Sukkah 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They say:

This is how they answered in the study hall: Indeed,

for them—

the residents of Eretz Yisrael—

it also does not override

Shabbat on the first day of the festival, so as not to differentiate between the residents of the Diaspora and the residents of Eretz Yisrael.

But the following two

baraitot are difficult: In order to avoid a contradiction between them, we established that they came to teach that in Eretz Yisrael, after the destruction, the mitzva of lulav overrides Shabbat:

One baraita teaches: Everyone brings

his lulav

to the Temple Mount

And another baraita was taught:

Everyone brings his lulav

to the synagogue.

And we answered

the contradiction between the baraitot above:

Here—

when the Temple is standing,

they bring them to the Temple;

here—

when the Temple is not standing.

And since we have now said that after the Temple was destroyed, even in Eretz Yisrael the taking of the lulav does not override Shabbat, and people do not bring their lulavim to the synagogue, the contradiction between the baraitot returns.

And we answer:

No;

this is not how the contradiction between the baraitot should be resolved.

Rather,

in both cases—

both baraitot are speaking

when the Temple is standing.

And there is no difficulty

with the contradiction between them.

Here—

Here—

in the Temple,

they would bring their lulavim from the eve of Shabbat to the Temple Mount.

Here—

in the provinces,

they would bring their lulavim from the eve of Shabbat to the synagogue.

But once the Temple was destroyed, the mitzva of lulav no longer overrides Shabbat in the provinces, even in Eretz Yisrael, so as not to differentiate between the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael and the inhabitants of the Diaspora.

He said

and asked

Abaye asked Rava: What is different about the lulav, that we perform it

—that we commemorate it throughout

seven

days,

as a commemoration of the Temple,

where it was taken by Torah law on all seven days—

and what is different about the willow branch, that we do not perform it for seven

days

as a commemoration of the Temple,

as the mitzva of the willow branch was performed there for seven days, but commemorate it only on the seventh day!?

He said to him

Rava:

Since a person fulfills his obligation

of the commemoration of the willow branch

with the willow branch in the lulav.

He said to him

Abaye said to Rava:

That

willow branch—

it is performed only because of the lulav.

And it contains no commemoration of the mitzva of the willow branch!

And if you would say

to resolve this

that he first raises it

with the lulav in order to fulfill the mitzva of lulav and the willow branch contained in it,

and afterward he raises it

with the lulav, together with the willow branch bound to it, in order thereby to fulfill the commemoration of the willow branch in the Temple:

It is impossible to answer in this manner. For

this is not what we do in practice every day!

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava

to offer another answer:

The lulav

whose mitzva in the Temple is for seven days by

Torah law—

we perform

a commemoration of it for

seven

days,

as a commemoration of the Temple.

The willow branch

whose mitzva in the Temple is only by

rabbinic law—

we do not perform it for seven days as a commemoration of the Temple.

And we inquire:

According to whom?

According to whom did you say that the mitzva of the willow branch in the Temple is only by rabbinic law?

If you say it is according to Abba Shaul—

Did he not say, for Abba Shaul said: [Leviticus 23] “

as Abba Shaul stated: [Leviticus 23] “

Willows of the brook

”

is written.

The verse teaches that

two

willow branches are required by Torah law: one willow branch

one for the lulav, and

one willow branch

one for the Temple.

If it is according to the Rabbis—

For according to them,

it is a received halakhic tradition:

the mitzva of the willow branch is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, and is not rabbinic.

As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya, the man of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: “

Ten saplings”

which define a field as “an orchard field,” with regard to planting during the period of tosefet shevi’it], the mitzva of the

willow branch

in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot,

and the water libation

on the festival—these are

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai!

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava,

there is another distinction between the lulav and the willow branch:

The lulav, which has a basis in Torah law

in the present era for one day

in the provinces

on the first day of the festival]—

we perform it

also for

seven

days in the provinces

as a commemoration of the Temple.

The willow branch, which has no basis in Torah law in the provinces

at all, since the halakha given to Moses at Sinai was stated only with regard to the Temple—

we do not perform

it for

seven

days in the provinces

as a commemoration of the Temple.

Reish Lakish said:

Even

blemished kohanim,

who are prohibited throughout the entire year from entering the area between the Hall and the altar, would force their way and

enter

to circle the altar with the willow branch, and for the purpose of the circuit they had to pass

between the Hall and the altar in order to leave

having fulfilled their obligation

through the

circuit of the altar with

the willow branch.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Who said this

halakha!?

The Gemara understood Rabbi Yoḥanan’s question as follows: Who is the one who said that there is an obligation to fulfill the mitzva of the circuit?!

The Gemara wonders: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan have asked

“

Who said this”?

Was it not he,

Rabbi Yoḥanan himself, who

said

this?

As Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya, the man of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The ten saplings, the willow branch, and the water libation—

are a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

!?

Rather,

the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan asked as follows:

Who said this

halakha that the mitzva of the willow branch is fulfilled

through taking it,

so that all the kohanim must fulfill their obligation to take it, to the extent that even the blemished kohanim had to force their way in and circle the altar in the area between the Hall and the altar?

Perhaps it is through standing it upright

beside the altar, and it is sufficient for one kohen to do so!?

And furthermore:

Who said

that it is performed even

by

kohanim

who are blemished? Perhaps it is performed only

by

unblemished kohanim!?

It was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

disagreed concerning the source of the halakha of the willow branch:

One said: The mitzva of the

the mitzva of

willow branch

is

“ an institution of the Prophets.”

The later prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, obligated the people to observe the mitzva of the willow branch as a binding enactment.

And one said: It is a custom of the Prophets,

who instituted that the people observe it as a custom, but did not establish it as a binding enactment.

And the Gemara proves:

It may be concluded—

you can prove

that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that it is

“

an institution of the Prophets”

itself.

As Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The willow branch—

is an institution of the Prophets.

And we conclude:

It may be concluded.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Did

you mean that

Rabbi Yoḥanan said so,

that the willow branch is merely an institution of the Prophets, and nothing more!?

But did Rabbi Yoḥanan not say in the name of Rabbi Neḥunya, the man of the valley of Beit Ḥortan: The ten saplings, the willow branch, and the water libation—

are a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

!?

Rabbi Abbahu did not answer Rabbi Zeira immediately. Rather, he

“ was stunned for one hour”

as the verse states in Daniel 4]:

And

after being stunned, Rabbi Abbahu answered Rabbi Zeira and

said:

Indeed, Rabbi Yoḥanan said that they are a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

And this is what I meant when I said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that they are an institution of the Prophets:

In the Babylonian exile,

they forgot them

completely [these halakhot that had been stated at Sinai, along with some other parts of the Torah that were forgotten as a result of the exile],

and the later prophets returned

and

reestablished them

through divine instruction.

And we ask:

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan say so,

that the halakhot were forgotten in Babylonia as a result of the exile?

But Rabbi Yoḥanan said

to the residents of Eretz Yisrael, after it became clear to him that the residents of Babylonia were more learned in Torah than the residents of Eretz Yisrael [see Rashi]:

At first—“the Torah

of you,”

I said.

I thought that the Torah was found in greater completeness among you than among the residents of Babylonia, who had suffered through the exile.

But now I have realized that the Torah in its completeness—

is theirs!

It is found in its completeness among them, because the wisdom of the Torah scholars who were exiled with Jeconiah stood them in good stead.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty.