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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 19, 2021 | 讬状讗 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 43

Why does a lulav override Shabbat only when the first day falls on Shabbat? And why only in the time of the Temple? Does it override Shabbat in some places even after the time of the Temple? Why? The gemara brings a braita with a drasha from where it is derived that the lulav is taken even on Shabbat. However, based on a question, they conclude that the braita is only according to Rabbi Eliezer as it means that preparations for the lulav are permitted on Shabbat as per his approach in general. The gemara then tries to figure out what Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis each derive from the different parts of the verse – including from where does each derive that lulav is only to be taken during the day? From where is it derived that Sukkah is a mitzva during both the day and the night? The mitzva of arava on the seventh day overrides Shabbat in the time of the Temple? Why only the seventh and why specifically the seventh? What about after the destruction of the Temple? Could the seventh ever fall on Shabbat? Rav Yosef holds that it doesn’t override Shabbat after the destruction as the mitzva of arava is to place them around the altar and there is no altar. Abaye brings 3 sources to question Rav Yosef. The first two have resolutions but the third does not. Part of the discussion revolves around a debate among many (including Rav Yosef and Abaye) whether when they encircled the altar were they holding aravot or a lulav? In the end, the gemara concludes that after the Temple, arava does not override Shabbat as we no longer know exactly when the holiday is, as those in Babylonia were far from where the new moon was determined. And those in Israel keep the same law as to keep the laws the same everywhere. They then conclude that the same is true for lulav.

讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖讜驻专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讙讬诇讛

and in doing so carry it four cubits in the public domain, thereby violating a severe Torah prohibition. And that is the reason for the prohibition against sounding the shofar on Shabbat, and that is the reason for the prohibition against reading the Scroll of Esther when Purim coincides with Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讘讘讬转讜 讛转讬谞讞 讗讞专 转拽谞讛 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: If so, on the first day of Sukkot that coincides with Shabbat too one should not take the lulav due to this concern. The Gemara answers: With regard to the first day, the Sages instituted that one should take the four species in his house. Since the Sages already prohibited one from taking the lulav out of the house, he will remember that it is prohibited and will not come to take it elsewhere to learn to wave it or to recite the blessing. The Gemara asks: This works out well after the ordinance that one takes the lulav in his house was instituted. However, prior to introducing the ordinance, what is there to say in explaining why it is permitted to take the lulav on the first day?

讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讱 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and explains the distinction differently. On the first day, when the mitzva of taking the lulav even in the outlying areas and not just in the Temple is in effect by Torah law, the Sages did not issue a decree to prohibit taking the lulav on the first day and permitted the mitzva to be performed even in the outlying areas. However, with regard to these other days of Sukkot, when the mitzva of taking the lulav is not in effect by Torah law in the outlying areas and the lulav is taken there only to commemorate the practice in the Temple, the Sages issued a decree to prohibit taking the lulav on the other days.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞诪讬 讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讚讬讚注讬 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗 诇讬讚讞讜

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the mitzva on the first day is a mitzva by Torah law even in the outlying areas, today too one should take the lulav on the first day of Sukkot that coincides with Shabbat. The Gemara answers: We do not know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the first day of Sukkot is not Sukkot at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who sanctify the month based on eyewitness testimony and who know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of lulav on the first day of Sukkot even today.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 (讚转谞讬) 讞讚讗 讘讬讜诐 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 诇讛专 讛讘讬转 (讜转谞讬讗) 讗讬讚讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and that is their practice, as it was taught in one mishna: On the first day of the Festival that occurs on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday. And we learned in another mishna: They bring their lulavim to the synagogue. Learn from the change in formulation that here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the Temple is in existence, and there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the Temple is not in existence. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

讚讗讬转讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 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

搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that by Torah law the mitzva of lulav on the first day is in effect even in the outlying areas? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: 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, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). The Sages parse the phrases and terms in the verse. In the phrase 鈥淎nd you shall take,鈥 the plural form of you is used, indicating that there should be taking in the hand of each and every one, and no one can fulfill the obligation on another鈥檚 behalf.

