Sukkah 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

The remnants of a mitzva—

that is, mitzvot that are remnants and are not essential to invalidate the atonement—are nevertheless important, and

they avert calamity. For waving is a remnant of a mitzva,

as it does not invalidate the offering, as explained in Yoma 5a,

yet

even so, it

holds back harmful winds and dews.

And Rava said: And likewise

he performs the motions

with the lulav

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

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov

would

bring it forward and bring it back,

[that is, he would move the lulav forward and backward].

He said: This

lulav is

an arrow in the eye of Satan

[like an arrow in the eye of Satan], who sees with his own eyes that he cannot remove the yoke of mitzvot from us.

They said:

That is not an appropriate thing

to say,

because

when we say this,

the

Satan

comes to provoke him,

and will devote himself to inciting us to sin and transgress the mitzvot of God, blessed be He.

Mishna:

One who came on the road, and

at the time he recited 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 must interrupt his eating and

take it at his table.

That is, during his meal.

If he did not take

the lulav

in the morning, he should take it in the afternoon,

because

the entire day is fit for the

mitzva of

lulav.

Gemara:

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

You said: He takes it at his table; does this indicate

that it means

that he interrupts

his meal in order to take the lulav?

But we raise a contradiction

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

if they began

their meal before the time when they became obligated and their meal continued until the time for the afternoon prayer arrived,

they do not interrupt

their meal in order to pray. Why, then, must he interrupt his eating here in order to take the lulav?!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Safra said: This is not difficult: This

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

there remains time during the day

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

this

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

there does not remain time during the day,

but his meal will continue until nightfall, 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 initially,

what difficulty is there? Perhaps

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

This

mitzva of lulav

is by Torah law,

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

this

afternoon prayer

is by rabbinic law,

and for that reason the Sages were not stringent enough to require him to interrupt his meal and pray, since there is time to pray afterward.

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

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 means

that he interrupts

his meal in order to take the lulav,

but

if

it then teaches

at the end of the Mishna:

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

it indicates that he is not required to hurry to take it immediately upon entering his house, but may 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; thus, the Mishna contradicts itself from its beginning to its end?!

Rav Safra said: This is not difficult: This

ending of the Mishna, which permits postponing the fulfillment of the mitzva until after the meal, refers to a case where

there remains time during the day

to fulfill the mitzva after the meal. But

this

beginning of the Mishna refers to a case where

there does not remain time during the day.

And

Rabbi Zeira said: What difficulty is there?

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

Perhaps

initially,

it is a mitzva to interrupt

lest he become absorbed in his meal and forget to fulfill the mitzva, and therefore we learned at the beginning that he must interrupt his meal to take the lulav,

but

nevertheless,

if he did not interrupt, he should take it in the afternoon,

since

in

the fundamental law

the entire day is fit for the lulav?!

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: Actually, it is as we said initially,

that Rav Safra’s statement was made to explain the distinction 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 as for the difficulty you raised

why Rav Safra needed to distinguish between whether there remains time during the day and whether there does not remain time during the day, it should follow simply that

this

[the lulav] is

by Torah law,

and therefore they required him to interrupt, whereas

this

[the afternoon prayer]

is by rabbinic law,

and they were therefore not so concerned that he might be negligent—we can say that

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

when the mitzva of lulav too is only

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

when he enters his house, etc.,”

for if it enters your mind

that it refers to

the first day of the Festival,

would

one be permitted

to come on the road?!

Mishna:

Their practice in reciting Hallel was that they did not all recite it; rather, one recited aloud and fulfilled the obligation on behalf of the many.

And therefore they said:

If one was

prompted by another [that is, the other recited it before him],

a slave or

if

a woman or a minor prompted him

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

he responds 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 by himself and for having to rely on the recitation of a slave or a minor. And if he knew how to read by himself, a curse shall come upon him for having found such agents to recite the Hallel before his Creator on his behalf.

If an adult prompted him,

so that he need not repeat after him but fulfills his obligation through his recitation under the principle of “one who hears is like one who recites,”

he responds after him, “Halleluyah,”

for everything that he says.

In a place where the practice is to repeat

each and every verse—

he should repeat it.

This was their practice because the Hallel contains a passage 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 the Lord” corresponds to “Answer me in the expanses.” “The Lord is with me” is repeated twice. “It is better to take refuge” is repeated twice. “They surrounded me” corresponds to “They surrounded me.” “You pushed me away” corresponds to “You pushed me away.” “And the Lord was my salvation” corresponds to “Every song and salvation.” “The right hand of the Lord” is repeated twice. “I shall not die” corresponds to “But He 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 thank You” onward it is not doubled, although some had the practice of repeating it.

In a place where the practice is

to recite plainly

[that is, not to repeat],

he should recite it plainly.

In a place where the practice is

to recite a blessing

over the Hallel,

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught: They truly said

[whenever the expression “They truly said” appears, it indicates a halakhic ruling with no dissenting opinion]

A

minor who has reached the age of education and is obligated in Grace after Meals by rabbinic law

may recite Grace after Meals for his father,

the blessing after the meal,

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

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

For certainly, this is because he did not learn.

Rava said: