Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

A stolen or dried out aravah is possul. 

If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas, it is possul. 

If the tip is broken off, or the leaves are broken, or a Tzaftzafah (another similar species), it is possul. 

If it is wilted, missing some leaves, or it is watered by man (it doesn’t grow near a stream), it is kosher.

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: When the possuk says “Arvei nachal - willow of the streams” it means the species that grow near streams.

A different peshat: A willow whose leaves are elongated like a stream.

 Another Beraisa: “Arvei Nachal” indicates something that grows near a stream, but since “Arvei” [plural] denotes multiple willows, it teaches that aravos which are watered [by man] or grow on mountains are also kosher.

 Abba Shaul: The plural Arvei teaches that there are two mitzvos of aravah, one that is taken with the lulav and one that is taken separately in the Mikdash.

The Chachomim learn about the aravah in the Mikdash by tradition; halacha l’Moshe miSinai. As was taught by Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan: [These three halachos were handed down from Sinai together], The law of ten saplings [in a certain area may be plowed up to shmittah], the law of aravah [the special mitzvah in the Mikdash], and the mitzvah of nisuch hamayim. 

 Beraisa: When the possuk says “ Arvei nachal - willow of the streams” it means the species that grow near streams, this excludes the tzaftzafah - the species that grows in mountainous areas.

 Rabbi Zeira: This is alluded to in the possuk “To take tzaftzafah in place of what grows on the waters”. (It means that when the Jewish people forsake their natural habitat in the mighty waters of Torah, they become an entirely different species, even though they may still look similar).

 Abayye to Rabbi Zeira: Perhaps the possuk is saying that tzaftzafah is the species which grows on mighty waters?

 Response: The wording of the possuk precludes that explanation.

 Rabbi Abahu: Hashem says: I intended for the Jews to be like the aravah dwelling on the mighty waters of Torah, but they have made themselves into the tzaftzafah of the mountains (although they didn’t do any true sins, but a Jew must dwell on copious waters of Torah). 

Some learn this possuk as a beraisa [not a statement of Rabbi Zeira] and then the question was asked by Rabbi Zeira [not Abayye].

Today’s learning sponsored by

 Daily Tehillim

An inspirational possuk every day by SMS/text with English translation (Starting after Shavuos) 

Text 'Join' to 833-244-6181

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

We learned in the mishna (26.4): If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher.

There are two components to the concept of dichui in korbanos which the gemara seeks to apply to all mitzvos: A. Dichui mei’ikara - Something that was never acceptable for the mitzvah; and is now seeking to be accepted. B. Nireh v’nidcheh - Something that was at first acceptable, then experienced dichui; and is now again seeking to be accepted. The gemara sought to prove from this part of the mishna that at least “Dichui A” does not apply to mitzvos. The gemara explained that this part of the mishna is no proof since it is not yet Yom Tov and the mitzvah is not yet extant to be nidcheh.

 Summary 

We learned in the mishna (26.4): If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher. It is forbidden to remove the berries on Yom Tov.

 Question: What if he did remove the berries on Yom Tov? It seems that the hadas would be kosher. That can only be if we say that dichui does not apply to mitzvos: 

If the berries become black (to disqualify the hadas, 27.2) before Yom Tov came in [thus a case of dichui mei’ikara], we can learn from this mishna that dichui mei’ikara does not apply to mitzvos. (But it seems from 27.2 that our mishna cannot be a proof to the question of dichui mei’ikara). 

If they become black on Yom Tov [thus a case of nireh v’nidcheh], we can learn from this mishna that even nireh v’nidcheh does not apply to mitzvos. 

 Response: Indeed, we can learn from here that dichui mei’ikara does not apply to mitzvos but we have no proof regarding nireh v’nidcheh. 

 Beraisa: It is forbidden to remove the berries on Yom Tov. Rabbi Eliezer b’Rabbi Shimon: It is permissible.

 Challenge: How can it be permissible to remove the berries on Yom Tov? He is ‘fixing’ the hadas! 

 Rav Ashi: This is a case where he removes the berries in order to eat them, Rabbi Eliezer follows the opinion of his father that “an unintended act is permissible”. [Since he didn’t intend to fix the hadas, he didn’t transgress anything by doing so].

 Challenge: But Abayye and Rava both said that Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of “chopping off a head without causing death” [when the consequence of an act is unavoidable, it is not permissible just because it was unintended].

 Rav Ashi: This is a case where he has another hadas [he thus does not need the melacha, placing this in the category of melacha she’eina tzricha l’gufah which Rabbi Shimon is lenient with. Although even Rabbi Shimon doesn’t generally permit melacha she’eina tzricha l’gufah, here it is permitted because its a mitzvah. Tosfos). 

 Beraisa: If the bundle of the lulav set came apart on Yom Tov when tying is forbidden, it may be bound like a vegetable bundle (it is wrapped rather than tied). 

 Challenge: Let him make a bow? (Like we do for gelilah on Shabbos, we actually make a bow all week because according to some, it would be forbidden to untie on Shabbos otherwise).

 Resolution: This follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who includes making bows in the prohibition of tying.

 Challenge: But Rabbi Yehuda holds lulav tzarich agad (10.1) - that it is a Torah requirement to bind the lulav, thus he certainly requires a proper knot?

 Resolution: The beraisa only agrees with the first position of Rabbi Yehuda [regarding making a bow] but not with the second [regarding agad].

Today’s learning sponsored by

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 We learned in the mishna (26.4): If its berries are more numerous than leaves, it’s possul. 

 Rav Chisda: The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work [spreading Torah in Bavel]: This is only if the berries are numerous in one area, but in several areas, it’s kosher.

 Rava: If the berries are scattered, then it’s a spotted hadas and it is surely possul. There was an error in the way the statement was reported, it must be as follows:

 Rav Chisda: The following was said by our great teacher [Rav], may he receive Divine assistance in his great work: This is only if the berries are already black, but if they’re still green, it’s kosher, it’s just like green leaves.

 Rav Papa: Red berries are like black berries. As taught by Rabbi Chanina: Black blood is essentially red blood only that it suffered a change.

 We learned in the mishna (26.4): If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher. 

 Question: When did he remove the berries?

Tentative Response: Before he tied the hadassim into the bundle, it is certainly kosher. The mishna must be teaching that it’s kosher if the berries were removed even after agad. We thus see that taaseh does not apply to the lulav (because it’s kosher), and that dichui mei’ikara* is not applied to mitzvos. 

 Response: We cannot bring proof to the principle of dichui because agad doesn’t matter, it is only a preparation for the mitzvah. The mitzvah only actually begins when Yom Tov comes in, by which time he had already removed the berries; that’s why it’s kosher.

__________

* Rashi: There are two components to the concept of dichui in korbanos which the gemara seeks to apply to all mitzvos: A. Dichui mei’ikara - Something that was never acceptable for the mitzvah [from the time it was ‘made’]; and is now seeking to be accepted. B. Nireh v’nidcheh - Something that was at first acceptable, then experienced dichui; and is now again seeking to be accepted. The gemara here seeks to prove that at least “Dichui A” does not apply to mitzvos.

Today’s learning is sponsored by

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired: Does dichui apply to mitzvos or only to korbanos? 

 Summary 

 Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim:

 “Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok: If one transgresses the laws of Yom Tov to remove the berries that grew on his hadassim, it is possul. Chachomim: It is kosher.”

We can say that ‘lulav ein tzarich agad’ [the lulav need not be ‘made’ by tying it together with the hadassim and aravos], but even if it does need to be ‘made’, the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos does not apply to lulav as well.

Thus, Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok holds that dichui applies to mitzvos [and since the hadassim were possul with the advent of yom tov, they can no longer become kosher], while the Chachomim hold that dichui does not apply to mitzvos. 

 Response: No, everyone agrees that dichui does not apply to mitzvos, they argue over whether the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos applies to lulav or not* [this implies that we hold lulav tzarich agad]. 

 Or we can say: If we hold lulav tzarich agad, then certainly the taaseh applies, but the Chachomim hold that lulav ein tzarich agad. 

 The debate about lulav tzarich agad (10.1):

 Beraisa: “A lulav is kosher whether it’s bound or not. Rabbi Yehuda: A lulav is kosher if it’s bound and possul if unbound”.

 Rabbi Yehuda learns a gezeirah shaveh; The word ‘lekicha’ is used regarding lulav and regarding the hyssop bundle [used in the preparation of the korban pesach in Mitzrayim]. The Chachomim do not learn the gezeirah shaveh. 

 Question: Whose opinion does this beraisa follow?

“A lulav should be bound, but is kosher even if it remains unbound”?

 Answer: It follows the Chachomim. Binding is not a requirement but it’s recommended so as to beautify Hashem’s mitzvos. 

 Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HRzbd_KGiwtwZABosLW_fm5Qh-9DzaLv/view?usp=sharing

* Tosfos: If this is the debate, the beraisa need not have discussed a case where one removed the berries on yom tov. But we still learn something else, that according to the Chachomim there’s no dichui.

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired: Does dichui apply to mitzvos or only to korbanos?

 Summary 

 Challenge: Isn’t the answer found in this mishna [and the subsequent discussion]? 

If he covered [the blood] and it was uncovered [by the wind], he need not cover it again. If it was covered by the wind, he must cover it himself.

 Rabbah bar bar Chana: Only if it was uncovered after it was covered by the wind, but as long as it remains covered, he need not cover it.

The question was raised: Why would one be required to cover it after it was uncovered by the wind, it was already nidche when it was covered the first time!

 Rav Papa: We see from here that dichui doesn’t apply to mitzvos. 

 Resolution: Rabbi Yirmiyah’s inquiry was made regarding the strength of Rav Papa’s statement. Was he certain that dichui doesn’t apply to mitzvos even when this results in leniency [such as pronouncing the snipped hadassim kosher (26.5)], or was he uncertain and he therefore said it only when the result was a stringency [to require the covering of blood].

 Suggestion: Perhaps this is already debated by these Tannaim:

 “Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok: If one transgresses the laws of Yom Tov to remove the berries that grew on his hadassim, it is possul. Chachomim: It is kosher.”

We can say that ‘lulav ein tzarich agad’ [the lulav need not be ‘made’ by tying it together with the hadassim and aravos], but even if it does need to be ‘made’, the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos does not apply to lulav as well.

Thus, Rabbi Elazar ben Tzadok holds that dichui applies to mitzvos [and since the hadassim were possul with the advent of yom tov, they can no longer become kosher], while the Chachomim hold that dichui does not apply to mitzvos. 

 Response: No, everyone agrees that dichui does not apply to mitzvos, they argue over whether the ‘taaseh v’lo min ha’asuy’ of sukkos applies to lulav or not.

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 The hadas must have three leaves growing in one row. 

 Summary 

 Rav Kahana: Even two [in one row] and one [in the row beneath] is kosher.

 Rav Acha brei d’Rava would seek out specifically such hadassim because it came from Rav Kahana’s mouth (we don’t pasken this way). 

 Mar bar Ameimar to Rav Ashi: My father would call such a hadas, a hadas shoteh (Shoteh means something that’s out of ordinary). 

 Beraisa: If most of its leaves fell out but a minority remained, it is kosher, on condition that the braided effect remained.

 Challenge: This is a self-contradictory statement. If most of its leaves fell out, how can it remain braided?

 Abayye: It is possible in the case of Egyptian Hadassim which have seven leaves in each row.

 Abayye: We learn from this beraisa that Egyptian hadassim can be used, despite the fact that it has an attached name (11.2). The Torah doesn’t tell us to take hadassim but eitz avos, these are eitz avos as well.

 Beraisa: If the hadassim are dried out, but three stems with [three] fresh leaves remain, it is kosher.

 Rav Chisda: This fresh row must be at the top of these stems.

We learned in the mishna (26.4): “If the tip is broken off, it is possul”. 

 Ulla bar Chinena: If the tip broke off and a little bulb grew at the tip, it is kosher.

 Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired: If the tip broke off before yom tov and the bulb grew on yom tov, what is the law? Does dichui (once it was possul when yom tov came in, it can no longer become kosher) apply to mitzvos or only to korbanos?

Today’s learning is sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 Mishna: 

A stolen or dried out hadas is possul. 

If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas, it is possul. 

If the tip is broken off, or the leaves are broken (according to Rashi, they’re not connected to the ‘shedrah’, others explain that the leaves are drooping downward) it is possul. 

If its berries are more numerous than leaves, it’s possul (because it’s lacking in hadar). If he reduces the amount of berries, it is kosher. It is forbidden to remove the berries on Yom Tov (because he is fixing the hadassim). 

 Gemara: 

 Beraisa: “Anaf eitz avos” This means a branch that is covered in plaited leaves; it must refer to the hadas. 

 Challenge: Perhaps it means an olive branch which is also covered in leaves.

 Resolution: The olive leaves do not lie on the twig and cannot be called “avos”. 

 Challenge: Perhaps it means dulva? 

 Resolution: Its leaves do not cover the branch.

 Challenge: Perhaps it means hirduf (which does fulfill all the requirements)? 

 Rava: (26.2) It states “The ways of the Torah are sweet and all of its paths are peace” but the hirduf’s leaves are pointed like thorns. (Although the Torah sometimes requires us to sacrifice, in general, its ways are pleasant and this cannot be the meaning of anaf eitz avos).

 Abayye: We learn that from another verse, “The Torah is Truth and Pleasantness”

 Beraisa: [The hadas is identified because it’s] braided and like a chain; that’s the hadas. 

 Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: Anaf- Eitz means that the anaf (what comes from the tree) is the same as the eitz (the wood of the branch); that’s the hadas whose berries taste like its branch.

 Beraisa: A hadas which is avos is kosher. If it’s not avos, it’s possul. 

 Question: Which hadas is avos? 

 Response: If it has three leaves growing in one row. (This is how Tosfos explains it, and this is what we follow in practice. Rashi explains that there should be three leaves coming out of one stem).

Today’s learning sponsored by

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

Summary

We learned in the mishnah (24.4) “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.”

Rav Yehuda quoting Shmuel: The hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim, and the lulav should be 4, so that it rises a tefach above the others.

Rabbi Parnach quoting Rabbi Yochanan: The shedra must reach 4 tefachim.

Challenge: We learned in the mishnah (24.4) “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim so that it can be shaken, is kosher.”

Resolution: It should be read as: “A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.”

The extra tefach can either include the leaves (Shmuel) or include only the area of the shedra (Rabbi Yochanan).

Challenge: Beraisa: “The hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim, and the lulav should be 4”. It seems to include the area of the leaves as well!

Resolution: It means the shedra itself should be 4 tefachim.

Beraisa: “The hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim, and the lulav should be 4. Rabbi Tarfon: The hadas and aravah should be a full amah [although we can be lenient and use an amah] of 5 tefachim”.

Rava: It is difficult to find hadassim with 3 tefachim of plaited leaves and Rabbi Tarfon expects us to find ones with 5 tefachim?!

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisroel he explained: Rabbi Tarfon’s intention was that the hadas and aravah should be measured with larger tefachim, as if a 6 tefach amah is only 5 tefachim, making each tefach a tefach and one fifth.

Challenge: But then Shmuel is contradicting himself. Rabbi Yehuda quoted Shmuel as saying that the hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim. But Rav Huna quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon [that the hadas and aravah should be 3 and ⅗]

Resolution: Shmuel was not precise.

Challenge: You can’t be imprecise and round off to a lower number (6.5) which would result in a leniency!

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel he explained: Rabbi Tarfon’s intention was that the hadas and aravah should be measured with smaller tefachim, as if a 5 tefach amah is actually tefachim, making 3 tefachim only 2 ½ tefachim.

Challenge: But then Shmuel is still contradicting himself. Rabbi Yehuda quoted Shmuel as saying that the hadas and aravah should be 3 tefachim. But Rav Huna quoting Shmuel: The halacha follows Rabbi Tarfon [that the hadas and aravah should be 2 and ½],

Resolution: Shmuel was not precise, in a more stringent manner.

Today’s learning is

 Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem 

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

We learned in the mishnah (24.4) “If the leaves are broken off, the lulav is possul. If the leaves are spread away from the center, it’s kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be tied together and not allowed to spread out.”.

 Rav Papa: Broken off - means it’s like a broom, “chufya” (according to Rashi, they’re not connected to the ‘shedrah’, according to Tosfos, it means that each leaf was separated. There’s a third pshat that the leaves are drooping downward).

 Spread out - means that the leaves fan out. 

 Rav Papa inquired: What if the ‘tiyomes’ (the central twin leaf) is split? (According to Tosfos, and most poskim, it means that it’s split all the way down to the spine, some say that it means most of the leaves are split on top. Others say it means even the most minute split in the middle of the top leaf, and we try to follow this l’katchilal).

 Response: “Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Yehishua ben Levi: If the tiyomes is torn out, it is possul”. It seems that the same law would apply to a split tiyomes. 

 Response: Not necessarily. It could be that it is only possul when the tiyomes is missing entirely. 

 Ikka D’omri [Some say]: “Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Yehishua ben Levi: If the tiyomes is split, it’s as if it is torn out, and it is possul”. 

 Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda from Rabbi Tarfon: The word kapos which is used by the Torah with regard to lulav to denote branches, can also mean tied together; this teaches that the lulav must be tied.” 

 Ravina to Rav Ashi: How do we know that Kapos Temarim refer to Lulavim? Perhaps it means the stage called Charusa when the leaves stiffen?

 Rav Ashi: Charusa can no longer be tied together, and the word kapos implies that it must be tied [even if we don’t accept Rabbi Yehuda’s view that it must be tied, it still should be capable of being tied]. 

 Challenge: Perhaps a block of wood from the trunk of the palm tree should be used [since it’s a block, it is certainly tied together as strongly as possible].

 Resolution: Something that can be tied together must have been loose, but a block is tied forever.

Today’s learning is

 Dedicated to Leslie Simpson, Paul Simpson, my dear Bubbles, and most of all to HaShem 

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here

 https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU=

 Summary 

 We learned (24.4) “If the tip of the lulav is broken off, it is possul”. 

 Rav Huna: This is only if it was broken off, but if the tip is split, it is kosher (although we are stringent nowadays with any minor split in the center twin leaves, most poskim consider it kosher unless it’s split down to the spine).

 Challenge: But we learned in a beraisa: A bent lulav [at an acute angle], or one that is thorny (or shrunk), or split, or crooked [at an obtuse angle]; similar to a scythe, it is possul. If the lulav is like a branch, it is possul. If it is beginning to become hardened like a branch, it is kosher. 

 Rav Papa: A split lulav is possul when it is split like a Himnak (a pruning fork which has a “V” shape). 

 A crooked lulav similar to a scythe is possul: 

 Rava: If it’s bent backwards at an obtuse angle, it is kosher, that’s how it grows.

 Rav Nachman: If it’s bent to the side, it’s as if it is bent frontwards. Some say, backwards (in practice we’re stringent). 

 Rava: A lulav which has leaves only on one side, is possul.