Parallel
סוכה 41
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
to male [animals and birds], but with regard to female ones, all agree that they may be redeemed with slaughtered ones, but not with live ones, since a preventive measure has been enacted against one's possible rearing of flocks from them. R. Ashi said, The dispute concerns only the original produce itself, but with regard to secondary produce, both agree that [it can be redeemed] either by way of sale, or by way of exchange: and the reason that the term ‘purchased’ was continually repeated is that since in the first clause the term ‘purchased’ was used it was used in the latter clause also. Rabina raised an objection against R. Ashi, [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela’ of [the proceeds of the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase therewith a shirt, how should he proceed? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, ‘Give me a sela’ worth of fruit’ and give it to him. Then he tells him, ‘Behold this fruit is given to you as a gift’, and [the shopkeeper] answers him, ‘And here is a gift for you of a sela’’ And the latter may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela’ is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches, does it not, [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange? — Rather, said R. Ashi, the dispute [of R. Eleazar and R. Johanan] centres round the secondary produce, but with regard to the primary produce all agree that [it may be redeemed] only by way of sale, and not by way of exchange; and as to what has been stated, ‘Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of the Second Tithe [may be redeemed by exchange]’, what is meant by ‘the produce of the Sabbatical Year’ is the money for which the produce is exchanged. For if you will not say so, then ‘tithe’ also must mean actual tithe, surely it is written, Thou shalt bind the money in thy hand? Consequently it must mean the money for which tithe [was exchanged], and so here also it means the money for which the produce of the Sabbatical Year [is exchanged]. MISHNAH. FORMERLY THE LULAB WAS TAKEN FOR SEVEN DAYS IN THE TEMPLE, AND IN THE PROVINCES FOR ONE DAY ONLY. WHEN THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED, R. JOHANAN R. ZAKKAI INSTITUTED THAT THE LULAB SHOULD BE TAKEN IN THE PROVINCES FOR SEVEN DAYS IN MEMORY OF THE TEMPLE, [AND HE ALSO INSTITUTED] THAT ON THE WHOLE OF THE DAY OF WAVING IT SHALL BE FORBIDDEN [TO EAT THE NEW PRODUCE OF THE YEAR]. GEMARA. Whence do we know that we must perform [ceremonies] in memory of the Temple? — R. Johanan replied, Since Scripture says, For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the Lord, Because they have called thee an outcast. She is Zion, there is none that seeketh for her. ‘There is none that seeketh for her’, implies that she should be sought. AND THAT ON THE WHOLE OF THE DAY OF WAVING. What is the reason? — The Temple may be rebuilt speedily, and people would say, ‘Did we not eat [the new corn] last year from the time that day dawned in the East? Let us now also eat it [from the same time]’ and they would be unaware of the fact that in the previous year, when there was no Temple, once day dawned in the East it was permitted [to eat of the new corn], but now that the Temple is rebuilt,it is only the [waving of the] ‘omer which [commences] the permission. But when [does this assume the Temple to be] rebuilt? If you will say that it is rebuilt on the sixteenth [of Nisan], then obviously it is permitted to eat from the time that day dawned in the East? If, however, it is rebuilt on the fifteenth why should it not be permitted after midday, for surely we have learnt, Those that lived at a distance were permitted [to eat of the new corn] from midday onwards, because [they knew that] the Beth din would not be negligent in the matter? — This was necessary [only in case] it is rebuilt at night, or [on the fifteenth] close to sunset. R. Nahman b. Isaac replied, R. Johanan b. Zakkai instituted this in accordance with a principle of R. Judah who holds that Pentateuchally all that day is forbidden, since it is written,
—
Until this self-same day, [which means] until the very day itself, and he is of the opinion that the expression ‘until’ is meant to include [the terminus in the prohibition]. But does he hold a similar opinion? Does he not in fact disagree with him, as we have learnt, When the Temple was destroyed, R. Johanan b. Zakkai instituted that on the whole of the Day of the Waving it should be forbidden [to eat of the new corn]. Said R. Judah to him, But is it not forbidden Pentateuchally, since it is written, ‘Until the self-same day’ [which means] until the very day itself? — It is R. Judah who was under a misapprehension, He thought that [R. Johanan b. Zakkai] meant that it was forbidden as a Rabbinical prohibition, but it is not so. He meant it as a Pentateuchal prohibition. But does it not say, ‘He instituted’? — What is meant by ‘he instituted’ is that he expounded (the Pentateuchal verse] and instituted the law accordingly. MISHNAH. IF THE FIRST DAY OF THE FESTIVAL FALLS ON A SABBATH, ALL THE PEOPLE BRING THEIR LULABS TO THE SYNAGOGUE [ON THE PREVIOUS DAY]. ON THE MORROW THEY ARISE EARLY [AND COME TO THE SYNAGOGUE] AND EACH ONE RECOGNIZES HIS OWN [LULAB] AND TAKES IT, SINCE THE SAGES LAID DOWN THAT NO ONE CAN FULFIL HIS OBLIGATION ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE FESTIVAL WITH THE LULAB OF HIS FELLOW. BUT ON THE OTHER DAYS OF THE FESTIVAL A MAN MAY FULFIL HIS OBLIGATION WITH THE LULAB OF HIS FELLOW. R. JOSE RULED, IF THE FIRST DAY OF THE FESTIVAL FELL ON THE SABBATH, AND A MAN FORGOT AND CARRIED OUT HIS LULAB INTO A PUBLIC DOMAIN, HE IS NOT CULPABLE, SINCE HE BROUGHT IT OUT WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE [OF A RELIGIOUS ACT]. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — From what our Rabbis have taught, ‘And ye shall take’ [implies] that there should be a ‘taking’ with the hand of each individual, ‘to you,’ implies that it should be yours, excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulab]. From this verse the Sages deduced that no one can fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulab of his fellow, unless the latter gave it to him as a gift. And it once happened that when R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah and R. Akiba were travelling on a ship and R. Gamaliel alone had a lulab which he had bought for one thousand zuz, R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and gave it as a gift to R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiba who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel. Why does he need mention that he returned it? — He teaches us something incidentally viz., that a gift made on condition that it be returned constitutes a valid gift; as also follows from what Raba said: [If a man say to his fellow], ‘Here is an ethrog [as a gift] on condition that you return it to me’, and the latter took it and fulfilled his obligation with it, if he returned it, he is regarded as having fulfilled his obligation, but if he did not return it, he is regarded as not having fulfilled his obligation. For what purpose need he mention that [R. Gamaliel] had bought it for one thousand zuz? — In order to let you know how precious to them was the opportunity of fulfilling a religious duty. Mar b. Amemar said to R. Ashi, My father used to recite his prayers [while holding the lulab in his hand]. It was objected: A man should not hold his tefillin in his hand or a Scroll of the Law in his bosom while reciting his prayers, nor [while wearing his tefillin] should he let water, or doze or sleep. And in connection with this Samuel said, The same applies to a knife, a dish, a loaf of bread and money? — In the latter cases he is not performing a religious duty and, therefore, would worry over them but in the former one he is fulfilling a religious duty and, therefore, he would not worry over it. It has been taught, R. Eleazar b. Zadok stated, This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulab in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulab was in his hand, when he read the Shema’ and his prayers his lulab was still in his hand, but when he read in the Law or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulab in his hand, but when he entered the House of Study, he would send his lulab by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger. What does this teach us? — It serves to inform you how zealous they were in the performance of religious duties. R. JOSE RULED, [IF THE FIRST DAY OF] THE FESTIVAL etc. Abaye stated,
—