Sukkah, Daf Mem Gimmel, Part 5
Introduction
At the end of yesterday’s section R. Joseph stated that the mitzvah of the aravah is not to take it, as it is with the lulav. Rather, the mitzvah is to stand it up next to the altar. This supposition is debated in today’s section.
איתיביה אביי: לולב וערבה ששה ושבעה. מאי לאו – כלולב, מה לולב בנטילה, אף ערבה בנטילה!
Abaye raised an objection against him: The lulav and the aravah are for six or seven days. Does [this not imply that the aravah is] as the lulav: just as the [ritual of the] lulav is [performed] by its being taken, so too [the ritual] of the aravah is performed by its being taken?
Abaye points out that the mishnah seems to compare the lulav with the aravah. Just as the mitzvah of the lulav is performed by it being taken so too the mitzvah of the aravah should be performed by its being taken, and not by standing it up next to the altar, as it was claimed.
מידי אריא? – הא – כדאיתיה, והא – כדאיתיה.
What kind of argument is that? This one is performed in its way, and this one in its way.
Abaye’s argument from the mishnah is rejected just because the lulav and the aravah are in the same mishnah does not mean that they have the same rules. Each one is performed in its own way, the lulav by being taken, the aravah by being stood up next to the altar.
איתיביה אביי: בכל יום מקיפין את המזבח פעם אחת, ואותו היום שבע פעמים.
מאי לאו – בערבה!
לא, בלולב.
Abaye raised another objection against him: Every day they circled the altar once, but on that day they walked round it seven times. Does not this mean, with the aravah?
No, with the lulav.
This time Abaye raises a difficulty with a mishnah that will appear later on in the chapter. To Abaye this mishnah rules that they would circle the altar seven times on the seventh day with the aravah. This implies that the mitzvah is to take it, not to stand it up next to the altar.
But this is rejected the "it" mentioned in the mishnah is the entire lulav, not the aravah.
We should note that this mishnah really is ambiguous. It does seem to make sense that the six days are the entire lulav, but that the seventh day may be the just the aravah.
והא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה: בערבה!
אמר ליה: הוא אמר לך בערבה ואנא אמינא בלולב.
But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [that they circled] with the aravah?
He said to him: He told you with the aravah and I say to you with the lulav.
Abaye continues to argue. R. Nahman, an earlier amora, stated explicitly that the mishnah which says that they would circle the altar with "it" referred to the aravah, not the lulav.
R. Joseph responds that he does not have to agree with R. Nahman after all both are amoraim and of equal authority. R. Joseph interprets the mishnah to mean the lulav, not the aravah.
אתמר, רבי אלעזר אומר: בלולב, רב שמואל [בר נתן] אמר רבי חנינא: בערבה.
וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה: בערבה.
אמר ליה רבא לרב יצחק בריה דרבה בר בר חנה: בר אוריא, תא ואימא לך מלתא מעליתא דהוה אמר אבוך. הא דתנן כל היום מקיפין את המזבח פעם אחת, ואותו היום מקיפין את המזבח שבע פעמים, – הכי אמר אבוך משמיה דרבי אלעזר: בלולב.
It was stated: R. Elazar stated [that they circled the altar] with the lulav.
Rav Shmuel bar Natan said in the name of R. Hanina: with the aravah.
And so too said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: with the aravah.
Rava said to R. Yitzchak the son of Rabbah b. bar Hana: O Son of the Torah, come and I will tell you an excellent statement which your father made. With reference to what we have learned: Every day they circled the altar once, and on that day they circled it seven times, thus said your father in the name of R. Eleazar: with the lulav.
This section contains a series of amoraic statements where we hear different opinions as to what they had in their hands when they circled the altar the lulav or the aravah. As we can see, this was a big argument among the amoraim. We shall return to this subject when we discuss that mishnah later in this chapter.