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 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 专讗砖讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讘讚

They continue to expound the verse. Yourselves indicates from your own, to exclude a borrowed or stolen lulav. On the day comes to emphasize that there is a mitzva by Torah law to take the lulav on each day of the Festival, even on Shabbat. The word first, used with no qualification as to where the lulav is to be taken, indicates that this obligation is in effect everywhere on the first day, even in the outlying areas. The first, with the definite article for emphasis, is restrictive and teaches that the mitzva of taking the lulav overrides Shabbat only on the first day of the Festival.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 诪讻讚讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬 诇讜诇讘 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: On the day, indicates even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Now, since taking the four species entails merely moving the object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside, is a verse needed to permit moving the lulav? Obviously, the Torah does not address prohibitions that are not by Torah law. Rava said: Indeed, the verse is necessary only for actions that are facilitators of the performance of the mitzva of lulav, i.e., to permit actions necessary to prepare a lulav for the mitzva, such as severing it from the tree, which may be performed on Shabbat. And that is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna who permits doing so on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita: Lulav and all the actions that are its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讘讬讜诐 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 讜砖诪讞转诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇祝 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 诪住讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? It is as the verse states: On the day, indicating that the obligation exists every day of the Festival, and even on Shabbat.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with the verse: On the day? The Gemara answers: They require it to teach that the mitzva of taking the lulav is specifically during the day and not at night.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that the lulav is taken during the day and not at night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the end of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40), indicating that the obligation to take the lulav is during the days and not during the nights.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why don鈥檛 they derive it from that verse? The Gemara answers: If it was derived from there, I would have said: Derive days written with regard to lulav from days written with regard to sukka by means of a verbal analogy; just as there, with regard to sukka, it means days and even nights, here too, with regard to lulav, it means days and even nights.

讜住讜讻讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 讘诇讜诇讘 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to sukka itself, from where do we derive that the mitzva is observed at night as well? As the Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), from which they derived: Days and even nights. The tanna continues the discussion: Do you say days and even nights; or perhaps the meaning is only days and not nights? And it may be inferred logically that the latter is correct. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: 鈥淒ays.鈥 And it is stated with regard to lulav: 鈥淒ays.鈥 Just as there, with regard to lulav, the meaning is days and not nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and not nights. That is one possibility.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪诇讜讗讬诐 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转

Or, perhaps, go this way and say the opposite. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: Days, and it is stated with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd at the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall reside day and night seven days鈥 (Leviticus 8:35). Just as there, with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the meaning is days and even nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and even nights. A source exists for either possibility.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞讜 诪诇讜讗讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 诇讚讜专讜转

The baraita continues: Let us see to which of the paradigms the mitzva of sukka is comparable. Perhaps one derives a matter whose mitzva is in effect the entire day, sukka, from another matter whose mitzva is in effect the entire day, the inauguration of the Tabernacle, and do not let a matter whose mitzva is in effect for a brief moment, lulav, prove otherwise. Or perhaps go this way and say the opposite: One derives a matter whose mitzva is in effect throughout the generations, sukka, from another matter whose mitzva is in effect throughout the generations, lulav, and do not let the inauguration that is not in practice throughout the generations, as it was in effect only at the establishment of the Tabernacle, prove otherwise.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

Since it is impossible to determine the more appropriate source based on logical inference, derive the matter as the verse states:

转砖讘讜 转砖讘讜 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 转砖讘讜 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪诇讜讗讬诐 转砖讘讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转

鈥淵ou shall reside,鈥 鈥測ou shall reside,鈥 by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), and it is stated with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd at the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall reside day and night seven days鈥 (Leviticus 8:35). Just as there, with regard to the inauguration, the meaning is days and even nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and even nights.

注专讘讛 砖讘注讛 讻讬爪讚 注专讘讛 讘砖讘讬注讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 诇驻专住诪讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讜诇讘 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讞讬 讻讚讬 诇驻专住诪讜 砖讛讜讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

搂 The mishna continues: The altar is encircled with the willow branch for seven days. How so? If the seventh day of performing the mitzva of the willow branch occurs on Shabbat, since on that day the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the willow branch is then performed seven days. The Gemara asks: With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day, what is the reason that it overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is in order to publicize that it is a mitzva that applies by Torah law, since it is not written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, lulav too should override Shabbat in the Temple on the other days of Sukkot as well and not only on the first day in order to publicize that it is a mitzva by Torah law all seven days, since that too is not written explicitly in the Torah.

诇讜诇讘 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 注专讘讛 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 注专讘讛 砖诇讜讞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇讜诇讘 诇讻诇 诪住讜专

The Gemara answers: One is prohibited from taking the lulav on Shabbat by rabbinic decree due to the concern expressed by Rabba (42b) lest he take the lulav in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to wave the lulav and thereby carry it in the public domain. The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to the willow branch as well let us issue a decree due to the same concern. The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. With regard to the willow branch, agents of the court bring it to the priests who perform the mitzva in the Temple, and they carefully prepare the willow branch prior to the onset of Shabbat and will not come to carry it in a prohibited manner on Shabbat. However, performance of the mitzva of lulav is incumbent upon every individual. Therefore, there is concern lest one unwittingly perform the prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讞讬 讗转讬 诇驻拽驻讜拽讬 讘诇讜诇讘 讜诇讬讚讞讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪诇转讗 讗诪专讬 诇讜诇讘 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讚讞讬

The Gemara objects: If so, i.e., because the willow branch is supplied by agents of the court there is no concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on every day of the Festival as well. The Gemara answers: In that case people would come to raise doubts about the significance of the mitzva of lulav, as, unlike the mitzva of the willow branch, it would override Shabbat on only one day of the Festival and not on all seven. The Gemara asks: And let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on the first day of the Festival, just as the mitzva of lulav does, and not on the seventh day. The Gemara answers: The matter of publicizing that the mitzva of willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law would not be apparent, as people would say that it is really the mitzva of lulav that overrides Shabbat, and once lulav is permitted the willow branch is permitted as well.

讜诇讬讚讞讬 讘讞讚 诪讛谞讱 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪驻拽转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讗砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara asks: And let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on one of these other days of Sukkot; why specifically the seventh day? The Gemara answers: Once you moved it from the first day, establish it on the seventh day, which is also a unique day of Sukkot, and not on one of the other intermediate days of Sukkot.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讞讬 讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mitzva of the willow branch is so significant that it overrides Shabbat, let it override Shabbat today as well, even though the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: We do not know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the seventh day of Sukkot is not the seventh day at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law.

讗讬谞讛讜 讚讬讚注讬 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗 诇讬讚讞讬 讻讬 讗转讗 讘专 讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬拽诇注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬拽诇注 讜诇讗 讚讞讬

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who know the establishment of the month, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot even today. When bar Hedya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: That is not a practical question, as the seventh day does not coincide with Shabbat, since the Sages fixed the calendar to avoid that possibility. When Ravin and all those emissaries who descended to Babylonia, or who originally left Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael and returned, came, they said: It does coincide with Shabbat, but it does not override Shabbat.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚注专讘讛 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讚诇诪讗 讘讝拽讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: But then it is difficult; why doesn鈥檛 the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on the seventh day today? Rav Yosef said: Who will say to us definitively that the mitzva of the willow branch is performed by taking it? Perhaps it is performed by standing the branches upright against the altar. Since there is no altar today, the mitzva does not override Shabbat.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讜诇讘 讜注专讘讛 砖砖讛 讜砖讘注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诇讘 诪讛 诇讜诇讘 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讗祝 注专讘讛 讘谞讟讬诇讛 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讬讛 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the mishna, which states: The lulav is taken and the altar is encircled with the willow branch either six or seven days. What, is it not learned from the juxtaposition of these mitzvot in the mishna that the mitzva of the willow branch is like the mitzva of lulav in that just as the mitzva of lulav is performed by taking it, so too, the mitzva of the willow branch is performed by taking it and not by standing it upright? He answered him: Are the cases necessarily comparable? Perhaps this mitzva of lulav is as it is, by means of taking, and this mitzva of the willow branch is as it is, by means of standing it upright.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪拽讬驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 驻注诐 讗讞转 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注专讘讛 诇讗 讘诇讜诇讘 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘注专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讘注专讘讛 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诇讜诇讘 讗转诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诇讜诇讘 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 [讘专 谞转谉] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘注专讘讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘注专讘讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle it seven times. What, is the mishna not referring to circling the altar with the willow branch in hand? He answered him: No, it is referring to circling the altar with a lulav. Abaye objects: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch? Rav Yosef said to him: He said to you with the willow branch; however, my authority is no less than his, as we are both amora鈥檌m, and I say that they circle the altar with a lulav. It was stated that this was the subject of dispute between other amora鈥檌m as well. Rabbi Elazar says: They circle the altar with a lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi 岣nina said: They circle the altar with the willow branch. And likewise, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘专 讗讜专讬讗 转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪诇转讗 诪注诇讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪拽讬驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 驻注诐 讗讞转 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 诪拽讬驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诇讜诇讘

Rava said to Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rabba bar bar 岣na: Son of Torah [bar urya], come and I will tell you an outstanding statement that your father would say. With regard to that which we learned in a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle the altar seven times; this is what your father said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: They circle the altar with a lulav.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讜诇讘 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘转讞诇转讜 讜注专讘讛 讘住讜驻讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 注专讘讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诪专讘讬讜转 砖诇 注专讘讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讛谞讬讞讜诐 讘注讝专讛 讜讛讻讬专讜 讘讛谉 讘讬讬转讜住讬谉 讜谞讟诇讜诐 讜讻讘砖讜诐 转讞转 讗讘谞讬诐

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the Tosefta (Sukka 3:1): The mitzva of lulav overrides Shabbat at the start of the Festival, and the willow branch overrides it at the end of the Festival. One time, the seventh day of the willow branch occurred on Shabbat, and they brought branches of the willow tree on Shabbat eve, before Shabbat, and placed them in the Temple courtyard for use on Shabbat. The Boethusians in the Temple, who disagreed with the Sages and held that there is no mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of the Festival, noticed them and took them and concealed them under the stones. This was an attempt to prevent fulfillment of the mitzva, as they knew that the Sages would prohibit moving the stones, which are set-aside on Shabbat.

诇诪讞专 讛讻讬专讜 讘讛谉 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讜砖诪讟讜诐 诪转讞转 讛讗讘谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讝拽驻讜诐 讘爪讬讚讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讬转讜住讬谉 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讞讬讘讜讟 注专讘讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

The next day, some of the ignoramuses noticed the branches concealed under the stones. And since the ignoramuses identified with the opinion of the Sages, and at the same time were ignorant of the details of the mitzvot, they extracted them from under the stones. And the priests brought them and stood them upright at the sides of the altar. This happened because the Boethusians do not concede that waving the willow branch overrides Shabbat.

讗诇诪讗 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讛讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗

Apparently, based on the conclusion of the incident, the mitzva of the willow branch is fulfilled by taking it, as it is referring to waving the willow branch and not just standing it upright at the sides of the altar. The Gemara notes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion.

讜讗诇讗 谞讚讞讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗谞谉 诇讗 讚讞讬谞谉 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讜 讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讚讬讚谉 诇讗 讚讞讬 讜诇讚讬讚讛讜 讚讞讬

Given the refutation of Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion, the original question is difficult: Rather, let them in Eretz Yisrael override Shabbat for the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot nowadays as well. The Gemara answers: Since we in the Diaspora do not override Shabbat for this purpose, they in Eretz Yisrael also do not override it. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 the first day of the Festival refute that contention, as for us in the Diaspora it does not override Shabbat and we do not take the lulav, and for them in Eretz Yisrael it overrides Shabbat and they take the lulav?

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 42-48 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will finish the 3rd chapter of Sukka and begin the 4th chapter. We will learn if a...

Sukkah 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 43

讜讬注讘讬专谞讜 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚砖讜驻专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪讙讬诇讛

and in doing so carry it four cubits in the public domain, thereby violating a severe Torah prohibition. And that is the reason for the prohibition against sounding the shofar on Shabbat, and that is the reason for the prohibition against reading the Scroll of Esther when Purim coincides with Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬讜诐 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 专讗砖讜谉 讛讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讘讘讬转讜 讛转讬谞讞 讗讞专 转拽谞讛 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: If so, on the first day of Sukkot that coincides with Shabbat too one should not take the lulav due to this concern. The Gemara answers: With regard to the first day, the Sages instituted that one should take the four species in his house. Since the Sages already prohibited one from taking the lulav out of the house, he will remember that it is prohibited and will not come to take it elsewhere to learn to wave it or to recite the blessing. The Gemara asks: This works out well after the ordinance that one takes the lulav in his house was instituted. However, prior to introducing the ordinance, what is there to say in explaining why it is permitted to take the lulav on the first day?

讗诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讱 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讙讝专讜 讘讛讜 专讘谞谉

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and explains the distinction differently. On the first day, when the mitzva of taking the lulav even in the outlying areas and not just in the Temple is in effect by Torah law, the Sages did not issue a decree to prohibit taking the lulav on the first day and permitted the mitzva to be performed even in the outlying areas. However, with regard to these other days of Sukkot, when the mitzva of taking the lulav is not in effect by Torah law in the outlying areas and the lulav is taken there only to commemorate the practice in the Temple, the Sages issued a decree to prohibit taking the lulav on the other days.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞诪讬 讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讚讬讚注讬 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗 诇讬讚讞讜

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the mitzva on the first day is a mitzva by Torah law even in the outlying areas, today too one should take the lulav on the first day of Sukkot that coincides with Shabbat. The Gemara answers: We do not know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the first day of Sukkot is not Sukkot at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who sanctify the month based on eyewitness testimony and who know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of lulav on the first day of Sukkot even today.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 (讚转谞讬) 讞讚讗 讘讬讜诐 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 诇讛专 讛讘讬转 (讜转谞讬讗) 讗讬讚讱 诇讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and that is their practice, as it was taught in one mishna: On the first day of the Festival that occurs on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday. And we learned in another mishna: They bring their lulavim to the synagogue. Learn from the change in formulation that here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the Temple is in existence, and there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the Temple is not in existence. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.

讚讗讬转讬讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 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

搂 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that by Torah law the mitzva of lulav on the first day is in effect even in the outlying areas? The Gemara answers: As it was taught in a baraita: 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, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40). The Sages parse the phrases and terms in the verse. In the phrase 鈥淎nd you shall take,鈥 the plural form of you is used, indicating that there should be taking in the hand of each and every one, and no one can fulfill the obligation on another鈥檚 behalf.

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 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 专讗砖讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗诇讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 讘诇讘讚

They continue to expound the verse. Yourselves indicates from your own, to exclude a borrowed or stolen lulav. On the day comes to emphasize that there is a mitzva by Torah law to take the lulav on each day of the Festival, even on Shabbat. The word first, used with no qualification as to where the lulav is to be taken, indicates that this obligation is in effect everywhere on the first day, even in the outlying areas. The first, with the definite article for emphasis, is restrictive and teaches that the mitzva of taking the lulav overrides Shabbat only on the first day of the Festival.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 诪讻讚讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讟诇讟讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讻砖讬专讬 诇讜诇讘 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜诇讘 讜讻诇 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: On the day, indicates even on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Now, since taking the four species entails merely moving the object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside, is a verse needed to permit moving the lulav? Obviously, the Torah does not address prohibitions that are not by Torah law. Rava said: Indeed, the verse is necessary only for actions that are facilitators of the performance of the mitzva of lulav, i.e., to permit actions necessary to prepare a lulav for the mitzva, such as severing it from the tree, which may be performed on Shabbat. And that is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna who permits doing so on Shabbat, as it was taught in a baraita: Lulav and all the actions that are its facilitators override Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讘讬讜诐 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 讜砖诪讞转诐 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讻诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转 讜专讘谞谉 讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇祝 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 诪住讜讻讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞诪讬 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转

The Gemara explains: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? It is as the verse states: On the day, indicating that the obligation exists every day of the Festival, and even on Shabbat.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with the verse: On the day? The Gemara answers: They require it to teach that the mitzva of taking the lulav is specifically during the day and not at night.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Eliezer derive that the lulav is taken during the day and not at night? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the end of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:40), indicating that the obligation to take the lulav is during the days and not during the nights.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why don鈥檛 they derive it from that verse? The Gemara answers: If it was derived from there, I would have said: Derive days written with regard to lulav from days written with regard to sukka by means of a verbal analogy; just as there, with regard to sukka, it means days and even nights, here too, with regard to lulav, it means days and even nights.

讜住讜讻讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘住讜讻讜转 转砖讘讜 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 讘诇讜诇讘 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讬诇讜转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to sukka itself, from where do we derive that the mitzva is observed at night as well? As the Sages taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot for seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), from which they derived: Days and even nights. The tanna continues the discussion: Do you say days and even nights; or perhaps the meaning is only days and not nights? And it may be inferred logically that the latter is correct. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: 鈥淒ays.鈥 And it is stated with regard to lulav: 鈥淒ays.鈥 Just as there, with regard to lulav, the meaning is days and not nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and not nights. That is one possibility.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪诇讜讗讬诐 讬诪讬诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转

Or, perhaps, go this way and say the opposite. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: Days, and it is stated with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd at the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall reside day and night seven days鈥 (Leviticus 8:35). Just as there, with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle, the meaning is days and even nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and even nights. A source exists for either possibility.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讚讘专 砖诪爪讜转讜 诇讚讜专讜转 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞讜 诪诇讜讗讬诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 诇讚讜专讜转

The baraita continues: Let us see to which of the paradigms the mitzva of sukka is comparable. Perhaps one derives a matter whose mitzva is in effect the entire day, sukka, from another matter whose mitzva is in effect the entire day, the inauguration of the Tabernacle, and do not let a matter whose mitzva is in effect for a brief moment, lulav, prove otherwise. Or perhaps go this way and say the opposite: One derives a matter whose mitzva is in effect throughout the generations, sukka, from another matter whose mitzva is in effect throughout the generations, lulav, and do not let the inauguration that is not in practice throughout the generations, as it was in effect only at the establishment of the Tabernacle, prove otherwise.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

Since it is impossible to determine the more appropriate source based on logical inference, derive the matter as the verse states:

转砖讘讜 转砖讘讜 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 转砖讘讜 讜谞讗诪专 讘诪诇讜讗讬诐 转砖讘讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讬诪讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讬诇讜转

鈥淵ou shall reside,鈥 鈥測ou shall reside,鈥 by means of a verbal analogy. It is stated here, with regard to sukka: 鈥淵ou shall reside in sukkot seven days鈥 (Leviticus 23:42), and it is stated with regard to the inauguration of the Tabernacle: 鈥淎nd at the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall reside day and night seven days鈥 (Leviticus 8:35). Just as there, with regard to the inauguration, the meaning is days and even nights, so too here, with regard to sukka, the meaning is days and even nights.

注专讘讛 砖讘注讛 讻讬爪讚 注专讘讛 讘砖讘讬注讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讞讬讗 砖讘转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讚讬 诇驻专住诪讛 砖讛讬讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讜诇讘 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讞讬 讻讚讬 诇驻专住诪讜 砖讛讜讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛

搂 The mishna continues: The altar is encircled with the willow branch for seven days. How so? If the seventh day of performing the mitzva of the willow branch occurs on Shabbat, since on that day the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the willow branch is then performed seven days. The Gemara asks: With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day, what is the reason that it overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is in order to publicize that it is a mitzva that applies by Torah law, since it is not written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara raises an objection: If so, lulav too should override Shabbat in the Temple on the other days of Sukkot as well and not only on the first day in order to publicize that it is a mitzva by Torah law all seven days, since that too is not written explicitly in the Torah.

