lulav

And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah; But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: Our Rabbis have taught: A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.

And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah; But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: Our Rabbis have taught: A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.

And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah; But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: Our Rabbis have taught: A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.

And if you want you can say: If we held that the lulav needs binding all would have agreed that we deduce [the laws of] lulav from [those of] Sukkah; But they disagree here on whether the lulav needs binding, and concerning the dispute of the following tannaim: Our Rabbis have taught: A lulav, whether [the other prescribed species were] bound with it or not, is valid. R. Judah says: If it is bound [with the others] it is valid; if it is unbound, it is invalid.

Who is it that taught that which our Rabbis have taught: It is a mitzvah to bind the lulav, but [even] if he did not bind it, it is valid? Now who is it? ? If it is R. Judah, why is it valid if he did not bind it? If it is the rabbis, then what mitzvah did he perform? It is in fact the rabbis, and it is a mitzvah because of "This is my God and I will glorify Him."

Abba Shaul says: "willows" [in the plural means] two, one for the lulav and one for the Temple.

R. Hisda said: Since the destruction of the Temple the following three things have had their names interchanged: [What was called] halafta [is now called] aravta, and what was called aravta, is now called halafta. What is the practical significance of this? With regard to the lulav.

Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: It may be bound even with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: It happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: But they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].

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.

Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot"—a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav. And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species?

Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot"—a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav. And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species?

Rabbah further stated: One should not thrust the lulav through the bound hoshanna lest some leaves are detached and form an interposition. But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.

Rabbah further stated: One should not shear the lulav while it is in the hoshanna, since loose leaves might remain and form an interposition. But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.

Rabbah further stated, The lulav [must be held] in the right hand and the etrog in the left. What is the reason? This one is three commandments and this is only one. R. Yirmiyah asked of R. Zerika: Why do we bless only "To take the lulav"? Since it is higher than the others. Let him lift up the etrog and recite the blessing over it? He said to him: Since as a species it naturally is higher than the others.

Rabbah further stated, The lulav [must be held] in the right hand and the etrog in the left. What is the reason? This one is three commandments and this is only one. R. Yirmiyah asked of R. Zerika: Why do we bless only "To take the lulav"? Since it is higher than the others. Let him lift up the etrog and recite the blessing over it? He said to him: Since as a species it naturally is higher than the others.

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.”

GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says, And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?

GEMARA. Waving? Who mentioned this ? It refers to there: A lulav which has a length of three handbreadths, sufficient to wave with it, is valid, and our mishnah says, And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]?

even the ancillary parts of a commandment prevent calamities; for the waving is obviously a ancillary part of the commandment, and yet it stops harmful winds and harmful dews. And Rava said: And so too with the lulav. R. Aha b. Yaakov used to wave it to and fro, saying: This is an arrow in the eye of Satan This, however, is not a proper thing [to do] since it might cause him to incite him.

One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.

One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.

One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.

R. Zera said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps it is a mitzvah to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulav] but if he did not interrupt it he should take [the lulav] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulav? Rather said R. Zera: [The difficulty] is indeed as we said previously; and with regard to your difficulty one is from the Torah and one is from the rabbis, here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when [the obligation of taking the lulav on] which is only Rabbinical.

R. Zera said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps it is a mitzvah to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulav] but if he did not interrupt it he should take [the lulav] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulav? Rather said R. Zera: [The difficulty] is indeed as we said previously; and with regard to your difficulty one is from the Torah and one is from the rabbis, here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when [the obligation of taking the lulav on] which is only Rabbinical.

R. Zera said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps it is a mitzvah to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulav] but if he did not interrupt it he should take [the lulav] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulav? Rather said R. Zera: [The difficulty] is indeed as we said previously; and with regard to your difficulty one is from the Torah and one is from the rabbis, here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when [the obligation of taking the lulav on] which is only Rabbinical.

R. Zera said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps it is a mitzvah to interrupt [one's meal for the purpose of taking the lulav] but if he did not interrupt it he should take [the lulav] at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for the taking of the lulav? Rather said R. Zera: [The difficulty] is indeed as we said previously; and with regard to your difficulty one is from the Torah and one is from the rabbis, here we are dealing with the second day of the Festival when [the obligation of taking the lulav on] which is only Rabbinical.

And this can also be learned from a precise reading of the mishnah which teaches: One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take. If you thought this referred to the first day of the Festival, is it permitted [to travel on that day]?

One who purchases a lulav from his fellow in the sabbatical year, [the latter] should give him the etrog as a gift, since one is not permitted to purchase it in the sabbatical year.

GEMARA. What happens if he doesn't want to give it to him as a gift? R. Huna said: He should include the price of the etrog in that of the lulav. But why should he not pay him directly?

But if so, the lulav also [should not be bought]? The lulav is a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh. But if so, might not the etrog also a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh? In the case of the etrog we compute from the time of its gathering.

But if so, the lulav also [should not be bought]? The lulav is a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh. But if so, might not the etrog also a product of the sixth year which entered the seventh? In the case of the etrog we compute from the time of its gathering.

The reason then for the [permission to purchase a] lulav is that it is [the product of] the sixth year which entered the seventh, but if it were of the Sabbatical Year it would have been sacred? But why? ... Is it not just wood, and wood does not possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, as it has been taught: ... Leaves of reeds and leaves of the vine which have been heaped up to store them upon a field: if they were gathered for [animal] food, they possess the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year, but if they were gathered for firewood, they do have not the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year.

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for even days in memory of the Temple,

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for even days in memory of the Temple,

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

1) If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. 2) The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” 3) But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. 4) Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act].

From where do we know this? From what our Rabbis have taught, "And you shall take" [implying] that there should be a "taking" in the hand of each individual. For yourself" implies that it should be yours, excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav]. From this verse the Sages deduced that one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of his fellow, unless the latter gave it to him as a gift.

From where do we know this? From what our Rabbis have taught, "And you shall take" [implying] that there should be a "taking" in the hand of each individual. For yourself" implies that it should be yours, excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav]. From this verse the Sages deduced that one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of his fellow, unless the latter gave it to him as a gift.

And it once happened that R. Gamaliel, R. Joshua, R. Elazar b. Azariah and R. Akiva were travelling on a ship and only R. Gamaliel had a lulav which he had bought for one thousand zuz. R. Gamaliel took it and fulfilled his obligation with it; then he gave it as a gift to R. Joshua who and gave it as a gift to R. Elazar b. Azariah who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it, and gave it as a gift to R. Akiva who took it, fulfilled his obligation with it and then returned it to R. Gamaliel.

Mar bar Amemar said to R. Ashi: My father used to recite his prayers [while holding the lulav]. They objected: One should not hold his tefillin in his hand or a Torah scroll in his bosom and pray, nor should he urinate [while wearing them], or doze or sleep.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

It has been taught: R. Elazar b. Zadok stated: This was the custom of the men of Jerusalem. When a man left his house he carried his lulav in his hand; when he went to the synagogue his lulav was in his hand, when he read the Shema and prayed his lulav was still in his hand, but when he read Torah or recited the priestly benediction he would lay it on the ground. If he went to visit the sick or to comfort mourners, he would go with his lulav in his hand, but when he entered the Bet Midrash, he would send his lulav by the hand of his son, his slave or his messenger.

R. Yose says: If the first day of the festival [fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence of a religious act]. Abaye said:

1) A woman may receive [a lulav] from her son or from her husband and put it back in water on Shabbat. 2) Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat they may be put it back [into the water in which they were previously kept], on a festival day [water] may be added, and on the intermediate days [of the festival the water] may also be changed.

3) A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav.

3) A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav.

A minor who knows how to shake the [lulav]. Our Rabbis taught, A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is subject to the obligation of the lulav; [if he knows how] to wrap himself [with a tallit] he is subject to the obligation of tzitzit; [if he knows how] to look after tefillin, his father must buy tefillin for him; if he is able to speak, his father must teach him Torah and the reading of the Shema.

A minor who knows how to shake the [lulav]. Our Rabbis taught, A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is subject to the obligation of the lulav; [if he knows how] to wrap himself [with a tallit] he is subject to the obligation of tzitzit; [if he knows how] to look after tefillin, his father must buy tefillin for him; if he is able to speak, his father must teach him Torah and the reading of the Shema.

A minor who knows how to shake the [lulav]. Our Rabbis taught, A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is subject to the obligation of the lulav; [if he knows how] to wrap himself [with a tallit] he is subject to the obligation of tzitzit; [if he knows how] to look after tefillin, his father must buy tefillin for him; if he is able to speak, his father must teach him Torah and the reading of the Shema.

May we return to you, chapter "A Stolen Lulav."

1) [The rituals of] the lulav and the aravah are for six or seven [days]; 2) The Hallel and the rejoicing are for eight [days]; 3) The sukkah and the water libation are for seven [days]; 4) The flute is for five or six [days].

5) “The lulav for seven.” How so? a) If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, the lulav [is taken for] seven days; on any other day, [it is taken] for six.

5) “The lulav for seven.” How so? a) If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, the lulav [is taken for] seven days; on any other day, [it is taken] for six.

7) The mitzvah of the lulav—how was it carried out? 8) If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, and the attendants would receive them and arrange them on top of the portico, and the elders laid theirs in the chamber. And they would teach the people to say, “Whoever gets my lulav in his hand, let it be his as a gift.”

7) The mitzvah of the lulav—how was it carried out? 8) If the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, and the attendants would receive them and arrange them on top of the portico, and the elders laid theirs in the chamber. And they would teach the people to say, “Whoever gets my lulav in his hand, let it be his as a gift.”

9) The next day they got up early, and came [to the Temple Mount] and the attendants threw down [their lulavim] before them, and they snatched at them, and so they used to come to blows with one another. 10) When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home.

GEMARA. But why [should it be forbidden to take the lulav on Shabbat]? It involves only a mere movement, why then should it not override the Shabbat? Rabbah said: It is a restrictive decree, lest one take [the lulav] in his hand and go to an expert in order to learn [how to wave it]

GEMARA. But why [should it be forbidden to take the lulav on Shabbat]? It involves only a mere movement, why then should it not override the Shabbat? Rabbah said: It is a restrictive decree, lest one take [the lulav] in his hand and go to an expert in order to learn [how to wave it]

Rather the first day, since the obligation to take the lulav is from the Torah even in the provinces the rabbis did not decree, but with regard to the other days for which there is no obligation from the Torah to take the lulav in the provinces, the Rabbis did decree.

Rather the first day, since the obligation to take the lulav is from the Torah even in the provinces the rabbis did not decree, but with regard to the other days for which there is no obligation from the Torah to take the lulav in the provinces, the Rabbis did decree.

From where do we derive that [the taking of the lulav] is Torah obligation in the Provinces? As it has been taught: "And you shall take" that the lulav must be taken in the hand by everyone of you; "for yourself" that it must be yours, thus excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav];

From where do we derive that [the taking of the lulav] is Torah obligation in the Provinces? As it has been taught: "And you shall take" that the lulav must be taken in the hand by everyone of you; "for yourself" that it must be yours, thus excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav];

From where do we derive that [the taking of the lulav] is Torah obligation in the Provinces? As it has been taught: "And you shall take" that the lulav must be taken in the hand by everyone of you; "for yourself" that it must be yours, thus excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav];

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]? From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights. You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights.

