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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 20, 2021 | 讬状讘 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 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 44

This week of learning is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of her dear mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toiba, z”l, on her 21st yahrzeit. “Her kindness and grace, zest for life, delight in Torah study, and love for family and friends continue to inspire us every day. Yehi zichrah baruch.”

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?

讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讚转谞讗 讞讚讗 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 讜诪转专爪讬谞谉 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

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.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 讻讗谉 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讜诇讘 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注专讘讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 诇讜诇讘 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚拽讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬

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鈥檛 actions performed daily proof that we do not do so, as no one lifts the lulav twice?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讜诇讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 注专讘讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

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.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讗诪专 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讻转讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诇诇讜诇讘 讜讗讞转 诇诪拽讚砖 讗讬 诇专讘谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讜诇讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 注专讘讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讛谞讬诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讻讚讬 诇爪讗转 讘注专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 讗诪专讛 诪讬 讗诪专讛 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

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 Yo岣nan said to him: Who stated this halakha? The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question: Who stated it? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself state it? As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: 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.

讗诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讛 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讚诇诪讗 讘讝拽讬驻讛 诪讬 讗诪专讛 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讘转诪讬诪讬诐

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讗转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 注专讘讛 讬住讜讚 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 注专讘讛 诪谞讛讙 谞讘讬讗讬诐 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讬住讜讚 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注专讘讛 讬住讜讚 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛讜讗 转住转讬讬诐

It was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan who said that it is an ordinance of the prophets, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets. The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude that it is so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讗砖转讜诪诐 讻砖注讛 讞讚讗 讜讗诪专 砖讻讞讜诐 讜讞讝专讜 讜讬住讚讜诐

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: 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? 鈥淗e was astonished for a while鈥 (Daniel 4:16), and after considering the apparent contradiction he said that indeed Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讻讜谉 讗诪专讬 讚诇讛讜谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? And didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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;

讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 讻讗谉 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉

Here, where Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 注专讘讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘

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?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 (讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙)

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 岣sda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖讛 讘讚讬 注诇讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讜讘讚 讗讞讚 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讜讘讚 讗讞讚 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讘讘讚 讗讞讚

Rabbi Ami said that the willow branch requires a certain measure. The Gemara asks: And what is its requisite measure? Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 statement and say: One fulfills his obligation even with one leaf on one branch.

讗诪专 讗讬讬讘讜 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讜讗讬讬转讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 注专讘讛 拽诪讬讛 砖拽讬诇 讞讘讬讟 讞讘讬讟 讜诇讗 讘专讬讱 拽住讘专 诪谞讛讙 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讬讬讘讜 讜讞讝拽讬讛 讘谞讬 讘专转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讬转讜 注专讘讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讘讬讟 讞讘讬讟 讜诇讗 讘专讬讱 拽讗 住讘专 诪谞讛讙 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛讜讗

搂 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 岣zkiya, 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.

讗诪专 讗讬讬讘讜 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽专讬讬转讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讻专诪讬讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讝讬转讬讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讜讗转讜 讘谞讬 拽专讬讬转讗 讜诪拽砖拽砖讬谉 讘讻专诪讬讗 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讝讬转讬讗 讗专讬讱 讗讜 诇讗 讗专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗专讬讱 讛讜讛 拽讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 讻讚讜 讛讜讬转讬 讚讬讬专讬 讘讗专注讗 讛讚讗 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讞诪讬转讬 讘专 讗讬谞砖 诪讛诇讱 讘讗专讞谉 讚转拽谞谉 讻讚讬谉 讛讚专 讜讗转讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻拽专 讝讬转讬讗 诇讞砖讜讻讬讗 讜转谉 驻专讬讟讬讗 诇拽砖拽讜砖讬 讻专诪讬诐

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.

讜拽砖拽讜砖讬 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讛砖讘讬注讬转 转砖诪讟谞讛 讜谞讟砖转讛 转砖诪讟谞讛 诪诇拽砖拽砖 讜谞讟砖转讛 诪诇住拽诇 讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 转专讬 拽砖拽讜砖讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 住转讜诪讬 驻讬诇讬 讜讞讚 讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讗住讜专 住转讜诪讬 驻讬诇讬 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: Is hoeing olive groves permitted during the Sabbatical Year? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淏ut the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow鈥 (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 岣ma said: There are two types of hoeing, one whose objective is to seal cracks in the ground and one to enhance the trees鈥 health. Enhancing the trees鈥 health is prohibited; sealing cracks is permitted, as it is merely to prevent the trees from dying and not to accelerate their growth.

讗诪专 讗讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讗诇 讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 驻专住讗讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讚谞拽讬讟 住诪讬讱

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讚讬讚讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞

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.

诪爪讜转 诇讜诇讘 讻讬爪讚 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讜讚专讬谉 注诇 讙讙 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛

搂 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 Na岣an: The attendant arranges them on the roof over the bench in the Temple. Rav Na岣an said to him:

Masechet Sukkah is sponsored by Jonathan Katz in memory of his mother Margaret Katz (Ruth bat Avraham).
  • 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 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sukkah 44

讗诪专讬 诇讚讬讚讛讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讞讬 讜讗诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讚转谞讗 讞讚讗 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 讜诪转专爪讬谞谉 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

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.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 讻讗谉 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讜诇讘 讚注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 注专讘讛 讚诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 诇讜诇讘 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚拽讗 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛讚专 诪讙讘讛 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 诪注砖讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讚诇讗 拽讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 讛讻讬

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鈥檛 actions performed daily proof that we do not do so, as no one lifts the lulav twice?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讜诇讘 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 注专讘讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

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.

诇诪讗谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讛讗诪专 注专讘讬 谞讞诇 讻转讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讞转 诇诇讜诇讘 讜讗讞转 诇诪拽讚砖 讗讬 诇专讘谞谉 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

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鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇讜诇讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 注讘讚讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 注专讘讛 讚诇讬转 诇讛 注讬拽专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 诇讗 注讘讚讬谞谉 砖讘注讛 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖

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.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讛谞讬诐 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 谞讻谞住讬谉 讘讬谉 讛讗讜诇诐 讜诇诪讝讘讞 讻讚讬 诇爪讗转 讘注专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 讗诪专讛 诪讬 讗诪专讛 讛讗 讗讬讛讜 讗诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

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 Yo岣nan said to him: Who stated this halakha? The Gemara wonders about Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 question: Who stated it? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself state it? As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: 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.

讗诇讗 诪讬 讗诪专讛 讘谞讟讬诇讛 讚诇诪讗 讘讝拽讬驻讛 诪讬 讗诪专讛 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讘转诪讬诪讬诐

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 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.

讗转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 注专讘讛 讬住讜讚 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讞讚 讗诪专 注专讘讛 诪谞讛讙 谞讘讬讗讬诐 转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讬住讜讚 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注专讘讛 讬住讜讚 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛讜讗 转住转讬讬诐

It was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan who said that it is an ordinance of the prophets, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets. The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude that it is so.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讗砖转讜诪诐 讻砖注讛 讞讚讗 讜讗诪专 砖讻讞讜诐 讜讞讝专讜 讜讬住讚讜诐

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: 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? 鈥淗e was astonished for a while鈥 (Daniel 4:16), and after considering the apparent contradiction he said that indeed Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚诇讻讜谉 讗诪专讬 讚诇讛讜谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai? And didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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;

讻讗谉 讘诪拽讚砖 讻讗谉 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉

Here, where Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 注专讘讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讗讬谞讛 谞讬讟诇转 讗诇讗 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘

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?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讗讘诇 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讜讛讚专 讗讙讘讛讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讚诐 讬讜爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讘注专讘讛 砖讘诇讜诇讘 (讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙)

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 岣sda said that Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讜讻诪讛 砖讬注讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖诇砖讛 讘讚讬 注诇讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讜讘讚 讗讞讚 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讜讘讚 讗讞讚 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇讛 讗讞讚 讘讘讚 讗讞讚

Rabbi Ami said that the willow branch requires a certain measure. The Gemara asks: And what is its requisite measure? Rav Na岣an 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鈥檚 statement and say: One fulfills his obligation even with one leaf on one branch.

讗诪专 讗讬讬讘讜 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讜讗讬讬转讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 注专讘讛 拽诪讬讛 砖拽讬诇 讞讘讬讟 讞讘讬讟 讜诇讗 讘专讬讱 拽住讘专 诪谞讛讙 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讬讬讘讜 讜讞讝拽讬讛 讘谞讬 讘专转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讬转讜 注专讘讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞讘讬讟 讞讘讬讟 讜诇讗 讘专讬讱 拽讗 住讘专 诪谞讛讙 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讛讜讗

搂 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 岣zkiya, 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.

讗诪专 讗讬讬讘讜 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽专讬讬转讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讻专诪讬讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讝讬转讬讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讜讗转讜 讘谞讬 拽专讬讬转讗 讜诪拽砖拽砖讬谉 讘讻专诪讬讗 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘讝讬转讬讗 讗专讬讱 讗讜 诇讗 讗专讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗专讬讱 讛讜讛 拽讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 讻讚讜 讛讜讬转讬 讚讬讬专讬 讘讗专注讗 讛讚讗 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讞诪讬转讬 讘专 讗讬谞砖 诪讛诇讱 讘讗专讞谉 讚转拽谞谉 讻讚讬谉 讛讚专 讜讗转讬 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻拽专 讝讬转讬讗 诇讞砖讜讻讬讗 讜转谉 驻专讬讟讬讗 诇拽砖拽讜砖讬 讻专诪讬诐

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.

讜拽砖拽讜砖讬 诪讬 砖专讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讛砖讘讬注讬转 转砖诪讟谞讛 讜谞讟砖转讛 转砖诪讟谞讛 诪诇拽砖拽砖 讜谞讟砖转讛 诪诇住拽诇 讗诪专 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 转专讬 拽砖拽讜砖讬 讛讜讜 讞讚 住转讜诪讬 驻讬诇讬 讜讞讚 讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讗讘专讜讬讬 讗讬诇谞讬 讗住讜专 住转讜诪讬 驻讬诇讬 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: Is hoeing olive groves permitted during the Sabbatical Year? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淏ut the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow鈥 (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 岣ma said: There are two types of hoeing, one whose objective is to seal cracks in the ground and one to enhance the trees鈥 health. Enhancing the trees鈥 health is prohibited; sealing cracks is permitted, as it is merely to prevent the trees from dying and not to accelerate their growth.

讗诪专 讗讬讬讘讜 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 爪讚讜拽 讗诇 讬讛诇讱 讗讚诐 讘注专讘讬 砖讘转讜转 讬讜转专 诪砖诇砖 驻专住讗讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讛 讗诪讗讬 讚谞拽讬讟 住诪讬讱

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讚讬讚讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻住讗 讚讛专住谞讗 诇讗 讗砖讻讞

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.

诪爪讜转 诇讜诇讘 讻讬爪讚 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 住讜讚专讬谉 注诇 讙讙 讛讗讬爪讟讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛

搂 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 Na岣an: The attendant arranges them on the roof over the bench in the Temple. Rav Na岣an said to him:

Scroll To Top