Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Sukah 44

1) "LO TISGODEDU" -- DIFFERENT CUSTOMS IN DIFFERENT PLACES

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses at length the issue of performing the Mitzvah of Lulav on a day of Sukos that occurs on Shabbos. The Mishnah (42b) says that when Shabbos occurs on the first day of Yom Tov the Lulav is to be taken, but when Shabbos occurs on any of the other days of Sukos, the Lulav is not taken (even in the Mikdash). The Gemara (43a) explains that the Rabanan enacted a Gezeirah not to take the Lulav on Shabbos, lest one carry it through Reshus ha'Rabim to go to an expert to learn how to perform the Mitzvah. This Gezeirah does not apply the first day (even though the Rabanan have the authority to enact that a Mitzvas Aseh not be performed), because the first day is accorded special status, since on the first day the Mitzvah is mid'Oraisa even in the "Gevulin." During the rest of the days the Mitzvah is only mid'Rabanan in the "Gevulin," and therefore the Rabanan applied the Gezeirah during the other days of Sukos even in the Mikdash.

All of this applies only in Eretz Yisrael, though. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the people are not expert in determining the new month, the Mitzvah of Lulav is not performed on Shabbos even on the first day of Yom Tov (since it is a Safek whether that day is actually Yom Tov).

However, the Gemara here (44a) concludes that nowadays, even in Eretz Yisrael the Lulav is not held on the first day of Yom Tov when it falls on Shabbos. Since the people outside of Eretz Yisrael cannot hold the Lulav on that day, the people in Eretz Yisrael also do not hold the Lulav on that day. RASHI explains that this was enacted because of "Lo Tisgodedu" -- so that there not be different groups of Jews with variant practices.

The application of the principle of "Lo Tisgodedu" in this context is difficult to understand. In Yevamos (14a), Rava and Abaye argue regarding the extent of "Lo Tisgodedu." Rava holds that it applies only to *one* Beis Din in *one* city; that is, if two people on one Beis Din follow two different practices, then there is a problem of "Lo Tisgodedu." Abaye argues and says that even two Batei Din in one community cannot have two different practices; in two different communities, though, there is no problem if they have two different practices.

How, then, in the case of our Gemara can there be a problem of "Lo Tisgodedu?" Our Gemara is discussing two completely different places -- Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and thus "Lo Tisgodedu" does not apply, even according to Abaye!

ANSWER:

(a) The MAHARSHDAM (YD 153) and the NETZIV explain that even though there is no actual prohibition of "Lo Tisgodedu" in such circumstances, nevertheless l'Chatchilah it would not be not proper for the Rabanan to make such an enactment in the first place -- giving different practices to different groups of Jews. Therefore, when the Rabanan enacted that the Lulav not be held on Shabbos, they included everyone in that enactment equally. All of the other practices which the people of one place have and which the people of another place do not have are not practices that were enacted by the Rabanan; rather, they are Minhagim that developed in one place and did not develop in the same way in another place. The prohibition of "Lo Tisgodedu" does not apply to such customs.

(b) The KAPOS TEMARIM explains that the people outside of Eretz Yisrael used to come to Yerushalayim during the festivals to fulfill the Mitzvah of "Aliyah l'Regel." While in Yerushalayim, they were bound to observe their normal practices and not hold the Lulav on Shabbos. At the same time, the native residents of Yerushalayim would be holding the Lulav on Shabbos, and thus there would be two divergent practices in one city. Our Gemara, then, is following the opinion of Abaye, who says that in one city there is a problem of "Lo Tisgodedu."

The ARUCH LA'NER challenges this answer. He asks that this answer is not consistent with the Gemara's discussion, which is referring to the period *after* the Churban of the Beis ha'Mikdash, when there was no Aliyah l'Regel. Hence, there is no reason why the people from outside of Eretz Yisrael would be in Yerushalayim during Sukos.

(c) The ARUCH LA'NER (Yevamos 14a) suggests that mid'Oraisa, "Lo Tisgodedu" applies as Rava and Abaye maintain. However, the Rabanan have the authority to enact an Isur d'Rabanan of "Lo Tisgodedu" to prevent variant practices even in two different communities if they see fit, such as in this case.

QUESTION: The Gemara (43a) explains that the Gezeirah not to hold the Lulav on Shabbos does not apply the first day of Yom Tov, because the first day is accorded special status -- since on the first day the Mitzvah is mid'Oraisa even in the "Gevulin," therefore the Gezeirah does not apply on the first day. All of this applies only in Eretz Yisrael, though. Outside of Eretz Yisrael, where the people are not expert in determining the new month, the Mitzvah of Lulav is not performed on Shabbos, even on the first day of Yom Tov (since it is a Safek whether that day is actually Yom Tov).

The Gemara here (44a) concludes that nowadays, even in Eretz Yisrael the Lulav is not held on the first day of Yom Tov when it falls on Shabbos. The reason is that since the people outside of Eretz Yisrael cannot hold the Lulav on that day, the people in Eretz Yisrael also do not hold the Lulav on that day. RASHI explains that this is because of "Lo Tisgodedu" -- so that there not be different groups of Jews with variant practices.

If the Rabanan were concerned that the Jews in Eretz Yisrael and the Jews in Chutz la'Aretz not have different practices -- even though the practice in Chutz la'Aretz differs only because they are not sure which day is Yom Tov - - then why did they not also ordain that the Jews in Eretz Yisrael must observe two days of Yom Tov, just like the Jews in Chutz la'Aretz must observe? (MAHARASHDAM YD #153; LECHEM MISHNAH, Hilchos Lulav 7:17)

ANSWERS:

(a) The LECHEM MISHNAH answers that there is a difference between changing the practice in Eretz Yisrael by instituting a passive. "Shev v'Al Ta'aseh" practice and between changing it by instituting an active, "Kum v'Aseh" practice. In order to standardize the practice of Jews the world over, the Rabanan will uproot a practice by instituting a "Shev v'Al Ta'aseh" that the people not take a Lulav in hand on Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael. However, to institute that the people in Eretz Yisrael observe a second day of Yom Tov would involve instituting a positive practice, a "Kum v'Aseh," and the Rabanan do not go that far.

(b) Even in Eretz Yisrael, there is a reason not to take the Lulav on the first day when it falls on Shabbos. That reason is the Gezeirah of Rabah (that one might carry it in Reshus ha'Rabim). The only reason that the Gezeirah was not enacted for the first day of Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael is because of the special status of the first day (that is, it is the only day that is mid'Oraisa everywhere, including the "Gevulin"). However, after the Churban, when many Jews were exiled to Chutz la'Aretz and were no longer taking the Lulav on Shabbos even on the first day of Yom Tov (because they were not expert in determining the date), the factor of "Lo Tisgodedu" *combined* with the Gezeirah (lest one carry in Reshus ha'Rabim) is enough to prohibit taking the Lulav on the first day of Yom Tov even in Eretz Yisrael. When it comes to Yom Tov Sheni, though, there is no rational reason to institute a second day of Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael other than "Lo Tisgodedu," which, by itself, is not sufficient. (M. Kornfeld)

44b