The aravah for seven days. How so? Why does the [ritual of the] aravah on the seventh day override Shabbat? R. Yohanan said: In order to publicize the fact that it is a [commandment] of the Torah. But if so, let the lulav also override Shabbat in order to publicize the fact that it is a from the Torah?

In the case of lulav there is a restrictive enactment on account of the reason of Rabbah. But if so, let us make the same restrictive enactment with regard to the aravah also? In the case of the aravah the agents of the Bet Din would bring it but the lulav is entrusted to everyone.

In the case of lulav there is a restrictive enactment on account of the reason of Rabbah. But if so, let us make the same restrictive enactment with regard to the aravah also? In the case of the aravah the agents of the Bet Din would bring it but the lulav is entrusted to everyone.

But if so, ought it not override [the Shabbat] on any day? [If that were done] people would come to hold the lulav in light esteem. Let it [the aravah] override [Shabbat] on the first day of the Festival? It will not be clear [that it is the aravah that overrides Shabbat, for] people might say that it is the lulav which overrides it.

But if so, ought it not override [the Shabbat] on any day? [If that were done] people would come to hold the lulav in light esteem. Let it [the aravah] override [Shabbat] on the first day of the Festival? It will not be clear [that it is the aravah that overrides Shabbat, for] people might say that it is the lulav which overrides it.

Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.

Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.

Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken? What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah? No, with the lulav. But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha ... [that they circled] with the aravah? He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav. It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav. Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah. And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah....

Rava said to R. Yitzchak the son of Rabbah b. bar Hana: O Son of the Torah, come and I will tell you an excellent statement which your father made. With reference to what we have learned: Every day they circled the altar once, and on that day they circled it seven times, thus said your father in the name of R. Eleazar: with the lulav.

He raised an objection against him: The lulav overrides Shabbat on the first day, and the aravah on the last day. On time the seventh day of the [ritual of the] aravah fell on Shabbat, and they brought saplings of aravot on the eve of Shabbat and placed them in the courtyard of the Temple. The Boethusians discovered them and took them and hid them under some stones.

Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?

Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?

Abaye said to Rabbah: Why in the case of the lulav do we perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple, whereas in the case of the aravah we do not perform the ritual for seven days in memory of the Temple? He answered him: Since one fulfils the obligation [of taking the aravah] with the aravah on the lulav. He said to him: But that one he does on account of the lulav? And if you will answer that one first raises it once and then raises it again, is it not a daily occurrence that we do not do so?

R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav which is a Torah commandment we perform the ceremony for seven days in memory of the Temple in the case of the aravah which is only a rabbinic commandment, we do not perform the ceremony for seven days in memory of the Temple.

According to whom? If you will say, According to Abba Shaul,did he not say: It is written, “willows of the brook” implying two, one referring to the [aravah in the] lulav and the other to [the aravah for use in] the Temple? If you will say it is according to the rabbis, did they not have it as an accepted tradition, since R. Assi said in the name of R. Yohanan who said it in the name of R. Nehunya of the Valley of Beth Hovartan: The laws of the ten plants, the aravah and water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.

Rather, R. Zevid said in the name of Rava: In the case of the lulav, which has its Torah origin when performed in the provinces, we perform it for seven days in memory of the Temple; in the case of the rite of the aravah, which has no Torah origin for its performance in the Provinces, we do not perform it for seven days in commemoration of the Temple. Resh Lakish said:

R. Ami said: The aravah must have a minimum size, it must be taken separately only, and one does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav. Since the Master said: It must be taken separately only is it not obvious that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav?

R. Ami said: The aravah must have a minimum size, it must be taken separately only, and one does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav. Since the Master said: It must be taken separately only is it not obvious that one cannot fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav?

What might I have said? That that applies only where one does not lift [the lulav] a second time, but not where one does lift it a second time [he would fulfill his obligation], therefore he teaches us that it is not so. R. Hisda said in the name of R. Yitzchak: One may fulfill his obligation with the aravah in the lulav.