗讬

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: My father would pray with the four species in his hand in an expression of his love for the mitzva. The Gemara raises an objection: A person should not hold phylacteries in his hand or a Torah scroll in his lap and pray while doing so; neither should he urinate with them in his hand; nor should he sleep with them in his hand, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap.

讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 住讻讬谉 讜拽注专讛 讻讻专 讜诪注讜转 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讟专讬讚 讘讛讜 讛讻讗 诪爪讜讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 讟专讬讚 讘讛讜

And Shmuel said: With regard to a knife, a bowl full of food, a loaf of bread, or money, these items are similar to those mentioned above; since he is concerned lest these items fall from his hand, he is distracted and he unable to concentrate on his prayers. Why, then, is that not the case with regard to lulav? It should be prohibited to hold the lulav during prayer for the same reason. The Gemara answers: There, in the cases listed above, they are not related to performance of a mitzva, and he is preoccupied with them. Therefore, that preoccupation distracts his focus from his prayers. Here, in the case of the four species, they are related to performance of a mitzva, so he is not preoccupied with them in a manner that will distract him from his prayers.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讛讬讛 诪谞讛讙谉 砖诇 讗谞砖讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 诪讘讬转讜 讜诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讜诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 拽讜专讗 拽专讬讗转 砖诪注 讜诪转驻诇诇 讜诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 拽讜专讗 讘转讜专讛 讜谞讜砖讗 讗转 讻驻讬讜 诪谞讬讞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 讛讜诇讱 诇讘拽专 讞讜诇讬诐 讜诇谞讞诐 讗讘诇讬诐 诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚讜 谞讻谞住 诇讘讬转 讛诪讚专砖 诪砖讙专 诇讜诇讘讜 讘讬讚 讘谞讜 讜讘讬讚 注讘讚讜 讜讘讬讚 砖诇讜讞讜

The Gemara cites support for the custom mentioned above, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: This was the custom of the people of Jerusalem during the festival of Sukkot. A person leaves his house, and his lulav is in his hand; he goes to the synagogue, and his lulav is in his hand; he recites Shema and prays, and his lulav is in his hand; he reads the Torah and a priest lifts his hands to recite the priestly benediction, and he places it on the ground because he cannot perform those tasks while holding the lulav. He goes to visit the ill or to console mourners, and his lulav is in his hand; he enters the study hall to study Torah, and he sends his lulav home in the hands of his son, in the hands of his slave, or in the hands of his agent.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻诪讛 讛讬讜 讝专讬讝讬谉 讘诪爪讜转

The Gemara asks: What is the baraita teaching us by relating all these details that appear to establish the same practice? The Gemara explains: It is to inform you how vigilant they were in the performance of mitzvot and how much they cherished them.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬

搂 The mishna continues: Rabbi Yosei says that if the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and one forgot and carried the lulav out into the public domain, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering. Abaye said:

Scroll To Top