Sukkah 43b — the Talmud in English

You shall dwell, you shall dwell"—

for a gzera shava.

It is stated here,

in the sukka: “In sukkot

you shall dwell

seven days,”

and it is stated concerning the inauguration: [Leviticus 8] “And at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

you shall dwell

day and night,

seven days.”

Just as there,

during the inauguration,

days and even nights,

so too here,

in the sukka,

days and even nights.

We learned in the Mishna:

The arava

that is observed

for seven—

how so?

When the seventh day of the arava falls on Shabbat, the mitzva of arava is observed for seven days, and even on Shabbat.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

The arava on

the

seventh

of the festival that falls on Shabbat—

for what reason does it override Shabbat!?

Why did the Sages not decree that it should not be performed, out of concern lest one carry it in the public domain!?

But its mitzva is not important, since it does not apply by Torah law outside the Temple; and if so, it is like the lulav on the other days of the festival, concerning which they decreed in the Temple that it should not be taken on Shabbat, since at that time it does not apply by Torah law outside the Temple, and its mitzva is not important.

He said—

he answered—

Rabbi Yohanan:

They did not decree concerning the arava that it should not be taken on Shabbat

in order to publicize that it is from the Torah

in the Temple.

For by not decreeing concerning it, there would be publicity that it is from the Torah, although it is not explicit in the Torah.

And we refuted this:

If so,

since, in order to publicize something that is not explicit in the Torah and to inform that it is from the Torah, they did not decree concerning it,

the lulav

in the Temple on the other days

also,

since it is not explicit in the Torah—for the verse “And you shall rejoice before the Lord for seven days” can be explained as referring merely to rejoicing—

should override

Shabbat, and the Sages should not decree concerning it

in order to publicize that it is from the Torah

in the Temple all seven days!?

And we answered:

The lulav—

the Sages instituted that it should not be taken

because of the decree of Rabba,

as explained above at the beginning of the chapter: lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.

And we refuted this:

If so, let us also decree concerning the arava

that it should not be taken on Shabbat, even on the seventh day, lest one carry it in the public domain.

And we answered:

The arava—

the agents of the court bring it,

bringing it to the Temple from the eve of Shabbat, since it is not a mitzva for every person but only for the priests, and there is no concern that the priests will desecrate Shabbat.

But

the lulav—

to everyone

it

is entrusted,

since everyone is commanded concerning it, and there is concern that they will come to carry it in the public domain on Shabbat.

And we refuted this:

If so,

since there is no concern that the priests will take the arava out into the public domain—

every day

of the festival intermediate days that falls on Shabbat [and not only the seventh day],

it too should override

Shabbat, the arava; and why does the arava override Shabbat only when the seventh day falls on Shabbat!?

And we answered: Since, if we permitted the arava on every day of the festival that falls on Shabbat, in contrast to the lulav, which overrides only the Shabbat of the first Festival day—

they will come

the people

to treat lightly

to disparage

the

mitzva of

lulav, since it overrides Shabbat only on one day, and the people will say that the mitzva of lulav is not important.

And we refuted this:

And

let the arava override

the

first Festival day

of the festival that falls on Shabbat, for then there is no concern that they will come to treat the lulav lightly, since on the first Festival day the lulav also overrides Shabbat!?

And we answered: The reason they did not decree concerning the arava that it should not be taken on Shabbat on the seventh day is only in order to publicize that it is from the Torah. But on the first day, when it falls on Shabbat,

the matter is not evident

to publicize that it is from the Torah.

For

people say:

people,

It is the lulav that overrides [Shabbat].

The people will attribute this to the fact that they did not prohibit the arava from being carried, since they permitted carrying the lulav, and not to the fact that the arava is from the Torah.

And we refuted this: Since the permission of the arava on the seventh day is only in order to publicize that it is from the Torah, in what way is the publicity on the seventh day preferable to the publicity on the other days?

Let the arava override

Shabbat

on

one

of these

other days of the festival that falls on Shabbat!?

And we answered:

Since you have removed it from the first day,

since we removed the mitzva of arava from the first day because there would be no publicity on it—

establish it

we established the mitzva of arava and the publicity

on the seventh,

on the seventh day, which is a “specific day” [like the first or the last].

And we refuted this:

If so,

since the arava overrides Shabbat, and they did not decree concerning it in order to publicize that it is from the Torah—

nowadays,

after the Temple was destroyed,

it too should override

Shabbat, the mitzva of arava on the seventh day. For even in our time it is a “custom of the prophets” outside the Temple, and it should be performed even on Shabbat in order to publicize that it is from the Torah in the Temple.

And the agents of the court should bring it and beat it, as they used to do in the Temple, since we do not find anywhere that they decreed concerning taking the arava on the seventh day.

And we answered:

We—

do not know the fixing of the month.

And because of the doubt, we do not override Shabbat.

And we refuted this:

They,

the inhabitants of the Land of Israel,

who know the fixing of the month,

which was also so after the destruction—

should let

the taking of the arava on the seventh day override Shabbat!?

When

he arrived,

bar Hedya

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia, he answered and

said:

In fact,

it never occurred,

the seventh day of the festival of Sukkot never occurred on Shabbat. For if it had needed to fall on Shabbat, the court would have intercalated the preceding month of Elul, so that the seventh day of the festival of Sukkot would not fall on Shabbat, in order that they could perform the mitzva of arava on it.

When Ravin and all those who descended [

the members of the group who descended from the Land of Israel to Babylonia]

came, they said something else: Indeed, it happened that

otherwise: In fact, it happened that

it occurred,

the seventh day fell on Shabbat,

and it did not override

Shabbat.

But then it is difficult—

and the question returns: Why does the arava not override Shabbat!?

Rav Yosef said: Who can say to us that the mitzva of

mitzva of

arava

in the Temple was

by taking,

so that we should say that taking the arava now, which is a commemoration of the Temple, should override Shabbat in order to publicize that the mitzva of arava was from the Torah in the Temple?

Perhaps it was by standing upright

beside the altar that its mitzva was, whereas we now have no such mitzva, for we have no altar!

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Yosef from our Mishna, in which we learned:

The lulav and the arava: six and seven.

And Abaye inferred:

Is it not

that the plain meaning of the language of our Mishna indicates that the mitzva of arava is

like

the mitzva of

lulav?

Just as the lulav is by taking—

so too the arava is by taking,

and not by standing upright around the altar. And the question returns: Why do the inhabitants of the Land of Israel not practice it now even on Shabbat?

And Rav Yosef answered Abaye in the language of astonishment:

Is the matter necessarily so!?

Is it compelled that this is what the language of the Mishna indicates!?

For the language of the Mishna does not compel one to liken the mitzva of arava to the taking of the lulav. Rather, it is possible to say:

This,

the lulav—

as it is,

by taking.

And this,

the arava—

as it is,

by standing upright.

Further,

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Yosef from the Mishna [on page 45a]:

Every day they would circle the altar once, and on that day seven times.

And Abaye inferred:

Is it not—

the priests would circle the altar by walking around it

with the arava

in their hands.

And it is proven that its mitzva in the Temple was by taking and not by standing upright.

And Rav Yosef answered:

No,

they did not circle with the arava; rather, they circled the altar by walking

with the lulav

that was in their hands. But they would first stand the arava upright, and therefore we do not practice it as a commemoration of the Temple, since we have no possibility of carrying out this commemoration.

And we refuted this:

But Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: With the arava

they would circle! And how can you say that they circled with the lulav!?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

He—

Rabba bar Avuha indeed

would say to you

that they circled

with the arava

;

but

if

I [

Rav Yosef]

say: with the lulav

they circled after standing the arava upright.

It was stated: Rabbi Elazar says: With the lulav

they would circle the altar.

Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: With the arava

they would circle it.

And likewise Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: With the arava.

Rava said to Rav Yitzhak, son of Rabba bar bar Hana: Son of Torah! Come

come

and I will tell you

and tell you

an excellent matter,

excellent words of Torah,

which your father would say,

which your father said:

As for that which we learned

below [45a]: “

All day they would circle the altar once, and on that day they would circle the altar seven times.”

Thus your father said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: With the lulav

they would circle.

He raised an objection

from a beraita in the Tosefta [chapter 3]:

The lulav overrides Shabbat

in the Temple

at its beginning,

when the first Festival day falls on Shabbat.

And the arava

overrides Shabbat in the Temple

at its end,

when the seventh day falls on Shabbat.

Once the seventh day of the arava fell on Shabbat.

And they brought large branches

branches

of arava from the eve of Shabbat, and placed them in the Temple courtyard.

And the Boethusians recognized them,

the Sadducees, who do not acknowledge the mitzva of arava since it is not explicit in the Torah,

and took them,

the aravot,

and concealed them,

and buried them

under stones,

which are set-aside objects, so that the Pharisees would not be able to carry them on Shabbat and perform the mitzva of arava with them.

The next day they recognized them,

the aravot under the stones,

the common people [

who were not expert in the laws of set-aside objects but stood with the Pharisees],

and pulled them out from under the stones.

And the priests brought them,

the aravot,

and stood them upright at the sides of the altar.

The beraita explains why the Boethusians buried them under the stones:

because the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the arava overrides Shabbat.

And the Gemara infers from the language of the beraita at its end, which uses “the beating of the arava.”

Evidently,

the mitzva of arava

is by taking,

for the priests would take the arava in their hands and shake it [and this is “beating”], and would circle the altar with it by walking on their feet, and only afterward stand it upright beside the altar.

And we conclude: Indeed,

a tiyuβta

it is from this beraita.

And we refuted this:

But rather,

from now

let it override

Shabbat. Since we have proven that its mitzva is by taking, we should now make a commemoration of the Temple and take it on Shabbat on which the seventh day of the arava falls!?

And we answered:

Since we

are in exile, where they are not expert in intercalating the month,

do not override

Shabbat for the performance of the mitzva of arava—

they,

the inhabitants of the Land of Israel,

also did not override.

For the Sages made the practices of all Israel equal, so that our Torah should not appear as two Torahs.

And we refuted this: Did the Sages indeed make the practices of Israel equal?

But regarding the first Festival day, for us,

the inhabitants of Babylonia,

it does not override

Shabbat, the mitzva of lulav,

whereas

if

for them,

for the inhabitants of the Land of Israel,

it does override!?