As the gemara concluded, after the destruction of the Temple, the mitzva of lulav does not override Shabbat. If so, how can one explain the two mishnayot that seemed to contradict each other – one said they brought lulavim to the Temple Mount and the other to the synagogue. Why is the lulav taken all week to remember what was done in the Temple but the arava is not? The gemara brings up several possibilities but rejects some of them. Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about priests with blemishes – whether they are allowed to enter the temple between the Ulam and the altar in order to perform the mitzva of arava by encircling the altar. There is controversy as to whether arava is an ordinance of the prophets or a custom of the prophets. This is difficult as we have learned that it is a mitzva from the Torah or at least a halachah for Moses from Sinai – so how can one say that it is an ordinance or custom from the prophets? What is the requisite amount needed for arava? There is controversy as to whether or not it is possible to fulfill the mitzva of arava but taking the lulav twice since the lulav includes arava branches. The gemara tells several stories about Aivu and Rabbi Elazar Bar Tzadok – one regarding the chavata of the arava (Rabbi Elazar struck the arava twice and did not make a blessing – proof that this is the custom of the prophets) and one regarding the payment to workers in the shemita year from shemita produce. Aivu said a halakha in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one should not go more than three parasangs on Friday so that he would not surprise the people of his house and they would have no food for him on Shabbat. Is it a problem only at home or even if one is going to a hotel?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Michelle Winer for a refuah shelaima for Bella Rachel bat Malka Enya and Binyamin Yisrael ben Malka Enya.
Sukkah 44
אָמְרִי: לְדִידְהוּ נָמֵי לָא דָּחֵי. וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי; דְּתָנָא חֲדָא: כׇּל הָעָם מוֹלִיכִין אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן לְהַר הַבַּיִת, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וּמְתָרְצִינַן: כָּאן — בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, כָּאן — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.
The Sages say: For them in Eretz Yisrael it also does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, the contradiction between these two sources is difficult, as it was taught in one mishna: All the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday, and it was taught in another mishna that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue. And we resolved this contradiction as follows: Here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the Temple is standing, and there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the Temple is not standing. Based on the above, when the Temple is not in existence the mitzva of lulav does not override Shabbat.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, כָּאן — בַּגְּבוּלִין.
The Gemara resolves the contradiction: No, both this mishna and that mishna are referring to Eretz Yisrael when the Temple is in existence; and nevertheless, it is not difficult. Here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to the procedure in the Temple. And there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to the procedure in the outlying areas in the rest of Eretz Yisrael, where they knew when the new month was established. However, today, neither in the Diaspora nor in Eretz Yisrael does the mitzva of lulav override Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: מַאי שְׁנָא לוּלָב דְּעָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא עֲרָבָה דְּלָא עָבְדִינַן לַהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא מִשּׁוּם לוּלָב הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד לַיהּ. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּקָא מַגְבַּהּ לַיהּ וַהֲדַר מַגְבַּהּ לַיהּ, וְהָא מַעֲשִׂים בְּכׇל יוֹם דְּלָא קָא עָבְדִינַן הָכִי!
Abaye said to Rava: What is different about lulav such that we perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Temple, and what is different about the willow branch that we do not perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Temple? Rava said to him: Since a person fulfills his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav, no additional commemoration is necessary. Abaye said to him: That is not a satisfactory answer, as he is performing that action due to the mitzva of taking the lulav and the other species. And if you say that he lifts the willow branch bound with the lulav to fulfill the mitzva of the four species and then lifts it again in commemoration of the willow branch in the Temple, aren’t actions performed daily proof that we do not do so, as no one lifts the lulav twice?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לוּלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — עָבְדִינַן שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, עֲרָבָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא עָבְדִינַן לַהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Since the mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, we perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple even today. Since the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by rabbinic law, we do not perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple.
לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, הָאָמַר ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״ כְּתִיב — שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת לַלּוּלָב וְאַחַת לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אִי לְרַבָּנַן, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אִישׁ בִּקְעַת בֵּית חוֹרְתָן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת, עֲרָבָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rava say this? If we say that Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, didn’t he say that it is written: Willows of the river, i.e., in the plural, indicating two willow branches, one for the lulav and one for the Temple? In his opinion, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple is also a mitzva by Torah law. If Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, they learned this as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לוּלָב דְּאִית לֵיהּ עִיקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה, — בַּגְּבוּלִין עָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, עֲרָבָה דְּלֵית לַהּ עִיקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה — בַּגְּבוּלִין לָא עָבְדִינַן שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: With regard to the mitzva of lulav, which has its basis written explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple. With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch, which does not have its basis written explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we do not perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין נִכְנָסִין בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כְּדֵי לָצֵאת בַּעֲרָבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי אֲמָרָהּ? מִי אֲמָרָהּ?! הָא אִיהוּ אֲמַר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אִישׁ בִּקְעַת בֵּית חוֹרְתָן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת, עֲרָבָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
Apropos the willow branch in the Temple, Reish Lakish said: Priests with physical defects enter between the Entrance Hall and the altar in order to fulfill the obligation of the mitzva of the willow branch. Although due to their blemishes it is prohibited for them to pass there, as they circle the altar with the willow branches they inevitably pass between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Who stated this halakha? The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question: Who stated it? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself state it? As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
אֶלָּא: מִי אֲמָרָהּ בִּנְטִילָה, דִּלְמָא בִּזְקִיפָה! מִי אֲמָרָהּ בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, דִּלְמָא בִּתְמִימִים!
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question was: Who said that the mitzva is fulfilled by taking the willow branch and circling the altar? Perhaps the mitzva is only fulfilled by standing the willow branches upright surrounding the altar. Who said that the mitzva may be fulfilled even by those with physical defects? Perhaps it may be fulfilled only by unblemished priests.
אִתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: עֲרָבָה יְסוֹד נְבִיאִים, וְחַד אָמַר: עֲרָבָה מִנְהַג נְבִיאִים. תִּסְתַּיַּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר יְסוֹד נְבִיאִים, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עֲרָבָה יְסוֹד נְבִיאִים הוּא. תִּסְתַּיַּים.
It was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets, as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi instituted it in the Temple as obligatory. And one said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ancient custom practiced by the prophets and adopted by others as well. It was not instituted as a binding ordinance. The Gemara suggests: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that it is an ordinance of the prophets, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets. The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude that it is so.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אִישׁ בִּקְעַת בֵּית חוֹרְתָן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת, עֲרָבָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי? אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָא וַאֲמַר, שְׁכֵחוּם וְחָזְרוּ וְיִסְּדוּם.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? How then could he attribute the origin of the mitzva of the willow branch to the prophets? “He was astonished for a while” (Daniel 4:16), and after considering the apparent contradiction he said that indeed Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the mitzva of the willow branch is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, over the course of time during the Babylonian exile they forgot some halakhot, including the mitzva of the willow branch, and then the prophets reinstituted them.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּלְכוֹן אֲמַרִי: דִּלְהוֹן הִיא! לָא קַשְׁיָא:
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? And didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Yours, i.e., the Babylonian Sages, say that this ordinance is theirs, instituted by the Sages, and it is neither a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai nor an ordinance instituted by the prophets. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;
כָּאן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — כָּאן בַּגְּבוּלִין.
Here, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, he is referring to the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple; there, where he said that it was established by the prophets, he was referring to the taking of the willow branch in the outlying areas.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: עֲרָבָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, וְאֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב. כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר אֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב!
§ Rabbi Ami said: The willow branch taken to fulfill the mitzva requires a certain measure, and it is taken only in and of itself and not with the lulav, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav. The Gemara asks: Since the Master said: It is taken only in and of itself, it is obvious that a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav. Why are both statements necessary?
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַגְבְּהַיהּ וַהֲדַר אַגְבְּהַיהּ, אֲבָל אַגְבְּהַיהּ וַהֲדַר אַגְבְּהַיהּ — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב (בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג).
The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that this applies only to a case where he did not lift the willow branch bound with the lulav and then lift it again to fulfill the mitzva of the willow branch; however, in a case where he lifted the lulav and then lifted it again, say no, he fulfills his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav. Therefore, he teaches us that even if one takes the four species a second time with the express intent of fulfilling the mitzva of the willow branch, he did not fulfill his obligation, as he must take the willow branch by itself. And Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person fulfills his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav on the first day of the festival of Sukkot.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרָהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּדֵּי עָלִין לַחִין. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עָלֶה אֶחָד וּבַד אֶחָד. עָלֶה אֶחָד וּבַד אֶחָד סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ עָלֶה אֶחָד בְּבַד אֶחָד.
Rabbi Ami said that the willow branch requires a certain measure. The Gemara asks: And what is its requisite measure? Rav Naḥman said: It is three branches of moist leaves. And Rav Sheshet said: It is even one leaf and one branch. The Gemara wonders about the statement of Rav Sheshet: Does it enter your mind that one takes a single leaf and a single branch separately? Rather, emend Rav Sheshet’s statement and say: One fulfills his obligation even with one leaf on one branch.
אָמַר אַיְיבוּ: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק וְאַיְיתִי הָהוּא גַּבְרָא עֲרָבָה קַמֵּיהּ. שָׁקֵיל, חַבֵּיט חַבֵּיט, וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. קָסָבַר מִנְהַג נְבִיאִים הוּא. אַיְיבוּ וְחִזְקִיָּה בְּנֵי בְרַתֵּיה דְּרַב אַיְיתוֹ עֲרָבָה לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, חַבֵּיט חַבֵּיט, וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. קָא סָבַר מִנְהַג נְבִיאִים הוּא.
§ The Gemara relates that Aivu, father of the amora Rav, said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man brought a willow branch before him to fulfill the mitzva. He took it and waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he holds that the mitzva of the willow branch is a custom of the prophets and is therefore performed without a blessing. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Aivu and Ḥizkiya, sons of the daughter of Rav, brought a willow branch before Rav to fulfill the mitzva. He waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he, too, holds that it is a custom of the prophets.
אָמַר אַיְיבוּ: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קִרְיָיתָא אִית לִי, כַּרְמַיָּא אִית לִי, זֵיתַיָּא אִית לִי, וְאָתוּ בְּנֵי קִרְיָיתָא וּמְקַשְׁקְשִׁין בְּכַרְמַיָּא וְאוֹכְלִין בְּזֵיתַיָּא — אֲרִיךְ אוֹ לָא אֲרִיךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא אֲרִיךְ. הֲוָה קָא שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל. אֲמַר: כְּדוּ הֲוֵיתִי דָּיַיר בְּאַרְעָא הָדָא אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, וְלָא חֲמֵיתִי בַּר אִינָשׁ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּאָרְחָן דְּתָקְנָן כְּדֵין. הָדַר וְאָתֵי וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי מֶיעְבַּד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַפְקַר זֵיתַיָּא לְחָשׁוֹכַיָּא, וְתֵן פְּרִיטַיָּא לְקַשְׁקוֹשֵׁי כְּרָמִים.
Apropos the exchange between Aivu and Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, the Gemara cites another halakha that was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man came before him and said to him: I have villages, I have olive groves, and I have olives, and the villagers come and hoe the olive groves during the Sabbatical Year and eat from the olive trees. Is it appropriate or inappropriate to allow this to continue? He said to him: It is inappropriate. As the man was leaving him and going on his way, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: I have already resided in this land for forty years and I have not seen a person walk in a path as straight as this man does. The man came back to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok and said to him: What should I do to ameliorate the situation? He said to him: Declare the olives ownerless for the poor, and give perutot coins to hired laborers as payment to hoe the olive groves.
וְקַשְׁקוֹשֵׁי מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ״. ״תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה״ — מִלְּקַשְׁקֵשׁ, ״וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ״ — מִלְּסַקֵּל! אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: תְּרֵי קִשְׁקוּשֵׁי הָווּ. חַד — סַתּוֹמֵי פִּילֵי, וְחַד — אַבְרוֹיֵי אִילָנֵי. אַבְרוֹיֵי אִילָנֵי — אָסוּר, סַתּוֹמֵי פִּילֵי — שְׁרֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is hoeing olive groves permitted during the Sabbatical Year? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow” (Exodus 23:11); meaning you shall let it rest from hoeing, and lie fallow from clearing the field of rocks? Apparently, hoeing is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: There are two types of hoeing, one whose objective is to seal cracks in the ground and one to enhance the trees’ health. Enhancing the trees’ health is prohibited; sealing cracks is permitted, as it is merely to prevent the trees from dying and not to accelerate their growth.
אָמַר אַיְיבוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק: אַל יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת יוֹתֵר מִשָּׁלֹשׁ פַּרְסָאוֹת. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְאוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ — אַמַּאי דְּנָקֵיט סְמִיךְ.
An additional halakha was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok: A person should not walk on Shabbat eves more than a distance of three parasangs [parsaot]. Rather, he should reach the place where he will stay on Shabbat early enough to ensure that he will have meals prepared for Shabbat. Rav Kahana said: We said that restriction only with regard to a case where he is returning to his house. However, if he is going to an inn, he relies on the food that he took with him. As he cannot assume that he will find lodgings with food, he brings food sufficient for his needs. Therefore, it is permitted for him to travel a greater distance.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְבֵיתֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ כָּסָא דְהַרְסָנָא לָא אַשְׁכַּחִי.
Some say that Rav Kahana said: This restriction that one may not walk a distance of more than three parasangs on Shabbat eves was required even with regard to one traveling to his house, and all the more so with regard to one traveling to an inn, as he cannot assume that he will find food there. Rav Kahana said: There was an incident that happened with me where I traveled a distance to reach my home on Friday and I did not find even small fried fish [deharsena] to eat in the house. One must prepare for Shabbat well in advance of the onset of Shabbat.
מִצְוַת לוּלָב כֵּיצַד? תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: סוּדָרִין עַל גַּג הָאִיצְטְבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
§ The mishna continues: How is the mitzva of lulav fulfilled in the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat? The mishna then explains how the attendants arrange their lulavim on the bench in the Temple. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a version of the mishna before Rav Naḥman: The attendant arranges them on the roof over the bench in the Temple. Rav Naḥman said to him:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Sukkah 49-56 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Rav Hisda: Expanding the Role of Intention in Rituals
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Sukkah 44
אָמְרִי: לְדִידְהוּ נָמֵי לָא דָּחֵי. וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי; דְּתָנָא חֲדָא: כׇּל הָעָם מוֹלִיכִין אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן לְהַר הַבַּיִת, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, וּמְתָרְצִינַן: כָּאן — בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, כָּאן — בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.
The Sages say: For them in Eretz Yisrael it also does not override Shabbat. The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, the contradiction between these two sources is difficult, as it was taught in one mishna: All the people bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday, and it was taught in another mishna that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue. And we resolved this contradiction as follows: Here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to when the Temple is standing, and there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to when the Temple is not standing. Based on the above, when the Temple is not in existence the mitzva of lulav does not override Shabbat.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, כָּאן — בַּגְּבוּלִין.
The Gemara resolves the contradiction: No, both this mishna and that mishna are referring to Eretz Yisrael when the Temple is in existence; and nevertheless, it is not difficult. Here, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the Temple Mount, it is referring to the procedure in the Temple. And there, where the mishna says that they bring their lulavim to the synagogue, it is referring to the procedure in the outlying areas in the rest of Eretz Yisrael, where they knew when the new month was established. However, today, neither in the Diaspora nor in Eretz Yisrael does the mitzva of lulav override Shabbat.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: מַאי שְׁנָא לוּלָב דְּעָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּמַאי שְׁנָא עֲרָבָה דְּלָא עָבְדִינַן לַהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא מִשּׁוּם לוּלָב הוּא דְּקָא עָבֵיד לַיהּ. וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּקָא מַגְבַּהּ לַיהּ וַהֲדַר מַגְבַּהּ לַיהּ, וְהָא מַעֲשִׂים בְּכׇל יוֹם דְּלָא קָא עָבְדִינַן הָכִי!
Abaye said to Rava: What is different about lulav such that we perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Temple, and what is different about the willow branch that we do not perform the mitzva seven days in commemoration of the Temple? Rava said to him: Since a person fulfills his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav, no additional commemoration is necessary. Abaye said to him: That is not a satisfactory answer, as he is performing that action due to the mitzva of taking the lulav and the other species. And if you say that he lifts the willow branch bound with the lulav to fulfill the mitzva of the four species and then lifts it again in commemoration of the willow branch in the Temple, aren’t actions performed daily proof that we do not do so, as no one lifts the lulav twice?
אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לוּלָב דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — עָבְדִינַן שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, עֲרָבָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא עָבְדִינַן לַהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Since the mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, we perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple even today. Since the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by rabbinic law, we do not perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple.
לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַבָּא שָׁאוּל, הָאָמַר ״עַרְבֵי נַחַל״ כְּתִיב — שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת לַלּוּלָב וְאַחַת לַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אִי לְרַבָּנַן, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אִישׁ בִּקְעַת בֵּית חוֹרְתָן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת, עֲרָבָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rava say this? If we say that Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul, didn’t he say that it is written: Willows of the river, i.e., in the plural, indicating two willow branches, one for the lulav and one for the Temple? In his opinion, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple is also a mitzva by Torah law. If Rava said this in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, they learned this as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, as Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
אֶלָּא, אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: לוּלָב דְּאִית לֵיהּ עִיקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה, — בַּגְּבוּלִין עָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, עֲרָבָה דְּלֵית לַהּ עִיקָּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה — בַּגְּבוּלִין לָא עָבְדִינַן שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: With regard to the mitzva of lulav, which has its basis written explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple. With regard to the mitzva of the willow branch, which does not have its basis written explicitly in the Torah, in the outlying areas we do not perform it seven days in commemoration of the Temple.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין נִכְנָסִין בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, כְּדֵי לָצֵאת בַּעֲרָבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי אֲמָרָהּ? מִי אֲמָרָהּ?! הָא אִיהוּ אֲמַר! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אִישׁ בִּקְעַת בֵּית חוֹרְתָן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת, עֲרָבָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.
Apropos the willow branch in the Temple, Reish Lakish said: Priests with physical defects enter between the Entrance Hall and the altar in order to fulfill the obligation of the mitzva of the willow branch. Although due to their blemishes it is prohibited for them to pass there, as they circle the altar with the willow branches they inevitably pass between the Entrance Hall and the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Who stated this halakha? The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question: Who stated it? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself state it? As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai.
אֶלָּא: מִי אֲמָרָהּ בִּנְטִילָה, דִּלְמָא בִּזְקִיפָה! מִי אֲמָרָהּ בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, דִּלְמָא בִּתְמִימִים!
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question was: Who said that the mitzva is fulfilled by taking the willow branch and circling the altar? Perhaps the mitzva is only fulfilled by standing the willow branches upright surrounding the altar. Who said that the mitzva may be fulfilled even by those with physical defects? Perhaps it may be fulfilled only by unblemished priests.
אִתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, חַד אָמַר: עֲרָבָה יְסוֹד נְבִיאִים, וְחַד אָמַר: עֲרָבָה מִנְהַג נְבִיאִים. תִּסְתַּיַּים דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּאָמַר יְסוֹד נְבִיאִים, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עֲרָבָה יְסוֹד נְבִיאִים הוּא. תִּסְתַּיַּים.
It was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets, as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi instituted it in the Temple as obligatory. And one said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ancient custom practiced by the prophets and adopted by others as well. It was not instituted as a binding ordinance. The Gemara suggests: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that it is an ordinance of the prophets, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets. The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude that it is so.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: מִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא אִישׁ בִּקְעַת בֵּית חוֹרְתָן: עֶשֶׂר נְטִיעוֹת, עֲרָבָה, וְנִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי? אֶשְׁתּוֹמַם כְּשָׁעָה חֲדָא וַאֲמַר, שְׁכֵחוּם וְחָזְרוּ וְיִסְּדוּם.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The halakha of the ten saplings, the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple, and the mitzva of the water libation on the altar during the festival of Sukkot are each a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? How then could he attribute the origin of the mitzva of the willow branch to the prophets? “He was astonished for a while” (Daniel 4:16), and after considering the apparent contradiction he said that indeed Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the mitzva of the willow branch is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. However, over the course of time during the Babylonian exile they forgot some halakhot, including the mitzva of the willow branch, and then the prophets reinstituted them.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּלְכוֹן אֲמַרִי: דִּלְהוֹן הִיא! לָא קַשְׁיָא:
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? And didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Yours, i.e., the Babylonian Sages, say that this ordinance is theirs, instituted by the Sages, and it is neither a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai nor an ordinance instituted by the prophets. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult;
כָּאן בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ — כָּאן בַּגְּבוּלִין.
Here, where Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, he is referring to the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple; there, where he said that it was established by the prophets, he was referring to the taking of the willow branch in the outlying areas.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: עֲרָבָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, וְאֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב. כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר אֵינָהּ נִיטֶּלֶת אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, פְּשִׁיטָא דְּאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב!
§ Rabbi Ami said: The willow branch taken to fulfill the mitzva requires a certain measure, and it is taken only in and of itself and not with the lulav, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav. The Gemara asks: Since the Master said: It is taken only in and of itself, it is obvious that a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav. Why are both statements necessary?
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַגְבְּהַיהּ וַהֲדַר אַגְבְּהַיהּ, אֲבָל אַגְבְּהַיהּ וַהֲדַר אַגְבְּהַיהּ — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּעֲרָבָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב (בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג).
The Gemara answers: It is necessary lest you say that this applies only to a case where he did not lift the willow branch bound with the lulav and then lift it again to fulfill the mitzva of the willow branch; however, in a case where he lifted the lulav and then lifted it again, say no, he fulfills his obligation with the willow branch in the lulav. Therefore, he teaches us that even if one takes the four species a second time with the express intent of fulfilling the mitzva of the willow branch, he did not fulfill his obligation, as he must take the willow branch by itself. And Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person fulfills his obligation with the willow branch that is bound with the lulav on the first day of the festival of Sukkot.
וְכַמָּה שִׁיעוּרָהּ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה בַּדֵּי עָלִין לַחִין. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ עָלֶה אֶחָד וּבַד אֶחָד. עָלֶה אֶחָד וּבַד אֶחָד סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ עָלֶה אֶחָד בְּבַד אֶחָד.
Rabbi Ami said that the willow branch requires a certain measure. The Gemara asks: And what is its requisite measure? Rav Naḥman said: It is three branches of moist leaves. And Rav Sheshet said: It is even one leaf and one branch. The Gemara wonders about the statement of Rav Sheshet: Does it enter your mind that one takes a single leaf and a single branch separately? Rather, emend Rav Sheshet’s statement and say: One fulfills his obligation even with one leaf on one branch.
אָמַר אַיְיבוּ: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק וְאַיְיתִי הָהוּא גַּבְרָא עֲרָבָה קַמֵּיהּ. שָׁקֵיל, חַבֵּיט חַבֵּיט, וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. קָסָבַר מִנְהַג נְבִיאִים הוּא. אַיְיבוּ וְחִזְקִיָּה בְּנֵי בְרַתֵּיה דְּרַב אַיְיתוֹ עֲרָבָה לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, חַבֵּיט חַבֵּיט, וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. קָא סָבַר מִנְהַג נְבִיאִים הוּא.
§ The Gemara relates that Aivu, father of the amora Rav, said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man brought a willow branch before him to fulfill the mitzva. He took it and waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he holds that the mitzva of the willow branch is a custom of the prophets and is therefore performed without a blessing. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Aivu and Ḥizkiya, sons of the daughter of Rav, brought a willow branch before Rav to fulfill the mitzva. He waved it; he waved it and did not recite a blessing. This indicates that he, too, holds that it is a custom of the prophets.
אָמַר אַיְיבוּ: הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ הָהוּא גַּבְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קִרְיָיתָא אִית לִי, כַּרְמַיָּא אִית לִי, זֵיתַיָּא אִית לִי, וְאָתוּ בְּנֵי קִרְיָיתָא וּמְקַשְׁקְשִׁין בְּכַרְמַיָּא וְאוֹכְלִין בְּזֵיתַיָּא — אֲרִיךְ אוֹ לָא אֲרִיךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא אֲרִיךְ. הֲוָה קָא שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ וְאָזֵיל. אֲמַר: כְּדוּ הֲוֵיתִי דָּיַיר בְּאַרְעָא הָדָא אַרְבְּעִין שְׁנִין, וְלָא חֲמֵיתִי בַּר אִינָשׁ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּאָרְחָן דְּתָקְנָן כְּדֵין. הָדַר וְאָתֵי וְאָמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי מֶיעְבַּד? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַפְקַר זֵיתַיָּא לְחָשׁוֹכַיָּא, וְתֵן פְּרִיטַיָּא לְקַשְׁקוֹשֵׁי כְּרָמִים.
Apropos the exchange between Aivu and Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, the Gemara cites another halakha that was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man came before him and said to him: I have villages, I have olive groves, and I have olives, and the villagers come and hoe the olive groves during the Sabbatical Year and eat from the olive trees. Is it appropriate or inappropriate to allow this to continue? He said to him: It is inappropriate. As the man was leaving him and going on his way, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said: I have already resided in this land for forty years and I have not seen a person walk in a path as straight as this man does. The man came back to Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok and said to him: What should I do to ameliorate the situation? He said to him: Declare the olives ownerless for the poor, and give perutot coins to hired laborers as payment to hoe the olive groves.
וְקַשְׁקוֹשֵׁי מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״וְהַשְּׁבִיעִית תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ״. ״תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה״ — מִלְּקַשְׁקֵשׁ, ״וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ״ — מִלְּסַקֵּל! אָמַר רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: תְּרֵי קִשְׁקוּשֵׁי הָווּ. חַד — סַתּוֹמֵי פִּילֵי, וְחַד — אַבְרוֹיֵי אִילָנֵי. אַבְרוֹיֵי אִילָנֵי — אָסוּר, סַתּוֹמֵי פִּילֵי — שְׁרֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is hoeing olive groves permitted during the Sabbatical Year? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written: “But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow” (Exodus 23:11); meaning you shall let it rest from hoeing, and lie fallow from clearing the field of rocks? Apparently, hoeing is prohibited during the Sabbatical Year. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: There are two types of hoeing, one whose objective is to seal cracks in the ground and one to enhance the trees’ health. Enhancing the trees’ health is prohibited; sealing cracks is permitted, as it is merely to prevent the trees from dying and not to accelerate their growth.
אָמַר אַיְיבוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק: אַל יְהַלֵּךְ אָדָם בְּעַרְבֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת יוֹתֵר מִשָּׁלֹשׁ פַּרְסָאוֹת. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְאוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ — אַמַּאי דְּנָקֵיט סְמִיךְ.
An additional halakha was transmitted in the same manner. Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok: A person should not walk on Shabbat eves more than a distance of three parasangs [parsaot]. Rather, he should reach the place where he will stay on Shabbat early enough to ensure that he will have meals prepared for Shabbat. Rav Kahana said: We said that restriction only with regard to a case where he is returning to his house. However, if he is going to an inn, he relies on the food that he took with him. As he cannot assume that he will find lodgings with food, he brings food sufficient for his needs. Therefore, it is permitted for him to travel a greater distance.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְבֵיתֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּדִידִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ כָּסָא דְהַרְסָנָא לָא אַשְׁכַּחִי.
Some say that Rav Kahana said: This restriction that one may not walk a distance of more than three parasangs on Shabbat eves was required even with regard to one traveling to his house, and all the more so with regard to one traveling to an inn, as he cannot assume that he will find food there. Rav Kahana said: There was an incident that happened with me where I traveled a distance to reach my home on Friday and I did not find even small fried fish [deharsena] to eat in the house. One must prepare for Shabbat well in advance of the onset of Shabbat.
מִצְוַת לוּלָב כֵּיצַד? תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: סוּדָרִין עַל גַּג הָאִיצְטְבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
§ The mishna continues: How is the mitzva of lulav fulfilled in the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat? The mishna then explains how the attendants arrange their lulavim on the bench in the Temple. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a version of the mishna before Rav Naḥman: The attendant arranges them on the roof over the bench in the Temple. Rav Naḥman said to him:
