Sukkah 46b — the Talmud in English

The measure of flesh and blood: an empty vessel ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

holds

what is placed in it, whereas a vessel

that is full does not hold

what they add beyond its fullness.

But the measure of the Holy One, blessed be He,

is the opposite: a vessel

that is full holds,

whereas

an empty one does not hold.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 28] “

Deuteronomy 28] “

And it shall be, if you surely heed.”

And we expound:

If you heed,

having become accustomed to heeding—

you shall heed.

You will be able to heed additional matters.

But if not,

because you did not become accustomed to heeding, since in your youth you did not incline your ear to heed, then again

you shall not heed,

because they will not be sufficient for you to heed.

Alternatively: If you heed the old,

when you review your learning that you have already heard—

you shall heed the new,

for you will become wise enough to understand, from the old matters that you have already learned, new matters.

But [Deuteronomy 30]

if your heart turns away,

and you do not review the old—

you shall again not heed

new matters in it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Immediately, the children

snatch away their lulavim and eat their etrogim.

Rabbi Yohanan said: An etrog—

on

the entire day

seventh

it

is forbidden

to derive benefit from it, even after one has fulfilled through it the mitzva of taking [the lulav], since it is still set aside from benefit by force of its being designated for the mitzva of etrog.

But on the following day,

on the eighth,

Shemini Atzeret, when there is no mitzva of etrog—

it is permitted

to derive benefit from it.

But

the sukka—

even on the eighth

Shemini Atzeret it

is forbidden

to derive benefit from it, despite the fact that the mitzva of sukka does not apply on this day.

And Reish Lakish said: An etrog—

even on the seventh as well it is permitted.

And the Gemara first explains:

Over what do they disagree,

what is the basis of the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning the designation of an etrog on the seventh day, after one has fulfilled [the mitzva] through it?

One master,

Reish Lakish,

held

that the etrog was set aside only

for the mitzva,

and from the moment that one fulfilled [the mitzva] through it on the seventh day, and no longer needs it for the mitzva, its designation is nullified.

And one master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

held: The etrog

was designated

for the entire day.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from our Mishna:

Immediately, the children snatch away their lulavim and eat their etrogim.

Is it not so—

the same applies to the

etrogim of

adults,

that after they fulfill their mitzva they are permitted to eat them, contrary to the words of Rabbi Yohanan?

Rabbi Yohanan answered him:

No.

Rather, their etrogim—

specifically those of children

are permitted to be eaten immediately, since they were not set aside for a “complete mitzva” of the mitzva of etrog, but only for the mitzva of educating a minor.

There are those who say

the reverse:

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish: Immediately, the children snatch away their lulavim and eat their etrogim.

And Rabbi Yohanan infers: Their etrogim of

children—

yes,

it is the one permitted to be eaten immediately; but their etrogim of

adults—

no,

because since it is set aside for a complete mitzva, it is set aside for the entire day, contrary to the words of Reish Lakish.

Reish Lakish answered:

The same applies—even

an etrog of

adults

is permitted to be eaten immediately.

And the fact that it teaches

an etrog of

children—

it teaches the ordinary circumstance.

For the practice is to snatch etrogim from the children and not from the adults.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to

the view of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that an etrog is set aside for the entire day, even after fulfilling its mitzva, it should be explained:

What is different about a sukka,

which is forbidden for benefit on the eighth day, since it was set aside for its mitzva during twilight between the seventh and eighth days? And since it was set aside during twilight, it was set aside for the entire eighth day [according to the rule concerning something set aside, that anything set aside during twilight at the onset of Shabbat or a Festival was set aside for the entire day].

What is different about an etrog,

which is forbidden only on the seventh day, and not on the eighth? After all, both apply only on the seventh day!

He said to him,

Abaye:

A sukka—

since

it is fit,

as it is suitable and standing ready

for

fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka even at the time of

twilight,

between the seventh day and the eighth day,

for if it happened to him,

for if a

meal

were to present itself to him during twilight, then

he would need to sit in it and eat in it,

he would need to sit in it then and eat in it—

therefore it

was set aside

for the mitzva also

for

twilight.

And since it was set aside,

its benefit being forbidden because of its designation for the mitzva of sukka

during twilight—

it was set aside for the entire eighth day,

because of the designation of the Festival day, as the law of every item that was set aside during twilight, which becomes set aside for the entire day.

For every item whose benefit was set aside during twilight at the onset of Shabbat or a Festival is set aside from use and from moving for the entire Shabbat or Festival. For this is the law of something set aside: the designation of the item during twilight imposes upon it the status of something set aside for the entire day.

But

an etrog, which is not fit during twilight,

for from the time that one took it in the morning and fulfilled [the mitzva] through it, it is no longer standing ready to be taken during twilight, since the mitzva is to take it once on each day and no more. And what makes it set aside for the entire seventh day, even after its taking, is only that the prohibition of something set aside for a mitzva applies to the entire day. But such designation [which is not because it is still standing ready for the mitzva, but only because the status of something set aside has taken effect upon it, and the status of something set aside applies for the duration of the entire day] is only on the day itself, and it

was not set aside for twilight.

and

consequently

it was not set aside for the entire eighth day.

And

if

Levi said: An etrog is forbidden even on the eighth,

since in his view the etrog too is set aside, like the sukka, during the period of twilight. For the time of twilight is uncertainly the seventh day, uncertainly the eighth day, and throughout the entire seventh day the etrog is set aside. And since in his view the etrog was set aside, because of the uncertainty, also during twilight, it was set aside for the entire eighth day.

And Avuh of Shmuel said: An etrog is forbidden on the seventh; on the eighth it is permitted.

But afterward, Avuh of Shmuel retracted his view, and

Avuh of Shmuel adopted the approach of Levi,

that the etrog is set aside on the eighth.

And conversely,

Rabbi Zeira adopted the approach of Avuh of Shmuel,

as he had initially thought, and held that an etrog is permitted on the eighth.

For Rabbi Zeira said:

even

an etrog that became unfit [after one fulfilled the mitzva through it], since it was set aside for its mitzva—

it is forbidden to eat it all seven days.

And it is implied that the designation of the etrog is only for the seven days, and on the eighth it is permitted to eat even an etrog that did not become unfit.

Rabbi Zeira said: A person should not purchase

for a minor a “

hoshana” [

a designation for the lulav bound with the myrtles and the willow],

for a child

his young son

on the first Festival day,

on the first Festival day of the Festival of Sukkot, when the father has not yet fulfilled his obligation through it.

What is the reason?

Since

the child,

the minor—

can acquire,

he can only acquire and gain ownership of the lulav, since the Sages enacted that a minor can gain ownership for himself, although by Torah law he is not capable of acquisition because he lacks understanding.

But

transferring ownership—

he cannot transfer ownership!

The minor cannot then transfer it back to his father, since he is not possessed of understanding.

And

therefore, if one gives his lulav to the minor before he himself fulfills his obligation through it,

it turns out

that he will find

that he is fulfilling

his obligation [when he takes it back from the minor, and his acquisition from him is ineffective],

with a lulav that is not his.

Whereas on the first day one fulfills the obligation only with a lulav belonging to its owner.

And Rabbi Zeira said: A person should not say to a child, “I will give you something,” and not give it to him,

a person should not promise his young son something and not keep his promise,

because he will come to teach him falsehood,

since by doing so he teaches his son to lie.

As it is stated [Jeremiah 9], “

Jeremiah 9]: “

They have taught their tongue to speak falsehood.”

The Gemara now returns to the matter of designating the etrog for its mitzva or for the entire day, concerning which Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagreed above, and brings a similar dispute among amoraim:

And in the dispute of Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

In this dispute of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, whether an etrog is set aside only for its mitzva or is set aside for the entire day, Rav and Rav Asi also disagreed:

For it was stated: He set aside seven etrogim for seven days,

one particular etrog for each day.

According to Rashi’s version, explained by the Bach:

Rav Asi said: With each and every one he fulfills [the mitzva], and eats it immediately.

Since the etrog was not set aside for the entire day, but only for its mitzva.

And Rav said: With each and every one he fulfills [the mitzva], and eats it

only

on the following day.

And the Gemara explains:

Over what do they disagree?

One master,

Rav Asi,

held

like Reish Lakish, that it was set aside only

for its mitzva.

And one master,

Rav,

held

like Rabbi Yohanan, that it

was set aside for the entire day.

And since both according to Rabbi Yohanan and according to Rav the etrog is forbidden throughout the entire seventh day, the halakha follows them, and the etrog is forbidden throughout the entire seventh day and permitted on the eighth day.

The Gemara now discusses the status of the etrog among those outside the Land on the eighth day, which is possibly the seventh day: do they forbid it because of the uncertainty?

And we, who have two days—

what do we do,

how do we conduct ourselves concerning the etrog on the eighth day?

Abaye said: The eighth,

Shemini Atzeret, which in the Diaspora is

possibly the seventh—

it is forbidden

to use the etrog on it, as on the seventh.

But on the

ninth day,

which is the second Festival day observed in the Diaspora, and is

possibly the eighth,

it is permitted

to eat the etrog, for this day is not included in “possibly the seventh.”

Marimar said: Even

the

eighth day,

which is

possibly the seventh—

it is permitted.

In Sura they acted in accordance with Marimar,

and ate the etrog on the eighth.

Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi acted in accordance with Abaye,

and forbade it on the eighth.

And the halakha is—

in accordance with Abaye.

Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat said in the name of Rav: The eighth,

in the Diaspora, which is

possibly the seventh—

it is like the

seventh with regard to

the mitzva of dwelling in the

sukka,

for one must sit in a sukka on it,

and

like the

eighth with regard to the blessing,

for one mentions the eighth day in the prayer, in Kiddush, and in the blessing after the meal.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is

the eighth with regard to both,

as will be explained below.

And the Gemara explains:

To sit,

to sit in a sukka on the eighth day in the Diaspora—

everyone agrees that we sit

in a sukka.