Parallel
סוכה 43
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
—
‘Ye shall dwell’ in order to point an analogy. It is stated here, Ye shall dwell, and with regard to the [seven days of] investment it is also stated, ‘Ye shall dwell’, so that just as in that case the word ‘days’ includes also the nights, so here also ‘days’ includes the nights. THE WILLOW . . . SEVEN DAYS’. HOW IS THIS? Why does the [ceremonial of the] willow-branch on the seventh day override the Sabbath? — R. Johanan answered, In order to publish the fact that it is a [commandment] of the Torah. But if so, in the case of the lulab also, why should it not override the Sabbath in order to publish the fact that it is a [commandment] of the Torah? — In the case of lulab there is a restrictive enactment on account of the reason of Rabbah. But if so, let us make the same restrictive enactment with regard to the willow also? — In the case of the willow-branch the emissaries of the Beth din would bring it but the lulab is entrusted to everyone. But if so, ought it not to override [the Sabbath] on any day? — [If that were done] people would come to hold the lulab in light esteem. Then why should not [the willow] override [the Sabbath] on the first day of the Festival? — It will not be clear [that it is the rite of the willow that overrides the Sabbath, for] people might say that it is the lulab which overrides it. But why should not the Sabbath be overridden on any one of the other days? — Since [the permission to override the Sabbath] was removed from the first day, it was transferred to the seventh. But if so, why should it not override it at the present time also? — We do not know when New Moon was fixed. But in their case since they know when New Moon was fixed, why should it not override [the Sabbath]? — When Bar Hadya came, he explained that this never happened. When, however, Rabin came and all the company that used to go down [from Palestine to Babylon] they stated that it did happen, and that it did not override [the Sabbath]. Does not then the original difficulty arise? — R. Joseph answered, Who says that [the ceremonial of] the willow-branch is [performed] by the taking of it? Perhaps it is done by its being fixed [to the sides of the altar]. Abaye raised an objection against him: THE CEREMONIALS OF THE LULAB AND THE WILLOW [CONTINUED FOR] SIX [DAYS] OR SEVEN. Does not [this imply that the willow is] as the lulab just as the [ceremonial of the] lulab is [performed] by its being taken, so is that of the willow performed by its being taken? — What an argument! The rite of each may have been carried out according to its own particular rules. Abaye raised a further objection against him: Every day they walked round the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the willow-branch? No, with the lulab. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [that the circuit was made] with the willowbranch? — The other answered him, He told you, ‘with the willow-branch’ and I say ‘with the lulab’. It was stated, R. Eleazar stated [that the circuit was made] with the lulab; R. Samuel b. Nathan citing R. Hanina stated [that it was made] with the willow-branch. And so said R. Nahman who had it from Rabbah b. Abbuha, With the willow-branch. Raba said to R. Isaac the son of Rabbah b. bar Hana, Come, O Son of the Law, and I will tell you of an excellent statement which your father made. With reference to what we have learnt, ‘Every day they walked round the altar once, and on that day they went round seven times’, your father citing R. Eleazar stated, [This was done] with the lulab. He raised an objection against him: The rite of the lulab overrides the Sabbath on the first day, and that of the willow-branch on the last day. On one occasion the seventh day of the [ceremonial of the] willow-branch fell on a Sabbath, and they brought saplings of willows on the Sabbath eve and placed them in the courtyard of the Temple. The Boethusians, having discovered them, took and hid them under some stones. On the morrow some of the ‘amme ha-arez discovered them and removed them from under the stones, and the priests brought them in and fixed them in the sides of the altar. [The reason for hiding the willows was that] the Boethusians do not admit that the beating of the willow-branch overrides the Sabbath. Thus we see clearly that [the performance of the willow ceremonial is] in the taking of it? — This is a refutation. Then why should it not override [the Sabbath]? — Since with us it does not override [the Sabbath] it does not override it with them either. But is there not the first day of the Festival on which [the rite of the lulab] does not override the Sabbath for us, but does it for them?48
—