Sukkah 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

But with regard to females, everyone agrees

only

on

the

slaughtered ones do they become desecrated,

whereas

with regard to live ones they do not become desecrated, due to a decree lest he raise herds from them.

For Rabbi Meir, too, agrees with this decree; it is only with regard to males that he permitted it.

Rav Ashi said: The dispute

between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan—whether the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is transferred only through a sale, or also through חילול and redemption—applies only

to the original produce.

That is, to the produce itself that grew with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, concerning which Rabbi Elazar derived from the juxtaposition of the verses that it must be transferred specifically through a sale. But

with regard to secondary produce,

upon which the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year was imposed through a sale,

everyone agrees

that it becomes desecrated

both

through

a sale and

through

redemption.

And this that the beraita teaches

in the wording of the beraita:

“he purchased,” “he purchased,”

which implies that the sanctity is transferred only through a sale, both with regard to the original produce and with regard to the secondary produce—for regarding the meat whose sanctity is transferred through fish, too, the wording “he purchased” is used—this wording is not precise. Rather,

since it taught in the first clause

with regard to the original produce

“he purchased,” it also taught

with regard to the secondary produce, in the

latter clause

of the beraita, the wording

“he purchased,”

although in truth secondary produce can also be desecrated through redemption.

Ravina raised an objection to Rav Ashi

[who had explained the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Elazar in this manner] from this beraita:

“One who has a sela coin of the Sabbatical Year

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

and wishes to purchase a cloak with it,”

which he may not purchase with money of the Sabbatical Year, for the Torah said: “For eating,” and not for commerce. That is, the Torah’s intention is not merely to prohibit commerce for its own sake, whose purpose is to increase one’s wealth; rather, the primary intent of the Torah is to prohibit retaining capital of the Sabbatical Year after the time of removal, since the Torah wishes the produce to be eaten and consumed during the seventh year. And since, if he purchases a cloak and other nonperishable objects with money of the Sabbatical Year, there is concern that the cloak will remain in his possession until the following year.

Rather,

what should he do?

He should go to a shopkeeper with whom he is accustomed to deal,

who will be willing to act according to his wishes,

and say to him: “Give me produce worth a sela,” and he gives it to him

in exchange for the sela. In this way, the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year departs from the money and rests upon the produce, in accordance with the law governing money of the Sabbatical Year that has been desecrated.

There is no prohibition of commerce in Sabbatical-Year produce in this matter, since he does not increase his wealth through purchasing the produce, nor did he purchase with it a nonperishable product that might remain in his possession after the time of removal.

And the purchaser returns

and

says to him,

the shopkeeper:

“Behold, this produce

which is now endowed with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year

is given to you as a gift,”

and you must take care to treat it with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

And he,

the shopkeeper,

says to him: “Here is this sela coin of mine

which is now non-sacred,

as a gift.”

And

from now on,

the other man,

the purchaser,

purchases with it

with this money whose sanctity has departed

whatever he wishes.

Ravina inferred from the advice of the tanna:

But here,

this sela coin of the Sabbatical Year

is secondary produce,

as it is merely money of the Sabbatical Year,

and

even so

it teaches

that only

through a sale is possible.

That is, it is possible to effect the transfer only through a sale, and therefore he requires the assistance of the shopkeeper. But

through redemption, it is not possible!

For if the halakha were as Rav Ashi said—that with regard to secondary produce, transfer is effective also through redemption—he could remove the sanctity from the sela through redemption. Why does he need the shopkeeper? He could take produce from his house and say: “Behold, this sela is desecrated upon this produce,” and eat the produce with the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, while using the sela to purchase whatever he desires.

Rather,

it is necessarily not so that

Rav Ashi said,

for this is contradicted by an explicit beraita.

Rather, he said the opposite:

The dispute

between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yohanan, whether the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year can be transferred through redemption, applies only

to secondary produce.

But with regard to original produce, everyone agrees: Through a sale, yes; through redemption, no.

And this that it teaches

in the aforementioned beraita:

“Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second tithe

can be desecrated upon a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird,” which implies the view of Rabbi Yohanan—that the Sabbatical-Year produce itself, i.e., original produce, can be transferred through redemption [for the Gemara cited this beraita as support for Rabbi Yohanan’s statement]—you must resolve it and say:

What is ‘Sabbatical-Year produce’? The money of Sabbatical-Year produce,

which is secondary produce.

And the proof is as follows:

If you do not say this,

but rather the intention of the beraita is original produce, which, too, can be transferred through redemption, one must wonder: Is the

second tithe

that the beraita mentions there together with the Sabbatical Year

second tithe

produce

itself,

and not its money?

