Sukkah 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

And it follows:

this is referring to a case where he dropped it

by hand from the tube into the trough—

it is valid,

even though he did not grasp it in his hand; rather, he shook the tube into the trough. But if taking by means of another object is not considered taking,

why

is it valid? For

the Merciful One stated: “And they shall take and give,”

which means that the giving must be performed by means of taking!

Rather, must one not conclude from this: Taking by means of another object is considered taking.

And Rabba said: A person should not force [

not press]

the

lulav

into the hosha’na,

after he has already placed the hadassim and aravot into the bundle,

lest

by thrusting the lulav forcefully into the bundle,

the leaves become dislodged [

the leaves of the hadas and arava will fall off], and remain inside the bundle,

and this constitutes an interposition

between the lulav and the other species; consequently, they are not bound together so as to constitute a single act of taking.

And Rava said:

There is no need to be concerned about this, because

a species

of the same type does not constitute an interposition.

And Rabba said:

If the lulav was too long within the hosha’na and protruded considerably below the other species,

a person should not cut [

cut]

the

lulav

lulav

while it is still bound

in the hosha’na,

because

as a result of

this,

detached leaves

of the lulav remain inside the bundle, since the leaves of the lulav are long and attached beneath the spine, extending upward alongside the length of the lulav; and when he cuts it below, they are found to have been severed from the spine and remain in the bundle,

and this constitutes an interposition.

Rather, he should remove the lulav from the bundle, cut it at the bottom, and then bind it again.

And Rava said:

There is no need to be particular about this, because

a species of the same type does not constitute an interposition.

And Rabba said: It is prohibited to smell a hadas used for a mitzva.

This is because we derive the law of hadas from the sukka: Just as a sukka becomes prohibited for benefit after it has been designated for its mitzva, as explained above, on page 9a, so too, the hadas. However,

a citron used for a mitzva—

it is permitted to smell it.

What is the reason?

A hadas is designated for smelling [

it is intended for its fragrance];

when one designates it

for its mitzva,

he designates it away from smelling,

which is its normal manner of use, and therefore it is prohibited to smell it. But

a citron is designated for eating; when one designates it, he designates it away from eating,

which is its normal manner of use. But it is permitted to smell it.

And Rabba said: A hadas

when it is

attached to the ground, it is permitted to smell it

on Shabbat throughout the year. But

a citron attached to the ground is prohibited to smell.

What is the reason?

A hadas is designated for smelling,

which is its normal manner of use; therefore, even

if you permit him—

he will not come to cut it off [

there is no concern that he will come to cut it], since he does not need to cut it in order to smell it. In contrast,

a citron, whose primary purpose

is

eating, if you permit him

to smell it, there is concern that he might forget that today is Shabbat and

come

to cut it off,

cutting it from the tree in order to eat it. And even if he eats it while it is still attached, it is prohibited, for there is no greater act of detaching than this!

And Rabba said: The lulav

he holds

in

his right

hand, while the citron

he holds

in his left.

What is the reason?

Because

these [

the lulav, hadas, and arava]

are three mitzvot,

whereas

if

this

citron,

it is one mitzva.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: Why do we recite a blessing only over taking the lulav

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: What is the reason that we recite a blessing only over taking the lulav

and not over the other species?

He said to him:

Since

the lulav

is taller than all of them,

it is the principal one, and the bundle is named after it.

The Gemara assumed that the reason the lulav is taller than all of them is that it must be bound one handbreadth higher than the hadassim and aravot. Therefore they asked:

Why not make

the citron taller,

so that it would be the tallest of them all,

and recite the blessing

over it?

He said to him:

This is what I intended to say:

Since, among its own species, it is taller than all of them.

The date palm is taller than the other trees of the four species.

Mishna:

And where

in the Hallel

would they wave

the lulav? [The Gemara will explain how they derived the general rule that there is a mitzva to wave the lulav, as it asks where this is done.]

At “Give thanks to the Lord,”

which appears at the

beginning

of the section (before “Let Israel now say,” etc.),

and

at “Give thanks to the Lord” that appears at the

end

of the section, that is, at the end of the recitation of the Hallel, since from the first “Give thanks” through the end of the Hallel is one section in the Book of Psalms.

And

they would likewise wave

at “Please, Lord, save now”—the statement of Beit Hillel.

And Beit Shammai say: Also at “Please, Lord, grant success now.”

Rabbi Akiva said: I observed Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua: All the people were waving their lulavim, but they waved only at “Please, Lord, save now.”

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

This waving

that you are discussing, where it is performed,

who mentioned it?

That is, who mentioned that it must be performed, such that you are discussing its details and laws?

The Gemara explains: The tanna

there

of the Mishna above

is referring to

what was taught there:

Any lulav that is three handbreadths long, sufficient to wave with it, is valid.

And since the measure of the lulav is established by the fact that one can wave it, it follows that its mitzva includes waving it.

And

regarding

this he said: Where do they wave it?

We learned there: The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot

which must be waved together, as it is stated [Leviticus 23:20]: “And the koen shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits, etc., with the two lambs, etc.” The Sages interpreted this to mean that they require a single waving.

How does he perform

the waving?

He places the two loaves on top of the two lambs

while they are alive [ as they expounded: “With the bread of the first fruits,” which is placed on the two lambs],

and he places his hand beneath them and waves; he carries them forward and brings them back, raises them and lowers them, as it is stated

[Exodus 29]:

“That which was waved and that which was raised.”

That is, the form of waving is derived from this verse: upward and downward, forward and backward. “Raised” indicates upward, and since there is no rising without lowering, we know that one must wave upward and then lower it. “Waved” indicates carrying forward and bringing back. Although this verse concerns the inauguration offerings and not the lambs of Shavuot, it is nevertheless derived from it for all forms of waving.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “He carries forward and brings back”—

to demonstrate that the person performing the mitzva does so

for

the sake of

the One to whom the four directions belong.

“He raises and lowers”—

to

demonstrate that he does so for

the One to whom the heavens and earth belong.

In the West, they taught it as follows: Rabbi Hama bar Ukva said that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: “He carries forward and brings back,” in order to hold back harmful winds.

“He raises and lowers,” in order to hold back harmful dew.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin said, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zavila:

From Rabbi Yosei's statement that the waving holds back harmful winds and harmful dew,

that is to say: