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=

Rava: An Esrog must be Hadar. According to Rabbi Yehuda a lulav must not be Hadar.

Summary

Challenge: Rabbi Yehuda doesn’t hold that an esrog must be hadar.

Beraisa: “One cannot add to the 4 minim just as one may not subtract from them. If one does not have an esrog he can’t use a plum, pomegranate or a different fruit. If [the minim ] are wilted they’re kosher, but if they’re [completely] dried out, they’re possul.

Rabbi Yehuda: Even if they’re completely dried out they’re kosher.

Rabbi Yehuda: It happened in the big cities that they would bequeath their lulavim for generations.

Chachomim: That’s no proof! They didn’t have anything else!”

We see here that Rabbi Yehuda approved of using a dried out esrog, which is not hadar.

Resolution: That part of the beraisa is discussing only the lulav.

We learned: One cannot add to the 4 minim just as one may not subtract from them.

Question: This is obvious?

Response: Since Rabbi Yehuda says “a lulav must be bound” we would think that the extra min is not counted.

We learned: If one does not have an esrog he can’t use a peach, pomegranate or a different fruit.

Question: This is obvious?

Response: One might want to use a different fruit so that the necessity for an esrog is not forgotten, but it might cause a ruination if people become attached to using different fruit.

Beraisa: An old esrog is possul. Rabbi Yehuda holds it is kosher.

This clearly disproves Rava’s premise (25.3) that Rabbi Yehuda agrees an esrog must be hadar.

Challenge: An esrog does need to be hadar, as we learn in the mishna:

“If it is green like a vegetable* [cress] (and it doesn’t have the potential to ripen and become yellow) it is kosher according to Rabbi Meir but possul according to Rabbi Yehuda.” Isn’t that because Rabbi Yehuda holds it must be hadar?

Resolution: No, it’s because it must be a finished product, and if it was cut when so green, it will never ripen.

____

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos *https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fP3Su4uJcWOLcded4SKUzZvqGzxHaZ6w/view?usp=sharing*

* Tosfos: The word Yerek can be used to denote yellow, green and blue. Here it means green. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

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

Beraisa: A dried out lulav is possul. Rabbi Yehuda: It is kosher.

Rava: An Esrog can certainly not be dried out because it must be “hadar - handsome”. Their debate is only regarding a lulav: the question is if it’s compared to esrog or not.

Challenge: We learned in the mishna (24.4) “Rabbi Yehuda: The lulav must be tied together”. Isn’t the reason so that it should be hadar?

Resolution: Rabbi Yehuda has a different reason, as we learned: “Rabbi Yehuda quoting 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.”

Challenge: But we learned: “Rabbi Yehuda: The lulav must be bound with its kind”. Isn’t that because the lulav has to be handsome?

Response: No, after all, Rava taught: “It can be bound even with a bark or root of its own kind.” These are obviously not hadar.

The reason a lulav must be bound with its own kind is because according to Rabbi Yehuda, lulav tzarich agad (25.1), since that’s the case, binding it with another kind would mean that you’re taking 5 minim instead of 4. (Tosfos adds that the minim must be taken derech gedeilasan, so if a lulav does not require binding, we wouldn’t be interested in a reed wound around it that is in horizontal position, since it’s not derech gedeilasan, and not part of the mitzvah. But since a lulav must be bound, the ‘binder’ must be horizontal, thus if a reed is used, it would be considered a fifth min). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by:

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=

A stolen sukkah or one built on the street: Rabbi Eliezer: It’s possul. Chachomim: It’s kosher.

Summary

All agree that if wood was stolen and used as schach, the sukkah is kosher and he merely owes the value of the stolen wood*.

We know this, because the law of “a stolen sukkah” is taught together with the law of “a sukkah built on the street”. A sukkah built in the street is not on his land, so too a stolen sukkah is not one built on his land with stolen materials but a case where someone else’s sukkah is actually seized.

An old woman came before Rav Nachman with a complaint, she said that the Reish Galusa and all the rabbonim of his household were using a stolen sukkah, because the Reish Galusa’s slaves had taken wood from her fields and built the sukkah with it. She cried out but Rav Nachman paid no attention to her. She said “I’m a woman whose father [Avraham Avinu] had 318 servants, and you daon’t pay attention to me?”

Rav Nachman: She’s just a loudmouth, she’s only entitled to the value of the wood.

Ravina (he came after Rav Nachman): A stolen wooden beam that was built into the sukkah is included in the takanah of Marish. We might think that since a beam is hard to find and the sukkah is not permanent, the takanah shouldn’t apply, so we learn that during the seven days of sukkos it is included in the takanah. But after yom tov the beam must be returned. But if it was attached with clay, he may pay with money and keep the beam.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P3E_aASEngSTGybV_osnFgHIfnpHaAqv/view?usp=sharing

* Rashi: Here there is yiush, shinui maaseh - shinui shem as well as takanas hashavim, and so the wood must not be returned, only its value. When we learned above (22.5) that a stolen sukkah cannot be used, it was referring to a portable sukkah in which the entire sukkah was stolen.

Tosfos: A stolen sukkah that is disqualified d’orayso may be referring to a sukkah made of stolen wood since it’s not an actual shinui and is only considered as belonging to the thief because of takanas hashavim. There is another case where a sukkah can be considered stolen, when someone builds a sukkah on his neighbor’s lot, when the neighbor uses it, he is considered a thief. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

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

Rav Huna instructed the hadassim merchants to have the gentile farmers cut the hadassim rather than cut them themselves. Generally speaking, gentiles steal land, but land can never be considered “stolen” and still belongs to its original owner. The hadassim though, can be stolen. So if the gentile cuts it, the yiush can take place and then the ownership is transferred to the merchants. But if the merchants cut it, they won’t be able to use it. While they would have yiush, there would be no transfer of ownership. There is also no “transformation of the stolen object” because “a lulav need not be bound” (10.1). Even if a lulav does require binding, binding alone cannot be considered a “transformation of the object”. There is no name change here since hadassim are called hoshanos even before they’re used for sukkos.

Beraisa: A stolen sukkah or one built on the street: Rabbi Eliezer: It’s possul. Chachomim: It’s kosher.

Rav Nachman: They’re discussing a case where the owner’s sukkah was seized. Rabbi Eliezer follows his opinion that another’s sukkah cannot be used [even with permission]. According to the opinion that land can be stolen, it’s another’s sukkah. But even according to the opinion that land cannot be stolen, it’s like a borrowed sukkah which is also possul according to Rabbi Eliezer.

The Chachomim follow their opinion that another’s sukkah can be used. Since land cannot be stolen, it is like a borrowed sukkah and it is kosher. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored

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

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

Summary

Gemara:

The mishna does not differentiate between the first day and the rest of yom tov.

Question: A dried out lulav which is possul because it is not hadar, is indeed possul for the entire yom tov. But if a lulav is only possul based on the possuk “v’lakachta lachem bayom harishon - take for yourselves on the first day” then it would only be possul on the first day. A stolen lulav is seemingly disqualified based on this verse, so why does the mishna lump it together with a dried out lulav?

Response: Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: A stolen lulav is possul because it it a “mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah - a mitzvah made possible by an aveirah”,* which is problematic based on the possuk “You bring stolen animals as well as lame animals” - just as a lame animal cannot be brought as a korban, a stolen animal cannot be brought as a korban either - even after yiush.

However, it would seem that only before yiush a stolen korban would be problematic - as the possuk says “adam ki yakriv mikem”, but after yiush the thief has acquired ownership of the animal, so why is it rejected as a korban?

It must be because it’s a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1txAydtWGq14KQUlKDLRKuC9ranmLKWtq/view?usp=sharing

_______

* Tosfos: Although this principle is learned from korban, it is applied to all mitzvos d’orayso as is evident from the gemara that one cannot make a bracha on the mitzvah of challah made from stolen wheat.

Rashash: Why is it necessary to bring proof from another gemara, we have proof from our gemara too! Besides, from that gemara we only learn that a bracha cannot be made, but not that the mitzvah is disqualified?

Tosfos: Mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah only applies to a mitzvah that is made possible by an aveirah - such as a stolen lulav which the thief wouldn’t have, had he not stolen it. But this principle cannot be applied to an avodah zarah lulav since the sin of avodah zarah has no bearing on the mitzvah of lulav.

However there’s a problem with this chiddush because in Pesachim Matzah from tevel is disqualified from a possuk when it can actually be classified as a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored

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

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

Summary

The Beraisa continues: Four things cause well-to-do people to lose their property to the government: 1. Because they keep paid promissory notes (which they then collect a second time, Hakadosh Baruch Hu takes away their property because of their dishonest practices). 2. Because they lend money at interest (they have money and the opportunity to practice chesed, but instead lend out their money in a prohibited fashion). 3. Because they don’t protest evil (rich men have clout and the ability to influence people, a Jewish millionaire should know that Hashem gave him money only to influence the Jewish people and draw them close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, if he fails to do so he will become a pauper). 4. Because they pledge charity in public but do not pay up.

Rav: Four things cause well-to-do people to lose their property: 1. Because they withhold wages from their laborers. 2. Because they rob their laborers by not paying at all. 3. Because they get out of paying taxes, placing the burden on less connected individuals. 4. Because they’re arrogant; arrogance is worse than all these things combined.

[To end off the perek on a good note]: But regarding the humble it states: “The humble ones will inherit the earth and enjoy great peace”.

END OF PEREK

🍾 Mazel Tov! 🥂

Mishna:

A stolen or dried out lulav [or any of the four species] is possul.

If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas (which must be burned), it is possul (because it is considered ashes and does not have the proper shiur).

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 the leaves are spread away from the center, it’s kosher.

Rabbi Yehuda: It must be tied together and not allowed to spread out.

Palms from Har Habarzel [which have short leaves], are kosher.

A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher.

Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l22EVaQoWIcL8XMXCqggWCZeYVuT-FNc/view?usp=sharing

_________

* Tosfos: 1. This refers to the tips of most of the top leaves. 2. It refers to the Tiyomes [the two center “twin leaves”]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

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

Beraisa: A solar eclipse is a bad sign for the gentiles, a lunar eclipse is a bad sign for (enemies of the) Jews, because while the gentiles count by the sun, the Jews count by the moon. If there is a partial eclipse on the eastern side, it’s a bad sign for those who live in the east, if it’s on the western side, it’s a bad sign for those who live in the west. If it’s in the middle, it’s a bad sign for the whole world.

If the face of the sun is changed and looks like blood, it means war. If the sun seems grey, dark and wooly, it’s a sign of famine. If the sun looks like both, it’s a sign of both.

If the eclipse takes place when the sun is about to set, it means the misfortune will come after some time. If it takes place immediately after the sun rises, it means the misfortune will be immediate. Some say, the other way around.

Whenever there is retribution to the nations, there is also retribution on their gods, as it states “I will punish all the gods of egypt” (most places of idolatry have disappeared).

But when Yisroel do the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu they need not fear anything as it states in a verse.

Beraisa: The sun is smitten because of four things (when there’s an eclipse, it is these four areas especially that people should investigate): 1. If a great man is not mourned properly (it means that people don’t appreciate the gedolim enough). 2. If a betrothed girl cried out and was ignored (if people don’t react with a great wave of indignation against wickedness). 3. Homosexuality (the Jewish nation must enlist an army and go out to war against gay rights). 4. When two brothers are killed together (It’s referring to a specific incident, it means that our reactions must reflect the severity of the crime).

There are four things that cause the luminaries to be eclipsed: 1. If people write mean notes defaming their fellow Jews to the government (for instance if they decry the lack of human rights in Israel while ignoring what the Russian government does). 2. People who testify falsely. 3. People who raise sheep and goats in Eretz Yisroel (they graze on the lands and ruin the fields, these people are considered robbers). 4. Those who chop down fruit trees (fruit trees are an important blessing from Hakadosh Baruch Hu). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

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 (23.6) “It’s like the case of a servant who wishes to pour a drink for his master and he pours the kettle of water on his face”.

Question: It’s like who pours a kettle on whose face?

Response: It is clarified in the beraisa: “It’s like the master pours a kettle on his servant’s face and says to the servant, I don’t want to be served by the likes of you” (so when it rains on sukkos, especially on the first night, we’re supposed to think that perhaps we’re being negligent in our national duties. Perhaps we should be doing more to bring our brethren back to Torah. The mishna spares its words and this lesson is in the mishna so it must be very important).

Now begins a discussion about different signs and omens in nature.

Beraisa: A solar eclipse is a bad omen for the world. It’s like a king who removes the lamp and leaves his servants in darkness (although it is possible to calculate these matters, it can still serve as an impetus for reflection and improvement. Yom Kippur can also be calculated).

Beraisa: Rabbi Meir: When the luminaries (the moon and stars; sometimes binary stars eclipse each other for short periods, or sometimes there’s an occlusion caused by the moon) are smitten it is a bad omen for enemies of Jews (it means Jews) because they’re accustomed to suffering. It’s like when the teacher comes into class with a big whip, it’s the kid who usually gets hit who worries most (because Hashem loves us he punishes for each infraction, no one tries to clean the city dump, only the nicest neighborhoods get cleaned). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored by

S.N.S., as a zechus for all those who need Shidduchim

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

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

Summary

Rava: Drinking vessels may remain in the sukkah (they don’t get soiled and are in constant use) but eating vessels (Rashi: used plates. Tosfos: pots from which individual portions are served. Both explanations are true l’halacha) should remain outside of the sukkah. A clay pitcher and water bucket should remain outside of the sukkah. A lamp should be outside of the sukkah if it’s a low sukkah (which may burn down and he’ll be left without a sukkah) but in the sukkah if it has a high roof.

We learned (23.6) “one may leave the sukkah from when a porridge is spoiled by the rain”

Beraisa: This refers to a porridge of chopped barley (a food that spoils quickly, Rashi).

Abayye was sitting in Rav Yosef’s sukkah. The wind blew down some splinters from the schach. Rav Yosef said, remove my things from the sukkah. Abayye asked him didn’t we learn that one may only leave once a porridge would spoil? Rav Yosef explained that since he was a finicky fellow, a minor discomfort was equal to the discomfort experienced by another whose porridge was spoiled.

Beraisa: If someone left the sukkah in middle of the meal due to rain, he may remain in the house until the end of the meal. If he left the sukkah to sleep in the house due to rain, he need not return to the sukkah until “yeor”.

Question: Does yeor mean until he awakens, even after dawn, or does it mean when the sun comes up?

Response: The beraisa continues: “until yeor and the dawn rises”. If yeor means sunrise the beraisa is needlessly repeating itself, we thus conclude that it means until he awakens and the sun rises. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

Today’s learning sponsored

לרגל יום היארצייט של מורינו הגאון הצדיק חסיד שבכהונה

רבינו אביגדור ב"ר ישראל הכהן זצ"ל, כ"ז ניסן תשס"א לפ"ק

זכותו יגן עלינו

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

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

Summary

We learned (23.4) “A child who doesn’t need his mother is obligated in the laws of sukkah”.

Question: Which child is considered to no longer need his mother?

Rabbi Yannai’s Beis Midrash: If he no longer needs his mother to wipe him after taking care of his needs.

Rabbi Shimon: If he doesn’t call out “Mother, mother!” upon awakening.

Challenge: Even bigger children do that sometimes?

Resolution: It means he doesn’t call out persistently.

We learned (23.4) “Children are not obligated in sukkah. It happened that the daughter in law of Shammai Hazaken gave birth, so he broke open the ceiling above the crib and put schach over the baby.

Challenge: Would the mishna bring an incident to contradict? (When the mishna brings an incident, it’s to illustrate a law, not to contradict it).

Resolution: A few words should be added to the Mishna, it should read: “Children are not obligated in sukkah. Shammai (not Beis Shammai) disagrees. It happened etc.”

Mishna:

On all seven days of Yom Tov, the Sukkah should be his fixed place while his home should be used casually.

If rain comes down, one may leave the sukkah from when a porridge is spoiled by the rain. [Here the mishna instructs us how to leave the sukkah when necessary]. It’s like the case of a servant who wishes to pour a drink for his master and he pours the kettle of water on his face.

Gemara:

Beraisa: How does one make the sukkah his fixed place? If he has handsome things and bedspreads, he should take it up to the sukkah (which used to be made on the rooftops). He eats, drinks and spends time in the sukkah.

Question: What is the source?

Beraisa: Teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2) – one must treat the sukkah like his home. If he has handsome things and bedspreads, he should take it up to the sukkah (which used to be made on the rooftops). He eats, drinks, spends time and learns (sharp learning, like the word shanein) in the sukkah.

Challenge: But we learned from Rava: Chumash and Halacha can be learned in the sukkah, but in depth learning should be inside the home.

Resolution: They stayed in the sukkah to review (they didn’t have seforim and they would review a lot), but for meditation or analysis they would go into the house.

This is like Rava and Rami bar Chama, before they entered Rav Chisda’s shiur, they first ran through the gemara together and then they analyzed it. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate