obligation

Rab washed his hands, read the Shema', put on the Tefillin and then offered his prayers. How could he act thus? For lo, there is a teaching : One who is digging a cavity for a corpse is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema', the Tefillah, Tefillin and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah ; but when the time of reading the Shema' arrives, he ascends, washes his hands, puts on the Tefillin, reads the Shema' and offers his prayers?

Here is a self-contradiction ! The first clause declares such a man to be exempt from the obligation, and the latter imposes the obligation upon him !

Here is a self-contradiction ! The first clause declares such a man to be exempt from the obligation, and the latter imposes the obligation upon him !

[not translated] Only in the matter of the reading of the Shema, which is an ordinance of the Torah, does R. Jose say that the man has not fulfilled his obligation ; but in the matter of Terumah [the deaf man would have fulfilled it], because it is a question of saying the benediction and the saying of the benediction is ordained by the Rabbis, and [the validity of the Terumah] is not dependent upon the benediction.

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about Terumah] is in accord with R. Jose, what, however, of the following ? There is a teaching: A man must not say the Grace after meals in his heart [inaudibly] ; but if he has done so, he has fulfilled his obligation. Whose view is this?

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the first night [of his marriage], and until the termination of the ensuing Sabbath, if he has not consummated the marriage. It happened that when Rabban Gamaliel married, he read the Shema' on the first night. His disciples said to him, "Our teacher ! thou hast taught us that a bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'." He replied, "I will not hearken to you to annul the kingdom of heaven from myself even a single hour."

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema' on the first night [of his marriage], and until the termination of the ensuing Sabbath, if he has not consummated the marriage. It happened that when Rabban Gamaliel married, he read the Shema' on the first night. His disciples said to him, "Our teacher ! thou hast taught us that a bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'." He replied, "I will not hearken to you to annul the kingdom of heaven from myself even a single hour."

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'. Our Rabbis have taught : "When thou sittest in thy house" (Deut. vi. 7) excludes one occupied with a religious duty ; "and when thou walkest by the way" (ibid.) excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

A bridegroom is exempt from the obligation of reading the Shema'. Our Rabbis have taught : "When thou sittest in thy house" (Deut. vi. 7) excludes one occupied with a religious duty ; "and when thou walkest by the way" (ibid.) excludes a bridegroom. Hence they say : He who takes a virgin to his house as wife is exempt ; but if he marry a widow, he has that obligation.

In that case, the All-merciful should have written "when walking." What means "when thou walkest"? Deduce from this, [it means] when walking for thine own purpose thou art under the obligation [to read the Shema'] ; but when it is the performance of a religious duty, thou art exempt.

Should the reason [of exemption] be on account of anxiety, then it ought to apply also to one whose ship has sunk at sea ! Why, then, does R. Abba b. Zabda declare in the name of Rab : A mourner is under the obligation to observe all the commandments mentioned in the Torah except Tefillin, because they are called an adornment; as it is said, "Bind thine adornment upon thee" (Ezek. xxiv. 17)?

The bearers of the bier and they who relieve them, and they who relieve these latter — such as are before the bier and such as are behind it — they who are before it, whose services will be required, are exempt ; but they who are behind it, whose services may still be required, are under the obligation. But both are exempt from the Tefillah.

As for those who stand in the row, the inner line is exempt, the outer line under the obligation. [not translated]

nor do others say Grace on his behalf or include him for Zimmun. He is likewise exempt from the reading of the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. On the Sabbath, however, he may recline at his meal, eat meat and drink wine, say Grace and arrange Zimmun, and others may say Grace on his behalf and include him for Zimmun ; and he is under the obligation of reading the Shema' and Tefillah, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Since he is under the obligation of these, he has obviously the obligation of them all !

nor do others say Grace on his behalf or include him for Zimmun. He is likewise exempt from the reading of the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. On the Sabbath, however, he may recline at his meal, eat meat and drink wine, say Grace and arrange Zimmun, and others may say Grace on his behalf and include him for Zimmun ; and he is under the obligation of reading the Shema' and Tefillah, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Since he is under the obligation of these, he has obviously the obligation of them all !

nor do others say Grace on his behalf or include him for Zimmun. He is likewise exempt from the reading of the Shema', from Tefillah, Tefillin, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. On the Sabbath, however, he may recline at his meal, eat meat and drink wine, say Grace and arrange Zimmun, and others may say Grace on his behalf and include him for Zimmun ; and he is under the obligation of reading the Shema' and Tefillah, and all the commandments mentioned in the Torah. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says : Since he is under the obligation of these, he has obviously the obligation of them all !

In this latter case, within four cubits [of the grave] it is forbidden, but beyond that limit, he is under the obligation ; for the teacher has said : A dead body affects four cubits with regard to the reading of the Shema'. But here [in the case of a mourner or watcher], even beyond the limit of four cubits he is exempt.

