Sukkah, Daf Mem Gimmel, Part 6

 

Introduction

This section continues the discussion from the previous sections is the mitzvah of the aravah fulfilled

 

איתיביה: לולב דוחה את השבת בתחלתו, וערבה בסופו.

פעם אחת חל שביעי של ערבה להיות בשבת, והביאו מרביות של ערבה מערב שבת, והניחום בעזרה, והכירו בהן בייתוסין ונטלום וכבשום תחת אבנים.

למחר הכירו בהן עמי הארץ, ושמטום מתחת האבנים, והביאום הכהנים וזקפום בצידי המזבח. לפי שאין בייתוסין מודים שחיבוט ערבה דוחה את השבת.

אלמא בנטילה היא! תיובתא.

 

He raised an objection against him: The lulav overrides Shabbat on the first day, and the aravah on the last day.

On time the seventh day of the [ritual of the] aravah fell on Shabbat, and they brought saplings of aravot on the eve of Shabbat and placed them in the courtyard of the Temple.

The Boethusians discovered them and took them and hid them under some stones.

The next day the ammei ha’aretz discovered them and removed them from under the stones, and the priests brought them in and stood them up on the sides of the altar. For the Boethusians do not admit that the beating of the aravah overrides Shabbat.

Thus we see clearly that [the aravah ritual] is in the taking of it?

This is a refutation.

 

This fascinating baraita relates a story of a clash in the Temple between the "Boethusians" and the priests in charge of the Temple. The exact identity of the Boethusians remains unknown, but they seem to have been an ancient Jewish sect either identified with the Essenes or with the Sadducees. They are always portrayed in opposition to the Pharisees. In any case, it once happened that the seventh day of Sukkot did fall on Shabbat. To avoid having to carry on Shabbat, they brought the aravot to the Temple before Shabbat began. The Boethusians seized this opportunity and hid the aravot under some stones. But their nefarious plan was foiled by the simple folk, the "ammei haaretz." These people knew that the sages wouldn’t lift the stones on Shabbat for they are "muktzeh" set aside on Shabbat. So they lifted the stones themselves and removed the aravot. [As an aside, this is an interesting case where someone’s ignorance of the details of halakhah proves advantageous to the greater good].

The Talmud proves from here that the mitzvah of the aravah is in "taking." The Talmud reads the baraita as if the phrase "the priests brought them in" means that they waved the aravot, circled the altar with them and then stood them up on the sides of the altar, once the performance of the mitzvah had been completed. I realize that this is not an intuitive means of reading the baraita, but it does seem to be the way that the Talmud reads it. In any case, Abaye has rejected R. Joseph.

ואלא נדחו! – כיון דאנן לא דחינן – אינהו נמי לא דחו.

 

Then why should it not override [Shabbat]?

Since for us it does not override [Shabbat] it does not override it for them either.

 

The Talmud now returns to the question of why the mitzvah of the aravah doesn’t override Shabbat in the land of Israel after the Temple was destroyed. Above, we had said that it does not override Shabbat because the mitzvah was to stand the aravah up next to the altar. Since the mitzvah cannot be performed in the absence of the Temple, it does not override Shabbat. But now that we have determined that the mitzvah is just to "take" the aravah, and that the way we do it in the synagogue seems to be the same as the way it is done in the Temple, the question returns. Why not do so on Shabbat?

The initial answer is that since the mitzvah of the aravah does not override Shabbat for those in the Diaspora (us), it also doesn’t override it for the Jews of Israel.

 

והא יום טוב הראשון, דלדידן לא דחי ולדידהו דחי!

אמרי: לדידהו נמי לא דחי.

 

But is there not the first day of the Festival which for us does not override [Shabbat], but it does for them?

I can answer: For them also it does not override [Shabbat].

 

The problem is that earlier we had established that in the land of Israel, when the first day of Sukkot falls on Shabbat, the mitzvah of the lulav does override Shabbat, even though it does not in the Diaspora. So we see that there can be a difference between the Diaspora and Israel with regard to taking the lulav on Shabbat. Why not allow such a difference for the aravah?

To answer this difficulty, the Talmud retracts what it had said earlier. Even in the land of Israel the mitzvah of the lulav does not override Shabbat.

 

ואלא קשיא הני תרתי; דתנא חדא: כל העם מוליכים את לולביהם להר הבית, ותניא אידך: לבית הכנסת.

ומתרצינן: כאן – בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, כאן – בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים,

 

Does not then a contradiction arise between those two mishnayot, since one teaches "all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount," and the other mishnah teaches [that they brought them] to the synagogue, and we answered, that the one referred to Temple times and the other to the time after the destruction of the Temple?

 

Earlier the Talmud had used a discrepancy between two mishnayot to prove that in the land of Israel one does take the lulav on Shabbat if it falls on the first day of Sukkot. One mishnah said that the people take their lulavim to the Temple, while one said that they take them to the synagogue. The Talmud had solved this difference by saying that the first mishnah referred to a time when the Temple stood and the second to the post-destruction period. Hence, in the land of Israel they do take the lulav on Shabbat, even after the destruction of the Temple.

 

לא אידי ואידי – בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, ולא קשיא: כאן – במקדש, כאן – בגבולין.

 

No; both refer to Temple times, but there is nevertheless no contradiction since the one refers to the Temple and the other to the provinces.

 

The Talmud now retracts that resolution. Once the Temple was destroyed, the lulav was not taken on Shabbat, even in the land of Israel. Both of these mishnayot refer to Temple times. The reason that one describes people bringing their lulavim to the synagogue and not the Temple is that the mishnah refers to the "provinces," areas outside of the Temple.