Sukkah 38a — the Talmud in English

Residues of a mitzva,

that is, mitzvot that are residues and are not the principal matter that is indispensable for the atonement, nevertheless they are important and

ward off calamity. For the waving is a residue of a mitzva,

for it is not indispensable for the offering, as explained in Yoma 5a,

and

even so it

stops evil winds and dews.

And Rava said: And likewise

he performs the movements

with the lulav

like the waving, namely, he moves it forward and backward, upward and downward.

Rav Aha bar Yaakov

was

bringing it and taking it, [namely,

he was moving the lulav forward and backward].

He said: This is

this lulav

an arrow in the eye of the satan [

like an arrow in the eye of the satan], for he sees with his eyes that he cannot remove from us the yoke of mitzvot.

They said:

It is not a proper thing

to say this,

because

when we say so,

the satan comes

the satan

to provoke him,

and he will devote himself to causing us to sin and transgress the mitzvot of the Lord, blessed be He.

Mishna:

One who came on the road, and

at the time when he prayed the morning prayer

did not have a lulav in his hand to take; when he enters his house

if he forgot and did not take his lulav immediately before his meal, he interrupts his eating and

takes it at his table.

That is, during his meal.

If he did not take

the lulav

in the morning, he takes it in the afternoon,

because

the entire day is fit for the

mitzva of

lulav.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises an objection:

You said: He takes it at his table; does that mean

it indicates

that he interrupts

his meal in order to take the lulav,

but we raise an objection [

and it is difficult]: for we learned concerning the afternoon prayer that if the time of the afternoon prayer arrived, it is forbidden to begin a meal before praying. But

if they began

their meal before the time of the obligation, and their meal continued until the time of the afternoon prayer arrived,

they do not interrupt

their meal in order to pray; so why here must he interrupt his eating in order to take the lulav?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Safra said: It is not difficult: This

that we say there, that they do not interrupt, is when

there is time during the day

to pray the afternoon prayer after he finishes his meal, whereas

this

that we say here, that he takes it at his table, is when

there is no time during the day,

but his meal will continue until it becomes dark, and if he does not take the lulav now, he will no longer be able to fulfill the mitzva after finishing his meal.

Rava said:

But at the outset,

what difficulty is there? Perhaps

in both cases it is speaking when there is time during the day to fulfill the mitzva after finishing the meal. Rather, this is the reason:

this

mitzva of lulav

is from the Torah,

and for this reason the Sages required him to interrupt his meal to fulfill the mitzva, lest he prolong his meal and forget that he must fulfill it. But

this

afternoon prayer

is rabbinic,

and for this reason the Sages did not impose stringency by requiring him to interrupt his meal and pray, since there is time to pray afterward.

Rather, Rava said: If there is a difficulty, this

the Mishna itself

is difficult:

For at the beginning of the Mishna we learned:

When he enters his house, he takes it at his table; evidently

it indicates

that he interrupts

his meal in order to take the lulav,

and

whereas

it then teaches

in the end of the Mishna:

If he did not take it in the morning, he takes it in the afternoon,

indicating that he is not obligated to hurry to take it immediately upon entering his house, but is permitted to postpone the mitzva until after finishing his meal, since the entire day is fit for this,

evidently: he does not interrupt

his meal in order to take the lulav—and the Mishna contradicts its words from the beginning to the end?!

Rav Safra said: It is not difficult: This

end of the Mishna, which permitted postponing the fulfillment of the mitzva until after the meal, is speaking when

there is time during the day

to fulfill the mitzva after the meal. But

this

beginning of the Mishna is speaking when

there is no time during the day.

And

Rabbi Zeira said: What difficulty is there?

What contradiction did Rava find in the words of the Mishna?

Perhaps

in the first place

it is a mitzva to interrupt

lest he become drawn out in his meal and forget to fulfill the mitzva, and for this reason we learned at the beginning that he must interrupt his meal in order to take the lulav,

and

nevertheless,

if he does not interrupt, he takes it in the afternoon,

since

that

according to the strict law

the entire day is fit for lulav?!

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: In truth, as we said at the outset,

that Rav Safra’s words were stated in order to reconcile the difference between the afternoon prayer, for which he need not interrupt his meal in order to pray, and the mitzva of lulav, for which he must interrupt his meal and fulfill it.

And what is difficult for you

why Rav Safra needed to distinguish between whether there is time during the day and whether there is no time during the day—let it follow that

this [lulav]

is from

the Torah,

and therefore they required him to interrupt, whereas

this [

afternoon prayer]

is rabbinic,

and they were not so concerned lest he act negligently—it may be said that

here we are dealing with the second day of the festival,

when the mitzva of lulav too is only

rabbinic. This is also precise, from the fact that it teaches: One who came on the road and does not have a lulav,

when he enters his house, etc.;

for if it enters your mind

that it is speaking

on the festival

the

first, is it permitted

for him to come on the road?!

Mishna:

Their practice in reciting the Hallel was that they did not all recite it, but rather one recited aloud and exempted the many from their obligation.

And therefore they said:

One who had

someone read it before him [that is, recite it in front of him],

a slave or

who were

a woman or a minor reading it before him

the Hallel, he cannot fulfill his obligation through their recitation by the principle of “one who hears is like one who answers,” since they are not obligated in the matter; and we hold that anyone who is not obligated in a matter cannot exempt the many from their obligation. Therefore

he answers after them

everything

that they say,

and fulfills his obligation through his own recitation.

And

nevertheless

a curse shall come upon him

for not having learned to read himself and for needing the reading of a slave or a minor. And if he knew how to read himself, a curse shall come upon him for finding such agents to recite the Hallel before his Creator through them.

If an adult was reading it before him,

so that he is not required to repeat after him, but fulfills his obligation through his recitation by the principle of “one who hears is like one who answers,”

he answers after him, “Halleluyah,”

for everything that he says.

A place where the practice is to double

each and every verse—

he shall double.

And they practiced this because in the Hallel there is a section that is entirely doubled in its original form: “Give thanks to the Lord” is said at the beginning and at the end. “Let Israel now say” is said three times. “I called upon Yah” corresponds to “Answer me with the expanse.” “The Lord is for me” is doubled twice. “It is better to take refuge” is doubled twice. “They surrounded me” corresponds to “They surrounded me.” “You pushed me away” corresponds to “You pushed me away.” “And He became salvation for me” corresponds to “Every joyous song and salvation.” “The right hand of the Lord” is doubled twice. “I shall not die” corresponds to “You did not deliver me to death.” “Open for me the gates of righteousness” corresponds to “This is the gate of the Lord.” But from “I give thanks to You” onward it is not doubled, and there are those who practiced doubling it.

A place where the practice is

to recite without doubling [

not to double]—

he shall recite without doubling.

A place where the practice is

to recite a blessing

over the Hallel,

he shall recite the blessing; everything follows the custom of the country.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: In truth they said [

whenever it says “in truth they said,” it is a halakha over which there is no dispute ]:

A

minor who has reached the age of education and is obligated in the Grace after Meals rabbinically

recites the blessing of the Grace after Meals for his father,

the Grace after Meals,

And a slave recites the blessing for his master, and a woman recites the blessing for her husband.

But the Sages said: A curse shall come upon a person whose wife and children recite the blessing for him!

For certainly, it is because he did not learn.

Rava said: