Sukkah, Daf Lamed Zayin, Part 2
Introduction
Today’s section deals with the issue of holding the hoshanna (Aramaic for lulav) with some sort of holder.
ואמר רבה: לא לינקיט איניש הושענא בסודרא, דבעינא לקיחה תמה, וליכא. ורבא אמר: לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה.
Rabbah further stated: One should not hold the hoshanna with a scarf, for required a whole "taking" is required, and in this case it is not.
Rava said: Taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid "taking."
This statement of Rabbah’s is related to his statement at the end of yesterday’s section, that when binding the lulav, one should leave room at the end so that the binding doesn’t block him from holding it. Here too he notes that if one shouldn’t hold the lulav with a scarf because that is not a "whole taking."
As was the case in yesterday’s section, Rava disagrees. Holding something by means of something else still counts as "holding." One’s skin need not touch the thing that he is holding.
אמר רבא: מנא אמינא לה דלקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה – דתנן: אזוב קצר מספקו בחוט ובכוש וטובל ומעלה, ואוחז באזוב ומזה. אמאי? +במדבר יט+ ולקח וטבל אמר רחמנא! אלא לאו שמע מינה: לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה. –
Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learned: If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling.
Why? Didn’t the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18).
Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking ?
Rava uses Mishnah Parah 12:1 to prove that holding something by something else still counts as holding. When dipping the hyssop into the purification waters (those that have the ashes of the red heifer) in order to sprinkle them on the impure person, he may lengthen the hyssop with thread or a reed. This is allowed even though the Torah says that he must take the hyssop and then dip it. From here we can see that "taking" does not preclude holding the object by something else.
ממאי? דלמא שאני התם, כיון דחבריה – כגופיה דמי.
But why? Perhaps that case is different; since [the thread or reed] was joined on [to the hyssop], it is regarded as part of it?
That mishnah is rejected as general proof because the reed or thread is actually attached to the hyssop. Thus it is not sufficient proof that one can hold the lulav in a scarf.
אלא מהכא: נפל משפופרת לשוקת – פסול, הא הפילו הוא – כשר, אמאי? +במדבר יט+ ולקחו ונתן אמר רחמנא! אלא לאו שמע מינה: לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה.
Rather [deduce] from here: [If the ashes of the red heifer] fell from their tube into the trough they are invalid.
From this it follows that if he threw them into the water they are valid. Now why [should that be so]? Did not the Torah say, "And they shall take of the ashes . . . and he shall put" (Numbers 19:18)? Rather learn from here that taking by means of something else is also regarded as a valid "taking."
Now Rava uses Mishnah Parah 6:1 to prove that "taking" by means of something else still counts as taking. According to Numbers 19:17 one is to "take" of the ashes and put them in the water. But Rava deduces from the Mishnah that if he casts them into the water directly from the tube in which they were previously put, the "taking" is still valid.
This successfully proves Rava’s point. "Taking" by means of holding the object with something else, still counts as "taking."
ואמר רבה – לא לדוץ איניש לולבא בהושענא, דדלמא נתרי טרפי והוי חציצה. ורבא אמר: מין במינו אינו חוצץ.
Rabbah further stated: One should not thrust the lulav through the bound hoshanna lest some leaves are detached and form an interposition.
But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.
According to Rabbah when putting his lulav into the bound hoshanna, with the hadas and aravah, one should be careful not to cause leaves to fall off, because they will interpose between his hands and the lulav.
Surprise Rava disagrees. Since the leaves are of the same species as that being held, they categorically cannot interpose.
ואמר רבה: לא ליגוז איניש לולבא בהושענא, דמשתיירי הוצא, והוי חציצה.
ורבא אמר: מין במינו אינו חוצץ.
Rabbah further stated: One should not shear the lulav while it is in the hoshanna, since loose leaves might remain and form an interposition.
But Rava said: A thing of the same species does not constitute an interposition.
This is basically the same dispute as above, just a slightly different situation.