Sukkah 44b (מד:) — the Talmud in English

Here -

in the Temple,

it is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

Here -

in the provinces,

it is an enactment of the Prophets.

Rabbi Ami said: The arava -

a.

It requires a specified measure.

As will be explained below.

b.

It is taken only by itself,

as nothing else is bound with it, so that it will be evident that it is being taken for the mitzva of arava.

c.

And one does not fulfill his obligation with the arava that is in the lulav.

We raise a question concerning the last two halakhot:

Since

he already

said, the Master [that is, Rabbi Ami, in the second halakha] “

Rabbi Ami, in the second law,] “

It is taken only by itself,”

so that it will be evident that it is being taken for the mitzva of arava,

it is obvious that

the third halakha,

that one does not fulfill his obligation with the arava that is in the lulav,

follows, since it is not taken by itself. Why, then, did Rabbi Ami need to state it?

And we answer:

Lest you say, this applies

only with regard to not fulfilling one’s obligation with the arava in the lulav

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

meaning that he did not initially lift the lulav for the mitzva of lulav and then lift it again with the arava bound to it for the mitzva of arava; rather, he lifted the lulav only once for the mitzva of lulav. In that case, he does not fulfill the mitzva of arava through this lifting, even though the arava is bound to it, because it is not evident that he lifted the arava for the mitzva of arava.

But

if he

lifted it

for the sake of the lulav

and then lifted it again

for the mitzva of taking the arava -

one might say that he does

not have this deficiency, since by lifting it a second time for the fulfillment of the mitzva of arava, it is evident that he is fulfilling the mitzva of arava through the second taking.

It teaches us

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

And Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: One fulfills his obligation with the arava that is in the lulav.

The Gemara now explains the first halakha:

And how much

is

its measure,

that of the arava?

Rav Naḥman said: Three branches of

arava, and on each branch there must be

fresh leaves.

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

The Gemara understood Rav Sheshet to mean that even one leaf without a branch, and one branch without a leaf, suffice.

And we refute this: Is

one leaf

without a branch,

and one branch

without a leaf,

conceivable

to say that one fulfills his obligation of taking the arava with it? After all, the taking of a single leaf without a branch is not recognizable at all.

And we 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 an arava before him.

He took

the arava,

shook it

and moved it,

but he did not recite a blessing

over it, since he

held

that it

is a custom of the Prophets,

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

Aivu and Ḥizkiya, the sons of his daughter

that is, his daughter’s sons,

of Rav, brought an arava before Rav.

He shook it

Rav moved the arava

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 villages

and their inhabitants

under my authority.

And

I have vineyards,

I have vineyards, and I also

have olive trees.

And the inhabitants of the villages come

during the Sabbatical Year,

and hoe

for me

in the vineyards

that are mine [as will be explained below],

and eat

as their payment

from the olive trees.

And I do not render them ownerless.

My question is: Is it

proper,

is it good to do this,

or is it not proper?

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok said to him:

Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok

said: It is not proper.

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

He began to leave him and go,

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 dwelt

I have lived

in this land

in this country

for forty years, and I have not seen

and still have not seen

a person

who

walks in proper ways,

in upright ways,

like this man.

Like this man.

Meanwhile,

the man returned

the same man returned

and came

and came,

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: Render your olive trees ownerless to the poor,

that is, you have no solution other than to pay them with olives.

And give

them

small coins

as their wages

for hoeing vineyards.

And we raise a question concerning this:

And is hoeing

vineyards during the Sabbatical Year

permitted?

But it was taught in a beraita: [Exodus 23] “

Exodus 23] “

The seventh year you shall let it lie fallow and leave it untended.”

And we expound:

“You shall let it lie fallow” -

from hoeing,

from digging around the trees.

“And leave it untended” -

from removing stones,

by throwing them out of the field.

Rav Ukva bar Hama said: There are two

types of

hoeing,

one is permitted and one is forbidden.

One type of hoeing

is

for

sealing cracks,

filling the fissures in the ground. This digging 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,

intended to enhance them [by softening the soil around them - 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 concerning 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 travel on the eve of Shabbat

when he is outside his home

more than

the distance of

three parasangs,

and he should then establish his Shabbat place while it is still broad daylight and prepare his Shabbat meal for himself.

Rav Kahana said: We stated this only

when he is traveling in order to reach

his home.

It is preferable for him to establish his Shabbat place 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], and if he comes home and discovers that they have not prepared a Shabbat meal for him, he will become angry with them.

But

if he was traveling

to his lodging place,

to a place where he would stay, he may continue traveling until close to Shabbat, since

why

is he dependent

on what he carries,

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

relies

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.

Some say

that

Rav Kahana said

as follows: If he is traveling on the eve of Shabbat to a lodging place, 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 a meal, whether large or small, will be available to him, since his household is there, nevertheless he should not travel to them; rather, he should establish his Shabbat place while it is still daylight, so that he will not come to anger.

Rav Kahana said: This happened to me personally;

an incident occurred to me in which I arrived home close to Shabbat,

and even

a small meal of

fish fried in their own fat,

small fish dipped in flour and fried in their own fat,

I did not find

prepared for me.

We learned in the Mishna:

The mitzva of lulav: How is it performed?

A tanna taught

the wording of our Mishna [an amora who teaches the Mishnayot and beraitot before the Sages]

before Rav Naḥman,

with a variation in wording:

They arrange

the lulavim

on “

the roof

of the platform”

[instead of “on the back of the platform”].

He said to him:

Rav Naḥman: