Sukkah 44b — the Talmud in English

Here -

in the Temple,

it is a tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai.

Here -

in the rest of the Land of Israel,

it is an enactment originating with the Prophets.

Rabbi Ami said: The willow branch -

a.

It must have a prescribed measure.

As will be explained below.

b.

And it may be taken only by itself,

meaning that no other item is bound with it, so that it will be clear that it is being taken for the mitzva of the willow branch.

c.

And one does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch attached to the lulav.

The Gemara discusses the last two laws:

Since

already

the Master said

Rabbi Ami, in the second law,] “

It may be taken only by itself,”

so that it will be clear that it is being taken for the mitzva of the willow branch,

it is obvious that

the third law,

one does not fulfill his obligation with the willow branch attached to the lulav,

follows, since it is not taken by itself. Why, then, was it necessary for Rabbi Ami to state it?

And they answer:

It might have been said that this applies

only when one does not fulfill the mitzva with the willow branch attached to the lulav

when he did not first lift it and then lift it again,

meaning that he did not first lift the lulav for the mitzva of lulav and then lift it again together with the willow branch bound to it for the mitzva of the willow branch. Rather, he lifted the lulav only once, for the mitzva of lulav. In that case, he does not fulfill the mitzva of the willow branch with this lifting, even though the willow branch is bound to it, since it is not evident that he lifted the willow branch for the mitzva of the willow branch.

But

if he

lifted it

for the mitzva of lulav

and then lifted it again

for the mitzva of taking the willow branch -

one might say no,

there would be no deficiency, since by lifting it a second time for the mitzva of the willow branch, it is clear that he is fulfilling the mitzva of the willow branch with the second taking.

It teaches us

that since the willow branch is bound to the lulav, he does not fulfill his obligation with it.

And Rav Hisda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak: One does fulfill his obligation with the willow branch attached to the lulav.

The Gemara now explains the first law:

And how much

is

its prescribed measure,

the measure of the willow branch?

Rav Naḥman said: Three willow branches,

and each branch must have

fresh leaves.

And Rav Sheshet said: Even one leaf and one branch.

The Gemara understood Rav Sheshet as saying that even one leaf without a branch, or one branch without a leaf, is sufficient.

And they challenge this: Is it conceivable that

one leaf

without a branch,

and one branch

without a leaf

could be considered

sufficient to fulfill the obligation of taking the willow branch? After all, taking a single leaf without a branch is not recognizable as a taking at all.

And they answer:

Rather, say: Even one leaf on one branch.

Aivu said: I was standing before

him,

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, and a certain man brought a willow branch before him.

He took

the willow branch,

shook it

and moved it, but

he did not recite a blessing

over it, because

he held

that

it is a custom of the Prophets,

and one does not recite a blessing over a custom, since he cannot say, “Who has commanded us.”

Aivu and Hezekiah, the sons of Rav’s daughter,

his daughter,

brought a willow branch before Rav.

He shook it

Rav moved the willow branch

but did not recite a blessing

over it.

He held: It is a custom of the Prophets.

Aivu said: I was standing before Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok.

A certain man came before him.

He said to him: I have fields

and the people who live there

are mine, meaning that they are under his authority.

And likewise,

I have vineyards,

I have vineyards, and also

I have olive trees.

And the people of the villages come

during the Sabbatical Year,

and hoe

and weed for me

in my vineyards

[as will be explained below],

and they eat

as payment for this

from my olive trees.

And they do not relinquish ownership of the olives.

My question is: Is it

proper,

is it good to act this way,

or is it not proper?

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said to him:

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok:

It is not proper.

It is forbidden to act this way, because you are paying them for their labor of hoeing [which is permitted, as will be explained] in your vineyards by giving them produce of the Sabbatical Year, and you are thereby engaging in commerce with Sabbatical-Year produce. Such produce was permitted only for eating.

He was already leaving him and going away,

when that man was leaving the place and going on his way,

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said:

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said:

Now

already

I have been living

I have lived

in this land

in this land

for forty years, and I have not seen

and I still have not seen

a person

who

walks in proper ways,

in upright ways,

like this one.

Like this man.

Meanwhile,

the man returned

that man returned

and came

and came back,

and said to him: What should I do,

what should I do so that I can have my vineyards hoed by workers [properly]?

He said to him: Declare your olive trees ownerless to the poor,

meaning that you have no solution of paying them with olives.

And give

them

small coins

as their wages

for hoeing the vineyards.

The Gemara asks:

But hoeing

vineyards during the Sabbatical Year

is it permitted?

But it is taught in a source:

Exodus 23] “

And the seventh year you shall let it lie fallow, and you shall abandon it.”

And they derive:

“You shall let it lie fallow” -

from hoeing,

from digging around the trees.

“And you shall abandon it” -

from removing stones,

by throwing them out of the field.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: There are two

types of

hoeing;

one is permitted and one is forbidden.

One type of hoeing

is

to

seal cracks,

to close the cracks in the soil. This hoeing is intended to cover the roots so that the tree will not dry out, and it is permitted for the reason that will be explained below: anything not done to improve the tree and promote its growth, but only to preserve it and prevent it from drying out, may be done during the Sabbatical Year.

And

another type of hoeing

is

for the purpose of

improving the trees,

as it is intended to improve them [by softening the soil around them - according to the second interpretation in Rashi], and this is forbidden.

Rav Ukva explains:

“Improving the trees” -

is forbidden.

“Sealing cracks” -

is permitted.

Since the Gemara brought Aivu’s statement about Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, it continues by bringing another statement of Aivu in his name.

Aivu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok: A person should not walk on the eve of Shabbat

when he is outside his home

more than

the distance of

three parasangs,

and he should then observe Shabbat while it is still fully daytime and prepare his Shabbat meal for himself.

Rav Kahana said: We said this only

when he is traveling in order to reach

his home.

It is preferable for him to observe Shabbat on the way rather than arrive home close to Shabbat, because perhaps they will not prepare Shabbat food for him at home [since they will see that he is not arriving during the day]. If he comes home and discovers that they did not prepare a Shabbat meal for him, he will become angry with them.

But

if he was traveling

to his lodging,

to a place where he would stay as a guest, he may continue traveling until close to Shabbat, because

why

what

does he rely on,

on the food that he carries with him on his journey? He

relies on that food, and he will not become angry with the members of his host household if they have not prepared food for him, because he does not rely on their meal.

on it, and he will not become angry with the members of the household at his lodging if no food has been prepared for him, because he does not rely on their meal.

And some say

that

Rav Kahana said

as follows: If he is traveling on the eve of Shabbat to a lodging, it is obvious that he should not travel more than three parasangs, because perhaps they will not prepare anything for him [and according to this version of the Gemara, a person does not rely on the food he carries with him].

And

it was necessary

to teach Aivu’s ruling in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok

only that even

if he is traveling

to his home,

where he will find a meal, whether a large one or a small one, since his household is there, nevertheless he should not travel all the way to them. Rather, he should observe Shabbat while it is still daytime, so that he will not come to anger.

Rav Kahana said: This happened to me:

an incident occurred to me: I arrived home close to Shabbat,

and even

a small meal of

fish fried in its own fat,

small fish dipped in flour and fried in their own fat

I did not find

none had been prepared for me.

We learned in the Mishna:

How is the mitzva of lulav performed?

A tanna taught

the wording of our Mishna [a sage who recited the Mishnayot and baraitot before the Sages]

before Rav Naḥman,

with a changed wording:

They arrange

lulavim

on “

the roof

of the platform”

instead of “on top of the platform”].

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman said: