Sukkah 41a — the Talmud in English

But concerning females, everyone agrees

only

upon

the

slaughtered ones is the sanctity transferred,

whereas

upon living ones it is not transferred, as a decree lest he raise herds from them.

For Rabbi Meir also agrees with this decree; it is only that concerning males he permitted it.

Rav Ashi said: The dispute

between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan—whether the sanctity of the Sabbatical year is transferred only by way of a purchase or also by way of transfer and redemption—is only

with the first produce.

That is, with the produce itself that grew with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, concerning which Rabbi Elazar derived from the juxtaposition of the verses that specifically a purchase is required. But

with the second produce,

in which the sanctity of the Sabbatical year was captured through a purchase,

everyone agrees that it is transferred

that its sanctity can be transferred

both

by

way of a purchase and both

by

way of transfer.

And that which it teaches

in the language of the

beraita, “he purchased,” “he purchased,”

whose meaning is that it is transferred only by way of a purchase, both with the first produce and with the second produce—for concerning the meat transferred through fish as well, we say the expression “he purchased”—this expression is not precise; rather,

since the first clause taught

with regard to the first produce

“he purchased,” it also taught

with the second produce, in the

latter clause

of the

beraita the expression

“he purchased,” but in truth, the second produce is transferred also by way of transfer.

Ravina raised an objection to Rav Ashi

who explained the dispute of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar in this manner—from this

beraita: One who has a sela of the Sabbatical year

[for example, he exchanged Sabbatical-year produce for a sela],

and wished to purchase a cloak with it,

which is forbidden to purchase with money of the Sabbatical year, for the Torah said: “For eating”—and not for commerce. That is, the intention of the Torah is not only to prohibit commerce in itself, whose purpose is to increase his property; rather, the principal intention of the Torah is to prohibit retaining capital of the Sabbatical year after the time of removal, since the Torah wishes that the produce be eaten during the seventh year and be consumed. And since, if he purchases with the money of the Sabbatical year a cloak and other things that are not consumed, there is concern that the cloak may remain with him until the following year.

Rather,

what shall he do?

He should go to a shopkeeper who is accustomed to serving him,

who will be willing to do according to his wishes,

and say to him: Give me produce for this sela, and he gives it to him

in exchange for the sela; and thereby the sanctity of the Sabbatical year departs from the money and rests upon the produce, as is the law concerning money of the Sabbatical year that has been transferred.

And in this matter there is no prohibition of commerce with Sabbatical-year produce, since he does not increase his property through purchasing the produce, nor did he purchase with it a product that is not consumed, concerning which there is concern that it will remain in his possession after the time of removal.

And the purchaser returns

and

says to him,

the shopkeeper:

Behold, these fruits

which are now sanctified with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year

are given to you as a gift,

and you must take care to conduct yourself toward them according to the sanctity of the Sabbatical year.

And he,

the shopkeeper,

says to him: Here is this sela of mine

which is now ordinary,

as a gift.

And

from now on

the other one,

the purchaser,

takes with them

with these monies whose sanctity has departed

whatever he wishes.

Ravina inferred from the advice of the tanna:

But here,

this sela of the Sabbatical year

is second produce,

for it is nothing other than the money of the Sabbatical year,

and

even so

it teaches

that only

by way of a purchase, yes.

That is, it is possible to transfer it only by way of a purchase, and for this reason he requires the favor of the shopkeeper. But

by way of transfer, no!

For if the law were according to Rav Ashi’s statement, that with second produce transfer also works, it would have been possible to remove the sanctity of the sela through redemption: what does he need the shopkeeper for? Let him take produce from his house and say, “Behold, this sela is transferred onto this produce,” and eat the produce with the sanctity of the Sabbatical year, while with the sela he can purchase whatever he desires.

Rather,

it is necessarily not so that

Rav Ashi said,

for the matter is contradicted by an explicit

beraita.

The dispute

between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan—whether the sanctity of the Sabbatical year is transferred by way of transfer—is only

with second produce.

But with first produce, everyone agrees: by way of a purchase, yes; by way of transfer, no.

And that which it teaches

in the earlier

beraita: “One, the Sabbatical year, and one, the second tithe,

are transferred onto cattle, beast, and bird”—which implies in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that the Sabbatical year itself, that is, first produce, is transferred by way of transfer [for the Gemara brought this

beraita as support for Rabbi Yohanan’s statement]—you must explain and say:

What is ‘the Sabbatical year’? The money of the Sabbatical year, which is second produce.

And the proof of this is

for if you do not say so,

but the intention of the

beraita is first produce, which too is transferred by way of transfer, one must wonder: Is the

tithe that the

beraita mentioned there together with the Sabbatical year

tithe

itself,

and not its money?

And

after all, one may not transfer the produce of second tithe itself onto cattle, beast, and bird, but only onto money that has the form of a coin, for

it is written

[Deuteronomy 14]:

“And you shall bind the money in your hand,”

from which they learned that the produce must be transferred specifically onto money.

Rather,

it is necessarily so that the intention of the

beraita is the

money of the second tithe,

and not the produce itself; it is these monies that he wishes to transfer onto cattle, beast, and bird. If so,

here too,

with regard to the Sabbatical year mentioned by the

beraita, the intention is only the transfer of

the money of the Sabbatical year. But first produce, according to everyone, may be transferred only by way of a purchase. Mishna:

The commandment of the lulav is stated in the Torah in the portion of Emor [Leviticus 23:40]:

“And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of date palms, and the bough of a braided tree, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.”

And our Sages, may their memory be for a blessing, explained that two matters are stated in this verse:

The first: the commandment of taking the lulav, which applies by Torah law everywhere, both during the time when the Temple existed and in the present time, and it is only on the first day, as it is stated: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day.”

The second: the commandment of taking the lulav in the Temple on account of rejoicing, which applies by Torah law in the Temple alone throughout all seven days, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God [that is, in the Temple] for seven days.”

After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted, as a remembrance of the Temple, that the lulav should be taken everywhere throughout all seven days of the festival, as will be explained below.

Now the Mishna specifies these laws stated above:

Originally,

when the Temple existed,

the lulav was taken

according to its fundamental law stated in the Torah; that is,

in the Temple it was taken for all

it was taken for all

seven

days of the festival of Sukkot, in accordance with what is stated at the end of the verse: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days,”

and in the provinces—

that is, in all other places apart from the Temple— the lulav was taken for

one day,

as the Torah said: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day,” and no more.

After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken in the provinces

all

seven

days,

as a remembrance of the Temple.

And

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai further instituted, as a remembrance of the Temple: When the Temple existed, it was forbidden to eat from the new grain until they offered from it, on the sixteenth day of Nisan, the omer offering. As it is stated [Leviticus 23:10–14]: “When you come into the land that I give you, and you reap its harvest, and you bring the omer of the first of your harvest to the priest. And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God; it is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.”

After the Temple was destroyed and the offerings were nullified, it is permitted by Torah law to eat from the new grain immediately when the sixteenth day dawns, and only during the time of the Temple did they have to wait for the offering to be sacrificed.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted

that the sixteenth day of Nisan, which is called

the sixteenth of Nisan, called

“the day

of

the waving,”

[so called because the omer offering was waved on it], should be

entirely forbidden

for eating new grain, until the seventeenth day of Nisan.

Gemara:

From where do we know

from the verse

that we practice “as a remembrance of the Temple”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For the verse says

[Jeremiah 30:17]:

“For I will bring healing up for you, and from your wounds I will heal you, says the Lord. For they called you an outcast: Zion, she has no one who seeks her.”

And the Gemara infers from the language of the verse, which laments that

one who seeks

[remembers]

there is none

for Zion.

By inference,

Zion

requires seeking.

That is, one must make a remembrance of Zion and of the chosen House.

And

he further instituted

that the day of the waving

should be entirely forbidden.

What is the reason?

What reason is there to prohibit the entire day of the waving? After all, this law did not apply even during the time of the Temple, for then they waited only until the offering was sacrificed?!

The Gemara explains:

The Temple may speedily be rebuilt, and

the Sages were concerned that the matter would lead to a mishap, for they might

say: Last year, did we not eat

from the new grain immediately

when the east brightened

[on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan]?

This year too, let us eat

when the east brightens, and they will not wait for the offering of the omer.

But they would not know that last year, when there was no Temple,

only then

“the east brightened” permitted

the new grain for eating, since, because they could not sacrifice the offering, it was permitted for eating immediately at dawn.

But

now, when there is a Temple, the sacrificing of the

the offering of the

omer

is what

is what permits it.

And the Gemara continues to discuss this concern—that the Temple may speedily be rebuilt and the matter will lead to a mishap:

if it is built

[so that the Temple is rebuilt and this leads to an error],

when?

That is, until what period must you be concerned that the construction of the Temple will be completed in the following year and they will come to a mishap by eating the new grain, because of which you prohibited this grain for eating throughout the entire day of the waving?

If you say that it is built

the Temple in the following year

on the sixteenth,

on the sixteenth day itself—why do you have reason for concern?

After all,

they are properly permitted to eat the grain, for

it permitted

when

the east brightened,

since at the beginning of the day the Temple had not yet been built.

And

rather,

it is not so;

it is built

the Temple

on the fifteenth,

on the fifteenth of Nisan or earlier. If so, it is still difficult: why do you prohibit the entire day of the waving?

From midday onward it should be permitted,

for even when the Temple existed, they were permitted to eat from midday onward, even if they did not know whether the omer had already been sacrificed.

For we learned: Those who are far away

from Jerusalem, who do not know on the sixteenth day whether the omer has already been sacrificed,

are permitted

to eat from the new grain

from midday onward, because the court does not delay in it

from sacrificing it at its proper time. That is, those who live in a place distant from Jerusalem may rely on the fact that the omer was certainly sacrificed at its proper time before midday. If so, what obstacle will there be if we permit eating from the new grain from midday of that day onward?!

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary.

That is, this is why Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted prohibiting the new grain from being eaten throughout the entire sixteenth day: lest it happen

that it is built

the Temple

at night

between the fifteenth of Nisan and the sixteenth, and because of the joy of the building and the effort of preparing the offering, they will not manage to sacrifice it before midday, and it will be found that they ate from the new grain before the omer was sacrificed.

Alternatively,

even if it is built on the fifteenth itself

near sunset,

there is concern lest they delay cutting the omer because of the joy of the building until the following day, and will not manage to sacrifice it before midday.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai stated it according to the method of Rabbi Yehuda,

who was among his disciples’ disciples,

for he said:

The sixteenth day

is forbidden by Torah law,

and this is not merely an institution on account of a remembrance of the Temple,

for it is written

[Leviticus 23:14]: