The Edit-B-Sit Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Sukkah, has been dedicated by Celia and Isaac Jamal, may Hashem bless them, for the success of their dear children. May they witness much nachat from all of them, may they grow up, marry at the right time, and have children healthily and happily, with bracha and hatzlacha, and may they see descendants and descendants of their descendants until the arrival of the righteous redeemer, amen. The masechet has also been dedicated for the elevation of the soul of Sarah bat Adel, may her soul be at rest in Gan Eden, amen, again by Celia and Isaac Jamal. Tizku l’mitzvot. Today’s daf has been dedicated by Mr. Isaac Shweber in honor of his parents, Jack and Marilyn, may Hashem bless them, amen. Daf Mem-Aleph. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther, may his soul be at rest in Gan Eden, amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Mazal bat Frieda, may her soul be at rest in Gan Eden, amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Sarah Regina bat Sarah bat Regina Malka, Mrs. Sareen Katan, may she rest in peace, may her soul be at rest in Gan Eden, amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the complete recovery of Chacham Ovadia Yosef ben Gurgia; may it be Your will, Hashem, that he be healed among all the sick of His people Israel, amen.
We begin today’s daf on Mem Amud Sheni, right on the bottom line, starting with the words, “Amar Rava.” In the previous discussion, we had a machloket regarding the laws of Shmita, the fruits of Shvi'it, and Ma'aser Sheni, where Rabbi Meir states that one can make a chillul on animals, meaning whether they are alive or already slaughtered, one can transfer the kedushah of Ma'aser Sheni or the kedushah of the fruits of Shvi'it to the animals. The Chachamim disagree, saying that one can only do this with slaughtered animals, not with live ones. The reasoning provided is that with Ma'aser Sheni, the law requires that one must give their ma'aser ma'asrot at the right time. There is a concern that if a person has a live animal, they might put it in their herd to reproduce, which would create a problem. Likewise, regarding Shvi'it, we learned that one is not allowed to store the kedushah of Shvi'it; it must be eaten that year and used immediately. Therefore, there is a concern that if one transfers the kedushah to the animal, that animal will also be rendered asur if it is put into a stable to reproduce.
On this machloket, Rava explains: “Amar Rava, machloket bizcharim.” The entire machloket between Rabbi Meir and the Chachamim is concerning male animals because male animals do not reproduce. Therefore, the opinion of the Chachamim is based on a gezeirah, a decree, that male animals are treated like female animals. However, regarding female animals, there is unanimous agreement that one cannot make a chillul on live female animals. The reason is that there is a concern one might grow herds from them. Thus, Rava provides us with an important detail in this machloket: by nekevot, there is no dispute; everyone agrees it is asur if it is live. However, regarding zecharim, that is where the machloket exists as to whether a gezeirah applies or not.
We now return to the original machloket between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan, which we discussed in the last daf, concerning how the kedushah of the fruits of Shvi'it can be transferred. When we say “transfer,” it is a light usage of the term because one can never actually transfer the kedushah from the fruits of Shvi'it; the kedushah always remains on the fruits. It merely makes the money or whatever is being transferred also kodesh. Rabbi Elazar states that the only way to transfer the kedushah from Shvi'it is through a sale. He learns this from the context of the Torah discussing Yovel, which is similar to Shmita, where it states, “Vechi timkor mimkar,” indicating that when one sells something, the money obtained from it also becomes kodesh. Rabbi Yochanan, however, argues that not only can this occur through a sale, but it can also happen through chillul, meaning one can take the money and transfer the kedushah to the Shvi'it without a sale.
Rav Ashi then returns to the machloket between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan, providing an interpretation: “Amar Rav Ashi, machloket bepri rishon.” The machloket is specifically discussing the first fruits of Shvi'it themselves. In this case, Rabbi Elazar asserts that one can only transfer the kedushah from the first fruits of Shvi'it through a sale. However, regarding pri sheni, once the kedushah of the fruits of Shvi'it has already been transferred to different fruit, everyone agrees that it can be transferred either through a sale or through chillul. Rashi explains that pri sheni refers to the money of Shvi'it, meaning once the money of Shvi'it is established, it is considered second. Now, whatever one does with that money, whether selling it or using it for a regular chillul, everyone agrees that the kedushah will transfer from the money to the subsequent item.
However, the Gemara questions this interpretation: “Veha dekitanei.” If you recall, we brought a baraita to support Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, which stated that if someone had fruits of Shvi'it and bought meat with them, then the meat has kedushah. Then, if the meat is used to buy wine, the kedushah goes from the meat to the wine. This indicates a continual process of purchasing. If Rav Ashi is correct that once it is the second item, it can become kodesh not only through a sale but also through chillul, why does the baraita only mention purchasing? The Gemara responds that since the first case was about purchasing, the baraita continues with the same terminology, even though it could also imply chillul.
Now Ravina poses a question to Rav Ashi: “Mi sheyesh lo sela shel Shvi'it.” Here’s a case: A person has a sela, a coin, that has the kedushah of Shvi'it and wants to buy clothing with it. We know that one cannot buy clothing because the Torah specifies that the fruits of Shvi'it can only be used for food, which is for immediate consumption. The Gemara will provide a solution for this. “Keitzad ya'aseh,” what should he do? He should go to a storekeeper who is a friend and will do him a favor. He tells him, “Ten li besela peirot.” Do me a favor, I want to buy fruit from you. The storekeeper gives him the sela, and now he buys the fruit, which has the kedushah of Shvi'it. Now, once he gives the fruit back to the storekeeper as a gift, the storekeeper then gives him back the sela as a gift as well. Now he can buy whatever he wants.
Rav Ashi's interpretation is questioned again, as the case discussed involves the sela, which is already considered pri sheni. The Gemara points out that it states that the transfer must occur through a sale, not through chillul. Rav Ashi then clarifies that the machloket is specifically about pri sheni. However, regarding pri rishon, there is unanimous agreement that it must be done through a sale. The Gemara continues to explore the implications of this understanding.
The Mishnah states that initially, the lulav was taken in the Mikdash for seven days, as the pasuk says, “Usmachtem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem shiv'as yamim.” Outside the Mikdash, even in Jerusalem, it was only taken for one day, and in the medinah, it was also just one day. After the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai instituted that the lulav should be taken in the medinah for seven days as a zecher to the Mikdash. Additionally, he decreed that the entire day of Yom Hanef should be forbidden. The Gemara will explain why.
The Gemara asks, “Mena lan de’avdinan zecher l'Mikdash?” Who says we must make a zecher for the Mikdash? The Gemara cites a pasuk from Yirmiyah: “Ki a’aleh aruchah lach umimakotayich erpa’eich, neum Hashem.” This indicates that Tziyon, representing Jerusalem and Eretz Yisrael, needs seekers, and one seeks Jerusalem by performing actions that commemorate what was done in Eretz Yisrael.
Regarding the day of Yom Hanef, the Gemara asks for the reason behind Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s decree. The concern is that the Beis Hamikdash will be rebuilt soon, and people might say that last year they ate in the morning, so this year they can do the same. The Gemara questions when the Beis Hamikdash could be built, suggesting it could be built at night or close to sunset on the fifteenth. The Gemara ultimately concludes that the concern is that it might be built at night, which would lead to insufficient time for the necessary preparations for the Omer offering.
Rashi clarifies that the concern is about the preparations needed for the Omer, which are extensive, and if the Beis Hamikdash is built at night, they will not be ready in time. The Gemara later discusses the implications of the decree and the nature of the prohibition on Yom Hanef.
The Mishnah continues, discussing the first day of Sukkot that falls on Shabbat. It states that while the lulav is docheh Shabbat, one cannot carry it in the public domain. The Gemara explains that the people would bring their lulavim to the Beit Knesset before Shabbat. The next day, they would come to the synagogue, recognize their own lulav, and take it. The reason for this is that one cannot fulfill their obligation on the first day with someone else’s lulav unless it is given as a gift.
The Gemara recounts a story involving Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, and Rabbi Akiva, who were on a boat together. Only Rabban Gamliel had a lulav, which he had purchased for a thousand zuz. He took it and fulfilled his obligation, then passed it to Rabbi Yehoshua as a gift. The lulav was passed among the rabbis, and when it returned to Rabban Gamliel, the Gemara questions why it was necessary to return it. The answer is that a gift given on the condition of return is still considered a gift.
Rava explains that if someone gives an etrog with the condition of returning it, they can still fulfill their obligation. The Gemara questions the necessity of stating the price of the lulav, concluding that it illustrates how beloved the mitzvot are, as evidenced by the willingness to pay a significant amount for the mitzvah.
Mar bar Ameimar tells Rav Ashi that his father would hold the lulav and etrog during the Amidah, demonstrating a deep love for the mitzvot. The Gemara raises a question regarding the prohibition against holding tefillin during the Amidah, emphasizing that one should not be preoccupied with the fear of dropping them. The Gemara explains that holding the lulav, being a mitzvah, does not create the same distraction.
Finally, Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok recounts the customs of the people of Jerusalem, who would carry their lulavim throughout the day, demonstrating their zeal for the mitzvot. This practice highlights their dedication and love for the commandments, as they would not want to set down the lulav and etrog even during their daily activities.
Baruch Hashem l’olam, amen and amen.