And

after all, one may not desecrate second-tithe produce itself upon a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird, but only upon money that has the form of a coin, for

it is written

[Deuteronomy 14]:

“And bind up the money in your hand,”

from which they learned that the produce must be desecrated specifically upon money.

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that the intention of the beraita is

the money of second tithe

and not the produce itself; it is this money that he wishes to desecrate upon a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird. If so,

here too,

with regard to the Sabbatical Year mentioned in the beraita, the intention is the transfer of

the money of Sabbatical-Year produce

alone. But with regard to original produce, everyone agrees that it can be transferred only through a sale.

Mishna:

The mitzva 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 hadar tree, branches of date palms, the bough of a leafy tree, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.”

And our Sages, of blessed memory, explained that two matters are stated in this verse:

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

The second is the mitzva of taking the lulav in the Temple as an expression of rejoicing. This applies by Torah law only in the Temple, throughout all seven days, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” [i.e., in the Temple] “for seven days.”

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

The Mishna now specifies these laws mentioned above:

Originally,

when the Temple was standing,

the lulav was taken

in accordance with the fundamental law stated in the Torah. That is,

in the Temple

it was taken all

seven

days of the Festival of Sukkot, in accordance with the latter clause of the verse: “And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days,”

but outside the Temple—

that is, everywhere other than 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 longer.

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

for all

seven

days,

as a commemoration of the Temple.

And

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

After the Temple was destroyed and the offerings ceased, it became permitted by Torah law to eat from the new grain immediately when the sixteenth of Nisan began; only during the time of the Temple was it necessary to wait until the offering was brought.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted

that

the sixteenth of Nisan, which is called

“the day

of the

waving,”

[because the Omer offering was waved on that day],

would be entirely prohibited

from eating new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan.

Gemara:

From where do we derive

from the verse

that we enact a “commemoration of the Temple”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For the verse says

[Jeremiah 30:17]:

“For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; for they have called you an outcast, saying: It is Zion, no one seeks her.”

And the Gemara deduces from the wording of the verse, which laments that

“no one seeks”

[remembers]

“her,”

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

would be entirely prohibited.

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, since then they waited only until the offering was brought?!

The Gemara explains:

The Temple may be speedily rebuilt, and

the Sages were concerned that this would lead to a mishap, as

they would say: “Did we not eat last year

from the new grain immediately

when the east brightened

[on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan]?

This year as well, let us eat

when the east brightens,” and they would not wait for the Omer offering to be brought.

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

only then

“when the east brightened” permitted

the new grain to be eaten, since, as they could not bring the offering, it was permitted to eat it immediately at dawn.

But

now, when there is a Temple,

the bringing of the

Omer

is what

permits it.

The Gemara continues to discuss this concern—that the Temple might be speedily rebuilt and this might lead to a mishap:

If it is rebuilt

[and this leads to a mishap],

when?

That is, for what period must one be concerned that the construction of the Temple will be completed in the following year and people will come to err by eating the new grain, which is why you prohibited this grain throughout the entire day of the waving?

If we say that it will be rebuilt

in the following year

on the sixteenth,

on the sixteenth itself—why should you be concerned?

For

they would properly be permitted to eat the grain, since

it was permitted

when

the east brightened,

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

And

rather,

it is not so;

it will be rebuilt

on the Temple

on the fifteenth,

on the fifteenth of Nisan or before it. 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 was standing, it would be permitted to eat from midday onward, even if they did not know whether the Omer had already been brought,

For we learned in a Mishna: “Those who are distant

from Jerusalem, who do not know on the sixteenth of Nisan whether the Omer has already been brought,

are permitted

to eat from the new grain

from midday onward, because the court does not delay it.”

That is, those who live in a place distant from Jerusalem may rely on the fact that the Omer was certainly brought at its proper time before midday. If so, what mishap would result if we permitted eating from the new grain from midday onward?!

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary.

That is, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted the prohibition against eating the new grain throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan lest it happen

that the Temple is rebuilt

on the Temple

at night

between the fifteenth and sixteenth of Nisan, and because of the joy of the construction and the effort required to prepare the offering, they would not manage to bring it before midday, with the result that they would have eaten from the new grain before the Omer offering was brought.

Alternatively,

even if it is built on the fifteenth itself,

close to sunset,

there is concern that they will delay cutting the Omer because of the joy of the construction until the following day, and will not manage to bring it before midday.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

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

[who was among the disciples of his disciples],

as he said:

The sixteenth of Nisan

is prohibited by Torah law,

and this is not merely an enactment as a commemoration of the Temple,

as it is written

[Leviticus 23:14]: