Talmud - Sukkah 38a סוכה ל״ח א׳

non-essential aspects of a mitzva avert calamity, as waving is a non-essential aspect of the mitzva, since even if one failed to wave the loaves he fulfilled his obligation, and nevertheless it halts harmful winds and dews. And Rava said: And likewise one should conduct himself the same way with a lulav, i.e., one should wave it to and fro and raise and lower it for the same reasons. When Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would move the lulav to and fro, he would say: This is an arrow in the eye of Satan, as despite his best efforts, the Jewish people continue to joyously fulfill mitzvot. The Gemara notes: That is not a proper manner of conduct, as it will induce Satan to come to incite him to sin. Gloating due to his victory over the evil inclination will lead Satan to redouble his efforts to corrupt him.

MISHNA: With regard to one who was coming along the way and did not have a lulav in his hand to take and fulfill the mitzva while traveling, when he enters his house to eat, he should take the lulav at his table. He interrupts his meal to fulfill the mitzva of lulav. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it in the afternoon, as the entire day is suited for fulfilling the mitzva of lulav.

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna. On one hand, you said that if he did not take the lulav before the meal then he takes it at his table. That is to say that if remembers that he did not yet take the lulav, he interrupts his meal, takes the lulav, and then continues his meal. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Shabbat 9b): One may not begin to eat before he recites the afternoon prayer; however, if they started a meal, they need not interrupt the meal in order to pray. Rav Safra said: This is not difficult, as that mishna, where one need not interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is opportunity to pray later in the day; this mishna, where one must interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is no opportunity to take the lulav later in the day. In that case, one must fulfill the mitzva immediately.

Rava said: What is the difficulty? The two cases are different, and there is no contradiction at all. Perhaps this mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, and therefore one must interrupt his meal to take the lulav, while that mitzva to recite the afternoon prayer is a mitzva by rabbinic law, and therefore one need not interrupt his meal to pray. Rather, Rava said: If there is a difficulty, i.e., a contradiction, this is the difficulty: In the first clause in the mishna it says that when he enters his house to eat, he should take the lulav at his table. Apparently, one must interrupt his meal. And then in the latter clause of the mishna it is taught: If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it in the afternoon. Apparently, he need not interrupt his meal.

Resolving the contradiction, Rav Safra said: This is not difficult. This clause, where one need not interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is opportunity to take the lulav later in the day; that clause, where one must interrupt his meal, is referring to a case where there is no opportunity to take the lulav later in the day.

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the difficulty? There is no contradiction, as perhaps the mishna is teaching that there is a mitzva to interrupt one’s meal and take the lulav; but if he did not interrupt his meal he should take it in the afternoon, as the entire day is suited for fulfilling the mitzva of lulav. Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: Actually, the contradiction is as we said initially, between the ruling with regard to lulav and the ruling with regard to the afternoon prayer. And as to that which you found difficult, i.e., there is no contradiction at all, as this mitzva of lulav is a mitzva by Torah law and that mitzva to recite the afternoon prayer is a mitzva by rabbinic law, that is not difficult; as here, in the case of lulav, we are dealing with the second day of the Festival and beyond, during the intermediate days, when the mitzva of lulav is by rabbinic law. The contradiction is therefore between the rulings pertaining to two mitzvot by rabbinic law.

The language of the mishna is also precise and indicates that it is dealing with the intermediate days of the Festival from the fact that it teaches: One who was coming along the way and does not have a lulav in his hand. As, if it enters your mind to say that the mishna is referring to the first day of the Festival, is it permitted to travel a long distance on that day? Rather, it is referring to the intermediate days.

MISHNA: With regard to one for whom a Canaanite slave, a woman, or a minor was reciting hallel, he repeats after them what they are saying word for word. The mishna notes: And may a curse come to him for being so ignorant that he needs them to recite it for him. If an adult male was reciting hallel on his behalf, he need not repeat each word, as the adult male can fulfill the obligation to recite hallel on his behalf. Rather, he simply answers: Halleluya, to each phrase that is recited. In a place where they were accustomed to repeat certain verses, he, too, should repeat them. If the custom is to recite them plainly, without repetition, he should recite them plainly. In a place where the custom is to recite a blessing when reciting hallel, he should recite a blessing. Everything is in accordance with the local custom in these matters.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Actually, they said that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father, and a slave may recite a blessing on behalf of his master, and a woman may recite a blessing on behalf of her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man who, due to his ignorance, requires his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf.

Rava said:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Succah 38a explores waving the lulav to ward off harm and outsmart Satan, plus rules on interrupting a meal to fulfill the mitzva promptly.