According to the opinions in the gemara and rishonim who hold there is no real reshus harabbim today, what is their understanding for the mishnah in Sukkah that says that people (where we don't know) would bring their lulavim on Friday afternoon to shul for first day yomtov on shabbos? If there is no reshus harabbim then there is nothing to worry about.
And why didn't the same principle of the mishnah itself apply to Shabbos chol ha'moed?
Or is it possible to say that the takkana of lulav for all days of Sukkos was not enacted for Shabbos chol ha'moed at all??
Thanks,
David Goldman
NY
David, great to hear from you!
1) The Mefarshim explain that the Mishnah in Sukah 41b -- which says that they took the Lulavim to shul on Erev Shabbos -- is referring to Yerushalayim (as is clear also from the Mishnah 42b that says they took the Lulavim to the Temple Mount). The Gemara Eruvin (101a) states that after the walls were broken down (as we say in Ma'oz Tzur on Chanukah: the Greeks "broke down the walls of my towers"), Yerushalayim became Reshus ha'Rabim.
2) Rashi in the Mishnah (41b) cites the Gemara (43a) that says that Lulav overrides only the first day of Yom Tov, not Shabbos Chol ha'Mo'ed.
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
But according to Resh Lakish and some rishonim there is no reshus harabbim! So how did they then understand that Mishna where the people put their lulavim in shul on Friday?
And why wouldn't they do I be the same thing for shabbos chol hamoed especially when there was no safek yom?
David Goldman
1) David, I do not know why you have to come on to Resh Lakish, whose opinion is mentioned in the Talmud Yerushalmi in the 8th chapter of Eruvin. You could have asked from Rebbi Yochanan, the teacher of Resh Lakish, who is cited in the Bavli Eruvin, end of 22a, who says that in Eretz Yisrael one is not Chayav for Reshus ha'Rabim.
2) However, the Me'iri in Eruvin 22b writes that when Resh Lakish said that there is no Reshus ha'Rabim, this is only a "Lashon"; it is only a way of speaking. The Me'iri writes that Resh Lakish does not mean that if one carries nowadays in Reshus ha'Rabim that one is not Chayav. He means that the world will become totally open only in future times, as the Navi says, "Every valley will be lifted up" (Yeshayahu 40:4).
Shanah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
Well, the walls were not broken down at the time there was a Temple, which is what the mishnah is referring to. So it was NOT yet a reshus harabbim in the description of the mishnah. It was before the chorban.
And there are authentic halachic shitas from rishonim that insist there is no actual reshus harabbim without 600,000. What is the explanation for Yerushalayim being a reshus harabbim from end to end WITHOUT 600,000?
And why would taking the lulav not apply to Shabbos chol hamo'ed where there was no safek yom?!
1) The Gemara in Sukah (44a) states that the Mishnah (about everyone taking their Lulavim to shul) is referring to the period when the Beis ha'Mikdash was not standing.
2) How do you know that Yerushalayim was not a Reshus ha'Rabim? The Gemara in Pesachim (64b) tells us that King Agripas carried out a census. He took a kidney from each Korban Pesach and there were twice as many kidneys as the number of Bnei Yisrael who came out of Egypt.
3) The Gemara in Sukah (43a) says that taking Lulav overrides only the first day of Yom Tov, not Shabbos Chol ha'Mo'ed.
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah!
Dovid Bloom