Sukkah 85

and thereby he will be carrying it for four cubits through a public domain. And the same reason applies to the shofar, and the same reason applies to the megillah.

But if so, the same should be true of the first day? The first day! The Rabbis enacted that he should take it at home [on the first day that falls on Shabbat]. That is true after the enactment, but what can you say about before the enactment?

Rather the first day, since the obligation to take the lulav is from the Torah even in the provinces the rabbis did not decree, but with regard to the other days for which there is no obligation from the Torah to take the lulav in the provinces, the Rabbis did decree.

But if so, the same should be true now! We do not know how to fix the New Moon. But they, who know how to fix the New Moon, let it override [the Shabbat]?

This is indeed so; for in our Mishnah we have learned: If the first day of the festival, fell on Shabbat, all the people brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount, while in another Mishnah we have learned [that they brought them] to the Synagogue, consequently you may deduce from these that the former refers to the time when the Temple was in existence while the latter refers to the time when the Temple was no longer in existence. This is conclusive.

From where do we derive that [the taking of the lulav] is Torah obligation in the Provinces? As it has been taught: "And you shall take" that the lulav must be taken in the hand by everyone of you; "for yourself" that it must be yours, thus excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav];

On the day" even on Shabbat; "First" even in the Provinces; "The first" this teaches that it overrides only the first day of the Festival.

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

Scripture says: "On the day," implying, even on Shabbat. But what do the rabbis do with the words "on the day"? They need it to infer from it that on the day, [the lulav is taken] but not at night. And R. Eliezer, from where does he deduce that [the lulav is to be taken] by day, and not at night? He deduces it from the conclusion of the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days" "days" but not nights. And the Rabbis? If I learned it from that verse, I might have said that we ought to compare ‘days’ [mentioned here] with ‘days’ mentioned with regard to the Sukkah so that just as there [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights, so here also [the expression of] ‘days’ includes nights.

And with regard to the Sukkah itself from where do we derive [that days includes nights]? From what our Rabbis have taught: You shall dwell in booths for seven days,” (Leviticus 23:42) “days” includes the nights. You say that “days’ includes the nights. But maybe it means “days” but not the nights. And this would be logical. For the word “days” is used here, and it is also used in connection with lulav; just as there it means days and not nights, so here also it must mean days and not nights.

Or take it another way: The word “days” is mentioned here, and also in connection with the [seven days of the] preparation, (Leviticus 8:35) just as there it means days and also nights, so here also it must mean days and also the nights.

Let us then see to what it is more comparable. We should deduce a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day from a thing whose performance is a matter of the whole day, and let no proof be adduced from something whose performance is only for one moment. Or take it another way: We might deduce a thing which is a mitzvah for future generations from something whose mitzvah is for future generations, but we will not deduce a proof from the preparations which were not for future generations.

So it was taught.