Previous daf

1)

(a) The only Isur Shabbos that one might contravene by taking a Lulav on Shabbos - is that of Muktzah (which the Gemara refers to as 'Tiltul').

(b) For that alone, Chazal would not have decreed not to take Lulav on Shabbos. The reason that they *did* is because - they were concerned that someone may take his Lulav to an expert to teach him how to shake it, carrying it four Amos in the street in the process.

(c) Chazal expressed their concern that one may come to carry the Lulav *four Amos in the street*, rather than that one may come to carry *from one domain to another* - because, sometimes, the Lulav is lying in a Karmelis to begin with, in which case, the latter fear is not applicable at all. In addition, there are cases when one will be Chayav for carrying four Amos in the street, even though he will not be Chayav for carrying from one domain to another (see also Tosfos DH 've'Ya'avirenu').

(a) The Gemara initially explained that the *first* day that fell on Shabbos is different (and does not require a decree), because Chazal decreed that one should take the Lulav at home. This explanation is inadequate however - because that was only a later Takanah, as we saw in our Mishnah. Originally, they would take their Lulavim in the Beis Hamikdash (in which case, the decree is still fully applicable).

(b) So we conclude that Chazal only decreed when Shabbos fell on the *other* days, because then, taking the Lulav is less Chashuv - since unlike the first day (which is Chayav outside the Beis Hamikdash, too), *they* have no source outside the Beis Hamikdash.

(c) We do not Bensch Lulav nowadays, when the first day falls on Shabbos - because we are uncertain about when Rosh Chodesh, and therefore Yom-Tov, is. So how can we take Lulav on Shabbos, when we are not even sure that it is the first day of Sukos.

(d) Eretz Yisrael is different, the Gemara contends, because there they know exactly when the first day of Sukos falls. The Gemara currently proves from two Mishnahs, one on 41b. (which speaks about taking the Lulav on Shabbos in Shul) and the other, on 42b (which speaks about taking it on Shabbos in the Beis Hamikdash) that the decree not to take the Lulav on the first day which fell on Shabbos, does not extend to Eretz Yisrael, *even nowadays*, since both Mishnahs apparently speak in Eretz Yisrael, the latter in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, the former, nowadays.

(a) The Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "u'Lekachtem" - that every individual is obligated to take Lulav.
2. ... "Lachem" - that it must be owned by the person taking it (at least on the first day, as we learned earlier).
3. ... "ba'Yom" - even on Shabbos.
4. ... "ha'Rishon" - even outside the Beis Hamikdash (seeing as the Pasuk makes no reference to the Beis Hamikdash until later in the Pasuk).

(b) This Beraisa must go according to Rebbi Eliezer - who says that even *Machshirei Lulav* override Shabbos. Otherwise - why would we need a Pasuk to include Shabbos in the Mitzvah of Lulav, seeing as the only prohibition is that of Muktzah, and we do not require a Pasuk to include Muktzah (which is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan in the first place).

(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns that Machshirei Lulav override Shabbos, from "ba'Yom" (as we just saw). The Rabbanan learn from "ba'Yom" - 've'Lo ba'Laylah' (to preclude night-time from the Mitzvah of Lulav).

(d) The Rabbanan do not want to learn "Yamim" and not nights, from the end of the Pasuk "u'Semachtem Lifnei Hashem ... Shiv'as Yamim" - because without the Derashah of "ba'Yom', we would learn "Yamim" "Yamim" from Sukah that the Mitzvah of Lulav applies by night, too.

(a) We now know that "Yamim" by Lulav means *days* and not *nights*. When in Tzav, Moshe told Aharon and his sons (regarding the Milu'im) to sit inside the Mishkan "Shiv'as Yamim", he meant both by day and by night (because, in another Pasuk in Tzav, the Torah writes "u'Fesach Ohel Mo'ed Teishvu *Yomam va'Laylah*").

(b) We prefer to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Yamim" "Yamim" (by Sukah) ...

1. ... from the Milu'im rather than from Lulav - because, like Sukah, Milu'im applied all day (whereas Lulav only applies for one moment each day).
2. ... from Lulav rather than from the Milu'im - because, like Sukah, Lulav applies at all times (whereas Milu'im only applied in the dessert).

(c) We ultimately learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Teishvu" "Teishvu" - that we must learn "Yamim" "Yamim" by Sukah, from the Milu'im, and not from Lulav.

5)

(a) Chazal instituted that Aravah on the seventh day overrides Shabbos - in order to publicize the fact that Aravah (which is not explicitly written) is basically min ha'Torah.

(b) Nevertheless Chazal decreed not to take *Lulav* in the Beis Hamikdash on the other days that fell on Shabbos (despite the fact that it is not written *explicitly* in the Torah), declining to publicize there too, that it is min ha'Torah - because of Takanas Rabah (that one may come to carry it).

(c) They did not issue the same decree regarding Aravah on the seventh day - because, unlike Lulav, which every individual had to bring, the Aravah was brought by the Sheluchei Beis-Din, and taken by the Kohanim (who were generally careful), so there is no basis for such a decree.

(d) Chazal did not want to go so far as to allow *all* the days of Aravah (on whichever day Shabbos fell) to override Shabbos - because that would give Aravah the edge over Lulav, and people would begin to treat the Lulav with contempt.

(a) Chazal did not choose the *first* day of Aravah to override Shabbos - because people would then think that Aravah over-rode Shabbos because *Lulav* did, and not because *it* is min ha'Torah.

(b) The reason that they picked the *seventh* day - is because if it cannot be the *first* day, then it may as well be the *last* (a Yom Mesuyam).

(c) Aravah does not override Shabbos nowadays in Chutz la'Aretz - because they are not absolutely certain that it is the seventh day (see Tosfos, Amud a. DH 'Lo Yad'inon').

(d) Bar Hedya explained that there was no question of the Mitzvah of Aravah not overriding Shabbos, in Eretz Yisrael or anywhere else - because the calendar was arranged (even at that time when they were still fixing Rosh Chodesh by means of witnesses and Beis-Din's declaration) in such a way that it could not happen (even to make Elul a full month if need be, to avoid it).

(a) Ravin and his associates disagree with Bar Hedya. According to them, the seventh day of Sukos could indeed fall on Shabbos. Nevertheless, they maintained, the Mitzvah of Aravah did not override Shabbos - because who said that the Mitzvah of Aravah constituted taking it (which could be properly commemorated)? Perhaps the Mitzvah was really placing it on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach (which cannot really be commemorated nowadays), and would not therefore override Shabbos.

(b) Abaye tries to disprove Ravin from our Mishnah, which mentions Lulav and Aravah together - implying that, Aravah, like Lulav, had to be taken. We reject that proof however, on the grounds that maybe each Mitzvah was performed in its own way; the one, by *taking*, the other, by *placing*.

(c) Abaye then asks Ravin from the Mishnah later, which differentiates between the last day, when they would go round the Mizbe'ach seven times, and the first six days, when they would only go round it once. Clearly, there was a Mitzvah of walking round the Mizbe'ach holding something in their hands. Now, if that something is the *Aravah* (as would appear from the earlier part of the Mishnah), then we have a proof, says Abaye, that the Aravah had to be *taken*, and not just *placed*.

(d) We refute Abaye's proof - by establishing the Seifa of the Mishnah by a Lulav (and not an Aravah).

(a) When Abaye told him that Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuha, established the Mishnah by Aravah (and not by Lulav) - he retorted: '*He* says *Lulav*', and *I* say *Aravah*!

(b) The Beraisa informs us how it happened once, when the seventh day of Sukos fell on Shabbos, and they deposited Aravah branches in the Azarah on Erev Shabbos - that the Baytusim took them and squashed them underneath stones, knowing that on the following day, Shabbos, they would not be able to retrieve them, seeing as stones are Muktzah.

(c) The Amei ha'Aretz (who sided with the Perushim, but were not aware of the Isur of Tiltul in this case) - subsequently pulled them out from under the stones.

(d) The Baytusim hid the Aravos - because, in their opinion, shaking the Aravah did not override Shabbos, a clear statement that the Mitzvah constituted taking (and even shaking) the Aravah, and not just placing it.

(a) In spite of having proved that the Mitzvah of Aravah constituted *taking* it, the seventh day (even in Eretz Yisrael) did not override Shabbos - because, since it could not override Shabbos in Chutz la'Aretz (seeing as they were uncertain as to which day Yom-Tov fell), it did not override Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael either (so as not to split the nation, with regard to Shabbos, giving it a semblance of two Toros).

(b) Having just concluded that whatever does not override Shabbos in *Chutz la'Aretz*, does not override it in *Eretz Yisrael* either, we will establish the first Mishnah (which permits Lulav to be taken on the first day that fell on Shabbos *in the Beis Hamikdash* - literally; and the second Mishnah (which permits taking it in Shul) - outside the Beis Hamikdash. Both Mishnahs however, speak in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, and not nowadays.