诇讜诇讘 讙讝专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 注专讘讛 谞诪讬 谞讙讝讜专 注专讘讛 砖诇讜讞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇讜诇讘 诇讻诇 诪住讜专

The Gemara answers: One is prohibited from taking the lulav on Shabbat by rabbinic decree due to the concern expressed by Rabba (42b) lest he take the lulav in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to wave the lulav and thereby carry it in the public domain. The Gemara objects: If so, with regard to the willow branch as well let us issue a decree due to the same concern. The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. With regard to the willow branch, agents of the court bring it to the priests who perform the mitzva in the Temple, and they carefully prepare the willow branch prior to the onset of Shabbat and will not come to carry it in a prohibited manner on Shabbat. However, performance of the mitzva of lulav is incumbent upon every individual. Therefore, there is concern lest one unwittingly perform the prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讞讬 讗转讬 诇驻拽驻讜拽讬 讘诇讜诇讘 讜诇讬讚讞讬 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪讜讻讞讗 诪诇转讗 讗诪专讬 诇讜诇讘 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讚讞讬

The Gemara objects: If so, i.e., because the willow branch is supplied by agents of the court there is no concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on every day of the Festival as well. The Gemara answers: In that case people would come to raise doubts about the significance of the mitzva of lulav, as, unlike the mitzva of the willow branch, it would override Shabbat on only one day of the Festival and not on all seven. The Gemara asks: And let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on the first day of the Festival, just as the mitzva of lulav does, and not on the seventh day. The Gemara answers: The matter of publicizing that the mitzva of willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law would not be apparent, as people would say that it is really the mitzva of lulav that overrides Shabbat, and once lulav is permitted the willow branch is permitted as well.

讜诇讬讚讞讬 讘讞讚 诪讛谞讱 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪驻拽转 诇讛 诪专讗砖讜谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讗砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara asks: And let the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on one of these other days of Sukkot; why specifically the seventh day? The Gemara answers: Once you moved it from the first day, establish it on the seventh day, which is also a unique day of Sukkot, and not on one of the other intermediate days of Sukkot.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讞讬 讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mitzva of the willow branch is so significant that it overrides Shabbat, let it override Shabbat today as well, even though the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: We do not know when precisely the establishment of the month was determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the seventh day of Sukkot is not the seventh day at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law.

讗讬谞讛讜 讚讬讚注讬 讘拽讬讘讜注讗 讚讬专讞讗 诇讬讚讞讬 讻讬 讗转讗 讘专 讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讬拽诇注 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讜讻诇 谞讞讜转讬 讗诪专讬 讗讬拽诇注 讜诇讗 讚讞讬

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, who know the establishment of the month, let them override Shabbat for the mitzva of willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot even today. When bar Hedya came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: That is not a practical question, as the seventh day does not coincide with Shabbat, since the Sages fixed the calendar to avoid that possibility. When Ravin and all those emissaries who descended to Babylonia, or who originally left Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael and returned, came, they said: It does coincide with Shabbat, but it does not override Shabbat.

讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚注专讘讛 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讚诇诪讗 讘讝拽讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: But then it is difficult; why doesn鈥檛 the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on the seventh day today? Rav Yosef said: Who will say to us definitively that the mitzva of the willow branch is performed by taking it? Perhaps it is performed by standing the branches upright against the altar. Since there is no altar today, the mitzva does not override Shabbat.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇讜诇讘 讜注专讘讛 砖砖讛 讜砖讘注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诇讘 诪讛 诇讜诇讘 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讗祝 注专讘讛 讘谞讟讬诇讛 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讬讛 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the mishna, which states: The lulav is taken and the altar is encircled with the willow branch either six or seven days. What, is it not learned from the juxtaposition of these mitzvot in the mishna that the mitzva of the willow branch is like the mitzva of lulav in that just as the mitzva of lulav is performed by taking it, so too, the mitzva of the willow branch is performed by taking it and not by standing it upright? He answered him: Are the cases necessarily comparable? Perhaps this mitzva of lulav is as it is, by means of taking, and this mitzva of the willow branch is as it is, by means of standing it upright.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 诪拽讬驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 驻注诐 讗讞转 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘注专讘讛 诇讗 讘诇讜诇讘 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘注专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讱 讘注专讘讛 讜讗谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诇讜诇讘 讗转诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘诇讜诇讘 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 [讘专 谞转谉] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘注专讘讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘注专讘讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle it seven times. What, is the mishna not referring to circling the altar with the willow branch in hand? He answered him: No, it is referring to circling the altar with a lulav. Abaye objects: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch? Rav Yosef said to him: He said to you with the willow branch; however, my authority is no less than his, as we are both amora鈥檌m, and I say that they circle the altar with a lulav. It was stated that this was the subject of dispute between other amora鈥檌m as well. Rabbi Elazar says: They circle the altar with a lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said that Rabbi 岣nina said: They circle the altar with the willow branch. And likewise, Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: They would circle the altar with the willow branch.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讘专 讗讜专讬讗 转讗 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪诇转讗 诪注诇讬转讗 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪拽讬驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 驻注诐 讗讞转 讜讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 诪拽讬驻讬谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讜讱 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诇讜诇讘

Rava said to Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rabba bar bar 岣na: Son of Torah [bar urya], come and I will tell you an outstanding statement that your father would say. With regard to that which we learned in a mishna: On every day the people circle the altar one time, and on that day, the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle the altar seven times; this is what your father said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: They circle the altar with a lulav.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诇讜诇讘 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转 讘转讞诇转讜 讜注专讘讛 讘住讜驻讜 驻注诐 讗讞转 讞诇 砖讘讬注讬 砖诇 注专讘讛 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诪专讘讬讜转 砖诇 注专讘讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讛谞讬讞讜诐 讘注讝专讛 讜讛讻讬专讜 讘讛谉 讘讬讬转讜住讬谉 讜谞讟诇讜诐 讜讻讘砖讜诐 转讞转 讗讘谞讬诐

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef from the Tosefta (Sukka 3:1): The mitzva of lulav overrides Shabbat at the start of the Festival, and the willow branch overrides it at the end of the Festival. One time, the seventh day of the willow branch occurred on Shabbat, and they brought branches of the willow tree on Shabbat eve, before Shabbat, and placed them in the Temple courtyard for use on Shabbat. The Boethusians in the Temple, who disagreed with the Sages and held that there is no mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of the Festival, noticed them and took them and concealed them under the stones. This was an attempt to prevent fulfillment of the mitzva, as they knew that the Sages would prohibit moving the stones, which are set-aside on Shabbat.

诇诪讞专 讛讻讬专讜 讘讛谉 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 讜砖诪讟讜诐 诪转讞转 讛讗讘谞讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讝拽驻讜诐 讘爪讬讚讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讬转讜住讬谉 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讞讬讘讜讟 注专讘讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讛砖讘转

The next day, some of the ignoramuses noticed the branches concealed under the stones. And since the ignoramuses identified with the opinion of the Sages, and at the same time were ignorant of the details of the mitzvot, they extracted them from under the stones. And the priests brought them and stood them upright at the sides of the altar. This happened because the Boethusians do not concede that waving the willow branch overrides Shabbat.

讗诇诪讗 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讛讬讗 转讬讜讘转讗

Apparently, based on the conclusion of the incident, the mitzva of the willow branch is fulfilled by taking it, as it is referring to waving the willow branch and not just standing it upright at the sides of the altar. The Gemara notes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation of Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion.

讜讗诇讗 谞讚讞讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗谞谉 诇讗 讚讞讬谞谉 讗讬谞讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讜 讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讚讬讚谉 诇讗 讚讞讬 讜诇讚讬讚讛讜 讚讞讬

Given the refutation of Rav Yosef鈥檚 opinion, the original question is difficult: Rather, let them in Eretz Yisrael override Shabbat for the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of Sukkot nowadays as well. The Gemara answers: Since we in the Diaspora do not override Shabbat for this purpose, they in Eretz Yisrael also do not override it. The Gemara objects: But doesn鈥檛 the first day of the Festival refute that contention, as for us in the Diaspora it does not override Shabbat and we do not take the lulav, and for them in Eretz Yisrael it overrides Shabbat and they take the lulav?

Scroll To Top