lulab

It was stated: If he wants to be more stringent with himself one does not listen to him. Why? Because of the honor of the deceased or because he has nobody to carry his load? What is the difference between them? If he has someone who is carrying his load; if you say because of the honor of the deceased it is forbidden, but if you say because he has nobody to carry his load, here he has somebody to carry his load. Has it not been stated: he is free from taking the lulab? Explain that it refers to weekdays. But has it not been stated: he is free from blowing the shofar. Can you say on weekday? No, on holiday. Rebbi Ḥanina said: Because he is obliged to bring him a casket and burial shrouds as we have stated (Šabbat 23:4): “One waits for nightfall at the borders of the Šabbat domain to oversee matters for a bride and matters for a deceased to bring for him a casket, burial shrouds, fifes, and women mourners;” it is as if someone was carrying his load.

There (Mishnah Qiddushin 1:7) we have stated: “Every positive commandment that is activated by time, men are obliged by it but women are exempt. Every positive commandment that is not activated by time, both men and women are obliged by it.” (Tosephta Qiddushin 1:10): “What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, lulab, shofar, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Lia said: The reason of the rebbbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

What is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, lulab needs a benediction all seven days. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah applies both nights and days, lulab applies only during daytime. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? Sukkah will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end.

What is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, lulab needs a benediction all seven days. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah applies both nights and days, lulab applies only during daytime. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? Sukkah will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end.

What is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, lulab needs a benediction all seven days. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah applies both nights and days, lulab applies only during daytime. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? Sukkah will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end.

What is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah does not need a benediction after the first night of the holiday, lulab needs a benediction all seven days. Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting and saying, what is the difference between sukkah and lulab? Sukkah applies both nights and days, lulab applies only during daytime. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner objected: But the study of Torah applies by night as by day? How is this? Sukkah will end; the study of Torah, it is impossible that it should ever end.

Rebbi Ismael stated: (Ex. 15:2) “This is my God and I will glorify Him!” Is it possible for a human to glorify his God? Rather I shall appear beautiful before Him with religious articles. I shall make before Him a beautiful lulab, a beautiful sukkah, a beautiful shofar, beautiful ẓiẓit, beautiful tefillin. Abba Shaul said, I want to be like Him! Just as He is merciful and gracious, so you also should be merciful and gracious!

HALAKHAH: “Ten saplings, etc.“Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi La, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The “willow” is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Abba Shaul, since Abba Shaul said the willow is a word of the Torah (Lev. 23:40): “Brook willows,” two. One willow for the lulab, the other willow for the Temple. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, willow and pouring of water are practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. This is against Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said the pouring of water is a word of the Torah. On the second day, (Num. 29:19) “and their libations.” On the sixth day, (Num. 29:31) “and its libations.” On the seventh day, (Num. 29:33) “and its rules.” מ י מ spells “water”. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, why does one now plough because of old trees? He said to him, when the practice was established it was given so that when they desired to plough they might plough.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

Rebbi Aqiba says an unripe cedrat is not a fruit, but the Sages say it is a fruit. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It follows that Rebbi Simeon follows the argument of his teacher, Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said it is not a fruit, so Rebbi Simeon said it is not a fruit. Rebbi Yasa said, is everything usable for lulab subject to tithes and everything not usable for lulab not subject to tithes? Did they not object, there is the spotted one, there is one that grew in a form or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes! It is reasonable [to hold that] Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba but Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon agrees with Rebbi Aqiba since it is written (Lev. 23:40) “fruit” and it is not a fruit. Rebbi Aqiba does not agree with Rebbi Simeon, there is the spotted one, one that grew in a form, or one shaped like a ball; it is not usable for lulab but subject to tithes.

MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place, or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you, no qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat from you; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you; he is forbidden. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qônām that I shall not make a sukkah, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries, as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since you say, one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; in things between him and the Omnipresent, one does not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent. But since in matters between him and his father and mother one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; similarly, in things between him and the Omnipresent should one not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent? What is the honor of the Omnipresent? For example, that I shall not make a tabernacle, that I shall not take a lulab, that I shall not put on phylacteries. One understands that he does it for his own benefit. As in the following: “If you are just, what are you giving Him?” “If you sinned, what would you do to Him?” Rebbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. What is the reason? “In yourself there shall be no alien force; do not bow down to a foreign god.”