As for those who stand in the row, etc. Our Rabbis have taught : The row which looks upon the inner space is exempt [from reading the Shema']; but the row which does not look upon the inner space is under the obligation. R. Judah says : Those who come out of regard for the mourner are exempt ; but those who come on their own account are under the obligation.

As for those who stand in the row, etc. Our Rabbis have taught : The row which looks upon the inner space is exempt [from reading the Shema']; but the row which does not look upon the inner space is under the obligation. R. Judah says : Those who come out of regard for the mourner are exempt ; but those who come on their own account are under the obligation.

and from Tefillin; but they are under the obligation of Tefillah, Mezuzah and Grace after meals.

But they are under the obligation of Tefillah ; [obviously] because this is prayer! [not translated] But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "Evening and morning and at noonday" (Ps. lv. 18), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [the obligation is theirs].

But they are under the obligation of Tefillah ; [obviously] because this is prayer! [not translated] But thou mightest say that since it is written thereby, "Evening and morning and at noonday" (Ps. lv. 18), it is like a command the observance of which depends upon a certain point of time [and women are exempt]; therefore it informs us [the obligation is theirs].

Rab Adda b. Ahabah said : Women are under the obligation to recite the Sanctitication of the [Sabbath] day by the ordinance of the Torah. But why, since it is a command the observance of which is dependent upon a certain point of time, and women are exempt from all commands of this class ! Abbai answered : [The Sanctification by women] is a Rabbinical ordinance.

Rabina asked Raba : Is the recital of the Grace after meals by women an ordinance from the Torah or the Rabbis ? What is the point at issue ? It is whether they have the power of exempting others. It is quite right if thou sayest it is from the Torah ; then one who is enjoined by the Torah [to keep the observance] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Torah. But if thou sayest it is from the Rabbis, then it is not a compulsory observance, and one who is not under the obligation [to keep the observance] cannot exempt others. How is it then ?

Also, according to thy reason, is a minor under the obligation [to say Grace] ? Nay, with what case are we here dealing ? With one who, for instance, has eaten the minimum quantity ordained by the Rabbis [as making the saying of Grace necessary] ; and thus one who is enjoined by the Rabbis [to say Grace] comes and exempts one [whose observance is likewise commanded] by the Rabbis.

Now is this analogy correct? In the latter instance, he was at any rate under the obligation [to say the Tefillah] and the Rabbis did not trouble him out of regard for the Sabbath ; but in the former case, he had already said the prayer.

Only in the case of a roan with a running issue who has experienced emission does R. Judah grant exemption, because he was not originally under the obligation to bathe ; but [it may be argued] a man who is merely a Ba'al Keri he does compel [to have immersion].

a woman who experienced the menstrual flow during intercourse does not require immersion ; but a mere Ba'al Keri he does place under the obligation. Do not read He says Grace but He meditates.

Rab Hamma used to bathe on the day preceding Passover in order to exempt others from their obligation. But the Halakah is not in accord with their view.

GEMARA I quote against the Mishnah : The obligation [of the Shema'] is at sunrise, so as to unite the Ge'ullah and the Tefillah, and consequently one says the Tefillah in the day-time!

GEMARA R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna's view ! There is a difference between them, viz. : an individual who lives in a place where there is no local Congregation. The first Tanna holds that he is exempt [from the additional Tefillah], but R. Judah holds that he is under the obligation.

But this is self-contradictory ! Thou declarest, "He who pronounces the 'Division' in the Tefillah is more praiseworthy than he who says it over the cup of wine"; hence it is sufficient to say it in the Tefillah alone ! And then he teaches, "But if he says it in both, may blessings alight upon his head"; but since he has fulfilled his obligation with the former, he is exempt and [the latter] will be a superfluous benediction, and Rab has declared (another version : R. Simeon b. Lakish ; or R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish both declare) : Whoever utters a superfluous benediction commits a transgression because of [the injunction], "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exod. xx. 7) !

But it is possible to object : Why [is a benediction required with the fruit of] the vineyard ? Because there is the obligation of the gleanings.

Let, then, the instance of corn show [whether this point is material] ! But why [is a benediction required when partaking of food made from] corn ? Because there is the obligation of Hallah.

But why do "the seven species" [require a benediction]? Because they are under the obligation of first-fruits. And further, it is right [that a benediction is necessary] after partaking of them, but whence is it [that a benediction is necessary] before partaking of them ?

Let us say that this is like [the following controversy of] the Tannaim : If one sees bread and exclaims, "How fine is this bread ; blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has complied with the requirements of the law. If he sees a fig and exclaims, "How fine is this fig, blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has likewise complied. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : Whoever changes the form which the Sages assigned to the benedictions has not fulfilled his obligation. Let us say that Rab Huna is in agreement with R. Jose and R. Johanan with R. Meir!

MISHNAH Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. One who has eaten Demai, or the first tithe from which Terumah has been taken, or the second tithe or food belonging to the Sanctuary which had been redeemed, and the attendant who has eaten food the size of an olive and the Samaritan may be included for Zimmun.

There is, however, the Mishnaic teaching : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun — three, yes ; two, no !

Come and hear : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun and are not permitted to divide themselves up. [Hence it is to be inferred that] three can and two cannot make Zimmun !

It is different there, because they originally [being three in number] laid upon themselves the obligation.

because it is proper for them to be placed under the obligation of Zimmun from the outset of the meal.

It is different there, because from the outset [by being three] they placed upon themselves the obligation of Zimmun.

Abbai said : We have it by tradition that if two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. There is a teaching to the same effect : If two ate together, it is a meritorious act on their part to separate. Of what does it speak here ? When both of them are learned ; but if one is learned and the other illiterate, the former says Grace and the other fulfils his obligation [by listening].

Judah b. Maremar, Mar b. Rab Ashe and Rab Aha of Difti dined together, and there was not one amongst them who was more distinguished than his associates to say Grace for them. They sat on and said : The Mishnah teaches : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun. That must refer only to where there is an eminent man present, but where they are all equal, it is preferable to separate for the purpose of the Grace.

R. Joshua b. Levi also said : Nine [free] men and a slave may be reckoned together for a quorum. Against this is quoted : It happened that R. Eliezer went into a Synagogue and did not find ten there, so he freed his slave and with him completed the requisite number. Since he freed him he was [included], but had he not freed him, he would not ! Two had been required [to complete the quorum], so he freed one slave and fulfilled the obligation [of having ten] with the other.

Rab Abin asked Rab 'Amram, "Why is the Tefillah different from the Grace after meals in this respect?" He replied, "To me also that was a difficulty and I put the question to Rab Nahman, who told me, 'I have not heard the reason from the master, Samuel' ; but let us see : With regard to the Tefillah which is an obligation, we make him repeat it ; but with regard to the Grace after meals, where one can eat or not eat just as he pleases, we do not make him repeat it."

Rabbah Tospaah said : If three were dining together, and one finishing before the others says Grace for himself, they fulfil the obligation of Zimmun with him, but not he with them ; because the Zimmun cannot be retrospective.

GEMARA What does he wish to tell us? We have already learnt in the Mishnah : Three who ate together are under the obligation of Zimmun!

That is to say an Israelite may respond although he has not heard the whole of the benediction. But since he has not heard it, how can he fulfil his obligation?

Rab Judah was ill and recovered. Rab Hanna of Bagdat and other Rabbis went in to visit him. They said to him, "Blessed be the All-merciful Who has given thee back to us and has not given thee to the dust." He said to them, "You have exempted me from the obligation of thanksgiving."

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.

Mar Zutra said: The wording of this Mishnah also proves it, since is says: ‘Bais Shammai declare it pasul, and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher’, and if it were [as you say] it should read Bais Shammai say’, He has not fulfilled his obligation while Bais Hillel say that he has.

The fact is that they differ on two [points]. They differ on a small Sukkah and they differ on a large Sukkah. But the text is defective and is to be read like this: ‘He whose head and the greater part of his body were within the Sukkah and his table within the house, Bais Shammai say, He has not fulfilled his obligation and Bais Hillel says: He has. and if it is [able to contain only his head and the major part of his body alone, Beth Shammai says it's pasul and Bais Hillel says it's Kosher.’

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

[Tzitzit are] different, since Scripture says, "You shalt make for yourself twisted cords" (Deuteronomy 22:12): "for yourself" [means] for the specific purpose of your obligation But here also [Scripture says], "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself," "for yourself" for the specific purpose of your obligation

[Tzitzit are] different, since Scripture says, "You shalt make for yourself twisted cords" (Deuteronomy 22:12): "for yourself" [means] for the specific purpose of your obligation But here also [Scripture says], "The festival of Sukkot you shall make for yourself," "for yourself" for the specific purpose of your obligation

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.

Come and hear: He who sleeps in a canopied bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? Here we are dealing with a case of one that was ten [handbreadths] high.

It was objected: He who sleeps under the bed in a Sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation? But, surely, Samuel has explained that [this refers to] a bed ten [handbreadths] high.

R. Hisda [further] stated in the name of Ravina b. Shila: These "bitter herbs of the marsh" one can fulfill one's obligation with them on Pesah.

R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Herbs concerning which the sages said that a person fulfills with them his obligation on Pesah, convey ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and invalidate a sukkah in the same manner as an air space What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us.

Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

R. Shimon said: It happened that Tabi the slave etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon said: From the casual conversation of R. Gamaliel we have learned two things. We learned that slaves are free from the obligation of Sukkah, and we learned that he who sleeps under a bed [in a Sukkah] has not fulfilled his obligation.

[Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the pesah sacrifice had not yet come, but here where the time of the reading of the Shema had come, I would have said that he is obligated, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the later]. And if he had informed us of the case here only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve karet, but there where it involves karet, I would have said no. [Therefore the other was] necessary.

[Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the pesah sacrifice had not yet come, but here where the time of the reading of the Shema had come, I would have said that he is obligated, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the later]. And if he had informed us of the case here only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve karet, but there where it involves karet, I would have said no. [Therefore the other was] necessary.

R. Abba b. Zavda also said in the name of Rav, A mourner is obligated in the Sukkah Is not this obvious? What might I have said? Since R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav that he who is in discomfort is exempt from the obligation of Sukkah, this [one] is also in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort that comes on its own, but [the mourner] since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, he must settle his mind

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

The verse says, "At evening you shall eat matzah" (Exodus 12:18) Scripture sets it as an obligation.

How does one make up for it? If you say with bread, he's just eating the [obligatory] meal of the festival day? Rather how does he make up for it? By eating various kinds of desert. So it has also been taught: If he made up [for a meal he has missed] with various kinds of desert he fulfilled his obligation.

The assistant of King Agrippa asked R. Eliezer, [A man] such as I, who eats only one meal a day, may I eat one meal [in the Sukkah] and be free [of my obligation]? He answered him, Every day you draw out [the meal] with all kinds of appetizers for your own honor, and now you cannot add one appetizer for the honor of your Creator?

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.

It has been taught: R. Eliezer said: Just as one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, since it is written, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Leviticus 23:40) i.e., from your own possessions, so too one cannot fulfill his obligation with a Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "The festival of Sukkot you shalt keep for yourself for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13) i.e. from your own possession.

It has been taught: R. Eliezer said: Just as one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, since it is written, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees" (Leviticus 23:40) i.e., from your own possessions, so too one cannot fulfill his obligation with a Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "The festival of Sukkot you shalt keep for yourself for seven days" (Deuteronomy 16:13) i.e. from your own possession.

The sages say: Although they said that one cannot fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, he may nevertheless fulfill his obligation with the Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "All that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:42) this teaches that all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah

The sages say: Although they said that one cannot fulfil his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav belonging to his fellow, he may nevertheless fulfill his obligation with the Sukkah of his fellow, since it is written, "All that are homeborn in Israel shall dwell in Sukkot" (Leviticus 23:42) this teaches that all of Israel are fit to sit in one Sukkah

The master said, [The word] "every" comes to include minors. But have we not learned: women, slaves and minors are exempt from the sukkah? There is no difficulty. One source refers to a minor who has reached the age of education, and one source refers to where he has not yet reached the age of being trained. But is not the obligation of a minor who has reached the age of being trained a derabanan (from the rabbis) commandment? It is indeed of rabbinical origin, the Scriptural verse was merely a support.

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

And Rabbi Yitzchak argued with him, For Rabbi Yitzchak quoted, "Shmuel said: 'They did not teach [that a stolen Lulav is invalid], except for on the first day of the holiday; but on the second day of the holiday, because he can fulfill his obligation with a borrowed [Lulav], he can fulfill his obligation also with a stolen [Lulav].

Rav Nachman said, "The argument is about someone who takes his fellow and removes him from his sukkah, And Rabbi Eliezer [rules] according to his opinion, as he says, 'A person does not fulfill his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah. If land can be [truly] stolen, it is a stolen Sukkah; and if land cannot be stolen, it is a borrowed Sukkah [but either way, it is forbidden].'

And the Sages [rule] according to their opinion, as they say, 'A person fulfills his obligation with his fellow's Sukkah, And land cannot be stolen, and so it is a borrowed Sukkah [which is allowed].'

It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved

It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

It was stated: An etrog which has been gnawed by mice: Rav said: It is not "goodly." Is this so? Did not R. Hanina taste a part of it, and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]? But isn't our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina?

There are those who say: Rav ruled that "goodly" since R. Hanina tasted a part [of an etrog] and fulfilled his obligation [with the remainder]. But is not our Mishnah a difficulty against R. Hanina? There is no contradiction since the former refers to the first day of the Festival, while the latter refers to the second day.

Rava said: What difficulty is this? Perhaps one is a Torah commandment and one is a rabbinical obligation? Rather Rava said: If there is a difficulty, it is this: He should take it when he comes home [even if he is] at his table therefore he must interrupt [his meal]. And then it teaches: If he did not take it during the morning he should take it at any time before dusk—therefore he need not interrupt [his meal].

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.

They asked of R. Hiyya b. Abba: If one listened but did not respond — what is the law? He answered them: The sages, the scribes, the leaders of the people and those who expound laid down that if one heard but did not respond he has fulfilled his obligation.

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.

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.

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.

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.