Sukka 38 a, b

How should we shake the lulav?  Different Jewish traditions have moved in different directions.  All agree that the shaking motion is pushing away evil forces in the world - wind and dew that is harmful.  But some believe that we should pull it back and forth; others, as I've learned through the Ashkenazi tradition, believe that it should be shaken as well.

An aside - Rav Acha bar Ya'akov would say, "this arrow in the eye of Satan" while shaking the lulav.  Others criticized him for attracting Satan's attention. Further, how dare Rav Acha bar Ya'akov state that his actions are affecting Satan?  G-d's intervention is the action that matters.  In fact, only someone as comfortable with magic as this rabbi could say something so overreaching.  No one else should model after him, they assert.

A new Mishna teaches that one is coming along the way and has no lulav, he should take the lulav before he does anything else.  We learn about the timing of taking lulav, too.  If he has not taken lulav, he can take it in the afternoon - we are permitted to fulfil the mitzvah of lulav at any time of the day.

The Gemara clarifies.  Does one interrupt his meal to take the lulav?  Or does one not interrupt the meal, for one can take the lulav at any time?  Rav Safra concludes that both are correct: when there is opportunity to take lulav after the meal, there is no need to interrupt one's eating.  Rava suggests that there is no difficulty, as the halacha to take lulav is Torah law, but the timing of taking the lulav in the afternoon is rabbinical.  With Rav Zeira, they continue this argument.  Perhaps we are speaking about the day of the Festival.  Are all days requiring the same halachot?

Another Mishna: hallel should not be repeated word for word after hearing a Caananite slave, a woman or a minor.  "May a curse come to him", it says!  When an adult male recites hallel, it is necessary to repeat only 'Halleluya' after each phrase.  The minhag or custom of the land is the law, and so one should recite a blessing before hallel if that is the minhag.

The Gemara tells us that a son may recite a blessing on behalf of his father; a slave on behalf of his master; a woman on behalf of her husband.  However, the Sages say "May a curse come to a man whose wife and children recite blessings on his behalf due to his ignorance".   We can see the entrenched patriarchal system; we watch the sexism become entrenched as we read.  Still, today, men will look to these words to justify why women cannot recite blessings in a leadership capacity.  We should take note: the curse comes to a person when he has his wife/children recite blessings for him due to his ignorance.  Thus if a man knows this halacha and still wants his wife to recite the blessings, should this too be reason for a curse?

Amud (b) looks more closely at hallel and different community customs around it.  Often we are told that we should respond to "Halleluya" (Psalms 113:1) by repeating that same word/verse.*  Other phrases spoken by the prayer leader are not repeated but requisite responses are listed.  We learn that  a person who hears a passage [and then responds to it] is equivalent to the person who spoke the passage.
 Certainly this is connected to our practice of reciting "amen" following prayers.

The remainder of today's daf considers various proofs. They seem to concur that if we cannot respond "amen" after hearing a prayer, it is enough to think about the meaning of that prayer.  The rabbis think about whether hearing is more powerful than reading - and it would seem to be so, as the proof texts chosen all look at situations when a prayer is heard rather than read.

Our last piece of learning is shared by Rava.  He teaches that there are times when we do not repeat the verse read aloud.  For example, when we hear "Blessed is the one who comes", we should respond with the rest of the verse: "in the name of the Lord".  This suggests to me that one complete idea can be repeated; two ideas in one verse must be stated in its entirety.  But perhaps my interpretation is wrong.  Steinsaltz reminds me to put G-d first: when a verse contains G-d's name, we cannot split that verse; take G-d's name in vain.


* and other verses, like  "Hodu l'hashem, ki tov", Thank the Lord for He is good (Psalms 118:1), "Hashem, hoshia na "(Lord, please save us and "Hashem, hatzlicha na" (Lord, please grant us success) -- both from Psalms 118:25).