The Eddie B. Sitt edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically Masechet Sukkah, has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jemal for the success of their dear children. May they see much nachat from all of them, may they all grow and marry at the right time, and may they have children healthily and happily with blessings and success. May they see descendants and descendants of their descendants until the coming of the righteous redeemer, Amen. This Masechtah has also been dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Sarah bat Adele, again by Celia and Isaac Jemal. May her soul be at rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen. Today's daf has also been dedicated by Mr. Nissim and Elias Basan in memory of their mother, Sarah bat Malka, with similar prayers for her soul's rest. Today, we begin our study on daf mem dalet, specifically on mem gimmel amud bet, starting three lines from the bottom.
In yesterday's daf, we learned about a significant machloket between Rav Yosef and Abaye regarding how the mitzvah of aravah is fulfilled in the Beit Hamikdash. According to Rav Yosef, the kohanim would simply place the aravot around the mizbe'ach, and this would suffice for the mitzvah. Therefore, he argued, there is no need to commemorate the mitzvah of aravah after the Beit Hamikdash's destruction, as we lack a mizbe'ach today. In contrast, Abaye maintained that the kohanim would actually take the aravot and walk them around the mizbe'ach, indicating a more active fulfillment of the mitzvah. This distinction raises the question of how the mitzvah should be commemorated today in Eretz Yisrael, where the timing of the holiday is clear.
The Gemara suggests that there should be a commemoration of the mitzvah of aravah on the seventh day of Sukkot, even if it falls on Shabbat. According to Abaye, this should be done regardless of the muktzeh issue, as the act serves as a zecher lamikdash, a remembrance of the Beit Hamikdash. The Gemara questions why, if there is indeed a mitzvah to take the aravah, it should not override Shabbat. Rashi explains that since the mitzvah is a form of netilah, or taking, it should indeed be commemorated to remember what was done in the Beit Hamikdash.
However, the Gemara then notes that in Bavel, the practice is different. Since the people there are uncertain about the timing of Sukkot, they do not take the aravah on the seventh day if it coincides with Shabbat. The Chachamim established that in Bavel, the mitzvah should not be performed due to the uncertainty of whether it is truly the seventh day of the holiday. This decision was made to maintain unity among the Jewish people, ensuring that those in Eretz Yisrael do not act differently from those in Bavel.
This brings us to a comparison with the lulav. In Eretz Yisrael, where the timing is certain, the lulav is shaken on the first day of Sukkot, even if it falls on Shabbat. However, in Bavel, the lulav is not taken on Shabbat due to the uncertainty surrounding Rosh Chodesh. The Gemara questions this inconsistency, asking why the mitzvah of aravah does not follow the same logic as the lulav. The response is that the mitzvah of lulav is a Torah obligation, while the mitzvah of aravah is rabbinic in nature.
Rav Zvid explains that the lulav has a clear source in the Torah, which allows for its observance for seven days as a zecher lamikdash, while the aravah does not have an explicit Torah source for observance in the provinces. Therefore, the aravah is commemorated only for one day. The Gemara then introduces a new point regarding kohanim with blemishes, who are normally prohibited from entering the area between the ulam and the mizbe'ach. However, during Sukkot, even these kohanim are permitted to fulfill the mitzvah of aravah, which is considered a significant chiddush.
Rabbi Yochanan questions the implication that fulfilling the mitzvah of aravah is a Torah obligation. The Gemara explores whether the mitzvah is fulfilled through taking the aravah or merely by standing it up. This leads to further discussion on whether the mitzvah can only be fulfilled by unblemished kohanim or if blemished kohanim can also participate. The Gemara concludes that both opinions exist, and that there is a difference between the mitzvah as it was practiced in the Beit Hamikdash and now, post-destruction.
As the discussion continues, the Gemara examines the nature of the mitzvah itself, debating whether it is a rabbinic or Torah obligation. Rabbi Yochanan ultimately states that the aravah is indeed a halacha leMoshe miSinai, thus reinforcing its significance. The Gemara also discusses the minimum requirements for the aravah, emphasizing that it must be taken alone, without being tied to other items, and that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah with the aravah from the lulav.
In conclusion, the Gemara presents a series of laws regarding the aravah, including the requirement for a certain number of leaves and the prohibition against using it in conjunction with the lulav. These discussions highlight the importance of maintaining the integrity of each mitzvah and ensuring that they are performed correctly, even as the community adapts to the absence of the Beit Hamikdash.