Parallel
סוכה 44
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— I will answer! For them also it does not override [the Sabbath]. Does not then a contradiction arise between those two Mishnahs, since one teaches ‘all the people BROUGHT THEIR LULABS TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT’, and the other Mishnah teaches [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, and we answered, did we not, that the one referred to Temple times and the other to the time after the destruction of the Temple? — No; both refer to Temple times, but there is nevertheless no contradiction since the one refers to the Sanctuary and the other to the Provinces. Abaye said to Rabbah, Why in the case of the lulab do we perform the ceremony for seven days in commemoration of the Sanctuary, whereas in the case of the willow-branch we do not perform the ceremony for seven days in commemoration of the Sanctuary? — He answered him, Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the willow-branch] with the willow-branch on the lulab. But the former asked, does not one do it on account of the lulab? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not so act? — R. Zebid answered in the name of Raba, In the case of the lulab which is a Pentateuchal precept we perform the ceremony for seven days in commemoration of the Sanctuary; in the case of the willow-branch which is only a Rabbinical precept, we do not perform the ceremony for seven days in commemoration of the Sanctuary. According to whom [is this statement] made? If you will say, According to Abba Saul, did he not say: It is written, willows of the brook, implying two, one referring to the [willow-branch in the] lulab and the other to [the willow-branch for use in] the Sanctuary? If you will say, It is according to the Rabbis, did they not have it as an accepted tradition, since R. Assi citing R. Johanan who had it from R. Nehunya of the Plain of Beth Hawartan, stated, The laws of the ten plants, the willow-branch and water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai? Rather, said R. Zebid, in the name of Raba, In the case of the rite of the lulab, which has a Pentateuchal origin for its performance in the Provinces, we perform it for seven days in commemoration of the Sanctuary; in the case of the rite of the willow-branch, which has no Pentateuchal origin for its performance in the Provinces, we do not perform it for seven days in commemoration of the Sanctuary. Resh Lakish ruled, Priests suffering from a physical blemish were permitted to enter between the Ulam and the altar in order to fulfil the precept of the willow-branch. Said R. Johanan to him, Who said so? — ‘Who said so?’ Did he not himself say so, since R. Assi citing R. Johanan who had it from R. Nehunya of the Plain of Beth Hawartan stated, The laws of the ten plants, the willow-branch and water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai? — He rather meant this: Who said that [the precept is fulfilled] by taking, perhaps it is fulfilled by fixing, who said that it may be done by priests with a blemish, perhaps it [may be done] only by unblemished priests? It was stated, R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi differ. One holds that the rite of the willow-branch is an institution of the prophets, the other holds that the willow-branch is a usage of the prophets. It can be concluded that it was R. Johanan who said, ‘It is an institution of the prophets’, since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Johanan, ‘The rite of the willow-branch is an institution of the prophets’. This is conclusive. Said R. Zera to R. Abbahu, Did then R. Johanan say so? Did not R. Johanan in fact state in the name of R. Nehunya of the Plain of Beth Hawartan that ‘the law of the ten plants, the willow-branch and the water libation were given to Moses on Mount Sinai’? — [The other] was appalled for a while, and then he answered, They were forgotten and the prophets reinstituted them. But could R. Johanan say so? Did not R. Johanan in fact state, ‘What I said was yours was in fact theirs’? — Rather [answer thus]: This is no difficulty,
—
since one statement refers to the Sanctuary and the other to the Provinces. R. Ammi ruled, The willow-branch is required to have a minimum size, it must be taken separately only, and no man can fulfil his obligation with the willow-branch in the lulab. But since the Master said, ‘It must be taken separately only’ is it not self-evident that ‘no man can fulfil his obligation with the willow-branch in the lulab’? — I might have said that that applies only where one does not lift [the lulab] a second time, but not where one does lift it a second time, therefore he informs us that it is not so. R. Hisda citing R. Isaac, however, ruled, A man may fulfil his obligation with the willow-branch in the lulab. What is its prescribed minimum? — R. Nahman said, Three fresh twigs with leaves. R. Shesheth, however, said, Even one leaf and one twig. ‘One leaf and one twig’! Can such a rule be imagined? — Say rather, Even one leaf on one twig. Aibu related, I was once standing in the presence of R. Eleazar b. Zadok when a man brought a willow-branch before him, and he took it and shook it over and over again without reciting any benediction, for he was of the opinion that it was merely a usage of the prophets. Aibu and Hezekiah, the maternal grandsons of Rab, brought a willow-branch before Rab, and he shook it over and over again without reciting a benediction, for he was of the opinion that it was merely a usage of the prophets. Aibu stated, I was standing in the presence of R. Eleazar b. Zadok when a certain man came before him and said to him, ‘I possess cities, vineyards and olive trees, and the inhabitants of the cities come and hoe the vineyards and eat the olives. Is this proper or improper?’ — ‘This’, the other replied, ‘is improper’. As the man was about to leave him and depart, [R. Eleazar] observed, ‘It is now forty years that I have dwelt in this land, and I have never seen a man walking in the paths of righteousness as this man’. The man thereupon returned and said to him, ‘What should be done?’ he answered him, ‘Abandon the olives to the poor and pay yourself for hoeing the vineyards’. But is hoeing permitted [during the Sabbatical year]? Has it not in fact been taught: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still means, ‘Let it rest’ from hoeing and ‘lie still’ as regards the removal of stones? — R. Ukba b. Hama replied, There are two kinds of hoeing; one consists in closing up the fissures and the other in aerating the soil. Aerating the soil is forbidden but closing up the fissures is permitted. Aibu citing R. Eleazar b. Zadok ruled, One should not walk more than three parasangs on the Sabbath eve. R. Kahana observed, They made this statement only [in reference to a man who was going to] his home, but if he was going to his inn he relies upon [the food] which he has with him. Others say that R. Kahana observed, The statement was necessary even in the case of a man [who was going] to his home. R. Kahana stated, It actually happened with me, that I did not find even a fishpie. HOW WAS [THE CEREMONIAL OF] THE LULAB CARRIED OUT? A tanna recited before R. Nahman, ‘Arranged them upon the roof of the portico’. The other said to him
—