Sukkah 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

The measure of flesh and blood: an empty vessel

holds

what is placed in it, whereas a vessel

that is full does not hold

what they add beyond its capacity.

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] “

And it shall be, if you diligently heed.”

And we expound it:

If you heed,

if you have become accustomed to heeding—

you shall heed.

You will be able to hear additional matters.

But if not,

if you have not become accustomed to heeding, because in your youth you did not incline your ear to listen, then

you shall not heed again,

as they will not suffice for you to hear.

Alternatively: “If you heed” with regard to the old,

when you review the learning that you have already heard—

“you shall heed” with regard to the new,

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

But [Deuteronomy 30]

“if your heart turns away,”

and you do not review the old—

you shall not heed again

new matters within it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Immediately, the children

snatch their lulavim and eat their etrogim.

Rabbi Yohanan said: An etrog—

throughout

the entire day

of the seventh

day

is forbidden

for benefit, even after one has fulfilled the mitzva of taking it, since it is still set aside from benefit by virtue of its designation for the mitzva of etrog.

But on the following day,

on the eighth

day, Shemini Atzeret, when there is no mitzva of etrog—

it is permitted

to derive benefit from it.

But

a sukka—

even on the eighth

day, Shemini Atzeret, it

is forbidden

for benefit, despite the fact that the mitzva of sukka does not apply on that day.

And Reish Lakish said: An etrog—

even on the seventh day as well, it is permitted.

The Gemara initially explains:

With regard to what do they disagree?

What is the basis of the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish concerning the designation of an etrog on the seventh day, after one has fulfilled the mitzva with it?

One master,

Reish Lakish,

holds

that the etrog was set aside only

for the mitzva,

and once one has fulfilled the mitzva with it on the seventh day, and no longer requires it for the mitzva, its designation is revoked.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds:

An etrog was

set aside for the entire day.

Reish Lakish raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan

from our Mishna:

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

Is it not—

the same applies to the

etrogim of

adults,

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

Rabbi Yohanan answered him:

No,

it is not as you wished to say. Rather, their etrogim are

specifically those of children

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

Some say

the opposite:

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

Rabbi Yohanan infers: The etrogim of

children—

yes,

they are immediately permitted to be eaten; but the etrogim of

adults—

no,

because since they were set aside for a complete mitzva, they are set aside for the entire day, contrary to Reish Lakish’s words.

Reish Lakish answered him:

The same applies; even

an etrog of

adults

is immediately permitted to be eaten.

And the fact that it teaches

the etrogim of

children—

it teaches the ordinary case.

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

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: According to the opinion of

Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that an etrog is set aside for the entire day, even after one fulfills the mitzva with it, this requires explanation:

What is different about a sukka

that it 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 once it was set aside during twilight, it was set aside for the entire eighth day [according to the principle concerning set-aside objects, that anything set aside during twilight at the onset of Shabbat or a Festival is set aside for the entire day].

What is different about an etrog

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

He said to him,

Abaye:

A sukka—

since

it is fit,

since it is ready and suitable

for

the fulfillment of the mitzva of sukka also during

twilight,

between the seventh and eighth days,

for if it should happen to him,

if he should happen to have

a meal

during twilight, then

he must sit in it and eat in it,

he must 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,

since deriving benefit from it was prohibited because it was designated for the mitzva of sukka

during twilight—

it was set aside for the entire eighth day,

by virtue of the designation of the Festival day, in accordance with the law of anything set aside during twilight, which becomes set aside for the entire day.

For anything from which benefit was precluded during twilight at the onset of Shabbat or a Festival is set aside from use and handling for the entire Shabbat or Festival. This is the law of set-aside objects: designation of an object during twilight establishes upon it the status of an object set aside for the entire day.

But

an etrog, which is not fit during twilight,

since once one has taken the etrog in the morning and fulfilled the mitzva with it, it is no longer destined to be taken during twilight, because the mitzva is to take it once a day and no more. And the fact that it is set aside for the entire seventh day, even after it has been taken, is only because the prohibition of an object set aside for a mitzva applies for the entire day. But such designation [which is not because it is still destined for the mitzva, but only because the status of an object set aside has taken effect upon it, and that status applies for the duration of the entire day] applies 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 had said: An etrog is forbidden even on the eighth day,

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

And the father of Shmuel said: An etrog is forbidden on the seventh day and permitted on the eighth.

But afterward, the father of Shmuel reconsidered his position, and

the father of Shmuel adopted the position of Levi,

that an etrog is set aside on the eighth day.

Conversely,

Rabbi Zeira adopted the position of the father of Shmuel,

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

As Rabbi Zeira said:

Even

an etrog that became unfit [after one fulfilled the mitzva with it], since it was designated for its mitzva—

it is forbidden to eat it throughout the seven days.

This implies that the etrog’s designation applies 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 acquire

an

hoshana [a term for the lulav bound together with the myrtle and willow branches]

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

for a child

for his minor son

on the first Festival day,

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

What is the reason?

Since

the child,

the minor—

can acquire,

he can acquire and obtain ownership of the lulav, since the Sages ordained that a minor can acquire for himself, even though according to Torah law he cannot acquire, as he lacks legal understanding.

But

to transfer ownership—

he cannot transfer ownership!

The minor cannot then transfer it back and grant it to his father, since he lacks legal understanding.

And

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

it turns out

that he will

be fulfilling

his obligation [when he takes it back from the minor, since the minor’s acquisition of it does not benefit him]

with a lulav that is not his.

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

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

a person should not promise his minor son something and fail to fulfill his promise,

because he will thereby teach him falsehood,

since in this way he teaches his son to lie.

As it is stated [

Jeremiah 9]: “

They have taught their tongues to speak falsehood.”

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

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

In this dispute between 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 designated seven etrogim for seven days,

one particular etrog for each day.

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

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

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

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

only

the following day.

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do they disagree?

One master,

Rav Asi,

holds

in accordance with Reish Lakish, that it was set aside only

for its mitzva.

And the other master,

Rav,

holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan, that it was set aside

for the entire day.

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

The Gemara now discusses the status of the etrog among those in the Diaspora on the eighth day, which is possibly the seventh day: Do they prohibit it on account of the uncertainty?

And we, who have two days—

what do we do,

how do we conduct ourselves with regard to the etrog on the eighth day?

Abaye said: The eighth day, Shemini Atzeret, which in the Diaspora is

possibly the seventh day—

it is forbidden

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

But on the

ninth

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

possibly the eighth day,

it is permitted

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

Marimar said: Even

the

eighth

day, which is

possibly the seventh day—

it is permitted.

In Sura they acted in accordance with Marimar,

and ate the etrog on the eighth day.

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

and prohibited it on the eighth day.

And the halakha is—

in accordance with Abaye.

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

in the Diaspora, which is

possibly the seventh day—

it is like the

seventh day with regard to

the mitzva of dwelling in a

sukka,

as one must sit in the sukka on it,

and

like the

eighth day with regard to the blessing,

as one mentions the eighth day in the prayer, in the kiddush, and in Grace after Meals.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is

the eighth day with regard to both,

as will be explained below.

The Gemara explains:

Dwelling,

sitting in a sukka on the eighth day in the Diaspora—

everyone agrees that we sit

in the sukka.