Sukkah 44a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They said:

this is how they answered in the beit-midrash: indeed

according to them,

the people of the Land of Israel

also does not override the lulav on the first day of Yom Tov the Shabbat, so as not to distinguish between the people of the Diaspora and the people of the Land of Israel.

Shabbat on the first day of the Festival, so as not to distinguish between the inhabitants of the Diaspora and the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael.

But then these two

beraitot are difficult, for, in order that there should not be a contradiction between them, we established them as coming to teach that in the Land of Israel, after the Destruction, the mitzva of lulav overrode the Shabbat:

For one [beraita] taught: All the people brought

from the eve of Shabbat

their lulavs to the Temple Mount.

And another [beraita] was taught:

all the people brought their lulavs

to the synagogue.

And we resolve

the contradiction between the beraitot 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 the Land of Israel taking the lulav does not override the Shabbat, and they do not take their lulavs to the synagogue, the contradiction between the beraitot returns.

And we answer:

No,

this is not how the contradiction between the beraitot is to be resolved.

Rather,

both this and that,

in both of them it is speaking

of the time when the Temple is standing.

And the contradiction

between them

is not difficult.

Here—

in the Temple,

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

Here—

in the provinces,

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

But once the Temple was destroyed, the mitzva of lulav again does not override the Shabbat in the provinces, even in the Land of Israel, so as not to distinguish between the inhabitants of the Land and the inhabitants of the Diaspora.

He said

[and] asked

Abaye said to Rava: What is different about lulav, for which we perform

which we make a remembrance

for seven

days,

as a remembrance of the Temple,

where it was taken by Torah law throughout all seven days,

and what is different about arava, for which we do not perform seven

days

as a remembrance of the Temple,

just as the mitzva of arava was practiced there for seven days, but we make a remembrance of it only on the seventh day alone!?

He said to him,

Rava:

Since a person fulfills his obligation

of the remembrance of arava

with the arava in the lulav.

Abaye said to him

to Rava:

That

arava—

it is because of the lulav that he performs it.

And there is no remembrance in it of the mitzva of arava!

And if you would say

to resolve it

that he raises it

for the lulav, to fulfill the mitzva of lulav and the arava in it,

and then he raises it

for the lulav, together with the arava bound to it, in order thereby to fulfill a remembrance of the arava in the Temple.

It is not possible to resolve it this way. For—

behold, it is daily practice that we do not do so!

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava

to offer another resolution:

Lulav,

whose mitzva in the Temple is for seven days by

Torah law—

we perform

we make a remembrance of it

for seven

days,

as a remembrance of the Temple.

Arava,

whose mitzva in the Temple is only by

rabbinic enactment—

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

And we inquire about it:

According to whom?

According to whom did you say that the mitzva of arava in the Temple is only rabbinic?

If you say: according to Abba Shaul—

He said,

for Abba Shaul said: [Leviticus 23] "

willows of the brook"

is written.

is written.

The verse taught that

two

aravot are [required] by Torah law: one arava

one for the lulav, and

one arava

one for the Temple.

Or according to the Rabbis—

For according to them,

it is a received halakha,

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

For Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Nehunia, the man of the valley of Beit Hورتan: "

Ten saplings"

which define the field as an "orchard," with regard to planting during the "addition to the Sabbatical year," the mitzva of

arava

in the Temple on the festival of Sukkot,

and the water libation

on the festival—they are

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai!

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava,

another resolution distinguishing between lulav and arava:

Lulav, which has a basis in Torah law

nowadays for one day

in the provinces

on the first day of Yom Tov—

we perform it

also

for seven

days in the provinces

as a remembrance of the Temple.

Arava, which has no basis in Torah law in the provinces

at all, for 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 remembrance of the Temple.

Reish Lakish said:

Even

priests with physical blemishes,

who are forbidden to enter between the Hall and the Altar throughout the entire year, would press themselves and

enter

to circle the Altar with an arava, and for the purpose of the circling they needed to pass

between the Hall and the Altar, in order to fulfill

the obligation of the mitzva

through

circling the Altar with

arava.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Who said

this halakha!?

And the Gemara understood that Rabbi Yohanan’s question was: Who is it who said that there is an obligation to fulfill the mitzva of circling

?! And the Gemara wonders: How could Rabbi Yohanan ask

"Who said it"?

“Who said it”?

But he himself,

Rabbi Yohanan himself,

said

this.

For Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Nehunia, the man of the valley of Beit Hורתan: Ten saplings, arava, and the water libation—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

they are!?

Rather,

the Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yohanan asked:

Who said

this halakha, that the mitzva of arava is

through taking,

so that all the priests are obligated to fulfill the obligation of taking it, to the extent that the priests with physical blemishes needed to press themselves in and circle the Altar even in the area between the Hall and the Altar.

Perhaps it is through standing it upright

beside the Altar, and one priest who does this is sufficient!?

And furthermore:

Who said

that it is performed even

by

priests

with physical blemishes; perhaps

only

by unblemished priests!?

It was stated: Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

disagreed concerning the source of the halakha of arava:

One said:

the mitzva of

arava

is "

an institution of the Prophets."

For the later prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, obligated [Israel] to fulfill the mitzva of arava as a binding enactment.

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

for they led the people to practice it as a custom, and did not institute it as a binding enactment.

And the Gemara proves:

It may be concluded

you have to prove

that Rabbi Yohanan is the one who said "

“

an institution of the Prophets"

it is.

For Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Arava—

it is an institution of the Prophets.

And we conclude:

It may be concluded.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Is it so that

indeed

Rabbi Yohanan said this,

that arava is only an institution of the Prophets, and no more!?

But Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Nehunia, the man of the valley of Beit Hורתan: Ten saplings, arava, and the water libation—

a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

they are!

And Rabbi Abbahu did not answer Rabbi Zeira immediately, but rather

“he was astonished for one hour” [כלשון הכתוב בדניאל ד] [as the wording of the verse in Daniel 4]:

as it is expressed in the verse in Daniel 4]:

And

after his astonishment, Rabbi Abbahu answered Rabbi Zeira and

said:

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

And what I said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that they are an institution of the Prophets, this was Rabbi Yohanan’s intention in saying:

In the Babylonian exile

they forgot them

completely [these halakhot that were stated at Sinai, together with some additional Torah that was forgotten as a result of going into exile]],

and the later prophets

returned

and established them

by divine utterance.

And we wonder:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

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

But Rabbi Yohanan said

to the people of the Land of Israel, after it became clear to him that the people of Babylonia were more expert in Torah than the people of the Land of Israel [see Rashi]:

At first—"The Torah

of you"

I said.

I thought that the Torah was found in its completeness among you more than it was found among the people of Babylonia, who suffered from the exile.

But now I have come to know that the Torah in its completeness

is theirs!

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

And we answer:

It is not difficult.