“What is a positive commandment that is activated by time? For example sukkah, and shofar, and lulab, and tefillin. What is a positive commandment that is not activated by time? For example lost articles, sending away the [mother from the] nest, railing, and ẓiẓit. Rebbi Simeon exempts women from ẓiẓit because it is a positive commandment activated by time.” Rebbi Simeon said to them: Do you not agree with me that it is a positive commandment activated by time? Because a nightgown is exempt from ẓiẓit. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of the rebbis is that, if a garment is designated both for daytime and for night, it needs ẓiẓit.

they read it then. In accord with whose opinion is this ? That of the Tanna of the teaching : If one rises early to set out on a journey, they may bring him a Shofar which he blows, a Lulab which he shakes, a Megillah in which he reads ; and when the time arrives for reading the Shema' he reads it. If he rose early to sit in a travelling coach or ship, he may say the Tefillah, and when the time arrives for reading the Shema' he reads it.

Gemara. Rava stated: A lulav may be bound even with sinew [of a palm], or even with [strips of] the roots of the date-palm. Rava further stated: What is the reason of R. Judah? He is of the opinion that the lulab must be bound so that if one uses another species, the wreath would contain five species.

GEMARA. Is not this obvious? I might have said that, since a woman does not come under the obligation [of lulab] she may not take it, therefore he informs us [that she may].

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

The question was raised: Did R. Eliezer derive his view from the lulab, or from the libation of water? If he derived it from the lulab, then just as the lulab comes into use on (the morning of) the first day of Tabernacles, so also the mentioning of the rain should begin on that day. Or, perhaps, did he derive it from the libation of water, and then, just as the latter may take place on the evening preceding the first day, so the mentioning of the rain will begin on that evening [for it has been taught (Temurah, 14a): The words: "And their meal offering and their drink offering" (Num., 29.18) should be interpreted to mean that drink offerings may be brought in the evening and even at a subsequent time]? Come and listen: R. Abahu said: R. Eliezer derived his view from the lulab exclusively.

Some say that R. Abahu had a tradition for this statement; others maintain that he had a Baraita as his authority. What Baraita? The Baraita reads as follows: At what time should one begin to mention the Power of rain? R. Eliezer says: At the time one begins to wave the lulab; R. Joshua says: At the time when it is discarded. Said R. Eliezer: Inasmuch as the Four Species are used only in order to obtain the favor of God that He may give rain, one must argue that just as these four species cannot exist without water, so the world cannot exist without rain. R. Joshua replied: Is not rain during the feast of Tabernacles but the sign of divine displeasure? Said R. Eliezer, I did not say that one should pray for rain, but that one should make mention of it. For just as one mentions the resurrection of the dead throughout the year, although it is to take place at a particular time only, so one may mention also the rain during the whole year, although it is to fall only at a given time, and hence if one actually desires to mention it throughout the year, he may do so.

It was said above: R. Judah says in the name of R. Joshua. Which R. Joshua is here meant? Is it R. Joshua (b. Hananiah) who is named above in our Mishnah? If so, you will meet with the difficulty that he said: (we begin to mention the rain) "on the last day of the festival;" or is it the R. Joshua who is named above in the Baraita? He said: (we begin to mention rain) "at the time the lulab is discarded." Moreover, when we read in our Mishnah: R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark on the concluding day of the festival, the last should mention the rain, but the first one should not, the question again arises which Ben Bathyra is there referred to? Is it R. Judah b. Bathyra? He said (in the Baraita): "We begin to mention the rain on the second day of the festival!" Said R. Naḥman b. Isaac: Both designations, "R. Joshua" and "Ben Bathyra," refer to R. Joshua b. Bathyra, for he was sometimes quoted by the name of his father and sometimes by his own name. What was the reason therefor?—In the first form he was quoted before he had been ordained and in the latter after his ordination.

One should not pray for rain until shortly before the season of rain. The Amoraim understood that praying for rain and mentioning it are the same thing. Who then is the author of this statement? Raba said, its author can only be R. Joshua, who said (above p. 8) that one is to mention the rain from the time when "the lulab is put away." 'Abbayi, however, replied to Raba, you might just as well say that the author of that statement is R. Eliezer, for praying for rain is one thing and mentioning it is another.