Parallel
סוכה 43:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and thereby he will be carrying it for four cubits through a public domain. And the same reason applies to the shofar, and the same reason applies to the megillah. But if so, let it apply to the first day also? — ‘The first day’ you say? Did not our Rabbis institute that it should be taken in one's home? — That is quite correct as from after this enactment, but what can you answer as regards the time before the enactment? — The fact is that with regard to the first day, the obligation to take the lulab on which is Pentateuchal even in the Provinces the Rabbis did not enact a restrictive measure, but with regard to the other days [the command to take the lulab on which] does not Pentateuchally obtain in the Provinces, the Rabbis did enact a restrictive measure. But if this is so, the same law should obtain at the present time also? — We do not know when the New Moon was fixed. But why should it not override the Sabbath for them since they know when the New Moon was fixed? — The law is indeed so; for in our Mishnah we have learnt, IF THE FIRST DAY OF THE FESTIVAL, FELL ON A SABBATH, all the people BROUGHT THEIR LULABS TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT, while in another Mishnah we have learnt [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive. Whence do we derive that [the taking of the lulab] is a Pentateuchal obligation in the Provinces? — From what has been taught: And ye shall take teaches that the lulab must be taken in the hand of each one; to you teaches that it must be yours, thus excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulab]; on the day implies, even if it be the Sabbath; first implies even in the Province; the first teaches that it overrides the first day of the Festival only. The Master said, ‘On the day implies, even if it be Sabbath.’ But consider: [The taking of the lulab] is ordinary carrying. Is a Scriptural verse then necessary to permit ordinary carrying? Raba answered, It was necessary to have it only with regard to the preliminaries of the lulab, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulab and all its preliminaries override the Sabbath, so R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer? — Scripture says, ‘on the day,’ implying, even the Sabbath. But what do the Rabbis make of the expression, on the day’?-They need it to infer from it that on the day, [is the lulab to be taken] but not at night. Then whence does R. Eliezer deduce that [the lulab is to be taken] by day, and not at night? — He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, ‘And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days’, ‘days’ imply, but not nights. And the Rabbis? — If deduction were made from this verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights. And with regard to the Sukkah itself whence do we derive [that the expression of ‘days’ includes nights]? — From what our Rabbis have taught: Ye shall dwell in booths for seven days, the expression of ‘days’ includes also the nights. You say that the expression of ‘days’ includes also the nights, perhaps it is not so and ‘days’ implies but not the nights, and this is really logical. For the word ‘days’ is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulab so that just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights. Or take it another way: The word ‘days’ is mentioned here, and also in connection with the [seven days of the] investment, so that just as there it means days and also nights, so here also it must mean days and also the nights! Let us then see to what it is more comparable. We should deduce a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day from a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day, and let no proof be adduced from something whose performance is only for one moment. Or take it another way: We might deduce a thing which was ordained for future generations from something whose performance also was ordained for future generations, but let no proof be adduced from the investment which does not obtain for future generations! [This is, therefore, an open question, but] Scripture explicitly repeats
—