Sukkah — Daf 38a

שירי מצוה מעכבין את הפורענות שהרי תנופה שירי מצוה היא ועוצרת רוחות וטללים רעים ואמר רבא וכן בלולב רב אחא בר יעקב ממטי ליה ומייתי ליה אמר דין גירא בעיניה דסטנא ולאו מלתא היא משום דאתי לאיגרויי ביה:

מתני׳ מי שבא בדרך ולא היה בידו לולב ליטול לכשיכנס לביתו יטול על שלחנו לא נטל שחרית יטול בין הערבים שכל היום כשר ללולב:

גמ׳ אמרת נוטלו על שלחנו למימרא דמפסיק ורמינהי אם התחילו אין מפסיקין אמר רב ספרא ל"ק הא דאיכא שהות ביום הא דליכא שהות ביום

אמר רבא מאי קושיא דילמא הא דאורייתא הא דרבנן אלא אמר רבא אי קשיא הא קשיא לכשיכנס לביתו נוטלו על שלחנו אלמא דמפסיק והדר תני לא נטל שחרית יטול בין הערבים אלמא לא מפסיק

אמר רב ספרא ל"ק הא דאיכא שהות ביום הא דליכא שהות ביום

א"ר זירא מאי קושיא דלמא מצוה לאפסוקי ואי לא פסיק יטול בין הערבים שכל היום כשר ללולב אלא אמר ר' זירא לעולם כדאמרינן מעיקרא ודקשיא לך הא דאורייתא הא דרבנן הכא ביום טוב שני דרבנן עסקינן

דיקא נמי מדקתני מי שבא בדרך ואין בידו לולב דאי ס"ד ביו"ט ראשון מי שרי:

מתני׳ מי שהיה עבד או אשה או קטן מקרין אותו עונה אחריהן מה שהן אומרין ותבא לו מאירה אם היה גדול מקרא אותו עונה אחריו הללויה מקום שנהגו לכפול יכפול לפשוט יפשוט לברך יברך הכל כמנהג המדינה:

גמ׳ ת"ר באמת אמרו בן מברך לאביו ועבד מברך לרבו ואשה מברכת לבעלה אבל אמרו חכמים תבא מאירה לאדם שאשתו ובניו מברכין לו

אמר רבא

that even the dispensable parts1 of a commandment2 prevent calamities; for the waving is obviously a dispensable part of the commandment,3 and yet it shuts out harmful winds and harmful dews. In connection with this Raba remarked, And so with the lulab.4 R. Aha b. Jacob used to wave it5 to and fro, saying, ‘This6 is an arrow in the eye of Satan’.7 This, however, is not a proper thing [for a man to do] since [Satan] might in consequence be provoked [to let temptation loose] against him. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS ON A JOURNEY8 AND HAD NO LULAB WHEREWITH TO PERFORM THE PRESCRIBED COMMANDMENT,9 WHEN HE COMES HOME HE SHOULD TAKE IT [EVEN IF HE IS] AT TABLE.10 IF HE DID NOT TAKE THE LULAB IN THE MORNING, HE SHOULD TAKE IT AT ANY TIME BEFORE DUSK, SINCE THE WHOLE DAY11 IS VALID FOR [TAKING] THE LULAB. GEMARA. You said that he should take it [even if he is] AT TABLE. This then means that he must interrupt [his meal for the purpose]. But is not this in contradiction with the ruling,12 If they have begun13 they need not interrupt [it]?14 — R. Safra replied, There is no contradiction: The latter statement refers to where there is still time [to perform the commandment] during the day, while the former refers to where there is [otherwise] no time. Raba retorted, What difficulty is this?15 Is it not possible [that the difference in ruling is due to the fact that] the former5 is a Pentateuchal commandment16 while the latter17 is only Rabbinical? Rather, said Raba, if a difficulty at all exists, it is this: [The ruling] HE SHOULD TAKE IT WHEN HE COMES HOME [EVEN IF HE IS] AT TABLE, clearly shows that he must interrupt [his meal], while [the ruling] subsequently taught, IF HE DID NOT TAKE IT DURING THE MORNING HE SHOULD TAKE IT AT ANY TIME BEFORE DUSK shows, [does it not], that he need not interrupt [his meal]? [To this] R. Safra might well reply, There is no difficulty: The latter refers to where there is still time during the day, the former where there is [otherwise] no time. R. Zera retorted, What difficulty is this?18 Perhaps it is a religious duty to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulab] but if one did not interrupt it one should take [the lulab] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulab? Rather, said R. Zera, [The incongruity] indeed is as we said previously;19 and with regard to your difficulty [why the reply was not given20 that] the former was a Pentateuchal commandment while the latter was only Rabbinical,21 the fact is that here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival [the obligation of taking the lulab on] which is only Rabbinical.22 A deduction [from the wording of our Mishnah] also [shows that this is so], since it teaches IF A MAN WAS ON A JOURNEY AND HAD NO LULAB WHEREWITH TO PERFORM THE PRESCRIBED COMMANDMENT. Now if it could possibly have been assumed to refer to the first day of the Festival, [the difficulty would arise] is it permitted [to travel on that day]?23 MISHNAH. IF A SLAVE, A WOMAN, OR A MINOR RECITED [THE HALLEL]24 TO HIM, HE MUST REPEAT AFTER THEM WHAT THEY SAY,25 (AND A CURSE BE UPON HIM).’ IF A MAJOR RECITED TO HIM, HE REPEATS AFTER HIM [ONLY] HALLELUJAH.26 WHERE THE CUSTOM OBTAINS TO REPEAT [THE VERSES],27 HE SHOULD REPEAT; [WHERE THE CUSTOM IS] TO SAY THEM ONLY ONCE, HE SHOULD SAY THEM ONCE; [WHERE THE CUSTOM OBTAINS] TO RECITE THE BENEDICTION,28 HE SHOULD RECITE THE BENEDICTION. EVERYTHING IS DEPENDENT ON LOCAL CUSTOM. GEMARA. Our Rabbis have taught, It has truly29 been laid down that a [minor] son30 may recite [the Grace after meals] for his father,31 a slave may recite it for his master, and a wife for her husband; but the Sages said, May a curse come upon that man whose wife and [minor] sons have to recite the benediction for him!32 Raba observed, and the neglect to perform which renders it invalid. Others are prescribed but dispensable. The waving belongs to the latter category. all times. reply. statutory prayers, is only Rabbinical. however, a minor, a slave and a woman are exempt from the Hallel, they cannot officiate for others, and each individual must repeat it after them word for word. (9) That he has not learnt to read himself, or if he has learnt, that he makes use in divine service of inferior or second rate deputies. recital, cf. I. W. Slotki, ‘Antiphony in Ancient Hebr. Poetry’. JQR., N.S., vol. XXVI, pp. 199-219. consequently obliged to say Grace after it by a Rabbinic law only. The two being subject to the same Rabbinic law, the latter may well exempt the former (cf. Ber. 20b).