mitzvah

From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter [their houses] in order to eat their terumah until the end of the first watch, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: until midnight. Rabban Gamaliel says: until dawn. Once it happened that his sons came home [late] from a wedding feast and they said to him: we have not yet recited the [evening] Shema. He said to them: if it is not yet dawn you are still obligated to recite. And not in respect to this alone did they so decide, but wherever the sages say “until midnight,” the mitzvah may be performed until dawn. The burning of the fat and the pieces may be performed till dawn. Similarly, all [the offerings] that are to be eaten within one day may be eaten till dawn. Why then did the sages say “until midnight”? In order to keep a man far from transgression.

If one was reading in the Torah [the section of the Shema] and the time for its recital arrived, if he directed his heart [to fulfill the mitzvah] he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. In the breaks [between sections] one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting; in the middle [of a section] one may give greeting out of fear and return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: in the middle one may give greeting out of fear and return it out of respect, in the breaks one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting to anyone.

If one makes his sukkah between trees, so that the trees form its walls, it is valid. Those who are agents to perform a mitzvah are exempt from [the obligations of] sukkah. People who are sick and their attendants are exempt from [the obligations of] sukkah. One may eat and drink casually outside the sukkah.

The mitzvah of the lulav how was it carried out? 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.” 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. When the court saw that they reached a state of danger, they instituted that each man should take [his lulav] in his own home.

The mitzvah of the aravah how was it [performed]? There was a place below Jerusalem called Moza. They went down there and gathered tall branches of aravot and then they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the altar. They then sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [staccato blast] and again a teki’ah. Every day they went round the altar once, saying, “O Lord, save us, O Lord, make us prosper” (Psalms 118:. Rabbi Judah says: “Ani vaho, save us.” On that day they went round the altar seven times. When they departed, what did they say? “O altar, beauty is to you! O altar, beauty is to you!” Rabbi Eliezer said: [they would say,] “To the Lord and to you, O altar, to the Lord and to you, O altar.”

Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on Yom Tov. For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor slap [thighs], nor dance. For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consummate a levirate marriage]. And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes. All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat except for the preparation of food alone.

Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on Yom Tov. For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor slap [thighs], nor dance. For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consummate a levirate marriage]. And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes. All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat except for the preparation of food alone.

On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them. A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets.

On Hanukkah they read the section of the princes (Numbers. On Purim, “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8). On Rosh Hodesh, “And on the first of your months” (Numbers 28:11). On Maamadot, the account of the creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3). On fast days, the blessings and curses (Leviticus 26:3 ff and Deuteronomy. They do not interrupt while reading the curses, but rather one reads them all. On Monday and Thursday and on Shabbat at minhah they read according to the regular order and this does not count as part of the reading [for the succeeding Shabbat]. As it says, “And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44) it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.

Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.

The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from [what grows] near by. If [the crop] near Jerusalem was not yet ripe, it could be brought from any place. It once happened that the omer was brought from Gagot Zerifin and the two loaves from the plain of En Soker.

They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.

One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitzvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.

One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitzvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.

One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitzvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.

One may send to a non-Jew a thigh in which the sciatic nerve has not been removed, because its place is known. When a person removes the sciatic nerve he must remove all of it. Rabbi Judah says: only so much as is necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of removing it.

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

If he does not wish to redeem it, he breaks its neck from behind with a large knife and buries it. The mitzvah of redemption takes priority over the miztzah of breaking its neck, for it says: “And if you don’t redeem it, you must break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The mitzvah of designation takes priority over the mitzvah of redemption, for it says: “Who has betrothed her to himself, he must let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8). The mitzvah of yibbum is prior to the mitzvah of halitzah. [This was so] at first when they intended to carry out the mitzvah. But now that they do not intend to carry out the mitzvah, the [rabbis] have said: the mitzvah of halitzah takes priority over the mitzvah of yibbum. The mitzvah of redemption [of an unclean animal whose value has been dedicated to the Temple] is upon the owner. He takes priority over any other man, for it says: “If it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:27).

The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four. The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon (lavendula) nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name.

The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four. The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon (lavendula) nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name.

[The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled. He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling. He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement. If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.

The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Judah says: each stalk should have three buds. Hyssop that consists of a growth of three stalks should be cut apart and then bound together. If the stalks were cut apart but were not bound together, or if they were bound together but were not cut apart, or if they were neither cut apart nor bound together, they are nevertheless valid. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

If one was sprinkling from a window in a public domain and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is exempt; But if the sprinkling was done from a private window and [a man who was thus sprinkled upon] entered the sanctuary, and the water was found to be invalid, he is liable. A high priest, however, is exempt, whether the sprinkling upon him was done from a private window or from one in a public domain, for a high priest is never liable for entering the sanctuary. [The people] used to slip before a certain window in a public domain, and [nevertheless] they trod [on that spot] and did not refrain [from entering the sanctuary], because they said that hatat waters whose mitzvah had been performed do not defile.

Mikvaot can be joined together [if their connection is as big] as the tube of a water-skin in thickness and in space, in which two fingers can be fully turned round. If there is a doubt [whether it is as big] as the tube of a water skin or not, it is invalid, because [this is a mitzvah] from the Torah. The same applies also to the olive's bulk of a corpse and the olive's bulk of carrion and the lentil's bulk of a sheretz. Anything which remains in [the space measuring] the tube of a water-skin lessens [its measure]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if it is any water creature whatsoever, [the mikvaot] remain clean.

With regard to the Sukkah, since it is a toraitic mitzvah, it taught that it was invalid; with regard to [the cross-beam over] an alley, since it is only derabanan, a remedy is given.

And, if you wish, you may say that even with a toraitic mitzvah a remedy may be given, but with regard to the sukkah, since there are many rules about it, it was briefly stated, invalid. [While in the case of a cross-beam over] an alley, since it has only one rule, it taught a remedy.

He answered him: This is what I mean to tell you: Up to twenty cubits, which a man makes his temporary home, even if he makes it permanent,he has fulfilled his mitzvah; [but in one] higher than twenty cubits, such as a man makes his permanent home, even if he makes it temporary, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

Rabi Yehudah says: ‘It happened with Queen Heloni in Lud that her Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and spoke not a word to her [in disagreement]’. They [the Chachamim] said to him: Is this proof? She was a women, and therefor free from the [mitzvah] of Sukkah He answered them: ‘Did she not have seven sons? And besides, ... she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Chachamim’.

Thus he said to them: If you will answer [with regard to her seven sons] that her sons were minors, and minors are free from [the mitzvah of] the sukkah, since [however] she had seven, there must have been at least one who was [old enough] not to be dependent on his mother;

R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna once came to the house of the exilarch, And R. Nahman sheltered them in a Sukkah whose decorations were separated four handbreadths [from the skhakh]. They were silent and they didn't say a word to him. He said to them, ‘Have our rabbis retracted their teaching’? They answered him: We are messengers performing a mitzvah, and [therefore] we are free from the obligation of the Sukkah.

According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid? If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them. and if it is according to the Sages, why is it ‘mitzvah'? It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.

According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid? If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them. and if it is according to the Sages, why is it ‘mitzvah'? It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.

According to whom is that which has been taught: It is a mitzvah to tie [the components of] the lulav together, but if one did not tie them, it is [still] valid? If it is according to R. Judah, why is it valid if one does not tie them. and if it is according to the Sages, why is it ‘mitzvah'? It is in fact according to the Rabbis, but [it is a mitzvah] since it is written, "This is my God and I will adorn Him" (Exodus 15:2) be adorned before Him in [the due performance of] religious duties.

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

Mishnah: Messengers to do a mitzvah are exempt from sukkah. The sick and their attendants are exempt from sukkah. Non-established [meals] are eaten and drunk outside of the sukkah.

Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.

What is the implication? Rav Huna said: Like "road." Just as "road" implies a non-obligatory activity, so too for all non-obligatory activities, excluding this one who is involved in a mitzvah.

Are we not discussing one who is traveling to perform a mizvah, and the Merciful One said that he should read it? If so, then let the verse say "in sitting and in going". What is [the reason for] "in your sitting and in your going?" One who is going for himself is obligated. This one traveling to perform a mitzvah is exempt.

Here, the preoccupation is preoccupation in a mitzvah. There, the preoccupation is non-obligatory preoccupation.

And one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah comes out from here? It comes from there, as it is taught in a Baraita: (Numbers 9:6) "There were people that were impure by the flesh of man..." Those people, who were they? They were the carriers of Yosef's body, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili.

And one who is involved in a mitzvah is exempt from a mitzvah comes out from here? It comes from there, as it is taught in a Baraita: (Numbers 9:6) "There were people that were impure by the flesh of man..." Those people, who were they? They were the carriers of Yosef's body, the words of Rabbi Yose HaGlili.

It has been taught: R. Hanania b. Akavya said: Scribes writing [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot, their agents and their agents’ agents, and all who are engaged in holy work including sellers of blue [for tzitzit] are exempt from the obligation of prayer and tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah, to confirm the words of R. Yose the Galilean, for R. Yose the Galilean used to say: He who is occupied with the performance of a mitzvah is [at that time] exempt from other mitzvot

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah]. Our Rabbis taught, The sick one spoken of here is not [only] one who sick and is in danger, but also one who is sick but not in danger, even one who has a pain in his eye or a pain in his head. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel said: On one occasion I had a pain in my eye in Caesarea and R. Yose Berebi permitted me and my attendants to sleep outside the Sukkah.

Rava follows his own reasoning, since Rava said: One who is in discomfort is exempt from the Sukkah. But have we not learned: Those who are sick and their attendants [are exempt from the mitzvah of the sukkah] One who is sick but not one who is merely in discomfort? I will explain: A sick person and his attendants are exempt, whereas he who is in discomfort is exempt, but not his attendants.

He also asked him: [A man] such as I who has two wives, one in Tiberias and one in Tzippori, and two sukkahs, one in Tiberias and one in Tzippori, may I go from one Sukkah to the other and thus be free from my obligation? He answered him, No! For I say that he who goes from one Sukkah to another annuls the mitzvah of the first.

(Mishnah:) [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or of a wayward city is invalid. (Gemara:) And that of a worshipped tree is invalid? But didn't Rava say, "A Lulav of idol worship should not be taken [for the Mitzvah], but if it was taken, it is valid [as opposed to the Mishnah's ruling]?"

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."

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."

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."

Rabbah further stated: It is forbidden to smell a hadas [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment, but it is permitted to smell an etrog [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment. What is the reason? — The hadas since it is used for its smell, when he sets it aside [for the mitzvah] it is set aside from use for its fragrance. The etrog, however, since it is used as food, when he sets it aside [for the mitzvah] it is set aside [only] from [use as] food.

Rabbah further stated: It is forbidden to smell a hadas [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment, but it is permitted to smell an etrog [used] for the [fulfilment of the] commandment. What is the reason? — The hadas since it is used for its smell, when he sets it aside [for the mitzvah] it is set aside from use for its fragrance. The etrog, however, since it is used as food, when he sets it aside [for the mitzvah] it is set aside [only] from [use as] food.

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.

One can deduce important halakhot from the custom of [reciting the] Hallel. 1) Since he says Halleluyah and they respond Halleluyah it may be inferred that it is a mitzvah to answer Halleluyah

2) Since he says: "Praise Him, servants of the Lord" (Psalms 113:1) and they respond Halleluyah, it may be deduced that if an adult recites [the Hallel] for one the latter responds Halleluyah. 3) Since he says: "Give thanks to the Lord" (Psalms 118), and they respond, "Give thanks unto the Lord," it may be inferred that it is a mitzvah to respond with the beginning of sections. (So it was also stated; R. Hanan b. Raba ruled: It is a mitzvah to respond with the beginning of the sections.)

2) Since he says: "Praise Him, servants of the Lord" (Psalms 113:1) and they respond Halleluyah, it may be deduced that if an adult recites [the Hallel] for one the latter responds Halleluyah. 3) Since he says: "Give thanks to the Lord" (Psalms 118), and they respond, "Give thanks unto the Lord," it may be inferred that it is a mitzvah to respond with the beginning of sections. (So it was also stated; R. Hanan b. Raba ruled: It is a mitzvah to respond with the beginning of the sections.)

[Where the custom is] to bless, he should bless. Abaye said: This was taught only with regard to after [the Hallel], but before, it is a mitzvah to bless, for Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: For all commandments one blesses before (over) their performance. And from where do we know that the word "over" means before? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: As it is written, "Then Ahimaaz ran by the way of the plain and he overran (vayaavor) the Cushite" (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said from the following: "And he himself passed over (avar) before them" (Genesis 33:3). And if you wish, from the following: "And their king passed on before them (vayaavor), and the Lord at their head" (Micah 2:13).

Why did he need to mention that [R. Gamaliel] had bought it for one thousand zuz? In order to let you know how precious to them was the opportunity of fulfilling a mitzvah.

And Shmuel said about this: The same applies to a knife, a dish, a loaf of bread and money? In the latter cases he is not performing a mitzvah and, therefore, would worry over them but in the former one he is fulfilling a mitzvah and therefore he would not worry over it.

And Shmuel said about this: The same applies to a knife, a dish, a loaf of bread and money? In the latter cases he is not performing a mitzvah and, therefore, would worry over them but in the former one he is fulfilling a mitzvah and therefore he would not worry over it.

R. Huna said: R. Yose used to say: A bird [offered as] a burnt-offering that was found among other fowls and [the priest] thought that it was a bird sin-offering, and ate it, he is exempt. What does he teach us by this ruling? That one who errs in connection with a mitzvah is exempt? But this is the same [as the Mishnah]?

What might you have thought? There [in the mishnah] he is not liable when he errs in connection with a mitzvah, because he performs a mitzvah, but here where he erred in connection with a mitzvah but he does not perform another mitzvah, I might have said that he is liable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is exempt].

What might you have thought? There [in the mishnah] he is not liable when he errs in connection with a mitzvah, because he performs a mitzvah, but here where he erred in connection with a mitzvah but he does not perform another mitzvah, I might have said that he is liable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is exempt].

What might you have thought? There [in the mishnah] he is not liable when he errs in connection with a mitzvah, because he performs a mitzvah, but here where he erred in connection with a mitzvah but he does not perform another mitzvah, I might have said that he is liable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is exempt].

What might you have thought? There [in the mishnah] he is not liable when he errs in connection with a mitzvah, because he performs a mitzvah, but here where he erred in connection with a mitzvah but he does not perform another mitzvah, I might have said that he is liable, therefore he informs us [that even here he is exempt].

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.”

Let us then see to what it is more comparable. We should deduce a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day from a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day, and let no proof be adduced from something whose performance is only for one moment. Or take it another way: We might deduce a thing which is a mitzvah for future generations from something whose mitzvah is for future generations, but we will not deduce a proof from the preparations which were not for future generations.

Let us then see to what it is more comparable. We should deduce a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day from a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day, and let no proof be adduced from something whose performance is only for one moment. Or take it another way: We might deduce a thing which is a mitzvah for future generations from something whose mitzvah is for future generations, but we will not deduce a proof from the preparations which were not for future generations.

Kohanim with physical blemishes enter between the Sanctuary and the altar in order to fulfil the mitzvah of the aravah. Rabbi Yohanan to him: ... Who said so? ‘Who said so?’ id he not himself say so, 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 the water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai?

He rather meant this: Who said that [the mitzvah is fulfilled] by taking, perhaps it is fulfilled by standing [the aravah] up [next to the altar]? Who said that it may be done by priests with a blemish, perhaps it [may be done] only by unblemished priests?

The mitzvah of the lulav. How so? A tanna recited in front of R. Nahman: They arranged them upon the roof of the portico. He said to him:

The mitzvah of the aravah—how was it [performed]? 1) There was a place below Jerusalem called Moza. They went down there and gathered tall branches of aravot and then they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the altar. They then sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [staccato blast] and again a teki’ah. 2) Every day they went round the altar once, saying, “O Lord, save us, O Lord, make us prosper” (Psalms 118: 25). 3) Rabbi Judah says: “Ani vaho, save us.” 4) On that day they went round the altar seven times. 5) When they departed, what did they say? “O altar, beauty is to you! O altar, beauty is to you!” 6) Rabbi Eliezer said: [they would say,] “To the Lord and to you, O altar, to the Lord and to you, O altar.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: The mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days. But R. Joshua b. Levi said: The mitzvah of the lulav is for the first day only. From that point onward it is a mitzvah of the elders. And R. Yitzchak said: Every day it is a mitzvah of the elders, even the first. But have we not an established that on the first day it is a toraitic commandment? Say rather “except for the first day.” But if so, is this opinion not the same as that of R. Joshua b. Levi? — Say, “And so said R. Yitzchak.”

Rav also holds that the mitzvah of the lulav is for all seven days, f or R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in the name of Rav: One who lights the Hanukkah lamp must recite a blessing. R. Yirmiyah said: One who sees the Hanukkah lamp must recite the blessing. What blessing does one recite? Rav Judah said: On the first day the one who lights must recite three blessings and the one who sees it must recite two. From that day on the one who lights recites two blessings and the one who sees them only one.

The following dispute is based on the same principles] as the one between R. Yohanan and Resh Lakish. For it was stated: If one set apart seven etrogs for the seven days: Rav said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it immediately. R. Assi said: He may fulfil his obligation with each one and eat it the next day. What do they argue about? One Master holds that it is set apart for its mitzvah while the other holds that it is set apart for the whole day.

Gemara: It was stated: Rav Judah and R. Ina: One of them taught Shoevah and the other taught Hashuvah Mar Zutra said: He who teaches, Shoevah is not in error, and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error. He who teaches Shoevah is not in error, since it is written, “And you shall draw water in joy” (Isaiah 12:3) and he who teaches Hashuvah is not in error, since R. Nahman stated: It is an important mitzvah, dating from the very creation.

As between the study of the Torah and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence, since it has been taught: The study of the Torah may be neglected in order to take out a dead body or to bring a bride to the canopy. As between the Temple service and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence,

As between the study of the Torah and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence, since it has been taught: The study of the Torah may be neglected in order to take out a dead body or to bring a bride to the canopy. As between the Temple service and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence,

As between the study of the Torah and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence, since it has been taught: The study of the Torah may be neglected in order to take out a dead body or to bring a bride to the canopy. As between the Temple service and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence,

As between the study of the Torah and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence, since it has been taught: The study of the Torah may be neglected in order to take out a dead body or to bring a bride to the canopy. As between the Temple service and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence,

You should say, he should not defile himself. Shall I assume then that, just as he does not defile himself for his sister, so he should not defile himself for a met mitzvah? It says, “or for his sister,” it is for his sister that he may not defile himself, but he may defile himself for a met mitzvah.

You should say, he should not defile himself. Shall I assume then that, just as he does not defile himself for his sister, so he should not defile himself for a met mitzvah? It says, “or for his sister,” it is for his sister that he may not defile himself, but he may defile himself for a met mitzvah.

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.

R. Eliezer, who holds that Purim is observed in Adar I makes sense for there is a principle that one should never pass up an opportunity to perform a mitzvah. But why would R. Shimon b. Gamaliel hold that Purim is delayed until Adar II.