Sukkah 43a — the Talmud in English

and carry it four cubits through the public domain.

And

that same concern

is the reason

for the decree regarding

the shofar.

And that is

also

the reason

for the decree regarding

the Megilla.

For the Sages prevented the fulfillment of their mitzvot on Shabbat, because of the concern that people would come to carry them through the public domain in order to go to an expert to learn.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since there is concern lest one carry it four cubits through the public domain, then

the first day

of the Festival that falls on Shabbat

also

should be subject to this concern, and we should decree that lulav not be taken in the Temple on it.

And we answer: On the Festival day

first

that falls on Shabbat, there is no concern that they will come to carry the lulav through the public domain, because

the Sages have already instituted for him

that he should take it only

in his home,

and should not take it in the Temple. And by virtue of this decree they will remember not to carry it through the public domain.

And we challenge this:

That works after the enactment,

when it is properly not necessary to decree on the first Festival day that falls on Shabbat, since he remembers not to take it out, by virtue of the enactment that he takes it in his home and not in the Temple.

But

before

the court instituted

this enactment,

that he should take it in his home and not in the Temple—

what is there to say?

Why did they permit taking it in the Temple and not concern themselves lest he carry it through the public domain, as they were concerned on the Shabbat of the intermediate days?

And since this distinction has been rejected, the Gemara makes another distinction:

Rather,

the Festival day

first,

on which the mitzva of taking the lulav is important, since

it exists,

there is a mitzva of lulav on it

by Torah law

also

in the country,

outside the Temple, therefore

the Sages did not decree concerning it

that it should not be taken on Shabbat [and initially they did not decree either in the Temple or in the country].

But

these,

the other days,

which do not exist,

which have no obligation to take lulav

by Torah law in the country,

but only in the Temple—since they are less important than the first day,

the Sages decreed concerning them

that lulav should not be taken on Shabbat in the Temple, because of the concern lest he take it in his hand, go to an expert to learn, and carry it four cubits through the public domain.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since initially the Sages did not decree against taking lulav in the Temple on the first Festival day that fell on Shabbat because of the importance of the lulav on that day, since it was also taken in the country by Torah law—

if so,

nowadays,

at this time—

also

we should not decree that it should not be taken on the first Festival day that falls on Shabbat, because of its importance. For on the first day the lulav is taken by Torah law even in the country.

And we answer:

We,

we who are located in Babylonia—

do not know the fixing of the month,

for we do not know with certainty when the first day is, because it is possible that the court in the Land of Israel intercalated the month of Elul, and then the first day of the Festival falls only on the following day, and the mitzva of lulav is not practiced on this Shabbat.

And since it is not certainly the first Festival day, the Sages decreed against the people of Babylonia taking lulav on Shabbat, because of the concern lest he carry it through the public domain.

And we challenge this: If so,

they,

the people of the Land of Israel,

who know the fixing of the month, and it is known to them that the mitzva of lulav by Torah law indeed applies on that day even in the country—

and know that the mitzva of lulav certainly applies on that day by Torah law even outside the Temple—

let it override

Shabbat, so that they should take lulav on the first Festival day that falls on Shabbat even nowadays. For on a Shabbat on which the mitzva of lulav by Torah law applies in the country, the Sages did not decree that it should not be taken.

And we answer:

Indeed so!

The people of the Land of Israel should take lulav on this Shabbat even nowadays.

Indeed, as a conclusion, it will be explained later in the Gemara [44a] that even in the Land of Israel they take lulav on Shabbat only when the Temple was standing.

And the Gemara brings proof that this is indeed how the people of the Land of Israel practice in actual halakha.

For we learned one,

in our Mishna:

On the first Festival day of the Festival that falls on Shabbat—

all the people bring their lulavs to the Temple Mount.

And we learned another,

in the preceding chapter [41b]: On the first Festival day of the Festival that falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavs on the eve of Shabbat

to the synagogue.

And in order that there should not be a contradiction between the two baraitot, we must answer that one must distinguish between the time of the Temple and the time after it. For during the time of the Temple they would bring their lulavs on the eve of Shabbat to the Temple. But after it was destroyed, they would bring their lulavs on the eve of Shabbat to the synagogue.

Learn from it: Here—

when the Temple is standing,

they bring their lulavs to the Temple.

Here—

when the Temple is not standing,

they bring their lulavs to the synagogue.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it

that the people of the Land of Israel take lulav on the first Festival day that falls on Shabbat even after the Temple was destroyed, and the Sages did not decree against them that they should not take them.

And we raise an objection concerning it: And lulav,

which exists by Torah law

on the first Festival day even

in the country—

from where do we know it?

And we answer: From this

as it was taught: It is written in the portion of Emor [Leviticus 23]: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, date-palm branches, and a branch of a braided tree and willows of the brook.”

And the beraita expounds the wording of the verse: “

The beraita expounds the wording of the verse: “

And you shall take”—

that there shall be taking in the hand of each and every person. “

For yourselves”—

from your own.

To exclude the borrowed and the stolen. “

On the day”—

it is an extra word. For Scripture could have said merely “on the first,” and the extra word comes to teach that on every day he shall take lulav,

even on Shabbat. “

First”—

it implies

even in the country,

since Scripture did not say that the mitzva is in the Temple. “

The first”—

teaches

the exclusion expressed by the definite article, to say that Scripture did not permit every Shabbat [from the inclusion of “on the day”], but only the first Festival day. And from here we learned

that

lulav

overrides only the first Festival day

[that falls on Shabbat]

alone.

And the Gemara explains the beraita:

The Master said: “

On the day”—

even on Shabbat.

Now,

taking lulav involves no performance of labor at all, but is merely

carrying

a branch of a tree

only.

And is it so that

the verse was needed to permit

the

carrying

of a branch on Shabbat?

Rava said: It was not necessary

for Scripture to permit

anything except the preparations for lulav,

such as cutting it from that which is attached, which is labor by Torah law.

And according to this tanna:

For it was taught: Lulav and all its preparations—

override Shabbat; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer

for permitting the performance of labors on Shabbat even when they are not part of the mitzva itself, but are only in the category of “preparation” for fulfilling the mitzva of lulav?

The verse says “

on the day,”

and this word is extra [for Scripture could have said merely “on the first”]. And from this extra word Rabbi Eliezer includes that the preparations for lulav are performed on every day,

even on Shabbat.

And the Gemara explains the dispute of the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer:

And the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer—

this

extra word of

“on the day,”

what do they do with it?

They need it

this extra word to inform us that taking lulav is only

by day and not by night.

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who expounds “on the day” to permit the preparations for lulav—this, that taking lulav is only

by day and not by night—

from where does he derive it?

He derives it from the end of the verse. He learns it from the conclusion of the verse, which discusses taking lulav in the Temple, for it is written there:

“

And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”

And this is the meaning of the verse:

Days and not nights!

And the Sages: If

we learn

from there,

from the “days” in this verse,

I would have thought

the opposite:

let us derive—I would say that the mitzva of taking lulav is also by night, since one can discuss the time of taking lulav through a gzera shava of

“

days days”

from

dwelling in

a sukkah,

where the same wording is also stated: “You shall dwell in sukkot seven days.”

And therefore I would say:

Just as there

in the mitzva of dwelling in a sukkah, the meaning of

“days”

is days

and even nights,

so here,

in taking lulav,

also,

I would say:

days, and even nights.

And it still needs to be explained:

And

this, that the mitzva of dwelling in

the sukkah itself

is practiced also at night—

from where do we know it?

After all, Scripture says, “You shall dwell in sukkot seven days,” and its plain meaning is days and not nights.

And the Gemara brings a beraita explaining the source for the obligation of sukkah also at night.

For the Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 23]: “

You shall dwell in sukkot seven days.”

And this is how one must expound the meaning of “days” in the verse: “

Days”—

and even nights!

Lest you say: From where

do you say

that the meaning of “days” is

“days and even nights”?

Or is it not so,

and perhaps the intention of the verse is

only

to say the opposite—“

days and not nights”?

And

behold, there

is a logical inference, that one should learn through a binyan av that the mitzva of sukkah is indeed practiced only by day and not at night. For:

It is stated here,

concerning sukkah,

“days,”

and it is stated concerning lulav

“days.”

Just as there,

concerning lulav,

days and not nights, as it is stated, “on the first day”—

as it is stated, “on the first day”—

so here,

concerning sukkah,

days and not nights.

Your answer is:

Or turn [perhaps you will turn and go]

perhaps you should turn and go]

to this path,

which teaches that the mitzva of sukkah is practiced also at night:

It is stated here,

concerning sukkah, “seven

days,”

and it is stated concerning

the dwelling of Aaron and his sons in the Temple during the days of

the inauguration: “seven

days.”

days.”

Just as there,

during the days of the inauguration, Aaron and his sons dwelled in the Temple for seven

days and even nights—

so here,

concerning sukkah, one must dwell in it for seven

days, and even nights.

And the proof that one should compare dwelling in a sukkah to the days of the inauguration and not compare it to lulav is that

it is seen to what it is similar, whether the mitzva of sukkah is similar to lulav or to the days of the inauguration.

Behold, one

For

derives concerning sukkah, which is

a matter whose mitzva

a matter whose mitzva

is practiced throughout

the entire day

from the days of the inauguration, when the mitzva of Aaron and his sons’ dwelling in the Tabernacle during the days of the inauguration is

the

days of the inauguration, when the mitzva for Aaron and his sons to dwell in the Tabernacle during those days was

a matter whose mitzva

is practiced throughout

the entire day.

And lulav cannot refute

sukkah, since lulav is

a matter whose mitzva is for one hour,

at the time of taking alone, once a day, whereas the mitzva of sukkah continues throughout the entire day.

Lest you say, on the other hand one can say:

Or turn to this path: one derives

concerning sukkah, which is

a matter whose mitzva

is practiced

for generations, from

lulav, which is also

a matter whose mitzva is for generations.

And the seven days of

the

inauguration cannot refute,

for they are not

practiced for generations!?

Your answer is:

The verse teaches

through the learning of a gzera shava between sukkah and the seven days of the inauguration [and not through a binyan av]: